LOOK - Possible New Imac!!!! [Archive]

strider42

May 31, 2002, 01:13 PM

17 and 19 inch versions. Seems unlikely to me at this time. Why would apple place the lower margin iMac into the realm of the high margin powermacs. They would be rather expensive as well, considering they aren't expandable. I would think they would either eat into the powermac sales, or just flop because people who want to pay that much for a computer want more than the iMac can offer. Plus, its selling just fine as it is right now. larger screens will probably happen eventually, but I'm very skepticle, espcially fo the 19", for the immediate future.

and what kind of source is that. A report from taiwan? At least they could have said an inside source. For all we know its just some guy on the street who made it up.

gopher

May 31, 2002, 01:35 PM

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2002/05/31&pages=02&seq=5

strider42

May 31, 2002, 01:47 PM

almost the4 same as a an article previously posted, once by itself and once in another thread, but here's my opinion I previously posted:

"17 and 19 inch versions. Seems unlikely to me at this time. Why would apple place the lower margin iMac into the realm of the high margin powermacs. They would be rather expensive as well, considering they aren't expandable. I would think they would either eat into the powermac sales, or just flop because people who want to pay that much for a computer want more than the iMac can offer. Plus, its selling just fine as it is right now. larger screens will probably happen eventually, but I'm very skepticle, espcially fo the 19", for the immediate future.

and what kind of source is that. A report from taiwan? At least they could have said an inside source. For all we know its just some guy on the street who made it up."

I think the cost would be so high to the consumer it would suffer the same fate as the cube, it wouldn't have any real market for a non upgradeable, limited in power $2500+ computer that can't even use a bigger monitor if you wanted to.

At least this article tries to make the source sound legit, but this really sounds completely bogus to me. but hey, maybe apple will surprise me.

Mr. Anderson

May 31, 2002, 01:56 PM

Well, if you think about it, if this is true, Apple's making the LCD iMac a viable low end professional machine by upping the res and screen size. It might indicate that the new Pro line will either be more expensive or more powerful than expected (could be both...)

Hemingray

May 31, 2002, 02:20 PM

I would say maybe a 17" at the MOST, but certainly not a 19". It would simply be too topheavy. They'd have to broaden the base at least by a few inches, and I don't see Apple doing that.

kenkooler

May 31, 2002, 02:21 PM

Right now it would be too expensive for the consumer line. If Apple is right and the LCDs become cheaper at the end of this year, it would be nice...

Hemingray

May 31, 2002, 02:25 PM

As I said in the other thread on this, at the most there could be a 17" screen. Anyone want to try Photoshoping a 19" on an iMac base? That thing would fall over! It would be way too top heavy, and the metal arm in back would have to be enlarged and reinforced, the base would have to be broadened... I just can't see it happening.

Falleron

May 31, 2002, 02:26 PM

It being talked about here as well:

http://www.macrumors.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=5803

strider42

May 31, 2002, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Hemingray
As I said in the other thread on this, at the most there could be a 17" screen. Anyone want to try Photoshoping a 19" on an iMac base? That thing would fall over! It would be way too top heavy, and the metal arm in back would have to be enlarged and reinforced, the base would have to be broadened... I just can't see it happening.

I actually doubt it falling over would be a big problem. Granted I've never lifted a 19" display before, but one would think the base would still be heavy enough (and it is quite heavy) to keep it pretty firmly planted. Bigger problems in my mind would be making sure the adjustable arm had enough tension to support the extra weight, and the fact that it would become more expensive than the powermacs.

mymemory

May 31, 2002, 03:33 PM

17" at most, more than that would look abnormal. But to me realistic a wide 15" would be the next step for shure.

Mr. Anderson

May 31, 2002, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by mymemory
17" at most, more than that would look abnormal. But to me realistic a wide 15" would be the next step for shure.

