[Parky]

Originally posted by neverwind:
You're joking right? I'm an educator - do the math and see how much longer it will take to copy all the files around to every computer for the next video editing class?

Like I said, Ti books had it 5 years ago, and I can get past it not being on the last gen iMacs... but on these?
Not when it cost them less than a few bucks an iMac to make them Gigabit...

As I said 'consumer' you don't fit the profile I had in mind, nor Apple's I suspect.

I thought the eMac was for 'education' having a screen harder to damage, etc.

I really don't think 'home' users need Gigabit, but if you have a need then I'm sorry, feel free to request it from Apple.

Ian

[funkboy]

VESA mounts!

This essentially means the new iMac *can* be just as limber as the Sunflower iMac, right? Or even more so, with properly-designed mounts?

Optical Digital Audio Out, too, which makes big speaker systems a good possibility. Are there any speakers other than the built-in ones?

I will be waiting for a professional review before purchasing one, though... and I hope that Apple can keep up with demand. I won't wait six weeks to get my order shipped.

[neverwind]

Originally posted by Parky:

I really don't think 'home' users need Gigabit, but if you have a need then I'm sorry, feel free to request it from Apple.

Ian

Don't apologise, your point was solid! I simply thought the difference in price would be minimal enough to say "Hey, lets leave 10/100 behind for good."

It's like the video card - 128 MB of graphics mem would comapre better to the win world for switchers to be impressed I imagine. Sure there are dummies who buy computers that know nothing and care little. But for every dummy there is one who looks at the specs and says, this one over here is a little faster / better for the money. (And it won't be the iMac with that graphics card and ethernet connector).

[killer_735]

Quick, someone take one apart! I need to sample its rich tasty innards!

[stevesnj]

These 'in the flesh pics do it more justice then the Apple site

http://homepage.mac.com/morgan68/App...toAlbum31.html

[selowitch]

Excellent price-to-features ratio! Nice desk-space savings! A G5 for $1,299?!?! What's better than that?

[Parky]

Again for me and many 'home' users who just use, Mail, Word, iMovie, iTunes etc I'm not bothered about the Graphics card. I don't do heavy graphics stuff.

I never play games, just not interested.

I also don't understand why people want to use a computer to play games, when the consoles do it so much better for not much cash.

What Apple do when they put these things together is look for the most attractive Price / Features list that the average home user will want and be happy to pay for.

There are going to be people on the fringe who think they are over or under speced for what they want.

If they add more bits the price will go up, and it might not look anymore attractive to the majority of the people they are aiming for.

I for one would not want to pay more if the G5 iMac had Gigabit Ethernet, 128MB Graphics, etc, etc.

Unfortunately they can't please everyone, but hopefully they got it right enough for the majority of us average users out there. I actually do a lot more than most user will want, and I'm more than pleased with it. Very pleased with the price, I was expecting �1999 for the 20" so �1349 is a big shock.

Ian

[tooki]

Originally posted by Rumor Addict:
I just got back from my first day at the Expo and I can say that the iMac looks WAY better in person than on the website. In fact I was fairly surprised at how poor the photos look. They are so heavily worked over that it looks like a graphic representation of it rather than the real thing.

That's because they're not photos, they're 3D renderings, just like every Apple promo picture since at least 1998, and probably earlier.

tooki

[eddiecatflap]

if you can open it , you can upgrade it

that's the only good thing about the design

if you could change the videocard , i'd be impressed

as it is

i'm not

looks like an emac thats been run over by a steamroller

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally posted by Parky:
Again for me and many 'home' users who just use, Mail, Word, iMovie, iTunes etc I'm not bothered about the Graphics card. I don't do heavy graphics stuff.

I never play games, just not interested.

I also don't understand why people want to use a computer to play games, when the consoles do it so much better for not much cash.

Ian

But (and I'm not trying to sound accusatory) then why do you even need a G5?

In my point of view, the kind of user you're talking about fits the eMac profile better. The iMac needs a little something extra, and IMHO, this latest model falls just short of the mark.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Parky:
It does eem like good value :-

iMac 20" - �1349
20" Cinema Display - �999
Difference - �350

i.e. the G5 computer, SuperDrive, Keyboard, Mouse, etc costs - �350!!

