[Veltliner]

Even though I truly enjoy the iMac as it is now, there is always a wish list.

Mine:

1. more RAM slots, so you don't have to buy those extremely expensive 2GB pieces to get higher RAM numbers.

2. Don't give me 2x512mb standard RAM. This takes up two slots, and for upgrades you have to chuck them anyway. I only want to see 1GB RAM in one piece. In general: Apple has always displayed RAM avarice. Even the expensive MacPro comes with laughable 1Gb standard. And they charge an apple and a leg for RAM.

3. As many use an iMac not for everyday computing, but, as it is so practical, for demanding tasks, I'd wish for a faster video card also in the 20" iMac.

4. Two hard drives. So you have your back-up system right in the main body without having to add an external hard drive via connector spaghetti.

---

And keep it as silent as it is! And get it a great display, as it has.

[Sub]

The problem with your wants for ram is that ram needs to be equally balanced in the slots, if you have 1 module, you have to have the same amount in the other slot.

I want to see a more plastic look like the old g4s, I love that look.

[CheesePuff]

Originally Posted by Sub 

The problem with your wants for ram is that ram needs to be equally balanced in the slots, if you have 1 module, you have to have the same amount in the other slot.

It doesn't need to be, it just can be.

[mduell]

1. Not going to happen as long as Apple continues to use mobile components (the mobile chipsets only support 2 slots).

2. Yea, the only model where pairing really makes sense is the bottom-of-the-line 17".

3. Price, heat, and eating into Mac Pro sales are all issues there.

4. Possible, especially if they switch to 2.5" drives.

[imitchellg5]

I would like to see up to 4 Gbs of RAM, no more Core 2 Duo (Dual Core Xeon at 2.66GHz maybe). I think the 17" model should be possibly edu only.

[Sourbook]

Aluminum.

[Veltliner]

What I don't want to lose: the MAGIC EYE.

It reminds me of those old tape machines from the sixties for the check of recording levels. Makes the machine seem alive a bit.

[jgcan]

Height adjustments.

[andyr2120]

Really now, there's very little difference in cost between a cd-rw and a dvd writer. While there's no doubt that a combo drive is sufficient for many people, it seems odd that a premium brand like Apple would skimp out.

Case in point, if you want a Mini with a dvd writer then you will have to consider paying a $200 premium to have it built in on the next model up (about a 1/3 increase), or else you'll have to get an external drive and lose out on the mini's greatest asset -- small and "neat" form factor. All that for a few bucks in cost savings at manufacturing. That isn't consumer friendly.

Andy

[Simon]

A completely redesigned iMac that can still be sold as an (ergonomic) AIO but also caters to the real desktop market (no expensive notebook components).

• Single Conroe, 4 RAM slots, 2 PCIe slots, 2 3.5" bays, 8x DL SD, Gigabit, AP Extreme/BT
• Dedicated GPUs on PCIe cards that are CTO'ed
• Small box that sits flat on the table (like a 6100 case with the width of the 7600 case) with VESA screen mount on top (swiveling, height-adjustable)
• CTO options for 20", 24", 30" ACDs, and headless
• Low end option (Mac mini replacement): E4400 2.0 GHz Allendale, 1 GB RAM, GMA X3000, Combo, headless

[Dazed]

Give me more ram, better graphics options and less of a chin and i'll give apple my credit card number right now

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

4. Two hard drives. So you have your back-up system right in the main body without having to add an external hard drive via connector spaghetti.

I strongly agree with this. If Apple's next iMac doesn't support two internal drives then they aren't really trying. With the humongous multimedia files they want me to play with, the Time Machine, and so forth, it would really be lame if we faced another 1-drive-only iMac.

[richwig83]

Apple will never give you 1 stick of memory as it defeats the Dual Channel speed increase!

[Simon]

Originally Posted by richardwigley 

Apple will never give you 1 stick of memory as it defeats the Dual Channel speed increase!

Which we also know is of practically no use. On machines with dedicated graphics the best you'll see is a few percent on certain benchmarks. The vast majority sees no benefit at all. Apple chose to use two smaller DIMMs over a single large DIMM because it's cheaper.

Apple put single DIMMs in its original CD iMacs and left the second slot empty. They used to fit the high end PBs and the original MBP with single DIMMs. It's nothing out of the ordinary. I guess they decide how to fit the RAM according to current RAM prices and availability. Right now DIMMs are extremely cheap thanks to overproduction for Vista.

[P]

Note that one single-channel DDR2-667 DIMM completely saturates the CPU bus of a Merom Core 2. The only time you see a gain for dual-channel is when there is something that has use for more bandwidth than the CPU does - in practice only integrated video - or when the CPU is saturated and something else is also vying for bandwidth (HD, GPU etc). For Conroe the FSB speed is higher, so you need 2 DDR2-533 DIMMs to saturate the FSB and you see more of a gain for pairing.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Even though I truly enjoy the iMac as it is now, there is always a wish list.

Mine:

1. more RAM slots, so you don't have to buy those extremely expensive 2GB pieces to get higher RAM numbers.

2. Don't give me 2x512mb standard RAM. This takes up two slots, and for upgrades you have to chuck them anyway. I only want to see 1GB RAM in one piece. In general: Apple has always displayed RAM avarice. Even the expensive MacPro comes with laughable 1Gb standard. And they charge an apple and a leg for RAM.

3. As many use an iMac not for everyday computing, but, as it is so practical, for demanding tasks, I'd wish for a faster video card also in the 20" iMac.

4. Two hard drives. So you have your back-up system right in the main body without having to add an external hard drive via connector spaghetti.

---

And keep it as silent as it is! And get it a great display, as it has.

You want a mac pro.

Anyway, I don't understand what apple is targetting with the new iMacs. Okay, I have optical audio, for great quality surround sound, a dvd player, a HUGE 24" LCD that's super crisp for watching movies, and I have frontrow, which is designed to use my mac from the couch.

OBVIOUSLY they intended this thing to make it in the living room, right?

