[osxisfun]

i hereby (in a drunken pre news years eve stupor) am going to post a link that will be the end all argument as to who this new mac will be targeted at:

(found it on the appleinsider board)


http://online.wsj.com/public/article...907298,00.html


Read all the letters.

That's who apple is going after.

Period.

End of Discussion*


*yaah right

[Tristrami]

Originally posted by Randman:
Like this?

--------------

Worst....mockup.....EVER!

[teknopimp]

mock mock-up.

mucked mock-up...

[Laurence]

Something else that I haven't heard mentioned lately is what is happening with XGrid. If this device was really sold for <$500 then it could be used to speed up rendering in FCP, DVDSP, etc. I've read more rumors talking about XGrid becoming more and more integrated into the OS over time, probably included in Tiger adn updated in future updates like 10.4.1,2,3, etc or something like that. Right now I have a 533MHz G4 and although I would like to get a G5 at some point, I can't justify the expense. $500 on the other hand is affordable to almost anyone. (Especially current Mac users as they could already afford a much more expensive computer) I would get one of these for use as a set-top box and then hopefully its processor could be used for tasks on my other Mac. I realize that if you already have a G5 it will be a much lesser benefit, but there are many Mac users out there that don't have a computer even close to the speed of a 1.25GHz G4 and this could be looked at as an upgrade for their current computer. I actually think something like this could be more popular than any computer Apple has ever made.

[ApeInTheShell]

Comes with AOL!

[teknopimp]

wow. some idiot decided to start their own headless imac thread:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=239985

...aptly subtitled 'rambling'.

[CincyGamer]

Originally posted by Tristrami:
--------------

Worst....mockup.....EVER!

is THAT some sick sex toy in the bag? or just a neck massager?

[jon l. dawson]

Originally posted by CincyGamer:
is THAT some sick sex toy in the bag? or just a neck massager?

and what do you think people use those 'neck massagers' for anyway?

[phobos]

I think apple is going on the right direction with a cheap computer but the specs of this machine don't look so good. PC users need a good first impression. And by looking at this machine they'll think that macs are underpowered basically what most of them were thinking years ago.
1.25 GHz is laughable... The OS is getting more and more demanding. Tiger will be even more demanding. Not only CPU wise but GPU wise as well. I guess that in an Apple fashion they'll put a basic graphic card, making things even worse.
Imagine people getting frustrated by the slow responsiveness of the OS. Guess what will happen when they'll try to do something even more demanding. Like render a simple imovie.
I guess we should just wait and see. But I'm pretty confident that apple will cripple the machine making it unusable even for the audience that it's targetting.

[osxisfun]

2 points.

>cripple the machine making it unusable even for the audience that it's targetting.

Email and browsing, itunes and iphoto too demanding? Nope. (if you mention games then i agree but if someone wants to play games maybe they should buy a nintendo.

2nd, someone a few posts back mentioned that the fact that Macs last so long is actaully not a good thing. A cheaper mac would (just like what happens in the pc world now) cause people to upgrade more (faster imac minis down the road)

Finally, there are many people doing just fine with less than 1.25g4, but you are right. in 12 days we will all know.

[scottiB]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
...there are many people doing just fine with less than 1.25g4

I for one: I have a DP800 at home and a G4933 at the office. Not a problem for basic tasks like iLife, as well as FCP4, DVDSP, and Photochop. The key though is having enough RAM. Both G4s have 1.5GB. I'm afraid that most iMac LC buyers won't add extra memory--at least to reach 768MB. With 256, the beachball will pop-up too often for beginning Mac users.

[osxisfun]

agreed. looks like this will be the 21st century version of

"Would you like the Undercoating option to go with that new car"

ram is a profitable add on. but i do hope apple drops the price and puts it in a pretty package like an CF card or something like that...

[rozwado1]

Originally posted by solbo:
I understand why this *might* be a good idea, but that 1.25 GHz G4 looks, and is, outdated.

I have a 500MHz iBook. F*ck You.

[scottiB]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
but i do hope apple drops the price and puts it in a pretty package like an CF card or something like that...

Smart idea. A 512MB chip for $50 would do it. Originally, Apple sold DVD-Rs for far less than the market. It would be a good idea if they did it with RAM. Just call it "memory" with Apple-esque packaging design.

