[sibellc]

The iMac has 256k of 1:1 L2 cache.

Originally posted by Anand:
The iMac would be perfect if it just had some backside cache. The G4 needs it bad. With the G5, there is no reason why the iMac does not have it.

[Eug]

sibellc:
The iMac has 256k of 1:1 L2 cache.

He's talking L3. I can see no L3 with 512 KB of L2, but with 256 KB, a chunk of L3 would really be nice.

Of course a G5 1.6 in early 2004 would be even better (and no L3 would be needed), unless somehow Motorola manages to release the 7457-RM running at 1.6 GHz with true DDR support... or something like that.

iDaver:
In the future, everyone will have a 20" display. I don't think $400 is out of line for the difference in size between the two models, especially for those who are really into computers.

Weren't people touting the iMac for the grandma end user?

[Spiritman]

Loving my new 20" iMac....sold my 17 to someone I met in the Apple store.....what I like is the design and they are very, very quiet.....now I have a large display and will wait for the Rev B of the G5 before I move that direction.....I do lots of digital photo work in photoshop....took 5000 shots last year and consider myself a power user....plenty here for me and its working great on 256mg ram....waitin for the 1 gig user slot module.

)

[jkojima]

Expect a 15" widescreen studio display to be introduced

I disagree. The market has moved beyond this small size. 17" has become the new entry level panel of choice in the PC realm. 15" certainly isn't dead among businesses and budget-minded consumers, but Apple targets innovators and early adopters, who buy the latest technologies at premium prices. If anything, I would predict the next generation of Apple panels to start at 20".

As for the 20" iMac, I love the concept, but am lukewarm on the implementation. I agree with other posters that the hardware seems lacking. It just needs... something extra. Some cogent reason to justify the massive real estate... because personally, I wouldn't want to try gaming at that 1680 rez with the underpowered GeForce 5200 graphics chip. Perhaps an integrated HDTV tuner, or at least a third party add on.

The people who said this is simply a form of price skimming heading into the holiday season hit the nail on the head. I also predict that the 15" iMac's days are now numbered.

[iDaver]

Originally posted by jkojima:
I also predict that the 15" iMac's days are now numbered.

It would be a shame. Apple should minimize it and sell it cheap. (I guess it's already pretty minimized.)

[jdevalk]

I believe the iMac including the 20" is a great computer and can serve many consumers well. I personally think the 17" would be perfect in my family room if only the screen was as sharp as the 20". However, all this discussion points to the fact that an all-in-one isn't for everyone.

The 2x2 product matrix that everyone brings up worked at the time, but the fact is there is not a clear distinction between a consumer and a pro user. For example, managing thousands of photos or creating a 60 minute DVD is a much smoother process on a flashly new G5, although these are "simple" digital-hub tasks can do. And this without even bringing up games.

There is a market for a consumer tower, Cube-redux, or whatever you want to call it and Apple is missing an opportunity by not offering one. I think shooting for a price range of $999-$1499 would make a whole lot of sense. Yes, some people will still complain, but most people aren't asking for a $399 machine. They just want another option and with Macs you cannot run to another vender for it. Apple has to come through.

[ibugv4]

I've not even read all the comments and I've got to state this:

Fewer choices = happier consumer.

You don't want an expandable system? Fine Up $800 for an eMac 1Ghz. It's fast, it works. BE HAPPY. Want more? Go for a 17" iMac (the 15" is just pointless) want more.. 20" iMac.

Want portables? iBooks! Need more? PowerBook.

If there is a third line it muddles the clarity of the two. "Pro-sumers" are not a valid market, sorry. And I am one. You own consumer hardware you run professional software. OR you have professional hardware and run consumer software. That's a prosumer in a nutshell.

I am ticked at people whining for a $300-$700 headless tower. Apple started as an All in Wonder .. er One.. company and will remain and All In One company. I like that. I hate toting around a fricking monitor and the machine.. more cables, more mess. I carry (very carefully thanks to the omitted handle) my eMac to LAN parties hassle free. The iMac is the same. Towers take more time to setup, as well.

