iMac Rumor from Macsimumperspective.com

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 28
    banchobancho Posts: 1,517member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NittanyLionTosh

    The iMac G5 should come in precisely 3 models.



    Basic iMac G5 geared towards the iPod using crowd=$499



    ?Headless

    ?1.6 GHz G5 processor

    ?512 MB RAM

    ?CDRW/DVD

    ?60 GB HD

    ?Whatever relatively decent GPX card.

    ?Small form with wireless tech built in (Bluetooth) and Airport

    ------------



    Mid Range iMac G5 geared toward the iLife users=$699



    ?Headless

    ?1.8 GHz G5 processor

    ?512 MB RAM

    ?Superdrive

    ?80 GB HD

    ?Same graphics card as the basic model (with optional upgrades)

    ?Built in bluetooth and Airport standard

    -----------



    Prosumer iMac G5 geared towards the power for less price crowd=$899



    ?Headless

    ?2 GHz G5

    ?512 MB RAM

    ?Superdrive

    ?80 GB HD (upgrade to 120 or 160)

    ?Nice graphics card

    ?Built in bluetooth standard Airport

    --------



    All headless, all upgradeable graphics, all airport standard. It covers all the bases! If Apple could unveil a $499 15'' LCD and a $699 17'' LCD in the new form factors, they would have huge winners on their hands.



    This would draw in the iPod owner crowd who have an iPod and don't want to spend sickly amounts on a new computer, but it would be the ultimate iPod companion. Streaming music, iTunes management, great design, hooks up with any monitor (even old ones).



    You have one middle model that does all of the iLife stuff perfectly! Not as strong on gaming, but still acceptable, and a bit faster than the low end.



    The highest end model would do everything you needed it to do, right out of the box. The LCD's would be obviously good companions, but at least Apple could now offer a great buy at a low price, without locking down the user to an LCD.





    ***I know you will all say I'm nuts for saying Apple can sell a 500 dollar computer when it sells the iPod for that much...but the iPod costs that much due to miniaturization.




    At those prices I'd snap one up but I'm not holding my breath. Those are good prices by PC standards.



    ps - I refrained from calling you nuts since it was self-evident
  • Reply 22 of 28
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Those prices can't be met IMO. And if Apple offers a headless iMac option, I'm sure they will strongly try to persuade users to buy their monitors instead of any old crappy monitor. I personally think that the idea of using this new iMac with a 15" CRT is going to defeat the whole purpose of having one anyway. I really don't think Apple is trying to make the iMac a so-called beige box that's uber-flexible, but rather that they are targeting a specific role in the household. The more specific, the more likely that they have a specific display in mind, and the less likely the chance for a true "headless" monitor in that you can use any monitor with it.
  • Reply 23 of 28
    squidroesquidroe Posts: 1member
    I still think the killer feature is an iPod slot. Get rid of the hard disk (makes the unit cheaper) and use the iPod as the hard disk. What else are you going to use 40GB for? ...and think of the value of this in an educational environment. iMac at home...iMac at school...take all of your data/programs/etc with you. I simply can't believe this hasn't been done yet.
  • Reply 24 of 28
    trevordtrevord Posts: 85member
    Quote:

    I still think the killer feature is an iPod slot. Get rid of the hard disk (makes the unit cheaper) and use the iPod as the hard disk. What else are you going to use 40GB for? ...and think of the value of this in an educational environment. iMac at home...iMac at school...take all of your data/programs/etc with you. I simply can't believe this hasn't been done yet.



    This would present some major problems...



    For one, the iPod's hard drive is NOT made for high performance. All it's been designed to handle is playing back MP3s. Now I'm sure it's faster than that, but it's probably too slow to run a computer on. The only thing I could see this working as would be a slot into a larger screen, so you could play back stored videos and pictures, on a decently sized screen... but I don't particularly like that idea anyway...



    Also, having a slot for the iPod in a computer forces Apple to never drastically change the form factor of the iPod. This has already happened several times, and I really doubt Apple would want to box themselves in like that.



    Finally, every single user would require an iPod of their own. While Apple would surely love to sell as many iPods as possible, can you imagine a family of four buying four iPods, just so that they can all use the computer? What if the kids are too young to be trusted with such an expensive toy? Sure, a family could figure a way around this, but I just think this would be way too expensive for any family to afford, especially considering the lackluster hard drive performance you'd be getting. And besides, don't most people complain that Macs are already too expensive?
  • Reply 25 of 28
    oldmacfanoldmacfan Posts: 501member
    If Apple is looking at wireless screens, then a headless iMac is quite possible. If you want the wireless screen you pay the money, big money. If all you want is a Mac, then you are set and Apple gets more market share and the cheapo's are happy.
  • Reply 26 of 28
    spartacusspartacus Posts: 52member
    What if APPLE introduce an iMac bi-G4.

    They would have still Freescale as chipmaker and give them a chance to recover from the bad years. I think that it's important for them to have two chipmakers and who knows they could have some surprises.



    Is the thermic dissipation higher for a 2xG4 or for the 1xG5?



    They said to developers to think multi-processor and it would be the best way for now to go bi-G4.

    Now they want developers to think 64 bit processor but this will have less impact for most users(only scientific,sound,video professional purpose).
  • Reply 27 of 28
    auroraaurora Posts: 1,142member
    My own thought on this is Apple will replace both iMac and Emac with 2 new models or 1 machine that is highly configurable to fit many segments of the market. grandma's, gamers and prosumers.
  • Reply 28 of 28
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    SMP across Apples entire line of computers will happen sooner or later. At the moment I don't think the 970 series is ready for that in a low cost platform. I do believe however that the long term goal was to put the 970FX into the lower end machines and go with a Power 5 derived chip for the high performance machines.



    To be honest though even at the low end the 970 just has to many performance issues to be considered. Here I'm talking thermal performance which is pretty bad consideirng the clock rate. IBM just needs to put more effort in to low power technologies.



    As to a SMP G4 machine in the next iMac that will only be possible if some of the performance bottle necks are addressed. That is not impossible and the 90nm factory that motorola is part of is on line. If that 90nm process and the design tools used lead to a much lower power chip then Apple could hae a winner on their hands. The only problem with a G4 based machine (assuming there is a significant performance boost) is that it is a short term play. With in a couple of years I expect the vast majority of the PC market will be 64 bit based along with multiple processors. SMP on 32 bit platforms will only be viable for a couple of years on PC platforms.



    Dave





    Quote:

    Originally posted by Spartacus

    What if APPLE introduce an iMac bi-G4.

    They would have still Freescale as chipmaker and give them a chance to recover from the bad years. I think that it's important for them to have two chipmakers and who knows they could have some surprises.



    Is the thermic dissipation higher for a 2xG4 or for the 1xG5?



    They said to developers to think multi-processor and it would be the best way for now to go bi-G4.

    Now they want developers to think 64 bit processor but this will have less impact for most users(only scientific,sound,video professional purpose).




Sign In or Register to comment.