Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > 20 inch iMac is here!

20 inch iMac is here! (Page 2)
Thread Tools
neilw
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2003, 05:30 PM
 

Yeah, I also agree if that the headless iMac appeared, it'd have to take over the role of the current LCD iMac. That said, I think a cost of $1199 for the low end headless iMac would be too high. The magic number of $999 is doable I think, even with a G5, say with a combo drive, a low end video card, and 80 GB hard drive. Maybe overall something like $999 - $1399, depending on the model.
That'd sound fine to me. I could almost guarantee it'd be my next machine, and I'd have something I could actually recommend to people I know.

Oh, and some folks would indeed complain about this or that, but then some folks complain about anything. More importantly a lot of people would *buy* it.

Y'know, I should say at this point that I think the LCD iMac is really a pretty cool design. For those willing to accept its limitations, it can be truly fantastic. I just think it's gotten to the point where it's cost/performance ratio is way out of whack, and is leaving too many consumers without a viable option.
     
Centris650
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Heart O' Dixie
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2003, 05:42 PM
 
Originally posted by neilw:
Oh, and some folks would indeed complain about this or that, but then some folks complain about anything. More importantly a lot of people would *buy* it.
Of course. But sometimes complaining is good if done right. I do think it would encourage some switchers who are holding to a nice 3rd party screen they may have paid big bucks for.

Y'know, I should say at this point that I think the LCD iMac is really a pretty cool design. For those willing to accept its limitations, it can be truly fantastic. I just think it's gotten to the point where it's cost/performance ratio is way out of whack, and is leaving too many consumers without a viable option. [/B]
When the iMac was first introduced it was a great deal like we had never seen before. A fast G3 processor AND monitor for fairly cheap. Now the iMac is a good distance behind the powermacs and just got more expensive. I STILL don't understand that.

I agree that the iMacs could use a hefty cut in price.

(Why am I posting so much when I have soooo much work to do?)
><> 1 Peter 3:15-16
     
SpeedRacer
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Istanbul
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2003, 06:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
Yeah, I also agree if that the headless iMac appeared, it'd have to take over the role of the current LCD iMac. That said, I think a cost of $1199 for the low end headless iMac would be too high. The magic number of $999 is doable I think, even with a G5, say with a combo drive, a low end video card, and 80 GB hard drive. Maybe overall something like $999 - $1399, depending on the model.
Regardless of the price they started off at, the Cube's were selling for $1200 for several months before they were discontinued by Apple due to slow sales. If a headless Macintosh for this price is the "magic bullet" that Apple needed to convert the masses, then where were the Switchers flocking to the platform b/c of these machines? How many folks even in this very thread bought a Cube?

<Speed>Raises Hand</Speed>

I also sold it 6 mo's later b/c I the economics of upgrading a CPU for $700 just doesn't make sense when an entirely new computer can be had for only $800. How would this be any different with a new headless Mac for $999? It's a serious question! You can get the latest and greatest Intel chip for $300. The Mac equivalent runs you close to $1k. So do you explain this as an economical option for the majority of consumers?

Even in the iMac, the G4 simply has got to go... The G4 in today's world really only belongs in the iBook and the eMac.
G5 chips in a case with NINE fans operating in independant climate zones just started shipping in bulk 1 month ago.

Show me the design that would allow for a chip that hot to run in an iMac w/1 fan or an eMac with already red-hot CRT...

Nobody here disagrees that the G4 chip was "outdated" 12 months ago. The only thing at issue here is the economies of scale to sell a G5-based iMac using a processor that just came out 6 mo's ago. Or perhaps in what form the G5 chip v2.0 that runs much cooler with take. And then how Apple can/will redesign their current hardware lineup to utilize that chip (which has yet to even hit market).

None of this can happen overnight. If you doubt it why not spend the time you would have spent sending feedback to Apple about things they already know full well and apply for jobs at Apple itself, work your requisite 80 hours/week, and get this stuff up to out to market quicker?