THEN WHERE THE HELL IS THE BLOODY INPUT FOR MY GAME SYSTEM OR VCR OR WHATEVER ELSE I WANT TO HOOK UP TO THE GOD DAMN SCREEN!?!?!?!?!?!

[Simon]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

THEN WHERE THE HELL IS THE BLOODY INPUT FOR MY GAME SYSTEM OR VCR OR WHATEVER ELSE I WANT TO HOOK UP TO THE GOD DAMN SCREEN!?!?!?!?!?!

I believe Apple considers that a $150 add-on.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I believe Apple considers that a $150 add-on.

And I believe that in EVERY SINGLE REVIEW, they mention 'lag', which means that NO, it will NOT work as an input for a gaming system. Also, the picture quality is supposed to be pretty subpar. They NEED to add a REAL input!

[Simon]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

And I believe that in EVERY SINGLE REVIEW, they mention 'lag', which means that NO, it will NOT work as an input for a gaming system.

Hmm, I didn't know that. I saw this on their page: "...Connect your game console and enjoy an excellent live play experience – EyeTV Hybrid’s uncompressed analog video signals appear on the screen with virtually no latency...". I understand that could be marketing fluff, but is it really that bad?

[indigoimac]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Hmm, I didn't know that. I saw this on their page: "...Connect your game console and enjoy an excellent live play experience – EyeTV Hybrid’s uncompressed analog video signals appear on the screen with virtually no latency...". I understand that could be marketing fluff, but is it really that bad?

I don't think the delay is that bad, but I think what he is getting at is that he would like to see a computer free solution, just have the input go directly to the display, which, I might add, would be very nice, especially for the 24" or potential 30" models.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Hmm, I didn't know that. I saw this on their page: "...Connect your game console and enjoy an excellent live play experience – EyeTV Hybrid’s uncompressed analog video signals appear on the screen with virtually no latency...". I understand that could be marketing fluff, but is it really that bad?

Yep.

http://insidemacgames.com/reviews/us...ews.php?ID=714

[CharlesS]

1. Allow the user to get easy access to the internals like with the iMac G5. The current case design makes it ridiculously difficult.

2. Put the graphics card on a slot, even if it's that MXM slot that the current 24" uses.

3. I agree with Ca$h that a "monitor mode" would be a nice feature. Not being able to hook it up to other devices without that expensive Elgato device is one thing that frustrates me about my iMac.

[blackslayer]

1. Better i-sight
2. better gaming graphic card
3. better sound card(creatve xi-fi will be a good choice which allows us to support up to 7.1)
4. Santa rose
Maybe i am asking for too much.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by blackslayer 

1. Better i-sight
2. better gaming graphic card
3. better sound card(creatve xi-fi will be a good choice which allows us to support up to 7.1)
4. Santa rose
Maybe i am asking for too much.

1. Why? Do you take pics with yours?
2. ??? What games are you having troubles with? I run PREY in 1920X1200 at high res everything without any issues, quake 4 no problem, and UT2k4 very easily. I haven't found a game yet that makes it seem 'slow'.
3. Do you even have yours hooked up to a home theater receiver? Why bother supporting 7.1 considering most people don't even have 7.1 systems, and most serious audiophiles consider 7.1 a complete joke and waste of time?
4. Is your current CPU slow?

I don't understand your 'wishlist', because it seems like hte present 24" model fills almost any requirement you throw at it, EXCEPT having an input on the back of it.

[shinykaro]

I bought my iMac last summer so it'll be a few years before I can justify an upgrade, but here's some changes I'd love to see:

1. Higher standard RAM
2. Better iSight (just echoing here) - actually, I specifically would love some sort of zoom capability.
3. Make it lighter! I tend to carry mine from room to room, maybe that's just me, but it's about 19 lbs and being so compact I really think it could weigh less
4. Black casing would be pretty darn slick

[P]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

1. Allow the user to get easy access to the internals like with the iMac G5. The current case design makes it ridiculously difficult.

2. Put the graphics card on a slot, even if it's that MXM slot that the current 24" uses.

3. I agree with Ca$h that a "monitor mode" would be a nice feature. Not being able to hook it up to other devices without that expensive Elgato device is one thing that frustrates me about my iMac.

1. Downside to that was that the iMac G5s were noisier than the current models, because of manufacturing tolerances.

2. This is a given, I think. Apple has learned the value in selling customers on upgrades, including GPU upgrades.

3. iMacs, like laptops in general, do not use DVI or VGA or anything like that anywhere internal. They use something called LVDS. It would take special converter circuitry to permit external access to the display, and I don't think Apple will do it for a feature that few people will use.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by P 

3. iMacs, like laptops in general, do not use DVI or VGA or anything like that anywhere internal. They use something called LVDS. It would take special converter circuitry to permit external access to the display, and I don't think Apple will do it for a feature that few people will use.

I completley and totally disagree with you. The 24" iMac has a huge screen, a remote, and frontrow. What is their target audience of such a combination? Someone who would like to replace their TV with a huge iMac, it can show movies, share pictures and slideshows, play music, browse trailers, watch streaming media from a server, all from a very simple tiny remote. OBVIOUSLY they're targeting people who'd like to do away with the TV, and use the iMac instead. It has a great screen, a great optical drive, and it even has optical audio out for hooking up to ahome theater system. The thing that's BLANTENTLY missing from this combination is an input on the back of the screen, for hooking up other things to use it. Go check out apple's discussions on the iMac. People REALLY REALLY REALLY want to use their iMacs as TVs, and hook up gaming systems. This topic comes up again and again and again and again, so it's obviously NOT a very small number of people. We're approaching a time when TVs and computers are starting to merge together, and the lack of input on the iMac is a VERY obvious problem when using it as a main monitor.

[P]

Originally Posted by blackslayer 

3. better sound card(creatve xi-fi will be a good choice which allows us to support up to 7.1)

Creative is seriously overrated. It also only supports multi-channel sound over multiple analog connectors - something the Mac has never had, and that I think it will never have. It's just not elegant.

Apple could use better sound, but not multiple analog outs. What it needs is DDL or DTS Connect to allow live 5.1 sound (eg from games) over the optical out. Better sound quality and more Apple-like elegance. I'm fine if they decide to implement it partially in software, like Intel did - we all have dual-core now, after all.

