TS's comments referring to the new iMac as "similar" to the Vaio may be throwing everybody off. Since they didn't see it and just relayed a comment by someone who "claimed" to see it, we may be in for a surprise. It's possible that the new iMac will feature the same elements as the current one but in a new form. Floating screen and CPU base in a different design and color scheme as well as different materials (no stainless steel). 9 days.
I don't think it'll take after the new displays. When has Apple ever made an AIO that took after a display?
Mac SE? Nope.
There was no display to copy.
Classic 1 & 2? Nope.
Echo the SE and the LC/IIsi
Color Classic? Nope.
Drawn from the 1710.
LC5X0? Nope.
Practicaly is an Apple 13".
iMac? Nope.
iMac is all new breakthrough territory.
eMac? Nope.
Apple Studio CRT ( overall shape is the same ).
iMac2? Nope.
Draws heavily from the iBook dual usb.
Historically Apple do tend to reuse stylistic themes across their product lines. Only recently with the product grid have they strongly segregated style as an indicator of purpose. Because the pro line gets the monitors I dont expect to see the iMac echoing their style. I think we will see something all new. This is a consumer machine, and will get a consumer look. It wont use the industrial design of the new monitors.
Mac SE came out at the same time the Mac II came out. And the 12" monitor.
Color Classic and the 1710??! I guess I'll give you that... there WERE both BEIGE!! Practically twins!
The LC5X0 series looked like a monitor and IIsi fused together. An abomination. So it sorta looked like the 13".
eMac: Apple Studio CRT ( overall shape is the same ).
eMac=opaque/white and lame base. Studio CRT 17= transparent and sweet looking mobius base.
iMac2 and iBook???! Oh Lord.
I take back the LC5X0 series as not taking after a display. It really did look like a 13" bolted on a computer. The others have some similarities but that's about it. Except for the iMac 2 and iBook. It's one thing to be themed the same...
Mac SE came out at the same time the Mac II came out. And the 12" monitor.
Fair enough, I dont think that the monitor uses the design language of the box very much. The Mac II does echo some of the SEs horizontal themes however, which is toned down and continues right up through to the Classic and LC time frame.
Quote:
Color Classic and the 1710??! I guess I'll give you that... there WERE both BEIGE!! Practically twins!
The color classic and the 1710 share common styling of the vertical fascia on either side of the screen. They also share strong organic curves, which were pretty unique to them. The CC obviously has functionality requirements that the 1710 doesnt, and Ill beg you to ignore the hideous monstrosity of the 1710AV.
Quote:
eMac: Apple Studio CRT ( overall shape is the same ).
eMac=opaque/white and lame base. Studio CRT 17= transparent and sweet looking mobius base.
The shape is practically identical. Once again, the eMac differs because of functional requirements ( speakers, optical drive ) but it is clearly a derived work. Apple probably designed them at the same time. The AS stand is much cooler. As for the white, well, the eMac also has to echo design themes of the iBook and iMac, white is the consumer color. Perhaps an eMac released earlied would also have been transparent.
Quote:
iMac2 and iBook???! Oh Lord.
I am talking about the ice Book, not the modern opaque bastard child iBook. The iMac screen is strongly reminiscent of the ice Book materiel. The iMac base marks the change to the opaque white plastics.
I dont think you can look at any of those comparisons and say that the devices look identical. Apples only share design language when they are designed at the same time ( see powerbooks, Classic/LC/IIsi, Quadras etc ). Modern machines have been staggered, and have recieved evolving design elements. The iMac 3 will be very interesting, because it would seem to have been designed at the same time as the new displays, but is obviously in the consumer half of the quadrant. I dont think that Apple will bring alu into the consumer machines, unless it is coloured. But the lack of colour for the g4 ipods implies that they arent gung ho about making consumer products coloured. I think they will evolve the white theme, perhaps with the 'chameleon' light system. However, they may make use of the shape of the new displays to derive the iMac 3, I dont think they are very friendly tho', they are much more serious. The iMac could really use a return to the whimsy of the original.
