New iMac's in Sept - **CONFIRMED**

17810121316

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 302
    idaveidave Posts: 1,283member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac Voyer

    What Apple has to produce for the consumer desktop, if it is to attract anyone other than frothing at the mouth Mac addicts, is something between the PB and the PM for power. Now just look at how much you have to pay for a 1.5 GHz Mac and tell me how you are going to get something even more powerful in a slightly larger case for $1000 less and include a decent monitor. That would kill too many of their sacred/cash cows. Forget about it. For the next iMac, think value added feature, not competitive, low price.



    It's just a difference of opinion. You're suggesting more bells and whistles for a higher price. I'm suggesting less for a lower price. You're probably right; the new iMac will get the bells and whistles and will cost too much.



    Perhaps this is off-topic because what I want probably wouldn't be called an iMac. It would be a smallish G4 1.25Ghz (or better) box that I can connect my own (DVI) monitor to for under a grand. Lots of other consumers want one too. Not everyone runs Garage Band.
  • Reply 182 of 302
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac Voyer

    Finally on this point, if they had decent graphics cards, they would still be terrible for gaming because the bottleneck is not just the graphics, it is the software. Apple has nothing remotely similar to Direct X. That was a brilliant stroke.



    Hogwash. From a developer's perspective OpenGL and CoreAudio are just as good as (or better than) the parallel DirectX technologies. The software problem on the Mac comes down to marketshare and nothing else. If there were more buyers then developers would create more software, and they would find ways around the platform's shortcomings. Having DirectX on the Mac would do virtually nothing for the platform. DirectX was (and is) a brilliant stroke for Microsoft because their OS was so bad for games development that they had to do something.



    OGL2 should be ratified by SigGraph this year. I would hope that it would come with Tiger (or earlier as an update). The main improvement is the high level shading language which should be roughly on-par with DirectX 10's HLSL, and better than the currently available DX9 HLSL. Personally I can't wait to play with this.
  • Reply 183 of 302
    concordconcord Posts: 312member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Telomar:

    OpenGL will never get supplanted in CAD, which basically guarantees its existence. As long as id's graphics engines continue to be the centre of many games it won't go anywhere from games either.



    I can't speak much to CAD's use of OpenGL but I never figured that Macs had much of a presence in that market anyway. And while id still has OpenGL support just look at all the others that don't... or soon won't. Far Cry, Half-Life II, Stalker, Unreal 3 Engine, Battlefield 2 engine... these are just off the top of my head. AFAIK, id is quickly becoming the *last* major games developer who supports OpenGL. That should tell you something...



    C.
  • Reply 184 of 302
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    I'm part way between LemonBB and MacVoyer on the iMac predictions. I think Apple will stay duals with the PowerMac, although that might turn into one dual core chip eventually (but maybe not as it could be their key differentiation between PM and iMac). I suspect they'll stay AIO -- a headless product would be a seperate line, like the Cube was. The iMac rev will probably be a 970FX, but I don't expect better than 2 GHz for heat reasons. If they could go faster without water cooling then either the Xserve or the PowerMac would have done it, and there is no way the iMac will be water cooled (in the next revision anyhow).



    I don't think Apple will hold back on the iMac CPU for non-technical reasons... the 2 GHz 970FX is going to be cheap once they've fixed the yield problems. My guess is that they will aim at roughly the same price points as the current iMac, and cram as much goodness in as they can manage without crippling their margins (i.e. 10-20%). If they've learned the iMac2 lesson they'll avoid expensive parts that don't either come down in price or improve at the same price with time (i.e. the display arm).



    As for the GPU, it will be one of the pixel & vertex shader capable low/mid end units. All the capabilities, decent performance (excellent compared to a year ago!), and not too much power/heat. Apple seems to be finally starting to take advantage of the new GPU capabilities, and both ATI and nVidia are finally building a range of fully capable units which just vary in performance (instead of performance and capability). This is important because it makes software development much easier.



