Slashdot Mirror
Flat-panel iMacs in Apple's Future?
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?"
After all, they *DID* stop selling any monitors but flat screens...
And hell, they can make them smaller, and in new shapes, they could do a lot of things with the shape, since they aren't limited by the size of the CRT and the heat problems inherent with monitors in close proximity with other computer pieces...
Besides, If the release another "flower power" imac, and you were stuck using it, wouldn't *YOU* want it smaller/easier to hide?
Ex
Is apple actually going to attempt a huge come back? It seams like they haven't been doing much lately (as much as other manufacturers), but I know alot of ./ readers use macs, our web developers use macs, and they love them. I even told my dad he should get a mac when he started light video editing. Whats the deal? Is Mac sneaking back into the market slowly so they can take everyone by surprise?
Can all fish swim?
Oh wait, I'm sorry... Yahoo! is *always* right...
..it's called an iBook.
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?
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
IMO, imacs are cool because of the translucent plastic that lets you see the inside of the CRTs. A flat panel would just be like any thin PC spray painted fruity.
15 to 1 says it's got some sort of water cooling.
How many people that buy consumer-level computers upgrade them? Very few.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Imagine all those soaps and shows where people only work with iMac's instead of real computers... they all have to upgrade to avoid to look dated! Sell WB stock now!
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
You could upgrade the imac's monitor the same as any other computer; buy a new monitor and plug it in.
Wouldn't that put up the price of iMac (which are supposed to be low-end of mac range) ?
Guvf vf abg n EBG zrffntr
How long before MacCentral, MacRumor, MacAttack, or whoever releases a "secret" pick of this new flat-panel iMac. I'm eager to claim that the picture is a fake Photoshop job, and that there's no way this will ever exist, only to be proven wrong a month later.
This has got to be the most common Apple rumor in recent years. The flat-panel iMac is always predicted at every major MacWorld Expo, and so far it hasn't materialized. Maybe it will this time, but Mac rumors have been so far off in the past that a lot of people don't pay attention to them anymore.
So would it look like this http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTool s/item-details.asp?sku=D158-1008 only in different colors then? Is this really that new of a concept? These things have been in the last few Tiger catalogs I've gotten.
-J
That sounds like a way better idea than the wood panelling I was planning for my basement.
The only question now is what color to go with...Lime or Tangerine?
------
Let me give you the lowdown
Apple's chips simply run too slow to need any sort of active cooling. Besides, there's no way they'd mess with water cooling, not with the average intelligence of their users. Can you imagine hundreds of electrocuted Mac owners?
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
remember, steve makes sure he has either michael or ted in his sights every time they intro a new box - and usually makes a point of it in the presentation.
if gateway can do a legacy box with an lcd for $999 - no reason apple can't put the well-paid-for imac guts in one - they already match gateway & dell in price for the low end (approx $800) - it was finally a $200 delta in the price of their monitors anyway - $399 crt vs $599 lcd when the cube ended.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Say hello to "iFlat"
Oh yeah, I think I read that the new iMac would be completely solar powered and hovers weightless whereever you want it totally negating the need for a desk. And it reads your mind, all thanks to the new G6 processor. ;)
today is spelling optional day.
http://www.acorncreative.tv/imac2.html
I'll take any of them.
Apple really ought to get back into the business of selling computers rather than furniture. Flamboyancy only appeals to a niche market and it's appeal is usually short run. Apple would probably be better off giving us a reason to buy their computer for other purposes besides it looking great on a desk and your friends might be impressed.
Apple can both save on shipping costs and bill their new iMac's as semi-portable...
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)
gateway already has flat-panel, all-in-one pcs. I avoid them, 'cuz you can't really upgrade 'em.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Your point ?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
See this story over at the Register
You can buy a flat display for your Power Mac G4
Apple Studio Display (15" flat panel) $599.00
But some news sites say that No flat-panel iMac at Macworld Expo next week
The really news may be the $ that costs such a Mac (Design+power+flat screen)
-= If you fight Dragons long enough, you will become a Dragon =-
My God, what is this world comming to ;-)
Sound waves should be free!
So, with the price of LCD panels dropping, it's the obvious next step... but it just isn't a breakthrough (except getting it done at a price suitable for iMac).
Its about time Apple put a flat panel on their mac. Now it'll look even more badass through the transparent top, and maybe there'll be room for expansion slots. In any case, the flat panel will make it much easier to lug around without having to change the overall form factor.
Now all they need to do is make the thing as cheap as the original imac and we're cooking.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
While the reported component order gives the rumor slightly stronger legs, don't forget that Apple already buys lots of 15" LCDs for their 15" Studio Display. It would be very interesting to know how many of these monitors Apple currently sells per month. Perhaps the additional 100kmonitors/month is simply forecasting additional demand?
the imac is supposed to be the low end, remember? adding a flat screen and all that would put the price above the $999 that the last group of imacs demanded. however, i can say that will be released, whenever it's released, will be pretty...different.
rumors are killing apple... while it's true, most people tend to ignore them (you and me both), too many believe them. for example, the iPod. it was hyped-up so much that when people actually saw it, it was a let down, even tho it's a great piece of hardware (a bit costly, but cool)...
i hope the lcdMac comes out, then people will keep quiet... well, at least until some other nutzo rumor comes out.
Think back 15 years. We had the Mac, Mac Plus, Mac SE. In recent years were the iMac, iMac DV, iMac SE. Apple loves to re-use concepts -- my old toaster Mac had a SuperDrive.
I'd love to see an iMac equivalent of the IIci or the LC3. Flat panel, compact desktop case, one or two expansion slots, and much cheaper than the pro towers. Basically, what the Cube should have been. It can be done. They have the technology. But is Lord Steve willing to do it?
See how Apple treats it's userbase and uses the DMCA to muscle the little guy...
man, I would love to use MAC equipment... but unfortunately it usually is incompatable with anything else. That and it is very likely that the trend at Apple will continue to be 'buy our stuff and be happy with what you get'. Ummm, I want to change and upgrade, and I don't see MAC's as providing me with that opportunity. Crawl out of your niche Apple and join the rest of the world please, I would then be able to use your stuff and be rather happy.
Damn, that's a great website, how comes i've never heard of it before??
I'll bet you a ThinkGeek T-shirt that there won't be water cooling. I take size large, thanks.
Mr. Ska
Great! Now they can finally add the floppy drive that's been missing....
