[Commodus]

I figure that it's only a matter of time before people start posting MacWorld San Francisco predictions in earnest, so we might as well have a thread ready to go for those who want to put in their two cents.

As we all know, on the day of the MWSF 2003 keynote speech it will have been about a year to the day that the new iMac was introduced, and aside from the 17" model we haven't seen an update since then. That almost certainly guarantees an update being announced at the keynote this year.

With that being said, what do you think will happen to the iMac for early 2003? CPU speed boosts are likely, but what about connection options like Firewire 2 and USB 2? Will they repeat what happened with the iMac and introduce different colours, or will Apple differentiate iMacs through things like display sizes?

You can feel free to make your predictions however you like, just so long as you're polite while you do so.

Here's what I think would be realistic (as of when I'm posting):


CD-RW

867 MHz G4 processor
133 MHz system bus (slightly necessary!)
256 MB of PC133 memory standard
64 MB GeForce 4 MX video
60 GB hard drive
Firewire 2 and USB 2 ports
OS X 10.2 (won't boot OS 9)
15" LCD display
$1199

Combo

867 MHz G4 processor
133 MHz system bus
256 MB of PC133 memory
64 MB GeForce 4 MX
80 GB hard drive
Firewire 2 and USB 2 ports
OS X 10.2 (won't boot OS 9)
Apple Pro Speakers
17" LCD display
$1499

Superdrive (with the new 4X Pioneer drive)

1 GHz G4 processor
133 MHz system bus
256 MB of PC133 memory
64 MB GeForce 4 MX
120 GB hard drive
Firewire 2 and USB 2 ports
OS X 10.2 (won't boot OS 9)
Apple Pro Speakers
17" LCD display
$1699


After that, it's up in the air for me... they may release a 19" model, but I think it would be more logical of them to just put in an "ultimate" variant of the Superdrive iMac with more memory.

Colours would be debatable, but they could be very nice if done tastefully. A silver or slate gray (or even something like blue!) metallic colouring would retain the stylish look while giving choices to those who aren't the biggest fans of "snow" iMacs.

Your turn.

[gumby5647]

The best thing for Apple to do would be to standardize on one motherboard design.

Every mobo would have:
1Ghz CPU (1.13GHz would be even better)
256k L2
1MB L3 (SDRAM)
4x AGP
64MB GPU
256MB in the lower slot

The only difference would be Optical drive. Similar to what the iBook did when it first came out. Except that if you ordered from the apple store, you can BTO what optical drive, how much RAM, and what size hard drive.

I think it's becoming pretty clear that the iMac is becoming the Cube II. AKA the "prosumer" model. And if that's the case, then lets give the thing some Prosumer specs and BTO options.

[Commodus]

Bumping this up a notch, just in case there's any danger of it slipping off the main page...

[Simon]

Originally posted by Commodus:
...
Here's what I think would be realistic (as of when I'm posting):
...

I like your suggestions. However I doubt Apple will be that bold.

64MB GPUs: I don't think so. I'd expect 32MB. The PowerMacs start at a GF4MX with 64MB. I can't imagine Apple would be so generous toward iMac users.

FireWire 2: I don't think Apple sees the need for this on an iMac now. Maybe on pro machines, but I wouldn't expect to see it on an iMac first. I also don't think Apple will roll out FW2 on the PowerMacs till maybe April/May if at all.

USB 2: This could happen on an iMac first but I don't think Apple is very keen on implementing an Intel standard which is in competition with their own FW standard. The way I judge Apple, they think USB is for the mouse, the keyboard and maybe an inkjet printer. If you want higher bandwidth peripherals, take FireWire.

Again, I like your prediction and I'd enjoy seeing it happen, but I'm skeptical when it comes to Apple doing such an update.

[Commodus]

I'll admit that the 64 MB is a bit of a stretch, but I don't think it's TOO radical. Remember that PowerMacs still had 32 MB GF2 MX cards standard when the flat-panel iMac was introduced with what is essentially the same hardware. The cost of the GF4 MX is low enough now that their inclusion (even with 64 MB of memory) isn't a foregone conclusion.

