[windowsblowsass]

think secret claims to have the specs of the new imacs

they will reportatly be sport ing 1.6 and 1.8ghz g5s, be aio and be simalir to the pizzabox design previouslyspeculated

Originally Posted by thinksecret Sources told Think Secret that the new iMac design is "impressive" and "an eye catcher." The new unit will not have a display with adjustable neck as found on the current iMacs, but will feature an all-in-one design with the logic board, optical drive and other components housed on the back of the flat-panel display.

it is also to be announced at the paris expo at the end of the month

original article: http://www.thinksecret.com/news/imacg5specs.html

[drewprops]

go nick!

[curiousuburb]

If the article is true, only the top models pack a GPU that would support Core Image.
The educational model won't.

The educational model not having an optical drive due to customer demand to limit piracy is odd if they still have firewire ports. Maybe more students will buy iPods.

Interesting that this 20th Anniversary iMac may echo the design of Spartacus, the "Twentieth Anniversary Mac".

Curious to see how the design has evolved.

[windowsblowsass]

no the geforce5200 is coreimage/video compatible

[curiousuburb]

Yep, my error. edited.

And hey, dig the cool background change button on the right. No reload. Sweet.

[Messiahtosh]

[Frank777]

That sound you hear is Matsu going postal. And I'm going to have to agree with him.

When the original iMac debuted in '98, $1299 was a good price point for an entry level computer that connected the masses to Al Gore's new Information Super-Highway.

In 2004, the reality is that the game's moved several notches down and the 'entry level' computers can start at US.$599 and a 'boutique' computer from a brand like Apple has to start at $999 to make the cut.

The eMac is there now. To cut it while introducing a replacement that abandons the $999. price point is curious strategy indeed.

Unless Apple knows it won't be able to satisfy demand if it ships the iMacs with a starting price of $999. But considering the length of time the machine's been delayed, Apple should have a decent stockpile of low-end chips by now.

[Messiahtosh]

256 MB of RAM is sad.

[Messiahtosh]

Why not use a 15'' screen with a high resolution? Surely it would be cheaper than going with a 17 or even a 20'' LCD. Wowzers!

[Barto]

Because if you want cheap, use a frickin' eMac. It's what they are there for.

And 15" screens are not acceptable for a desktop, much less a Mac desktop (Apple needs to keep its reputation for quality and completeness).

Barto

[Messiahtosh]

Originally Posted by Barto Because if you want cheap, use a frickin' eMac. It's what they are there for. And 15" screens are not acceptable for a desktop, much less a Mac desktop (Apple needs to keep its reputation for quality and completeness). Barto

What if it used the PowerBook's screen?

[applenut]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh What if it used the PowerBook's screen?

then it'd be even smaller and dumber

[Messiahtosh]

Originally Posted by applenut then it'd be even smaller and dumber

How so?

A lot of people are buying portables, and they do not have large screens. They come with 12 to 17 inch screens, at high resolutions when you're talking about the 15 and 17 ones from Apple.

Why not keep prices down by offering a 15.2 inch LCD, as in the one that is so extremely popular it accounts for twice as much revenue as the low end desktop sales.

[Barto]

I am forced to agree with the 'nut.

Computer buyers aren't buying portables because of the small screen. Nobody says to themselves, "I'm going to find a computer with a small screen, because I love seeing only one or two windows at a time and squinting when I use my computer!"

Portables are popular because of their versatility, a computer buyer who has decided to buy a desktop over a portable has already made a choice to sacrifice versatility for power and sit-down usability. Which is why desktop displays have gone from 9" to 30" in the last 20 years, and the new iMac will not have a 15" option - computer buyers expect a larger screen, it is a PLUS, and lots of pluses and few negatives are important for a "mid-range" computer like the iMac.

[Messiahtosh]

Originally Posted by Barto I am forced to agree with the 'nut.

Explain?

