Apple Unveils 24" iMac

Let me be the first to say: by cp.tar · 2006-09-06 02:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Oooooooh, shiny!

--
Ignore this signature. By order.

Re:Let me be the first to say: by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-06 06:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why, praytell, is this news?
It's a freaking advert.
--
Free and easy DHTML Widgets. Get Wigitized [fordi.org].

You have a freaking advert in your signature!
Re:Let me be the first to say: by jc42 · 2006-09-07 05:42 · Score: 4, Funny

I just dropped an even $1093 in Canadian dollars on a laptop that ...

Hey, I knew there was something funny about Canadian dollars, but I didn't know that they'd made 1093 even. Thanks for informing me.

(I wonder what other odd numbers are even in Canada, and vice versa?)

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.

No Link? by neonprimetime · 2006-09-06 02:12 · Score: 5, Informative

At least provide a link to the iMac page

Re:No Link? by NilObject · 2006-09-06 02:25 · Score: 5, Funny

Halt!

You're under arrest by the Slashdot police for violating section 4, subsection 2 of the Slashdot charter!

"Slashdot articles and comments shall contain no relevant contextual links. In their stead, links to advertising-laden blogs, spam-logs, or useless commercial sites may be used."
Re:No Link? by NiceGeek · 2006-09-06 03:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Not really new...the Mini has had Bluetooth and Airport Extreme since the switchover to Intel chips.
Re:No Link? by generic-man · 2006-09-06 04:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Old Mac mini: $500, Bluetooth and Airport for $100 more

New Mac mini: $600, Bluetooth and Airport included!

Brilliant!

(Yes, yes, I know... the new Mac mini also includes other new features too)

--
For more information, click here.

24" cinema display please? by Alterion · 2006-09-06 02:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

well hopefully this will trigger an update for an apple 24" monitor as well to compete with the dell and Benq ones- as 24" has a slightly lower pixel density we could almost hope for a sane price on that one too- or maybe not

Re:24" cinema display please? by drinkypoo · 2006-09-06 04:44 · Score: 4, Informative

The best thing about the 24" iMac is that it's got a full-HD resolution panel. In fact, if I remember my numbers properly (but I probably don't) the width of the panel is precisely the width of 1080p. It's a little taller, but that's not as bad as not using the full width of the panel. The MBP doesn't even have full-HD. (The Compaq nw9440 I use now has the same size/res panel as the MBP, but at least HPQ offers a higher-res panel. Same size though, and a couple hundred more, so I didn't get it.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:24" cinema display please? by John+Straffin · 2006-09-06 05:04 · Score: 3, Informative

How likely is it that you have the Dell monitors set to the wrong resolution? My Dell 19" is razor sharp...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCD_monitor#Drawbacks :

LCD displays produce crisp images only in their "native resolution" and fractions of that native resolution. Attempting to run LCD display panels at non-native resolutions usually results in the panel scaling the image, which introduces blurriness or "blockiness".

--
My contempt for the behavior and beliefs of the two major political parties cannot be adequately expressed in 120 chara

Wrong implication by ZachPruckowski · 2006-09-06 02:13 · Score: 3, Informative

The 7600GT has 256 MB of RAM. The summary implies it's still 128.

Re:Wrong implication by ergo98 · 2006-09-06 02:24 · Score: 5, Informative

The Apple Store also says its 128. Even though they may now come with 256, it seems the ones Apple are using still have 128.

The highest card you're seeing in the "preconfigured" bundles is the 7300GT with 128MB, however select that and update the details -- you'll now have the option of choosing the 256MB 7600GT.

These are amazing prices for extraordinary levels of power. While I still need my Windows box (and no I wouldn't get a Mac as a Windows box), this would definitely serve as a very useful second PC. I think it's time that I'll take the plunge, maybe writing it off for "cross platform testing".
Re:Wrong implication by msuzio · 2006-09-06 03:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well, considering that the monitor alone is somewhere around $700-$800, then I'm not sure where the huge price premium is. If I were trying to cut corners, no, I wouldn't buy a Mac (in any circumstances). But if you're willing to pay the premium and trade money for time (presuming that owning a Mac results in a better experience and fewer headaches -- anecdotal evidence goes both ways, but seems to skew towards saying Macs are 'better' in this measure).

