[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Ryan Becker:
I'm the only one being realistic in this thread... everyone else is just dreaming.

Provide some facts to support your claims, and somebody might actually believe you. You've already shown you don't know much about the power dissipation of the G4 and G5.

[Ryan Becker]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Provide some facts to support your claims, and somebody might actually believe you. You've already shown you don't know much about the power dissipation of the G4 and G5.

The facts to support my claims will come in June....

-Ryan

[Lateralus]

...Uh-huh.

[dlefebvre]

A single processor G5 iMac (1.6Ghz or 1.8Ghz) Maybe the 20" model only.
And a complete dual processor G5 Pro line (2Ghz and up)
It would make sense.

[kinglou]

Originally posted by Ryan Becker:
The iMac is a consumer machine, not a pro machine, period.

Keep holding yer breath cause that G5 aint gonna be in there for a long time....

The post house I work for bought 16 17" G4 iMacs for a big job that involved Final Cut Pro that were a major Cable TV job. 16 Editors doing motion graphics in FCP. Yes it is a consumer machine but it's powerful and the people who buy them expect it to be so. They can do pro work to a certain level. Today they are still doing lots of After Effects and Photoshop work. In a pro environment they are pro machines.

Putting in a single G5 isn't going to put a crimp in the people who are buying Duals, which all the top of lines should be anyway. As the next crop of G5's (all above 2 ghz) are announced would it be so crazy for them to bump up from a 1.33 G4 to a 1.6 G5? I don't think so. The need to keep up with all that Mhz myth stuff. Sad but true.

Of course heat and all that play a factor. Are they really going to do a redesign to accomodate the new chips? Time will tell. Lets hope we only have to wait until WWDC to find out.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by kinglou:
Putting in a single G5 isn't going to put a crimp in the people who are buying Duals, which all the top of lines should be anyway. As the next crop of G5's (all above 2 ghz) are announced would it be so crazy for them to bump up from a 1.33 G4 to a 1.6 G5? I don't think so. The need to keep up with all that Mhz myth stuff. Sad but true.

It's not a myth of course. I find my GHz G4 TiBook slow for anything video related. And actually, the 970FX is slower clock-for-clock in many situations when compared to Pentium M Dothan, which is the 970FX's competitor in certain markets.

Of course heat and all that play a factor. Are they really going to do a redesign to accomodate the new chips?

Yes, because it's a new chip architecture. Heat is a concern too, but as I said earlier the 970FX at 1.6 would be reasonably cool, and a 1.8 would be doable too.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
This has nothing to do with 'sufficient technology' though. The fact is that Apple is trying to promote itself as being at the forefront of the tech wave. The iMac, right now, offers a cost-performance ratio that would have competed well with PCs in 2002.

Compare the iMac to it's closest competitor - the Gateway Profile. You'll notice that the 2 are close in price and specs.

[loudpedal]

Originally posted by Ryan Becker:
Call me what you want, I really don't care.

I'm the only one being realistic in this thread... everyone else is just dreaming.

-Ryan

Ryan, really, you've made your opinion known plenty of times in this topic. You can move on now.

I don't think there's anything holding Apple back from moving the iMac to a G5. If they're moving their OS to a 64 bit system, they'll have to move everything to a G5 eventually and since the PB series has some serious hurdles to clear, the iMac makes the most sense for the next platform to make the jump. I seriously doubt that they could do it with the current case design, though. I'm just not sure they can do it with passive cooling. Although I suspect Apple's move to a metal case design may have something to do with thermal transfer. I'd look for a new metal case on the iMac when it does bow with a G5.

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by mbryda:
Compare the iMac to it's closest competitor - the Gateway Profile. You'll notice that the 2 are close in price and specs.

The Gateway profile isn't the iMac's closest competitor. Gateway tried to make it that way for whatever reason. The iMac's main competition is every PC between $1,299 and $2,199.

