Slashdot Mirror
17" and 19" inch iMacs Coming in 3Q
ikioi writes "It looks like Apple will have 17" and 19" flat panel iMacs later this year."
It's funny- the publicity photos of the 15 inch macs really make it look a lot
nicer then it is. I finally saw one up close a few weeks ago- the arm and screen
is super smooth, but the base looks like a cheap toy. That said, larger screens
for the iMac definitely push it into a new territory... not sure if it would
convince me to buy one, but it sure would add magic shell to the ice cream.
I'm a sucker for high-tech toys... but I'd pay a premium for an "executive" iMac... one with, say, some brushed aluminum and maybe leather wrist rests below the keyboard. TAM meets 2002 iMac!
I was very surprised that they only had the 15 monitors when they first came out, these are VERY welcome improvements
RonB
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
That white around the screen dazzels me.
I'd like a black one.
Listening Apple?
That iMac base has got to be the ugliest piece of computer equipment ever to leave the Apple factory. It picks up dirt like a hoover so that cleaming white hemisphere that looks pathetic when you take it out of the box becomes a dull grey lump of crap after a few weeks. The material reminds me of those plastic chairs that we had in elementary school.
Why couldn't they have used a material like the G4 case to form the base?
I have been pwned because my
Seriously doubt the validity of this one. It's a single source w/ no history of getting Apple rumors right.
My guess is Quantas is going to be making displays for Mac towers, and the author thinks all Apple computers are iMacs.
I'd buy one in a heartbeat if it were so, but I'm not holding my breath.
Remember, slashdot got hoodwinked by the "iWalk" Apple PDA hoax twice.
A bigger LCD is great, but it will most probably add a lot of $$$ to the price, and the current iMacs aren't cheap as it is for what you get hardware-wise. And the iMac has been about being Apple's entry-level, low-cost computer. Now it's more likely to become like the G4 cube - too expensive for the low-end buyer and too low powered and non-expandable for the high-end power user.
Or maybe not, after Apple finds out they spilled the beans.
Now if only Apple could figure out how to make an LCD that has an acceptably wide viewing angle in both the horizontal and vertical direction. Then it would be practical to add a pivot joint to the end of the steel arm, allowing the screen to be pivoted from landscape to portrait layout.
No, the engineers at Apple aren't intelligent enough to prevent such a scenario. But then again, it's really far fetched, who'd come up with an idea like that? "tipping over", hehehe, you silly person. Perhaps you should inform them of the imminent danger of resizing the monitors?
An iMac with two screens. I guess it would look kinda like Mickey Mouse!
the way i have the height of the imac'a screen adjusted you can't see the base. hell, when i'm using it i don't generally look at the base anyway. all i see is a nice and smooth LCD screen.
the bigger problem to me is the keyboard not having a power button to turn on/off the system. i have to search for it on the base and *then* i have to look at the base. of course, the way i solved this problem is by not powering off the machine. did i mention that i'm using OS X? =)
bah. start over
This may be extrapolating a bit much from one little tidbit, but whatever. I think Apple is setting themselves up to completely miss the price point for the market, after they came so, so close with the OG iMac.
sig-free as of 28 July 02!
Duh! So you have an excuse to hug the damn thing.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
> It's already old news that there's a love-hate relation with the new iMac
:))
:)
I don't hate the iMac, I think it's just a piece of hardware. But sometimes I just cannot resist throwing baits at the mac lovers, who don't seem to think it is just that - hardware.
> use the money you saved to buy a few dozen of those hello-kitty dildos/vibrators instead
So, you thereby state the hello-kitty vibrator is a good substitute for this product? Personally, I don't use those. But hey, maybe I should give it a try!
There is no way the 15" would tip over, and I doubt that the extra LCD and plastic needed to go to 17" or 19" would make much of a difference.
I'm working on one now, and there is no instability at all. That little base is actually fairly wide and low, and it has a power supply, hard drive, super drive, etc... inside to weigh it down. It weighs about 22lbs, and I move the screen about without any worries of it tipping.