I'm still not buying one, but boy am I trying to get my relatives to buy them -- no more PC support questions for me, thanks.

--
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
Re:Wrong implication by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2006-09-06 03:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

...so is it really worth an extra $1000 to buy the 24" screen and OSX?

It all depends upon what you do with it. For me the cost savings from using OS X over Windows is significant. The cost of using OS X over Linux is very high, since I don't think I can do my job at all without software not available on Linux. I don't know the cost of a good 24" monitor and I'm indifferent to whether on not it is an all-in-one or not. The labor cost of my assembling it all, figuring two hours for assembly, installation, and drivers/troubleshooting is also pretty damn high, considering how much I make hourly. Combined with the cost of the labor every time I do an upgrade of installing an new OS, and moving all my settings, certs, software, licenses, data, accounts, etc. instead of plugging in a firewire cable and having it all automatically migrated easily combines to pay the cost difference (4-6 hours of work usually).

Everyone has different cost/value propositions though.
Re:Wrong implication by Mr.+Flibble · 2006-09-06 04:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm still not buying one, but boy am I trying to get my relatives to buy them -- no more PC support questions for me, thanks.

I told my Mom to buy a 20" iMac to replace her aged Win 95/Pentium 200. Instead she bought at 17" intel dual core, but all my tech support calls just went away apart from getting email setup (the server settings).

Then, visiting home I showed her how to use the iMac as a DVD player, and when she saw this, and how it was better than her regular TV and DVD combo, she ran out and bought the 20" on the spot! So, I ended up with a 17" intel iMac that she no longer needed. I have not touched Mac OS X for years (apart from Darwin in a server environment) but all I can say is "wow". Aqua for 10.4 is how X11 should work for Linux. Everything you need is at your fingertips, and almost every mistake I have made has been because I was over thinking a solution. Mac OS just works, and is simple to use.

And then, for us Unix geeks, there is Terminal, which brings the Bash shell and the assorted Unix tools one expects. And the GUI even has a port scanner, finger and whois built into the network settings, so you don't even need to open the terminal for those functions.

So, IMO, tell your family to get iMac's to get rid of the tech support issues, but then try one yourself. If you like Unix, Aqua shows you a Unix GUI done right.

(one caveat, the version of iMac I have before patching had a keyboard issue, so that is the first bug I have dealt with, fixed in the updates though.)

--
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Re:Wrong implication by daviddennis · 2006-09-06 04:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

If you want a slick and beautiful GUI environment, Apple's going to be head and shoulders above the competition. I haven't done anything in it, but I can't help but notice that applications done with the Cocoa API all look fabulous. So if you want simulations that are beautiful, the Mac's tough to beat.

MacOS X has all commercial web development apps you need, including Flash, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. Linux doesn't. MacOS X has the video editing market covered with superb applications, from iMovie to Final Cut at the high end. Linux doesn't.

MacOS X has a beautifully designed operating environment; Linux has been gaining, but it's still not there and probably will neverl catch up entirely, thanks to Steve Jobs' relentless attention to detail. There are some things Open source does very well (operating system kernels) and some things they don't (overall user experience). This "dirty secret" is why you see so many open lovers of open source software, including myself, using PowerBooks.

MacOS X can run nearly all Linux applications. I think with X-Windows installed there are very few that couldn't be run. I use mysql, Ruby on Rails, Perl (much less now that I've discovered Ruby), emacs, etc. There's even a nice gui Emacs nowadays.

Incidentally, in the grandparent's price comparison, he forgot to pay for Windows XP or Vista. Sure, you could put Linux on it, but let's compare two commercial OSs here. Apparently at retail it would cost an amazing $200 to get even Vista Home Basic on the machine, and then you've almost hit the price of the 20" iMac. Dell's 24" monitor is $791.10 at the Dell store, so it looks to me like once you add it, you're pretty close to the price of the 24" iMac, and you haven't even taken the time to set up and install stuff.

