eMac is a bloated, radiation emmiting, eyeball searing, hunk of retro-tech. Better an average quality LCD than that dog-awful, moire riddled, low refresh, bulky piece of shit.
LCD's are cheap enough. Apple could do it if they were serious about hitting the 999 price point.
Otherwise, just make it headless and leave the display up to me.
eMac is a bloated, radiation emmiting, eyeball searing, hunk of retro-tech. Better an average quality LCD than that dog-awful, moire riddled, low refresh, bulky piece of shit.
LCD's are cheap enough. Apple could do it if they were serious about hitting the 999 price point.
Otherwise, just make it headless and leave the display up to me.
No...y'all are living in fantasy land. Those $999 systems with 17" LCDs are using 3rd rate panels running analog. Apple doesn't EVER put crap displays in their product line.
I see users on this board stuck in deciphering the different paradigms of Apple vs PC
PC :
Throw in crap hardware and force the end user to upgrade to decent stuff. Toss in cheap upgrades like more RAM on GPU and system RAM that can be marketed more. Skimp on everything else(Display quality, I/O features)
Mac :
Ship systems with a decent array of I/O and always a quality display. Cheap out on system RAM, HD and GPU card.
Apple makes sure their products are represented well in person and not just on a spec sheet. I prefer their approach to the a la carte nature of many PCs.
No...y'all are living in fantasy land. Those $999 systems with 17" LCDs are using 3rd rate panels running analog. Apple doesn't EVER put crap displays in their product line.
Not EVER, huh?
hmmm...
15" fuzz bomb CRT on the original iMac, kept well past prime.
17" dinosaur, non-trinitron, slow refresh (sub 90 is slow), super-moire CRT in eMac, launched about 2 years too late, priced to compete with 15 and 17" LCD based systems.
There are very nice analogue LCD's that are leagues ahead of either of those two displays, and that don't cost very much at all.
I have a 19" LCD (with digital and analogue inputs, 700:1, 300cd/m^2, and sub 25ms response) that I picked up for less than 500 USD equivalent. 17" panels are going for the equivalent of 350-400 USD retail.
Given that the guts of an eMac aren't worth more than 500USD on a good day, Apple is raping your ass without lube to the tune of about 300 for that outdated CRT they've so graciously anchored to the eMac for you.
I knew you'd counter with some defects and anomalies of various Apple monitors which is fine but the qualitative perception of said Apple monitors was high. Unlike the total crap I see being attached to PCs where on its best day the monitor sucks.
I believe Apple "will" have a $999 model with a LCD when it's feasible to do so at their current standards. I don't think Sept is the date but perhaps by 2H 2005 we have that option.
The first was their best selling single model ever. And for at least half of it's life it was woefully underequipped in the display category.
The second sells steadily, argely because it's the only thing edu can come close to affording, and it started life with a display that might have been acceptable two years before.
Add them both up and they're more than 75% of the AIO's ever shipped in the Jobs era, and they ALL had/have bad displays.
17" dinosaur, non-trinitron, slow refresh (sub 90 is slow), super-moire CRT in eMac
I really like Trinitron tubes, but I think you're over-the-top with your hyperbole about the eMac's display. Were you frightened by a CRT as a small child?
I own 2 eMacs and three Sony Trinitron TVs (including XBR models). I see more Moire patterns on the TVs on a daily basis than I do on the eMacs on a monthly basis, and the eMacs are often in use as DVD players, which should provide a pretty good test. The Trinitron tube with its large single lens and slot-mask was never designed to eliminate or even minimize Moire, it was designed to increase sharpness and brightness over then-current (say, 1972) triple-lens circular shadow-mask CRTs.
As far as refresh rates, I'm very sensitive to slow refresh (anything under 75Hz literally makes me nauseous). My eMacs refresh at 89 Hz @ 1024x768 and 80 Hz @ 1152x864. What are the refresh rates of the "Intel integrated" video circuitry on typical sub-$1,000 PCs?