Wow, that's quite an interesting way of looking at it.

US $ prices:

iMac 20" - $ 1,899
20" Cinema Display - $ 1,299
Difference - $ 600

No consistent exchange rate used.

-t

[Parky]

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey:
But (and I'm not trying to sound accusatory) then why do you even need a G5?

In my point of view, the kind of user you're talking about fits the eMac profile better. The iMac needs a little something extra, and IMHO, this latest model falls just short of the mark.

I can't speak for other users, but :-

I want a G5 because it will be faster when I work in iMovie and iPhoto which I do quite often.
iDVD will render so much quicker which will be good as my movies are always transferred to DVD, and the DVD's will burn faster on the 4x drive.
iTunes will RIP CD's quicker.

I could have got an eMac, but to be honest I prefer an LCD screen and the design of the G4 and G5 iMacs.

I think the 20" will be a big improvement for me as well, as an A4 page will fit at full size, I write a lot and this will be great.

I'm also a snob and the eMac is the entry level and I think I deserve a little bit more :-)

Ian

[turtle777]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
HOLY FSCK!!! That looks HORRIBLE!!! I was saving money to maybe get an iMac G5 but I swear to god, I won't ever let that ugly piece of hardware into my apartment!

That's the same stuff people said about the original G3 iMac and the G4 iMac. Often the same people know look back and admire the old designs...

You'll get used to it...

-t

[im_noahselby]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
HOLY FSCK!!! That looks HORRIBLE!!! I was saving money to maybe get an iMac G5 but I swear to god, I won't ever let that ugly piece of hardware into my apartment!

My initial thoughts on the NEW Imac G5:

This is a step backwards, in terms of computer design and a step forward in terms of processing power and value for the buck. This design is simple, clean, and quiet. I don't expect this iMac to be turning heads like the original two machines did. I for one, am completely underwhelmed when I look at the new plastic white enclosure of the iMac. It could have been so much more...

No one bought the iMac G4 though, so I don't think we can blame Apple for taking the arm & movable display away... but implemented again and in a better fashion, it could have been an incredible step forward for them.

This is absolutely NOTHING like I could have imagined. I think I may have been expecting Apple to innovate, of which they didn't this time around. How dissapointing...

Noah

[Parky]

Originally posted by turtle777:
That's the same stuff people said about the original G3 iMac and the G4 iMac. Often the same people know look back and admire the old designs...

You'll get used to it...

-t

I also suspect that in the flesh it will be much better.
When you see the quality of the materials, the reflections on the shiny case, the scale compared to it's surroundings and the quality of the 20" screen and when you can touch it and feel the tactile properties feelings will change.

Ian

[selowitch]

Originally posted by Parky:
I also don't understand why people want to use a computer to play games, when the consoles do it so much better for not much cash.

I'm so glad somebody finally said this.

Who wouldn't rather play Doom III on an Xbox? The controls are better, configuration and installation is nonexistent, and you can use Xbox Live. Why play it on your Mac or PC when you'll always feel pressured to upgrade your hardware? I like games, but I really don't care much about performance as long as they are of the kind of quality that Xbox games currently reflect.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Sorry, slightly off-topic.

[Parky]

Originally posted by selowitch:
I'm so glad somebody finally said this.

Who wouldn't rather play Doom III on an Xbox? The controls are better, configuration and installation is nonexistent, and you can use Xbox Live. Why play it on your Mac or PC when you'll always feel pressured to upgrade your hardware? I like games, but I really don't care much about performance as long as they are of the kind of quality that Xbox games currently reflect.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Sorry, slightly off-topic.

\

And while the Kids are playing games, you can't use your computer.

Always use the right tools for the right job.

Ian

[selowitch]

Originally posted by Parky:
And while the kids are playing games, you can't use your computer.

Exactly. I have an eager six-year-old Harry Potter on Xbox fan.
Also, you have no worries about separating business from pleasure for tax purposes. My Mac is strictly a work machine (unless you count personal e-mail, which I don't).

