Flat-panel iMacs in Apple's Future? 490
WinkyN writes: "A story on Yahoo! is claiming Apple might release a flat-panel iMac for release in early 2002. Analysts for Morgan Stanley who cover Apple say the computer manufacturer has placed orders for component parts to build such a machine (in fact, build about 100,000 of them a month). Perhaps Steve Jobs will announce this at Macworld Expo in January?"
Already being sold... (Score:4, Insightful)
But seriously, why would Apple sell such a thing? It would have to be comparable in cost to an iBook, the LCD being the most expensive part.
It would probably be a snazzy box, but would the price be right for a low-end machine?
Don't forget about the weight. (Score:3, Insightful)
hell, they're small enough now that with a retracting power cord and wireless mouse/keyboard that they might as well be.
With some depthwise space savings from the removal of the CRT, and the removal of the weight from the glass, they could throw a cord retractor and keyboard/mouse dock on the back of the thing...
Anyhow, it's about time, I think that's going to be a killer machine. (As long as I don't buy an iMac and get a dead friggin pixel in the center of my screen)
Re:Apple Come back? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice hardware, growing in leaps and bounds as the market for those things matures (pc133, yes it was late, and yes, it's slower than DDR, but hey, better than pc100), nice processors, removing all relic hardware as necessary (USB instead of ADB, etc). Apple has always done this. Making the powerbook g4 was the next step, making a laptop just slightly less powerful than a desktop, *AND* has a battery life to speak of.
Nice software: OS X. BSD core. No need for them to figure out how to reinvent the wheel with their crappy old OS's--Simply change a few widgets, and call it Darwin, then add a GUI, and Voila! instant OS. With a *LOT* of software available, not to mention the 20 billion BSD hackers, the people that'll keep the Darwin OS up to snuff.
Totally reengineered interface--Finally a command line that doesn't suck! And for that matter, a GUI that doesn't suck! And multitasking! And all sorts of neat widgets that make techies and non-techies alike scream out "I WANT ONE!"
Giving computers to schools, making great leaps in hardware, standardizing their video system. I see this as a incredibly brilliant move for Jobs.
All in all, more power to them... They may live, they may struggle, or they may die. They are pushing the user's into a whole new realm; DVD-R's in affordable systems, laptops that don't suck, and keeping up with technology a lot better than they used to.
Ex.
Re:Already being sold... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Already being sold... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah... First of all, a flat-screen iMac would have a bigger screen, full sized keyboard, faster hard drive, etc. You aren't worried about power consumption nearly as much in a desktop as a laptop, so you can afford to put regular desktop components, which also happen to be cheaper.
Which leads me to my second point, which is that LCDs aren't the only reason laptops are expensive compared to desktops. Miniature hard drives, low-power consumption CPUs, etc. are more expensive (and are also slower) than their desktop cousins.
Thirdly, is the right price? I dunno. At $1200 the current iMac is pretty pricey for a so-called "low end" machine. I think Apple will probably put this machine in the same price category. They sold a bunch of iMac's at that price, they could sell a newer and better iMac at that price, I'm sure.
Re:gateway profile series (Score:2, Insightful)
The idea is to replace the original iMac. How upgradeable was that? Macs in general are not designed to be über-hackable. They are aimed at designers and the like, for whom k3w1 looks are more important than k3w1 internals.
Not the first, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Already being sold... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Imacs and colors (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure Apple is know for their design aesthetic, but they have some really cool technology too.
Let us just hope (Score:2, Insightful)
The new iPod commercial actually has a blip of OS X, and yet it is a mere 2 second glimpse.
Sad.
Reminds me of the same situation that AMD is in.
Great product, little or no exposure to "the unwashed masses/joe+/or jane 6 pack".
It almost seems to me as if they are taking the "female" tact of "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you"...
(hint: never come back with 'If you don't tell me, how am I supposed to know'...big mistake... more pain than "yes, your but does look big")
Both make great products (amd/apple) but in the AMD the hardware needs exposure, with Apple, their new os (OS X, naturally) is in *dire* need of some air time...at least more than 2 seconds.
