Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

skyman · Jul 9, 2002, 07:09 PM

<a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1040-942608.html?tag=fd_top" target="_blank">http://news.com.com/2100-1040-942608.html?tag=fd_top</a>

[ 07-09-2002, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: ]

Mac Boy · Jul 9, 2002, 07:13 PM

Guess who's next in line to loose their media badge...

tisk tisk tisk c-net.....

CheesePuff · Jul 9, 2002, 07:41 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mac Boy:
Guess who's next in line to loose their media badge...

tisk tisk tisk c-net.....<hr /></blockquote>They always say things like this.

Chimpmaster · Jul 9, 2002, 07:43 PM

Well I hope it doesnt cause trouble. GOod news for potential buyers though

Ill be sticking with my 15" g4 Imac for a few years no matter what though.

CheesePuff · Jul 9, 2002, 07:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chimpmaster:
Well I hope it doesnt cause trouble. GOod news for potential buyers though

Ill be sticking with my 15" g4 Imac for a few years no matter what though.

<hr /></blockquote>Even if they come out with a 3.0 GHz G4 iMac with 23" Cinema HD display for under $500?

babble · Jul 9, 2002, 07:54 PM

Wow! Now I'm surprised... I'll have to wait and see in a week. <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />

mitchell_pgh · Jul 9, 2002, 08:11 PM

Whoever wrote that article MUST surf this forum... It's like they book the best threads and made a little article out of them...

I can't wait for MPEG4 native... as it stands now, QT6 isn't 1/2 of what DivX is...

WHY DOESN'T APPLE JUST MAKE QT READ DIVX FILES NATIVE!

flatcatch · Jul 9, 2002, 08:24 PM

Well good for CNet for spilling this news item. I wouldn't want Jobs to be all proud of himself with a "Oh... and one more thing" line at the end of the keynote just to intro something like a 17" iMac LCD.

And as far as the media badge fiasco... I have to give IDG some right to enforce what makes a real journalism/media site. Anyone can register macsarereallyreallycool.com and post regurgitated news stories... doesn't make them real media sites. There needs to be some kind of prerequisite.

Ok, aside from my bitchiness above, it's nice to see the iMac getting a 17" LCD.

SOLIDAge · Jul 9, 2002, 08:43 PM

Well...that sucks
i want my new Powermacs...oh well i guess
a new iTunes would be cool...but still...uggg...oh well

Peder Rice · Jul 9, 2002, 08:59 PM

Guys, haven't you read that PowerMacs are then expected about one month after MWNY? So, you'll just have to wait another month. So what?

bullrat · Jul 9, 2002, 09:39 PM

Yeah, and right about the time that Power Mac promo saving $300 and $500 on a flat-panel monitor expires in mid-August. What a coincidence

-bullrat

funkboy · Jul 9, 2002, 10:09 PM

Note, however, that it says nothing of a new digital device, or about changes to the iPod. This is interesting that it was left out... I imagine no information at all is available, just as no one predicted the iPod originally.

I'm just as disappointed by no new PowerMacs at MWNY as anyone else, but a new digital device... especially since Jobs seems to want to change the macworld shows to be more consumer-centric, this sort of announcement may be viable...

NeoMac · Jul 9, 2002, 10:42 PM

I swear, if the iMacs still use a 100Mhz FSB and have no cache I'm just gonna f*ing go postal!

Figuratively speaking.

Ain't buying an iMac till they get with it.

NeoMac · Jul 9, 2002, 10:44 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Peder Rice:
Guys, haven't you read that PowerMacs are then expected about one month after MWNY? So, you'll just have to wait another month. So what?<hr /></blockquote>Personally, I find it disturbing that Apple takes 7+ months to update a computer. It boggles the mind how anyone still buys these things.

I mean, if that does tell you how great the OS is...

Krusty · Jul 9, 2002, 11:39 PM

Now, lets just hope Apple doesn't do something stupid and annoying with this like they did with the 14" ibook.