Fine, 1st generation iMac 20" isn't exactly what we'd like it to be. When was the last v1.0 product that Apple released that WAS available on date of announcement and WAS what we'd like it to be?
( Last edited by SpeedRacer; Nov 19, 2003 at 06:52 PM. )
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2003, 06:55 PM
 
Originally posted by SpeedRacer:
Regardless of the price they started off at, the Cube's were selling for $1200 for several months before they were discontinued by Apple due to slow sales.
Of course, it debuted at $1800. Ouch! Remember that the tower G4 Power Mac was much cheaper for similar specs. By the time the base model Cube was slashed to $1300 (not $1200) it was just too late.

What we are talking about is not having Apple sell a 2.25 GHz G5 headless iMac for $1800 in Jan. What we are talking about is a downspec'd G5 1.4-1.6 headless iMac for $999 in Feb (or possibly later, depending availability of the lower power chips).
( Last edited by Eug; Nov 19, 2003 at 07:01 PM. )
     
iDaver
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2003, 07:52 PM
 
At $1199, a headless consumer Mac with Apple's cheapest $699 display comes out at $1898. Do you guys really think this is the solution, when people are bitching about the low end iMac at $1299? Even if the headless Mac is $899, the bottom end is $1598! Stupid idea, in my opinion.
     
Centris650
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Heart O' Dixie
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2003, 10:53 PM
 
Originally posted by iDaver:
At $1199, a headless consumer Mac with Apple's cheapest $699 display comes out at $1898. Do you guys really think this is the solution, when people are bitching about the low end iMac at $1299? Even if the headless Mac is $899, the bottom end is $1598! Stupid idea, in my opinion.
I can get a NEC 17" Diamond CRT Display for under $200. Heck, there are many LCD's that are cheaper than Apple. Because I want an Apple Computer doesn't mean I want an Apple Monitor.
><> 1 Peter 3:15-16
     
iDaver
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2003, 11:10 PM
 
Originally posted by Centris650:
I can get a NEC 17" Diamond CRT Display for under $200. Heck, there are many LCD's that are cheaper than Apple. Because I want an Apple Computer doesn't mean I want an Apple Monitor.
More power to you. I'd just as soon have a nice iMac on my desk, no matter what the size, with a fully adjustable, brighter and sharper display. CRTs are a thing of the past, IMHO.
     
Centris650
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Heart O' Dixie
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2003, 11:13 PM
 
Originally posted by iDaver:
More power to you. I'd just as soon have a nice iMac on my desk, no matter what the size, with a fully adjustable, brighter and sharper display. CRTs are a thing of the past, IMHO.
Until LCDs are MUCH more affordable and match colors as good as a CRT I think the CRTs still have a place and will be around for a little while longer.
><> 1 Peter 3:15-16
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2003, 11:15 PM
 
Originally posted by iDaver:
At $1199, a headless consumer Mac with Apple's cheapest $699 display comes out at $1898. Do you guys really think this is the solution, when people are bitching about the low end iMac at $1299? Even if the headless Mac is $899, the bottom end is $1598! Stupid idea, in my opinion.
Apple Displays are more expensive than the competition. You can get 20-21" DVI 1600x1200 LCD screens for about $1100-1200, and a top-end DVI 17" screen (better than Apple's 17" IMO) for under $500.

And of course, one is not stuck having the screen locked to the computer. I have a 17" LCD for my desktop and that suits me fine for now. When the prices drop in a few years, I'll move that LCD to work or else just sell it, and get myself a 20" LCD for home.

The only problem is if the headless iMac were only to support ADC. Almost all the non-Apple displays are DVI. Personally I think Apple displays should support DVI as well, esp. considering that PowerBooks are DVI-only. Power Macs support DVI as well now, but I dunno what a headless iMac would support.