Add them both up and they're more than 75% of the AIO's ever shipped in the Jobs era, and they ALL had/have bad displays.
I'm afraid consumers don't seem to echo your sentiments in large numbers. Perception is reality and monitor quality is a non-issue as far as I can see in the Macdom.
I will also acknowledge that PC "can" have nice monitors but that isn't guaranteed. I'm always shocked by how good the iMac LCD monitors are. Bright and sharp..that has to be a baseline for all LCD monitors for Apple.
Price is vastly overhyped (vilified more like it) by the faithful. If that was the case the iPod wouldn't have skyrocketed to stardom. It's functionality that people pay more for. iLife isn't enough to sway the masses.
I'd be happy with a high clocked G5 and a 17 inch LCD at 1299.
That original iMac pricepoint i think is the REAL sweet spot. 999 has the attraction of being just under a thousand of course but for that extra 300 dollars a lot more options are presented to Apple to provide a stronger machine.
First the argument was that Apple specs a higher quality display. When it is shown that Apple does not, then the argument becomes that it doesn't matter. I can almost agree with the second argument's new direction -- it hasn't mattered in the past. It will matter in the coming months.
You can't critique a bundled LCD for being of average quality, when it's still a whole lot better than the CRT being shipped in the eMac's you're comparing them with.
Voxapps, The resfresh rate on a intel video circuitry can drive displays well past 90hz, but it doesn't really matter when your 999 system comes with an LCD. On an LCD even 60hz is fine, since LCD's don't "refresh" in the same way CRT's do -- pixels stay lit, they have to be shut off on an LCD, as opposed to re-lit on a CRT. CRTs flicker, LCD's don't.
Yes, iMac LCD's are nice.
Apple has stated that 999 is the target. They have stated at various times that the goal was to get an iMac product into that price range.
As it stands today, component costs make that possible. The eMac can go back to edu only duty at a reduced cost -- institutional buyers can get eMacs at substantial discount, they don't need opticals or large HDD's, or even airport and/or BT most times, just nice dumb terminals for basically wired labs.
Consumers want/demand/deserve LCDs at the 999 mark. Apple knows this.
The first was their best selling single model ever. And for at least half of it's life it was woefully underequipped in the display category.
The second sells steadily, argely because it's the only thing edu can come close to affording, and it started life with a display that might have been acceptable two years before.
Add them both up and they're more than 75% of the AIO's ever shipped in the Jobs era, and they ALL had/have bad displays.
Yay! Matsu's back.
The rev.B iMac had a great screen. A sharp 15 inches and it worked just fine for ... oh, maybe several hundred thousand people ...
I've spent some time on the eMac and it is great, especially in commercial lighting situations.
I wonder what the percentage of consumers are now on LCD's....don't think it is very high yet.
Sure a good LCD is better than many crt's, but I think Apple needs to get significantly below $999 with its base consumer AIO and it needs to fit with the low end consumer perception and that means the crt for a little while longer.
Can and should Apple build 500-700 dollar machines? I don't know. I think it's a good idea, and no, such machines won't have an LCD. But at 999, that's no longer territory for a CRT based system.
Apple has publicly stated a desire to build a 999 consumer machine -- the "sweet spot"
That's not a bargain computer, it's fairly high end for a home machine, actually, but I think they've rightly assessed it as a "sweet spot"
What that means, is that machine is not cheap enough to sell, rather, it's just pricey enough, and attractive enough, to make 500-750 level buyers cough up the extra 300 quid and walk out with something a lot nicer.
999 is a sweet spot because it marks a nice threshold -- yo can convince people to spend that much rather easily if you throw a few nice features their way.
A CRT doesn't meet that criteria.
eMac is just a place holder in lieu of something proper for the space.
The evidence is in Apple's own institutional pricing on the eMac -- they can afford to sell it a LOT cheaper than 999, and they do, albeit with a few changes.
You will see a 999 iMac, and it will have an LCD, unless it goes headless.