"It's comin' back around again..." -RATM
When the iMac was unveiled it was considered by many to be nearly revolutionary. Whether you agree with this sentiment or not is another issue. However that was (I believe) in 1998, and it's nearly 2002 and the iMac of today is visually almost identical to the 1998 firstborn Bondi Blue iMac. Yeah, there have been color changes, hard drive upgrades, speed bumps, memory increases, and now even a slot-loading cd/dvd/whatever drive, but the external appearance is pretty much unchanged. Normally this wouldn't matter for a computer, but the iMac was a hit because of its style.
So it's time for something "revolutionary" again. I've heard rumors of the flat panel iMac from lame sites like Mac OS Rumors since at least the end of 1998. Actually this particular rumor (and its failure to materialize) was one reason I stopped reading MOSR and its ilk and realized what garbage they were.
So if Steve Jobs unveils a flat panel iMac, it won't be a big surprise. The difference now will be if he doesn't, analysts will be disappointed and Apple's stock price will probably take a minor hit.
rooooar
Right. They'll announce it between the new Apple PDA and the Disney buyout.
And then Hitler will build a snowman.
--saint
Granted, Gateway, HP, etc have come out with flat panel consumer PCs, so the fact that Apple can stir up a bunch of rumor news with a flat panel product may leave some scratching their heads wondering what the big hoopla is. Think about the iPod. Yeah, there are plenty of mp3 players out there, but it took the design team at Apple to create the best one. Apple took their time, and GOT IT RIGHT. The same can be said for the next iMac. It may have the same specs as some other machines out there now, but it'll make everything else look like junk when it comes out. Obviously I haven't seen it, but knowing Apple's track record I'm sure it'll be amazing.
The trouble with LCD iMacs is the education market. Schools don't buy iMacs just because they are cheaper than iBooks, they buy them because they are more durable.
The abuse that a computer takes in a school setting is enough to make me cringe.
Still, I like the idea of having a LCD iMac. It would be cool for me, I'm just not sure that it will work in the education market. (Yeah, I know. Maine just bought 38,600 iBooks. Still, most schools buy iMacs.)
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
Shipping even more flat screens has definitly interesting side effects. This means that Apple wants to lower the prize (for themselves) and it means all flat screens will be cheaper, and I am hoping it will be cheaper faster. This implies that I could, the next time I want a new computer, two at least 19", LCDs together with my brand new nVidia GF++.
So, everybody who doesn't care, or are mac maniacs, go buy one of these;)
that they advertise the damn thing.
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.
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Can you imagine hundreds of Mac owners ?
Apple will award you with a large cash bonus after you become their premiere PR agency.
...in bed.
what, suddenly the dmca isn't news anymore? you whores
Apple's chips simply run too slow
don't be so foolish. the correct term would be a lower frequency (as denoted by the unit of measure, MHz/GHz)
this is not an indication of speed, it is an indication of how many cycles per second it has.
speed comes from how many operations can be performed per second or even howmany can be performed per cycle. Athlons perform more operations per cycle that P4s do, and G4s perform more operations per cycle than either of the two.
now when you multiply how many operations per cycle by the number of cycles, you get the number of operations per second, you can then make statments about speed.
if a P4 executes 1 operations per cycle and has 2 billion cycles per second, that is 2 billion operations per second.
if a G4 does 3 operations per cycle and operates at 667 Mhz, that is also 2 billion operations per cycle. both chips operate at the same speed, one however has a higher frequency that the other.
the speed of applications is irrelivent to the most part because each chip has their own optimizations that a program can take advantage of. I say for the most part, because you can compile an application with no optimizations for the architecture and then it would be possable to get a fel for each chips speed, however, the instruction sets are diffrent and one instruction set could be more efficient that the other, in which case you do not get an actual feel for raw speed of the architecture.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
... a mac with USB 2.0 then some fancy lifestyle thing... just think about it.. USB2.0 will let you use a 16x10x40 Ext CD-R drive instead of a crappy 6x USB1/Firewire 'enabled' drive...
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
speed comes from how many operations can be performed per second
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.
Apple Insider has a story on this, as well.
It's true that this has been rumored for quite some time, and nothing has come of the rumors. The key reason that Apple Insider seems inclined to believe it this time is essentially that:
It's no surprise that a major change to the iMac is coming. What has been difficult to nail down is exactly what will be changed, and when these changes will occur. What has precluded this product from being introduced is component availability and prices: AppleInsider sources have revealed, however, that the prices of key components has reached an acceptable level at which Apple can sell the new iMac at a price palatable to consumers and still retain profitability on its most popular line.
We'll see...
* * *
It is a dada story -- it has no moral.
I for one hope they introduce the long-rumored flat panel iMac...if for no other reason than it will push down the prices of the existing iMacs to the point that I may be able to justofy converting our office to them. (Yes, I know the total cost of ownership...but bosses like bottom lines)
as much as i hate apple. i have to say that they come up with some pretty creative products. The posibilities are endless when you take out the huge tube of a CRT.
i wish that more pc companies would come up with case and computer designs as creative as apple's. sure the g4 cube cracked, but isn't it cool looking?
besides the people who buy macs want something that looks cool. they don't care about functionality and software.
THERE IS NO DATA. THERE IS O
At 800x600, MacOS X probably won't run as good as in 1024x768 and Apple is always a pinoeer (SP). Now, speaking of MacOS X, Wouldn't you guys agreet that MacOS X is the first OS that could excape away from MS's Windows GUI to a completely new interface that looks good and usable? I think that is probably the greatest feast in terms of UI.
kawai
Why does Apple's iMac computer warrent special mention?
I can (sort of) understand some of your objections to Microsoft, but why are PC manufacturers, who provide a range of machines that can run a variety of operating systems, treated lousy, but Macintosh is treated specially?
Apple, with its desire to control the hardware *and* the software, is much more "monopolistic" than Microsoft ever was. It's just that Steve Jobs made an inferior product, and the market made its choice.
Why does the Slashdot community automatically tear apart everything Apple does? Would it be so hard to admit that they got it right with Firewire, got it right by popularizing USB, got it right by deleting the useless floppy drive, got it right with Quicktime, got it right with the (new) iBook and Powerbook g4, and got it DAMN right with OS X? Seriously folks, look back at all your knee-jerk reactionary posts over everything Apple and do some thinking. Point me to major innovations that have not been driven by Apple and then try using a new Mac. Have you ever USED OS X on a new Titanium? Have you ever tried to copy even 64MB over USB to a Rio, and then copied 2 GB to a firewire drive in the same time? Try using Final Cut Pro, iMovie, DVD Studio Pro... This site has become a bunch of first-post, bash-everything, small-minded jerkoffs.
only the "geeks" and the "cheap".