[P]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I completley and totally disagree with you.

What part of what I wrote do you disagree with? That the iMac uses LVDS? That converting DVI to LVDS would take dedicated circuitry? That I don't think Apple will do it? Oh, the implication that few people will use it. So, you're basically saying that the world is full of people who would like to buy an iMac for $2000 and a console for $500 and skimp on the TV, instead of buying a 42" flat and a mini to complement that console?

The remote doesn't cost a lot and is an obvious plus to the buyer. The converter chip likely costs as much or more and is something that very few people will notice when shopping for a computer.

Apple isn't really into the entire convergence thing. They're flirting with it with the AppleTV, but that is a smaller bet than adding some ports to the iMac, absurd as it may seem. Why? Development costs was likely small - it uses off-the-shelf parts with a modded version of OS X - and they're not selling it at a loss. If they sell zero - no big deal, they lose development costs. If sales of the iMac start to drop - or for that matter, don't increase if you just eat the cost - because of a chip you added, that is a bigger loss, because you're either taking a cut in margin or you're losing sales on your most important product.

I see what you write, but I just don't see who thinks that way. A college student who has lots of cash but no space for two displays? He should probably get a laptop rather than an iMac.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by P 

Oh, the implication that few people will use it. So, you're basically saying that the world is full of people who would like to buy an iMac for $2000 and a console for $500 and skimp on the TV, instead of buying a 42" flat and a mini to complement that console?

OR, that someone would refuse to buy a mini because of its HORRIBLE integrated graphics, meaning any 3d work or gaming on said 42" LCD would run LIKE COMPLETE ASS, and the only way to get a Mac with a decent GPU is to go for the 24" iMac with the 7600GT, or spring over 3 grand on a mac pro. If the mini had a 7600GT option, only then would your argument make sense.

Apple isn't really into the entire convergence thing.

Wrong. See Frontrow. It is EXACTLY that: A convergence application, designed to show media (pics, movies, music, vids, etc) from your couch. It has a huge screen, good for viewing from a couch. It has optical audio, good for listening from the couch. It has a remote, good for using from the couch. It has frontrow, an application that's soul purpose is to help blend the divide between TVs and computers, allowing a computer to be used a LOT more like a TV. Apple keeps pressing about 'ilife' or your 'digital life' and the ease of sharing photos, movies, creating music, etc with others. Fine. And as I've shown, the 24" iMac is CLEARLY targeted at being a living room machine. The lack of input port comes up again and again and again in apple's discussion forums, it comes up on this forum, and it comes up on any mac gaming forum from people who'd like to hook up a game cube or something else to their iMac so they don't need a seperate display. I can watch movies on my iMac. I can watch TV on my iMac. But as of right now, there is no decent gaming solution. Dell is able to put in MANY MANY MANY different inputs on their 24" widescreen LCD, for very low cost, and in a very small space. Apple should be able to do the same. Your argument about components doesn't really hold water, as I don't really know that many people who use the iSight camera very often, or the DVI port very often.

I see what you write, but I just don't see who thinks that way. A college student who has lots of cash but no space for two displays? He should probably get a laptop rather than an iMac.

I could link you to a lot of posts from many different people that want an input on their iMacs, but I don't really feel like it, you'll just have to take my word for it, or search for yourself. Trust me, there are a LOT of people who want an input port, so much so that elgato ATTEMPTED to make the best possible solution with their EYETV products (which still suck at gaming). And it's not the SPACE for two displays, it's the need. Why the hell would I need two displays, if the only real reason for having a second display would be to play videogames? That's just dumb. It'd be a much more 'elegant' solution if Apple would just put a freaking input port on the back of the iMac!

[P]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

OR, that someone would refuse to buy a mini because of its HORRIBLE integrated graphics, meaning any 3d work or gaming on said 42" LCD would run LIKE COMPLETE ASS, and the only way to get a Mac with a decent GPU is to go for the 24" iMac with the 7600GT, or spring over 3 grand on a mac pro. If the mini had a 7600GT option, only then would your argument make sense.

So, this mythical customer has a need for high-quality 3D graphics as well. It must be for 3D work then, right? Or is it someone who wants to game on two platforms at once? And still can't fit a separate TV into the picture. I can certainly buy wanting better graphics if you intend to game on the machine, but that need
fades if you have a console.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Originally Posted by P

Apple isn't really into the entire convergence thing.

Wrong. See Frontrow. It is EXACTLY that: A convergence application, designed to show media (pics, movies, music, vids, etc) from your couch.

Quite. What did I write again? I mean all of it, not just the one sentence that you quoted out of context. Something about not being really into convergence, but just flirting with it, right? Something about how the remote is a smaller bet than adding conversion circuitry for an in port. Which is the bigger bet of writing an application and including conversion circuitry with all the apps?

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

It has a huge screen, good for viewing from a couch. It has optical audio, good for listening from the couch. It has a remote, good for using from the couch. It has frontrow, an application that's soul purpose is to help blend the divide between TVs and computers, allowing a computer to be used a LOT more like a TV. Apple keeps pressing about 'ilife' or your 'digital life' and the ease of sharing photos, movies, creating music, etc with others. Fine. And as I've shown, the 24" iMac is CLEARLY targeted at being a living room machine.

No, you haven't. A 24" TV is a very small TV. If anything, it could be a secondary TV. And iLife really isn't about the living room - rather it is about the other vision, the one where the iMac is the digital hub in a home. The AppleTV fits very well into this vision.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

The lack of input port comes up again and again and again in apple's discussion forums, it comes up on this forum, and it comes up on any mac gaming forum from people who'd like to hook up a game cube or something else to their iMac so they don't need a seperate display.

Yes it does, but it does so with the assumption that adding an inport would be essentially free to Apple, that they're just being annoying in not including it. They're not. It costs them money. That is not at all obvious, unless you know about LVDS contra DVI.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I can watch movies on my iMac. I can watch TV on my iMac.