And "flat panel" imacs...well like the G5 rumors, I'll believe it when I see it.
Oh, whatever happened to "I/we don't comment on unreleased products."?
I'm suprised Steve Jobs has not repealed that policy and said, yes we will have a G5/flat panel Imac/whaterver rumor...but it is slated for release *after* 3 or more years.
IOW, beat the users and rumour mongers with a clue stick and the truth.
Yeah?
Cheers.
Moose.
.
Re:Like these rumored looks? (Score:2, Insightful)
What are they going to use for their low-end market? Look at those things! I realize they're not actual production iMacs, but they're going to have a hell of a time keeping cost down on them. A 15" (viewable) costs around $300-600 more than your average 15" (13.9" viewable) CRT.
Making the new iMacs come in at around $1100. Eef.
Re:Water cooling? Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't forget to take into account what you can accomplish per operation. Sure one architecture has the same number of cycles at half the frequency, but if the other architecture takes fewer operations to perform the same tasks, then it's faster. I think it's useless to try and compare different architectures. Just go with the one that works for you.
A flat screen on a curved box? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, an iMac box would look really weird without the CRT, because it would be mostly empty, and they probably can't just make the box smaller, because they need vent space. So they'll probably have to come up with a special new shape.
Re:This community drives me nuts... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does the Slashdot community automatically tear apart everything Apple does?
Actually, aside from a few Windows trolls and knee-jerk, reactionary, anti-corporate drones, I've found the Slashdot community to be fairly supportive of Apple, MacOS X and Macintoshes in general. Articles get posted which are mostly unbiased, except when they are rants against the corporate aspects of Apple. Comments are made by people who seem to mostly appreciate Apple's efforts in the open-source world. There are also admissions made that Apple does have some really cool hardware.
Personally, I don't mind the critics of Apple. If the criticism is fair, unbiased, and open then it is welcome because only good can come from it. On the other hand rants, trolls, and baseless accusations are not welcome, since they are clearly inflammatory and don't contribute anything to the discussion other than to turn people off of the point the poster was trying to make.
USB 2.0 is Dying (Score:2, Insightful)
No USB 2.0 support in XP, and Intel is moving towards IEEE-1394.
I reckon that Apple will put a higher speed Firewire in all the new desktops in January along with faster G3s and G4s, might call the new G4 a G5 and do an LCD iMac, but USB 2.0...no biggy.
It's about time to phase out smaller CRTs (Score:4, Insightful)
There are big wins in switching when you make the whole machine. The box size goes down. Shipping cost goes down. Shelf space at retail goes down. Power supply size goes down. It's a bigger win for Apple than for the Wintel crowd.
I'm just surprised that Apple didn't do this before the holiday shopping season.
Re:Well, this old rumor is bound to be true someda (Score:2, Insightful)
size, speed, industrial design, interface design, battery life...
you don't agree?
Re:This community drives me nuts... (Score:3, Insightful)
What are you talking about? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you claim that one processor has a better risc design, and allows more flexibility, then HOW can you claim that it will take less operations as well???????????
Being RISC means you break down complex operations into MORE instructions that are SIMPLER. This is where the flexibility comes in, because you can order your operations more efficiently in your pipeline to avoid resource conflicts, and utilize more of the resources available. Since you have more instructions that are simpler, usually you clock the hell out of it. Otherwise how can you be running a slower clock AND get better performance? RISC usually means you need to execute MORE instructions, NOT less...
If you talk about x86 being CISC, then that means it takes LESS instructions to execute, but they are more complex. Usually to accomplish this, your instructions CANNOT utilize resource sharing, otherwise you will NEVER be able to pipeline your instructions. Given this, it means the instruction MUST finish in one clock cycle. Hence typically a CISC processor is supposed to be clocked lower than a RISC processor.
Now before anyone pipes in about the P4 being 2 Ghz, let me mention that the P4 actually has a RISC core... So that is why a P4 clocked at a HIGHER clock is performing about the same as an Athlon with a LOWER clock, because the P4 needs to execute more instructions. The benafits will be realized when/if Intel can runaway from AMD in terms of clock speed.
