Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Spock

macrumors 68040
Jan 6, 2002
3,398
7,141
Vulcan
Re: Re: Model Lines

Originally posted by rdowns


Build your iMac:

Select processor speed- G5 1.6, 1.8, 2.0
Select RAM- 512MB, 1GB
Select HD size- 40, 80 or 120
Select video card- 32, 64 or 128
Select LCD size- 15", 17" 20"
Select Airport/Bluetooth

Come on lets do a reality check here, How long did we wait for a G4 iMac?? The G5 Just came out, Apple will not put this in the iMac until the newness on the Powermac dies down. And a Tablet come on who is the CEO?? Steve would hate seeing finger prints and pen marks all over his screens
 

iwantanewmac

macrumors 6502
Oct 24, 2001
356
0
Originally posted by cubist
You're right, DHM. The G4 may be acceptable - for now - in a notebook, but a G4 in a desktop has all the appeal of a Pentium III. The Washington Apple Pi journal just printed a review of the single 1.8GHz G5 PM, and it blew the doors off the dual 1.25GHz G4 they had.

Very strange.
I have seen lots of reviews that said the opposite. In lots of tests the 1.8 g5 isn't faster than the dual 1.25. Especially the model with 2mb l3 cache per processor.
 

pjkelnhofer

macrumors 6502a
Sep 8, 2003
641
0
Boston
Re: Re: Model Lines

Originally posted by rdowns
I think Apple would have a winner if they had complete BYO iMac at their site as well as a few standard models.

Build your iMac:

Select processor speed- G5 1.6, 1.8, 2.0
Select RAM- 512MB, 1GB
Select HD size- 40, 80 or 120
Select video card- 32, 64 or 128
Select LCD size- 15", 17" 20"
Select Airport/Bluetooth

I think rdowns brings up an excellent point. Apple needs more customization especially in the iMac line. You cannot get the 15" with a Superdrive for example. I remember not even a year ago this sort of thing was an option.
Are more BTO options too much to ask?
 

jmerk

macrumors member
Aug 27, 2003
48
0
Minneapolis
speed of a "tablet" display...

fpnc wrote:
...and even then you'd probably need two processors, one in the "main" computer and another in the display (the latter to process the compressed/encoded video sent from the main processor).

In any case, you would not have the same graphics experience with a wireless display as you currently have with a dedicated AGP port and a fast, local graphics processor.

mojowantshappy wrote:
One thing, in order to transmit uncompressed video at 1024x768 you would need bandwith that could support transfer speeds of roughly 3 MB/sec, or 24.5 Mbps. That is a lot of bandwith, and I don't think that 802.11g can really handle it despite the fact that it can theoretically handle 54 Mbps.

mojo:
since i'm not a hardware superpro i'm not sure but 802.11g couldn't sustain 24.5 Mbps when it's hypothetical speed is more than double that?! that sucks!

fpnc:
here are a few options (i'm not sure if the second is possible since i don't have anything to compare to):
1. scale back the resolution.
if you scale back the resolution i imagine that you wouldn't need quite the bandwidth and thus you MAY be able to run it over 802.11g.

2. put a dedicated graphics chip in the screen as you suggested. i am not an industrial engineer but considering they can cram a G4, motherboard, harddrive, superdrive, graphics chip, bluetooth module, and all the according ports and fans, keyboard and screen into a 1" thick, 5 lb. device; i am inclined to think that if you can build an lcd screen that could run off a standalone graphics card with an 802.11g card, antenna and one usb port in it, thinner than 1", and lighter than 5 lbs.
how about this, throw a G3 in there to handle some processing as well? cheap, fast "enough" for processing video, etc...

i see the point that "this would only fit a small market" but it is my opinion that this would CREATE a market. one of those things that would make people say, "that is something that i really need!"

who knows, maybe until the next version of 802.11 can support uncompressed video at high resolution, X11 becomes a common thing, and TiVo functions could be built in and other features to add even more value it won't see the light of day.

oh well, here is one person that would buy one!

j
 

tny

macrumors 6502
Jun 3, 2003
435
81
Washington, DC
Originally posted by spencecb
Is it just me, or does everyone else get really tired of the horrible spelling and use of grammar on these damn message boards???? LEARN TO SPELL AND USE PROPER GRAMMAR PEOPLE!!!!!
If you're going to troll like that, at least get your grammar right. "Damn" is a verb; the adjective is "damned".
 