[Macrat]

Anyone know the viewing angle specs for the old 17"? The new one looks pretty bad:

Typical viewing angle:

* 17-inch models
o 120�� horizontal
o 90�� vertical
* 20-inch model
o 170�� horizontal
o 170�� vertical

[Hoosier_1701]

I wonder how well the angle will adjust when all the cables are attached? My current iMac G4 has power, ethernet, speakers, USB to the keyboard, USB to a hub, firewire to my DV camera, and firewire to the iPod. With all that connected to the back, I wonder if it will still easily tilt forward and backward? Will it have trouble holding its position if the cables are pulling on it a bit?

I guess we'll have to wait for some owner reports.

[solbo]

Originally posted by selowitch:
I'm so glad somebody finally said this.

Who wouldn't rather play Doom III on an Xbox? The controls are better, configuration and installation is nonexistent, and you can use Xbox Live. Why play it on your Mac or PC when you'll always feel pressured to upgrade your hardware? I like games, but I really don't care much about performance as long as they are of the kind of quality that Xbox games currently reflect.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Sorry, slightly off-topic.

Is World of Warcraft coming out for Gamecube and I didn't know it?

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Parky:
Again for me and many 'home' users who just use, Mail, Word, iMovie, iTunes etc I'm not bothered about the Graphics card. I don't do heavy graphics stuff.

I never play games, just not interested.

I also don't understand why people want to use a computer to play games, when the consoles do it so much better for not much cash.

Agreed. "Gaming" is rapidly moving to consoles. I could care less about playing video games personally .. and my roommate plays all his on a PS II -- he hardly touches his PC. A nicer video card will doubtless be a selling point for a Rev B

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey:
But (and I'm not trying to sound accusatory) then why do you even need a G5?

... because that's what they put in this enclosure ?? Seriously, this is just the next logical speed step in the iMac line. He may not "need" for this to contain a G5 as opposed to a G4, but that's what this enclosure was designed around.

On a sidenote, I'm glad to finally see decent bus speeds starting to trickle down toward the consumer level. Until now, we've been hampered by the same G4 bottleneck that plagued the powermac line until the G5 was intro'd.

Originally posted by im_noahselby:

This is absolutely NOTHING like I could have imagined. I think I may have been expecting Apple to innovate, of which they didn't this time around. How dissapointing...

Noah

I agree with you .. I like seeing Apple putting forth groundbreaking designs. But realistically, the biggest complaint from most people has been the piss poor price/performance for the iMac G4 in the last year or so ($2200 for a 1.25 G4 ?? ... a $799 eMac matches that !!). This update hammers price/performance in a big way ... at the expense of super-shocking-ultra-cool design, I'm afraid. Not uber snazzy looking ... but it'll probably sell better than the FP.

[Parky]

Originally posted by Krusty:
This update hammers price/performance in a big way ... at the expense of super-shocking-ultra-cool design, I'm afraid. Not uber snazzy looking ... but it'll probably sell better than the FP.

The price is partly to blame for the design, it has to be cheaper to make than the G4.
Apple needed to get the price down and it impacted the outcome.

Ian

[D'Espice]

Originally posted by Parky:
Again for me and many 'home' users who just use, Mail, Word, iMovie, iTunes etc I'm not bothered about the Graphics card. I don't do heavy graphics stuff.

I am so glad somebody finally said that. If you want a gaming machine, get a PC. They're cheaper and faster in terms of computer games anyway. I couldn't actually care less about the video card, I myself still have an old Radeon 9000 in my computer - I would have a Radeon 7000 if it would work in my mainboard which it doesn't.
The iMac is not a Mac for gamers, it's a computer for people who like taking things out of the box and simply use it. For gaming, there are lots of better alternatives including the PowerMac, consoles or PCs running Windows. All three are better suited for gaming, the iMac is a computer for daily business like word processing, browsing, writing mails and stuff like that.

I have to admit one thing tho, the iMac does look better in real life than it does on those horrible Apple renderings. I still don't like it very much tho, I've been considering to get the G5 iMac but now that I see it my lust for it is actually fading by the minute.
Plus, other than in the US, it's not really cheap in Germany. 1370 Euro for the cheapest one, the 20" even goes for 2000 Euro. Given the current exchange rate that's US $1660 for the cheapest one and more than US $2400 for the 20" model. Now that ain't cheap at all.