Well, that maybe where they're going, all across the line wide format. That would mean the 15" would be 17" and the 17" would be 19", I'd go for that and it would be nice to have that extra bit, especially if they can keep the 19" below 1k, they do well.

Backtothemac

May 31, 2002, 04:35 PM

I think that a 19 inch is just way to far fetched. A 17 inch may be plausible, but I agree that the 15.2 widescreen will be very reasonable. I personally would love to see that. I think that I could talk the Mrs. into it.

AmbitiousLemon

May 31, 2002, 04:52 PM

im not syaing they will do it or not but hemingray's comment is just wrong.

they most certainly wouldnt need to widen the base or strengthen the arm. if you think so you obviously havent seen an imac yet. it is very sturdy and would probably even hold a 22" if apple were crazy enough to use one.

the only way this is happen is if those powermacs are very amazing (which is possible).

Backtothemac

May 31, 2002, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
im not syaing they will do it or not but hemingray's comment is just wrong.

they most certainly wouldnt need to widen the base or strengthen the arm. if you think so you obviously havent seen an imac yet. it is very sturdy and would probably even hold a 22" if apple were crazy enough to use one.

the only way this is happen is if those powermacs are very amazing (which is possible).

I have to go with lemon here. If they wanted to, they could put anything on the iMac. It would hold up just about any type of LCD, especially if it was a thinline. Now, that being said, although I don't believe these rumors, they would mean that the PowerMacs would be insane in specs. that would be very, very cool.

That is unless they are going to make a PoweriMac?

JoeG4

May 31, 2002, 05:29 PM

You've got to be kidding, a 22" display is HEAVY, almost as heavy as the entire imac (including the 15" screen). To put a 22" on it would be overkill, the imac's arm would slip forward and probably end up 'leaning' on the screen.

A 17" would probably be fine but still, the whole arm would have to be redesigned due to the tension.

Backtothemac

May 31, 2002, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by JoeG4
You've got to be kidding, a 22" display is HEAVY, almost as heavy as the entire imac (including the 15" screen). To put a 22" on it would be overkill, the imac's arm would slip forward and probably end up 'leaning' on the screen.

A 17" would probably be fine but still, the whole arm would have to be redesigned due to the tension.

Yea, they would have to weight the base down for the 22, but that will never, ever happen. Now the 17 would not require the arm, or the base to be redesigned at all. Maybe, maybe a tension increase, but I doubt it.

Still, I don't think this rumor is going to hold water in the long haul.

agent302

May 31, 2002, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I think that a 19 inch is just way to far fetched. A 17 inch may be plausible, but I agree that the 15.2 widescreen will be very reasonable. I personally would love to see that. I think that I could talk the Mrs. into it.

Actually, the most likely (if it were to be widescreen), would be a 17 inch widescreen, but not in the way most people here seem to be thinking. The 15.2 inch screen in the Powerbook is really just a normal 14 inch screen that has pixels added to the side. So a 17 inch widescreen could be the same height as a 15 screen, but wider. Remember, the screen measurement is diagonal inches, so making a screen the same height but wider makes the diagonal length bigger.

nero007

May 31, 2002, 07:11 PM

The Register has been posting some tall ones lately. I guess the 19" iMac will be coming out with the 1.5ghz G4 at MWNY. :rolleyes:

pimentoLoaf

May 31, 2002, 07:35 PM

Love the idea of a 19-incher but...

D'ya think that both RAM slots would be accessible by a user instead of just one? And maybe an option to have the optical drive part rotate to the left or right so one doesn't have to drop the keyboard in one's lap when changing disks?

And perhaps offer a slot for a Pyro PlatinumDV board for all us video-folk...

SPG

May 31, 2002, 08:32 PM

The 17" is plausible, feasible, and almost inevitable. The 19"? Wellllll....we'll see. It'd be nice, but we'll see if they can make it affordable enough to justify it. And to throw another two cents in, the base could easily support it and any arm redesign would be minor.