[pliny]

I don't know why people say the G4 is outdated. It is running very well in all the laptops.

Some time ago, I sat in front of an 800mhz iMac. It was very quick and performed very solidly with many apps open--imovie, ical, office, photoshop, itunes, safari, iphoto. and this was with 256 mb ram.

It isn't just the hardware, it is the hardware and the software working together that make for the computing experience. I think a $499 Mac with 1.25 G4 would be great. If it was a 1.8 G5 it would be truly great.

The G4 is a solid chip and what always topped the machines out, was the fsb. Let's see what the Q88 bus looks like before we say it is outdated!



Anyway Happy New Year everyone!

[mbryda]

Originally posted by phobos:
The OS is getting more and more demanding. Tiger will be even more demanding. Not only CPU wise but GPU wise as well. I guess that in an Apple fashion they'll put a basic graphic card, making things even worse.
Imagine people getting frustrated by the slow responsiveness of the OS. Guess what will happen when they'll try to do something even more demanding. Like render a simple imovie.
I guess we should just wait and see. But I'm pretty confident that apple will cripple the machine making it unusable even for the audience that it's targetting.

Have you ever used any of the $400 PC's? Didn't think so. I installed one (HP De-Celeron-D with 256MB shared RAM) for a customer (he provided) and it was horrible. XP took darn near 3 minutes to boot and be useable. Loading an app (Firefox) and switching was an excercise in futility. It was really bad.

If this is what people are using for their PC's, any Mac will be more responsive than that. My wife's iBook with 256MB and 2 people logged in is still decently responsive. And my G4/800 iMac (512MB) works great and renders DVD's and iMovies fine. It even handles 6MP RAW conversions fine. And this is a machine on a 100Mhz bus that is very "outdated"....

I hope they do this - it will really make the platform big. Imagine walking into the store and getting iPod + Mac for $1k. Love it!

[mbryda]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
In all my discussions it nearly always comes back to the subject of upgradability; PC users don't like Macs because they can't jack up the video card to play Doom, or add a $35 CD-RW themselves. At least not without paying big bucks for a G5 tower.

They are not the target demographic. Most PC users NEVER open the case. They just use it and when it gets too old they toss it. They may add CD-RW drives or upgrade the RAM, but that's about it. I see it all the time with older computers.

Not to mention most people only want the basics from a PC - Email, Web, Photos, Music, and Video. All of which the Mac handles far better than any PC.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by jasonsRX7:
They all come to me with their Dell catalogs, point at the cheapest $399 system with mail in rebates, and ask, "is this a good system?" I've learned to just say 'Yes' because they're going to buy it anyway, and it gets rid of them faster.

I always take the time to explain why Dell is the worst computer you can buy. Tell them about how they cut corners and produce a generally poor box. And then even tell them about the performance they will get with that $399 computer (see my other post). Most come around and go elsewhere. The rest regret it later.

You'd be smarter to use an Abacus over anything Dell makes.

[phobos]

>Have you ever used any of the $400 PC's? Didn't think so. I installed one (HP De-Celeron-D with 256MB shared RAM) for a customer (he provided) and it was horrible. XP took darn near 3 minutes to boot and be useable. Loading an app (Firefox) and switching was an excercise in futility. It was really bad.
(By the way how do you do the quote thing? It didn't work for me.)

Just because the competition is really bad doesn't mean that apple is excused for the new underperforming machine that might announce in a few weeks.
If apple is really interested in showing it's "think different" philosophy they have to somehow state that the're not yet another cheap machine creator but a company that values its customers and their need for a positive user experience.
So just because xp takes 3 minutes to boot on a cheap machine doesn't automatically mean that everything will be fine if the cheap mac can boot in 2 minutes. ( I'm sure it'll be less than that. My 667DVI boots in 1:30 minute.)
I know what you'll say. That part of the whole experience is the OS, the design of the machine etc. But if they sell it with only 256MB of ram, cripple the bus ( they have a tendency to do that on the cheap machines so the more expensive ones can look good)
put a really cheap graphic card, and use only a 1.25Ghz g4 then I'm afraid that the whole user experience of OSX will fly right out of the window. So what you'll end up with, is a machine that just looks good.
Anyway we only have 10 days for the presentation. We'll see then.