[hldan]

Flat out amazing how most people here are complaining more about the iMac's asthetics and complaining the least about the specs. Well, it's about time!!!

Finally Apple made something where the consumers are not too upset at the speed of the machine. Very nicely spec'd machine. Great G5 speed, great memory speed, great graphics, super fast system bus and the prices are way lower this time.

Get real here people, that's what the computer is really for. We just expect Apple to have great looking asthetics because of their past reputation. Show me an "All in One" Wintel box that looks better and cleaner than this and I may consider paying for your next Macintosh purchase.
Most Wintel boxes still get props for speed no matter how bad they look, now Apple gives us speed and a clean design and wall mountable and those live pics look awesome.
http://homepage.mac.com/morgan68/App...toAlbum31.html

I notice that some people here love to complain more than praise. Just know that whatever Apple does some other company will try and copy it but never suceed. That's how you can tell when Apple does a good job. Every Mac has tried to be copied especially by Sony.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally posted by Krusty:
... because that's what they put in this enclosure ?? Seriously, this is just the next logical speed step in the iMac line. He may not "need" for this to contain a G5 as opposed to a G4, but that's what this enclosure was designed around.

My point is more that it's kind of fuzzy logic to say that the G5 is necessary in a "consumer" machine just because it's the next iteration of Mac processor technology, regardless of any real "consumer" need for a more powerful chip, while at the same time saying that a more modern video card isn't necessary because people don't need it.

Other than that, I actually really like the specs of the new iMac. It would just be nice if Apple at least made the video card in the iMac upgradable, to further distinguish it from the eMac, and to not force me to pay an extra $800-$1,000 for upgradability.

[eddiecatflap]

so there's now c. $800 ( �500 ) difference between the top imac and the low end powermac ?

hahah

good lord

the g5 power mac is utterly stunning in every way , no contest

i predict this mac is a total disaster

[D'Espice]

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey:
My point is more that it's kind of fuzzy logic to say that the G5 is necessary in a "consumer" machine just because it's the next iteration of Mac processor technology, regardless of any real "consumer" need for a more powerful chip, while at the same time saying that a more modern video card isn't necessary because people don't need it.

The point is that a user will certainly notice an increase in performance between a G4 and a G5 processor. That is, every user will. Not only gamers but even my grandma writing an email will notice how everything gets a little faster.
On the other hand, would she have a GeForce 6800 Ultra video card with 256MB instead of the 5200 with 64MB, she wouldn't notice a thing. Nothing at all, that's the point.

The bottom line is: Faster CPU = good for all users. Faster GPU = good for a few users, unnecessary expense for most users.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by selowitch:
I'm so glad somebody finally said this.

Who wouldn't rather play Doom III on an Xbox?

...

Sorry, slightly off-topic.

It's not off-topic at all.

I said sth. similar in a different thread earlier.
That whole bitchin' about the graphics card is on my freakin' nerves.
Everywhere, people complain about it. You gamers, just STFU !

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...58#post2158454

-t

[Mike656]

Originally posted by neverwind:
Really, even Ti books had gigabit ethernet...(that was 5 years ago).

FYI the first TiBook came out in Jan 2001, and lacked gigabit ethernet until Oct 2001 (2 years 10 months).

www.apple-history.com

[Betox]

I love it!! Nice design...

[eddiecatflap]

if games are not important , why does apple talk about them so much in the imac presentation , ie: unreal and halo ??

it's a sad fact , but to play games at anywhere near pc levels you have to spend a fortune in macland

the new imac just doesn't cut it

[wowway1]

Good pricepoint, that's the positive.

What I really wanted in a design is that of the new alum. displays. Thin bezel, could have been 3" deep for all I care, as long as it tilts AND pivots. Bummer. I'll wait for the G5 PB thanks.

[Evan_11]

Looks great. Very mod friendly design for those inclining types. I can see people working with the facade. You could turn this into a flower power iMac. I can also see Apple implimenting that chameleon technology they recently patented. You could make the whole thing glow pink if you so desired! Eliminate the wasteful inventory of multiple color codes and make it as easy to change as your desktop wallpaper.

