iMac/eMac Rumor Wrapup: Winners and Losers [Archive]

MacRumors

Feb 4, 2003, 09:10 PM

Apple released new iMacs (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/02/20030204083909.shtml) and price dropped eMacs on Tuesday, Feb 4th, 2003. After each product release, MacRumors provides a wrapup of rumors to reveal the sources of the most accurate information.

Despite rumors (http://www.kodawarisan.com/ug/index.html) of 19" iMacs last year -- Apple doesn't seem to agree. Beyond that, Spymac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/11/20021108214355.shtml), MacOSRumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/12/20021214122424.shtml), and MacBidouille (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/12/20021218202204.shtml) posted rumors that iMac would arrive at MacWorld San Francisco. ThinkSecret put a stop (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/01/20030103003955.shtml) to those rumors in the days before MWSF, and this information turned out to be accurate -- MWSF came and went without iMac upgrades.

Attention was drawn towards the PowerMac/Display upgrades in the subsequent weeks, with Thinksecret first suggesting (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/01/20030123172422.shtml) Feb 3rd as a tentative week for iMac updates. Meanwhile MacRumors sources (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/01/20030129220556.shtml) provided a solid date of Feb 4th, as well as definitive details of the high-end iMac upgrade. Thinksecret (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/02/20030203214135.shtml) then posted last minute price point of $1299 for the iMac, filling out the bottom end of the line, as well as details of eMac price drops.

MacNews.net.tc initially posted (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/12/20021230122005.shtml) $999-$1699 specs which were echoed by Appleinsider (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/02/20030204064250.shtml) immediately before the release. These specs were wrong, with no apparent basis, casting further doubts on these sources for future specs.

Summary

As mentioned before, accurate rumors are available... but with the influx of rumor sites, it's often difficult to discern accurate information from pure speculation.

It seems speculation and "predictions" are often passed off as rumors -- these practices should be discouraged and any purely speculative information is frowned upon (unless specifically stated as such), as it simply muddies the water and further incites unreasonable expectations amongst readers.

Some of this may be unavoidable, as frequently, sources of rumors may simply be based on unconfirmed reader contribution which has been known to miss their mark. (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/01/20030116172428.shtml) :)

MrMacMan

Feb 4, 2003, 09:14 PM

Yeah too many new rumor sites coming out of no where...
I mean there are just getting to be too many 'our vulcan mind tricks' tell us there will be a new iMac released, uh, tommorow. Sure it is based on other rumors, but no ones to back it up.
Arn your doing a great job filtering BS from reality.

Edit: FIRST POST. w00t. ;)

Freg3000

Feb 4, 2003, 09:16 PM

There were correct rumors out there. The only thing that I think everyone got wrong was the clock speed of the base model. Correct me if I'm wrong, (and I am sure someone will if I am :)) but didn't ever rumor have a 867 MHz iMac?

Anyway, good job MacRumors. Keep it up.

arn

Feb 4, 2003, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Freg3000
There were correct rumors out there. The only thing that I think everyone got wrong was the clock speed of the base model. Correct me if I'm wrong, (and I am sure someone will if I am :)) but didn't ever rumor have a 867 MHz iMac?

Well, MacNews.net.tc posted a low end iMac at 800mhz... but they also reported 17" LCD's in 3 other models.

Hitting one or two numbers in Mhz doesn't count... especially when everything else is wrong. Unique hits... for example if they claimed it would be 823.2 Mhz and it turned out to be true... well, then I'd pay attention.

arn

Freg3000

Feb 4, 2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by arn
Unique hits... for example if they claimed it would be 823.2 Mhz and it turned out to be true... well, then I'd pay attention.

arn

Unique hits...like nailing 12" and 17" Powerbooks @ MWSF :D? I am still getting over that one!

MrMacMan

Feb 4, 2003, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by arn

Well, MacNews.net.tc posted a low end iMac at 800mhz... but they also reported 17" LCD's in 3 other models.

Hitting one or two numbers in Mhz doesn't count... especially when everything else is wrong. Unique hits... for example if they claimed it would be 823.2 Mhz and it turned out to be true... well, then I'd pay attention.

arn

Is 823.2 even possible? :D
(just pulling your hypotheical leg)
Yeah the 12 & 17 " Powerbooks were out of no where.
I suppose super hush hush.

unfaded

Feb 4, 2003, 09:34 PM

MacOSRumours just the other day said "6-8 weeks" for iMac/eMac rumours. Needless to say, they have been deleted from my bookmarks, they're just ridiculous now.