IndyGopher

May 31, 2002, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by pimentoLoaf
Love the idea of a 19-incher but...

D'ya think that both RAM slots would be accessible by a user instead of just one? And maybe an option to have the optical drive part rotate to the left or right so one doesn't have to drop the keyboard in one's lap when changing disks?

What spongy surface are you setting your iMac on? With the flippy foot thing lowered/extended on the keyboard, on a flat surface, you cannot get the CD/DVD door on a G4 iMac to hit the keyboard. I thought perhaps I was just lucky with mine, so I verified this on the 3 display units at CompUSA next door.. none of them are any different.

Hemingray

May 31, 2002, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
im not syaing they will do it or not but hemingray's comment is just wrong.

they most certainly wouldnt need to widen the base or strengthen the arm. if you think so you obviously havent seen an imac yet. it is very sturdy and would probably even hold a 22" if apple were crazy enough to use one.

I beg to differ. I have seen and examined the new iMac quite carefully. That arm was designed with that monitor size in mind, and MAYBE a 17". But a 19"? I don't think so.

My comment isn't any more wrong that yours until you can prove me wrong. :)

mmmdreg

May 31, 2002, 10:10 PM

I can see a 17'er coming out one day as the standard of monitors rises across the PC'world...but 19 inch wont happen...

Rocketman

May 31, 2002, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Hemingray
I would say maybe a 17" at the MOST, but certainly not a 19". It would simply be too topheavy. They'd have to broaden the base at least by a few inches, and I don't see Apple doing that.

They could put a plastic flange on the bottom and screw it on and only have ONE new molded part. Simple. And a visual distinction to boot.

Jerry

DakotaGuy

May 31, 2002, 11:23 PM

Considering the CRT eMac is a 17" I have no problem in believing that Apple will make a 17" iMac.

pimentoLoaf

May 31, 2002, 11:58 PM

Apologies for not understanding the clearance on the optical drive slot versus the keyboard. Am using an iBook and not an iMac, and my understanding is based on eyeballing them Apple adverts.

Will have to experiment at CompUSA next time I'm there...

Rower_CPU

Jun 1, 2002, 12:04 AM

I think the iMac's arm is still unproven in the long term.

We don't know how it will age, and if over time it will lose its ability to keep the display up...even with just the 15" display.

I've seen some demo models that have been heavily used and the arm doesn't hold the position you leave it in. Let's not forget we're talking about a revision "a" machine here that has only been in the public's hands for three months or so.

nero007

Jun 1, 2002, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Considering the CRT eMac is a 17" I have no problem in believing that Apple will make a 17" iMac.

A 15" LCD is about the same as a 17" CRT.

j763

Jun 1, 2002, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by mmmdreg
I can see a 17'er coming out one day as the standard of monitors rises across the PC'world...but 19 inch wont happen...

yeah really... i mean, can you imagine how many australian $$s it would cost for a 19" iMac.

********** peter costello and his 'good economic management record'-- low interest rates are great but it *does* matter what the dollar is worth you idiot, peter! :mad: I mean, $1100 for a 10GB iPod...

The Bender

Jun 1, 2002, 12:31 PM

Now Presenting... The 23-inch Cin-i-mac!
:D

The Bender

Jun 1, 2002, 12:41 PM

In fact, it doesn't even look too unreasonable... Anyone remember that nutcase who took an original iMac innards and stuffed it inside a 21-inch monitor?
http://www.applefritter.com/hacks/21imac/
Well, I'll give this 23-inch frankenst-i-mac a go if someone will just send me the bits and pieces I need to get started.:D

StuPid QPid

Jun 1, 2002, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by nero007

A 15" LCD is about the same as a 17" CRT.

In many cases this is right, but with the eMac and iMac, the max screen resolutions are different. The eMac is 1280x960, while the iMac is 1024x768.
I'm really thinking about an eMac right now, but would most probably get an iMac, with its extra option of a superdrive, if it had a better 1280x960 resolution (or perhaps widescreen).