As a recent semi-switcher, hoping to be full switcher, I have seen pictures of the current iMac but never seen them in person. I've always liked the design, but today i went into my local Apple reseller and took a look, and i have to say, i love the iMac design. It's smooth, organic and is/can/will be iconic.
So, despite the fact that I have great confidence in Apple's design prowess and am very interested in seeing what they can come up with, i would be perfectly happy with the current, or a minor tweak of the current design, just with updated compenents.
I really want an Apple desktop, but the PowerMacs are overkill for me, so I want an iMac that doesn't cross into the PowerMac's market, but comes close enough to it to give me the power i want without the overkill.
A 1.6Ghz, 1.8Ghz, 2Ghz line with 17", 20" and 23" monitors respectively would be fantastic, especially if they stick a good graphics card in as standard/let you choose a better one when you order.
I've spent some time on the eMac and it is great, especially in commercial lighting situations.
I wonder what the percentage of consumers are now on LCD's....don't think it is very high yet.
This is exactly correct. The vast, vast majority of user can not afford an LCD screen. Not everyone can justify spending money on a luxory such as a pretty display.
Me, well of course I have an LCD. But that is only because I'm a computer geek that spends way too much time on these fora.
The eMac has outsold all of Apple's LCD computers and seperate displays combined. (Edit: This is speculation as Apple has yet to publicize numbers differentiating between i and emac sales)
While LCD is nicer, their is no current outcry from the masses to replace its screen with an LCD.
Ugh I gotta tell you, after working on an LCD for two years then having to use a CRT for a month -- there's no comparison I just need to work on an LCD. Those damn CRTs just fry my eyes.
It's kind of like once I get a GPS for my car, I'll never be able to get a car without one!
Ugh I gotta tell you, after working on an LCD for two years then having to use a CRT for a month -- there's no comparison I just need to work on an LCD. Those damn CRTs just fry my eyes.
It's kind of like once I get a GPS for my car, I'll never be able to get a car without one!
I bet you could do without these luxories if you got laid off and needed to feed your family.
While I'm joking, this situation is acutally quite true for many people. Granted, more often, it comes down to buying the kids new bikes or getting an LCD over a CRT.
The demographics of these boards tends to obscure the different type of life decisions faced by the majority of consumers.
This is exactly correct. The vast, vast majority of user can not afford an LCD screen. Not everyone can justify spending money on a luxory such as a pretty display.
Me, well of course I have an LCD. But that is only because I'm a computer geek that spends way too much time on these fora.
The eMac has outsold all of Apple's LCD computers and seperate displays combined. (Edit: This is speculation as Apple has yet to publicize numbers differentiating between i and emac sales)
While LCD is nicer, their is no current outcry from the masses to replace its screen with an LCD.
It is true that Apple lumped Emac sales as iMac sales to hide the embarrasing low sales. and even after doing that sales still sucked and matched the powermacs. Pro users are outnumbered 100 - 1 by consumers yet apple sold about equal qtys of (iMac+Emac) as Powermac. so this means they were a utter dissappointment after the millions of crt iMacs thats sold. Blame the all in one and blame the very very stale hardware. mx class video with no upgrade path mated to a allready very slow G4 and you have a formula for disaster. The Lcd iMac is a very nice machine, looks nice,nice ergonomic screen but performance was crap. I think the biggest question for Apple is will they stick to all in ones or make a consumer tower. More all in ones in my opinion will not gain any market for Apple. One of the most stupid things Apple has done is telling the consumer there is no upgrade path mated to a nice lcd. Marketing idiots. The other very stupid thing is not making a G5 iMac as soon as they could. even now its a year or more overdue. does anyone think a watered down 1.6 G5 mated to more fx5200s are going to make buyers run to Apple. they will need a gimmick to wrap around once again outdated and slow hardware. This is a very poor formula for success. iMac crt was running about the same speed as Powermac when introduced minus altivec(big deal unless you were a photo pro) and thats why it was a hit with consumers plus it had color. boy did they get away from that formula and sales prove it.