[NeoOSX]

You realise you are trying to predict a man renowned for his unpredictability? After all he saved apple with the G3, not the imac, AND, if you would please show me a source that shows iMac sales floundering I would appreciate it. The only reason this would be true would be price anyways, performance is without a doubt excellent. Sure there are 2GHz plus pcs out there but the mac is more efficient with processor speed anyways, and mac measures things differently, so the two wind up fairly even. Anyways, so far we all agree the iMac is going to be G5 eventually, so the most logical conclusion is that it will skip G5 and perhaps the G6 will be introduced with the new model iMac.

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by NeoOSX:
You realise you are trying to predict a man renowned for his unpredictability? After all he saved apple with the G3, not the imac, AND, if you would please show me a source that shows iMac sales floundering I would appreciate it. The only reason this would be true would be price anyways, performance is without a doubt excellent. Sure there are 2GHz plus pcs out there but the mac is more efficient with processor speed anyways, and mac measures things differently, so the two wind up fairly even. Anyways, so far we all agree the iMac is going to be G5 eventually, so the most logical conclusion is that it will skip G5 and perhaps the G6 will be introduced with the new model iMac.

The G3 didn't save Apple. It was only around 20% more efficient than the 604ev Mach V at the same speed, and it came in at a much lower clock speed. The iMac saved Apple. It brought Apple back into the public eye. Something no processor would have done at the time.

Steve is not going to hurt Apple by delaying G5 iMacs if they are ready just because he likes being flakey.

Please, please, please don't fall for the MHz myth. The G4 at 1.33GHz is about as fast as a 1.53GHz Athlon XP. The only reason the MHz myth was created in the first place was because it was convenient for Apple to create it, as a way to explain away Motorola's incompetency with the G4 development. Every PowerPC thus far has been more efficient and faster at the same clock speed than it's Intel and AMD competitors. But how much faster is a matter that is up for debate. And no matter the end result, it is nowhere near twice as fast, as Apple proclaimed.

If I can admit that after having sunk $700 into a dual processor upgrade for my machine two weeks ago that contains two G4s that are each about as fast as a $60 Athlon XP, then so can you.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by NeoOSX:
You realise you are trying to predict a man renowned for his unpredictability? After all he saved apple with the G3, not the imac, AND, if you would please show me a source that shows iMac sales floundering I would appreciate it. The only reason this would be true would be price anyways, performance is without a doubt excellent. Sure there are 2GHz plus pcs out there but the mac is more efficient with processor speed anyways, and mac measures things differently, so the two wind up fairly even. Anyways, so far we all agree the iMac is going to be G5 eventually, so the most logical conclusion is that it will skip G5 and perhaps the G6 will be introduced with the new model iMac.

1) Apple's own sales figures show iMac sales to be mediocre at best.

2) Price is the key issue I agree.

3) Performance is poor to mediocre. Macs do not measure things differently. For basic speed, the iMacs get destroyed by the competition. Indeed, the iMacs get destroyed even by other Macs (with Power Macs running 3.2X the GHz of the fastest iMacs, or 1.6X the GHz per CPU).

4) Not sure what you're talking about with the G6.

[NeoOSX]

If you want a powerful computer, you buy the powermac. For portability and power, the powerbook, and for a fun computer you can do most anything with the imac or ibook. Apple needs to lower the price on the imac, not raise power. if they make it more powerfull, all they really have are two choices of powermac. They need a pro computer and a lower end computer.

[Lateralus]

Why does everybody explain away Apple's neglecting of the iMac by saying 'The iMac doesn't have to be fast! That's what the Power Mac is for!' ...? Are you trying to say that $2,199 shouldn't get you a fast computer? That $1,299 shouldn't get you a fast computer? Just because it is an Apple?

Please...

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by Ryan Becker:
Call me what you want, I really don't care.

I'm the only one being realistic in this thread... everyone else is just dreaming.