I also see this design eventually going in the tablet direction. Just install a battery and a touch screen and wala! And the cool thing is that when they do this and do it for under $1500 they'll also attract the power user crowd who wants something to add to their creative design tool set.

[Parky]

Originally posted by eddiecatflap:
if games are not important , why does apple talk about them so much in the imac presentation , ie: unreal and halo ??

it's a sad fact , but to play games at anywhere near pc levels you have to spend a fortune in macland

the new imac just doesn't cut it

They talk about games because they have to cover as many uses as possible and it's easy to quote game performance.

As a games machine it's respectable, only hard core games are going to be disappointed.

Ian

[AMDB7]

Originally posted by Parky:
I also suspect that in the flesh it will be much better.
When you see the quality of the materials, the reflections on the shiny case, the scale compared to it's surroundings and the quality of the 20" screen and when you can touch it and feel the tactile properties feelings will change.

Ian

I second that. Traditionally it has really been in the details that Apple's design shines, and I have no doubt that this iMac will have the details to make it stand out.

[osxisfun]

ahhh if its the first day of an apple expo... its must be bitch day.

Seriously, this is a perfect computer for the market it is intended for.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by wowway1:
Good pricepoint, that's the positive.

What I really wanted in a design is that of the new alum. displays. Thin bezel, could have been 3" deep for all I care, as long as it tilts AND pivots. Bummer. I'll wait for the G5 PB thanks.

Pointless bitch there. The bezel fits the internals. Besides I think it looks great. Read my above post and get a clue!

[Parky]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
ahhh if its the first day of an apple expo... its must be bitch day.

Seriously, this is a perfect computer for the market it is intended for.

AT LAST - EXACTLY!!

[Parky]

Originally posted by wowway1:
Good pricepoint, that's the positive.

What I really wanted in a design is that of the new alum. displays. Thin bezel, could have been 3" deep for all I care, as long as it tilts AND pivots. Bummer. I'll wait for the G5 PB thanks.

Not sure how the PB Pivots ! Won't you have the same problem ?

At least with the G5 iMac you can turn the screen round and the keyboard does not go with it.

[Luca Rescigno]

2bl post

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
The bottom line is: Faster CPU = good for all users. Faster GPU = good for a few users, unnecessary expense for most users.

Exactly right. Although, it would be nice if you could at least have the option for a better card. Say, $150 or $200 extra for a 128 MB Radeon 9800 (maybe even just a 9800 SE, it's slower but still very good). That's the main disadvantage over the PC counterparts - the price/performance is now actually pretty good, with a fast processor, DVD burner, widescreen LCD, and so on for a good price, but there are almost no BTO options.

[velocitychannel]

Originally posted by hldan:
Flat out amazing how most people here are complaining more about the iMac's asthetics and complaining the least about the specs. Well, it's about time!!!

Finally Apple made something where the consumers are not too upset at the speed of the machine. Very nicely spec'd machine. Great G5 speed, great memory speed, great graphics, super fast system bus and the prices are way lower this time.

Get real here people, that's what the computer is really for. We just expect Apple to have great looking asthetics because of their past reputation. Show me an "All in One" Wintel box that looks better and cleaner than this and I may consider paying for your next Macintosh purchase.
Most Wintel boxes still get props for speed no matter how bad they look, now Apple gives us speed and a clean design and wall mountable and those live pics look awesome.
http://homepage.mac.com/morgan68/App...toAlbum31.html

I notice that some people here love to complain more than praise. Just know that whatever Apple does some other company will try and copy it but never suceed. That's how you can tell when Apple does a good job. Every Mac has tried to be copied especially by Sony.

This is true. Thanks for saying it. Personally, it is tiring reading posts from all these Armchair CEO's.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by Macrat:
Anyone know the viewing angle specs for the old 17"? The new one looks pretty bad:

Typical viewing angle:

* 17-inch models
o 120�� horizontal
o 90�� vertical
* 20-inch model
o 170�� horizontal
o 170�� vertical

Personally, I never use my computer unless I am sitting infront of it.

[Sparkletron]

Originally posted by Parky:
I also don't understand why people want to use a computer to play games, when the consoles do it so much better for not much cash.

Well allow me to enlighten you!

First, there's just no way a console can compare to a PC. Gigs of RAM and the latest CPU and graphics card? I don't think so...