Rocket Rion

Feb 4, 2003, 10:16 PM

People, like me, wanting a new iPod are also losers today.

Freg3000

Feb 4, 2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by MrMacman

Is 823.2 even possible? :D
(just pulling your hypotheical leg)

Well, it would be one strange multiplier....:)

reiggin

Feb 4, 2003, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by unfaded
MacOSRumours just the other day said "6-8 weeks" for iMac/eMac rumours. Needless to say, they have been deleted from my bookmarks, they're just ridiculous now.

they're the most pathetic site out there. just to think... 5 years ago, they were mecca... Ryan Meader, what the heck happened?!?!?!

shadowfax

Feb 5, 2003, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by reiggin

they're the most pathetic site out there. just to think... 5 years ago, they were mecca... Ryan Meader, what the heck happened?!?!?!

his contacts died? got laid off?

they are a little weird; anyone who regularly speculates about quad processors lol.

Wardofsky

Feb 5, 2003, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by Rocket Rion
People, like me, wanting a new iPod are also losers today.

Same, sadly.

On the subjects of the New iMacs, if I have an iMac with an AP Extreme card in it, would that still communicate with 802.11b BS (Vice-Verca also)?

And are the new 802.11g any better at distance with out drop outs, snow BS have a range of 50m.

shadowfax

Feb 5, 2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by Wardofsky

Same, sadly.

On the subjects of the New iMacs, if I have an iMac with an AP Extreme card in it, would that still communicate with 802.11b BS (Vice-Verca also)?

And are the new 802.11g any better at distance with out drop outs, snow BS have a range of 50m.

yeah, the technologies talk to each other. as in, your AP extreme will detect the slower BS and downgrade the frequency to that and talk at 802.11b speeds... i can't help you on range, i thought 802.11g wasd shorter range (being 2x the frequency), but i can't speak intelligently on that one.

bentmywookie

Feb 5, 2003, 02:53 AM

Although I am not so happy with the iMac upgrades, I will say that the one definitively good thing to come out of it is that MacRumors and ThinkSecret have proven themselves to be really reliable sources of info regarding Apple.

Great job to both of them, keep up the great work and thanks!

Sun Baked

Feb 5, 2003, 03:23 AM

What happened to the speculation for killing off the 15" iMac low end and adding a 19" iMac on the high end? :p

All in all, some of the decisions are a little strange for Apple lately...

daddy-mojo

Feb 5, 2003, 03:59 AM

So, does anyone know if the s-video/composite out option on the new 17" imac will allow for a tv monitor to be used in final cut pro? This could be my deciding factor as to whether I have to spend twice that to go to a tower (with a fair amount of extras added in). I know that the normal vga out just mirrors the desktop. I'm hoping that s-video out will work the same way as in powerbooks or after market video cards. Thanks in advance.:)

Foocha

Feb 5, 2003, 04:16 AM

I lost interest in MacOSRumors when they came out with the "Dodecahedron" PowerMac rumor, shortly after the cube was scrapped.

MacsRgr8

Feb 5, 2003, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by daddy-mojo
So, does anyone know if the s-video/composite out option on the new 17" imac will allow for a tv monitor to be used in final cut pro? This could be my deciding factor as to whether I have to spend twice that to go to a tower (with a fair amount of extras added in). I know that the normal vga out just mirrors the desktop. I'm hoping that s-video out will work the same way as in powerbooks or after market video cards. Thanks in advance.:)

"VGA display adapter Video out support
Need to connect to an external VGA display, projector or TV? That’s easy. Both iMac models feature mini-VGA output ports that work with an optional Apple VGA display adapter, and both support video mirroring. You can mirror your projects to an external display or projector — perfect for presentations and for sharing your ideas. Additionally, the 17-inch iMac comes with support for S-Video and composite video signals, so you can display your multimedia projects on a big-screen TV: simply connect your TV to the video output port via the optional Apple Video Adapter, and you’re on television."

Hmmm: "both support video mirroring"... it seems that there is no option to use the TV as a second monitor...
:confused:

michaelyoung

Feb 5, 2003, 06:00 AM

I love the fact that ARN puts the results of the rumors.
Personally, I would love even more context...like:

"The last accurate rumor from MacOSRumors was: Sept 92' - A Color Mac Classic"

Just like a master clock to further indicate reliability. Someone would need a lot of free time to put this together.

That being said, I pretty much only read this site now for rumors. Thanks for the great work!

aethier

Feb 5, 2003, 06:21 AM

Bear

Feb 5, 2003, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by aethier

Im pretty sure that the website says that if you have a airport extreme bs with the airport xcard, it will have a 50 foot range.