There's always the possibility that they stratify the graphics memory levels depending on the model you get, just like we have now with the PowerMac, Powerbook, and iBook. They could have 32 MB of memory on at least the base model, and go to 64 MB for the Superdrive model.

As for Firewire 2 and USB 2, I wouldn't be surprised if they were saved as "power user" features, but it also wouldn't be a shock if Apple introduced them on the iMac first. It's the centre of their "digital hub," after all, and so you want to be sure that someone can stick in their digital camera or MP3 player and be sure that it will work at full speed. The iMac can't really be upgraded internally beyond extra memory and AirPort, either, so being able to use something like a Firewire 2 hard disk would be great. PowerMac users will always have the option of adding or replacing an internal hard disk, among other components.

[libraryguy]

I really don't have a guess on what will be introduced at MacWorld except for iMovie 3.0. It's been at least two years since it was last updated. Apple must have been doing something with it in that time! I'm guessing we'll see iMovie 3.0 at MacWorld and it will be totally awsome! They'ev had two years to work on it. I don't know what new features Apple has up their sleve but I bet it'll rock! Oh, and the iMacs will probably get and update or something too.

[Proudest Monkey]

my iMac predictions (wishes), take them for what you will ...

Combo Drive

867MHz G4
133MHz System Bus
256MB RAM
64 MB GeForce 4 MX video
60GB HD
Firewire and USB
Bluetooth
OS X 10.2 - no OS 9, just classic
15" LCD Display
$1199.00 (wouldn't we love to see $1099.00 though?)

Combo Drive

867MHz G4
133MHz System Bus
512MB RAM
80GB HD
Firewire and USB
Bluetooth
OS X 10.2 - no OS 9, just classic
17" LCD Display
$1399.00

Super Drive

1.0GHz G4
133MHz System Bus
512MB RAM
100GB HD
Firewire and USB
Bluetooth
OS X 10.2 - no OS 9, just classic
17" LCD Display
$1699.00

To be introduced later as the current 17" model was

Superdrive
1.0GHz G4
133MHz System Bus
512MB RAM
100GB HD
Firewire and USB
Bluetooth
OS X 10.2 - no OS 9, just classic
19" LCD Display
$1999.00

I think we'll see at least combo drives in everything from here on out as Apple has started to put the restore disc and such on DVD. my prices me be lower, but i definitely think we need to see at least 512MB in the high end models. open to criticism ...

one last wish -- can we finally see a 2 button mouse? i wish apple would just use logitech optical mouses and stamp a white apple logo on it, make it translucent also. i've been using logitech optical 2 button mouses for almost 2 years now. is apple worried they may lose money bc they could no longer charge $60.00 for a mouse? c'mon apple.

[CheesePuff]

iMac G4
� 800 MHz PowerPC G4 Processor
� 133 MHz System Bus Speed
� 64k L1 | 512k L2 cache
� 256 MB PC133 RAM
� 40 GB 5400 RPM Ultra ATA/66 Drive
� ATI Radeon 7500 32 MB DDR AGP 4x
� 15.0" TFT XGA LCD @ 1024x768
� 24x10x32 CD-RW Drive
$999.00

iMac G4
� 800 MHz PowerPC G4 Processor
� 133 MHz System Bus Speed
� 64k L1 | 512k L2 cache
� 256 MB PC133 RAM
� 40 GB 5400 RPM Ultra ATA/66 Drive
� ATI Radeon 7500 32 MB DDR AGP 4x
� 15.0" TFT XGA LCD @ 1024x768
� 16x10x32x8 CD-RW/DVD-ROM ComboDrive
$1,199.00

iMac G4
� 1 GHz PowerPC G4 Processor
� 133 MHz System Bus Speed
� 64k L1 | 512k L2 cache
� 512 MB PC133 RAM
� 60 GB 5400 RPM Ultra ATA/66 Drive
� nVidia GeForce4 MX 64 MB DDR AGP 4x
� 15.0" TFT XGA LCD @ 1024x768
� 10x8x24x8x4x2 CD-RW/DVD-RW SuperDrive
$1,499.00