First, however, I need to earn the money ;)

Paolo

Jun 1, 2002, 07:55 PM

There's no way a 19" would work.... Why would they allow an iMac to have video mirroring etc, and then produce an iMac with a stupidly big screen, and there by making the entire computer heavier and bigger!???

Mr_Sqeeb

Jun 1, 2002, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Paolo
There's no way a 19" would work.... Why would they allow an iMac to have video mirroring etc, and then produce an iMac with a stupidly big screen, and there by making the entire computer heavier and bigger!???

The idea behind a desktop is you rarely move it, thus weight is not an issue with the iMac, also, the iMacs footprint is much smaller then a crt so making it a little bigger won't have any grave consequences

sjs

Jun 1, 2002, 10:06 PM

As often as Apple surprises us (G4 lcd iMac and eMac) I am surprised anyone uses phrases like "they would never" or "it can't be done" which is almost all I have seen in this thread. Its like this thread is a off-limits to anyone with an imagination (aplogies to Bender...image looks great!)

That said, what if the article meant PowerMacs instead of iMacs. What if the new PM has some sort of great new case that has connecting device built flush into it, and if you wish you can order your machine with a movable lcd just like iMac's. And if you don't want it, you don't have to have it that way. I would think graphics professionals would appreciate being able to adjust their screen to their liking.

What say ye?

Inhale420

Jun 1, 2002, 11:14 PM

************. we're supposed to believe someone who cant even spell iMac with the correct capitalization?

twen

Jun 2, 2002, 03:13 AM

I would love to see a 17/19" iMac. At the moment the 15" resolution is the same as on my iMac/iBook . If I don't see more on the screen I don't see the point in buying a new iMac. As an option I'm also looking into buying the new eMac, just because of the higher resolution. Surely the G4 Processor gives me more power, but I get along with the G3 fine. Quicksilver G4's are a no option for me, because I like the compact design of the iMac. And most important the iMac looks much better and shows more brilliant engineering then any Win PC.

lelereb

Jun 3, 2002, 11:28 AM

I think a 19" iMac is impossible, I would lose the use of one hand to keep hight the monitor... but actually Apple has an hole in his LCD display line, there is no a 19" model.

Dunepilot

Jun 5, 2002, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Mr_Sqeeb

the iMacs footprint is much smaller then a crt

Sorry to be pedantic, but since we're criticising bad capitalisation, why do so many people on these boards write then when they mean to write than ?

Alphatech does it a lot too.

Who teaches these people the English language?!

GabrielX

Jun 5, 2002, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Dunepilot

Sorry to be pedantic, but since we're criticising bad capitalisation...

Who teaches these people the English language?!

Actually, its capitalization here in the States.

Which is not to say it is correct, but as long as we are criticizing English skills I decided to jump on that bandwagon...

Gabriel
(whose spelling is horrible, and changes from the English to the American at whim and pleasure.)

Mr. Anderson

Jun 5, 2002, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Dunepilot

why do so many people on these boards write then when they mean to write than ?

Who teaches these people the English language?!

I remember way back in junior high I did a presentation on the overhead projector and all my thens were thans, I got it right after that. Nothing like a little public humiliation to make you learn something:D

boymerang

Jun 5, 2002, 04:53 PM

just remember it this way:

then : time

than : compare

Gelfin

Jun 5, 2002, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Dunepilot
Who teaches these people the English language?!

Well, nobody. I should think that was obvious. :)

About 19" iMacs, this argument seems like a non-starter to me. Of course they could make a 19" iMac if they wanted to, and of course it wouldn't be as simple as just sticking a new screen on the existing arm. The arm would have to be lengthened a bit to accomodate the added screen size, and the tension would have to be calibrated to account for the difference in weight, however great or slight, between the screens. The base to the iMac is much heavier than it looks, but it wouldn't be too hard to add a little ballast to the base if necessary. Also note that the iMac's screen is going to be lighter than a standalone monitor of equivalent size, so pointing out that the 23" screen is heavy doesn't accomplish much. There's plenty they could chop off that beast if they were motivated to make it lighter.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. It's not impossible, but neither is it completely trivial.