[applenut]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh How so? A lot of people are buying portables, and they do not have large screens. They come with 12 to 17 inch screens, at high resolutions when you're talking about the 15 and 17 ones from Apple. Why not keep prices down by offering a 15.2 inch LCD, as in the one that is so extremely popular it accounts for twice as much revenue as the low end desktop sales.

1. 15.1 inch 3"2 screen is less viewable area
2. laptops are portable and used on your LAP. desktops are on a desktop....viewed from further away and stationary. completely different applications
3. Apple doesn't use high resolutions. they use 100dpi across screens. high resolution in a 15 inch screen would not be fun and would serve no purpose on a desktop where screen size is not a hindrance but a desire
4. a 15.2 inch LCD does not account for twice the revenue.....a laptop is. they are not the same thing. and twice the revenue of the craptastic iMac LCD is not saying much
5. ask any person looking to buy a desktop computer if they want a 15 inch screen. doubt you'll get many if any people who say yes. most people think screen size is a bragging right these days.....hence 65 inch HDTVs and 17 inch laptops and 30 inch cinema displays.

[Messiahtosh]

What about 15.2 inches at a resolution of 1280x854?

It is not the same as the old 15'' iMac that had a 1024x768 display.

I bet a 15.2'' LCD would save a lot of people money, and serve them just fine, especially the "I need to spend less than $999 crowd."

Hell, I spent $2700 for a computer with a 15.2'' screen.

[applenut]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh What about 15.2 inches at a resolution of 1280x854? It is not the same as the old 15'' iMac that had a 1024x768 display. I bet a 15.2'' LCD would save a lot of people money, and serve them just fine, especially the "I need to spend less than $999 crowd." Hell, I spent $2700 for a computer with a 15.2'' screen.

for a laptop? yes. for a desktop? no.

you're someone with too much money who spends it unwisely. i wouldn't make marketing assessments based on your purchasing behavior. otherwise we'd all have bought cubes right?

[Messiahtosh]

I did not spend it unwisely. I'm a college student, so a PowerBook, with my major, was the perfect choice.

That's a very spacious screen.

I don't see how having too much money plays into this. All I'm saying is, if Apple put that PowerBook screen into an iMac, it would suit the market just fine, and reduce prices.

And AppleNut: Not only do I find it insulting that you say I spend my hard earned money unwisely, I think it unfair that you point it out quite a bit. As a college student, not being able to upgrade my computer during the 4 years I'll be there was a big reason why I chose to get a loaded PowerBook. It will last me through college, without a problem. To me, that's a smart choice.

[applenut]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh I did not spend it unwisely. I'm a college student, so a PowerBook, with my major, was the perfect choice. I don't see how having too much money plays into this. All I'm saying is, if Apple put that PowerBook screen into an iMac, it would suit the market just fine, and reduce prices.

1. it's a spacious screen for a laptop
2. you get practically every apple product you want as soon as it comes out. you're not the norm by far.
3. it would not suit any market fine. that screen is smaller than the current 15 inch LCD on the iMac for christ's sake. and reducing prices does nothing if no one wants it. at this point 17 inch screens have become the norm. accept it.

Okay first of all Think Secret should do their homework. Apple IS a licensee of Dolby see h**p://www.dolby.com/manufacturers/ you'll see Apple listed (of course) because they use it in DVD Player, DVD Studio Pro, Logic etc. If they weren't a licensee they would be sued wouldn't they!?
My point is: if you write something down do some research first, all reporters do, even if it's a rumor ;-)

[Messiahtosh]

Originally Posted by applenut 1. it's a spacious screen for a laptop 2. you get practically every apple product you want as soon as it comes out. you're not the norm by far. 3. it would not suit any market fine. that screen is smaller than the current 15 inch LCD on the iMac for christ's sake. and reducing prices does nothing if no one wants it. at this point 17 inch screens have become the norm. accept it.