Of course, I boiled this all down to explain here, but you get the point...
Platform (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't think of a worse time in the platform or company's history than during the point that clones were available. It was an absolute mess. Part of the problem was that none of the manufacturers had any interest in actually expanding the market. They just took Apple's best customers while Apple was left to foot the bill for platform development. Clones elminated a lot of the core value of the Mac.
Cloning was in direct conflict with the Mac experience, philosophy and culture. It may have seemed like a good idea on paper (largely people assumed if it worked for x86, it would work for the Mac), but in practice, it just didn't flow right. The platform is undoubtably in a more stable position today.
and they had a fully operational 486 booting Mac OS, complete with desktop and even Quicktime movies with sound
Welcome Mac users, to the wonderful work of IRQ conflicts and COM2.
Controlling hardward and software helps integrate, but not innovate
Actually, just the opposite. Things like iDVD, iMovie and AirPort worked immediately upon introduction (and therefore added value) due specifically to the fact that Apple controlled both the hardware and software.
The fact that Apple owns and maintains its own platform is at the core of its value proposition and ability to differentiate from other manufacturers. It provides choice in the industry.
- Scott
Re:It's been done (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Put down the crack pipe, please. (Score:3, Insightful)
It evidently needs to be said again.
The G4 is the G3 with Altivec and SMP. They're the same chip otherwise. The G4 runs Altivec-enabled programs faster than the G3 does. This includes mostly Photoshop.
If you're not running Altivec programs, and you only have the one processor, a 500MHz G3 runs as fast as a G4.
However, FWIW... I have a 400MHz G3. It runs about six times as fast as my P133 on most tasks; that suggests a rough speed equivalent of 800MHz. (For example, it encodes MP3s using BladeEnc at almost precisely six times the speed. Other tasks are similar.)
Working the math, that would suggest a 500MHz G3 should be about a gigahertz or so.
Re:apple shapes... (Score:2, Insightful)
I have purchased 4 macs in the last 7 years. I CARE about functionailty. I CARE about software that works. I'm a graphic designer and film student. Yes, Photoshop, Quark, Illustrator, Premiere, AfterEffects and the rest all exist for WIndows, but I get far more general protection fault errors and blue screens and crash inducing errors in Windows than I ever do on a Mac while using these apps. These apps working at peak efficiency is how I make my living and they just work more reliably and faster on the Mac.
Sure, I don't have the gazillions of games, unintuitive ftp clients or Barbie virtual makeover software, but then again I don't have the time to fuss around with what I consider trivial nonsense. I need to be able to get my work done with minimal fuss, check my email, surf the web, etc. My Mac's work... period.
Re:DELL???? (Score:2, Insightful)
Man, you would think this web site existed in a vacuum.
Re:Apple Come back? (Score:4, Insightful)
> do the PC justice just because of the PC's basic
> modular, expandable nature, which you are paying
> for; If the PC were as unexpandable as the iMac,
> it would be cheaper.
I think people also buy iMacs for their expandability, but what they appreciate about the expandability is that it already has great "add-on" software and hardware in it from the start, and adding more software and hardware is easy (drag-and-drop software installs, plug-and-play hardware installs, easy-access expansion doors in the cases). I mean, all of the ports are right there on the side, attractively presented to the user. People who never looked at the back of their PC are looking at the FireWire port on their Mac and going "that's where you plug-in a camcorder or hard drive" because when they do that, it just works. It's already been set up for that before they get the machine.
For example, a non-technical friend of mine gave up trying to add software and hardware to his PC because he didn't enjoy all the work involved, and he was generally always suffering from one problem or another with Windows, anyway, and "didn't want to make it worse". He got an iMac and added a printer and scanner himself, no problem. He adds software all the time. So he actually told me that the iMac's "great expandability" was one of the things he liked about it over the PC, second only to the fact that it crashed less than his PC. Also, I got one "help desk" call from him in the past two years with his iMac, versus one a week when he had his PC.