-Ryan

Dude how old are you? You have like every third post in this thread! And all of them are just saying, YOU"RE WRONG! And I don't care what you call me! DID I MENTION YOU"RE WRONG!?

If you don't care what people say about you fine, if you don't care what they say fine, but then why are you on a forum? Do you simply want to say what you think and not hear what others have to say? Check your motives, you may find you have a lot of free time that you're wasting simply disagreeing with people because you're bored.

take up knitting or something.

That said, I predict G5 iMac, and G5 eMac a year after. G5 PowerBook as soon as the FX or whatever it is afterward has it's power usage come down. Either way Apple probably wants to start funneling more money into paying for G5s than helping keep Moto afloat.

[terminator]

Originally posted by preslove:
This dude will not stop being a D!ck in 2004.

-Andrew

After watching him in the Apple forums for some time, don't expect anything else.

He is right, everyone else is wrong. He helps, everyone else does not.
He knows, no one else does.

If you can remember that, you will never be surprised by anything he does.

Buckle up.

[Link]

I'm going to level here..

Granted it's not like Apple to do, nor will it probably happen, it would be good if the only differentiation between iMac models were the screen size.. erm..

All three models having the same base config and different size screens.. with BTO configs that vary...

I'd like to see something like this, albeit highly unlikely:

16" Widescreen iMac (same style with some slight changes) -- 1650x1080 max res, low pixel response screen.
1.8ghz G5 (800mhz bus)
Dual channel DDR (same story as 19")
8x superdrive
180gb hard drive
Airport Extreme/BT available (BT built in?)
gigabit ethernet (it's seriously high time apple did this)
radeon 9800 pro (upgradable to X800/256mb)
Price: $1299

iMac Tower (g5-style with 'frosted' plastic styling of g4 imac)
1.8ghz G5
Dual channel DDR (same configuration as standard imacs)
8x superdrive
180gb hard drive
gigabit ethernet
radeon 9800 pro (upgradable to X800/256mb)
Dual DVI output
Price: $999

This is a tricky configuration indeed. So one would ask, is the classic imac underpriced, or the tower overpriced?

I'd say a fair balance between the two. Honestly I don't think a 999/1299 price point would be feasible.. wise yes, but not feasible.

Perhaps a $1299/1499 price point or something like that.. but the $999/1299 point seems JUST with the industry.

Anyway, it's a fair compromise. The classic imac is slightly underpriced, but the tower is slightly overpriced. I know, a mere $300 difference between the two hardly pays for the LCD, but if the price difference is TOO BIG, nobody will buy the damn thing.

Having said that, it's also a toughie, because at that price there is not a single 17" LCD that will fill the gap at less than $500... not even slightly as nice as the iMac's LCD..

Basically, the tower would either be for people who want a bigger LCD, people who would like to carry their LCD, or people who want to use their existing monitos whatever the hell they may be. For someone who's planning to buy a new monitor, the classic iMac would still be the best choice.

Not to mention, while a 1.8ghz g5, 2 dual channel DDR slots with a max capacity of 2gb (later max of 4gb), radeon 9800, and 200gb hard drive.. the Powermac at the time will probably (for $600-800 more) have DUAL processors, upgradable everything, and 8 dual channel DDR slots with a max capacity of 8/16gb.

So I can't say the pricing is bad at all.. it'd be nice if the powermac prices drop into the $1500 range, and um yeah.. that's about all I have to say.

Honestly I wouldn't bother selling a display to go with the iMac tower, at the least maybe a snow white NEC 17" with apple on the front.. nothing special.. but yeah, definately not required.

[mactropolis]

People seem to forget that the eMac is the new low-end computer. The iMac is now mid-range. A $1,600 - $2,200 "consumer" computer?? Puh-lease...You can't imagine the kind of kick-ass PC setup one can get from their local comptuer shop for $2,200 (incl printer, scanner, web cam & 17" flat-panel). Yea, it will come with Windows, but that hasn't stopped 90% of the population from buying PC's now has it...

