[scottiB]

AppleInsider chimes in.

[BrunoBruin]

Originally posted by scottiB:
To further the upsale, I wonder if Apple will reintroduce a 17" monitor (1440x900) for $499 or so (though the existing monitors would need to drop in price for this not to be out-of-whack). Expensive considering the competition, but that's Apple.

Wasn't there a rumor in the past few weeks that Apple was planning to introduce a new 17-inch display, the same widescreen panel as the iMac...but NOT matching the aluminum casing of the larger displays? And possibly as early as January? That would fit perfectly.

[paully dub]

Why isn't there more talk of the new iPod speakers? iPods totally ruuuuuuuuule!

Actually given the specs of the darn thing I'm almost there- almost. I'm sure it'll look nice, anyway.

[ambush]

1.25 G4 / 256 MB of RAM

Rock on

I want it shipped with a GeForce 2 MX!!

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

I still don't totally get the point of this thing. I mean if you pay $500 for the unit you don't have a monitor, so at the best you spend about $100 for some ghetto 17" CRT. That is $600. Why not spend another $200 on an eMac that will have better specs?

Even if you get this thing and want to put it with an LCD you pretty much have a really crappy iMac and save a couple hundred bucks.

And don't tell me you can use an existing monitor as not everyone has those laying about.

I think this unit will be something you can hook up to your TV and use as a multimedia centre for iTunes and PVR/DVD playback.

[Hash]

Originally posted by ambush:
1.25 G4 / 256 MB of RAM

Rock on

I want it shipped with a GeForce 2 MX!!

In 1995 I used to work as freelance DTP graphic artist using LC 630 with Motorola 33mhz chip with 12mb of RAM, 350 mb hard disk and I made a lot of money on it, drawing in Illustrator 7, using Aldus Pagemaker, Adobe Photoshop 4 and so on. I now have upgraded BW G4 650 mhz, 3 hard disks, 640 mb of RAM, Radeon 7000, combo drive.


G4 1.25 Ghz with any AGP card will represent huge jump in speed and performance for me. The price is incredible and it will much faster than my current hardware.

I am sold!

[f1000]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
I think this unit will be something you can hook up to your TV and use as a multimedia centre for iTunes and PVR/DVD playback.

Makes perfect sense to me. I hope Apple introduces a consumer RAID solution as well.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
I think this unit will be something you can hook up to your TV and use as a multimedia centre for iTunes and PVR/DVD playback.

That'd be severe ownage.

I'd like to see it sit next to my Xbox.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by ambush:
That'd be severe ownage.

I'd like to see it sit next to my Xbox.

Well even at that why buy it over the existing units that do that for years? Steve has said many times that he doesn't want to merge TV and computers.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by spatterson:
Thats British english genius.

Ummm... That's "English" English, thanks.

On the 'puter, this will be a good thing. Many a time I've wanted an extra cheapo screenless Mac box to do low-priority server-type stuff on (without the expense of an xServe). I don't care about the speed so I'll get one or two as long as they're not brushed aluminium.

[paully dub]

Probelm is, it can't very well compete with another of Apple's product line. Apple has far to much invested in success of the iMac or Powermac line to drop a little headless 1.7 gb beast into the fray, no?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by paully dub:
Probelm is, it can't very well compete with another of Apple's product line. Apple has far to much invested in success of the iMac or Powermac line to drop a little headless 1.7 gb beast into the fray, no?

I see it replacing the eMac for domestic purchasers - maybe they'll keep the eMac for education sales and pimp the newbie for domestics? With the whole PC world going TFT, they've got to pitch a cheaper TFT-capable Mac - and buying your own cheapo TFT to add to a headless cheap Mac is going to be the cheapest way to do it.