Actually, it'd be nice to have dual display spanning on a headless iMac. I hate Apple's policy of mirroring-only on the iMac.
     
iDaver
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2003, 11:18 PM
 
Originally posted by Centris650:
Until LCDs are MUCH more affordable and match colors as good as a CRT I think the CRTs still have a place and will be around for a little while longer.
I agree they will have their place, for those who simply can't or don't want to spend a few extra dollars. I don't buy the argument of color matching. Color matching has as much to do with the lighting in the room as it does with the display you're using.
     
iDaver
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2003, 11:32 PM
 
Anyway, back on the topic of the 20" iMac...and opinions that Apple should move away from all in one solutions like it.

I think Apple recognizes the need of some to have a lower cost machine, sans display. They still sell the $1299 PowerMac G4. At some point they might introduce something new for those people at an even better price.

I don't think they should give up on the amazing iMac. Even if they have to redesign it for a G5, I think the adjustable display and the all in one design should stay, but the prices need to come down a bit.
     
SpeedRacer
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Istanbul
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2003, 11:34 PM
 
Originally posted by Centris650:
I can get a NEC 17" Diamond CRT Display for under $200...
And we're actually wondering here why Apple will not release a headless iMac?

They might as well codename it "Hannibal the Cannibal" right now.

     
Centris650
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Heart O' Dixie
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2003, 11:47 PM
 
Originally posted by iDaver:
Anyway, back on the topic of the 20" iMac...and opinions that Apple should move away from all in one solutions like it.

I think Apple recognizes the need of some to have a lower cost machine, sans display. They still sell the $1299 PowerMac G4. At some point they might introduce something new for those people at an even better price.

I don't think they should give up on the amazing iMac. Even if they have to redesign it for a G5, I think the adjustable display and the all in one design should stay, but the prices need to come down a bit.
Don't get me wrong. I really like the iMac I just agree with EUG that it's price is greatly inflated over performance. Now if you dropped it's current price a couple of hundred it could be worth it.
><> 1 Peter 3:15-16
     
iDaver
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 12:41 AM
 
Originally posted by Centris650:
Don't get me wrong. I really like the iMac I just agree with EUG that it's price is greatly inflated over performance. Now if you dropped it's current price a couple of hundred it could be worth it.
Well, I agree but think of it this way. Less than two years ago a Cinema Display (only) with fewer pixels than the new 20" iMac would set you back $2499. Now you can get one attached to a free Mac for only $2199. Prices will come down.
     
kanker
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 01:58 AM
 
Originally posted by iDaver:
Anyway, back on the topic of the 20" iMac..
I went to my local Apple store today, and as absurd as a 20" iMac sounds, I have to say that I really geeked when I was standing in front of the thing, and the screen on the 17" that was sitting next to in looked somehow inadequate by comparison. Doesn't change the fact that it's a ridiculous consumer machine, but it will blind you just enough to make you buy one.
     
MrForgetable
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York City, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 02:27 AM
 
Originally posted by kanker:
I went to my local Apple store today, and as absurd as a 20" iMac sounds, I have to say that I really geeked when I was standing in front of the thing, and the screen on the 17" that was sitting next to in looked somehow inadequate by comparison. Doesn't change the fact that it's a ridiculous consumer machine, but it will blind you just enough to make you buy one.
I think I have been blinded, I kinda want one.
iamwhor3hay
     
wulf
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 08:49 AM
 
Originally posted by kanker:
I went to my local Apple store today, and as absurd as a 20" iMac sounds, I have to say that I really geeked when I was standing in front of the thing, and the screen on the 17" that was sitting next to in looked somehow inadequate by comparison. Doesn't change the fact that it's a ridiculous consumer machine, but it will blind you just enough to make you buy one.
Just got back from the UK Mac Expo and I have to say the 20" iMac looks sweeet.

Some had been worried that the screen would look humungous and outsized compared to the base, but actually it looks fine. It just makes the other models look weedy and undersized

The screen is gorgeous, and definitely suitable for high-end graphics work (colour-fidelity issues aside). Shame the processor isn't.