THERE IS NO DATA. THERE IS O
I actualy did not forget that, I pointed that out at the end about why software was not a good measure. the G4 instructionset is actualy more efficient than the X86 BTW.
...is a portable/desktop hybrid.
Think about this: a desktop computer with a larger-than-laptop flatscreen (15", let's say) that stands on its own and can also be used as a laptop. I like the iMacs, personally, but they weigh 40 pounds - the idea of sticking an airport card in the is ridiculous if you can't lift the damn thing. I want something small, something classy, that I can take to the park and unfold on my desk at home without squinting at the screen or getting a neck cramp because of the positioning.
mmm. Just a thought.
Triv
... a beowulf cluster of these?!!!!!!
raretshirts.com - cool vintage t-shirts
They're going to have to redesign the whole thing if they want flat screens, because the box isn't flat on the front. Either than, or they'll have to make curved-panel displays.
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.
A whole pile of dead bodies of electrocuted Mac owners does have it's appeal.
Also, dead, the average intelligence of them would probably actually go up.
It seams like they haven't been doing much lately (as much as other manufacturers),
I don't what you mean by "lately" I guess if you mean the past couple of months all they have done is open more of their own retail stores, speed bump their hardware, come out with a new MP3 player, update their OS, multimedia and MP3 software - which i guess is "not much" when we are talking about apple. But I don't know of any other manufacturer that does as much as Apple even on a "slow" day - the PC manufacturers are mostly just assembling and reselling new products from Intel and Microsoft whereas Apple does more of it's own hardware engineering even contributing (a little) to the PowerPC chip design and makes it's own OS (a Unix "for the rest of us"), a whole host of multimedia software and every year or two takes enormous risks coming out with inovative hardware which is either a spectacular success (iMac, Titanium PowerBook) or a spectacular (but cool) failure (the Cube)
But back to your original question: Is apple actually going to attempt a huge come back?
Yes, everything they do is designed to attempt a huge comeback. They started their own retail stores with the stated goal of significantly increasing market share. They take risks with such strange hardware and their own excellent software because they aren't looking for a product that is "good enough" but are hoping for a blockbuster. They have had some spectacular successes with this strategy (Most notably the iMac which singlehandedly broght them back from the grave) and some spectacular failures (the Cube - which was a failure but was still "cool")
Firewire CD burners are much faster than 6x whatever. I've seen 16x and i think i've even seen 24x, but i am not certain. You're off your rocker.
what differentiates the iPod from a host of other less expensive alternatives?
Whenever I see the ad on the back cover of the New Yorker, all white and clean looking, I think black sharpie every time. I hope nobody is stupid enough to leave one lying around where I can get at it with my magic marker. moohaha.
Funny, how apple is justifying the fast that people aren't buying new Imacs due to the same shape for 3 years.....c'mon guys, the pc has had a box shape for the past 20 years! even the sales of pcs have been dropping! I think its more or less the fac tthat we now have computers that aren't out of date within a year or two, what was that old saying? "A computer is out of date the second you walk out of the store" ? I don't think this is true anymore, I'm running a PIII 500 and IMHO it can keep up with the best of them.
I SURVIVED THE GREAT SLASHDOT BLACKOUT OF 2002!
True, since the 20th was around $7k. However, I'd like to point out that if you'd never had a computer thats sound system was designed by Bose, you're really missing out.
Mod point free since 2001
I have it on good authority that this rumor will still be going around in the year 2525.
In all seriousness I understand that they have been working on this for a long time (the source of the periodic rumours) and have just been waiting for the price of the displays to come down to a point that makes sense (the reason it stays a rumour). Hopefully this time it will "come true". Apple needs periodic "blockbuster" products and changing the color of the iMac again just won't cut it anymore.
If you're going to put Linux or *BSD on it, what difference does it make?
It's a still-born connector.
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.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. P4's and G4's both have lots of optimizations that allow them to detect low-level parallelism and thus execute instructions in parallel. The G4 is arguably a bit better at this, in part because it has a RISC instruction set and thus has more flexibility in the ordering of instructions, compared with the Godawful x86 instruction set which often takes several cycles to execute.
The other major advantage that a G4 has is altivec, but I would argue that this isn't as great an advantage as Apple claims. True, it's cleaner and faster than MMX or KNI in the Intel line, but the difference isn't *that* great, and more to the point many developers aren't taking advantage of it. So while you can get a 6x speed boost on seti@home or photoshop, it's not going to do much for your run-of-the-mill applcation.
Finally, in terms of overall speed, I think it's ludicrous to claim that Macs are 2-3 times faster at the same clock rate. True, it's somewhat faster at the same clock rate due to a simpler instruction set, shallower pipeline, and other reasons, but I simply don't buy a 3-fold performance advantage. On average, a 866 G4 is probably equivalent to a 1 GHz or maybe 1.2 GHz P4. That's still substantially slower than Intel's top-of-the-line 2 Ghz P4's.
Apple has been very successful at selling the idea of a "megahertz myth," and to a certain extent they may be right. But honestly, better architectures can only push you so far. If the chip is doing fewer cycles per second, that *has* to be a handicap.
So I would say Macs at the moment are slower than their PC counterparts. They also happen to be less power-hungry, have better industrial design, run a better OS, be easier to use, etc. That's why I bought one. But I don't think we should be doing Apple's PR job for them. The G4 is a fast chip, but it's not *that* fast.
The reason they're not aggressively marketing OS X is because it isn't ready for mainstream use.
The only folks using Mac OS X are developers building for the new OS, unix-geeks like me, and other early-adopter types.
Most people I know who use Macs won't switch until the major workhorse programs (flash, dreamweaver and photoshop) work native on OS X.
There's still a lot of room for improvement in Mac OS X. Some of the system software runs very sluggishly. But Mac OS X is improving with every minor release. 10.0.4 was much better than 10.0 and 10.1 is better still.
Fortunately, Apple realises this by improving System 9 as well. When they stop shipping System 9 as part of OS X, that's when you know that Mac OS X is ready for primetime.
The thing _I_ don't understand is why Apple isn't working harder on the "Mac OS X is unix" message. I'm running Apache, mySQL, emacs, the 3 P's (PHP, Perl, Python), bash, and (most importantly) nethack. Terminal is the almost the most used application (behind the browser) on my home machine.
My father is a blogger.
Instead of the soft TFT screen found on all Powerbooks and the new titanium iBook, it had a HARD screen. It was also 800 x 600. :/
That could be a strategy for them to follow, but this *IS* just a recycled rumor, anyway.