iMac G4
� 1 GHz PowerPC G4 Processor
� 133 MHz System Bus Speed
� 64k L1 | 512k L2 cache
� 512 MB PC133 RAM
� 80 GB 5400 RPM Ultra ATA/66 Drive
� nVidia GeForce4 MX 64 MB DDR AGP 4x
� 17.0" TFT XGA LCD @ 1440x900
� 10x8x24x8x4x2 CD-RW/DVD-RW SuperDrive
$1,699.00

[Commodus]

The 19" display is always a contentious rumour (and it's been passed around for awhile, too), but it's an interesting thought. Would it be widescreen, or a standard 4:3 ratio? Would the iMac look a little too disproportioned (the display dwarfing the actual computer itself)? Things like that.

Personally, I'd rather have the 17" displays filter down the line, like you suggested. It's just big enough, and by now is probably less expensive for Apple (or Apple's contracted manufacturers) to produce.

[gumby5647]

G4's with 512k L2 won't be ready by MWNY...

[Superchicken]

I predict.... flying monkies...

nah uhh...
prolly high end Ghz, DVD burner, 17 inch, possibly built in blue tooth but I kinda dout it since the iBook didn't get it either...

I'm thinking that this is gona be something similar to the Rev Cs minor upgrade with something grovey like colour... and more speed, and then after that for MWNYish we'll see new iBooks and new iMacs.

But if Apple doesn't at least hit 1Ghz I'm gona be very very very unhappy... just cause I like the idea of pondering speed

My next comp'll be an iBook anyway I need it for college... but in my second year I would like to be able to purchase a nice 17incher iMac.

[Xtraz]

Given the fact that the top of the line iMac and the pre-Ghz Ti books were pretty comparable (800Mhz, GeForce 4MX vs 800Mhz + L3, Radeon 7500). I would imagine the iMac should be given a bump of a similar magnitude.

I think we'll definitely get 1GHz. Question is, are they going to have L3 cache in it too?

Considering the powerbook bumps also included a price cut, a price cut for the iMacs may well be possible too.

As for the video card, how does the GeForce 4MX compare with the Radeon 9000? Would it be feasible for Apple to put a better video card in?

I really want an iMac but I feel the current edition just doesn't pack enough punch to it.

[Commodus]

Apple will probably go to a 133 MHz front-side bus before they add L3 cache to the iMac; it's most likely less expensive than adding that extra memory.

The GF4 MX is generally a bit slower than the Radeon 9000 Pro, and doesn't have the pixel shader ability (i.e. you wouldn't be able to run Doom 3 with full detail, for example). So having a Radeon 9000 Pro would be very nice indeed - if Apple can justify the cost. They may repeat what they did this year and put the high-end video (a 9000 Pro) in their "ultimate" model, while the rest get GF4 MX video.

[Xtraz]

Damn, I was hoping they might put in the new Radeon 9500 Pro in say the top-of-the-line machine. I'd so be willing to get one if that happens.

I played with the current iMac/17" and wasn't impressed with both its speed and the GeForce 4MX.

Come on Apple surprise us.

[gumby5647]

Originally posted by Commodus:
Apple will probably go to a 133 MHz front-side bus before they add L3 cache to the iMac; it's most likely less expensive than adding that extra memory.

Bah! It probably costs less than 5 bucks to put 1MB of L3 on the logicboard....

[lAwrencex]

what would you guys say are the odds of apple releasing the new imac in different colors at macworld? im defintely buying one in january but some new colors would defintely be nice.

[Coxy]

Originally posted by gumby5647:


Bah! It probably costs less than 5 bucks to put 1MB of L3 on the logicboard....