If they stuck a low-end G5 in there, it would make a great all-in-one graphics workstation. I can imagine a lot of people going for a 20" 1.6GHz G5 iMac over the equivalent PowerMac setup.
     
joe
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2000
Location: northeast PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 09:16 AM
 
I agree the price is steep and the cpu should've gotten a boost. But damn, the new 20" floating display on this iMac looks great in the photos! I'm betting the next rev of the 20" model gets a G5........joe
     
Pierre B.
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 09:18 AM
 
Originally posted by wulf:

If they stuck a low-end G5 in there, it would make a great all-in-one graphics workstation. I can imagine a lot of people going for a 20" 1.6GHz G5 iMac over the equivalent PowerMac setup.
I think actually the problem is that Apple still sells 1.25 GHz G4 PowerMacs with 1MB L3 cache (256 MB RAM, 80GB hard drive, Radeon 9000, Combo drive) for $1299. Taking into account this pricing scheme, the new iMac looks like a really good deal.

I don't mean that this is acceptable now that we are counting weeks before 2004. The 20" iMac should have at least a 1.2 GHz G5, and I don't think this would be technically impossible (by the way, what happened to those lower frequency G5's?). Simply, Apple don't wants a consumer machine to (appear and) be more powerful than the lowest G4 PowerMac. Sad but true.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 09:26 AM
 
Originally posted by Pierre B.:
I don't mean that this is acceptable now that we are counting weeks before 2004. The 20" iMac should have at least a 1.2 GHz G5, and I don't think this would be technically impossible (by the way, what happened to those lower frequency G5's?). Simply, Apple don't wants a consumer machine to (appear and) be more powerful than the lowest G4 PowerMac. Sad but true.
A 1.2 GHz G5 would be inadequate, for 2 reasons.

1) Imagined performance. MHz sells.
2) Real performance. For integer stuff, a 1.2 GHz G5 might even be slower than a 1.25 GHz G4.

For a G5 in an iMac, it'd have to be at least 1.4 GHz or it wouldn't be worth it. Preferably 1.4 or faster for the low end of the next refresh though, and 1.6 or faster for the top-of-the-line model.
     
Pierre B.
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 09:34 AM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
A 1.2 GHz G5 would be inadequate, for 2 reasons.

1) Imagined performance. MHz sells.
Exactly. The G5 at 1.2 GHz has a 600 MHz bus with true DDR support. Now, what is again this G4 bus?


2) Real performance. For integer stuff, a 1.2 GHz G5 might even be slower than a 1.25 GHz G4.

For a G5 in an iMac, it'd have to be at least 1.4 GHz or it wouldn't be worth it. Preferably 1.4 or faster for the low end of the next refresh though, and 1.6 or faster for the top-of-the-line model.
OK, you are right. For me a 1.2 GHz G5 would be the bare minimum, perhaps I should go up to 1.4 GHz because of the integer issue (and a little altivec).
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 10:05 AM
 
Exactly. The G5 at 1.2 GHz has a 600 MHz bus with true DDR support. Now, what is again this G4 bus?
I suspect Apple will make the G5 iMacs single channel DDR, which means that it'd probably run with a memory bus speed of 333 MHz (167x2) at its debut.

Why single channel DDR?

1) To differentiate it from the Power Mac line.
2) Only 2 memory slots. Dual channel DDR requires paired memory.
     
Pierre B.
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 10:15 AM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
I suspect Apple will make the G5 iMacs single channel DDR, which means that it'd probably run with a memory bus speed of 333 MHz (167x2) at its debut.
Do you believe that this modification could also help to reduce heat issues and manage to fit a 1.4-1.6 GHz G5 in an iMac without changing the current design? Do you expect that the next processor update in the iMac line will be a G5?
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 10:27 AM
 
Originally posted by Pierre B.:
Do you believe that this modification could also help to reduce heat issues and manage to fit a 1.4-1.6 GHz G5 in an iMac without changing the current design?
If it gets a G5, then the current design must change regardless of other issues.

Do you expect that the next processor update in the iMac line will be a G5?
Yes... Well, if not the next update then the one after that. ie. G5 in the iMac before the end of 2004. The only way the next update will have a G4 though is if Motorola somehow manages to release low power G4 7447 chips running at 1.5 GHz by spring. However, I have no inside info.
     