Come on moderators. Not only does this post have incorrect info, the poster clearly doesn't know *anything* about processor architecture.
in original, fun, trippy, and above all, oddly shapped computers, it is doughtfull that you could say that your suprised at the notion of the flat iMac. Be sure and spot those apple updates! ;)
That certainly used to be the case. Interestingly, however, Apple has gone out of their way to make the iMac and the iBook almost completely trivial to upgrade, at least if you're doing the most common upgrades (RAM and an Airport card). In other words, now that hard drives are getting to the point of being "big enough" (many fewer people are getting to the point of being squeezed for hard disk space even in the age of mp3s) and video cards are "fast enough", if you build everything else in, you really can make all reasonable upgrades possible for a person armed only with simple instructions and a US quarter.
In essence, people are empowered but not hassled, which could basically be Apple's new slogan.
Babar
This argument is a load of CRAP.
VHS was better than beta *for the features that mattered*. Why did VHS win? Because it had a 6 hour recording time available when BETA had 4.5 hours. Users liked to be able to get more shows on one tape. And they preferred that over quality.
It's the same with the Macintosh. I don't care how many "studies" you can pull out of your butts showing "it's easier." For the featured that mattered, the PC was better, and the market voted.
For example, in 1984 when the PC and the Mac came out, the PC offered a real keyboard, 80 columns of text, and IBM terminal emulation. In an office environment, these features were more important than Mac's picture of a garbage can, and the market voted.
The BETA vs VHS argument is *not* a good example of an "inferior" product winning; VHS was better in the features that mattered.
Why don't you go make love to your Macintosh (unplug it first!) and leave the rest of us alone?
It's an amusing, if slightly cynical observation of a phenomenom we are all familiar with. Apple using product placement on TV - which works because their kit looks so distinctive.
I swear the moderators on /. are getting stupider by the day.
Last summer (the last time it was rumored that this new iMac would be introduced at the upcoming expo), one person did a mockup of what a flatscreen Imac might look like.
They'd be kind of like the old "pizza box" performas, the way this guy envisioned them. :)
As far as I know, there's no real information anywhere about what the form factor would be. Apple's gotten pretty touchy about unauthorized relase of info, so there probably won't be any dependable info until the actual expo rolls around...
* * *
It is a dada story -- it has no moral.
for example, the iPod. it was hyped-up so much that when people actually saw it, it was a let down, even tho it's a great piece of hardware (a bit costly, but cool)...
Apple had a press release before it was unveiled and called it a "breakthrough digital device". That's why there was so much hype.
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.
true enough, but the rumormongers turned that into *digital-hub/DVD-R/laser gun/etc* and whet people's appetite for an all encompassing be-all-end-all device...
breakthroughs are on a sliding scale maybe...
That of all the Fortune 500 companies, only THREE have stayed in the black every quarter for the last 10 years.
They are (in no particular order):
1.) General Electric
2.) Intel
3.) Wal-Mart
what differentiates the iPod from a host of other less expensive alternatives?
size, speed, industrial design, interface design, battery life...
you don't agree?
almost all macs can boot off the cd drive, and since the almost all come with writable cd-rom drives.....
The mac uses "firmware" not bios and updates are available fairly regularly...
first off, I was not making any clames as to what is what, I was just siting mathmatics. second of all I was targetting only the operations per cycle, not any of the optimizations...read the whole post and you will see where I discount this as a way to truly measure speed. and , how can you say that fewer clock cycles has to be a haddycap? if a G4 does 3 operations a cycle and those operations are more efficient than X86, then you are not haddycaped at all, you operation level is eaual per second and your operations are more efficient......even if they used the same instruction set, if you did 3 operations per cycle 667 MHz equals the exact same performance that a 1 operation per cycle 2.0 GHz chip has.
the fact the the G4 instruction set is better and more efficient that X86 only adds to the overall speed at which you can get stuff done in the real world...but as for raw speed, a 3 operation/ cycle G4 at 667MHz is as fast as a 1 operation per cycle P4 at 2.0GHz. math does not lie my friend, it does not lie.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
This will be the second time Apple will be the first to release something after someone else does! Way to got Apple. Oh wait, maybe it's the third :-)
1. iMac was not the first monitor integrated computer.
2. OS X was a little late to bring UNIX to the common person, they stuck with M$ junk, and nearly a year after it's release, it's still less popular than FreeBSD.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
It's good to see Apple making a move to change to 15'' viewable. When iMacs first came out one of the reasons they took off so well is the 15'' monitor was standard. However 17'' is now standard and most consumers arn't happy with a small 15'' CRT screen. I think that either this move or changing to a 17'' CRT (although that would take away from much of the compact size which is likely why they haven't done it) is necessary to revitalize iMac sales.
I stole this Sig
The problem with USING all that cool Mac stuff is that it costs MONEY. Sure you could grab the software somewhere, but the hardware is so overpriced compared to PC hardware.
Apple has a different business model than somebody like Dell. Apple has an entire platform to develop. They provide free, ad-free internet services to their customers. They provide quite a bit of free software. They host open source projects. These things cost money to create and maintain. This money comes from the margins. Basically, you pay more so Apple can develop a better experience.
A company like Dell, however, is primarily an assembly service. They don't have product development in the same sense that Apple does. Dell's products are defined largely by Intel, Microsoft, NVIDIA, IBM and component manufacturers. The actual machines and experience end up being very similar to that of other manufacturers, so Dell effectively competes on the sale rather than the product. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with this -- it's just a different business model.
The fact that Apple and Dell have different approaches to selling computers is good. It means we have choice.
Apple is profitable and has well over $4 billion in cash, but if you look at their actual profit on per-quarter basis, they aren't raping customers and just watching the money pour in. They're doing constructive things with it.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
...and I'm sure the list of wrong things would be a rather long one as well, and the one at the top of the list in big blazing 20 point letters would be DITCHING SCSI that CRAP IDE.
Have you taken any EE classes? In Computer Architecture you study different processor architectures.
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...
MAC OS X 2001 == Unix 1969
:)
Plop an end user in front of each of these and see which one they do better with.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Honestly I don't know why it was considered revolutionary especially in design especially since Compaq were doing the monitor and computer in one before the iMac. If cheesy colours are considered revolutionary then I guess so.
Compaq?
Apple got credit for copying itself. The iMac is a sleeker version of the Macintosh 128k.
Not that the iMac isn't cool, I think that computers that come in square boxes are what is needed for computers, but anyone who thinks it's a change from what apple was doing before is simply wrong. They just brought the old style into the 21st century.