(cheap appears to be the key-word)

[gumby5647]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
I hate to throw a wet blanket on the festivities, but I must remind everyone that we're on the verge of 2005, and 1.25GHz is pathetic for any desktop other than the eMac. If there is a new Cube, and it is to be driven by that processor, then we can expect it to be put on ice yet a second time. Let's get realistic: You cannot find a Celeron desktop that's clocked lower than 2.4GHz. The G4 should be relegated to the eMac and iBook. I love the Cube as much as the next person, but I hope this rumor is false or only partially correct.

dude, you have to start somewhere with proc. speed. You have to start low so that you can grow....something Apple obviously did not take into account with the G5 intro.

Starting at 1.25Ghz now, leaves the door open for updates every six months.

1.25GHz Jan
1.33GHz Aug.
1.42GHz Jan. 06
1.5 or 1.67GHz Aug. 06

etc, etc, etc.

Don't paint yourself into a corner like they did with the G5

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
I still don't totally get the point of this thing. I mean if you pay $500 for the unit you don't have a monitor, so at the best you spend about $100 for some ghetto 17" CRT. That is $600. Why not spend another $200 on an eMac that will have better specs?

Even if you get this thing and want to put it with an LCD you pretty much have a really crappy iMac and save a couple hundred bucks.

And don't tell me you can use an existing monitor as not everyone has those laying about.

I think this unit will be something you can hook up to your TV and use as a multimedia centre for iTunes and PVR/DVD playback.

Because eMacs suck. The screens are mediocre, and they are huge.

And if you already have a nice 17" LCD, there's no point spending the extra coin to get another LCD with an iMac.

The whole reason I went the Cube route (other than the fact it's a Cube) is because I can't stand eMacs, and I didn't want to spend the coin on a 20" iMac (until later).

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Because eMacs suck. The screens are mediocre, and they are huge.

And if you already have a nice 17" LCD, there's no point spending the extra coin to get another LCD with an iMac.

The whole reason I went the Cube route (other than the fact it's a Cube) is because I can't stand eMacs, and I didn't want to spend the coin on a 20" iMac (until later).

Ok so what you are saying is this "worse specs than the emac" is going to sell and be well received by people who already have a cheap CRT laying about because it is better than an emac cheap CRT.

[euphras]

The new Mac is said to be incredibly small and will be housed in a flat enclosure with a height similar to the 1.73 inches of Apple's Xserve. Its size benefits will include the ability to stand the Mac on its side or put it below a display or monitor.

Doesn�t sound like a new Cube to me. When the description is correct, we�ll see the resurrection of the LC, the Low Cost Mac..


Go, have a look here

[funkboy]

A G4 is underpowered. I don't see it selling well because:

* the G5 is what has really turned Windows users' heads
* 1.25 GHz has a much slower speed than anything in the PC world right now

However, I do know of many people who say, "I want just a cheap Mac to go with my Windows box." In that case, it may work. Maybe Apple should sell a KVM switch along with this... an iPod dock would be so ideal.

I will give this very good thought I think, if it really happens.

[euphras]

* 1.25 GHz has a much slower speed than anything in the PC world right now

What about the Centrinos?!??

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Ok so what you are saying is this "worse specs than the emac" is going to sell and be well received by people who already have a cheap CRT laying about because it is better than an emac cheap CRT.

No I am saying that identical specs to the current eMac for less money is going to sell well for those who don't like low end CRTs. And that's most people these days it seems. And for those who don't mind CRTs, many of them already have CRTs, so why pay for one in the eMac?

I tell ya, a headless eMac would sell like wildfire, even at $599.

Originally posted by euphras:
What about the Centrinos?!??

Clock-for-clock, the Centrinos are MUCH faster than the G4. In fact, the Centrino competes with (and sometimes beats) the G5 for clock-for-clock performance. Overall, the G4 isn't even in the same league as the G5 and Centrino, and I own two G4s.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
No I am saying that identical specs to the current eMac for less money is going to sell well for those who don't like low end CRTs. And that's most people these days it seems. And for those who don't mind CRTs, many of them already have CRTs, so why pay for one in the eMac?