As someone who owns an Apple Cinema Display 23", I can say that it's worth every penny of the $1,700-odd I paid for it. I'd probably go for the 30" display now but I'm just a glutton for screen size. The 30" display costs exactly the same as the 24" iMac.

D
Re:Wrong implication by Graff · 2006-09-06 04:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Basically almost all Linux apps that are open source just work. Mac has a pretty standard POSIX command-line and X11 environment, as well as an excellent version of GCC. There are several package systems such as Fink that provide an easy way to install programs. A lot of closed source Linux stuff is being produced for the Mac also since porting them over is usually just a minor cleanup and compile. Microsoft Office, Photoshop, Firefox, OpenOffice, and many other major programs all work on the Mac.

WoW runs nicely on any Mac, better on the high-end stuff but it all runs pretty decently. The Macintosh operating system has a bit more overhead than Linux but it is pretty on-par with Windows. You'll get a bit more bang for your buck running Linux on the Mac hardware but then again you'll lose some of the nice GUI features of the Mac.

One of the nicest things is it is easy now to double or triple boot Mac OS, Windows, and Linux on Mac hardware. There are even some free and commercial software out there that enables you to run Windows applications directly under Mac OS X, without having to boot Windows.

As far as price, well building it yourself will always be the least expensive method. However, once you figure in time spent, support costs if something goes wrong, overall compatibility of the hardware components, and so on I'd say that the difference between a Mac and a self-built are pretty close. When you buy a Mac you are pretty certain you'll get a solid machine with a solid operating system. Throw in the fact that the new Macs can run just about any modern software and are in some sweet form-factors and I'd say buying a Mac is a win.

After all, if you end up hating Mac OS you can just wipe the drive install Windows or Linux on it, no harm no foul!

--
Sapere aude!
Re:Wrong implication by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2006-09-06 05:24 · Score: 3, Informative

Care to educate a noob on OS X and linux apps?

Most Linux apps either have a port to the native UI, or will still run under X Windows as a child of the native UI. There is also a good selection of the commercial, professional applications including most of the very popular games. What is missing is the odd, niche application for Windows. You can run most of these by dual booting, or more conveniently using Crossover or Parallels, which both do a good job of running different apps at reasonable speeds.

I was actually looking at a MacBook, but the 24" monitor with the "tower" built in is really really slick lookin.

The imac and macbook are both "all-in-one" solutions. As such, neither is very upgradeable. Don't plan to change the video card in either, or do much else other than add RAM. Personally, I really like portability, so my solution for years has been a mac laptop, driving the built in display and a second, larger monitor when I am at my desk at work or home. But then I'm the type who does a fair bit of work in coffee shops, or under a tree in a park. Since all mac laptops now support independent displays as well as mirrored displays, this provides me with more screen real estate than a single monitor on the imac, although the total price is probably higher.

I'm also curious as to how well the GPUs perform, as I'm still into gaming and might go back to WoW.

The GPUs are nothing to write home about in either model. They are adequate. You won't have any problem playing WoW or most other mainstream games, but you're not going to be getting any bragging rights for highest FPS with the latest and greatest games. If you're a casual gamer, don't worry. If you're a hardcore gamer dude, buy something else.

I also do a lot of simulation (of multi-agent/robot systems) for my masters thesis, so I need the horsepower. What are the pros and cons, as you see them, of buying this beast, and how does it compare with what I could build myself for the same price if I wanted to?

Depending upon what type of bottlenecks you have for your modeling, a mac may or may not be right for you. The raw horsepower CPU limited, non-multithreaded program will not perform as well in most cases on OS X as it does in Linux. OS X has a number of tradeoffs in this area and they are targeted at the desktop workstation, not number crunching in the background. If you build with the right compiler options, I'm guessing you'll be in the neighborhood of 90% of the performance of the same chip running Linux. If the process is more parallel or easily offloaded to the GPU using the built in dev tools, you'll do better yet. Also, if you can take advantage of the Xgrid technology, offloading batches of work to other machines on the LAN is pretty simple.