[MORT A POTTY]

what the hell, my single 867Mhz PowerMac G4 runs OS X without problem. the experience of the machine will be just fine. albeit not near as sexy as a new imac or something, but it's definitely good.

[Simon]

Originally posted by phobos:
Just because the competition is really bad doesn't mean that apple is excused for the new underperforming machine that might announce in a few weeks.

Underperforming? Are you nuts? A 1.25GHz G4 on a 167MHz bus will run Tiger and iLife just fine. I have no idea what you are talking about.

If apple is really interested in showing it's "think different" philosophy they have to somehow state that the're not yet another cheap machine creator but a company that values its customers and their need for a positive user experience.

First of all, 'Think Different' is an old campaign and not in use anymore. Secondly, of all the computer manufactureres out there, Apple is the company known for not making cheap machines that offer negative user experience. Apple basically guarantees a good UE.

But if they sell it with only 256MB of ram,

They do that on every non-pro Mac now. Ultra-low cost is not going to get you ultra-beefy RAM, you can be sure about that. You get what you paid for. If you want more RAM, just buy it for Christ's sake. It's not like Apple wouldn't put DIMM slots in their machines.

cripple the bus ( they have a tendency to do that on the cheap machines so the more expensive ones can look good)

Again, that used to be.

Nowadays desktop G4 Macs run at 167MHz which is the maximum speed of the 75x/74xx MaxBus. That's not crippling, it's the frigging technical limit. If you want more, design a new chip for them. Com'on, go ahead. We're waiting.

put a really cheap graphic card, and use only a 1.25Ghz g4 then I'm afraid that the whole user experience of OSX will fly right out of the window. So what you'll end up with, is a machine that just looks good.

Do you even have a Mac? A 1.25GHz G4, even with a cheap Radeon 9200 would run Tiger and iLife just fine. It will surf the web, send e-mails, rip, mix & play all your music, play your DVDs, edit your vacation movies, etc. It would do what it is expected to do just perfectly.

What it won't do well is play modern 3d games and serious number crunching. Both markets that are 100% not targeted with this box.

[MasonMcD]

If it's about the size of a average hardcover book, I think that would also get over some of the psychological barriers to upgrading.

When I see a two foot tall tower under my desk with a bunch of wires and ports and dongles and what have you coming out of it, I'm hesitant to move it, much less upgrade.

What if you could just stick in a keyboard, mouse, and monitor in about 2 seconds in a little brick thingy? I think people would be going through those things like people are apparently going through iPods - buying one for the kids, getting the new scroll wheel version, etc.

Better, even, if it was bluetooth mouse and keyboard. Just the monitor, then.

[Simon]

Originally posted by MasonMcD:
Better, even, if it was bluetooth mouse and keyboard.

I hope that will be available as BTO, but up to now not even an internal BT slot has been mentioned...

[P]

Originally posted by phobos:
I think apple is going on the right direction with a cheap computer but the specs of this machine don't look so good. PC users need a good first impression. And by looking at this machine they'll think that macs are underpowered basically what most of them were thinking years ago.
1.25 GHz is laughable... The OS is getting more and more demanding. Tiger will be even more demanding. Not only CPU wise but GPU wise as well. I guess that in an Apple fashion they'll put a basic graphic card, making things even worse.
Imagine people getting frustrated by the slow responsiveness of the OS. Guess what will happen when they'll try to do something even more demanding. Like render a simple imovie.
I guess we should just wait and see. But I'm pretty confident that apple will cripple the machine making it unusable even for the audience that it's targetting.

The OS is not getting more and more demanding. It's getting less and less demanding. Of course I can't speak for what Tiger will look like, but my old 400 MHz G3 got faster with each update.

And the PC market segment this should be compared to is the part where the graphics are built into the chipset. There are basically three options there:

nVidia's nForce: uses Geforce2 MX-class graphics.
Intel's various chipsets: uses Intel's own graphics that don't even have a T&L unit. Basically Rage 128 class.
ATi's Radeon Extreme: Uses a version of that same Radoen 9200, only cut down to 2 pipelines, instead of the 4 in the Radeon 9200.