I tell ya, a headless eMac would sell like wildfire, even at $599.

Ok so people who want a low end system with a high end display? Isn't that a lampshade iMac?

[MrSundberg]

Originally posted by funkboy:
A G4 is underpowered. I don't see it selling well because:

* 1.25 GHz has a much slower speed than anything in the PC world right now

Do you know what a Mini-ITX/Nano-ITX board is?

If you don't then I'll be happy to inform you that these are boards in about the same formfactor that I imagine this "xMac" to be in. The interesting thing to note is that the vast majority of these boards come with VIA CPUs, and calling a 1.25Ghz G4 slower then a VIA CPU (any VIA CPU) is an *interesting* position to take.

To do a fair comparison you should, IMHO, allways compare across formfactors and intended use. And since the xMac would most likely only be used for basic tasks or as a basic server, and not as a high end workstation/gamebox, I don't see what's so wrong with it. It will of course not suit everyone. But it's IMO still not a bad computer, at that pricepoint atleast.

[Sherwin]

Nobody in the real world (i.e. not geeks) cares about clock speed. They care about low price and ease of use, period.
An 800 MHz G4 is fine for everything that non-geeks want to do with their machines. It's also fine for my home server needs.

I believe, if this report is correct, that Apple's idea is to get punters off cheap Windows boxes and onto cheap Mac boxes via pricing. They can worry about selling the punters a G5 later when that punter has first-hand experience of the elegance and ease of use of the Mac way.

[edit]
It's also worth noting that a lot of Windows users don't buy systems with monitors, as monitors last a lot long in real usage terms than the CPU does. They don't go Mac because they don't need something new with a monitor - they *already* have a perfectly good monitor from their old system, so they just end up buying another PC (that fits with what they've already got).

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

This story says it all:
"So, I should move to a $500 �box� and plug in a $79 ViewSonic monitor to improve my Mac life? You have a new iMac G5 and you�re going to feel happy that Apple has a $500 Mac? I don�t think so."

"#1 - Would Steve Jobs, founder and CEO of arguably the best and coolest computer company in the world (riding on waves of success via G5s, Mac OS X, iPod mania), introduce something so mundane, pedestrian, and every day? Nope.

#2 - There�s something else there. A media center Mac? Wireless capability? Expandable with RAM and hard drives (available with neither?). The perfect home server?

Yeah, there�s more questions than answers. The category is News AND Commentary, right? I don�t expect a $500 eMac without a monitor and wouldn�t buy one (unless it�s cool looking). It�ll be something else."


http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac3...00_mac_unless/

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Ok so people who want a low end system with a high end display? Isn't that a lampshade iMac?

Nope, the key is headless Mac plus cheap 17" LCD. That's $599 plus $299 - ie. Less than $899. The cheapest iMac right now is $1299, which is 44% higher cost. It's a huge difference.

And for those who already have a monitor (LCD or CRT), it's simply $599. Period.

http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/more/%20why_i_dont_want_dont_need_wont_buy_a_500_mac_un les%3Cbr%20/%3Es/

Sounds like a i'm-gonna-guess-the-opposite-because-if-i'm-right-i'll-be-a-star type of commentary. IOW, he knows jack-shite, just like the rest of us.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Sounds like a i'm-gonna-guess-the-opposite-because-if-i'm-right-i'll-be-a-star type of commentary. IOW, he knows jack-shite, just like the rest of us.

What was that about all your constant spec prediction threads?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
What was that about all your constant spec prediction threads?

Hey at least I admit I know jack-shite.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Hey at least I admit I know jack-shite.

Jack-Shite's a nice guy. I used to room with him in college.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Sounds like a i'm-gonna-guess-the-opposite-because-if-i'm-right-i'll-be-a-star type of commentary. IOW, he knows jack-shite, just like the rest of us.