1. And why has this changed for the desktop so much? A 17'' screen became the desktop standard, only because cheap LCDs are made in that size now.

2. I do not get every Apple product I want, and the ones I do get, I pay for.

3. It would suit the iMac market fine (a 15'' screen), it suited 6 million people fine to have a 1024x768 13.8'' viewable screen iMac.

4. Jesus!

[applenut]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh 1. And why has this changed for the desktop so much? A 17'' screen became the desktop standard, only because cheap LCDs are made in that size now. 2. I do not get every Apple product I want, and the ones I do get, I pay for. 3. It would suit the iMac market fine (a 15'' screen), it suited 6 million people fine to have a 1024x768 13.8'' viewable screen iMac. 4. Jesus!

1. the standard has changed for the reasons i listed above that you ignore. and as you say, 17 inch screens are a commodity now.

2. sure you do. i don't care if you pay for em. i would hope you were.

3. um....are we in 1998 or are we in 2004 and soon 2005? welcome to today bud.

[Messiahtosh]

Originally Posted by applenut 1. the standard has changed for the reasons i listed above that you ignore. and as you say, 17 inch screens are a commodity now. 2. sure you do. i don't care if you pay for em. i would hope you were. 3. um....are we in 1998 or are we in 2004 and soon 2005? welcome to today bud.

1. The cheap 17'' LCD is a commodity...not high quality ones. Apple will only use high quality ones, driving up costs. If Apple wants to use a 17'' display, fine, but they should use "the panels that their competitors reject" if they want actual competitors. Otherwise, they'll price themselves right out of the market again, just like it appears they have done.

2. Yeah, I buy my own Macs. Did you buy all of your Apple products?

3. History has proven that people will pay $1500 for a 13.9'' CRT, yes that was years ago, but still...for the @home consumer, a 15.2" MEGAWIDE SCREEN LCD with a 1280x854 res is damn big enough to do the digital lifestyle.

[applenut]

*snip -alcimedes*

anyways,
weak offering if true. i don't see why they can't up the hard drives more and offer a better graphics chipset. but the thing that sucks the most is the lack of a superdrive on the 1299 machine.

[Messiahtosh]

Nick has been wrong before.

[akamai]

I was flying from San Francisco to Los Angeles in March, where I met an Apple insider on the airplane. First he asked me if I liked my iPod Mini, then he queried if I had another Apple product. At that time I had not purchased my iBook, so I answered truthfully. He asked me what I would like in the new Apple computers. I mentioned a more affordable SuperDrive, better ATI Mobility Graphics (more memory), and G5 integration into the lower end Macs. He acknowledged the SuperDrive and ATI Mobility wishes, saying that those depend on the manufacturer. First reluctantly commenting on the G5 idea (he said he couldn't say anything specific - Apple employees sign NDAs), he said that it would most likely take a long time before G5s meet the lower end Macs, especially the PowerBooks or the iBooks because of size and heat limitations. Understanding the G5 chip, I of course accepted the answer as truthful, keeping in mind that the G5 overheats extremely easily (in a compact environment of a notebook - fatal), and the tromendous size leading back to the 64bit technology, which takes up much more space even when the manufacturing gets down to around 0.8 microns.

wkr Robert

[Messiahtosh]

*snip -alcimedes*

Anyway, I make some good points, so do you.

*snip -alcimedes*

[Frank777]

*snip -alcimedes*

I agree with him. If Apple wants Switchers, then price the line to appeal to Switchers - who by definition are cheap, Wintel surrender monkeys. Build on the iPod's success. Sell them up afterwards with the RAM being conveniently left out.

Use the 15" Powerbook screen if you have to, but the iMac line must start at $999. Period.

[alcimedes]

actually, the iMac line has to start at $750 - $850. anything more than that and there are too many other offerings from competitors. it's hard to get a neutral buyer when you're that much more, you only land people who are specifically looking for a Mac.

not very impressive, IMO.