While this argument is old and what matters is the number of cycles an instruction takes to be executed (together with the length of the pipeline of the CPU etc), I think one would actually have to finish his homework instead of just assuming that a PowerPC can actually perform a high number of instructions executed per clock cycle.
I was recently exposed to an old PowerPC machine (a PowerMac 9500/180MP), liked it a lot (despite it being slow) and thought about buying a new Mac for me (perhaps an iBook?). But since they are not even comparable in price to other architectures here in Brazil, I decided to learn more about it to see if the applications were making good use of the processor and if compiler support (read: GCC) were mature (which is important for me, since I am a grad Computer Science student).
Well, it seems that that's not the case. While Apple may have a good GCC for Darwin (whose patches are supposed to be incorportated upstream in GCC in the future), some posts from debian-powerpc and other places in the Web suggest that as a development platform (especially for intensive calculations), it may not be as good as a cheap, underpriced PC platform.
Of special weight for me is the opinion of Dan Bernstein, whose opinions I always respect a lot, given his background. In particular an article about G4s and an advice about purchasing computers.
Despite his opinions having a great weight on my decisions, I'm already convinced that the Apple products are reasonably good (and I've already played a tiny bit with their OS X, which has the coolness factor).
On the other hand, while the competition is so much cheaper (a strong point), with higher performance and better support, I'm still evaluating if purchasing, say, an iBook would be a good move (read: I'm still undecided), especially in the light of Dan Bernstein's revelations.
IMHO a flat screen iMac would not sell well as G4's and cubes with separte sexy flat monitors. But i don't use a mac, im stuck with the borg :(
Apple's failure was not allowing clones of its hardware
:)
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
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
the 500 MHz G3 is nearly as fast as the 1 GHz P3
I don't suppose you'd care to back up that hysterically funny claim with any actual benchmarks, eh?
A 500Mhz G 4 can, on a very good day, when the moon is in jupiter and there are no clouds, just about barely keep up with a 1GHz P-III on certain benchmarks. (Where "certain benchmarks" basically means "Photoshop Unshark Mask and nothing else.") A G 3 is not getting anywhere near the 1GHz P-III, nevermind the 1.4GHz P-4.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
For the same reason it tears apart everything MS does - loosers hate winners.
Given the additional cost of an LCD screen, a flat-panel iMac would cost about the same as an iBook. And performance-wise they're almost the same. I don't see much of a market for a flat-panel iMac as long as it doesn't provide better performance than the iBook.
--Bud
Is this really that new of a concept?
Is what a new concept? Nothing has been introduced yet. And regardless of what they do introduce, one major difference is that these machines will be designed to run Mac OS X.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
I could not agree more with you, bro, but the first and last paragraph of your reply strike me as slightly contradicting.
You first say "not ready for mainstream use" yet, your own use is pretty "main stream"...ok, geek, internt and web wise...but main stream non the less. Right?
But the middle parts are very accurate.
I'm "waiting" for dreamweaver, personally, even tho I rarely do that "web-master-thing" now.
Strange that it does "get better and better" each release. I keep thinking of that quote/sig of "At Microsoft's current rate of progress they will, in 20 years, invent Unix".
Heh. {and your comment was "crunchy on the outside, chewy on the inside"... {G}...yeah, I do need rest, as a matter of fact}
Cheers, bro.
Moose
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Well, they made the computer into a piece of furniture that grandma and aunt diane would like to have on their desks. I guess. I honestly thought it was stupid, and still am not too fond of it, but I can't really argue with Apple's sales figures.
rooooar
IIRC the last time the rumers weren't true some crazies actually tried to sue Apple. I can't remember if they got laughed out of court or not though.
Apple...
Make the flat panel iMac... make it as cool and as powerful as the one I own now, and I will be one of the first in-line to buy the new one.
--geethree
They also got rid of the fan at some point (yes, it had a fan in the past) and a faster front side bus.
I know! Let's make a little cube with no fan and a big LCD panel for it...
Oh, wait, that flopped. Mostly because of the price. It's not time for a "revolutionary" new Mac, but a successful one :-)
Depends on what else is released then. Also if the new iMac costs a lot more then the old one I expect bad things to happen.
These are the coolest freaking prototypes of ANY cpu I've yet seen. Check them out at: http://www.acorncreative.tv/imac2.html
Why do people say these things? My Mac works on the same networks, can use the same printers, can read and write the same file formats, etc. I can even cross-compile Win32 code on the Mac, and without a PC emulator. I only have to test it under Windows. Plus I can use all the Free BSD tools I can get my grubby little mitts on. If you are really addicted to MS software, you can get MS Office. It works better on the Mac anyway. OK, so I can't run Visual Basic on it. BFHD.
Now, how exactly is this totally incompatible with anything else?
I can imagine Joe User thinking that Macs are totally incompatible with everything else on the grounds of "where's da Start button?" But, perhaps unreasonably, I expect more from Slashdot.
Your signature implies that there is a moral equivalence between Israel and the PLO. There is NO such thing. Israel is an established nation. The PLO is a group of thugs.
Dell is almost as overpriced as Apple! Sheesh.
Sure, you can go down to your local cheap computer dealer and get more bang for your buck, but then you'll probably end up with cheap components that won't run Linux, may crash under Windows more often.
Local cheap computer shop? I build all my own boxes, buying best-of-breed components from various places and end up with a box that has higher-end components than those put in that overpriced Dell bitty box.
I just priced out the following system for
$550:
1.4GHz Athlon
256 MB RAM
40 GB HD
15" Monitor
64 MB ATI RADEON
SB AWE64 Sound
52x CD-ROM
Firewire
10/100 Ethernet + Modem
Shoot. I for an extra $100 or so (bringing our total to $650) I could have gotten a 17" monitor. This even includes the translucent case!
Heck, I could throw on a DVD-ROM or a even CD-RW drive and still be under your price.
Oh, and AMD processors have far more bang-for-the-buck than comparable Intel CPUs.
My journal has hot
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,48855,00 .html
p ht ml
.. or even a 19" .. it'd make an awesome head to a tower full of briq's running black lab linux =)
/ hp c.shtml
& again on appleinsider
http://appleinsider.com/articles/0112/imac2002.
why can't they just release a 17" powerhouse imac model
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/products/briQ
- tensions in our lives that are attacking our minds, unite themselves together to make our consciousness blind - op'ivy
As far as the upgrade fiasco is concerned, they're basically trying to cover their ass in an irritating fashion - but it's better than releasing CDs that can't be read in a freaking CD-ROM drive! sheesh!