Pierre B.
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 10:45 AM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
The only way the next update will have a G4 though is if Motorola somehow manages to release low power G4 7447 chips running at 1.5 GHz by spring. However, I have no inside info.
The FP iMac has already a bad record in CPU updates. If I remember correctly, it had the same 800 MHz G4 for one year, although in the mean time the 17" version appeared. I hope this will not happen again.

If I find something unique in this machine, this is its incredible ergonomy, useful especially for persons with problems in the neck or back or even in the eyes. For that reason alone, I would like to see this design remain as is or with slight alterations. Then there is the coolness factor, but this is not of primary importance for me, not like the ergonomy.
     
SpeedRacer
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Istanbul
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 10:47 AM
 
Another great thing about the new 20" iMac is that the display is much more than just another 3" in size - the entire spec sheet on the 20" iMac display is significantly improved over existing iMac displays...

* Typical viewing angle: 120� horizontal (15-inch and 17-inch models); 170� horizontal (20-inch model); 90� vertical (15-inch and 17-inch models), 170� vertical (20-inch model)

* Typical brightness: 200 cd/m2 (15-inch and 17-inch models); 230 cd/m2 (20-inch model)

* Typical contrast ratio: 300:1 (15-inch and 17-inch models); 350:1 (20-inch model)
     
neilw
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 11:58 AM
 
I'm sure I'll be most impressed when I see it. I love the ergonomics of the FP iMac line in general.

If Apple made it possible to keep the display and just update the base separately, then I'd consider it, though I'd still probably want to wait for a G5 for that price. But that won't happen...
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 01:01 PM
 
Originally posted by SpeedRacer:
Another great thing about the new 20" iMac is that the display is much more than just another 3" in size - the entire spec sheet on the 20" iMac display is significantly improved over existing iMac displays...

* Typical viewing angle: 120� horizontal (15-inch and 17-inch models); 170� horizontal (20-inch model); 90� vertical (15-inch and 17-inch models), 170� vertical (20-inch model)

* Typical brightness: 200 cd/m2 (15-inch and 17-inch models); 230 cd/m2 (20-inch model)

* Typical contrast ratio: 300:1 (15-inch and 17-inch models); 350:1 (20-inch model)
I dunno if it has improved lately (last I checked was 6 months ago), but the Apple 17" Studio Display was definitely inferior compared to 3rd party LCD monitors (in terms of both paper specs and real-life use). The 20" Cinema Display seemed noticeably better than the 17" though.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 02:58 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
I dunno if it has improved lately (last I checked was 6 months ago), but the Apple 17" Studio Display was definitely inferior compared to 3rd party LCD monitors (in terms of both paper specs and real-life use). The 20" Cinema Display seemed noticeably better than the 17" though.
I didn't see where he talked about the Studio Display. This is about the iMac, iMac screens and the 20" iMac especially. You don't like it, fine, you have made your point. Others have different views. But, maybe you should read as bit more and post a bit less. That helps.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 03:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Simon:
I didn't see where he talked about the Studio Display. This is about the iMac, iMac screens and the 20" iMac especially. You don't like it, fine, you have made your point. Others have different views. But, maybe you should read as bit more and post a bit less. That helps.
The 17" iMac screen is in the same ballpark as the 17" Studio Display in terms of quality (and is the same one used in the 17" PowerBook). It is pretty good, but inferior to top-of-the-line 3rd party 17" screens.

And it is believed that the 20" iMac screen is likely the same one in the 20" Cinema Display. The 20" Cinema Display is clearly better than the 17" Studio Display and 17" iMac screen, and I would expect the 20" iMac screen to be better than the 17" Studio Display and 17" iMac screen.
     
ApeInTheShell
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: aurora
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 06:48 PM
 
People thought the 17 inch Powerbook was too much but some people need the screen real estate without the weight of a brick.

A cube or a mini tower would be ridiculous right now. Why would people consider the iMac and eMac if it was around?