Not by default. You need extra equipment for that. This beef wouldn't exist unless there had been the latency problem with the TV capture equipment that exists. Now, if Apple had shipped all iMacs with TV decoders, then it would have been an oversight to not include common TV in ports. Then it would have been profiled as a TV replacement.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

But as of right now, there is no decent gaming solution. Dell is able to put in MANY MANY MANY different inputs on their 24" widescreen LCD, for very low cost, and in a very small space. Apple should be able to do the same.

Can, yes. Cheaply, no. Technically, the iMac is a laptop computer. It uses laptop chipsets, laptop CPUs, laptop GPUs, laptop RAM and displays that might have gone into a laptop. Apple doesn't make chips of its own - it buys them. That's the big gain in switching to Intel, that all the chips are big volume commodities. Laptop GPUs have two outputs - one DVI/VGA and one LVDS variant (usually FPD-Link) that usually connects to the internal panel in the laptop and does the same in the iMac. To do what you propose, they would have to do one of two things:

They could add a complete LCD system, not just the panel, and connect some sort of minor KVM switch internally to switch between the DVI output of the GPU and an external DVI source. You'd lose the external DVI port in the bargain and you'd add heat and costs - all to get one DVI-in. No component, no S-video. The forums would be full of people complaining about the lack of those, and even more asking where the DVI (out) port went.

They could also add a reverse DVI to FPD-Link converter and rig the KVM-switch between the FPD-Link sources. This is probably what you want, but there are few commodity chips that do this. Note that I didn't say none - there are chips. Except they do a lot more. They convert many different signals in to LVDS - once again, often FPD-Link. Sounds great, right? Know where such chips are commonly used? Inside LCD TVs. You'd get a complete TV, minus the analog receiver circuitry. Guess at what cost?

There are other ways to get there - converting back and forth between LVDS and DVI inside the box, switching to a desktop setup - but all of them are major redesigns and all of them except the desktop setup add a lot of cost, and the desktop model has problems with heat and space concerns.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Your argument about components doesn't really hold water, as I don't really know that many people who use the iSight camera very often, or the DVI port very often.

Are you reading all of my posts or just the parts you quote? iSight is like the remote, an obvious differentiator that sells computers even if its rarely used. The DVI port is there for free from the GPU, you just add the actual connector.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I could link you to a lot of posts from many different people that want an input on their iMacs, but I don't really feel like it, you'll just have to take my word for it, or search for yourself. Trust me, there are a LOT of people who want an input port, so much so that elgato ATTEMPTED to make the best possible solution with their EYETV products (which still suck at gaming).

I know that a lot of people want that. I also know that a lot of people want a pony. It's just a question of cost - does the iMac market increase to such an extent that it justifies the extra cost? For the iSight, probably - I know how much my younger cousins love their webcams when using MSN. The Remote - sure, why not. More ports on the back? Do you really think so?

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

And it's not the SPACE for two displays, it's the need. Why the hell would I need two displays, if the only real reason for having a second display would be to play videogames? That's just dumb. It'd be a much more 'elegant' solution if Apple would just put a freaking input port on the back of the iMac!

This last sentence sums up your post perfectly. It's not just to add a freaking input port, that takes a redesign. If it had been easy, it would have been like the DVI out - might as well add it.

Take a look at UDI (Wikipedia link, you have been warned, but this is fairly uncontroversial stuff). UDI was meant to be a replacement for both FPD-Link and DVI. It is now being abandonded, but if it had been implemented, you could have had a UDI-in port on the back of your iMac. Too bad it failed. Look at who was involved in the launching of the standard: Intel, nVidia and Apple, among others. LG too - I think they make most of Apple's panels. It's almost as if there was a thought in there somewhere.

Apple might yet make a TV with a mac inside. In that case, they should include DVI, HDMI, SCART, S-Video, component, composite and a 75 ohm plug - at least. 3 each of HDMI and DVI. But the iMac isn't a TV. It's a computer with a few extra features, features that are either essentially free or that add obvious customer value. If you want the next iMac to be a TV, wish for an expansion slot - ExpressCard seems more likely than PCIe - for an EyeTV to use with less latency. That is more likely than a DVI-in.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by P 

1. Downside to that was that the iMac G5s were noisier than the current models, because of manufacturing tolerances.

I'm typing this on one right now. It is not noisy in any way, shape, or form, and you cannot hear any sound from it unless the room is dead silent.

So, this mythical customer has a need for high-quality 3D graphics as well. It must be for 3D work then, right? Or is it someone who wants to game on two platforms at once? And still can't fit a separate TV into the picture. I can certainly buy wanting better graphics if you intend to game on the machine, but that need
fades if you have a console.

Some people are into computing, and want a nice computer, but don't care to watch much TV. I am one of those people, and that's why I got my iMac. I don't have time to watch TV, and can't afford the ridiculous cable prices around here anyway. If I did get a TV, it would be in the form of a USB tuner for my iMac, because the idea of having another bulky box that I'd rarely use taking up space in my apartment is not appealing to me. It would be nice to be able to connect this monitor to external devices. Consoles are one thing (I don't own one, partly because I don't play games much and partly because I have nothing to hook it up to), but there are other uses, such as being able to use the iMac as a monitor for a nicer computer when the machine itself becomes obsolete but the screen is still useful.

So anyway, this type of customer is not "mythical", since I'm one of them.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by P 

So, this mythical customer has a need for high-quality 3D graphics as well. It must be for 3D work then, right? Or is it someone who wants to game on two platforms at once? And still can't fit a separate TV into the picture. I can certainly buy wanting better graphics if you intend to game on the machine, but that need fades if you have a console.