Anyway, those iMac's are damn powerfull for practically anything you need to do on it. I hate people who believe that iMac's and iBooks are only designed for iPhoto and iTunes. iMacs & iBooks are a lot more capable than just iTunes or iMovie, despite Apple's marketing to that extent. It's been my observation that people with PowerMac G5's just like the attention/to boast or have legitimate expansion needs that onlly a PM G5 could satisfy.

However, these current iMac's truly have the worst price/performance ratio in years. I don't even bother trying to convince my friends to look into the iMac anymore ("You want me to spend $2,000 for that).

So when should we expect a G5 iMac? I can't honestly say that i'd be dissapointed if no iMac G5's are introduced at WWDC. I'd expect them towards the end of the year (::cough:: Apple Paris Expo ::cough:: ) or MWSF 05 in January.

[Eug Wanker]

16" Widescreen iMac (same style with some slight changes) -- 1650x1080 max res, low pixel response screen.

Won't happen, since 1650x1080 on a 16" would be an insanely high pixel density. Steve hates high pixel densities for LCD screens (and so do I).

1.8ghz G5 (800mhz bus)

Won't happen, because the bus speed is supposed to be the CPU clock speed divided by an integer. ie. 600 or 900, but not 800. I'd guess 600, to keep system controller heat down, and 900 would be overkill anyways for an iMac.

Dual channel DDR (same story as 19")

Won't happen, because of cost, and because Apple will probably want to ship a machine with a single bank of built-in RAM, negating the benefit of dual channel DDR.

180gb hard drive

Won't happen, because of cost.

gigabit ethernet (it's seriously high time apple did this)

Won't happen, because of cost, and because it's not necessary.

radeon 9800 pro (upgradable to X800/256mb)

Won't happen because of cost and heat.

I realize you're just dreaming out loud, but let's get real.

[Sinikad]

From the perspective of a new mac user, long time PC user, the original iMac concept is clearly embodied in the eMac. The iMac is an entirely different animal; iMacs seem to be for the trendy style-concious types. Why they chose to name it 'iMac' is a mystery. It clearly does not embody the low cost 'everyones computer' that the origina iMac did.

The eMac on the other hand is a clear winner in this category. No doubt the eMac has cannibalized some of the iMac and PowerMac sales. It has also made desktop Macs accessible to people who would otherwise not buy a Mac. The price/performance on both the iMac and the PowerMac G5 line is pretty harsh. Only the eMac, iBook, PowerBook, and to some degree PowerMac G4 can compete in this way. The G5s would be ok if they offered more for the price, but to bring them up to par you have to spend another $400 or so after purchase. For those kind of prices, i don't want to be upgrading a G5 right after I buy one, so itll be quite some time before I make that switch.


-Sini

[Simon]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
...
I'm talking G5 across the board (no pun intended) and the 15", 17", and 20" would all use the same base motherboard, with spec differences of course.
...
Now, if the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra requires a design change for the 15", Apple could just use a Radeon 9200 instead (assuming they aren't using daughter cards). IIRC, the 9200 and 9600 are interchangeable.

Eug, talk about getting real.

The 5200 and the 9600 are not pin-compatible. Suggesting Apple makes one iMac board and then saying one has a 5200 and the other two have a 9600 is a contradiction. Here's the real deal: The iMac's GPU is soldered on board, no daughter card, no graphics card, etc. Of course Apple could change this, but who really believes that? Not even the PowerBooks get the feature. And we're talking about the medium-level AIO design here. In brief: If you take two non pin-compatible GPUs you need two boards.

Apple has never done this with the iMacs. They never do it on consumer machines at all. Except for the little exception I already mentioned (the low-end "new" model gets the old board, the higher end new model gets the new board) which is not applicable here since your example requires completely new boards for the entire iMac line.

True, Apple did this for the PowerMacs (the 1.6GHz "Yikes"-style model and the PCI-X models), but they only go through this effort for the pro lines and they also try to avoid it as much as possible (i.e. only Yikes for the G4, 1.6GHz for the G5).

