Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lorton, VA
|
Saw this today and got me thinking about a new iMac to replace my old 20" G5.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/22/...-in-4-6-weeks/ |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
That'll be a nice little update. Article says no sort of redesign is expected, and that's fine with me. They're damn near perfect and nobody's screaming for them to get thinner or anything. They might've hit the perfect wall with the iMac design, in fact...
Just keep making it faster, roomier, nicer components, modern I/O, better displays, faster graphics, higher-quality FaceTime cam, etc. and people will buy them. No sane/rational person is putting off an iMac purchase "because it looks the same as it did three years ago". It might be the one perfect product in their lineup, the more I think about it. I do wish they'd go back to the wired keyboard with the USB ports and keypad...when I switch people, I get them to buy one of those and I sell the short Bluetooth one on Craigslist for them. The wired models are 10x more handy and convenient when you have USB flash drives or digital camera, or do any sort of numerical input work. |
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
They packed a lot of commitment-free ambivalence into such a short sentence, huh? "We possibly might, on a hunch, expect, more or less, something to maybe appear, sometime between 9:00-ish tonight and mid-2013. It could involve a redesign, or not. In theory, according to sources (who may have been drinking at the time)." Thanks, MacRumors! I'm pulling out my Visa card right now... |
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Would a 21.5" work? It's just half-an-inch below your 22" cut-off? But it's got a higher resolution than my older 20" (1920x1080 vs. 1680x1050). Could you make with that?
I kinda agree about the 27"...I feel like it's going to eat me or something. When I go to Best Buy, I always find myself getting on the 21.5" iMac, even though the 27" sits right next to it on the display table. The 21.5" seems more manageable, size-wise, but it has a higher resolution than the old 20" iMacs. And compared to the 24" iMac, it's quite close. Same width (1920), and a bit less on the vertical (due to the 16:9 vs. 16:10 layout)...it's 1080 vs. 1200 on the 24". That's 120 pixels...not too much. Get a 21.5" and it's close enough to the 24", in a smaller (shorter) package. If they made a 24" model again, they'd probably make it 16:9 and it might be kinda big (not 27" big, but maybe wider than the older 24"). |
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
I really thought it was the perfect size. Was pretty sad to see it go, and really as a result I haven't owned an iMac since then, where as I had owned iMacs for several years leading up to the discontinuing of the 24" model. The problem with the existing ones is I want the big screen but not the massive size of that model, but I don't want the small screen. I just want the inbetween! |
|
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Yeah, you just might be out of luck on this one. It seems two models placed somewhat far apart (21.5" and 27") makes more sense, from a selling/manufacturing/customer standpoint, rather than poking in an in-between model that is only 2.5" larger than the smaller one, and 3" smaller than the big one.
Three models, ~3" apart, just seems like something they wouldn't do. I know, in the past, they have (the old G4 iMac came in 15", 17" and 20"). The iMac G5 and white Intel iMacs have been 17", 20" and 24". But that was a while back. I think they save a bit by doing an iMac and Cinema Display in the same 27". They probably viewed that as a nice 3" step up from the 24" (because the iMac and Cinema Display was available in those sizes too). And then the 21.5" a modest step up from the older 20" (they dropped the 17" years ago). I hear what you're saying, but I just have a feeling Apple's not going to slide something in between there. My next iMac will be, hands-down, a 21.5" (current-gen refurb at time of purchase). It'll be a nice step up for me in every way, but it won't be a huge, drastic change in terms of what's sitting in front of me, and the space it takes up on my desk. I always said that even if I won a 27" in a contest, I'd sell it to buy a 21.5" and a good steak and lobster dinner. Anyway, back on topic...it'll have the spiffy new processors, and this Thunderball port that nobody knows quite what to do with. |
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: Dec 2005
|
well, they certainly don't have any issues with offering incremental screen sizes on their portables.
another argument could be made that traditionally Apple has looked at the most appealing, one size fits all option rather than two extremes as well. Of course, in the end, it doesn't change anything, I just miss the 24" model since the proportions seemed the most ideal for me. |
quote |
Less than Stellar Member
|
I agree. 24" was the perfect size. A 27" iMac is slightly larger than my 27" ACD and that would be just too big. As it is, I feel like I've got a wall of screen in front of my desk.
If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong. |
quote |
Thunderbolt, fuck yeah!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
|
|
quote |
M AH - ch ain saw
Join Date: May 2004
|
Off-topic (click to toggle):
|
|
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
I am looking forward to this update, I may end up getting one of these. Judging by what they put into the macbook pros, I think it is safe to say the iMacs will be pretty similar. The high-end iMacs will likely use desktop Sandy Bridge chips, the low ends will use the Mobile versions. Quadcore across the board seems likely. The only real question is what GPUs they end up with. As it stands, the iMacs have the "Radeon HD 5770", but this is a naming trick, the card is actually a 5850m. Will Apple do the same thing? use the 6950m and call it a 6870? Tough to say.
Regardless of what they end up doing, these will be very powerful machines all around. |
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USB3 vs Thunderbolt | Matsu | General Discussion | 43 | 2012-02-01 22:30 |
Wifi bridge/extender Qs | Xaqtly | Purchasing Advice | 6 | 2008-05-11 20:18 |
Bridge (card game) | Paul | AppleOutsider | 0 | 2006-09-12 20:15 |
AirPort Express as Wireless Bridge? | kieran | Apple Products | 11 | 2006-01-14 11:30 |
Airport Express Bridge | Ebby | Genius Bar | 6 | 2005-08-27 22:43 |