As far as price is concerned, macs cost about the same as any other vendor, which is to say not too much more than it costs to build a machine yourself. The disadvantage is they only offer a few models, so you'll almost certainly be buying features you don't want or particularly need. It simply is not as customizable as building yourself from the full set of available hardware.

Personally, that trade off is worth it to me, but it is hard to tell for another person, without really having a good idea what they are doing. Good luck.
Re:Wrong implication by forkazoo · 2006-09-06 07:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

And then, for us Unix geeks, there is Terminal, which brings the Bash shell and the assorted Unix tools one expects. And the GUI even has a port scanner, finger and whois built into the network settings, so you don't even need to open the terminal for those functions.

I love my Mac, but there are a few quirks that the average UNIX buff should be aware of (things some of my friends and I had expected as a result of a more UNIXy background):

-X11 is optional, and the standard apps don't use it. So, no you can't display iTunes over the network on your Linux box. X11 is, however, pretty easy to install. It runs like a normal app, and you can display your Linux apps on your Mac over the network without too much trouble.

-Terminal is certainly better than cmd.exe or straight xterm. However, it doesn't do tabs or any of the really whizzy stuff that you expect on your Linux/BSD box's kterm/gnome-terminal. Incidentally, what do other slashdotters reccomend as a replacement?

-You do get to use your favorite command line tools. Choose between darwin ports and fink for installing them. But, some will work a bit different. For example, you get to use cdrecord, but some of the options are a bit different because it uses IOKit to talk to the hardware. Also, gcc is a bit different...

-Dev tools are based on gcc, but have a few quirks. A lot of those quirks relate to frameworks (or Objective C). Frameworks are really whizzy library like doodads. They are also the reason why your OpenGL headers aren't where you expect them to be. So, you need a few extra #if's in your code, and a few extra switches for gcc. (especially the -framework one)

Those are the ones that strike me off the top of my head. A lot of what pisses you off about Windows and Linux will be fixed in Mac OS X, but some of what you are pleasantly used to will be different. Anybody have any other good Mac OS X "gotchas" for the average technically competant switcher that I've forgotten?
Re:Wrong implication by Peter+Cooper · 2006-09-06 09:10 · Score: 3, Informative

iTerm. Just Google it :) It's the same as Terminal, but with tabs.
Re:Wrong implication by Van+Halen · 2006-09-06 10:40 · Score: 4, Informative
Terminal is certainly better than cmd.exe or straight xterm. However, it doesn't do tabs or any of the really whizzy stuff that you expect on your Linux/BSD box's kterm/gnome-terminal. Incidentally, what do other slashdotters reccomend as a replacement?

Not a true replacement, but I swear by Terminal + screen (included with OS X). The major advantage is that you can attach to the same screen session from anywhere in the world, resuming exactly where you left off. You can even be attached from multiple places at once (work, home, etc). This is also handy for viewing multiple screen windows at once by simply opening multiple Terminal windows and attaching them to the same session.

The keyboard shortcuts for managing "windows" are also quite handy, easier than clicking a mouse. I can't imagine why anyone would use anything else, but I guess that's just me.

Anybody have any other good Mac OS X "gotchas" for the average technically competant switcher that I've forgotten?

A couple off the top of my head:

If you're doing serious administration, learn niutil and its gui sibling, NetInfo Manager. User account settings, groups, NFS mounts, etc, are all stored in the NetInfo database. Learn it and love it.

OS X's built in fsck is crap. If you're ever unfortunate enough to get a corrupted HFS+ filesystem, invest in a copy of DiskWarrior. It's fixed everything I've thrown at it that wasn't a hardware failure, where most of the time fsck (also wrapped in the Disk Utility gui) gave up. I still don't understand why Apple doesn't just buy it and bundle it with the OS.