1) Don't make the screen significantly lower PPI than the 15
2) Don't screw us by using up both of our ram slots
3) DO NOT price this thing over $2000. And, if you charge 2k, this better be souped up over the 15 by more than just the screen size.

1) DO make the monitor more than just a size upgrade ... better graphics card and wider viewing angles are in order.
2) DO give us a break ... PC sales are too slow right now to screw around with a low bang-for-the-buck machine. Componets such as hard drives and ram ARE cheap right now (especially if you just talking about the differential between sizes). Load us up with components worthy of the pro-sumer market you're targeting with this. If you announce but don't ship til Sept/Jaguar (whichever comes first), make this thing the must have value for the Xmas shopping season (like the original DVs were back in '99 ... man, those things were LOADED. I remember spec'ing my DVSE against a similiarly configured 533mhz DELL home system at the time. $1499 for the DVSE (actually only paid $1450) , $1472 for the Dell (which was still lower spec'd in many respects).

NeoMac · Jul 10, 2002, 10:57 AM

Want to get an iMac for converting home movies to DVD. "Preserving" the movies would be more accurate; the 8mm tapes are just falling apart after 10 years.

However, I F*ING REFUSE to buy a crippled machine. I'll wait till hell freezes over before I buy a 100Mhz FSB and no cache iMac.

Here's hoping Apple does right with the next iMac update. I just can't tell you how ****ed off I'll be if they don't. Livid would be an understatement.

Peace.

murbot · Jul 10, 2002, 11:28 AM

I have this sinking feeling that we'll see many MacNNers either "going postal" or getting extremely "livid".

Please god, let me be wrong...

mitchell_pgh · Jul 10, 2002, 12:24 PM

I would like the iMac to have the 17" upgrade, but they need to more with the CPU, motherboard, video card and RAM as well... It needs to be a real upgrade...

$2000
17" LCD
512 RAM
133Mhz mobo
CR-RW/DVD-R
2Firewire
3+ USB

Color: Graphite Plastic like with the old iMac...

I see...

Steve: "and one more thing... we changed the name of iTools to .mac... Thanks, and enjoy the expo"

Peder Rice · Jul 10, 2002, 01:27 PM

I can't wait to buy a 15" iMac with 800MHz and Superdrive. Yep, I'll be buying one of the heavily discounted ones just moments after the keynote. Woohoo!

xyber233 · Jul 10, 2002, 01:34 PM

I'm thinking that the current iMac prices will stay the same. Maybe they will just add a 17" iMac without updating....I hope though that the 15" iMacs do get updated.

Proudest Monkey · Jul 10, 2002, 01:56 PM

The iMacs better receive something more than just a larger LCD screen. When would a speed bumped iMac be introduced, in January? I cannot imagine that Apple would sell a computer at the same speed for a year, then can you imagine the articles that would come out � the dying iMac�, � Apples core is dead�, etc. I hope this article is just missing out on the key points, or just doesn�t know, I would hate hate hate hate it if the iMacs didn�t get a well deserved, and what should be a generous, speed bump. Just hit the Gig mark, please.

Viv Savage · Jul 10, 2002, 03:11 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NeoMac:
Want to get an iMac for converting home movies to DVD. "Preserving" the movies would be more accurate; the 8mm tapes are just falling apart after 10 years.

However, I F*ING REFUSE to buy a crippled machine. I'll wait till hell freezes over before I buy a 100Mhz FSB and no cache iMac.

Here's hoping Apple does right with the next iMac update. I just can't tell you how ****ed off I'll be if they don't. Livid would be an understatement.

Peace.

<hr /></blockquote>I'm with ya, NeoMac. A flat panel iMac would suit my needs perfectly, but I'm not going to pull the trigger without an upgraded mobo. I know of others that feel the same way. We can only hope.