We need to get away from this obsession with upgrading our computers constantly like pc users.

Apple made the right choice by not introducing an iMac G5. Although, it would have been a great opporunity to piss off exisiting iMac G4 users!

As long as the iMac doesn't tip over off the desk i'm happy.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 09:07 PM
 
Originally posted by ApeInTheShell:
Why would people consider the iMac and eMac if it was around?
Exactly.

If a product line can't compete, then get rid of it.

Actually, I'm not saying Apple should necessarily scrap the iMac altogether. But it sure isn't selling that well. If a headless iMac were to cannibalize iMac sales then so be it.
     
arclight
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: upstairs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2003, 10:20 PM
 
Amazing how consumers always think they know better. All complaints aside, the thing is amazing in person. Sure it could be faster and have more memory but it was just zippin right along there in the store with six or seven people swarmed around it.

It's damn expensive for a consumer all-in-one but I have yet to see any PC, anywhere, at any price that could meet or exceed the grace, beauty and ease-of-use that the imac provides.

I wish Apple made plasma displays like that, I would buy one. A black or clear framed 42" 16:9 plasma screen on a swivel arm with all the power supply and guts in the hidden base. Sold.

Complain all you like, it's America after all. Apple will always do what they want to do. They will also turn heads for years to come-

Nice job, now where is the powerbook G5?:
---------------------------------------
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 06:21 AM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
The 17" iMac screen is in the same ballpark as the 17" Studio Display in terms of quality (and is the same one used in the 17" PowerBook). It is pretty good, but inferior to top-of-the-line 3rd party 17" screens.

[snip]

Sorry, but that's a boat-load of baloney. How should you know as a PowerBook owner? It's either wrong assumption or all just based on speculation.

I actually own a 17" Studio Display and a 17" iMac among others. I can judge them next to each other. I can assure you that the iMac's screen and the Studio display are not at all "in the same ballpark" as you call it. They are entirely different. They have different geometry and come from different manufacturers - their quality is entirely different. Trying to compare them and then interpret from this something into the new iMac's screen which again is from a different manufacturer is just ridiculous.

Why don't we cut the hearsay and the silly assumptions pulled out of some dark places and stick to facts.

We know the spec sheets so we can discuss that and we can hear and discuss what people tell us from their shop experience with the new model. That's basically it.

It is however entirely silly to just post for the sake of increasing your post count when actually you have nothing to say.
( Last edited by Simon; Nov 21, 2003 at 06:32 AM. )
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 06:25 AM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
Actually, I'm not saying Apple should necessarily scrap the iMac altogether. But it sure isn't selling that well.
Fred Anderson claims different. I suppose as CFO of Apple he should know a tad better than you.

Look, Apple obviously likes the iMac. They might sell more if they were headless, they might not. Clearly, they don't care, beacause they haven't introduced a headless consumer Mac in years. So it really doesn't matter if we want the headless iMac or not. I'd buy it, sure. Why not? But since it's not here, we might as well live with it.

Honestly I'd be more interested in hearing about the new 20" iMac than another thirteen thousand posts from some teens on how Steve should run the company. It has been spotted. Has nobody played or even bought it yet? Reports?
( Last edited by Simon; Nov 21, 2003 at 06:36 AM. )
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 08:47 AM
 
Originally posted by Simon:
I actually own a 17" Studio Display and a 17" iMac among others. I can judge them next to each other. I can assure you that the iMac's screen and the Studio display are not at all "in the same ballpark" as you call it.
I have tested them in the store many times, and have compared them to 3rd party screens. (For instance, when I bought my PowerBook, I had the chance to get a discounted 17" Studio Display with AppleCare coverage.)

They have different geometry
Well obviously.

Trying to compare them and then interpret from this something into the new iMac's screen which again is from a different manufacturer is just ridiculous.
And why? Different screens have different quality. You said so yourself.