External disks are mounted by default with permissions such that the currently logged in user owns everything on them. This is not always desirable (when backing up files that should retain owner/permissions). To disable this behavior for a volume, either use vsdbutil -a /Volumes/diskname or in the Finder, right-click the drive icon, Get Info, uncheck "Ignore ownership on this volume" (not sure of the exact label, not in front of a Mac now!).

Short list of helpful command-line utilities to look up:
- ditto (copy files with metadata, etc -- though in Tiger, the standard file utilities finally handle resource forks)
- open (open a document or application in the gui)
- osascript (execute an AppleScript -- ie, osascript -e 'tell application "iTunes" to pause')
- /Developer/Tools/SetFile (set obscure HFS+ file attributes -- only available if Xcode is installed)
- softwareupdate (commandline version of -- you guessed it -- Software Update)
- hdiutil (mount, unmount, and manage automounted disks and disk images)
- diskutil (commandline version of Disk Utility)
Finally: macosxhints.com.
--
Say hello to zMac.

iPod by dk-software-engineer · 2006-09-06 02:14 · Score: 4, Funny

How about a 24" Video iPod? That would be mad...

Re:iPod by SEMW · 2006-09-06 02:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Never mind a 24" ipod, how about an 3000' one?
http://maps.google.com/?t=k&ll=-30.516354,121.3369 56&spn=0.293105,0.234146

--
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Re:iPod by wootest · 2006-09-06 03:25 · Score: 4, Funny

That's the first time I've heard someone ask "where is it" about something on a map site. Just zoom out.

Right then... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-06 02:16 · Score: 5, Funny

Oooooooh, shiny!

Anyone who says "Oooooooh, shiny!" again - Can bite my shiny metal ass!

Re:Right then... by Isotopian · 2006-09-06 03:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Shiny metal ass? Oooooooh, shiny!

--
It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.
Re:Right then... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-06 03:14 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh yeah? I'm going to build my own 28" iMac - with blackjack and hookers.
Actually, forget the blackjack... and the iMac.
Re:Right then... by Stormwatch · 2006-09-06 04:14 · Score: 3, Funny

But [to remember], we [to be] no longer [to allow] to [to conjugate] verbs.

--
Circumcision is child abuse.

Makes you wonder... by RetlawST · 2006-09-06 02:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

I ordered a 17" MBP about 10 days ago, and the ship date was going to be on the 13th despite being "in stock and ready to ship."

Perhaps a MacBook Pro upgrade next week, as well?

College Kids by NilObject · 2006-09-06 02:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

The 17" iMac with 1.83GHz Core Duo processor comes in at $899. That's some seriously lucrative stuff for incoming college freshmen!

FW 800 included by jackjeff · 2006-09-06 02:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

And it has FireWire-800 too (in additon to FireWire-400).

I'm not sure I understand Apple policy with FW800. Used to be there on the PowerBook... removed in the MacBook Pro (except the 17"). And it's never been in an iMac.

I like FW-800 but odds are E-SATA would be more useful in future. I have seen profesionnal cameras using the FW-800 interface (Allied technologies), but never heard about mass market ones...

Re:FW 800 included by Rocketship+Underpant · 2006-09-06 02:25 · Score: 4, Informative

Apparently they weren't able to satisfactorily cram the FW800 controller into the 15" Macbook in time for launch. Someone at Apple has said this, either officially or semi-officially. I'm hoping the next Macbook revision will include it.

--
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Re:FW 800 included by acwork2 · 2006-09-06 02:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think they put it in there to try and get some sales in the lower budget pro/home video editing market. With HD video becoming so common place in the pro and consumer markets FW800 drives become necessary. You can barely get one stream of HD video off of a FW400 drive in real time. When you start editing and have clips overlapping the speed of an 800 drive is a life saver. The 24" iMac would make a great edit system for someone on a budget and with FW800 the limited storage of an AIO unit is no longer an issue. Also you don't get near the issues capturing when you capture over 400 and your disks are on 800. With them both on 400 its not uncommon to have dropped frames during capture on the FW400 only iMacs.

--
I killed 3 men and 2 cats to get this sig?