But if you have a old airport card with the airport base station you get the normal 150 feet range.

also look into those Dr. BOT antanas that makes the range of your extreme BS 500feet..

for more info justy check the apple website...
It's shorter ranges for the gigher speed. Get further away and the speed drops off.

daddy-mojo

Feb 5, 2003, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by MacsRgr8

"VGA display adapter Video out support
Need to connect to an external VGA display, projector or TV? That?s easy. Both iMac models feature mini-VGA output ports that work with an optional Apple VGA display adapter, and both support video mirroring. You can mirror your projects to an external display or projector ? perfect for presentations and for sharing your ideas. Additionally, the 17-inch iMac comes with support for S-Video and composite video signals, so you can display your multimedia projects on a big-screen TV: simply connect your TV to the video output port via the optional Apple Video Adapter, and you?re on television."

Hmmm: "both support video mirroring"... it seems that there is no option to use the TV as a second monitor...
:confused:

not so much a second monitor but for editing purposes. the imac lcd size is fine for the edit windows, but in final cut pro you can view your canvas window on a television at the same time so you know how the color looks and if your in title safe margins etc. its not really monitor spanning, but not quite mirroring either. i tried calling the apple store, but they really didn't tell me much more then what it says on the site. I guess i need to goto the apple store and see if someone at the genius bar knows. thanks again.

rugby

Feb 5, 2003, 08:56 AM

Apple's official position is that the vga port will do mirror only. However, a quick search of xlr8yourmac's website reveals hacks to enable dual desktops for iMacs.

Originally posted by daddy-mojo

not so much a second monitor but for editing purposes. the imac lcd size is fine for the edit windows, but in final cut pro you can view your canvas window on a television at the same time so you know how the color looks and if your in title safe margins etc. its not really monitor spanning, but not quite mirroring either. i tried calling the apple store, but they really didn't tell me much more then what it says on the site. I guess i need to goto the apple store and see if someone at the genius bar knows. thanks again.

daddy-mojo

Feb 5, 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by rugby
Apple's official position is that the vga port will do mirror only. However, a quick search of xlr8yourmac's website reveals hacks to enable dual desktops for iMacs.

hmmm...is it a hardware or software hack? I visit xlr8 semi frequently. Couldn't find the link for what you referenced.

NicoMan

Feb 5, 2003, 09:56 AM

A lot of people were, like, POSITIVE, that the new iMacs were going to come out with slot-loading drives. What happened to those guys??

NicoMan

Bear

Feb 5, 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by NicoMan
A lot of people were, like, POSITIVE, that the new iMacs were going to come out with slot-loading drives. What happened to those guys??

NicoMan
As much as I really like having the slot loading drive on the PowerBook, it doesn't make sense on a consumer line.

Since slot loading drives don't support anything other than standsized round discs, that crates a problem for people who get odd sized discs. And frankly how many calls do you think Apple wants to deal with because someone put a non-standard disc in an iMac or iBook?

No, I am not saying there are that many dumb people. I am saying people might not think of the consequences or thay just might not realize them.

MOM

Feb 5, 2003, 01:32 PM

I agree that this site and think secret are the most reliable lately. However, I would just like to point out that rumors come with varying degrees of advanced notice. Its one thing to have an excellent source, one perhaps sees the advertisements for the new products, and can tell you with great certainty what is coming in a day or two. Other sites may have sources in different places that have more info on future products. A 19" iMac may have been under consideration, and may still be, but the idea may have been placed on the backburner until display costs come down and the economy improves. Doesn't mean the rumor was wrong or that it was just speculation. Offcourse, from our perspective we will probably never know.

arn

Feb 5, 2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by MOM
I agree that this site and think secret are the most reliable lately. However, I would just like to point out that rumors come with varying degrees of advanced notice. Its one thing to have an excellent source, one perhaps sees the advertisements for the new products, and can tell you with great certainty what is coming in a day or two. Other sites may have sources in different places that have more info on future products. A 19" iMac may have been under consideration, and may still be, but the idea may have been placed on the backburner until display costs come down and the economy improves. Doesn't mean the rumor was wrong or that it was just speculation. Offcourse, from our perspective we will probably never know.

very true... many of the more conceptual products may simply be planned... but never released.

arn

edenwaith

Feb 5, 2003, 04:15 PM

At first, I didn't even notice that the eMac prices had dropped somewhat since there was no announcement on Apple's web site, or good indicator that 'hey, the eMacs are cheaper!'