Correct your prediction to only use one new board and it's likelihood will increase right away. The 9200/9600 scheme would allow for such a "unified" board. That makes iMac R&D as well as production cheaper and would allow Apple to have decent margins and nevertheless stay competitive. That's the way to go.

[kenaustus]

First I think you have to look at IBM's fab problems the first of the year. If things had gone smoothly then a faster PM would have been announced in Feb/Mar. That would have left room for a G5 iMac as soon as the new PM backorders were reduced to a reasonable level.

There is no real reason (outside of chip supply) to delay a G5 iMac. Remember the backlog when the current version was released? It would be very nice for Steve J to be able to tell the developers how large the G5 iMac back order is. WWDC is there to get developers excited about working on OS X products and a rapidly expanding user base is a good motivator - just as announcing the 3 gig PM will be.

iMacs as soon as chips are available simply because Steve J would love another major surge in sales.

[no1allowed]

Sorry, 2 iMac models in August
15" 1.33GHz G4
17" & 20" 1.6GHz G5

The iMac traditionally has followed the PowerBook for inclusion of CPUs. Their position as the boat anchor in the desktop lineup has probably spurred Apple to redesign the MB for a G5. How do I know this? It's simply taking too long to introduce a new model and they haven't had a speed upgrade since September of last year. And if you look at the fact that a 1.25 GHz 7455 uses 32 Watts (typ) which is way more than a 90 nm 1.6 GHz G5 would use (a 2GHz 90nm G5 uses 44W max, a 7455 at 1.25GHz uses 50W max), Apple gets to keep their Power Supply and the iMac would get a nice kickstart for the back-to-school crowd, especially college. Apple will just wait until they upgrade their entire G5 lineup to dualies. Of course to take some wind out of the MacWorld Boston they might just intro it in late July right after MW Boston . This way you can't get/order one there.

[Link]

Eug: Dream on indeed

As we all know, it'll be rediculously overpriced, sadly underspecced, cost twice as much as the emac (and 4x that of most entry level PCs) annnnnd

Everbody here will want one

[Ryan Becker]

Originally posted by terminator:
After watching him in the Apple forums for some time, don't expect anything else.

He is right, everyone else is wrong. He helps, everyone else does not.
He knows, no one else does.

If you can remember that, you will never be surprised by anything he does.

Buckle up.

LOL, you got it!

And, I must've made quite an impact on you if you took the time to track me down to this forum, eh!? It's okay, I'm used to having followers....

Most of the people in this thread must not be long time Mac users... sounds like a lot of switcher-like comments here to me. A lot of completely ridiculous ideas and expectations.

Anyway, I'll have my laugh come June... and I'll be right back here for a big heaping scoop of I told ya so.

-Ryan

[Simon]

Originally posted by Ryan Becker:
Most of the people in this thread must not be long time Mac users... sounds like a lot of switcher-like comments here to me. A lot of completely ridiculous ideas and expectations.

Listen buddy, I'm really losing my patience here. I've been on this platform since 1984 and as my footer will tell you I have owned enough Macs to have an idea what they are about. I haven't met many people on this board that have been using Macs as long as I have, but I have met many people that can debate. All your so-called "knowledge" and "experience" isn't helping you from becoming this thread's biggest nuisance.

Of course this is about speculation. Here's a hint: look at the thread title. Rumors. Right.

You are entitled to an opinion and you may argue and discuss all you want. But coming here and claiming everybody is stupid and you would *know* better - even though there is nothing to know (since it's just speculation) - is out of the question.

In brief, stop acting like an infantile brat and crapping in my thread. You are very welcome to debate all you want and I strongly encourage you to do so, but act as you would if we were discussing this in person and not like on some teenager BBS. Thanks.