Man Mini was updated as well by 10Ghz · 2006-09-06 02:17 · Score: 3, Informative

1.66Ghz Core Duo in the low-end, 1.83Ghz Core Duo in the hi-end. No pricedrop though :(.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.

Re:Man Mini was updated as well by Midnight+Thunder · 2006-09-06 02:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

1.66Ghz Core Duo in the low-end, 1.83Ghz Core Duo in the hi-end. No pricedrop though :(.

If you look at look at Apple's recent history, then you will see more often than not feature upgrades with maintained prices. Apple usually only drops prices on products they want to clear from the inventory. If you want a cheaper version of the Mac mini, they buying a recent one second hand is probably your best bet or seeing if anyone has discounted the previous model (assuming they have any left).

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.

All Mac Mini now have Core Duo inside... by IYagami · 2006-09-06 02:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Previously, the cheapest model had a Core Solo inside.

Now, all macs have dual core processors

Re:All Mac Mini now have Core Duo inside... by Space+cowboy · 2006-09-06 02:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

With regard to your complaints...

Graphics: The onboard video chipset does *not* make HDTV playback a problem, it was the core SOLO that stuttered during playback. I have a core duo linked up to my plasma, and it works beautifully.

CPU: The mini is the low-end machine, you can't expect the top-end processors in the low-end machines

Simon

--
Physicists get Hadrons!

Re:Seperation is needed by 955301 · 2006-09-06 02:23 · Score: 4, Informative

There's a video out as well, so you can make due for a bit if the display goes out. And personally I'd just pull the drive before sending it back - or better yet, encrypt it on the volume and rely on your backups.

You are keeping backups, aren't you?

--
You are checking your backups, aren't you?

Cool... dammit... cool... dammit by ChibiTaryn · 2006-09-06 02:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Why do Apple magically release bigger, faster, shinier versions of things right after I buy something?

Curse you, Apple!

... gimme.

Re:Cool... dammit... cool... dammit by frankthechicken · 2006-09-06 02:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Why do Apple magically release bigger, faster, shinier versions of things right after I buy something?

Because you don't study the buying guide. Unfortunately, in a non too informative manner, it usually tells you to wait.

Curse the continuous flow of new technology, and the insatiable curiousity of the human mind if you wish.

Apple made that mistake once by Shawn+Parr · 2006-09-06 02:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

When the iMacs where still somewhat new, there was a vocal crowd yelling "we want an iMac without a monitor!"

There were a lot of people saying it, and they were all very vocal. "We're not buying until we can get a headless iMac with a G4" they said

So Apple made one, and it was called the Cube.

And all the people who said they would buy a machine if this was available (the specs were pretty much exactly what was asked for), suddenly clammed up, and slowly backed out the door with a myriad excuses why they suddenly had something else to do.

I think Apple learned an important lesson that day. The most vocal group of people demanding a specific product and promising to buy it will usually not actually buy what they say they want. They are just looking to get something they can't have, and when they can have it, they don't want it anymore.

--
Shawn's Tech Articles

Re:Apple made that mistake once by xjerky · 2006-09-06 02:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Um, I think that had more to do with the ridiculous price of the cube.

The mini is today's version of a headless iMac, and it's priced more reasonably. It's also selling better, I'm sure.

--
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
Re:Apple made that mistake once by mitchell_pgh · 2006-09-06 04:14 · Score: 3, Informative

The problem is, the Mac mini isn't a headless iMac.

It:
- uses a smaller laptop hard drive (a bit slower than the iMac)
- has no video card
- "only" has a core duo (not a core 2 duo) [that may change]
- doesn't include a keyboard or mouse
- 2GB max of ram (ok, I'm stretching it a bit here)
That being said, it's clear that the Mac mini is a subset of the iMac beyond simply not having a screen.

Wow by bazorg · 2006-09-06 02:48 · Score: 5, Funny

That's one Big Mac !

Re:HD iMac? by Jasin+Natael · 2006-09-06 02:48 · Score: 3, Informative

Umm... Firewire (esp. FW800)? There are HDMI / SCART / DVI / etc. input boxes available that plug into it, and this way Apple doesn't have to produce region-specific versions of their hardware.