It is true that Apple lumped Emac sales as iMac sales to hide the embarrasing low sales. and even after doing that sales still sucked and matched the powermacs. Pro users are outnumbered 100 - 1 by consumers yet apple sold about equal qtys of (iMac+Emac) as Powermac. so this means they were a utter dissappointment after the millions of crt iMacs thats sold. Blame the all in one and blame the very very stale hardware. mx class video with no upgrade path mated to a allready very slow G4 and you have a formula for disaster. The Lcd iMac is a very nice machine, looks nice,nice ergonomic screen but performance was crap. I think the biggest question for Apple is will they stick to all in ones or make a consumer tower. More all in ones in my opinion will not gain any market for Apple. One of the most stupid things Apple has done is telling the consumer there is no upgrade path mated to a nice lcd. Marketing idiots. The other very stupid thing is not making a G5 iMac as soon as they could. even now its a year or more overdue. does anyone think a watered down 1.6 G5 mated to more fx5200s are going to make buyers run to Apple. they will need a gimmick to wrap around once again outdated and slow hardware. This is a very poor formula for success. iMac crt was running about the same speed as Powermac when introduced minus altivec(big deal unless you were a photo pro) and thats why it was a hit with consumers plus it had color. boy did they get away from that formula and sales prove it.
Don't hold back...
But he's right folks! (Bad visions of 1.6 G5s with MX Nvidia graphics cards...all nice and non-upgradeable...)
The vast, vast majority of user can not afford an LCD screen.
Crock of crap.
They're dirt cheap now for 17 inch LCDs. Check out PC World monitors. Plenty with good contrast ratios.
Their tower LCD combos hit the 'sweet spot' and lower.
The iMac looks like a white elephant alongside them.
Apple admitted the iMac 2 and eMac designs were old.
Change is coming to the iMac. Hopefully the Ginger stepchild eMac won't be far behind....
Hasn't the eMac outlasted the 'puck'? Shudder.
Obviously you're not going to get a Geforce 6800 and a G5 2 gig for £799-999 price range.
But put a high single speed G5 eg 2 gig alongside decent bus speed with a Radeon 9600 and you've got a nice proposition. Along with a 17 inch LCD. Should do quite nicely.
As for the eMac. Turn it into the headless XMac and pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap with a simple white box. iCube. Amen.
Comments
eMac is a bloated, radiation emmiting, eyeball searing, hunk of retro-tech. Better an average quality LCD than that dog-awful, moire riddled, low refresh, bulky piece of shit.
LCD's are cheap enough. Apple could do it if they were serious about hitting the 999 price point.
Otherwise, just make it headless and leave the display up to me.
Originally posted by Matsu
It needs to be 999 to stand a chance.
eMac is a bloated, radiation emmiting, eyeball searing, hunk of retro-tech. Better an average quality LCD than that dog-awful, moire riddled, low refresh, bulky piece of shit.
LCD's are cheap enough. Apple could do it if they were serious about hitting the 999 price point.
Otherwise, just make it headless and leave the display up to me.
No...y'all are living in fantasy land. Those $999 systems with 17" LCDs are using 3rd rate panels running analog. Apple doesn't EVER put crap displays in their product line.
I see users on this board stuck in deciphering the different paradigms of Apple vs PC
PC :
Throw in crap hardware and force the end user to upgrade to decent stuff. Toss in cheap upgrades like more RAM on GPU and system RAM that can be marketed more. Skimp on everything else(Display quality, I/O features)
Mac :
Ship systems with a decent array of I/O and always a quality display. Cheap out on system RAM, HD and GPU card.
Apple makes sure their products are represented well in person and not just on a spec sheet. I prefer their approach to the a la carte nature of many PCs.
Originally posted by hmurchison
No...y'all are living in fantasy land. Those $999 systems with 17" LCDs are using 3rd rate panels running analog. Apple doesn't EVER put crap displays in their product line.
Not EVER, huh?
hmmm...
15" fuzz bomb CRT on the original iMac, kept well past prime.