The problem is that unless you have three compatible instructions, whose order is unimportant, you will pay a penalty for those additional instructions. A 2-way superscalar chip is not 100% faster than a non-superscalar chip, all things considered, and a 3 way is not 50% faster than a 2 way. You are haddycap(sic)ped by branch prediction and pipeline reassembly.
Also, I don't know how this figures in, because I know jack about the mechanisms of compiler optimization really, but compiler optimization does play a big part here. A gigantic amount of work has gone into x86 compiler optimization. I don't know how much optimization is done by PPC compilers, but the x86 boys (and girls) have a leg up on them, so to speak.
Math does not lie, but the way you present it can make one thing look like another; This is abundantly true any time you look at statistics, which is basically what we are doing now, especially in a world where you can optimize your CPU to do well on specific benchmarks. Admittedly intel's who's usually guilty of such a thing, and I'm not claiming that ibm/moto are doing anything of the sort. OTOH, you can play with numbers until they look the way you want them to look. The only functional benchmarks are application benchmarks, and too much else is inequal between a x86-based system and a ppc-based system to make that an easy comparison.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1) It'll scare the peons
2) Unix types _know_ this.
3) They haven't released real server hardware... yet.
There's a lot of interesting SMP code in the Darwin kernal. I can't see a reason for it to have major problems before 32 processors. 32>>2...
ok, I see your point, I grossly over simplified it out of existence.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Macintosh nutcases, fruitcakes, and zealots love to use the argument "BETA was better than VHS and it, too, lost."
This argument is a load of CRAP.
VHS was better than beta *for the features that mattered*. Why did VHS win? Because it had a 6 hour recording time available when BETA had 4.5 hours. Users liked to be able to get more shows on one tape. And they preferred that over quality.
It's the same with the Macintosh. I don't care how many "studies" you can pull out of your butts showing "it's easier." For the featured that mattered, the PC was better, and the market voted.
For example, in 1984 when the PC and the Mac came out, the PC offered a real keyboard, 80 columns of text, and IBM terminal emulation. In an office environment, these features were more important than Mac's picture of a garbage can, and the market voted.
The BETA vs VHS argument is *not* a good example of an "inferior" product winning; VHS was better in the features that mattered.
Why don't you go make love to your Macintosh (unplug it first!) and leave the rest of us alone?
Two things.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
I can't say much, but it's true. LCD iMacs are indeed coming. New shape, of course. A flat base with a built-in CD-R. They are going to sell like hotcakes.
I know why MAC users have a zealous fervor about the Macintosh.
You see, 78% of all Mac users suffer from AIDS-related DEMENTIA!
The other 12% are mentally retarted.
b0bby wrote "there are only two manufacturers in the black right now, Dell & Apple," Partridge pointed out that MS aren't a manufacturer of computers. Have you ever tried browsing in nested mode? Do you want a fucking fight or what?
The sold there apple IIc as portable. Even put a handle on it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You know, the one good thing about Mac owners is that most of them are too smart to run linux...
thbbbt! I've been trolled!
It evidently needs to be said again. The G4 is the G3 with Altivec and SMP. They're the same chip otherwise.
Er, no, that did not need to be said again. It didn't even need to be said in the first place, because it is completely false.
The G4 is not, in any way, shape or form, just a G3 with an AltiVec unit bolted on the side. Completely different math unit, radically different instruction pipeline, bigger caches, additional registers, SMP support (the G3 cannot be used in SMP systems), wider memory bus, more execution units... you name it, it changed -- even moreso in the 7450 and 7410 than in the 7400.
Please do someresearch before spouting "facts" liek this.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
out-fucking-rageous! The Jews used the sympathy of the world to create a state in Palestine. They are the thugs. The world doesn't owe Israel a living. try democracy you apartheid-loving jewish fuckers.
A) All Macs can boot from CD - except a few non-factory-installed, non-boot-enabled, user-installed CD drives. B) If you think it's hard making a bootable CD on a Mac, you're foolish. Step one: create read-write disk image with (included) Disk Copy application. Step two: copy existing system folder into it. The one you boot off every day will work, or the one on the Apple-supplied boot CD. Step three: install, if you wish, other software onto R/W disk image (disk repair tools, whatever) Step four: burn CD either with Disc Burner (supplied) or Toast. Easy. Hold down C on startup or choose CD in control panel as boot disc. Firmware updates come over the internet from Apple - they're about 200KB. Easy as pie. You can also add THAT to the boot CD you're creating. ALSO, you don't need a boot CD to update firmware - it updates it, you restart - during the reboot, it checks it, makes sure it's good, and installs it. Not all Mac users are idiots, nor are all x86 users geniuses. Both worlds have their share. By the way, I have not needed a floppy drive on any Mac for 3 years, I don't own a single disk.
I am of course referring to the Macintosh Millenium. Remember that thing? It came out a few months after the Powerbooks, and was the predicessor to the iMac (all in one stuff w/ LCD screen) I actually used one, and it was one helluva machine and had a real nice design. It kinda looked like a curved slab of wood about 1" thick. They never sold many of them, but I really think that this is a good revival of that machine, and the same design would would rock, since it would be one helluva space saver (a computer about 1.5 feet tall, 1 foot wide and 1-3 inches thick?). They could go somewhere with this.
You know what I hate about Apple hardware? It's all too cool! Every time they come out with something (or rumor it), I want to go buy it. *sigh* Being a 16 year old is no fun at all ;-)
Oh, and then once I buy it; they come out with something cooler! Darn it!!
My other car is first.
Why does someone have to do this everytime there's an article on Macs?
Because most (not all) Mac users can't make a legit comparison. Your iMac would cost hundreds more if it came with what the Dell comes with (disclaimer: I am not a Dell fan. I'm just using them for comparison consistancy). Here's a more reasonable comparison:
iMAC - $1499:
G3 700MHz
256MB RAM
60GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-RW Drive
RAGE 128 Ultra w/ 16MB
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
56K fax modem
13.8-inch (viewable) monitor
Tons of cool softare (office, jukebox, etc.)
Dell $1108:
P4 1.6Ghz
256MB RAM
80GB Ultra ATA HD
CD-RW drive
16MB ATI Rage Ultra
3COM 10/100 NIC
56K fax modem
16" viewable monitor
APC SURGESTATION PRO
Tons of cool softare (office, jukebox, etc.)