It's funny- the publicity photos of the 15 inch macs really make it look a lot nicer then it is. I finally saw one up close a few weeks ago- the arm and screen is super smooth, but the base looks like a cheap toy.
My wife's reaction was exactly the opposite. She thought pictures of the new iMac were awful. She thought it looked goofy. We just saw one in person a few days ago and she loved it. Afterward, she kept asking me questions about it. Seeing it really changed her opinion of it.
Personally, I was impressed with the display. I have a 15" CRT display at home and the viewable area is noticeably larger on the iMac's 15" LCD display. On top of that, the colors and images are sharp and clear. One of the things that drives me crazy about LCD displays is that they tend to darken or solarize when viewed from an angle. The iMac's display didn't do that.
Also, FWIW, this "news" about the bigger iMac displays is being treated as an unlikely rumor amongst some of the more in-the-know Mac sites. Just FYI.
--Rick
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Only 19"? C'mon, Apple...
Strap a 23" Studio Display on one of these babies and watch it, er... topple over?..
Stéphane "Alias" Gallay
Now, where did I put this witty quote?..
Increase your screen size by at least two inches in only a couple of months!
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
They should do something like they did on the outside of the iBook. That's actually painted magnesium under clear plastic, I believe.
This space unintentionally left unblank.
Will it have a microphone? My girlfriend has a G4 Cube, and it doesn't have a microphone. I thought all Macs since like the Classic came with mics. She even got the Apple monitor that "goes with it" (the 17" CRT) and no mic. :( I consider a microphone essential.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
It's funny- the publicity photos of the 15 inch macs really make it look a lot nicer then it is. I finally saw one up close a few weeks ago- the arm and screen is super smooth, but the base looks like a cheap toy.
It's funny -- whenever I see a PC case at a computer shop it looks cheap. An then when I see cases on sale (having cut a few knuckles servicing said cases) I know why.
"Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
How utterly ironic that the Xserve has been much lauded for being very competivly priced. Perhaps you should have done a little bit more research before posting?
"I tend to think of OS X as Linux with QA and Taste", James Gosling, creator of Java
Nope, it's not. There's a fan that draws cool air in the bottom of the dome and vents hot air out an array of holes around the base of the display arm.
The space inside the iMac was just too confined to allow for normal convection to do the job.
My only complaint about the base is that all of the inputs are in the rear. ... Why should I have to reach around to plug in my iPod?
Rotate the base. I tried this at the Apple Store, it works. Just turn the base slightly and you get easy access to the ports. Remember, the arm turns.
t'nera semordnilap
The base of the iMac doesn't not look like a cheap toy. I've seen them in person too.
Besides, the base of the iMac is probably one of the most over engineered cases for a computer right now what with its Faraday cage underneath the plastic shell.
mbbac
Having a bad day?
I have to disagree. Mine looks the same as the day I pulled it out of the box. As long as you dust it off periodically like you would anything on your desk it'll look fine for years.
Hell, they give you a dusting cloth *with* it.
I'm actually kind of glad they're getting away from the clear-plastic look...it's starting to get dated. I guess I'm over the "oooh shiny!" stage.
-brain
Computers don't have to look like anything... my first peecee didn't even have a case.
On the other hand, I have both my beige box and my iMac on my desk in my office.
Difference is, unless I want people to think I'm *completely* redneck, I keep the peecee under the desk, and the iMac ON the desk.
I think that's the difference.
-brain
It picks up dirt like a hoover so that cleaming white hemisphere that looks pathetic when you take it out of the box becomes a dull grey lump of crap after a few weeks.
Mine's been out of the box for three weeks now, and the gleaming (note the spelling) white base is still gleaming white. Perhaps if you used that Hoover yourself, the dirt wouldn't wind up in your computers.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
I wouldn't say not serious, but let's just say the base design of the flat-panel iMacs remind me too much of the type of furniture you get at an IKEA store (someone once called the new iMac iKEA), and I tend to agree).