Apple's point on the consumer front is "1-2-3 it's setup" monitors DO NOT fall into that category. If it goes past phone line, power and keyboard-mouse ... it's not consumer to them.

I think Apple is headed in a wonderful direction. I also think part of the reason a TabletMac has not come about is they cannot descide if it should be a Pro or Consumer device, or if they should offer both. I think it should be an Education (consumer) and Professional device. A small and a large.. large for pros and small for home. Just like Wacom does with the Graphire and Intous lines.

Viva Apple. Viva the 20" iMac... oh yes. And why do I like this machine? BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND CAN SET IT TO 1024x768 AND READ IT! It's not easy on the eyes on the 17", but the 20 it's perfect. Apple does have reasons behind their actions ... whether or not people believe that.

-ibug

[Eug]

Originally posted by ibugv4:
BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND CAN SET IT TO 1024x768 AND READ IT!

I hope that's not your best reason for justifying a 20" iMac.

[Commodus]

ibugv4:

Remember though, Apple has something they didn't when the original iMac was released: ADC. So the exact cables required would be: 1) power 2) ADC 3) networking (if you're not wireless) and 4) keyboard/mouse. That's still simpler than having to hook up separate power and display connectors for the monitor, and with at least the Apple and Formac displays you don't even have to reach around the back of the computer to plug in your input devices.

It's not as though Apple has never, ever done cheap headless systems before. The acronym LC didn't stand for Luxury Computer! The only question here is as to how adamantly against the concept Jobs might be, and also what Apple would brand it if it was made (the new eMac, maybe).

[I WAS the One]

GUYS!!! GUYS!!!!
PowerMacs are for PROS.... and iMacs are for the non-pro users.
example:
I have a PowerMac G4 MDD dual (I am a graphic artist and an audio editing producer) My mother have an iMac... (she is a Homemaker that loves internet and play with her pictures) get it? 20" iMac are perfect. period.

[Hash]

Somehow that thing about cables is very true. I have a small setup at home, involving following things-

Powermac, CRT studio display 17-inch for graphics, Athlon XP PC, Samsung Syncmaster 171 LCD, a router, ADSL modem, Brother laserprinter, HP inkjet for color printing, Microlab subwoofer speakers AND

amount of cables is astounding, in fact, no one except me can understand what is connected where and even i forget it with unfortunate results. This all setup works but i swear that no one would love hassle with all cabling, especially older people.

iMac is a great machine for those who can afford it. It minimizes cabling and maximizing user pleasure with large LCD screens. It has its own market, a home market for those who do not want to deal with connecting something to something and enjoying it. And if people are willing to pay for cableless machines, then they are willing to choose one with larger more comfortable screen as well.

Perfect business solution.


As for headless cheap machines. Its another market for low-income consumers, lets face it, students perhaps being the main target. I myself as a student owned LC 630 and it did great job for me. I can see there is still market for it, perhaps. And it will not cannibalize powermac sales, no. I could not buy Powermac 6100-8100 then, but i could buy 630 which what i did, but people with money would choose powermacs. The situation is not different now.

If to market a headless one, then Apple should make it slow and non-competing with G5s. For example, low cost G4 1 Ghz (headless, expandable) will never eat G 5 sales - they are different markets. You can expand G4 but you will never get G5 performance. But it could be very cheap

with CDRW, 40 gb hard disk, 256 mb ram, G4 1 ghz could be under 600 US dollars.

Pros never will buy it. People whining for 300-700 dollar machines will be satisfied. Indeed, 300 $ PC is a 1.1 Ghz celerone PC. But this low cost segment exists.

For pure worprocessing and internet such low cost solution will be well suited. Apple can catch another market segment not sacrifying G5 desktop sales.

[I WAS the One]

AMEN