Although the packaged software is a bit hard to quantify (iTunes etc.), both systems include a very competitive offering. Essentially, for $400 less, you don't get Firewire, but you DO get 20 more Gigs of HD space, a significantly faster machine (faster bus speed + faster CPU - please no lectures on the mhz myth), a significantly larger monitor (2.2" larger), and an APC surgearrest powerstrip (~$35 value).
So, go ahead and argue based on quality of product, but when it comes to the bottom line, a Mac is still priced at 20-30% higher for a less compelling hardware package.
Finally, the following statement is rash:
Sure, you can go down to your local cheap computer dealer and get more bang for your buck, but then you'll probably end up with cheap components that won't run Linux, may crash under Windows more often, and you won't get any support from the manufacturer
You can also go down to your local computer dealer and buy quality components (probably much better then what Dell uses) and STILL come out ahead. It's ignorant to assume that just because a machine is built from inexpensive parts that it's going to "crash a lot" and be incompatible with popular OS's. I've built all of my machines this way with no problems. Actually, since Dell (and other OEM's) use a lot of proprietary hardware, there's more of a chance that they won't be compatible with Linux. Granted, all of this is moot for the general consumer, but Apple is missing out on a HUGE niche - the "build it yourself" geeks like myself.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
We thought the same thing when we were told this statistic at our meeting, but it turns out MS was in fact in the red sometime in the early 1990's. Their profits did not go on an upward trend until after Windows 95 was released, and after Office/Word became the norm. If you recall in the early 1990's Word Perfect was the accepted Word processor of choice, etc...
released. Get it through your software update.
photosMy Photostream
Blah blah blah. Everyone here knows about the Mhz Myth so get over it. The p4 1.4ghz (or even better, an Athlon 1.0 ghz) is STILL faster then a G4 700mhz. True, even though the P4 has TWICE the mhz, that doesn't make it TWICE the speed (duh), but many tests show that it IS faster.
Want a real revolution?
Stop producing desktop machines cause the laptops are just as good, ramp up production to drop costs.
Make a range of 'digital hub' servers for home and small office - file-sharing, internet gateway type things. Or maybe multi-user servers and ibook-like thin clients that connect to them. Schools would love that and so would families with 2+ kids.
'Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson...'
Or on a floppy:
Step 1: download self-extracting disk image
Step 2: insert floppy in drive and execute
Answer this, those who say floppy drives are useless -
How come there are so many $60 USB floppy drives on the market if there is no need for them? Common sense should tell you that if they didn't sell the product wouldn't be available.
Every new Mac ships with a BSD installed, though. Mac OS X, unix for the masses. (With a much nicer GUI than anything I've seen shoehorned into X11, I might add....)
itachi
I recently looked at buying a G4 box and here is what I priced out based on the lowest end tower model. Updates from the baseline configuration are in parentheses:
733 MHz PowerMac G4
256MB (Needed for running OS X)
40 GB hard drive
Combo drive (Who buys a PC without DVD)
GeForce2 MX graphics
Onboard sound plus speakers (speakers were extra)
56k modem, USB, Firewire, Ethernet
Mac OS 9 and X
Total: $2008
Now, rather than pick out "cut rate trash", I just went to Dell and priced out one of their systems:
Dell Dimension 4300, 1.4 GHz P4
256MB RDRAM
40 GB hard drive
Combo drive
GeForce2 MX graphics
Onboard sound plus H-K speakers
56k modem, USB, Ethernet, NO firewire
Windows XP
Lexmark printer
Total: $1087
You would have to add in an optional Firewire card to the Dell, but I figure that's equal to or less than the value of the printer Dell throws in. Both prices are based on just the standard 1 year warantee and don't include a monitor. If you buy a monitor or service plan from Apple, it will cost more than from Dell. And both systems include basically equivalent software bundles.
Like I said, the G4 tower is twice as much as an equivalent Wintel PC, and that's on the low end. When you move up the G4 line, the price differential becomes even greater.
I'm on my second Apple notebook right now. If their desktop systems were anywhere near as price competetive as their notebooks, I'd own one too. But right now, the prices on the G4 towers remain astronomical, and the iMac does not offer what I need or want.
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.
(Score:-1, Monospaced)
Since the iBook and a flatscreen iMac would be almost the same product, I think Apple should kill the iMac and make the iBook more ergonomic; give it a desktop-sized keyboard and optical trackball. They should make the backlight in the screen switchable on or off for extended battery life. All combined, those changes should make Apple's cheapest system far more attractive.
I'm confused. You have a grossly inefficient instruction (AKA "archiac", AKA "legacy", AKA "backwards compatible to 1981") set on one hand, and a fairly new, streamlined instruction set on the other.
Which one do you THINK is going to NEED a more optimized compiler? Seriously.
I can hop up a lawnmower so it's one kick-ass lawnmower... but it's still a lawnmower. No matter how carefully a mix the fuel that's fed to it, it's stilll... a lawnmower.
Anyone who has moved beyond Best Buys as a source of music equipment knows that Bose is shit.
You want speed... Some bench marks from when i put a Fu Tech ethernet card into an old (c. 1994) mac i found:- About 60 seconds to crack the (no screw) case, install card, close case. 25 seconds to boot. 10 seconds to enter router address. No drivers. No reboot. No more network issues. ever. Time spent this week installing name brand USB card/mouse on circa 1999 PC running 98 - 3 hours, countless reboots. mouse still intermittant. too scared to try HP burner on said card. Really, what else can i say...
Is that selecting a computer is hardly a qualitative problem when picking between different platforms. Sure, on a commoditized platform like a PC, where everyone ostensibly uses the same OS and software, it comes to raw numbers. Linux/PC people always talk about stuff like this.
However, in stepping back from just the box, and thinking big picture ("holistically"), there are other factors to be considered -- is the software there that I want? Is my user experience what I desire? etc. In that case, the gap may be much closer than just the absolute dollar amount indicates.
Actually the current iMac designs uses the heat from the CRT to *cool* the motherboard. Whacky, eh? In an example of Apple "thinking differently", their engineers added airflow openings to only the top and bottom of the machine (not the sides), so the heated air around the monitor rises, sucking in cool air from below the machine. The result: no fan is needed, so the machine is very quiet.
So while you can get a 6x speed boost on seti@home or photoshop, it's not going to do much for your run-of-the-mill applcation.