What is he taking the opposite on? I don't see anyone freaking how cool it is. And you KNOW that the second the thing is announced the same group will say the RAM is too low, it is slow and the video card sucks and never buy it (you being one of them).

He is saying what is the big deal about a headless eMac? People who have the eMac are not kicking and screaming on how bad the display is and for $100 more they could have gotten a slightly better CRT. I can't see anyone spending $500 on a computer and $600 on a display.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
What is he taking the opposite on? I don't see anyone freaking how cool it is. And you KNOW that the second the thing is announced the same group will say the RAM is too low, it is slow and the video card sucks and never buy it (you being one of them).

He is saying what is the big deal about a headless eMac? People who have the eMac are not kicking and screaming on how bad the display is and for $100 more they could have gotten a slightly better CRT. I can't see anyone spending $500 on a computer and $600 on a display.

People who dislike the eMac don't buy it. And there are a lot of people who don't buy the eMac. The point of a cheap headless is to capture the low end crowd who don't like the eMac, in an attempt to build market share.

[Eriamjh]

This headless imac is what the mac users have been clammoring for for the last two years. Now Apple is on the verge of giving it to you and there is bitching.

I think Apple is going to use 1.25GHz-1.5GHz G4s because they are cheap. The thing might be little more than an eMac motherboard in a fancy case. Cheap to make and cheap to start and stop production.

$600 isn't cheap. A refurbed eMac can be had for that price. But if it improves the iPod experience it might be a good move. If it brings more people into the Apple fold it might be a good move. I think it would be great if Apple could bring it in at $499 or less.

It won't have Airport standard either, but it will be capable of it. It might even be Bluetooth capable.

Two RAM slots and up to 2GB of ram might make it useable for a while.

I'm still using a DP800 and I'm happy, but I am saving for that Dual 3GHz G5.

[paully dub]

I can think of plenty of folks who be interested. The types who would have NEVER bought an emac "Ew, CRT". They usually have an lcd and would be ready to go. I mean, for right now it's fine. No Airport or Bluetooth, for such a lightweight portable system seems a bit odd though. And a $500 price tag would be perfect.

But it's a mac, so it'll have to be juuuuust a little more than the average joe wants to spend.

It's what prevented me from buying a Cube, a 1st gen iPod, a powerbook for years and years. It's the Apple way.

[cSurfr]

Here's my take on it. Let's say apple does release this "mystery mac" and it's exactly like the specs say, etc. Let's suppose I'm the average consumer, love my ipod and wouldn't mind trying the mac. Is this machine really going to do apple justice? I mean, what if someone get's this machine and says "yadda yadda yadda, it's slow as hell" Now I'm completely turned off on the mac, and feel as I've wasted 600.00

What do you think of that?

[Mister Elf]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
This story says it all:
"So, I should move to a $500 �box� and plug in a $79 ViewSonic monitor to improve my Mac life? You have a new iMac G5 and you�re going to feel happy that Apple has a $500 Mac? I don�t think so."

"#1 - Would Steve Jobs, founder and CEO of arguably the best and coolest computer company in the world (riding on waves of success via G5s, Mac OS X, iPod mania), introduce something so mundane, pedestrian, and every day? Nope.


http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac3...00_mac_unless/

Well we wouldn't have the rumor unless at least part of it was true...plus this thing would cost less than a high-end iPod.

[bbcclo]

personally I would love to get one of these to hook up to my (soon to be purchased) Plasma TV.

Connect it through the DVI port, have bluetooth built in for wireless keyboard/mouse, and Airport to stream movies/music from other computers in the house... it truly could turn into the digital media hub everyone's been envisioning for the past few years.

As long as it had the iLife suite (primarily iPhoto and iTunes for photo slideshows), played all sorts of video formats (VLC software), and could surf the web well (and I don't need a 3.0Ghz G5 for that)... I'd pick one up...