Your thoughts on this comparison are more on materials. My thoughts on this are more on the physical.
The iMac 2 is a screen. It was a huge departure from any desktop they had previously done in this regard. I had an icebook and I can say I never had thoughts of it being like an iMac and still do not.
I am hoping the iMac 3 is still about the screen with the internals in the background or fairly invisible. I think it will be.
You can go click Here to see a somewhat higher resolution version.
Hi! Just dropping by to show you my "Point Of View" about the next iMac.
My design retains the arm, and the round front is there to fit the rotation aspect, not just to mimick the mini.The lateral rotation joint can slide on a track at the top, but I'm not sure if free movement on the track should be allowed. The track real intent is to go from one rotation mode to the other.
When you slide the arm up to the back, the base-to-arm rotation joint unlocks and provide a small 90 degrees rotation so that the joint and arm will be pointing to you, and the half bottom of the arm will fit perfectly in the track. Once you are in that "mode" you can rotate the whole screen 90 degrees like the good old Radius Pivot display.
When in Portrait mode you can still rotate the screen sideways though with less freedom, using the arm-to-screen joint. The design I provided could be improved in many ways. Also I included the possibility of having a headless model. The track part would be covered ideally.
Anyway what do you think? I know I know... it looks like a lighter
what I don't understand ever from the introduction of the last iMac is this:
if the mac is the chosen platform for many visual artists...
then why didn't they build the display so you can swing it into vertical "portrait" mode ? ? ? ? ? ?
is it that too hard to implement ?
I really think they missed a chance on the last iMac and now again on the new displays....
am I the only one here? Hell I'm not even into graphics, I'm a sound engineer, I just think it would be really usefull for graphics professionals....
what say you ?
I had an old monitor like that. I think it was a Radius. It required a custom graphics card, but I think that they might be able to make a software implementation these days. It would be nicer for an LCD, to. The CRT was kind of heavy to turn, and the mechanism was a bit worn out by the time I got it.
I had an old monitor like that. I think it was a Radius. It required a custom graphics card, but I think that they might be able to make a software implementation these days. It would be nicer for an LCD, to. The CRT was kind of heavy to turn, and the mechanism was a bit worn out by the time I got it.
Yeah that good old Radius Pivot
I would guess that Quartz and Quartz extreme could provide what's needed to do a software implementation.
Now as for why they didn't add Portrait mode for the G4 iMac: The neatness about the iMac swivel arm is that you can move the thing up and down and the screen will retain it's angle. It's a clever mechanism but they had to be sure it wouldn't break. Adding another mechanism for screen orientation was too much to ask I guess. If they added a perpendicular rotation in the arm-to-screen joint it could become too much stressfull for the other mechanism including added stress on cables. Other reaons include added height on the machine to accomodate the prortrait mode.
Portrait display or not I really hope that Apple won't do away with the arm. LCD's are light, why put them on unflexible stands remicient of the big heavy unmovable CRTs? Any LCD display 20" or less should have very movable displays, it's just logical. Oh well, less than 36 hours to wait...
That was the one! I ended up getting rid of it because it was for my Centris 650, and by that time, I had my iMac 333, and I was in high school, so needless to say, my mom didn't want not only my old computer sitting around, but my old computer with two monitors. I had a 4 megabyte(!) Radius video card in it, and I liked that better than the Pivot with its less-powerful graphics card. But man, with both video cards, I could have potentially had a three-monitor system!
Comments
Originally posted by Outsider
I don't think it'll take after the new displays. When has Apple ever made an AIO that took after a display?
Mac SE? Nope.
There was no display to copy.
Classic 1 & 2? Nope.
Echo the SE and the LC/IIsi
Color Classic? Nope.
Drawn from the 1710.
LC5X0? Nope.
Practicaly is an Apple 13".
iMac? Nope.
iMac is all new breakthrough territory.
eMac? Nope.
Apple Studio CRT ( overall shape is the same ).
iMac2? Nope.
Draws heavily from the iBook dual usb.