17" dinosaur, non-trinitron, slow refresh (sub 90 is slow), super-moire CRT in eMac, launched about 2 years too late, priced to compete with 15 and 17" LCD based systems.
There are very nice analogue LCD's that are leagues ahead of either of those two displays, and that don't cost very much at all.
I have a 19" LCD (with digital and analogue inputs, 700:1, 300cd/m^2, and sub 25ms response) that I picked up for less than 500 USD equivalent. 17" panels are going for the equivalent of 350-400 USD retail.
Given that the guts of an eMac aren't worth more than 500USD on a good day, Apple is raping your ass without lube to the tune of about 300 for that outdated CRT they've so graciously anchored to the eMac for you.
I believe Apple "will" have a $999 model with a LCD when it's feasible to do so at their current standards. I don't think Sept is the date but perhaps by 2H 2005 we have that option.
The first was their best selling single model ever. And for at least half of it's life it was woefully underequipped in the display category.
The second sells steadily, argely because it's the only thing edu can come close to affording, and it started life with a display that might have been acceptable two years before.
Add them both up and they're more than 75% of the AIO's ever shipped in the Jobs era, and they ALL had/have bad displays.
Originally posted by Matsu
17" dinosaur, non-trinitron, slow refresh (sub 90 is slow), super-moire CRT in eMac
I really like Trinitron tubes, but I think you're over-the-top with your hyperbole about the eMac's display. Were you frightened by a CRT as a small child?
I own 2 eMacs and three Sony Trinitron TVs (including XBR models). I see more Moire patterns on the TVs on a daily basis than I do on the eMacs on a monthly basis, and the eMacs are often in use as DVD players, which should provide a pretty good test. The Trinitron tube with its large single lens and slot-mask was never designed to eliminate or even minimize Moire, it was designed to increase sharpness and brightness over then-current (say, 1972) triple-lens circular shadow-mask CRTs.
As far as refresh rates, I'm very sensitive to slow refresh (anything under 75Hz literally makes me nauseous). My eMacs refresh at 89 Hz @ 1024x768 and 80 Hz @ 1152x864. What are the refresh rates of the "Intel integrated" video circuitry on typical sub-$1,000 PCs?
Add them both up and they're more than 75% of the AIO's ever shipped in the Jobs era, and they ALL had/have bad displays.
I'm afraid consumers don't seem to echo your sentiments in large numbers. Perception is reality and monitor quality is a non-issue as far as I can see in the Macdom.
I will also acknowledge that PC "can" have nice monitors but that isn't guaranteed. I'm always shocked by how good the iMac LCD monitors are. Bright and sharp..that has to be a baseline for all LCD monitors for Apple.
Price is vastly overhyped (vilified more like it) by the faithful. If that was the case the iPod wouldn't have skyrocketed to stardom. It's functionality that people pay more for. iLife isn't enough to sway the masses.
That original iMac pricepoint i think is the REAL sweet spot. 999 has the attraction of being just under a thousand of course but for that extra 300 dollars a lot more options are presented to Apple to provide a stronger machine.
You can't critique a bundled LCD for being of average quality, when it's still a whole lot better than the CRT being shipped in the eMac's you're comparing them with.
Voxapps, The resfresh rate on a intel video circuitry can drive displays well past 90hz, but it doesn't really matter when your 999 system comes with an LCD. On an LCD even 60hz is fine, since LCD's don't "refresh" in the same way CRT's do -- pixels stay lit, they have to be shut off on an LCD, as opposed to re-lit on a CRT. CRTs flicker, LCD's don't.
Yes, iMac LCD's are nice.
Apple has stated that 999 is the target. They have stated at various times that the goal was to get an iMac product into that price range.
As it stands today, component costs make that possible. The eMac can go back to edu only duty at a reduced cost -- institutional buyers can get eMacs at substantial discount, they don't need opticals or large HDD's, or even airport and/or BT most times, just nice dumb terminals for basically wired labs.
Consumers want/demand/deserve LCDs at the 999 mark. Apple knows this.
Originally posted by Matsu
Hardly anomalies.