--
True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.

Re:No Apple Remote? by Roadstar · 2006-09-06 02:59 · Score: 5, Informative

An interesting point is that the base 17-inch model no longer comes with an Apple Remote by default, you have to cough up another $29 to get that bit of Apple goodness.

The other 17" model does come with the remote, and that's the one that used to be the base model (it has an ATI X1600). The base model you're referring to now is the stripped-down model (Intel GMA950) that was previously sold only in the Apple Store for Education, and it didn't come with a remote back then either. So nothing has been done to the lineup remote-wise, it is just that the stripped-down model is now available to everyone instead of just students.

I'm a pretty big Mac fan, but... by ProppaT · 2006-09-06 03:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

...I couldn't imagine buying a computer built into a 24" monitor. If I'm gonna make an investment in a screen that nice, I'd darn sure want to be able to hook it up to any computer I had and be able to use in in a few years when I needed a system upgrade.

--
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."

Re:I'm a pretty big Mac fan, but... by jacobw · 2006-09-06 03:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

The important thing to remember is: this is not an announcement. This is HALF an announcement.

Apple has already invited the media to a special event on September 12, where it is widely expected to announce two things. The first is that the iTunes music store is now going to sell feature-length movies. And the second thing is... well, nobody is quite sure, but it is rumored to be something major. Like, for example, an new version of Airport Express that allows you to stream video as well as music. This would be a big step on the road to making an Apple a true media center.

The fact that Apple has announced its widest-screen-ever iMacs with so little fanfare is a sign that the rumor is true--that Apple does, indeed, have something pretty big up its sleeve. If Apple is indeed about to make a big step forward towards being a media center, a 24-inch iMac suddenly has a new use: it's big enough to start serving as a genuine TV replacement.

Oh, and I'm going to add one more speculation to the mix. When Apple announced that some of the features of its upcoming operating system were "Top Secret", the explanation given was that they didn't want them copied by Vista. I always thought that was a bizarre explanation--is Microsoft really going to cram completely new features into Vista in the next few months? More likely, I thought, was that these "top secret" features depend on hardware that Apple wasn't yet ready to reveal. Specifically, I hypothesized that they were media-related features that would interface with a Mac-branded PVR. I was probably over-optimistic on the PVR thing, but I may have been right that these unnannounced software features tie into a Mac-branded audiovisual device. If so, expect the announcement of the new video-streaming base station to be accompanied by an announcement of new Leopard features to take advantage of it.

--
Arr! Read The Government Manual for New Pirates!

Why the cube failed by mitchell_pgh · 2006-09-06 03:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

The cube wasn't an iMac without the monitor. It was a PowerMac packed into a very small case.

Why it failed:

Price... period.
You could buy a cheaper and faster PowerMac for $200 less (with expansion bays [still important in 2000], space for a 2nd [or third] HD, space for a full sized video cad, etc. etc.) Benchmarks showed that the singe 400MHz PowerMac was faster than the 450MHz cube [Macworld]

In my humble opinion, the cube would have sold much better if it had been $1199 ($100 less than the iMac of the time) while having the same feature set and a nice mini-tower type enclosure. It was VERY difficult to justify the price of the Mini in contrast to the PowerMac.

Can we still not convince Apple to Users the BEST? by TheNetAvenger · 2006-09-06 04:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

NVIDIA GeForce 7300GT or 7600GT with 128MB GDDR3 Video card

Why should Mac users have to settle for middle of the road Video performance, yet again. 1920x1200 displays, and yet 128mb Video cards from last year that will have trouble rendering a game at the monitor's native resolution. How does this make sense?

Where is the industry leader that the Mac name was built on? Everyone waited forever for a credible OS like OSX, and now Apple's hardware lineup has gone to middle of the road crap. Why?

Please, Mac users stand up and scream at Apple for something that can at least compete with a freaking 7lb Dell Laptop. These are Macs not glorified eMachines. Argh!

50 of 487 comments (clear)