Graymalkin · Jul 10, 2002, 04:24 PM

I think CNet is just reading off all the other rumor sites because Apple release rumors are juicy and get eyeballs. They want a couple thousand Mac heads to click the link and view their ads. I don't think 17" monitors are in the pipeline for the iMac simply because it throws off the form factor. A 17" flat panel is much larger than a 15" one, mass and volume wise. The iMac is designed to support a 15" flat panel and changing the size and weight of the panel signifigantly means you have to reengineer the base and the arm. It is entirely possible the iMac's design team designed the current iMac base/arm combo to support whatever sized flat panel was available but the preportions of the iMac make me doubt that possibility. Assuming there would need to be a different base/arm combo manufactured to support a larger monitor that is a huge production price increase. A new chassis for the motherboard and possibly a new motherboard itself needs to be produced as well as the base and arm. Adding an inch to the base's diameter could as much as double the manufacture cost due to retooling and low production volume.

There's no MacMaker machine that carves your iMac out of Applonium when you send an order into the Apple store. They manufacture tens of thousands of the systems a month and then send them to an assembly plant where processors, memory, and hard drives are stuck inside of them. Somewhere there's thousands of identical iMac base/arm/motherboard/electronics combos sitting somewhere waiting to be individualized with various processor, memory, and hard drive configurations. If you say 10% of all iMac sales are going to be 17" panel ones that means every batch of 10,000 iMacs there's 1,000 17" base/arm/motherboard/electronics combos. If the 17" panel unit costs twice as much as a 15" unit to produce that adds up to a loss in margins. It is not smart to produce a low volume low margin product when you could use those same resources to product a higher margin higher volume item. If people want a bigger monitor I think they'd be eagerly invited to buy a PowerMac and get their own 17" flat panel for it.

l008com · Jul 10, 2002, 05:01 PM

I read a long time ago somewhere, rumors of Apple coming out with a 17" Wide Screen iMac. I think that would be damned cool, 16:9 screens are awsome, great for divx too ;-) And if anyone has actually touched and held a new iMac, you know it cna easily hold the weight of a bigger screen, especially if its a wide screen, which is even small surface wise than a 4:3 screen. But either way, my 15" stand along VGA LCD came in the mail, and I though the box was empty, I was ****ed, then I opened it.

iDaver · Jul 10, 2002, 10:30 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Graymalkin:
A 17" flat panel is much larger than a 15" one, mass and volume wise. The iMac is designed to support a 15" flat panel and changing the size and weight of the panel signifigantly means you have to reengineer the base and the arm.
<hr /></blockquote>I seriously doubt the iMac base would need to be any different. The arm would likely need to be reengineered to hold some additional weight.

Customers were clamoring for a 17 inch "original" iMac almost from day one and have been since the new iMac was introduced as well. I hope Apple is listening since I'm one of those clamoring. Apple...show me a base (CDRW) model with all the current specs, with a 17 inch display for about $1650 and I'll buy one.

Superchicken · Jul 11, 2002, 12:53 AM

I'd just like ot see apple name the speed in comparison to a Celeron or something like a 1Ghz 1800+ like AMD... something like that, that would make people think OH THIS IS FAST!
And with that you could throw in cache and stuff and still acctually market it and do good!

Cause right now they're lowering the speed by not upgrading the FSB and what not... which is kinda dumb but they're selling it to people like my friend who thinks he's a tech head who said 700Mhz WOULD NOT be fast cause he has a 700Mhz Celleron... I had him go to a mac store... he's buying an eMac now... but still... it's dumb labeling your computers as something that when people see it they think the same thing as a P four!
which is slower... oh well...