[Ryan Becker]

Originally posted by Simon:
Listen buddy, I'm really losing my patience here. I've been on this platform since 1984 and as my footer will tell you I have owned enough Macs to have an idea what they are about. I haven't met many people on this board that have been using Macs as long as I have, but I have met many people that can debate. All your so-called "knowledge" and "experience" isn't helping you from becoming this thread's biggest nuisance.

Of course this is about speculation. Here's a hint: look at the thread title. Rumors. Right.

You are entitled to an opinion and you may argue and discuss all you want. But coming here and claiming everybody is stupid and you would *know* better - even though there is nothing to know (since it's just speculation) - is out of the question.

In brief, stop acting like an infantile brat and crapping in my thread. You are very welcome to debate all you want and I strongly encourage you to do so, but act as you would if we were discussing this in person and not like on some teenager BBS. Thanks.

#1. Don't call me "buddy"

#2. I can act however I want.

#3. Your footer does nothing helpful... looks like a bunch of bragging to me. Want me to list every Mac I have ever owned!? I would need 3 pages....

#4. I am not saying anything more extreme than anyone else. Just because my opinion goes against the grain here, does NOT make me any more "infantile" or "bratty" than anyone else.

-Ryan

[Simon]

Originally posted by Ryan Becker:
#1. Don't call me "buddy"
#2. I can act however I want.

You tell others what to do, but you do what you like? Forget it.

#3. Your footer does nothing helpful... looks like a bunch of bragging to me. Want me to list every Mac I have ever owned!? I would need 3 pages....

Go ahead. From the way you act here, I give you an age of 14 and that makes your Mac experience go back to the Mac IIfx in 1990 at the most. Not bad, but a little late to the party.

#4. I am not saying anything more extreme than anyone else. Just because my opinion goes against the grain here, does NOT make me any more "infantile" or "bratty" than anyone else.

Baloney. You are not voicing an opinion, you are telling people what is supposedly a fact. Anybody who doesn't agree with you is wrong. That's not a debate, that is infantile. I've tried to be kind to you and get you to participate in an mature manner, but without success. Your self-pitying hypocrisy is ludicrous. I'm done with you.

Consider yourself reported.

[Eug Wanker]

Anyway, I'll have my laugh come June... and I'll be right back here for a big heaping scoop of I told ya so.

Great! Good riddance until June.

[Ryan Becker]

Originally posted by Simon:
Go ahead. From the way you act here, I give you an age of 14 and that makes your Mac experience go back to the Mac IIfx in 1990 at the most. Not bad, but a little late to the party. Consider yourself reported.

Check my profile... unlike most, I have the guts to post my actual birthday.

Reported!? LOL, I'm shaking in my boots....

-Ryan

[Eug Wanker]

Wow. Is it June already?

[Ryan Becker]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Wow. Is it June already?

Wow, are you still talking?

[Lateralus]

You need to learn how to take a hint.

And listing your birthday is just fine. But in your case it is detrimental.

None of us needs some know-nothing washed up 27 year old geek posting from his mom's basement telling us that we are losers because he can't defend his position.

[Ryan Becker]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
You need to learn how to take a hint.

And listing your birthday is just fine. But in your case it is detrimental.

None of us needs some know-nothing washed up 27 year old geek posting from his mom's basement telling us that we are losers because he can't defend his position.

You are a complete idiot. You are a shame to "Pumpkins" fans everywhere. Come here to Chicago, and we will show you who is the "know-nothing washed up geek."

What are you, 16? 19 tops?

-Ryan

[vmarks]

Ryan,

If ignoring the economic reality that CFO Fred Anderson confronts every day is realistic, then reality in your neck of the woods must be a little bit off kilter.

Economic reality is that the iMac is (a) not the bottom of the Apple Desktop product line, and (b) must be price competitive with a PC product, even if it isn't the lowest priced PC product.


The iMac is no longer the bottom rung, eMac is. They've got about one more revision left in them as G4 before they will either stagnate (as G4 powermac did for so long, 18 months IIRC) or become G5. This release can be well timed with a higher powermac speed release so that iMac doesn't cannabalize Powermac sales.