I'm curious if this might be because there might be quite a lot of eMacs in stock, and Apple is lowering the prices on them to try and clear out the channels a little faster in the process. And then later, perhaps they will upgrade the line somewhat.

Also, what is up with the CRT iMac line? It looks like they are still being sold, despite the now-pokey features they have (i.e. no CD-RW). When the new iMac came out, I thought it was certainly different, but one of my main concerns was that it looked too delicate for a class room filled with small children. That monitor screams out to kids: "Pull me! Tug me! Break me!" However, the eMac seems to have answered that concern.

york2600

Feb 5, 2003, 05:11 PM

Besides the fact that they don't get anything right, update the site like once a month, ask for a crazy amount of cash, and may I stress never get anything right here's why I dont read them anymore:

A while back they had this 2 page rant about MacWorld. They talked about how it was a complete waste of time and how they were all too good for it etc etc. Then they went on to talk about how Apple's head of PR was a "dike bitch".

Why does this matter?

A) It shows they are totally imature
B) It shows they are not professional in their "work" (if you can call it work)
C) I'm not gay, but you just don't say that about people. It doesn't matter if they deserve it or not, but if you want to maintain a base of readers you don't say stuff like that.

Just my 2 cents

-Tim

Mattski

Feb 5, 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Shadowfax

yeah, the technologies talk to each other. as in, your AP extreme will detect the slower BS and downgrade the frequency to that and talk at 802.11b speeds... i can't help you on range, i thought 802.11g wasd shorter range (being 2x the frequency), but i can't speak intelligently on that one.

802.11g and 802.11b work on identical frequencies (2.4ghz). Not sure how they get it up to 54mbps, however I would assume there is some compression technology in there somewhere.

802.11b scales down from 11 to 5.5,2 & 1mbps as you move further from the base station. 802.11g also has this technology.
So the real question is what range can we get from 802.11g at 54mbps. I'd tend to think it would throttle down fairly quickly, however we won't have any real idea until the product ships.

Any 802.11g base station or card can talk a purely 802.11b language, which allows complete interoperability between the 2 standards, just at a maximum of 11mbps.

This would be really difficult if 802.11g were at a different frequency to 802.11b, as usually this would require dual componentary in the devices to be able to communicate at 2 frequencies in different ranges, ie 2.4 and 5ghz.

802.11a cards are at a higher frequency (5ghz) but have no backwards compatibility at all. It's a good thing (for consumers) that Apple has the wisdom not to use it.

shadowfax

Feb 5, 2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Mattski

802.11g and 802.11b work on identical frequencies (2.4ghz). Not sure how they get it up to 54mbps, however I would assume there is some compression technology in there somewhere.

802.11b scales down from 11 to 5.5,2 & 1mbps as you move further from the base station. 802.11g also has this technology.
So the real question is what range can we get from 802.11g at 54mbps. I'd tend to think it would throttle down fairly quickly, however we won't have any real idea until the product ships.

Any 802.11g base station or card can talk a purely 802.11b language, which allows complete interoperability between the 2 standards, just at a maximum of 11mbps.

This would be really difficult if 802.11g were at a different frequency to 802.11b, as usually this would require dual componentary in the devices to be able to communicate at 2 frequencies in different ranges, ie 2.4 and 5ghz.

802.11a cards are at a higher frequency (5ghz) but have no backwards compatibility at all. It's a good thing (for consumers) that Apple has the wisdom not to use it.

right, ok, i got a and g confused. i guess 802.11g has more range (one would think), if not at full speed. once again, who cares, though? few connections can saturate 802.11b, and if you want to transfer a lot of files, it's better to just plug into a 100baseTX network, IMO. that's how i do it, at any rate.

york2600

Feb 6, 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Shadowfax

right, ok, i got a and g confused. i guess 802.11g has more range (one would think), if not at full speed. once again, who cares, though? few connections can saturate 802.11b, and if you want to transfer a lot of files, it's better to just plug into a 100baseTX network, IMO. that's how i do it, at any rate.

Trust me lots of connections can saturate 802.11b. Maybe not home use, but business and education use. For those 802.11b is a very poor performing technology. My school had a class with 20 laptops used for everything in class. At the beginning of each class 20 people would log on to a Windows 2000 client/server network. During login each users profile was pushed across the network. They averaged at about 20 megs each. Sometimes it took 15 minutes to log in with all the traffic. Wireless operates much like a hub and therefore the slower the traffic the more congestion becomes apparent. It was really bad. 802.11G would help things out greatly in that kind of environment. Since Apple pushes that exact type of solution in the classroom Airport Extreme's bandwidth is very important to Apple being competitive.