1. This customer isn't mythical.

http://discussions.apple.com/thread....76793&tstart=0
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....64931&tstart=0
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....6787&tstart=15
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....5710&tstart=75
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....9088&tstart=90
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....018&tstart=105
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....785&tstart=120
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....880&tstart=120
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....82910&#3682910
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....33553&#2533553
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....28117&#2528117
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....91334&#3191334
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....97292&#3397292

And yes, I have a need for ahigh performance 3d card, because I use apps that require them. Motion, Solidworks, Alias, and tons of other programs that I use take advantage of a 3d card, and run like crap when a system has an integrated 'crap' 3d card. I am OBVIOUSLY not alone here, just because YOU don't want this feature does not mean that thousands of other people wouldn't benefit from it. Many, MANY people like myself have purchased the 24" iMac as a living room computer, to replace their TV. Problem is, there is no real solution to hook up a VCR, external DVD player, VHS, or gaming system to the iMac. I could keep listing more topics if you'd like, these were just the first few I found on the first few pages. Also, in terms of gaming, I like playing UT or something every once in a while, but, I also like console gaming, as it's more relaxing. Apple's inability to allow customer to get a system with good graphics AND an input to the monitor (excluding the uber expensive mac pro) is a massive failure, as indicated by the large amount of posts I listed above.

Quite. What did I write again? I mean all of it, not just the one sentence that you quoted out of context. Something about not being really into convergence, but just flirting with it, right? Something about how the remote is a smaller bet than adding conversion circuitry for an in port. Which is the bigger bet of writing an application and including conversion circuitry with all the apps?

I wasn't aware you worked at apple and knew the costs involved in adding an IR remote with receiver and the software and integration to use it. I didn't know that. That's super cool! And sorry, you are wrong. Apple is BIG on convergence. iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes, and Frontrow are all nicely integrated into a total package that allows a consumer to set up the iMac in their living room, and use it as a primary display for movies, videos, and anything else as long as it is NOT an external device, which totally ****ing sucks.

No, you haven't. A 24" TV is a very small TV. If anything, it could be a secondary TV. And iLife really isn't about the living room - rather it is about the other vision, the one where the iMac is the digital hub in a home. The AppleTV fits very well into this vision.

I'm sorry that you're so completely ignorant. A 24" widescreen LCD is pretty freaking huge, especially when you consider that most movies are widescreen, and that LCDs and CRTs are measured differently. I have MORE screen on my 24" iMac than I did on my 32" Proscan CRT, because the CRT wasn't widescreen. I played a DVD on the proscan, and measured the image from one corner of the widescreen display to the opposite corner, and it was 23 and some odd inches. The 24" widescreen iMac provides a BIGGER display for movies than a 32" CRT, at least my old 32" proscan.

Not by default. You need extra equipment for that. This beef wouldn't exist unless there had been the latency problem with the TV capture equipment that exists. Now, if Apple had shipped all iMacs with TV decoders, then it would have been an oversight to not include common TV in ports. Then it would have been profiled as a TV replacement.

They are DIRT CHEAP compared to the LCD. Considering Dell manages to sell 24" widescreen LCDs for under $400 with many, MANY inputs, I think your argument is very weak, at best. It would NOT be expensive to add, much less expensive than some of the oddball requests.


Can, yes. Cheaply, no. Technically, the iMac is a laptop computer. It uses laptop chipsets, laptop CPUs, laptop GPUs, laptop RAM and displays that might have gone into a laptop. Apple doesn't make chips of its own - it buys them. That's the big gain in switching to Intel, that all the chips are big volume commodities. Laptop GPUs have two outputs - one DVI/VGA and one LVDS variant (usually FPD-Link) that usually connects to the internal panel in the laptop and does the same in the iMac. To do what you propose, they would have to do one of two things:

They could also add a reverse DVI to FPD-Link converter and rig the KVM-switch between the FPD-Link sources. This is probably what you want, but there are few commodity chips that do this. Note that I didn't say none - there are chips. Except they do a lot more. They convert many different signals in to LVDS - once again, often FPD-Link. Sounds great, right? Know where such chips are commonly used? Inside LCD TVs. You'd get a complete TV, minus the analog receiver circuitry. Guess at what cost?

Obviously not very much, considering Dell manages to shove many inputs on their monitors that use the same LCD panel as apple, and still sells them cheaply.

Are you reading all of my posts or just the parts you quote? iSight is like the remote, an obvious differentiator that sells computers even if its rarely used. The DVI port is there for free from the GPU, you just add the actual connector.

Are you reading my posts? I'm telling you this is a huge issue. Go search apple's support discussions. It comes up again and again and again and again and again. PEOPLE WANT AN INPUT PORT. My friends have come over and seen my 24" iMac and are really impressed with Frontrow, the remote, the integration into other apps, but when they ask if I can hook up my PS2, I tell them that I can't, because there's no input port. They ask if there's an adaptor or something, and then usually crawl around the back of the thing looking for an input port, because all of their dell displays have so many, they assume there has to be something. When I tell them there is an adaptor, but it's laggy and provides subpar picture quality at best, they suddenly feel glad, because they don't want to buy the iMac anymore. This has happened over 5 times from many different types of people, and ALL of them think it's stupid that there's no input port whatsoever.

I know that a lot of people want that. I also know that a lot of people want a pony. It's just a question of cost - does the iMac market increase to such an extent that it justifies the extra cost? For the iSight, probably - I know how much my younger cousins love their webcams when using MSN. The Remote - sure, why not. More ports on the back? Do you really think so?

YES. I don't ever hear people bitching about the lack of iSight, because you could always BUY one and add it on if you wanted it. The input port, however, is not so simple.

Apple might yet make a TV with a mac inside. In that case, they should include DVI, HDMI, SCART, S-Video, component, composite and a 75 ohm plug - at least. 3 each of HDMI and DVI. But the iMac isn't a TV. It's a computer with a few extra features, features that are either essentially free or that add obvious customer value. If you want the next iMac to be a TV, wish for an expansion slot - ExpressCard seems more likely than PCIe - for an EyeTV to use with less latency. That is more likely than a DVI-in.

Many, MANY people would disagree with you. Myself included.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I'm typing this on one right now. It is not noisy in any way, shape, or form, and you cannot hear any sound from it unless the room is dead silent.

noisy imac g5 - Google Search

Reality disagrees with you.

[Veltliner]

There is one more item on my wishlist: BETTER SPEAKERS.

I don't say they are terrible, but they definitely could be better. No, I don't want external speakers. The great thing about the iMac is the all-in-one-computer-sculpture concept.