Telling us all that you're right because you know better than everyone else, and then failing to reveal anything to support that claim is condescending. Please cut it out.

Thank you.

[Lateralus]

I'm a shame to Pumpkins fans? I don't know, I wonder who Billy would be more ashamed of...

Me, being younger than you, acting more mature, defending and explaining my opinions civily, and only getting hostile as a defense against your attacks on everybody else here.

Or you... who makes false statements, can't back up or defend his opinion, is closed minded and refuses to listen to anybody's reasoning even if based on fact, and constantly attacks everybody who disagrees with him.

Lemme think about that...

[Ryan Becker]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
I'm a shame to Pumpkins fans? I don't know, I wonder who Billy would be more ashamed of...

Me, being younger than you, acting more mature, defending and explaining my opinions civily, and only getting hostile as a defense against your attacks on everybody else here.

Or you... who makes false statements, can't back up or defend his opinion, is closed minded and refuses to listen to anybody's reasoning even if based on fact, and constantly attacks everybody who disagrees with him.

Lemme think about that...

I'll ask him next time I see him. Most likely he will say that we are both losers, and shouldn't be wasting our time with this. And, he's right.

And, name calling is not mature.... so, I don't know what makes you think you are being any more mature than me. I only started acting this way when attacked by others.

I don't need to explain, back up, or defend, my "opinion" on the subject. This is not school...

-Ryan

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by Ryan Becker:
I'll ask him next time I see him. Most likely he will say that we are both losers, and shouldn't be wasting our time with this. And, he's right.

And, name calling is not mature.... so, I don't know what makes you think you are being any more mature than me. I only started acting this way when attacked by others.

I don't need to explain, back up, or defend, my "opinion" on the subject. This is not school...

-Ryan

You were never attacked by anyone. You attacked.

As far as this not being school, yeah, you're right. You're an adult now. You're dealing with and talking to adults. Adults are reading everything you say. Perhaps you should act like it by backing up or defending your opinion intelligently. You have it the wrong way around. Adults debate when they are contradicted, school children mud sling when they are contradicted, you are doing the later.

Of course, you'll just say that you don't care what we think of you, and that is fine. But maybe you should move on to another forum because I think you'll find that saying whatever you want regardless will not get you very far here.

[Ryan Becker]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Ryan,

If ignoring the economic reality that CFO Fred Anderson confronts every day is realistic, then reality in your neck of the woods must be a little bit off kilter.

Economic reality is that the iMac is (a) not the bottom of the Apple Desktop product line, and (b) must be price competitive with a PC product, even if it isn't the lowest priced PC product.


The iMac is no longer the bottom rung, eMac is. They've got about one more revision left in them as G4 before they will either stagnate (as G4 powermac did for so long, 18 months IIRC) or become G5. This release can be well timed with a higher powermac speed release so that iMac doesn't cannabalize Powermac sales.

Telling us all that you're right because you know better than everyone else, and then failing to reveal anything to support that claim is condescending. Please cut it out.

Thank you.

Sounds like you need to tell that to Apple then, not me.

If the G4 PowerMac stood stagnate for 18 months, what makes you think the iMac can't!?!?

I don't even count the eMac in Apple's line. It was an educational computer that cheap consumers convinced Apple to add to it's full line. And, right now, performance wise, isn't the eMac ahead of the iMac? Anyway, that's not the point.

The iMac came out just over 2 years ago. The G5 chip came out, what, less than a year ago? And you guys seriously think they will already put it in the iMac!? Before the PowerBook!? Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not gonna happen. Not in 2004 anyway, and surely not in June at the WWDC.

I saw PowerMacMan say somewhere something about the G6 coming out in 2005... I SERIOUSLY hope that was sarcastic....

And, to whoever in this thread mentioned the iMac jumping straight to a G6.... that's plain insane to think that.