I'd be a helluva lot easier than frequently unplugging my powerbook from the plasma.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by bbcclo:
personally I would love to get one of these to hook up to my (soon to be purchased) Plasma TV.

Connect it through the DVI port, have bluetooth built in for wireless keyboard/mouse, and Airport to stream movies/music from other computers in the house... it truly could turn into the digital media hub everyone's been envisioning for the past few years.

As long as it had the iLife suite (primarily iPhoto and iTunes for photo slideshows), played all sorts of video formats (VLC software), and could surf the web well (and I don't need a 3.0Ghz G5 for that)... I'd pick one up...

I'd be a helluva lot easier than frequently unplugging my powerbook from the plasma.

Well see THAT makes more sense than a headless eMac cuz some people don't like a CRT.

Problem is CRT TV's can only do 640x480 which is really useless for anything other than iTunes, but Plasma TV's (and other HDTV's) can do better resolutions. Than again I don't know many people who would spend $10,000 on a TV and not want to buy an iMac.

[Super Mario]

Super Mario cares not for headless iMac. Super Mario wanted to boast about the length and width of his peenis in the thread that is now locked

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by cSurfr:
Here's my take on it. Let's say apple does release this "mystery mac" and it's exactly like the specs say, etc. Let's suppose I'm the average consumer, love my ipod and wouldn't mind trying the mac. Is this machine really going to do apple justice? I mean, what if someone get's this machine and says "yadda yadda yadda, it's slow as hell" Now I'm completely turned off on the mac, and feel as I've wasted 600.00

What do you think of that?

Apple just got six hundred buck that would have went to Dell. But, most people use internet and e-mail. That is about it. 1.25 G4 is fine. It is a iBook without a screen. Does the iBook turn folks away from the platform?

[f1000]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Naturally Apple will come up with something nicer than this:

http://www.sigmacom.co.kr/eng/m1/m1_view.htm?no=5#none

[hyperb0le]

Originally posted by Super Mario:
Super Mario cares not for headless iMac. Super Mario wanted to boast about the length and width of his peenis in the thread that is now locked

Erm...



Anyway, people seem to be missing the point that this machine will not be marketed towards computer-savvy gamers. This machine will be for your grandmother, or your neighbor, etc; people who only use the computer for web, email, and word processing. 1.25 GHz is perfectly fine for those tasks.

This machine would also make a great home server.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by hyperb0le:

Anyway, people seem to be missing the point that this machine will not be marketed towards computer-savvy gamers. This machine will be for your grandmother, or your neighbor, etc; people who only use the computer for web, email, and word processing. 1.25 GHz is perfectly fine for those tasks.

The iMac isn't targeted towards gamers either but the bitching just wont stop about the video card.

Wait till this thing comes out and everyone wants an ATI 9800 and G5 for $500.

[Eug Wanker]

I have had the chance to play with my G4 1.7 GHz 7447A for a few days now. Before I got this CPU, I was thinking a nice used iMac 1.25 GHz would have been fine, and indeed it would have been. I didn't get one because they're still quite expensive, esp. considering I already own a screen.

However, after using this 1.7, the 1.25 does really seem a little bit slow. ie. The 1.25 is fine for most usage, but the 1.7 seems positively Snappy� compared to it, even just for surfing. Web pages render in Safari almost instanteously, and all the apps feel very nice. iDVD is less jumpy.

Considering I already had a TiBook 1 GHz 7455 with 1 MB L3 (which is already 2 years old), the iMac 1.25 GHz 7455 with no L3 would have been just a cross-grade essentially. The 1.7 is definite large step up vs. the TiBook, and a definite step up from the iMac 1.25 GHz machines I've tried too.

Now, considering 1.7 GHz 7447A is a 36% clock speed advantage and a 256 KB L2 advantage over the iMac 1.25 GHz 7455, that's no big surprise in retrospect. Nonetheless, I was expecting it to be less noticeable in general usage, especially considering the lowly 100 MHz bus on this 1.7.