I was hoping that the base of the new iMac would be more squarish in design so it better blends in on a standard office desk.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Mine sits where a Sony 17sf monitor used to. It doesn't feel any smaller. I do wish I could run it at 1280x1024, though, like I did the Sony; that's the real restriction.
who said the iMac is not expandable - i'd say 3 USB + 2 firewire ports is expandable. what else you need?
I've got all but one USB port, and both Firewire ports, in use. (I've got the video grabber on a different port from the hard disk, in an attempt to avoid dropping frames during video capture.) A couple more of each would be nice.
But a couple PCMCIA slots would be sweet.
True, but where would they put them? (Actually, Cardbus slots would be nicer...)
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Hi RayChuang, My name is Steve Jobs. I post under the name Che Guevarra as I am a revolutionary just like him. Your ideas for the base of the iMac are also revolutionary which is why I'd like to offer you an executive position in our form and function department here in Cupertino. We'll make you the VP of all things squarish. If you see any of those latte sipping weasels on the design staff holding a compass while sitting at the drawing board, your job will be to knock it out of their hands and offer them a t-square instead.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
The material reminds me of those plastic chairs that we had in elementary school.
That would explain the rumors floating around Apple Tech Support that "got sat on by a confused first-grader" is the most common support incident with the new iMacs.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Yes, all the white plastic in the base will be replaced with depleted uranium, with an attractive brushed-metal finish to match their PowerBooks.
this year should see the 25th birthday special edition thingy..... there have been some mild rumors over the last year about it. the TAM was produced in very limited numbers, and by the time the public could get it, it was kinda outdated for the price (in terms of the inner schiznits). That being said, it was pretty neat, and did make it into some movies and TV shows (Batman & Robin, Seinfield etc). there are still online user groups dedicated to them, but then again there is for most everything Apple has ever made.
seeing as the TAM came out in March 1997 (discontinued in March 1998), this would be 5 years later. maybe we will see something at MWNYC? it is kind of odd you don't see Apple saying anything about the 25th anniversary of the company. seeing how the company is doing a lot better today than 5 years ago, i would think they might do *something* to celebrate.
Given how much secrecy Apple shrouds their product announcements in, the veracity of this story is either suspect or else Quanta Computer's tenure as the supplier of the flat panels is short-lived.
A few years ago someone from ATI leaked some details about an upcoming Apple product (like the day of or the day before the announcement) and ATI was immediately and severly slapped down by Apple.
You've got to be kidding right? You can't compare the Xserve to a Sun Netra X1... The X1 has a SINGLE 500 Mhz Ultra IIe processor and it is slow as dirt (we have 5 of them) but they serve their purpose for us.
:) j/k
The Xserve is meant to handle much more cpu intensive tasks than the X1's are. Not to mention the X1's don't support Hardware Raid (forcing you to use crappy Disksuite or pay a premium for a Veritas Volume Manager license). Heck, the X1's only hold two fricken disk drives, the Xserv holds 4!
No matter how you look at it, the Xserve trounces the Sun Netra X1/T1.
While the Cobalt is a little closer processor wise (1.26 Ghz PIII, hardware Raid on higher end models) it still only supports 2 Disk drives and a single processor.
All that I see missing from the Xserve is a redundant power supply, but I guess that was hard to fit into a 1U package...
It's amazing to think, each one of these 1U servers has more CPU than a Sun 280R with dual 900 MHz processors. Why do you think Sun doesn't make a 1U box with this much power? It would take away from selling their 4U boxes. Oh that and the size of a U3 processor is about half the size of the Xserve already..
Meep Meep!
It's funny- the publicity photos of the 15 inch macs really make it look a lot nicer then it is.
The photos make it look nicer, then Taco finds that it truly IS nicer. I am amazed.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I was mildly disappointed that the 23" display didn't have an iLamp-style arm, since it would have really helped a lot ergonomically.
I guess it would have required a really heavy base, but it sure would have been cool.
I have to say that I love the ergonomics of the new iMac, to the point that I'd love to own one - something I would never have said about the previous generation. But it wouldn't be my main computer due to the relatively puny screen real esate.
Personally, I think a 17" or 19" iMac would be too much of a conflict with their PowerMac. And have you ever seen a 19" LCD? THis seems like a slightly insane rumour that's being bought thanks to a slow news day.