[centerchannel68]

They are terrible. But then again, you'll never get good sound out of such a design. For good sound you need volume, as in the volume in a sealed or ported cabinet.

[P]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I'm typing this on one right now. It is not noisy in any way, shape, or form, and you cannot hear any sound from it unless the room is dead silent.

The problem is isolated to the first and second-gen, the ones without iSight. Since it's due to tolerances, not all machines are affected. You don't have to search very hard to find reports of noisy iMac G5s, though.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Some people are into computing, and want a nice computer, but don't care to watch much TV. I am one of those people, and that's why I got my iMac. I don't have time to watch TV, and can't afford the ridiculous cable prices around here anyway. If I did get a TV, it would be in the form of a USB tuner for my iMac, because the idea of having another bulky box that I'd rarely use taking up space in my apartment is not appealing to me. It would be nice to be able to connect this monitor to external devices. Consoles are one thing (I don't own one, partly because I don't play games much and partly because I have nothing to hook it up to), but there are other uses, such as being able to use the iMac as a monitor for a nicer computer when the machine itself becomes obsolete but the screen is still useful.

So anyway, this type of customer is not "mythical", since I'm one of them.

Not really. My mythical customer also required a console, without that you're fine with an eyeTV.

[P]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

1. This customer isn't mythical.

Apple - Support - Discussions - iMac Monitor as PC Monitor ...
Apple - Support - Discussions - imac + xbox 360? ...
Apple - Support - Discussions - Can I use my iMac as a Gamecube or PS2 ...
Apple - Support - Discussions - Video "in" on iMac ... ? ...
Apple - Support - Discussions - use imac as pc screen?? ...
Apple - Support - Discussions - DVI input ...
Apple - Support - Discussions - Using iMac 24" Display as an HDTV ...
Apple - Support - Discussions - Can the iMac 24 display support 2 ...
Apple - Support - Discussions - use iMac as monitor for xbox? ...
Apple - Support - Discussions - Gamecube to iMac ...
Apple - Support - Discussions - xbox 360 to iMac ...
Apple - Support - Discussions - Help with playing my 360 on iMac monitor ...
Apple - Support - Discussions - Using the iMac as a screen for xbox 360 ...

Other than certain of the responders, they don't really seem frustrated. Some are asking if they can get something for nothing, and at least one came away with the conclusion that they should get a separate LCD.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

And yes, I have a need for ahigh performance 3d card, because I use apps that require them. Motion, Solidworks, Alias, and tons of other programs that I use take advantage of a 3d card, and run like crap when a system has an integrated 'crap' 3d card. I am OBVIOUSLY not alone here, just because YOU don't want this feature does not mean that thousands of other people wouldn't benefit from it. Many, MANY people like myself have purchased the 24" iMac as a living room computer, to replace their TV. Problem is, there is no real solution to hook up a VCR, external DVD player, VHS, or gaming system to the iMac. I could keep listing more topics if you'd like, these were just the first few I found on the first few pages. Also, in terms of gaming, I like playing UT or something every once in a while, but, I also like console gaming, as it's more relaxing. Apple's inability to allow customer to get a system with good graphics AND an input to the monitor (excluding the uber expensive mac pro) is a massive failure, as indicated by the large amount of posts I listed above.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. I spent most of my last post explaining why adding an external DVI in is not simple. It's hard and it costs money. Somewhere along the line, it's cheaper to just get a smallish TV - most modern models have HDMI or VGA in, so you can connect it to your iMac as well and use dual monitors. If it had been cheap and easy to add - like say adding multiple analog audio outs - I might understand your frustration, but this is difficult. If the machine had had TV inputs, fine. It doesn't. The panel is not connected in the same way as that Dell panel. Please trust me on this.

If you bought the 24" iMac to replace your TV, then I'm sorry for you. It doesn't work very well for that - but then Apple hardly advertises that it does. For the difference between the 17" and the 24", you can buy yourself a very nice TV, and even the 20" to 24" gives you some money to buy a TV for.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I wasn't aware you worked at apple and knew the costs involved in adding an IR remote with receiver and the software and integration to use it. I didn't know that. That's super cool! And sorry, you are wrong. Apple is BIG on convergence. iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes, and Frontrow are all nicely integrated into a total package that allows a consumer to set up the iMac in their living room, and use it as a primary display for movies, videos, and anything else as long as it is NOT an external device, which totally ****ing sucks.

Integration != convergence. You'd like a TV/computer. Many industry observers used to agree with your analysis, and some still do. Jobs doesn't - he prefers the computer separate but connected to the TV. Hence the AppleTV. This is not speculation - Apple used to spend its stockholder coneferences talking about nothing else.

The iApps are about a lot more than simple viewers. One major feature in all of them is exporting your data into a format that works in the home theater setup. Frontrow I already covered.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I'm sorry that you're so completely ignorant. A 24" widescreen LCD is pretty freaking huge, especially when you consider that most movies are widescreen, and that LCDs and CRTs are measured differently.

You mean that CRTs are measured to the edge of the tube, while LCDs are measured to the edge of the lit picture so a 30" LCD has as big a picture as a 32" CRT? Right, I'm completely ignorant of that.

I used to have 28" CRT widescreen and traded up to a 37" LCD. A 24" LCD is smaller than either and barely large enough to use as the main TV. Fact is, I'm starting to think that I was cheap that didn't get a 42". Expensive? Nowhere near what a 24" iMac costs. For SD, a 24" LCD has an optimal viewing distance of just under 11 feet. That's quite close. For HD, the distance creeps even closer. My living room is much bigger than that.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I have MORE screen on my 24" iMac than I did on my 32" Proscan CRT, because the CRT wasn't widescreen. I played a DVD on the proscan, and measured the image from one corner of the widescreen display to the opposite corner, and it was 23 and some odd inches. The 24" widescreen iMac provides a BIGGER display for movies than a 32" CRT, at least my old 32" proscan.

In that case, the image was more elongated than 16:9 (which is common for movies) AND your TV must have been smaller than 32". 32" 4:3 was very uncommon - 28" 4:3 was the most common size, with 32" coming with the first 16:9 displays.