Mattski

Feb 6, 2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by york2600

Trust me lots of connections can saturate 802.11b. Maybe not home use, but business and education use. For those 802.11b is a very poor performing technology. My school had a class with 20 laptops used for everything in class. At the beginning of each class 20 people would log on to a Windows 2000 client/server network. During login each users profile was pushed across the network. They averaged at about 20 megs each. Sometimes it took 15 minutes to log in with all the traffic. Wireless operates much like a hub and therefore the slower the traffic the more congestion becomes apparent. It was really bad. 802.11G would help things out greatly in that kind of environment. Since Apple pushes that exact type of solution in the classroom Airport Extreme's bandwidth is very important to Apple being competitive.

In high density wireless environments the best way to get a higher speed is to increase the density of the base stations. So perhaps the best thing Apple has done for it's wireless users with Airport Extreme is not the 54mbps access, but is the much lower price tag, making it possible to have more base stations.

shadowfax

Feb 6, 2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Mattski

In high density wireless environments the best way to get a higher speed is to increase the density of the base stations. So perhaps the best thing Apple has done for it's wireless users with Airport Extreme is not the 54mbps access, but is the much lower price tag, making it possible to have more base stations.

i was about to say, it's really stupid to log 20 people onto a base station. even at 54 mbps, it's going to bog down. i was just talking 3 or 4 users.

daveg5

Feb 6, 2003, 10:11 PM

how much to trust the source, guess we'll know in 6 days.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/story.html?id=1044471776

Dave G5: Of course I dont believe it but it would be nice.
Hopefully this is true as i use a exspensive scsi drive now for the fast access time and boot drive in the multitasking osx and it helps but what price performance.
a good 10000 36GB ultra 320 drive with 4.5 ms access and 70+ transfer rate, 5 year warranty will cost you $190-$250 seagate and fujitsu.
I would gladly take a 120GB 10000 SATA drive in its place.

chmorley

Feb 6, 2003, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by NicoMan
A lot of people were, like, POSITIVE, that the new iMacs were going to come out with slot-loading drives. What happened to those guys??Not to shrink from the criticism, I was one who stated that. I agree (and stated then) that it didn't make sense. However, I had been told by someone I believed a reliable source--who had told me in November that the new Powerbooks would be aluminum--that this was the case.

What can I say? I was wrong.

Chris

MOM

Feb 8, 2003, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by york2600
Besides the fact that they don't get anything right, update the site like once a month, ask for a crazy amount of cash, and may I stress never get anything right here's why I dont read them anymore:

A while back they had this 2 page rant about MacWorld. They talked about how it was a complete waste of time and how they were all too good for it etc etc. Then they went on to talk about how Apple's head of PR was a "dike bitch".

Why does this matter?

A) It shows they are totally imature
B) It shows they are not professional in their "work" (if you can call it work)
C) I'm not gay, but you just don't say that about people. It doesn't matter if they deserve it or not, but if you want to maintain a base of readers you don't say stuff like that.

Just my 2 cents

-Tim

Yes, I remember that article. I agree with your comments, Tim. It was very bitter. My impression of them dropped a lot that day.

iTry

Feb 8, 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by daddy-mojo
So, does anyone know if the s-video/composite out option on the new 17" imac will allow for a tv monitor to be used in final cut pro? This could be my deciding factor as to whether I have to spend twice that to go to a tower (with a fair amount of extras added in). I know that the normal vga out just mirrors the desktop. I'm hoping that s-video out will work the same way as in powerbooks or after market video cards. Thanks in advance.:)

Very good question!! And one I wouldn't mind knowing the answer to. My guess is possible, but unlikely. Don't forget that, as far as I'm aware, FCP outputs to firewire all the time. In other words, keep your DV camera connected to the comp via firewire, then connect the cam to your video monitor using composite or s-video and it should convert the firewire stream.

Even if this option fails, there are a lot of external devices for video output on the market for £200 - £300 (not sure about the $ price!)

I'm going to buy a 17" on monday, so when it arrives I'll come back on here and let you know my results...

Need to buy a new TV as well, since my current one's turned green, so it's impossible to colour balance!!!:p :p :p

EDIT: Forgot this bit. Who the hell wants a slot loader? They're a pain in the proverbial! I'd much rather have a nice platter!!! You're only bitter 'cause you spill your coffee when it goes back in!