D
I've read quite a few posts here riding the iMac because of "cheap plastic"... as if there were no other kind of plastic. Check the plastic on 90% of the P.C.'s out there and compare to the iMac... then you will be able to know and see just what cheap plastic is all about...
You can very easily remap the control key to the caps lock key.
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
Apple (pronounced Jobs) does Apple's press releases. Anyone else announcing Apple's toys gets a nice pat on the shoulder and a meaningful goodbye. At best. At worst, Jobs will release the dogs with bees in their mouths, and when they bark they shoot bees at you. Or is that the laywers . . .
Do not touch -Willie
http://www.macosrumors.com/
"Our information thus far differs significantly from what this article offers up; we do believe that there will be a 17-inch widescreen display option either this summer or towards the end of the year -- but nothing larger, at least not yet...."
That nice plasticized corner with "Slashdot" on it.
The Helvetica-like sans-serif font for "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters" and the 'ruled' background it and the topic icons rest on.
Strange isn't it?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Since a large chunk of PPC production goes into embedded applications, they take heat seriously.
Chip too hot = no sales
Steve Jobs has always hated fan noise so until there is a zero noise fan, PPC, Transmeta, or some other low heat chip will be what macs run on.
Its amazing how the marketplace reacts to apples products- the iMac looks dorky in pictures, but when you see on in person, you see how finely crafted it is. I ordered one sight unseen (the specs fit my needs more than anything else) and was extremely surprised at how well built it is.
The other amazing thing is just how innovative putting the display on that arm really is. I know people are going "what's the big deal??": and others have commented that larger displays would tip it over.
Well, the base is really good sized and heavy- the arm, as is, could handle a display significantly larger and heavier (I've tested this by pulling on the arm to try and tip the mac- it takes al ot of weight to do so.)
But what's really amazing about this machine is that you move the display. Regularly. When its on the arm like this, you can adjust it to precisely how you're sitting at that point in time.
If you're in front of a computer a lot, you move around in your chair-- unconciously, I'm sure-- to remain comfortable, keep your legs from falling asleep, etc. With the iMAc, you can trivially move the display to fit where you're sitting at that moment in time, or move it over to show your girlfriend something going on on the screen ( find myself doing this alot)...
Just a half inch adjustment makes an improvement on the ergonomics. And people always move around.
Now, after using an iMac for a couple months, I can't stand to be in front of a display that doesn't move (like my other computers)-- and canstantly have to stop myself from adjusting them. I was at WWDC and used one of the huge HD Cinema displays there, and kept moving it! All 30 pounds of it, or whatever- it really huge and moving it was liek dragging a metal table across a linoleum floor- its not meant to be moved... but I'm spoilt.
As to larger displays- the weird thing is that this 15 inch display seems too big for me. I keep finding myself surprised at its size. I can't imagine a bigger display on this machin-- not because the arm couldn't handle it but because it would be too much display.
It wasn't this way with CRTs where I demanded employers provide me a 21 inch trinitron, as an ergonomic requirement. but this 15 inch LCD is better in terms of image quality and usability than a 21 in trinitron running Mac OS (which is equal to a 30 inch trinitron runnign Windwos or Linux-- windowing systems that waste/misuse a lot of real estate.)
Constantly slashdot articles that talk aobut Apple products, such as this one, dismiss them out of ignorance. you cannot see the utility and innovation of the iMac from looking at it in a picture. You have to use it ot realize that you really do want to move the display regularly.
People get used to using Windows / Linux (different operating systems, essentially the same look and feel) and then dismiss the MAc because they don't fit what they're used to. This is exactly like a white person being insensitive around blacks or a straight person being homophobic- its fear and hatred of whats different. Except instead of people we're talking about technology so its less dangerous, but just as illogical. But then- these prejudices do get translated, into real world effects as people are denied jobs or mistreated by the ignorant.