    The current PowerMac GPUs are fine -- they are fast and can run all the shaders. If you need bleeding edge performance, get the 9800XT or the soon-to-be-available 6800. There isn't much out there that is faster, and you pay a lot for a fairly minor increment in speed. Not to mention how noisy, hot, and power hungry those monsters are.
  • Reply 185 of 302
    jerombajeromba Posts: 357member
    sorry but I posted this in another thread... and I think it's better here...



    Here is what I'm thinking about iMac v3 for a better success than v2.



    First - > lower price.



    Second -> no screen... no need to have another AIO there is the eMac. I'm hoping that Apple will market the v3 like a Windows Media Center but on steroids. You can plug it to your Digital/Analog screen or TV without a fuss...

    The v3 is to the stereo/video/pc what the iPod is for the walkman... (maybe the v3 must have an Airport/AirTunes integrated with some kind of bluetooth remote too).



    Third -> A full AGP8x / PCI express slot for upgrading the graphic card !

    Even if consumers don't upgrade it, it's a selling point (look at Shuttle). Hoping that Apple will propose at least 2 options of GPU.



    Four -> A G5 is necessary... even at 1.6 GHz... alone for a 800 MHz FSB. Applications like iPhoto, iDVD, Quartz, Games, etc. eat that bandwidth for lunch.... so please no G4 it's so 1999.



    my 2 euros cents
  • Reply 186 of 302
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Concord

    I can't speak much to CAD's use of OpenGL but I never figured that Macs had much of a presence in that market anyway. And while id still has OpenGL support just look at all the others that don't... or soon won't. Far Cry, Half-Life II, Stalker, Unreal 3 Engine, Battlefield 2 engine... these are just off the top of my head. AFAIK, id is quickly the *last* major games developer who supports OpenGL. That should tell you something...



    This really isn't that big a deal -- converting to & from OGL/DirectX isn't really all the much work. If a company is going to invest in a port then they just factor in that cost as well as the costs of dealing with different compilers, big-endian instead of little-endian, different threading / file / network / input / audio / etc APIs. Porting to/from game consoles is a much much bigger deal, and if they've done their design right then the parts that have to change are all abstracted anyhow.
  • Reply 187 of 302
    concordconcord Posts: 312member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    This really isn't that big a deal -- converting to & from OGL/DirectX isn't really all the much work. If a company is going to invest in a port then they just factor in that cost...



    Of course, in a market as small as the Macs, you want as few impediments for developers as possible. And it's not just porting to OpenGL, it's porting to the Mac as well. There is also the issues games using DirectX-only features that don't translate very well to OpenGL and can become serious performance bottlenecks. Halo anyone?



    C.
  • Reply 188 of 302
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,283member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    That is preposterous, suicidal, and ridiculous. The entire OS is designed to be used with Dual Processors. All the Pro Applications are designed to take advantage of Dual Processors. WHY? Because it is the PowerMac. The computer that has to compete with the PC's highend offerings. If there were not Dual Processors in the PowerMac lineup AVID would rule the roost in video editing. Shake would not sell a single license, and there would be no more PowerMac purchases from anybody in video production, or anybody wanting to play games, or do anything that required a highend tower.

    Nobody serious would bother with Apple computers at all. None of the Apple pro applications would be attractive at all because everybody could get 3X+ the performance out of a PC app using an x86 Dual, or Quad XEON, or Dual or Quad Opteron 64 Processors. What would apple rely on? They would be a bigger joke than they have ever been in their entire history.

    Once your pro lineup is a joke your a laughing stock, and the rest of your computers go straight down he tubes with it. Word of mouth would be "Apple is SLOW!" Nobody will buy "SLOW."