The first was their best selling single model ever. And for at least half of it's life it was woefully underequipped in the display category.
The second sells steadily, argely because it's the only thing edu can come close to affording, and it started life with a display that might have been acceptable two years before.
Add them both up and they're more than 75% of the AIO's ever shipped in the Jobs era, and they ALL had/have bad displays.
Yay! Matsu's back.
The rev.B iMac had a great screen. A sharp 15 inches and it worked just fine for ... oh, maybe several hundred thousand people ...
I've spent some time on the eMac and it is great, especially in commercial lighting situations.
I wonder what the percentage of consumers are now on LCD's....don't think it is very high yet.
Sure a good LCD is better than many crt's, but I think Apple needs to get significantly below $999 with its base consumer AIO and it needs to fit with the low end consumer perception and that means the crt for a little while longer.
Apple has publicly stated a desire to build a 999 consumer machine -- the "sweet spot"
That's not a bargain computer, it's fairly high end for a home machine, actually, but I think they've rightly assessed it as a "sweet spot"
What that means, is that machine is not cheap enough to sell, rather, it's just pricey enough, and attractive enough, to make 500-750 level buyers cough up the extra 300 quid and walk out with something a lot nicer.
999 is a sweet spot because it marks a nice threshold -- yo can convince people to spend that much rather easily if you throw a few nice features their way.
A CRT doesn't meet that criteria.
eMac is just a place holder in lieu of something proper for the space.
The evidence is in Apple's own institutional pricing on the eMac -- they can afford to sell it a LOT cheaper than 999, and they do, albeit with a few changes.
You will see a 999 iMac, and it will have an LCD, unless it goes headless.
So, despite the fact that I have great confidence in Apple's design prowess and am very interested in seeing what they can come up with, i would be perfectly happy with the current, or a minor tweak of the current design, just with updated compenents.
I really want an Apple desktop, but the PowerMacs are overkill for me, so I want an iMac that doesn't cross into the PowerMac's market, but comes close enough to it to give me the power i want without the overkill.
A 1.6Ghz, 1.8Ghz, 2Ghz line with 17", 20" and 23" monitors respectively would be fantastic, especially if they stick a good graphics card in as standard/let you choose a better one when you order.
Originally posted by MacGregor
I've spent some time on the eMac and it is great, especially in commercial lighting situations.
I wonder what the percentage of consumers are now on LCD's....don't think it is very high yet.
This is exactly correct. The vast, vast majority of user can not afford an LCD screen. Not everyone can justify spending money on a luxory such as a pretty display.
Me, well of course I have an LCD. But that is only because I'm a computer geek that spends way too much time on these fora.
The eMac has outsold all of Apple's LCD computers and seperate displays combined. (Edit: This is speculation as Apple has yet to publicize numbers differentiating between i and emac sales)
While LCD is nicer, their is no current outcry from the masses to replace its screen with an LCD.
It's kind of like once I get a GPS for my car, I'll never be able to get a car without one!
Originally posted by JMoney
Ugh I gotta tell you, after working on an LCD for two years then having to use a CRT for a month -- there's no comparison I just need to work on an LCD. Those damn CRTs just fry my eyes.
It's kind of like once I get a GPS for my car, I'll never be able to get a car without one!
I bet you could do without these luxories if you got laid off and needed to feed your family.
While I'm joking, this situation is acutally quite true for many people. Granted, more often, it comes down to buying the kids new bikes or getting an LCD over a CRT.
The demographics of these boards tends to obscure the different type of life decisions faced by the majority of consumers.
Originally posted by dfiler
This is exactly correct. The vast, vast majority of user can not afford an LCD screen. Not everyone can justify spending money on a luxory such as a pretty display.
Me, well of course I have an LCD. But that is only because I'm a computer geek that spends way too much time on these fora.
The eMac has outsold all of Apple's LCD computers and seperate displays combined. (Edit: This is speculation as Apple has yet to publicize numbers differentiating between i and emac sales)
While LCD is nicer, their is no current outcry from the masses to replace its screen with an LCD.