A 32" CRT has a viewable diagonal size of 30", unless it was a low quality thing where it might be slightly larger. With Pythagoras on that, the width of the picture becomes 24". On a 24" LCD 16:9, the width becomes just under 21". Not bigger - one size smaller, rather - and you were comparing with an old TV. I was comparing with what you can get for your money today.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

They are DIRT CHEAP compared to the LCD. Considering Dell manages to sell 24" widescreen LCDs for under $400 with many, MANY inputs, I think your argument is very weak, at best. It would NOT be expensive to add, much less expensive than some of the oddball requests.

I just spent my last post explaining why it would be hard and expensive, because the design is nowhere near what Dell uses. I'd be happy to copy the entire thing into this post again, but I doubt that that'll help.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Originally Posted by P

Can, yes. Cheaply, no. Technically, the iMac is a laptop computer. It uses laptop chipsets, laptop CPUs, laptop GPUs, laptop RAM and displays that might have gone into a laptop. Apple doesn't make chips of its own - it buys them. That's the big gain in switching to Intel, that all the chips are big volume commodities. Laptop GPUs have two outputs - one DVI/VGA and one LVDS variant (usually FPD-Link) that usually connects to the internal panel in the laptop and does the same in the iMac. To do what you propose, they would have to do one of two things:

Obviously not very much, considering Dell manages to shove many inputs on their monitors that use the same LCD panel as apple, and still sells them cheaply.

Because they don't use laptop parts. This means that they're not as cool nor as slim.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Are you reading my posts? I'm telling you this is a huge issue. Go search apple's support discussions. It comes up again and again and again and again and again. PEOPLE WANT AN INPUT PORT. My friends have come over and seen my 24" iMac and are really impressed with Frontrow, the remote, the integration into other apps, but when they ask if I can hook up my PS2, I tell them that I can't, because there's no input port. They ask if there's an adaptor or something, and then usually crawl around the back of the thing looking for an input port, because all of their dell displays have so many, they assume there has to be something. When I tell them there is an adaptor, but it's laggy and provides subpar picture quality at best, they suddenly feel glad, because they don't want to buy the iMac anymore. This has happened over 5 times from many different types of people, and ALL of them think it's stupid that there's no input port whatsoever.

I can understand that. An input port seems simple if you don't know how hard it would be. You don't get one, and its a tradeoff of the machine being slim and cool. Turn the question around - why doesn't all of Dells laptops have DVI in?

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

YES. I don't ever hear people bitching about the lack of iSight, because you could always BUY one and add it on if you wanted it. The input port, however, is not so simple.

You can also buy a TV and connect it to the iMac.

Comparing your theoretical 24" iMac with an input port with an existing 17" iMac + a 26" TV, the second has a bigger display, a second display and all the input ports you could ever want at a lower price. You might say it's less elegant - fine, but what price elegance? If you give me a billion $ I'll wire up an iMac with a DVI port for you.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Many, MANY people would disagree with you. Myself included.

That the iMac isn't a TV? That an expansion port would be easier to make than a DVI in?

This is getting absurd. I'm telling you that adding a DVI in is hard, and I'm gamely trying to explain why that is so. You don't seem to accept that. I doubt we're going to move forward here. You want to connect a console, because that seems to be the one thing that you can't do (other computers work fine over VNC or similar, a DVD is included, audio in exists and TV and VHS can both be viewed using eyeTV). For that specific need, get a separate LCD panel. Connect it to the iMac when you're not using it for the console. It costs less than an eyeTV.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Yep.
Inside Mac Games Reader Reviews: Elgato EyeTV EZ

I see. That same link claims though that buying the slightly more expensive EyeTV 250 gets rid of that lag. So I guess we could say your input is basically a $200 add-on option then.

That said, I do understand that some people would like a "computer-less" monitor option. OTOH as P pointed out these things cost money to implement. $20 doesn't sound like a lot to you, but $20 is huge when you look at component costs. Therefore, if anything, I'd expect Apple to make such a feature a BTO option. From a business POV those options only make sense if a lot of people buy them. If only 1 out 50 buyers wants a $50 BTO option for TV input it would make perfect sense for Apple to simply neglect that market.]

Re: convergence I think you haven't preoperly understood Apple's approach. The FR remote is there to help you use your iMac as a display for content that's on your Mac. FR is there to display content that's on your Mac. The iTunes store is there to get movie/TV/audio content onto your Mac. The AppleTV is a way to get content that's on your Mac onto your big living room TV. Apple has this vision where content is somewhere on your network and you access it either from a client (computer or iPod) on your network or from a stereo system or TV that can pull content from your network. But Apple has never been interested in getting TV content onto your Mac. They haven't offered tuners in ages and the AppleTV (just like the mini BTW) is far from a DVR. Apple wants to sell you content which you then play back on your Mac (or iPod or AppleTV). They don't want to help you use your Mac to record or display free content (be that TV or console games from which they earn nothing either). That's not their business model. And that's also why their idea of convergence is entirely different from that of MS' with their Media Center. Of course you may disagree with their strategy, but it's important to note what their approach is and why the choose to enter certain markets while disregarding others. Apple's convergence is not about total integration of consumer hardware. In their opinion your TV's here to stay.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by mduell 

noisy imac g5 - Google Search

Reality disagrees with you.

Dude, don't give me that. I've had a Rev. B iMac G5 for two years now. It's not noisy. You can't even hear it at all unless the room is dead silent and you're specifically thinking about it.

The only time it gets noisy is when you boot into Open Firmware or the boot selector. When you do that, the power management software doesn't get loaded, so the computer doesn't know how hard to run the fan, and runs it at full speed just in case. That's not a fault of the case, though, just the power management software, and it doesn't occur in normal use of the machine.

Originally Posted by P 

The problem is isolated to the first and second-gen, the ones without iSight. Since it's due to tolerances, not all machines are affected. You don't have to search very hard to find reports of noisy iMac G5s, though.

Oh, okay, so some people have got lemons. That is understandable, although in my mind that wouldn't indicate a fundamental problem with the case, since I've definitely got a Rev. B here that is whisper quiet.