I do think the 1.25 GHz 7447A is a reasonable start for the hypothetical headless iMac, but one would hope that the CPU speed would be bumped up asap.

[GoGoReggieXPowars]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Problem is CRT TV's can only do 640x480 which is really useless for anything other than iTunes...

No they don't, both of mine have done 800x600. Anythin higher granted is pretty useless, but straight out of the box it'll do more than just 640x480.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

These are all of the same points I had exactly. No way would apple just remove the eMac monitor and try to sell it, it has to be different in some major way.

The rumored product has specs identical to the eMac except that the $50 monitor has been removed, and this alone has caused the product's price to magically drop by $300?

Check.

The rumored product is going to be a bargain-basement, entry-level computer that is going to appeal to Switchers who have fancy expensive monitors, despite the fact that anyone who owns a $1000 monitor wouldn't be caught dead connecting it to a $499 computer?

Check.

The rumored product is going to appeal to Switchers who have old beat-up piece of junk monitors left over from their aging PC, despite the fact that a quick sampling of any PC users out in the real world who are in this situation will reveal that are absolutely, completely, totally uninterested in continuing to use their old piece of crap monitor?

Check.

The rumor itself was so clumsily created that it commits obvious errors such as claiming that the rumored product is going to come with a "special" new version of iLife (sans iDVD) that just happens to be the exact same version of iLife that has shipped on every non-SuperDrive Macintosh computer sold in the past year?

Check.

http://www.billpalmer.net/2004/12/mo...ense-last.html

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
These are all of the same points I had exactly. No way would apple just remove the eMac monitor and try to sell it, it has to be different in some major way.

Yes. It wouldn't have that monitor. That is a HUGE difference. The eMac form factor simply sucks, for a lot of people (and corporations).

I don't think it would be $500 though. More like $600.

[Phat Bastard]

Those of us working on older-generation G4's, like my Powerbook G4 867, think that a G4 1.25 GHz will be just fine for what usages are intended for this new Mac: surfing, email and iLife.

I am concerned that a G4 1.25 GHz will not compete, speed-wise, with the P4 3.2 GHz in the Dell 4700C, presumably the closest competitor with this new Mac.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Yes. It wouldn't have that monitor. That is a HUGE difference. The eMac form factor simply sucks, for a lot of people (and corporations).

I don't think it would be $500 though. More like $600.

Seriously, how does taking out a $50 monitor make it drop $200-$300 bucks? How big of a market does apple see in the few people who have old monitors laying about and just want to switch to the other side at the very low end?

[DeathMan]

Originally posted by GoGoReggieXPowars:
No they don't, both of mine have done 800x600. Anythin higher granted is pretty useless, but straight out of the box it'll do more than just 640x480.

I've never heard of a Cathode Ray Tube "Television" that could do 800X600. Why would they? there is no way they're going to be getting that rez. You must buy your TVs at a computer shop.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by DeathMan:
I've never heard of a Cathode Ray Tube "Television" that could do 800X600.

Me neither, even if his can it sure as hell is not the norm.

[scottiB]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Seriously, how does taking out a $50 monitor make it drop $200-$300 bucks? How big of a market does apple see in the few people who have old monitors laying about and just want to switch to the other side at the very low end?

My guess is that the rest of the components have dropped in price since April '04--when the eMac was last refreshed. Combine that with lower shipping costs (more iMac Lites can fit on a pallete) and 10% or less mark-up, and you'd probably reach $200-$300.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by scottiB:
My guess is that the rest of the components have dropped in price since April '04--when the eMac was last refreshed. Combine that with lower shipping costs (more iMac Lites can fit on a pallete) and 10% or less mark-up, and you'd probably reach $200-$300.

LESS markup? by the sounds of things I would be surprised if Apple made $20 of a sale.

Personally, I don't think this rumour is true at all in this form, it would have to be some sort of multimedia hub not just a headless computer.