SRAm is pretty expensive, although with economies of scale it wouldn't be over the top, I'd imagine. The main problem, however, is the mobo redesign that adding L3 cache would require. I think a 133 MHz bus is more likely, possibly with CPUs up to 1 GHz or maybe 933.

[Xtraz]

Hmm at UCLA Store,
I can get an iMac/17" with 3 year Applecare for $1699
or
a DP 867 with Apple Studio Display 17" for $1899

These are both pretty sweet deals (and I'm trying hard not to cave in because I love the design of the iMac but hates its video card). But my question is, we know iMacs are definitely getting updated, so the discount makes sense, but does this also hint that PowerMacs are getting updated also?

[CheesePuff]

The Power Mac G4s will be updated at the end of January 2003.

The iMacs are one of the few (or only) Macs in the Steve Jobs secomd comming era whichg lasted one year without an update.

[CheesePuff]

Also, I think that a 1 GHz PowerPC G4 with a 133 MHz system bus will greatly increase speed, and if they make it a SuperDrive for $1,499 and the 17" for $1,799 then we have a winner.

Oh, and since MacMall and what have you are selling the iMac 700 MHz CD-RW for $999, Apple should lower it to that price in the next update.

[Commodus]

One thing's for sure about an iMac update is that there won't be a return to the ostentatious colours the iMac got in 1999. I talked about Apple possibly going with subtler colour options (silver or slate grey), but they could theoretically even do metallic colours without looking like they're kids' toys. A metallic deep-blue iMac? Maybe...

This update promises to be interesting, since not only has it been a year since the iMac was updated, it's the very first year. Many manufacturers will try substantial changes to a popular product in order to keep it going, and here it may very much be worthwhile.

[Commodus]

C'mon, less than a month to go and only 20 posts (some of those mine)? Let's get some extra debate going, here.

[gumby5647]

Originally posted by Coxy:


SRAm is pretty expensive, although with economies of scale it wouldn't be over the top, I'd imagine. The main problem, however, is the mobo redesign that adding L3 cache would require. I think a 133 MHz bus is more likely, possibly with CPUs up to 1 GHz or maybe 933.

i totally agree with you here. But i like to argue anyway..

Apple is going to have to redesign the motherboard anyways for a 133Mhz bus, why not tack on 1MB of L3. Hell, it could even be SDRAM instead of DDR....anything will help until Moto can shrink the die size down to .13nm and put 512k of L2 on cache.

[Coxy]

Going to a 133 MHz bus would not require a logic board redesign unless they've used components that can't run at 133 MHz without changing dimensions.

Adding a L3 cache made out of DDR or SDRAM to save on costs would be pointless. Apple already gets lambasted enough for adding DDRRAM to the towers, which would they use DRAM for a cache?

[Xtraz]

I sincerely doubt they'll use the same motherboard for a second year. I think we'll definitely see 133Mhz bus. Also, I'm wondering what the implication of "new macs in 2003 will no longer boot into OS 9" is. Does this mean a fundamental change in the logic board?

[gumby5647]

Originally posted by Coxy:
Going to a 133 MHz bus would not require a logic board redesign unless they've used components that can't run at 133 MHz without changing dimensions.

Adding a L3 cache made out of DDR or SDRAM to save on costs would be pointless. Apple already gets lambasted enough for adding DDRRAM to the towers, which would they use DRAM for a cache?

The L3 in the Towers is DDR RAM. But ive heard that it's expensive. Ive also heard that you can substitute SDRAM instead of DDR to lower costs....thats what Newer Tech or Powerlogic or Sonnet is doing. ( i can't remember which one)

But yes, im almost 99.9% positive that the new iMac will have a 133Mhz bus. The real question then is, do they skip ahead and make it DDR?

[Superchicken]

Unless Moto has come out with a way to make the G4s capable of using DDR RAM apple would be stupid to add DDR to the iMac.

I don't see apple adding much as far as Cache or anything like that, the orignal iMac went two years and then got a bus emprovement... then again it's been on 100Mhz for three years so... whatever
But seriously I think the changes to this line will be rather minor and then either in the summer or next winter we'll see REAL changes like from the Rev Ds to the slot loaders.