Historically Apple do tend to reuse stylistic themes across their product lines. Only recently with the product grid have they strongly segregated style as an indicator of purpose. Because the pro line gets the monitors I dont expect to see the iMac echoing their style. I think we will see something all new. This is a consumer machine, and will get a consumer look. It wont use the industrial design of the new monitors.
Originally posted by mmmpie
Mac SE? Nope.
There was no display to copy.
Classic 1 & 2? Nope.
Echo the SE and the LC/IIsi
Color Classic? Nope.
Drawn from the 1710.
LC5X0? Nope.
Practicaly is an Apple 13".
iMac? Nope.
iMac is all new breakthrough territory.
eMac? Nope.
Apple Studio CRT ( overall shape is the same ).
iMac2? Nope.
Draws heavily from the iBook dual usb.
Mac SE came out at the same time the Mac II came out. And the 12" monitor.
Color Classic and the 1710??! I guess I'll give you that... there WERE both BEIGE!!
The LC5X0 series looked like a monitor and IIsi fused together. An abomination. So it sorta looked like the 13".
eMac: Apple Studio CRT ( overall shape is the same ).
eMac=opaque/white and lame base. Studio CRT 17= transparent and sweet looking mobius base.
iMac2 and iBook???! Oh Lord.
I take back the LC5X0 series as not taking after a display. It really did look like a 13" bolted on a computer. The others have some similarities but that's about it. Except for the iMac 2 and iBook. It's one thing to be themed the same...
Originally posted by Outsider
Mac SE came out at the same time the Mac II came out. And the 12" monitor.
Fair enough, I dont think that the monitor uses the design language of the box very much. The Mac II does echo some of the SEs horizontal themes however, which is toned down and continues right up through to the Classic and LC time frame.
Color Classic and the 1710??! I guess I'll give you that... there WERE both BEIGE!!
The color classic and the 1710 share common styling of the vertical fascia on either side of the screen. They also share strong organic curves, which were pretty unique to them. The CC obviously has functionality requirements that the 1710 doesnt, and Ill beg you to ignore the hideous monstrosity of the 1710AV.
eMac: Apple Studio CRT ( overall shape is the same ).
eMac=opaque/white and lame base. Studio CRT 17= transparent and sweet looking mobius base.
The shape is practically identical. Once again, the eMac differs because of functional requirements ( speakers, optical drive ) but it is clearly a derived work. Apple probably designed them at the same time. The AS stand is much cooler. As for the white, well, the eMac also has to echo design themes of the iBook and iMac, white is the consumer color. Perhaps an eMac released earlied would also have been transparent.
iMac2 and iBook???! Oh Lord.
I am talking about the ice Book, not the modern opaque bastard child iBook. The iMac screen is strongly reminiscent of the ice Book materiel. The iMac base marks the change to the opaque white plastics.
I dont think you can look at any of those comparisons and say that the devices look identical. Apples only share design language when they are designed at the same time ( see powerbooks, Classic/LC/IIsi, Quadras etc ). Modern machines have been staggered, and have recieved evolving design elements. The iMac 3 will be very interesting, because it would seem to have been designed at the same time as the new displays, but is obviously in the consumer half of the quadrant. I dont think that Apple will bring alu into the consumer machines, unless it is coloured. But the lack of colour for the g4 ipods implies that they arent gung ho about making consumer products coloured. I think they will evolve the white theme, perhaps with the 'chameleon' light system. However, they may make use of the shape of the new displays to derive the iMac 3, I dont think they are very friendly tho', they are much more serious. The iMac could really use a return to the whimsy of the original.
The iMac 2 is a screen. It was a huge departure from any desktop they had previously done in this regard. I had an icebook and I can say I never had thoughts of it being like an iMac and still do not.
I am hoping the iMac 3 is still about the screen with the internals in the background or fairly invisible. I think it will be.
Originally posted by ArticulatedArm
I really like this design. Nice rendering too. What software was this done with btw?
now that is wut i would expect from apple, not just a simple pizza box screen. i would not be suprised if Phil rolls that out.fantastic.
Yawn.
Not what I'm expecting though.
Speaker grills not so Apple.