It is true that Apple lumped Emac sales as iMac sales to hide the embarrasing low sales. and even after doing that sales still sucked and matched the powermacs. Pro users are outnumbered 100 - 1 by consumers yet apple sold about equal qtys of (iMac+Emac) as Powermac. so this means they were a utter dissappointment after the millions of crt iMacs thats sold. Blame the all in one and blame the very very stale hardware. mx class video with no upgrade path mated to a allready very slow G4 and you have a formula for disaster. The Lcd iMac is a very nice machine, looks nice,nice ergonomic screen but performance was crap. I think the biggest question for Apple is will they stick to all in ones or make a consumer tower. More all in ones in my opinion will not gain any market for Apple. One of the most stupid things Apple has done is telling the consumer there is no upgrade path mated to a nice lcd. Marketing idiots. The other very stupid thing is not making a G5 iMac as soon as they could. even now its a year or more overdue. does anyone think a watered down 1.6 G5 mated to more fx5200s are going to make buyers run to Apple. they will need a gimmick to wrap around once again outdated and slow hardware. This is a very poor formula for success. iMac crt was running about the same speed as Powermac when introduced minus altivec(big deal unless you were a photo pro) and thats why it was a hit with consumers plus it had color. boy did they get away from that formula and sales prove it.
To the contrary, I think if the proper price/performance relationship is achieved, an AIO iMac could be very successful.
It is true that Apple lumped Emac sales as iMac sales to hide the embarrasing low sales. and even after doing that sales still sucked and matched the powermacs. Pro users are outnumbered 100 - 1 by consumers yet apple sold about equal qtys of (iMac+Emac) as Powermac. so this means they were a utter dissappointment after the millions of crt iMacs thats sold. Blame the all in one and blame the very very stale hardware. mx class video with no upgrade path mated to a allready very slow G4 and you have a formula for disaster. The Lcd iMac is a very nice machine, looks nice,nice ergonomic screen but performance was crap. I think the biggest question for Apple is will they stick to all in ones or make a consumer tower. More all in ones in my opinion will not gain any market for Apple. One of the most stupid things Apple has done is telling the consumer there is no upgrade path mated to a nice lcd. Marketing idiots. The other very stupid thing is not making a G5 iMac as soon as they could. even now its a year or more overdue. does anyone think a watered down 1.6 G5 mated to more fx5200s are going to make buyers run to Apple. they will need a gimmick to wrap around once again outdated and slow hardware. This is a very poor formula for success. iMac crt was running about the same speed as Powermac when introduced minus altivec(big deal unless you were a photo pro) and thats why it was a hit with consumers plus it had color. boy did they get away from that formula and sales prove it.
Don't hold back...
But he's right folks! (Bad visions of 1.6 G5s with MX Nvidia graphics cards...all nice and non-upgradeable...)
Lemon Bon Bon
The vast, vast majority of user can not afford an LCD screen.
Crock of crap.
They're dirt cheap now for 17 inch LCDs. Check out PC World monitors. Plenty with good contrast ratios.
Their tower LCD combos hit the 'sweet spot' and lower.
The iMac looks like a white elephant alongside them.
Apple admitted the iMac 2 and eMac designs were old.
Change is coming to the iMac. Hopefully the Ginger stepchild eMac won't be far behind....
Hasn't the eMac outlasted the 'puck'? Shudder.
Obviously you're not going to get a Geforce 6800 and a G5 2 gig for £799-999 price range.
But put a high single speed G5 eg 2 gig alongside decent bus speed with a Radeon 9600 and you've got a nice proposition. Along with a 17 inch LCD. Should do quite nicely.
As for the eMac. Turn it into the headless XMac and pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap with a simple white box. iCube. Amen.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Michael Wilkie
I really don't think an AIO is doomed to failure by virtue of it all-in-oneness.
To the contrary, I think if the proper price/performance relationship is achieved, an AIO iMac could be very successful.
True, and that's beyond opinion. They proved it with the first iMac !