[gumby5647]

Unless Moto has come out with a way to make the G4s capable of using DDR RAM apple would be stupid to add DDR to the iMac.

well, what i meant was DDR a la the Xserve/powermac way...

[Coxy]

Originally posted by gumby5647:


The L3 in the Towers is DDR RAM. But ive heard that it's expensive. Ive also heard that you can substitute SDRAM instead of DDR to lower costs....thats what Newer Tech or Powerlogic or Sonnet is doing. ( i can't remember which one)

It's SRAM! The techspecs page on apple.com/powermac says DDR SRAM, which I've never heard of, but it does use SRAM for the L3 cache. They'd be crazy not to.

From Apple's Developer Docs:
"models also have an external level 3 (L3) backside cache. The L3 cache consists of 2 MB of high-speed SRAM."

[ApeInTheShell]

i'm too lazy to repeat people so here it goes.
You'll most likely see 800,933,and maybe a 1 ghz model later on in the year.
Than further down the line it'll be PowerPC 970 or AMD something in the pro models and PowerPC G4 in the consumer models. Until Power Mac's get a 128 graphics card the iMac will stay at 32mb
The gap will clean up the confusion that the pc industry faces today.

It's doubtful that the new iMac will have any kind of color theme. Unless it matches Mac OS X and has pin stripes.

I don't guess at ram or L2,L3 cache cause you have more knowledge on that subject.

They'll do the 17" standard across the board with combo and superdrive models.
Than probably sell the 700 mhz 15" for $1099 like the current emac. The reason the emac wouldn't drop lower would be they are in a different family.

The late iMac G3 model will be either lowered to $499 or sent to parts and more.

Perhaps we'll see another non computer device appear too.

[PorscheBunny]

MacOSRumors is claiming that iMacs and eMacs get speed-bumped to 1 GHz at MWSF.

Then again, they smoke more crack before 9 am than most people smoke all week, so who knows?

[morgantruce]

I just have a hunch that it will be announced that iMacs will begin shipping with some kind of new "mouse" that isn't a mouse at all--no buttons, no optics, no wheels--and is operated by something a bit closer to your brain than your hand.

Dream about that killer peripheral some...

Gene
wayupahollerin West Virginia

[mamamia]

i truly believe that apple will do somewthing for the imac other than simply bump the internals. the imac has always been about style innovation, either in form or color. with this most recent imac (practically a year old!) they nailed the first part of the formula just like they did with the original imac. it would make perfect sense for them to adress the second in this newest iteration. a black imac, with lucite highlights, would seriously tempt me. maybe even change the texture of the plastic, have internal lighting, etc.

do i have any takers?

[mikerally]

This will sound new, but...

Why don't they drop the CD-RW model?

<ducks as all the people start shouting back 'what the lkjdfsl!'>

I seriously refuse to believe there's much of a difference in the cost to produce a Combo and CD-RW model?

Say what? an extra $50 bucks to put a Combo drive in there instead of a CD-RW at most?

I understand that there's more than just the drive difference between the models (more ram, faster processor, bigger hard drive).

But I'm sure it wouldn't take much to standardise DVD throughout the line.

As for the arguement the CD-RWs are just plain cheaper and faster, Combo drives have moved on a bit - the one in the iBooks can write CDs at 16x (and that's a laptop combo drive) - I'm sure the desktop combo drives can write CDs at a more competitive speed - and yet be available at a good price.

It's just a thought, I've been quite unhappy with Apple and the fact that they haven't properly propergated DVD throughout their hardware line - ever since they decided to drop DVD from the Original iMac in favour of CD-RW. Apple still seems to be latching on to the old traditional CD-ROM drives too - come on it wouldn't cost much more to put a standard DVD-ROM drive in it's place (probably about $10 more) - but no they put CD-ROM drives in base models. Just how committed are Apple to DVD - I have real doubt believing all their Superdrive hype when they can't even outfit base models with a standard DVD-ROM.