It is however entirely silly to just post for the sake of increasing your post count when actually you have nothing to say.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

Fred Anderson claims different. I suppose as CFO of Apple he should know a tad better than you.
Do you even bother reading Apple's own statements, or even my previous posts? Last quarter iMac sales were down 20% compared to the year before, at a time when total unit sales (even after including the poorly selling iMac) increased.
     
FatMoMo
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: TN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 01:09 AM
 
Originally posted by Skypat:
Complaints, complaints, complaints ...

iMac :
G4 ? Too slow
1.25 Ghz ? Too slow !!
20" monitor ? Too big
80 GB 7200 RPM hardrive ? Too small
USB 2 and Firewire ? Yes but no FW 800 ! Outdated !
167 Mhz bus ? No true DDR, too slow, old technology, crap !!

So imagine :

iMac G5
1.6 Ghz ? Yes but too slow ! Too hot !
Fan : Too noisy !
Faster bus : yes but not enough
64 MB graphic card : 128 MB would have been so great ...

You people are *never* satisfied.

The new iMac 20" is a terrific computer : fast, elegant, super equiped with everything 95% of the people out there need ! It has the same screen as the gorgeous 20" Cinema Display, how could the iMac be better !!

If you dream of a G5 iMac with a 20" LCD screen at $1000, well. Dream on If Apple comes with a low cost tower you will find so many reasons no to buy it anyway (weak video card, small HD, no level 3 cache ... you know the song). ;-)
I can see how you would say this I have been trying for a few months to narrow my purchase decision down and all these conflicting ideas are confusing. It seems like though as soon as you purchase it there is always something bigger and better out there. Still going with my 17'iMac and as soon as it gets here it wll be new and wonderful for me. If your happy with what you got why worry.
I used to have 3 gigs now I have
160.....God help us all....
     
iDaver
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 01:45 AM
 
Originally posted by FatMoMo:
Still going with my 17'iMac and as soon as it gets here it wll be new and wonderful for me. If your happy with what you got why worry.
Good choice. If you were heavy into video, 3D rendering or games, you might want a tower. Otherwise, an iMac will serve you very well for years to come. All the criticism is unfounded, IMO.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 06:15 AM
 
Originally posted by iDaver:
Good choice. If you were heavy into video, 3D rendering or games, you might want a tower. Otherwise, an iMac will serve you very well for years to come. All the criticism is unfounded, IMO.
I can only agree. The 17" iMac is an incredibly great computer. I went from a dual MDD PowerMac to this iMac as my main machine at home because it offered similar everyday performance with a much better look & feel - and don't get me started on the noise.

Performance junkies will always just look at MHz numbers and price. They miss the best part of computing that way. But it's easier to look at a number than to actually try to work with a computer, so go figure. The iMac is incredible. There is no other omputer on the world that comes close to its overall perfection. Have fun.
     
discotronic
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Richmond,Va
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 09:01 PM
 
Originally posted by Simon:
I can only agree. The 17" iMac is an incredibly great computer. I went from a dual MDD PowerMac to this iMac as my main machine at home because it offered similar everyday performance with a much better look & feel - and don't get me started on the noise.

Performance junkies will always just look at MHz numbers and price. They miss the best part of computing that way. But it's easier to look at a number than to actually try to work with a computer, so go figure. The iMac is incredible. There is no other omputer on the world that comes close to its overall perfection. Have fun.
Finally!! That is the most sensible thing I have read on this posting. I have a 17" iMac and I in no way feel that it has a performace problem. It runs plenty fast for my needs and there isn't a computer out there that can compete with the overall look. I could have bought a G5 buy why? The iMac will do everything I need it to do for at least another 3 years.
     
sibellc
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2003, 01:23 PM
 
My mom's a nursery school teacher. She makes under $40,000. She owns a 15" iMac that she bought when they were released, moving up from my old PowerCenter 132. When I told her about the 20" model, she went down the the local Apple Store with my Dad yesterday, took one look, asked me to fax her a copy of my student ID, and bought it. She decided to give the 15" to the grandparents so we can all iChat.