All of these are noticably worse than the 9200. While the CPU is lower clocked, that doesn't really matter as the G4 is much more efficient clock-for-clock than a P4 - and even more so now with the Prescott P4s. I'm not saying it makes up for all of the gap, but the gap is very small. The one issue I have with it is the lack of RAM and the lack of RAM bandwidth. The lack of RAM is something Apple does in all its machines these days. The lack of RAM bandwidth is not something Apple can do anything about, short of a new G4.

[jasonsRX7]

Originally posted by mbryda:
I always take the time to explain why Dell is the worst computer you can buy. Tell them about how they cut corners and produce a generally poor box. And then even tell them about the performance they will get with that $399 computer (see my other post). Most come around and go elsewhere. The rest regret it later.

That's what I used to do, at least for the first year at work. Then I realized that they don't really want advice on what to get, they just want you to make the decision easy for them. Besides, they don't care about peformance, or build quality, or ease of use. They only want cheap, and Dell gives them cheap.

That's why I'm really hoping this 'iMac mini' turns out to be true. When someone comes to me asking about a $399 Dell, I have never been able to get them to adjust their budget enough for a $799 or $1299 Mac. But I bet I could with a $499 Mac.

[ryarber]

Originally posted by mbryda:
Have you ever used any of the $400 PC's? Didn't think so. I installed one (HP De-Celeron-D with 256MB shared RAM) for a customer (he provided) and it was horrible. XP took darn near 3 minutes to boot and be useable. Loading an app (Firefox) and switching was an excercise in futility. It was really bad.

I totally agree with you. People are comparing a cheap mac computer to a Dell tower, wanting the latest graphics cards and maxed out ram as well as 1 GHz system busses. That is not realistic. At this price point, you should be comparing them to cheap piece of crap PC's that are sold at Walmart. That is where the true comparison lies. Any mac running a G4 and Panther will toast one of those machines.

Looks like what a lot of people on this board want is a reincarnation of the cube. NEWS FLASH!!! The cube didn't sell. The cube is gone. I think this thing will sell by the truckloads and is what we as mac users need, more marketshare and mindshare. Maybe as a result of this, we'll see companies like intuit get off its butt and make a decent mac version of quicken so I won't have to keep using Windows quicken with Virtual PC to do what I want.

[zerock]

i see this as going in the right direction, maybe next year, they will have an upgradeable machine, its just steps, but obviously this is the right direction

[phobos]

Simon, relax.

[QuadG5Man]

>>>>>>> from Laurence>>
"Something else that I haven't heard mentioned lately is what is happening with XGrid. If this device was really sold for <$500 then it could be used to speed up rendering in FCP, DVDSP, etc. I've read more rumors talking about XGrid becoming more and more integrated into the OS over time, probably included in Tiger adn updated in future updates like 10.4.1,2,3, etc or something like that"

I think it would be awesome if this $499 mac made your single processor mac more like a dual, but would XGrid technology work over airport? Does XGrid require gigabit ethernet?

One poster mentioned buying (5) $499 macs for his home. Imagine if each unit added that much CPU horse power to every task on every mac you owned without wires....could be handy when mixed with other more powerful macs. heh.

Qg5 - just ain't what it used to be.

[morgantruce]

Sorry... I couldn't resist poking a little fun at this:


Apple to Announce $99 iMac !

[osxisfun]

Originally posted by morgantruce:
Sorry... I couldn't resist poking a little fun at this:


Apple to Announce $99 iMac !

Damn you! You got me all exited, for a minute there i thought i was going to be able to buy a new mac and 4 flash ipods for $500...

[ajprice]

That mock up on the $99 link doesn't look bad, plain, but not bad.

[osxisfun]

looks like a powermac 610 only painted...



http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/...9003948631&p=3

the rumor: existence of the xMac.

the truth (so far): applecare employees know that a new applecare category has been created for an unknown new product.

[mitchell_pgh]

OK, this is my attempt at a mockup... My thought was a clean simple machine...

I think a system like this would sell like crazy.

[mitchell_pgh]

#2



I almost threw this away when Steve basically said a vertically mounted drive was a poor design... [remember then the original G4 iMac came out]...