AirUncleP

macrumors regular
Dec 19, 2002
190
10
USA
Re: 2-in-1

Originally posted by MacMarino
So i was thinking when i saw the tablet being mentioned and how people are always saying they want an iMac with a detachable screen. How about a screen that clips in and out of a a kind of cradle on the metal arm, but can be used as a tablet PC when disconnected from the main body...and when you reconnect the 2 parts everything just syncs together. Could it work?

MacMarino

Sounds good. Just slide in a tv tuner card and then it could double as a flat panel tv screen.
 

AirUncleP

macrumors regular
Dec 19, 2002
190
10
USA
Originally posted by spencecb
Is it just me, or does everyone else get really tired of the horrible spelling and use of grammar on these damn message boards???? LEARN TO SPELL AND USE PROPER GRAMMAR PEOPLE!!!!!

Multiple punctuation at the end of a sentence.....tsk, tsk, tsk.
 

captain kirk

macrumors member
Dec 4, 2003
68
0
UK
Originally posted by spencecb
Is it just me, or does everyone else get really tired of the horrible spelling and use of grammar on these damn message boards???? LEARN TO SPELL AND USE PROPER GRAMMAR PEOPLE!!!!!

SORRY TO POINT THIS OUT BUT WRITING AN ENTIRE SENTENCE IN CAPITAL LETTERS IS ALSO VERY POOR. YOUR ENGLISH TEACHER MUST BE TURNING IN HER GRAVE.:p
 

Sailfish

macrumors regular
Oct 13, 2003
121
0
Well I have a one year old emac and it came with a larger keyboard so I can keep a pencil and a pen on it.

Now I got a Dual G5 and the keyboard seems it has been trimmed of all plastic around the edges, the adjustable riser underneath is missing.

The emac mouse had a adjustable dial underneath, the new mouse doesn't.


oh well, as long as my iPod has a stand
 

the_dalex

macrumors member
Sep 2, 2003
89
0
The amount of data that flows from a system to a monitor is incredible. We need that data rate to run a display with the resolution and refresh that we are used to, and wireless technology isn't even CLOSE. I won't even go into the problems with the concept of transmitting video data in packets over 802.11g, just give that up right now.

The consumer doesn't really want a detachable display. The consumer doesn't really want a tablet computer. The consumer doesn't really want their computer to record television. They may think that these are neat ideas, but they aren't all rushing out to buy these things. These are niche products that the average consumer isn't really asking for, or when they actually take them home, they are disappointed by the lack of other features that they are accustomed to. Great, my computer can record TV? What do I do while it's busy encoding and writing the stream, and any interruption will cause it to drop frames? Go watch live TV? I should have bought a Tivo, then I could do whatever I wanted whenever I wanted...

There will be a day when we can fit an entire computer system on a few chips for reduced space/heat output/power usage, with a solid-state data storage system all in a slim package that is about the size and weight of today's regular LCDs. At that point, it won't be an issue. Until then, R&D money spent on tablet PCs and wireless displays based on current technology is going to be wasted. I, and most consumers, will not give up our fully-featured laptops for reduced-quality tablets that cost more and do less. There is virtually no consumer market for these items, because the technology isn't going to deliver what people expect, or at a reasonable price. Tablets are designed for the kind of data-entry you see in warehouses, with more checkboxes and drop-down menus. Handwriting is about the worst possible human interface option, maybe second only to speech. I don't see it as a benefit in any way, shape, or form in my life.

My solution to screen-sharing so far has been much cheaper... I turn or hand my laptop to someone else to show them something. It weighs less than 5 pounds so it can be one-handed, and can burn DVDs to boot. It cost less than any tablet PC out there, and the screen is bigger than most of them. The 12" Powerbook packs more into its tiny form factor than any tablet PC out there, and I defy you to tell me that it is more cumbersome to use.
 

fpnc

macrumors 68000
Oct 30, 2002
1,979
134
San Diego, CA
Originally posted by DGFan
Ars just did a review [...on the Viewsonic wireless display...] that I can sum up in one word: slow.