I dont know what sort of "run-of-the-mill" apps you're talking about, but with simple stuff like word processors, I havent noticed much of a diffrence between my 200MHz 8600, my 300MHZ iBook, my 450MHz G3 Tower, my 733MHz G4 Tower or my 1GHz athlon box. Same with surfing the net. when I use a beafy proc, it's cause I'm doing photoshop or video editing or compiling lots and lots of code. Other then that, lots of ops/sec only lets you run MS (or other) bloat better
The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
I thought you guys were smart here...oh well. I have like no karma anyway.
mod away...
"It's comin' back around again..." -RATM
A few days ago I came across this picture that was found on a Hotline server. Evidently it was to only be a mock up that was previously on other sites. But could this actually be true? Seems ironic that this picture would pop up short before (or during) these recent parts purchases by Apple.
Never try to beat a professional at his own game!
On average, a 866 G4 is probably equivalent to a 1 GHz or maybe 1.2 GHz P
:)
Good 'ol probably, he never lets us down.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Not only are there all the warrenties to deal with but you also have to buy an operating system to run your spiffy new box. Windows XP Professional costs about $300. Factor that into your price!
Or you could always pirate it off Morpheous or EDonkey or whatever... that's FREE but it could land you in jail or with a hefty fine (which are much more expensive to deal with than the Dell, the iMac, and your homebuilt put together).
Blessed are the geeks for they shall Internet the Earth.
The 20th Anniversary Macintosh (TAM) was an all in one flat panel mac.
:)
:)
Of course, it used laptop components and was hell expensive.... and very very cool
But its been done before, and by Apple, and YEARS ago.
The thing had a 66mhz CPU (or some such) if that puts it in perspective for you...
And it came with a BOSE sub
---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr
I only wish.
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
Maybe they're planning a comeback of the cube in the iMac range! Might make sense, fitting G3 components would be cheaper than G4 (less heat considerations), they could release a low-end external display, a bit of styling and bingo - a cool box that doesn't cost too much. I think it would sell like hotcakes.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
I was a a conference this past Monday, and some guy was talking about how a new processor should be released soon that is going to blow the current x86 processors out of the market; of course we have all heard this before, he was talking about how they were all sampling at the 2+ GHz range.. but like I said sampling and getting them to market etc is a big difference.
> even tho it's a great piece of hardware (a bit costly, but cool)...
That's always Apple's problem -- they have great hardware that's cool but rather costly.
Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
The Mac crowd is a very different crowd, stereotypically, than, say, the Slashdot crowd. What was the Apple Cube? It was an iMac for serious graphic designers. They hated being cut out of the "iMac coolness" b/c of the iMac's all-in-one design (which included a video chip too shoddy for serious design), and Apple tried to pitch to the "crowd that wanted cool". There weren't enough that finally bought into the idea, but when I see a Cube sitting on a desk it's invariably sitting on a desk of someone more worried about image than doing the most efficient computing.
2 77).
Apple's not as much about delivering that which is most efficient (though many of their all-in-one solutions, most notably DVD burning and "music management", are just that) but about bringing aesthetics to the world once dominated by beige towers. People don't get excited by the iMac's innards (ever tried playing Quake 3 on a 400 MHz iMac with the un-upgradable 8 meg ATi card? Heck, Apple took the unsupported upgrade slot _out_ of the third revision of the iMac!) -- they get excited by the statement owning a "Dalmatian spotted" machine brings with it.
And there was a huge letdown after the last MacExpo didn't deliver a flat-screen iMac. One fellow even [reportedly] demanded to see Jobs and tore down keynote equipment (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13298&cid=76
Apple sales are driven by arguably overpriced hardware that looks cool. The new iBook sent Apple's stock up quite a bit when it was released -- essentially an underpowered laptop that can barely make its way through the requirements of Mac OS X 10.1.(*) The iPod falls into at least two of these categories (overpriced and cool).
Whether or not including an LCD seems to suggest people should be buying [and Apple should be supplying] a souped-up iBook, Apple has their mark right on the money. Apple users like cool. Flat-screen, all-in-one is cool. Not exactly form over function, but form with function, and now we get to watch Sony, Compaq, Dell, Microsoft and friends play catch-up again.
(*) Ask me -- I bought a new iBook with the 500 MHz G3. It's underpowered, but I love it. With Netbeans, it's a great Java development platform, and iTunes2 with the CD-RW in the iBook make for a great "single-vendor provided solution". Crazy Mac loyalist!
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
Quote from the article:
;^)
There is also a possibility of the DVD-R/CD-RW SuperDrive becoming available as a BTO option on this new iMac, therefore bringing DVD movie creation to the masses--a long held vision of Apple CEO Steve Jobs.
...
the price of the Combo drive model, probably bringing the grand total of the loaded model to $1599
***end quote***
Two things sound fishy. One, I think iDVD is written so that it _requires_Altivec, which means forget using it with a G3. Certainly it's all 0's and 1's so there's no reason iDVD couldn't be written for the G3, but I'm betting it'd be painfully painfully slow -- especially with only 128 megs of RAM. You should try iMovie or QuickTime Pro on a G3 and then a G4 running at the same speed.
Second is the price. Sixteen hundred clams for a DVD *burning* solution? I don't think so. The external version of the drive still costs $700 all by itself (http://all4dvd.com/) and this machine would have to have more than the bare bones hardware inside to do the churning.
This isn't to say a flatscreen iMac isn't coming, but a flatscreen consumer model that burns DVDs for $1600? Unless the new G3 has some new instruction set I haven't heard about, I kinda doubt it. Least they didn't claim it would have dual processors...
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
you apparently didn't know what you were doing.
It sounds ot me that you tried to approach the 'problems' you were having with Wintel solutions, rather than realizing that you need to apply Mac OS solutions.
I will never forget the day, not long after I bought my Cube, that i decided to uninstall an Application that I didn't use. I must have searched and searched for a good fifteen minutes for some way to 'remove' the Application. I checked Control Panels, Info Panels, Installers, every menu and preferenc ein the Application. Then suddenly it hit me. I was looking for a WIntel solution to the problem. I stopped, and said to myself, how would you uninstall an Application on a Mac? And I grabbed the Application icon to the Trash, and the Application was gone.
Some people think that this is why Macs are 'just toys'. That because it's that easy that it is somehow not powerful. I disagree completely. It is becasue they are so easy to use that it demonstrates their extreme sophistication, power, and attention to detail. I now look at Wintel machines as clunky, poorly designed, unsophisticated, unproductive, and slow.
Did I actually just read this? Are you seriously asking "If Apple moves from a CRT iMac to an LCD iMac, do you think they'll have to change the design?"
I can't believe that somebody marked that as flamebait? I truly didn't intend it to be. Although I did forget about the older macs (duh) so I guess I stand corrected