As a class of people who have been mistreated by Windows non-thinkers, its time to stop doing the exact same thing to Apple products-- which, are treated even worse, because they have the jealousy effect by being both not-microsoft and truely innovative.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
The only product that has been "steved" was the Newton. Its not clear why, but that was his doing.
Other than that, this idea that something will be "steved" because it was leaked is just more irrational bigotry towards all things apple.
Steve is an extrordinarily rational mane. Passionate, yes, but he is leading the market, and paying very close attention to the market. That's why apple's been so successful lately.
There were rumors abou the iMac itself for about a year before it came out, yet the product was not "steved" wit was amazing.
Apple may or may not ship larger displays soon... I expect they won't and I think its wise that they don't-- the prices of the larger displays don't yet make sense for a consumer machine.
Also, its worth noting that as a consumer product, the iMac sells millions of units a year. A larger display is going to have a much lower yeild which means that there may well not be production capacity to support the high volume, lower margin business.
And then when Apple doesn't announce them in July, you'll be back here telling us that you were right, they were "steved".
Well, if by "steved" you mean choosing to ship products for which they can fulfill the demand, then you're right. But "irrationally canned" is just bigotry on your part.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
>What you said, essentially means: >I don't hate the dark skin, I think it's just a skin color. But sometimes I just cannot resist
.
> throwing baits at the Nigger lovers, who don't seem to think it is just that - skin color.
Exactly. Hardware is hardware, skin is skin, language is just a language. If you loose your control because of flamebait, then your opinion is vague. And yeah, us white people have no penis, finns are finished and truly
Often, a flamebait leads to good discussion on the subject, but only if you are not too tied into your own opinion.
I'm going to take issue only with a few points here.
Why would you want it? USB 2.0 may give yout 480 Mbps instead of 400, but they have virtually identical tranfer rates (limitations of the external drive's mechanism, usually). plus, FireWire is less processor intensive.
FireWire is meant for a wider range of applications. Monitors, for instance, can use FireWire to communicate. FireWire also allows devices to communicate with each other directly, meaning with your DV camera could play directly to your monitor, or record directly to your DVD-R. Sure, you *only* get 63 devices, but unless you're setting up a huge RAID system (over USB 2.0?), it's not an issue.
Also, FireWire can offer more power than USB over-the-cable, allowing a wider range of devices that do not need separate power connectors.
This is a mindset more than a drawback. For the never-happy gamer, a full-ATX case is the only way to go. But for most people, once you have the computer running the way you want it, opening it up isn't high on the priority list. Add more RAM, maybe, but that's easy enough to do with an iMac (unscrew the bottom). As for additional drives, that's why they included FireWire. Few people want to mess with external drives, but then, few people need them.
What do you get in Linux that you can't have in MacOS X? emacs? No. XFree? No. KDE? GNOME? Thousands of free applications? No, no, no. The only thing you don't get is source for the GUI. You can get Darwin and play with the kernel. You can even use XFree + Darwin to replace MacOS X, but you lose access to the software so many people spend time in Windows for - Office.
--
I will say that it would be cool to be able to detatch the arm and monitor, being able to tuck your computer under your arm would be a nice little option. Of course, that's what laptops are for.
--
If you lived here, you would be home right now.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
I do like the idea of Mac OS X very much (a well-designed interface with a good, stable underpinning that allows people who Know What They're Doing to hack around); it's certainly a better operating system than Windows (IMHO) for most desktop users.
However, I really agree with the comment that Linux "waste[s]/misuse[s] a lot of real estate". How is this the case? Are you comparing MacOS to only something like KDE or Gnome? I really don't think that MacOS X is so very much better at screen real estate than Enlightenment; in fact, some aspects of it annoy me greatly. Apple decided that I don't want to windowshade things anymore; in E, I can iconify (what OS X does now) or windowshade them. Also, I really miss the floating menu (you can get this with a hack on Windows, but I haven't seen any sort of equivalent on Mac OS). The fact that all applications in Mac OS share a menu bar at the top of the screen might save some real estate, but I have a hard time believing that it's such a huge difference (especially for someone like me, whose screen is mostly covered with Eterms). And the inability to set "focus follows mouse" is a crying shame.