Interesting how that never came up when the G5 iMac came out

[Voch]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
OK, this is my attempt at a mockup... My thought was a clean simple machine...

I think a system like this would sell like crazy.

Very nice. One would be on my shelf attached to the TV in a minute.

EDIT: I like your second mock-up, too. I even have a place to put a mini-vertical tower on my TV shelf.

Voch

[osxisfun]

awesome job mitchell_pgh.

i love #2. i don't think we will see powermac gray / silver in a low end machine but that looks good too.

[Nebagakid]

you foolios!

why would the prefix of the letter "x" be put on a cheapMac? The "x" is for all those server hardware....

You need another vowel, can't use "e" or "i" maybe aMac or oMac? yMac?

[osxisfun]

iMac mini

[Evan_11]

The problem with Apple doing a set-top box is that it will require them to design a computer that is roughly the size of a DVD player which is too big to put on your desk. In other words to do it right it needs to be two separate products.

For the mini iMac I'd like to see something no bigger than an external firewire enclosure. That would make it portable enough to sway power users who want a run-n-gun system and also the 20ish female who wants something stylish to set on her desk that doesn't take up a bunch of space. However Apple will need to introduce a new 15" monitor at a low price point that will match up aesthetically. I say 15" because it needs to be at a $300 price point or most will just realize they can move up to an iMac G5 for a couple hundred more and get a much nicer setup.

[Evan_11]

I'll also go out on a limb and say for certain that this mini iMac will have an iPod dock built in. That will be it's big selling point.

[iDaver]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
iMac mini

Doubtful. iMac is known as an all-in-one system. Mini Mac or Mac mini might work. How about podMac?

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
The problem with Apple doing a set-top box is that it will require them to design a computer that is roughly the size of a DVD player which is too big to put on your desk. In other words to do it right it needs to be two separate products.

For the mini iMac I'd like to see something no bigger than an external firewire enclosure. That would make it portable enough to sway power users who want a run-n-gun system and also the 20ish female who wants something stylish to set on her desk that doesn't take up a bunch of space. However Apple will need to introduce a new 15" monitor at a low price point that will match up aesthetically. I say 15" because it needs to be at a $300 price point or most will just realize they can move up to an iMac G5 for a couple hundred more and get a much nicer setup.

I don't agree. Consider the size of an eMac without the monitor and you can estimate the size (naturally it could be modified). This unit really shouldn't be much more then an upgraded eMac. If it were the size of a firewire enclosure, it would require special engineering to get the size down... and thus kill the inexpensive price point.

Basically it would be this with a power supply (which doesn't need to be internal), a HD and a CD/DVD bay.



IMHO, an iPod doc would hinder the sale of this product unless it was cleverly concealed.

I would also be VERY surprised if Apple offered a 15" CRT or LCD monitor. My guess would be a low end (non-wide screen) 17" CRT as a minimum in the $400 price range (yes, you could say "well, gee, a 17" iMac is only $XXX more", but then you are missing the point of this new unit).

I'll believe it when I see it.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
The problem with Apple doing a set-top box is that it will require them to design a computer that is roughly the size of a DVD player which is too big to put on your desk. In other words to do it right it needs to be two separate products.

Again... I'm not sure where you are getting the DVD player...

Apple has done it before...



The ONLY reason the cube died was price... and price alone.

[iDaver]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I don't agree. Consider the size of an eMac without the monitor and you can estimate the size (naturally it could be modified). This unit really shouldn't be much more then an upgraded eMac. If it were the size of a firewire enclosure, it would require special engineering to get the size down... and thus kill the inexpensive price point.

Whatever it is, I'd expect it to be small and cute, especially if it has mini in its name. I don't think it would sell nearly as well if it looks like a pizza box.

[hldan]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
#2



I almost threw this away when Steve basically said a vertically mounted drive was a poor design... [remember then the original G4 iMac came out]...

Interesting how that never came up when the G5 iMac came out

Hey could you please give me a briefing on what program did you create this mockup? Is it Photoshop? If so, then how do you guys do that? It looks very cool.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Again... I'm not sure where you are getting the DVD player...

Apple has done it before...



The ONLY reason the cube died was price... and price alone.