Yes, they even tried Microsoft's remote desktop with a 1Gbps WIRED network and they found that AVI (i.e. movie) playback was largely unacceptable. So, I don't see any way that Airport Extreme (54Mbps theoretical, in typical applications maybe only 20 to 30 Mbps) could handle a rich graphical user experience, certainly not movies or video games and they'd also probably have to scale back on the Quartz and Aqua candy.

It would probably be okay for web browsing and text, but that might be about it.

Besides, any decent wireless display would require its own processor and local memory which would make iMacs (or PowerBooks) even more pricey.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,397
12,520
Re: Re: Re: Model Lines

Originally posted by Spock
Come on lets do a reality check here, How long did we wait for a G4 iMac?? The G5 Just came out, Apple will not put this in the iMac until the newness on the Powermac dies down. And a Tablet come on who is the CEO?? Steve would hate seeing finger prints and pen marks all over his screens

The reality check is people are not buying the G4s in desktops. The G4 is old and now has the stigma as Apple's old chip. I want a new Mac and I want a G5. I do not want the beast that is the PowerMac. Money is not my concern.
 

wilco

macrumors newbie
Apr 29, 2003
25
0
Originally posted by mojowantshappy
One thing, in order to transmit uncompressed video at 1024x768 you would need bandwith that could support transfer speeds of roughly 3 MB/sec, or 24.5 Mbps. That is a lot of bandwith, and I don't think that 802.11g can really handle it despite the fact that it can theoretically handle 54 Mbps.

Let's discuss this. What impedes 802.11g to the point where it can't handle 50% of its theoretical rate?
 

luffe

macrumors newbie
Oct 28, 2003
3
0
Copenhagen
After reading some of the posts I get the impression that a lot of people would like to see the iMac with a tablet screen that is wirelessly connected to the iMac "base".

I can't really see this being a major revolution. Technically... maybe. But for the mass consumer market I don't really see the product utility. It would proably be more expensive and I don't think the mass market would be likely to invest in such feature. Personally,

1) I would find it difficault to sit or lay in a good position where the screen is upright in front of me. Either I would have to hold the screen in front of me or I would have to watch the screen from above.

2) The product utility that a tablet would provide for me, would be things that I wouldn't be able to do on a laptop as easily. Eg. taking notes and drawing graphs... Situations where I need these features would be away from home, making the tablet iMac solution somewhat impossible.

As MacFan-NJ71 earlier mentioned, a 12" PB that could be turned into a tablet would be nice: Ultra-mobility, the tablet features when needed, laptop features when needed... But unfortunately only a PC-copy, just with a little more style :p
 

pjkelnhofer

macrumors 6502a
Sep 8, 2003
641
0
Boston
Originally posted by luffe
After reading some of the posts I get the impression that a lot of people would like to see the iMac with a tablet screen that is wirelessly connected to the iMac "base".

I can't really see this being a major revolution. Technically... maybe. But for the mass consumer market I don't really see the product utility. It would proably be more expensive and I don't think the mass market would be likely to invest in such feature.
I don't see why this would be so expensive. Is the cost of a tablet in the touchscreen or in the form-factor? Airport and BlueTooth technology are becoming standards that people will soon expect in their computers.

Personally,

1) I would find it difficault to sit or lay in a good position where the screen is upright in front of me. Either I would have to hold the screen in front of me or I would have to watch the screen from above.

Again, I would I think it would be cool if it were a touchscreen. You could hold it in your lap to surf, email, etc. It would not be designed to upright in front of you.


2) The product utility that a tablet would provide for me, would be things that I wouldn't be able to do on a laptop as easily. Eg. taking notes and drawing graphs... Situations where I need these features would be away from home, making the tablet iMac solution somewhat impossible.

I think we are talking about too different things. One is a tablet computer. The other is a computer with a wireless touchscreen for a monitor.
 

~Shard~

macrumors P6
Jun 4, 2003
18,377
48
1123.6536.5321
If Apple releases a G5 iMac so soon (relatively) after the chip's introduction, I'm afraid the cost might be rather high when combined with new hardware, new form factor, etc. I could be completely wrong on this, but if so, then this kind of defeats the purpose of having an affordable consumer model.
 