-Ryan

[Ryan Becker]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
....will not get you very far here.

What does that mean!? How "far" am I looking to get here? Is there like a president of the forum or something?

I'm not looking to go anywhere here. I'm just looking to help out people in need of help. But, it appears not much helping gets done here, because everyone here already knows how to fix things themselves, so instead you all get into stupid debates like this that do nothing for anyone.

Ever heard the saying, "too many cooks in the kitchen and not enough diners" ?

-Ryan

[Lateralus]

I feel like I am arguing with a wall here.

I don't know, I'm done.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Ryan Becker:
And, name calling is not mature....

Originally posted by Ryan Becker:
You are a complete idiot.

[no1allowed]

Maybe I missed it, but did anybody put in their thoughts about what type of other goodies might go into a G5 iMac? Like say the type of Video Card? Any votes for the 9200?

I heard the new video cards are power hungry, which is why I suggested the 9200.

I was kinda hoping they'd make Bluetooth standard and package the Apple Wireless keyboard and mouse. Probably not happening.

Steve did mention awhile back that the cube might come back just not in it's current form. Any thoughts on a headless iMac being the new cube?

And I don't care if it gets released in 3, 5, or 7 months from now.

[galarneau]

Originally posted by no1allowed:
Maybe I missed it, but did anybody put in their thoughts about what type of other goodies might go into a G5 iMac? Like say the type of Video Card? Any votes for the 9200?

I heard the new video cards are power hungry, which is why I suggested the 9200.

The 9200 is an ok chipset, and certainly runs cool, but if you look at the PC video cards for sale, almost all of the Radeon 9600's (non-pro models) are also passively cooled.

I think the next iteration of the iMac would almost need this level of GPU to not seem archaic.

[Eug Wanker]

I put video card predictions in my original post. I think a 9600 Pro would be reasonable, if not a necessity for a G5 1.6-1.8. A 9200 would be two slow.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Ryan Becker:
#1. Don't call me "buddy"

#2. I can act however I want.

#3. Your footer does nothing helpful... looks like a bunch of bragging to me. Want me to list every Mac I have ever owned!? I would need 3 pages....

#4. I am not saying anything more extreme than anyone else. Just because my opinion goes against the grain here, does NOT make me any more "infantile" or "bratty" than anyone else.

-Ryan

My monitor is bigger than yours.

[Demonhood]

this arguing is..um..tiresome.

you can all stop with the name calling and take your disagreement to AIM like civilized nerds, or i can break out the hammer.
and it's heavy.
and i'm tired.
so don't make me.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
My monitor is bigger than yours.

I thought you had a 12" iBook?

I think the G5 iMacs are coming verrry soon...

[Link]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I put video card predictions in my original post. I think a 9600 Pro would be reasonable, if not a necessity for a G5 1.6-1.8. A 9200 would be two slow.

Exactly. If it's reasonable apple won't do it.

[no1allowed]

The only thing worst would for them to put in an 9100 integrated - believe it or not that's even slower than the 9200. I'm not totally convinced the iMac is pure consumer since a lot of businesses purchase them. Although Apple seems to lump it as such with the eMac. So we probably won't be seeing Firewire 800 or video spanning. I would like to see a TV Tuner capability. If they used the 7200 RPM 2.5" hard drive from Hitachi/IBM they could use the power savings to insert a better video card with, say, 128MBytes of Video RAM. This would also help with cooling since there would be air circulation inside. Maybe they'll go SATA which would force them to have something of a high performance hard drive subsystem. I also don't like the USB 2.0 in any of the current crop of Macs. A USB 2.0 PCI card with an NEC chipset is faster. I've sent my test findings to Rob at Bare Feats on my G5 1.6 in which the PCI USB 2.0 is about 20% faster than the on-board USB 2.0.

How about software packaging? I'd like to see a Home Office edition with MS Office packaged. This would of course include VPC v7.0.