Anyway, they've dropped the CD-RW only drives in the iBook (made common sense really - everyone wants to play DVDs on their laptop) as most people went for the Combo drive anyway.

[iDaver]

I bought a low-end FP iMac for my desk at work. I have no need for playing DVDs but do have need to burn CDs. An extra $50 for a combo drive would have been a waste. I'm glad the CDRW only option was available. Lots of folks have no need for video, and that includes SuperDrives, especially in a business environment. Choices are good.

[mikerally]

Ok I understand the whole arguement about: I want an iMac with just a CD-RW because I will save $xxx for features I will not use - and even if Apple could offer a Combo drive for no extra money - I would rather Apple lower the price of the iMac before making the Combo drive compulsary.

But wait...

Isn't the iMac an overpriced and underpowered product line anyway?

Surely wouldn't those wanting to save money for features they do not use would go for the eMac instead?

Does the idea of not paying for what you do not use even apply to the iMac line - after all if people are willing to fork out over $1000 for an iMac would making of saving an extra $50 mean much to the purchase?

[Commodus]

mikerally:

You're right in that the money shouldn't make too much of a difference - if Apple were the sort to just differentiate in drive models rather than additional specs.

I can see why Apple is doing what they are with the iMac lineup at the moment. If you're a no-frills person, you only really need the CD-RW model and can buy memory separately if you need a bit more (the iMac may be overpriced now, but its configuration probably wasn't that overpriced when new). On the other hand, if you want the DVD functions of the Combo drive model, chances are that you're going to want better sound (hence the Pro Speakers) and more memory (256 instead of 128) to keep it all humming along smoothly. The Combo drive model thus becomes the base model for the media junkie.

And why the iMac and not the eMac? Well, you said that people shouldn't pay for what they don't use. But what if you don't want all the extra noise, space and weight that come with the eMac? Then you shouldn't have to pay the premium on speakers you might not want, memory which will likely get replaced...

Now as much as this might initially sound like an endorsement of everything Apple has done, I for one wouldn't mind if Apple improved the specs on the base model to include a Combo drive (even if it still uses a 15" screen), so long as they can keep or lower the price when they do so. People wouldn't see the base-model iMac as a "two steps forward, one step back" option, even if most people wouldn't ever actually use the DVD functions.

[Getoverit]

Please! Does anyone besides apple use 5400 drives in their boxes? I put a 7200 ibm in my imac400 dvse. Jag runs fine and its quiet. Apple should update the g3 imac. 1gig G3 with 7200rpm drive and 32megvram! For $899






Below From Forbes

But the latest rumors suggest that several software updates are due, including the addition of videoconferencing capability to the iChat application launched earlier this year. The Sherlock Internet utility will likely get some new additions, including the ability to search the Web via Google.com and track UPS (nyse: UPS - news - people ) packages, among others. Apple is said to be working on its own Web browser software. And, reportedly, Apple's all-new machines will have Bluetooth wireless connection capabilities integrated. Also, expect some new hardware updates, including speed bumps to the iMac and eMac computer lines, and a larger screen for the flat-panel iMac.

[Lateralus]

Apple has been trying hard to keep up with Moores Law of doubling the CPU speed every 18 months... Atleast, since the 500MHz fiasco ended.

Come MacWorld, it will have been one year since the last iMac revision, and if Apple intends to keep with Moores Law as they have, we will need to see 1.2GHz G4's, atleast. And I think it is entirely feasable, especially if Apple wants to go as long as possible before coming out with the third revision of the LCD iMac.

My predictions;

iMac = $1,199.
1GHz G4.
60GB HD.
133MHz bus.
256MB's of SDRAM.
32MB GeForce 4MX.
CD-RW/DVD Combo Drive.
15" LCD.

iMac = $1,599.
1GHz G4.
100GB HD.
133MHz bus.
512MB's of SDRAM.
64MB GeForce 4MX.
SuperDrive.
17" LCD.

iMac = $1,899.
1.2GHz G4.
160GB HD.
133MHz bus.
512MB's of RAM.
(Video card other than GeForce 4MX)
Faster SuperDrive.
17" LCD.