    Right now Apple is pending, and waiting like everybody else, and they are not stupid enough to go single CPU in their Pro lineup. You would have to be seriously brain dead to do that. Do you think dual core processors is an IBM exclusive? AMD has already tapped out their dual core design, and intel is going to be using dual cores as well. You can bet you mother they will both have Dual Processor Motherboards when it's done, and everybody is fighting to stay alive. So if you think Apple totally re-designed their OS from OS9 to a Unix 64-bit SMP OS just to make single processor iMacs to run unix while they let their professional machines go straight down the tubes your out of your mind.




    Sorry but Apple history bears me out. G4 only when to all dual lineup when they got into trouble. They did not start out there and stay there, not even for OS X. G5 intro only had one dual in the lineup. Apple figured they could sell a boatload of them no matter what the config. They only now have an all dual lineup again because of problems ramping up the speed. When they have everything running smoothly and make a few more advances, I assure you they will include singles in the lineup again. What makes you think they have learned some kind of critical lesson and will stay all dual this time around?
  • Reply 189 of 302
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    Or Apple is trying drive the stock price down to do a buy back. Remember the board has the inside scoop on what this new machine is all about. If the stock drops too low apple could buy back its own stock. Then when the new machine is anounced the stock drives into historic levels and gets tons of press. This year (fiscal) looks good for apple anyway. Also, and as an asside it is often that car makers don't produce a car for 1/2 of a year then early announce the next years model in Sept.



    Also, Also, We don't exactly know what the specs for the Army Computer were anyway? Perhaps they got all of the 3ghz chips under a real secrecy agreement. Apple will take the hit now for more govt contracts in the future that is good business.



    I think that was about $.32



    ps



    I think that the imac will be a g5 single chip they could even put the pipes on the outside in clear plastic with colored coolant. Kind of like a lava lamp!
  • Reply 190 of 302
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Good lordy we've been waiting forever to get a finalized OpenGL 2.0. I wonder if Apple is going to have to squeeze it in at the last moment before Tiger ships.



    No, they've been at least partly instrumental in helping to develop the new features of OGL 2.0. I'm sure there's going to be some minor amount of verifying that all of their code is 100% compliant with the OGL2 specific code that was dev'd by others (IBM, SGI, SUN, ?), but that won't slow down Apple releases or anything.
  • Reply 191 of 302
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TednDi

    Or Apple is trying drive the stock price down to do a buy back. Remember the board has the inside scoop on what this new machine is all about. If the stock drops too low apple could buy back its own stock. Then when the new machine is anounced the stock drives into historic levels and gets tons of press.



    Um...have you heard of the SEC? Apple has. Don't count on this happening.



    As for the "LavaMac" idea, I like it, as long as it doesn't look like a typical "tricked out" PC with SuperGay(TM) fluorescent lights and stuff.
  • Reply 192 of 302
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by concentricity

    ... As for the "LavaMac" idea, I like it, as long as it doesn't look like a typical "tricked out" PC with SuperGay(TM) fluorescent lights and stuff.



    Mockups! C'mon guys, bring on the MOCKUPS!!!
  • Reply 193 of 302
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac Voyer

    Sorry but Apple history bears me out. G4 only when to all dual lineup when they got into trouble. They did not start out there and stay there, not even for OS X. G5 intro only had one dual in the lineup. Apple figured they could sell a boatload of them no matter what the config. They only now have an all dual lineup again because of problems ramping up the speed. When they have everything running smoothly and make a few more advances, I assure you they will include singles in the lineup again. What makes you think they have learned some kind of critical lesson and will stay all dual this time around?



    Now it appears your saying something other than I had thought before. It originally appeared you were insinuating they would remove the dual PowerMacs completely. But I think your view of history is mislead nevertheless.

    They may introduce singles in the lower configurations again, but if they are doing it for the reasons you give they are doing it for all the wrong reasons.

    I have noticed through semi-recent Apple history they only have the singles when processors are in short supply which is usually when they are introducing a new processor. They use less processors offering single processor configuration machines, and then have at least one dual processor machine. Later they bump up the others when processors become more abundant in supply. That way they can introduce the new machine sooner without waiting on processors for the lower configurations, and everybody is happy, and Macs look strong. Which is how the PowerMac should look, or people will look back at history like your self, and say PowerMacs historically looked like sh*t.