Steven1621

macrumors 6502a
Apr 10, 2003
796
0
Connecticut
apple is missing a mid range desktop computer. the 15in imac is good and so is the emac, but some type of computer like the cube might fill in a mid range nicely.
 

mojowantshappy

macrumors newbie
Dec 10, 2003
5
0
Originally posted by wilco
Let's discuss this. What impedes 802.11g to the point where it can't handle 50% of its theoretical rate?

Well, firstly, I believe that is just throughput, how much can actually go through the base station. So, if you had someone else using your Airport it would be very possible to encounter bandwith congestion.

Now, I admit I don't know much about the discrepancy between raw data throughput vs. real life bandwith, but I have read many articles that the actual bandwith you will get on an 802.11g card is around 11 Mbps on an uncongested network. There are plenty of articles to quote from, but I don't want to be spewing out facts that mean little to me. Here is a great discussion on slashdot that can shed some light on the subject where I can't. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/09/172214&mode=thread&tid=137&tid=193

Lastly, have you ever used a 802.11b network? You know that the throughput is 11 Mbps, but the minute you walk five feet away from the base station you are knocked down to 5 Mbps or so. The stability of high bandwith on an 802.11g network will be a big issue. I am not knocking it, but 802.11g just isn't suited for video transfer.
 

kangaroo

macrumors regular
Feb 5, 2003
144
0
Originally posted by the_dalex
The amount of data that flows from a system to a monitor is incredible. We need that data rate to run a display with the resolution and refresh that we are used to, and wireless technology isn't even CLOSE. I won't even go into the problems with the concept of transmitting video data in packets over 802.11g, just give that up right now.

The consumer doesn't really want a detachable display. The consumer doesn't really want a tablet computer. The consumer doesn't really want their computer to record television. They may think that these are neat ideas, but they aren't all rushing out to buy these things. These are niche products that the average consumer isn't really asking for, or when they actually take them home, they are disappointed by the lack of other features that they are accustomed to. Great, my computer can record TV? What do I do while it's busy encoding and writing the stream, and any interruption will cause it to drop frames? Go watch live TV? I should have bought a Tivo, then I could do whatever I wanted whenever I wanted...

There will be a day when we can fit an entire computer system on a few chips for reduced space/heat output/power usage, with a solid-state data storage system all in a slim package that is about the size and weight of today's regular LCDs. At that point, it won't be an issue. Until then, R&D money spent on tablet PCs and wireless displays based on current technology is going to be wasted. I, and most consumers, will not give up our fully-featured laptops for reduced-quality tablets that cost more and do less. There is virtually no consumer market for these items, because the technology isn't going to deliver what people expect, or at a reasonable price. Tablets are designed for the kind of data-entry you see in warehouses, with more checkboxes and drop-down menus. Handwriting is about the worst possible human interface option, maybe second only to speech. I don't see it as a benefit in any way, shape, or form in my life.

My solution to screen-sharing so far has been much cheaper... I turn or hand my laptop to someone else to show them something. It weighs less than 5 pounds so it can be one-handed, and can burn DVDs to boot. It cost less than any tablet PC out there, and the screen is bigger than most of them. The 12" Powerbook packs more into its tiny form factor than any tablet PC out there, and I defy you to tell me that it is more cumbersome to use.

Good post!
 

Spock

macrumors 68040
Jan 6, 2002
3,398
7,141
Vulcan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Model Lines

Originally posted by rdowns
The reality check is people are not buying the G4s in desktops. The G4 is old and now has the stigma as Apple's old chip. I want a new Mac and I want a G5. I do not want the beast that is the PowerMac. Money is not my concern.

The G4 is a old chip and so was the G3 and we just recently seen the last of it. The G5 also generates heat, the current iMac case would have to be revised to acomodate a larger heatsink and fans. But, that could explain the rumored case revisions. On the other hand, why would Apple update the iMac to 20" if they are reforming the thing in less than a month? The Xserve is probaly going to be Apple's next G5 if not a Rev.B pMac G5. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a iMac G5 BUT we do have to think about this. Oh well we will find out soon.
 

sjk

macrumors 6502a
May 2, 2003
826
0
Eugene
Originally posted by rdowns
I'd pay $2199 if they gave me 512MB RAM and a better video card.
I'd like to see 1-DIMM 512MB RAM standard, with a 1-DIMM 1GB BTO option.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.