So to say an iMac is "not expandable" is really looking at it from a PCI board / geek hacker perspective. For many people, it's the most expandable system they've ever used. That's part of why they're still selling more than a million iMacs a year, even in this economy, even with CRT displays in them, even with all the empty MHz you get on the PC side. It really serves the needs of the users who buy them.
Re:A flat screen on a curved box? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple's putting themselves in a position... (Score:2, Insightful)
The transition from MacOS 9 to MacOS X is almost done. As soon as March 24, 2001 comes around, every computer should boot to MacOS X by default. All Apple really needs to do is get aqua hardware accelerated and their apps ported to MacOS X. After that, Apple doesn't have much to do beyond bug fixing.
Whatever happens in January is a mixed bag. The G5s might come out, or they might speedbump the G4s. Either way, the holy grail of mac users everywhere will finally come to light. That's right....we'll FINALLY be at 1000mhz or even above! Can you believe it!?! But anyway, in my opinion it's essential that the G5s are released. Besides the fact that it should be a lot faster than the competiton, Apple needs to get G4s in their consumer lines.
If Apple was going to make a killer show, they'd show flat panel imacs with a 867, 933, and 1ghz G4s in them with G5s in the professional models at 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6ghz. And not only that, they should show the crowd a 1.6ghz G5 beating the snot out of the fastest Pentium 4 in....no guys, not Photoshop, but Quake 3! Macs have always sucked at providing gazillions of frames per second. It would be the first time a mac performed better than a PC at gaming. It would be a fair test and a lot more fun than Photoshop.
But anyway, don't trust Cnet! In fact, don't trust anybody but Apple! Last time the guessing was this extreme was at Macworld in July, which was the biggest letdown in Apple history. People were saying that 1ghz G4s with DDR-ram, MacOS X 10.1, flat panel imacs, the whole nine yards would be there, but it wasn't. Treat this as the same type of thing. If Apple hasn't announced it, it doesn't exist.
Re:Already being sold... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some good examples: the iBook's 20GB 4200rpm hard drive vs iMac's 60GB 7200rpm hard drive; iBook's notebook keyboard/trackpad vs iMac's full-size desktop keyboard and optical mouse; iBook's 8MB graphics RAM vs iMac's 32MB. It all adds up to where iMac makes more sense if you don't want to take it all with you.
Apple has a chance to do some really special stuff with a flat iMac that's not possible for other PC manufacturers. With the CRT gone, the 6-7 watt G3 and G4 chips are going to enable Apple to do some cool miniaturization or design things that PC's with 50-70 watt P4's are not going to be able to do as they move to flat panels.
As for being a low-end machine, it is the low-end of Apple's line, but it's also sort of the flagship, "people's" computer. The simplicity and ease of use of it are admired and respected by a lot of people. Many iMac users don't think of themselves as low-end users
Re:Already being sold... (Score:3, Insightful)
What I'm saying is that you have to go further than just RAM, CPU, HD, graphics RAM to put a PC together that can capably replace an iMac. You've got to add some software and hardware and do a lot of configuring. iMac also has very decent speakers in it, a beautiful optical mouse, a great keyboard, and wireless antennaes built-in so it can be a base station for your notebook or any other 802.11 computer if you add a $99 AirPort card. And no fan. It's very quiet. Also, the design and appeal of the iMac has to count for $100 or so. You add RAM by opening the RAM door with a quarter and popping in a chip of "iMac RAM" (many vendors sell RAM this way, guaranteed and tested for iMac). That shit really, really counts for many users. It enables them to admin their own system to a certain degree and not have to call a geek to get anything done.
Re:Flat-panel iMac == iBook (Score:2, Insightful)
About 10 people before you have mentioned this. And each time, someone has stated the blinding obvious fact that a flat-panel iMac would not use expensive laptop internals. Not to mention things like form factor.
*sigh*
Also, iMacs do provide better performace than iBooks.
new moderation option needed: (Score: -1, For f's sake girl/boy/woman/man! Think before you post!)