DId she need to do this? No. For AOL and word processing, 700MHz was fine. Could she have done other things with 2 grand? Sure. The point is, the speed increase was an afterthought; the screen wowed her. Perhaps this may seem like the best argument for a headless iMac, but it's also shows that the 20" will sell. She doesn't know from PCI-X and SATA and a 2:1 FSB ratio. She's not entirely sure what the difference between RAM and a Hard Drive is.

Although I may have the impluse to, I don't make purchases like that. (There's also the fact that I can't.) I went from a PowerCenter 132 to a 9600/350 (When they were being dumped for $1699) to a Firewire PowerBook. On Friday, I placed an order for a dual 1.8 G5 and the 20" cinema display.

You buy what you need. I'd never in a million years buy an AIO machine. My mom has no reason not to. A headless iMac would not fit well in the product line. People who need expandability won't buy it, and for the most part iMac buyers aren't thinking or worried about maybe upgrading a monitor. They would just see that it's more expensive to buy the two components seperately. The price wasn't the only thing that killed the Cube. It was a niche product to begin with, and the cool factor was about the only thing to sell it.
     
andretan
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Singapore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2003, 04:46 PM
 
sibellc: Well said.
mac.goodies webstore / Switched to an iBook in November 2002. Never looking back.
iBook R.I.P. 20 Nov 2002 - 2 Aug 2005
Hello Leopard! On iMac 17" Intel Core Duo 1.83GHz 2GB, iPod 5th gen 30GB and iPhone
     
iDaver
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2003, 05:01 PM
 
Originally posted by andretan:
sibellc: Well said.
Exactly. Kudos to sibellc. The 20" iMac isn't for everybody, but it's perfect for some.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2003, 10:35 AM
 
Yeah, it's good for some. Too bad the G4 1.25 is so slow. I'd be a lot more inclined to recommend the (17") iMac to friends if it only had a faster CPU. Perhaps come January...
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2003, 10:40 AM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
Yeah, it's good for some. Too bad the G4 1.25 is so slow.
No reason to generalize here and call the G4 "slow". For everyday use its speed is fine.

3D apps, games etc. may need more. But for most things people do with a home computer (mail, web, office, etc.) it's fine.

I just saw one. Very nice. And snappy. Maybe I should get one to watch DVDs in bed. The screen would be perfect.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2003, 12:24 PM
 
Originally posted by Simon:
No reason to generalize here and call the G4 "slow". For everyday use its speed is fine.

3D apps, games etc. may need more. But for most things people do with a home computer (mail, web, office, etc.) it's fine.

I just saw one. Very nice. And snappy. Maybe I should get one to watch DVDs in bed. The screen would be perfect.
For every day use, the 17" iMac is fine too. The 20" would be overkill, esp. considering the price premium.
     
iDaver
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2003, 03:11 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
For every day use, the 17" iMac is fine too. The 20" would be overkill, esp. considering the price premium.
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.
     
Centris650
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Heart O' Dixie
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2003, 03:26 PM
 
I've been thinking about this. Maybe Apple doesn't need to introduce a new line of monitorless macs. What would be nice is to see a bluring of the lines between iMac and Powermac like we have in the portable line.
><> 1 Peter 3:15-16
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2003, 04:59 PM
 
Originally posted by 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.
I agree 100%.

The 17" iMac is fine. For those that like it, but want a bigger screen the 20" is just perfect. I think it would be nice to see Apple consolidate the iMac motherboards and to differentiate by screen size and BTO options only.

400$ more for such a screen is a bargain. The 20" is huge! That's a 36% increase in area. Wonderful. I want it. Has anybody seen it in European stores yet?
     
Anand
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Between heaven and hell
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2003, 05:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Simon:
No reason to generalize here and call the G4 "slow". For everyday use its speed is fine.

3D apps, games etc. may need more. But for most things people do with a home computer (mail, web, office, etc.) it's fine.

I just saw one. Very nice. And snappy. Maybe I should get one to watch DVDs in bed. The screen would be perfect.
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.
Yes, I know I could buy a PC, but why?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:47 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,