Serious gamers have PCs that are tricked out, my friend, and you can feel the difference when you're zapping your enemies in BF Vietnam.

And then there's the convenience factor. Since you have to have a PC for Web and email and WP, why not for games as well? One system is easier to manage than two.

Finally, there's the psychological factor. I play games but I sure as shooting don't like to admit it--even to myself. This is especially true when I should be using that time on more noble pursuits like writing my representatives to complain about my taxes. With a console, there's just no getting around the fact that you have invested in a dedicated game machine. A toy. Contrast this with playing the occasional game every now and then on your PC, stretching your fingers, so to speak, while your important letters of state are printing or what have you. Why you'd hardly call that game playing at all!

Get it?

-S

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
Get it?

Yes. The message is:

Hardcore gamers, get a PC and stop bitchin' !

-t

[WizOSX]

A number of people have expressed a desire for upgradable video in the iMac. There is a major problem with this--upgradable in what way?

1) If you want an AGP slot that will hold off the shelf video cards then you have two major problems--the same problems that Apple ran into with the Cube. Video cards generate lots of heat and can be very large. Apple "solved" those problems with the Cube by severely limiting what kind of video card could be put in and as a consequence people will now pay hundreds of dollars for very weak, old cards to put in their aging Cubes just to get any upgradability. That, to me, is not really upgradability.

2) If you just want the ability to increase the memory from 64mb to 128mb then Apple would have to add something to the initial price of the machine to include that option. And most really aren't wiling to pay, say $50 extra, on the machine initially just so they can possibly pay to add another 64mb later.

3) If you want a specialized, removable video card that is built just for a low heat, low noise, compact Mac, that will increase the cost of the machine initially and will be very expensive to upgrade later. Again, not worthwhile.

Really, the options for this kind of Mac is the same as for a PowerBook--use a chipset that doesn't generate too much heat or use too much power but still has acceptable performance for the majority of users. And then probably you still have to throttle the video a bit to make it more usable in the form factor. But upgradability just doesn't seem reasonable in this kind of machine.

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
Well allow me to enlighten you!

First, there's just no way a console can compare to a PC. Gigs of RAM and the latest CPU and graphics card? I don't think so...

Serious gamers... (the rest is snipped)

That's it. That's the difference. Serious gamers do not buy iMacs. They do not buy Sony Viao all-in-ones and they do not buy "family level" computers.

People who buy family computers will play occasional games on their computer or they'll already have a Playstation/Xbox.

People who want a machine on which to play the latest and greatest games will buy a fully-expandable tower. They want upgradable RAM, video, HD, display, etc.

While I know some people here would like an iMac that had more oomph, remember that we here tend to be "power users" for the most part, and expect higher-end equipment. Also, Apple (and every other consumer electronics designer) don't develop in a vacuum. Apple, no doubt, has conducted hundreds of focus groups/user surveys to come up with the best compromise possible. We don't want to go back to the days of the billion-configuration Performas, do we?

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Yes. The message is:

Hardcore gamers, get a PC and stop bitchin' !

-t

Thank you. It is like buying a boat and being pissed off you can't drive on the road with it.

[Cincinnatus]

It is strange to be sure, why its not included, as the cost difference is seemingly negligible, and its inclusion would future proof the machine (well, at least for networking - until 10Gbit is available). BTO would probably not work well with the form factor, as Apple would have to make the ENET module swappable on the assembly line...so why not spring for the extra $10 (retail, so wholesale would probably be cheaper) for Gigabit.

If my office is any indication, larger organizations only recently deployed FastEthernet to the desktop. The switches for non Data Center servers are only 10/100. Gigabit would be nice, to be sure, but unless you have the infrastructure in place (including cableing that can handle the increased signal frequency), or can go out and purchase your own gigabit switch (16-32 ports in the case of workgroups, 8 ports for most home use), gigabit on a consumer computer will not, on balance, be widely used at home, or even in dorms connected to a university's LAN. The educational market is a bit of a fuzzy area to me though - neverwind makes an interesting argument: The exclusion of this feature could prevent the adoption of this new model iMac in particular markets where it might otherwise be ideal.

/Cincinnatus