Not really. My mythical customer also required a console, without that you're fine with an eyeTV.

Well, if I wanted to watch TV on the thing, yes. For connecting other devices, it would be nice to have a built-in port, and of course an eyeTV would not be acceptable for using the iMac as a monitor for another computer.

[centerchannel68]

P: It must be nice to know everything in the universe. Really. I'm done arguing with you. I don't have time to waste arguing with pricks who can't see past their own noses. I've proven that many people want this feature. I've proven that Dell's AFFORDABLE monitors which use the EXACT SAME LCDS THAT APPLE DOES, have many inputs, without a problem. The input cards do not take up much room, and they are NOT some horrible horrible feature that was impossible to implement. Have fun being the smartest person in the entire world that knows everything yet refuses to learn something knew. If I had time, I'd link you to about 200-300 topics on apple's own discussion boards about people wanting to hook up their gaming system to their iMacs, but I won't, because I'm going to let you stay ignorant so you look stupid to even more people.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I see. That same link claims though that buying the slightly more expensive EyeTV 250 gets rid of that lag. So I guess we could say your input is basically a $200 add-on option then.

WRONG. Read the link again. The EyeTV EZ is the same thing as the EyeTV 250's game mode. BOTH HAVE LAG. Not a 1-3 second lag, but enough to be noticeable.

[centerchannel68]

BTW, if Apple doesn't add an input port next revision, I'm purchasing a 24" Dell monitor, selling my iMac, and purchasing another 24" iMac witha broken LCD on ebay, then merging the two. I'm going to name it the F.U.P.

[P]

Yes, let's end this discussion, because we're not getting anywhere. I know that some people want an input port, but I claim that they assume that it would be cheap and easy to add. I know it isn't, but apparently I've failed to convince you of that (the big difference is in the GPU, not the panel).

And I'd be honored if you'd name the your new setup that. It would be even better if you kept your current iMac and added a second display, but hey, I'll take what I can get.

A question, because I'm curious: If you had the option to have either

* the current setup
or
* one with a DVI in but no monitor spanning (ie you might get a DVI out port, but it would only mirror the internal display)

which would you pick?

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Re: convergence I think you haven't preoperly understood Apple's approach. The FR remote is there to help you use your iMac as a display for content that's on your Mac. FR is there to display content that's on your Mac. The iTunes store is there to get movie/TV/audio content onto your Mac. The AppleTV is a way to get content that's on your Mac onto your big living room TV. Apple has this vision where content is somewhere on your network and you access it either from a client (computer or iPod) on your network or from a stereo system or TV that can pull content from your network. But Apple has never been interested in getting TV content onto your Mac. They haven't offered tuners in ages and the AppleTV (just like the mini BTW) is far from a DVR. Apple wants to sell you content which you then play back on your Mac (or iPod or AppleTV). They don't want to help you use your Mac to record or display free content (be that TV or console games from which they earn nothing either). That's not their business model. And that's also why their idea of convergence is entirely different from that of MS' with their Media Center. Of course you may disagree with their strategy, but it's important to note what their approach is and why the choose to enter certain markets while disregarding others. Apple's convergence is not about total integration of consumer hardware. In their opinion your TV's here to stay.

QFT. This is exactly the point of Apple's living room strategy.

[P]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well, if I wanted to watch TV on the thing, yes. For connecting other devices, it would be nice to have a built-in port, and of course an eyeTV would not be acceptable for using the iMac as a monitor for another computer.

VNC does that - there is even a version of it (ScreenRecycler) that is explicitly targeted at using the iMac as an external display for another computer. Want a dedicated port to avoid using the network? Use IP over Firewire. Non-interactive stuff can all be sent through the eyeTV, if you can stand a slight delay when pushing pause on the remote. The only thing really missing is the ability to attach a console. Wonder if anyone has hacked up VNC to run on consoles?

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by P 

Yes, let's end this discussion, because we're not getting anywhere. I know that some people want an input port, but I claim that they assume that it would be cheap and easy to add. I know it isn't, but apparently I've failed to convince you of that (the big difference is in the GPU, not the panel).

And I'd be honored if you'd name the your new setup that. It would be even better if you kept your current iMac and added a second display, but hey, I'll take what I can get.

A question, because I'm curious: If you had the option to have either

* the current setup
or
* one with a DVI in but no monitor spanning (ie you might get a DVI out port, but it would only mirror the internal display)

which would you pick?

DVI in. Monitor spanning is pointless in the living room, as watching a movie with a big bar down the middle would be horribly, horribly ugly. As for your arguments about the GPU, they're completely unneeded. The GPU doesn't need to get involved. They don't need to add a tuner, external tuners are available. All they need is SOME FORM OF INPUT, and a button that switches between the output from the iMac's GPU, and the input on the back of the iMac. IT WOULD NOT be very expensive, as like I said, Dell manages to add many, MANY kinds of inputs for a fraction of the cost of apple's displays.

[P]

If you're prepared to lose the DVI out, it's doable. You'd just need to add an LCD controller board and forget about the LVDS connection entirely. Alternatively, you might be able to put the switch behind the controller board and keep the DVI out, but it sounds harder. I would much rather have the DVI out though, but I expect that Apple's decision was made based on not having to include a controller board.

If you want to try adding an inport to your iMac (very much at your own risk) there are people who have done it with PC laptops. Might be interesting to see what I mean about the difference between how laptops and desktops work wrt LCDs, and what Apple would have to include in the iMac to make a DVI in work.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by P 

VNC does that - there is even a version of it (ScreenRecycler) that is explicitly targeted at using the iMac as an external display for another computer. Want a dedicated port to avoid using the network? Use IP over Firewire. Non-interactive stuff can all be sent through the eyeTV, if you can stand a slight delay when pushing pause on the remote. The only thing really missing is the ability to attach a console. Wonder if anyone has hacked up VNC to run on consoles?

VNC? Are you serious?

[P]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

VNC? Are you serious?

About using VNC to connect another computer to the Mac? Completely. About running VNC on a console? No, that bit was meant as a joke/idle musings.