Different to many of the mocks we've seen.
I don't think it will be like this.
Stylish design though...
Lemon Bon Bon
pic
Well... this is the backside but you get the point.
Originally posted by ArticulatedArm
I really like this design. Nice rendering too. What software was this done with btw?
This Mackompass image shows a clever use of the rumored Chameleon
circuitry thus rendering the unsightly guts of the optical drive system
and other components completely invisible. :-)
You can go click Here to see a somewhat higher resolution version.
Hi! Just dropping by to show you my "Point Of View" about the next iMac.
My design retains the arm, and the round front is there to fit the rotation aspect, not just to mimick the mini.The lateral rotation joint can slide on a track at the top, but I'm not sure if free movement on the track should be allowed. The track real intent is to go from one rotation mode to the other.
When you slide the arm up to the back, the base-to-arm rotation joint unlocks and provide a small 90 degrees rotation so that the joint and arm will be pointing to you, and the half bottom of the arm will fit perfectly in the track. Once you are in that "mode" you can rotate the whole screen 90 degrees like the good old Radius Pivot display.
When in Portrait mode you can still rotate the screen sideways though with less freedom, using the arm-to-screen joint. The design I provided could be improved in many ways. Also I included the possibility of having a headless model. The track part would be covered ideally.
Anyway what do you think? I know I know... it looks like a lighter
VL-Tone
[OII II III II III]
Larger here.
Originally posted by ArticulatedArm
I really like this design. Nice rendering too. What software was this done with btw?
Mostly Cinema4D
Originally posted by ~ufo~
what I don't understand ever from the introduction of the last iMac is this:
if the mac is the chosen platform for many visual artists...
then why didn't they build the display so you can swing it into vertical "portrait" mode ? ? ? ? ? ?
is it that too hard to implement ?
I really think they missed a chance on the last iMac and now again on the new displays....
am I the only one here? Hell I'm not even into graphics, I'm a sound engineer, I just think it would be really usefull for graphics professionals....
what say you ?
I had an old monitor like that. I think it was a Radius. It required a custom graphics card, but I think that they might be able to make a software implementation these days. It would be nicer for an LCD, to. The CRT was kind of heavy to turn, and the mechanism was a bit worn out by the time I got it.
Originally posted by KeilwerthReborn
I had an old monitor like that. I think it was a Radius. It required a custom graphics card, but I think that they might be able to make a software implementation these days. It would be nicer for an LCD, to. The CRT was kind of heavy to turn, and the mechanism was a bit worn out by the time I got it.
Yeah that good old Radius Pivot
I would guess that Quartz and Quartz extreme could provide what's needed to do a software implementation.
Now as for why they didn't add Portrait mode for the G4 iMac: The neatness about the iMac swivel arm is that you can move the thing up and down and the screen will retain it's angle. It's a clever mechanism but they had to be sure it wouldn't break. Adding another mechanism for screen orientation was too much to ask I guess. If they added a perpendicular rotation in the arm-to-screen joint it could become too much stressfull for the other mechanism including added stress on cables. Other reaons include added height on the machine to accomodate the prortrait mode.
Portrait display or not I really hope that Apple won't do away with the arm. LCD's are light, why put them on unflexible stands remicient of the big heavy unmovable CRTs? Any LCD display 20" or less should have very movable displays, it's just logical. Oh well, less than 36 hours to wait...
Related urls:
http://pages.infinit.net/voxel/iMacG5PointOfView.jpg
http://pages.infinit.net/voxel/iMacG5View.jpg
VL-Tone
[OII II III II III]
Originally posted by VL-Tone
Yeah that good old Radius Pivot
That was the one! I ended up getting rid of it because it was for my Centris 650, and by that time, I had my iMac 333, and I was in high school, so needless to say, my mom didn't want not only my old computer sitting around, but my old computer with two monitors. I had a 4 megabyte(!) Radius video card in it, and I liked that better than the Pivot with its less-powerful graphics card. But man, with both video cards, I could have potentially had a three-monitor system!
Whatever happened to Radius?