SPG

Jun 5, 2002, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Gelfin

Well, nobody. I should think that was obvious. :)

About 19" iMacs, this argument seems like a non-starter to me. Of course they could make a 19" iMac if they wanted to, and of course it wouldn't be as simple as just sticking a new screen on the existing arm. The arm would have to be lengthened a bit to accomodate the added screen size, and the tension would have to be calibrated to account for the difference in weight, however great or slight, between the screens. The base to the iMac is much heavier than it looks, but it wouldn't be too hard to add a little ballast to the base if necessary. Also note that the iMac's screen is going to be lighter than a standalone monitor of equivalent size, so pointing out that the 23" screen is heavy doesn't accomplish much. There's plenty they could chop off that beast if they were motivated to make it lighter.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. It's not impossible, but neither is it completely trivial.

Yeah! So nyahhhhh!
Way to shut everyone up! Oh wait, I found a lame reason to retort, even if agreeing so one of the other children must be able to come up with a response too...oh well good points Gelfin.

Hemingray

Jun 5, 2002, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by Gelfin
The arm would have to be lengthened a bit to accomodate the added screen size, and the tension would have to be calibrated to account for the difference in weight, however great or slight, between the screens.

Hm, no, not according to AmbitiousLemon... He seemed to think my similar post was "wrong" for thinking that the arm would have to be modified to handle the additional weight. So... I'll just go ahead and pass on his word to you, too:

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
they most certainly wouldnt need to widen the base or strengthen the arm. if you think so you obviously havent seen an imac yet. it is very sturdy and would probably even hold a 22" if apple were crazy enough to use one.

And I still differ on that one... oh well! :rolleyes:

mmmdreg

Jun 6, 2002, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Hemingray

Hm, no, not according to AmbitiousLemon... He seemed to think my similar post was "wrong" for thinking that the arm would have to be modified to handle the additional weight. So... I'll just go ahead and pass on his word to you, too:

And I still differ on that one... oh well! :rolleyes:

I dont think thats what Gelfin meant...I think he meant that it would have to be lengthened so that the monitor doesn't hit everything in its way as it is taller than a 15" monitor...weight was irrelevant in Gelfins post...and about the English language, the UK is always right, USA always wrong, when there's conflicts in grammar...

Hemingray

Jun 6, 2002, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by mmmdreg
...and about the English language, the UK is always right, USA always wrong, when there's conflicts in grammar...

That ain't not true! :rolleyes:

boymerang

Jun 6, 2002, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by mmmdreg

and about the English language, the UK is always right, USA always wrong, when there's conflicts in grammar...

I believe in times of grammar dispute between the UK and USA, it's the Canadian's that decide the victor.

GabrielX

Jun 6, 2002, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by boymerang

I believe in times of grammar dispute between the UK and USA, it's the Canadian's that decide the victor.

That, I agree with.

Don't you, eh?

Gabriel
(who has never lived in Canada, but lived 4 hours from the border for many years.)

SPG

Jun 6, 2002, 12:40 PM

All I know is that in questions of Grammar, the Australians are always wrong. At least we think they are since we can't understand half of what they say!

mmmdreg

Jun 7, 2002, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by SPG
All I know is that in questions of Grammar, the Australians are always wrong. At least we think they are since we can't understand half of what they say!

I reckon it's more the US...i can understand English people in Australia...Americans are different though, they can't speak properly..

Rower_CPU

Jun 7, 2002, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by mmmdreg
I reckon it's more the US...i can understand English people in Australia...Americans are different though, they can't speak properly..

How so? You mean, that since no-one is taught grammar in school anymore that we don't which prepositions you can't end a sentence with?;)