    Every time single processor PowerMacs are released people complain that they can not afford the highend dual processor machine, but want to have the same benefits that dual processors produce in the low end configuration, and they cry about not having an all dual lineup. Single processors is what the iMac is for. PowerMacs are supposed to be the professional series machines. They should remain dual processor driven.

    However. When Dual core processors are announced they can easily get away with offering Two single processor dual core PowerMacs, and two Dual processor dual core driven PowerMacs.

    I would expect big sales from such a wide range of machine to chose from. But then again that will all revolve around the other components available to the consumer at the time.
  • Reply 194 of 302
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cubist

    Mockups! C'mon guys, bring on the MOCKUPS!!!



    First one...this direction...



  • Reply 195 of 302
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Starting price $3,000.00
  • Reply 196 of 302
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,150member
    Could someone please sketch-up an iMac that looks similar to the cinema displays, but a little thicker in the rear than the cinema displays and an optical drive on the side? Just to see what it looks like? I kind of think this is what the new iMacs may resemble.



  • Reply 197 of 302
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    I doubt it. After Apple made a big deal with this iMac of how putting a disc anything but flat was a bad idea.



    That mochup pretty much already exists anyway, It's at http://www.theApplecollection.com/
  • Reply 198 of 302
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Apple also made a big deal about the death of the CRT... still here.



    3Ghz PPC970... not here yet.



    ADC, the future... not so much.



    Apple has made lots of big deals about products, only to swing the other way -- various shipping times for everything from iMacs, iPod minis, and assorted Gfx cards, that either arrived late, or with price bumps, or spec drops (remember that?)



    Whatever is said on stage is merely marketting designed to justify the product design of the moment and nothing more.



    On vertical drives?



    S.J. "In the past we couldn't find a way to integrate the computer behind the display, not in any elegant way, especially the drives, but thanks to our engineering..."



    Catch my drift?
  • Reply 199 of 302
    bborofkabborofka Posts: 230member
    I don't see what the big deal is about vertical drives. There's lots of Dells and Gateways at my school with vertical drives and they work fine as burners and CD-ROMs. What was with Apple's hoopla?
  • Reply 200 of 302
    xterra48xterra48 Posts: 169member
    I think this would be cool for the new imac



    AN all-in-1.5-2-3



    there would be many options and choices.

    Base: A 17" display on a hinge similar to new monitors. CPU and ports on back, as well as disc drive parallel to the screen. Power flip to move the screen facing the ceiling, exposing ports and drive. Power flip down to the original position that the computer remembers.

    Add: Connectivity box can connect to the computer through proprietary cable or wifi (more on that feature in a sec) and have many ports, ipod dock, flash memory card reader and maybe in a partnership with Kodak an easy share dock, maybe even more things I cant think of. With wifi you could put it in Your front hall or bedroom or anywhere , in an apartment this feature would be dumb, but in a house you don?t always head for your computer the first thing.



    Next model: Connectivity box as well as a larger monitor (20", 23", ?) with the integrated CPU/drive unit.



    Top end: Connectivity box plus the CPU/drive unit in another independent box (stackable ?) Limited reworking required with the same MB and drive just mounted in a box. This box would also have Component video out (the one with the wacky labels like ?R-Y?) as well as several audio out options for a BYO-hdtv setup. So that the computer can be the hope media center, and maybe throw in some nifty Apple software, tivo...



    All this would be really cool but like I said at the beginning this is just my uninformed idea.



    REPEAT THIS IS NOT WHAT I THINK APPLE WILL DO

    they will probably do something way cooler that will floor us all, and cost some stratospheric number to make us say alas.



    If I was good at cgi id draw it for you all, but anyway I can dream cant I
Sign In or Register to comment.