To those who will yell that, "Those are 'hacker' things and Apple doesn't care about catering to you"; you're right. But that proves that they don't have the uber-OS (and I'm not sure that anyone can). Apple certainly deserves a lot of credit for their ideas and implementations, but they're not perfect for everyone. For most "regular" users? I do think so, yes. But not for me...not at the moment.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
The fact that all applications in Mac OS share a menu bar at the top of the screen might save some real estate, but I have a hard time believing that it's such a huge difference (especially for someone like me, whose screen is mostly covered with Eterms). And the inability to set "focus follows mouse" is a crying shame.
These are usability issues. Ok, the menu-bar thing is a screen real-estate issue as well. When you have repeated menu bars, you do burn a LOT of real estate. plus, putting it on the window slows you down, as compared to putting it on the top of the screen.
Same thing with "floating" menus- they are much slower for the user to use than a top of screen menu. (Though Mac OS does have them if you use the second mouse button-- another thing that actually slows people down, which is why Apple still ships a one button mouse.)
The focuse following the mouse point is the most annoying feel that I've ever had to deal with. I'm happy with the way MacOS works and cannot imagine why you'd want it another way-- but those are just my feelings. The science behind it is, it slows you down-- you end up getting the wrong focus, often, instead of the focus you want.
These complaints are regular are repeated and all of them have been answered at least a decade ago. Scientificly, objectively, all of these issues are ones where apple chose usability. There's a reason they are that way and the alternative is to slow all your customers down and make your product harder to work with.
I won't answer further in this thread because this has been laid to rest years ago-- its a scientific fact.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Excuse me? I have a 21" monitor at work on a PC that runs at 1600x1200 at approx 150 DPI. There is no way a 15" 1024x768 can come close to that.
.38mm pixels and they'd claim that their display was super superior cause it would do 1280x960 compared to the 72dpi 800x600 Mac display I was using... course they also complained of headaches alot.
Of course not. The iMac is legible.
150 DPI is unreadable.
This reminds me of the arguments I used to have with BBS weenies back in the day every PC came with a el-cheapo 13 inch (though it claimed to be 15 inch) monitor with
Again, you're using silly specs to compare with a product you haven't seen. Running 150 dpi makes your display useless.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
(continuing my tradition of posting replies to old comments that nobody except possibly the parent poster will ever see... sigh. LAST POST!)
I disagree. I understand the theory behind the statement; CRT monitors are measured diagonally, so a 17" isn't really a full 17" across.
That's not the theory. First of all, LCDs are also measured diagonally. Nobody ever thought the size was horizontal. With an aspect ratio of 3x4, the difference between the diagonal and the long side would be really, really significant. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? The Pythagorean triple is 3:4:5, so the long side is 20% less than the diagonal.
You also mentioned flat tubes -- did you mean that they cheat by counting how the tape measure wraps around the curvature of the screen? I guess that's something, but even pre-flat-tube screens don't curve that much. Besides, I don't even like true flat tubes: I am an absolute Trinitron snob -- it's got to be vertically flat, but a little horizontal curvature helps to break up the reflections; flat-tube screens seem to pick up too much glare.
Anyway, no, the trick is that CRT sizes are given as the diagonal of the tube, including the 3/4" or whatever at each edge that is under the plastic, and unusable. It's the size of the actual tube, but not the size of the image that you can see. That's why they are advertised as, e.g., '15" CRT (13.8" DVI[1])', '17" CRT (15.6" DVI)', or '19" CRT (16.9" DVI)'. LCDs are also measured diagonally, but the size given is the "true" (viewable) size. Hence, the 13.3" screen on my 'Book is only about a half-inch smaller than a 15" CRT, which is hardly noticeable. Ditto for the desk-lamp iMac's 15" LCD (I checked "http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html" and that number is listed as viewable) vs. a 17" CRT. Though I can't say as much about the resolution being stuck at 1024x768 -- that is a real limitation. Still, the current desk-lamp is pretty nice, and a 17"/1280x1024 version would be truly sweet.
[1] Diagonal Viewable Image
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}