This article doesn't seem to know what they're talking about. I seei tmore likely that Apple will introduce either a cammera/cam corder, that can plug into your iPod... or a PDA.

dru · Jul 11, 2002, 03:59 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by skyman:
<a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1040-942608.html?tag=fd_top" target="_blank">http://news.com.com/2100-1040-942608.html?tag=fd_top</a>

[ 07-09-2002, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: ]<hr /></blockquote>I took a good look at the design of the iMac FP. A user can still slip the keyboard under the screen even when it's at the lowest point. If you switch to a 17" LCD, that won't be true without lengthening the post the arm protrudes from or positioning the arm lower on the back of the LCD. These both corrupt the harmony of the design. I really doubt there will be a 17" LCD coming because, really, that's a FAR bigger change design wise (Johnny Ive is no hack) than just a rotation of colour plastics of the original iMac.

There might be something else... a 15" LCD with 1280x1024 resolution (with hype of 17" monitor resolution) and Apple wouldn't have to address the design concerns (unless Ive & co took that into consideration ahead of time). Considering it's already somewhat form over function (would it have killed to put at least one USB port on the side so you can comfortably hot-plug your digicam without "reach around") I doubt such a forward thinking limit would burden the iMac design when the aesthetics are one of the primary selling points.

If there is a "refresh" of the iMac FP, perhaps a GeForce4 MX bump and 933MHz (but still no L3 cache) on the top end. I'm HIGHLY skeptical of the 17" LCD rumors. This new iMac "SE" puts the beast around the price of the second tier PowerMac G4 ($2000+). That's my guess, anyway.

NeoMac · Jul 11, 2002, 10:46 AM

I'm voting for a 15" LCD @ 1280x1024. It's the right way to update the iMac.

A 17" LCD would just be retarded. The iMac would then look like E.T. I can see it now: an iMac sitting in the dark on someone's desk, repeating to itself, "iMac phone home, iMac phone hoooome..."

[ 07-11-2002, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: NeoMac ]

babble · Jul 11, 2002, 12:24 PM

If a 17" iMac ever comes out, it's gonna be in a different form factor.

That's why I'm pretty sure we'll not see a 17" iMac soon.

But, I do wish to get better screen Rez in the update next week. I wan't my 1280x1024 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

macmad · Jul 11, 2002, 02:01 PM

ah ha! a 17 inch on a Cube??

Jansar · Jul 11, 2002, 02:23 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by macmad:
ah ha! a 17 inch on a Cube??<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, seriously. But next time, I'm not paying a regular desktop computer price for a silly non-upgradeable Cube. (Which I am using right now.)

smacintush · Jul 12, 2002, 01:44 AM

GeForce 4 MX?

133 Mhz system bus?

Where the hell were you guys for the last few years? The slot-loading iMacs had the same bus and graphics for what...2 - 2.5 years?

You guys are truly dreaming, this is Apple here. They are selling WAYYYY too many of these to scurry about trying to update it.

Dan Szwarc · Jul 12, 2002, 07:58 AM

The reason Apple keeps the 100MHz FSB and no-cache G4s is because it KNOWS its PowerMacs are too damn slow, but that the iMac must not equal or exceed them. As soon as PMs speed up, so will the iMac. However, iMacs will ALWAYS be crippled in some way compared to PMs.

gumby5647 · Jul 12, 2002, 12:03 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by smacintush:
GeForce 4 MX?

You guys are truly dreaming, this is Apple here. They are selling WAYYYY too many of these to scurry about trying to update it.<hr /></blockquote>yeah, that's why they are sitting on PILES of inventory right now.....

trust me...133Mhz bus is coming.
4X AGP might even come to

murbot · Jul 12, 2002, 12:51 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NeoMac:
A 17" LCD would just be retarded. The iMac would then look like E.T. I can see it now: an iMac sitting in the dark on someone's desk, repeating to itself, "iMac phone home, iMac phone hoooome..."

<hr /></blockquote>I don't think it would look as bad as you make it out... add 1/2 inch to each side, and make the area around the display a 1/2 inch smaller on each side, and there's your 17 inches. They could make it a 17" LCD without the physical size of the entire display getting much bigger - look at all that room they have to work with (the white plastic border, and the clear outside border).

Could work. I'm anxious to see what they do. A 15" LCD with a resolution similar to the new PB's would be nice too...