[TimeOnMyHands]

I just want two things. At least a one gig chip and the ability to rotate the screen 90 degrees.

The iMac needs something for a "wow factor". How great would that be? So many programs seem to naturally fit a vertical layout. I know that there was some issue with why this couldn't happen with the video cards, but come on, they've had a year to make it work.

Do that and I order on Jan. 7th.

[docholiday]

Originally posted by TimeOnMyHands:
I just want two things. At least a one gig chip and the ability to rotate the screen 90 degrees.

I'd order 2 rite away!!

[sabbath999]

The last post got me to thinking. How about putting a "pivot" on the imac flat panel, so that it could rotate to verticle. A tiny sensor would change the software to reorient it's self. Would be DEAD easy, cost next to no money and be WAY cool. Many stand alone flat panels can already do this (manual software, though).

[TimeOnMyHands]

I whipped up this craptacular picture. Tell me you don't want it!

[Xtraz]

Of course, the arm length wouldn't change so the pivot point of the screen should stay at exactly the same place. I guess the screen can hit the table when you rotate it in the bottom position.

But you know what would be absolutely awesome?

If they made mounts for the thing to be hung upside down. Just imagine, iMacs hanging from a shelf or something. There's a shelf right above my table that would be PERFECT for that. AND I'll have basically all my deskspace back if I want to by putting the screen away.

[Group51]

Originally posted by TimeOnMyHands:
I whipped up this craptacular picture. Tell me you don't want it!

Hmm. That base better be heavy.

I predict:

Built-in Bluetooth
Colour iPods and updated iMovie/iPhoto/iCal/iSync/iTunes to go with it.
New iWorks to replace AppleWorks, or just AW7.

Don't believe my predictions though!

[Sven G]

Originally posted by TimeOnMyHands:
I whipped up this craptacular picture. Tell me you don't want it!

This is a must for the iMac - and would make it a unique computer!

[Commodus]

A display which would rotate into a portrait mode would be nice, but I don't know if it would be essential. How many people seriously buy rotating displays with the intent to use them? Publishers, maybe, but the computer "for the rest of us" doesn't necessarily need to focus on that.

I've been thinking about whether or not Apple will make a slot-loading version of the iMac, and at this point I think the answer is "no." If any desktop-level slot-loading drives exist in the first place, they may not necessarily be 4X models. Better to stick with the tray and get the extra speed.

I also still stand by my initial predictions, except perhaps that the base-model iMac would have a 32 MB GeForce 4 MX card, while any 17" model gets a 64 MB version. I wouldn't discount the possibility that Apple makes a 15" CD-RW model at $999, even if they have to lower its specs (using a GF2 MX, perhaps).

[l008com]

I'm guessing 1 GHz, 17" across the board. Other small things too maybe. One idea is that, since these iMacs used full size optical drives, they could switch them over to the slot loading drives that are in the powerbooks, and have enough room to put a real full size video card in there, something you could upgrade. Highly unlikely but still, doable and cool. As for bigger displays, these LCDs really are feather light, and the iMacs base is alot bigger in person than it looks on the internet, and it is VERY heavy, so I'm sure there would be no trouble hanging a 19" on it, but I'm sure a 19" LCD would still be VERY expensive. Oh also I think they MUST include TwinView ability, so the external DVI port can function in Extended Desktop Mode, not just Mirrored. That would be a huge plus.

[Simon]

Originally posted by l008com:
Oh also I think they MUST include TwinView ability, so the external DVI port can function in Extended Desktop Mode, not just Mirrored. That would be a huge plus.

Well, an external DVI port would already be a large improvement. Current iMacs only have a VGA port...

[icruise]

DVI on the iMac is very unlikely, but you can use the extended monitor hack on the 17" imac (not the 15" models, apparently because of their video cards) to enable monitor spanning.