A set top box needs to fit in a component rack. Hence a successful design would have similar dimensions as a DVD player or TiVo. I don't see many people outside of Apple Nuts sticking a Cube a top their televisions. Everytime Grandma sneezes she will complain that you were out of kleenex.

A pizza box as people around here seem to want would utterly fail as a headless mac. Who would want one on their desk?

I don't think my enclosure size is too far fetched. Look how much they squeezed into the Cube. The only concession that would had to be made is a slot load optical drive instead of a tray one. I'm not sure what the cost differences are though. Remember that any schmuck can put a PC in a box and sell it. It will take Apple something special even at this low of a price point to persuade buyers to switch. Like the iMac G5 before it, I think we'll see something similar to the iPod mini in design which means....small and sexy. If you don't get this then fine.

Also why not put a dock on it?! Apple is designing this computer completely around the success of the iPod.

[Randman]

Rumor mill said an iPod dock was in the initial design but that it was scrapped, for now at least.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
A set top box needs to fit in a component rack. Hence a successful design would have similar dimensions as a DVD player or TiVo. I don't see many people outside of Apple Nuts sticking a Cube a top their televisions. Everytime Grandma sneezes she will complain that you were out of kleenex.

I respectfully disagree. I recently purchased an Elgato EyeHome (7.5" wide) and the size is much smaller then a standard DVD player. Considering it has replaced my DVD player... it fits just fine. It's also important to remember that it could be the standard 17" wide, but only 5-8" deep and be vertical mountable to fit on the side of a desk.

Originally posted by Evan_11:
A pizza box as people around here seem to want would utterly fail as a headless mac. Who would want one on their desk?

Because it may fit very well under a monitor (like an older desktop or whatever). As mentioned, it may be horizontal and vertical mountable... so the potential to look something like this...

Originally posted by Evan_11:
I don't think my enclosure size is too far fetched. Look how much they squeezed into the Cube. The only concession that would had to be made is a slot load optical drive instead of a tray one. I'm not sure what the cost differences are though. Remember that any schmuck can put a PC in a box and sell it. It will take Apple something special even at this low of a price point to persuade buyers to switch. Like the iMac G5 before it, I think we'll see something similar to the iPod mini in design which means....small and sexy. If you don't get this then fine.

I don't believe that the G5 iMac inspired anyone to switch from Windows to Mac. It only inspired awe in Mac users.

I understand what you are saying... but I think "great price" will trump "major innovation" with this box. Apple isn't trying to move the iMac or eMac people to this system, they are trying to move the Dell and eMachine shoppers that are tired of Windows and have heard great things about Apple and would be willing to try the system with their current monitor. A hundred or so dollars will make or break this system.

Consider my friend that is contemplating purchasing a Mac. He has never owned a Mac but just purchased an iPod. He is amazed with the simplicity. He already has a nice 19" LCD screen. Why would he buy a iMac or eMac? Where would he put it? He is tech savvy, but isn't going to take a $1500 plunge and feels like he is buying something he won't need when buying an iMac/eMac option. He probably has $600 to $900 to spend.

Basically there isn't a good option for him. Sure you can say "well, the iMac has a great screen"... but that's not that point. People don't like wasting money.

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Also why not put a dock on it?! Apple is designing this computer completely around the success of the iPod.

Because it would look funny if you didn't own an iPod. Also, it may confuse people... doesn't an iPod already come with an iPod dock? I guess I don't see the major advantage of having a built in dock as a centerpiece for the overall design. Perhaps I'm not giving Apple enough credit... but I just don't see it. The different sizes alone would raise question.

[Hash]

Thank you Apple, for listening to me
This is the original idea of Spring 2004

and the specs are exactly same as I was thinking about. Moreover, Apple also added apparently the business software (the rumored iWorks) and now is ready to take on the corporate market.

netMac, cMac (for corporate) names are possible.

BTW, I still have fond memories of my first desktop Mac, LC 630, with 12 mb of RAM and 350 mb of hard drive, which I used to draw on Illustrator 7, compose on Pagemaker 4.5 and work in Photoshop 4, and also Claris Works and Word 5.1. It was good computer and the new LC is going to be a real winner!!!