Peder Rice · Jul 12, 2002, 07:21 PM

As someone already said, Apple knows that their towers are just too darned slow. So, this is my proposal to Apple:

Dear Apple Computer, Inc:

For years, the iMac line has always trailed the PowerMac line in many aspects. Meanwhile, the PowerMac's speed increases have been marginal at best. And with low-key updates to the PowerMac, come even smaller updates to the iMac line. Because of this, only now do we have a G4 iMac. However, the iMac is still slower than the PowerMac.

Now, I'm not expecting you to release an iMac with two G4s at 1GHz. However, I do propose that you release a PowerMac line that sports dual-processing across the entire line. This allows the iMac line to feature the latest and greatest processors, while not hurting PowerMac sales. For instance:

If the PowerMac line were to feature dual-800MHz, dual-1GHz, and dual-1.2GHz G4 processors, the iMac line could easily sport a single 1.4GHz G4, as a dual-800MHz machine is roughly the equivalent of 1600MHz of PowerMac, thanks to OS X's support of SMP. (by the way, this would be a move similar to your PowerMac line in the day's of the dual-800MHz top-of-the-line, single 867MHz second-in-line)

With faster processors in the iMac line, the iMac can compete better compete with offerings from the likes of Dell, Compaq, and others.

----------

Heh, I can dream, right?

dru · Jul 12, 2002, 10:13 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by smacintush:
GeForce 4 MX?

133 Mhz system bus?

Where the hell were you guys for the last few years? The slot-loading iMacs had the same bus and graphics for what...2 - 2.5 years?

You guys are truly dreaming, this is Apple here. They are selling WAYYYY too many of these to scurry about trying to update it.<hr /></blockquote>The GeForce 4 MX suggestion comes from a statement on Apple.com about MacWorld and gaming. Unless someone's screwed up the grammar, it plainly suggests the "newest iMac" has a GeForce 4 MX and will be running the latest games at the expo. There's another thread already about this Apple note (called something like 'MacWorld hardware hints from Apple.com' or something .

smacintush · Jul 13, 2002, 09:30 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dru:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by smacintush:
GeForce 4 MX?

133 Mhz system bus?

Where the hell were you guys for the last few years? The slot-loading iMacs had the same bus and graphics for what...2 - 2.5 years?

You guys are truly dreaming, this is Apple here. They are selling WAYYYY too many of these to scurry about trying to update it.<hr /></blockquote>The GeForce 4 MX suggestion comes from a statement on Apple.com about MacWorld and gaming. Unless someone's screwed up the grammar, it plainly suggests the "newest iMac" has a GeForce 4 MX and will be running the latest games at the expo. There's another thread already about this Apple note (called something like 'MacWorld hardware hints from Apple.com' or something .<hr /></blockquote>You may be right. I'm not gonna be the one to rule out anything, but the same types of things were said before EVERY SINGLE slot-loading iMac update. It NEVER came. (until they redesigned it)

Superchicken · Jul 16, 2002, 04:47 AM

I dout apple would ever go 1.4 while the top power Mac was 1.2 dual.
That's just not smart marketing, maybe dual 1.4 verse single 1.3 or even 1.4 but never will an iMac have a proccessor faster than a single proccessor in a Power Mac.

My suggestion... BUILT A TRIPPLE PROCCESSOR!
hahaha

kidding kidding... although ya never know.
well OK sometimes you do.
But I do think that apple shouldn't keep the iMac as far behind as it is right now... but I dono... I just wish moto would hurry up!

Paul Huang · Jul 16, 2002, 11:33 AM

Have you noticed how _small_ the PB 15.2" screen is compared to the iMac's 15"? If the iMac maintains the height and extend just the width, the weight wouldn't have to be more than 15% heavier to obtain 17" diagonal. By adding just 1.6" (linear) of glass horizontally, you can easily turn it into a 17" screen, but then this 17" wide screen is much smaller than a regular 17" LCD.

Am I making sense?