23-inch iMac on September 12th?

[sigamy]

This whole iMac-at-any-cost thing is starting to really bug me.

You are talking about paying through the nose for a screen married to a computer with no possability of divorce in future. Makes absolutly no sense to me whatsoever. I don't get it. What is with the fascination with the computer behind the screen? I'm sorry but I am starting to lose it. Forgive me.

Ok, we get it...you don't like computers integrated with screens. Why are you posting in an iMac thread?

ps--Have you heard of notebook computers? Just think of all those poeple who have a screen married to a computer with no possibility of divorce...

 

[2ndPath]

ps--Have you heard of notebook computers? Just think of all those poeple who have a screen married to a computer with no possibility of divorce...

Yes, the iMac combines the disadvantages of a notebook with the disadvantages of a desktop computer.

 

[macintel4me]

I say separate the computer from the screen for the next iMac design so folks can choose their screen apart from the computer - even provide two DVI ports including one Dual DVI like on the Pro models. That way everyone can pick and choose their screens, Apple can sell more monitors, and even allow people to buy an iMac without a screen. How's that for a radical idea?

That's a good idea, but not an iMac product. That's a Mac Mini Pro, Mac Pro Mini.

 

[BenRoethig]

Yeah, wouldn't that be terrible if Apple lost sales to - Apple!!!

Come on, people who need a Mac Pro are going to buy a Mac Pro.

People who need an iMac will buy an iMac.

The small overlap between these users isn't enough to justify or kill off a product. It's still going to be a duo (not quad), lack PCI, lack the number of RAM slots, etc, etc.

They're different markets.

And the potential switchers will buy a PC. As might some frustrated lower end PowerMac users. If the Mac is to expand and I don't mean in little .1 increments, we need to stop catering solely to traditional Mac users.

 

[Multimedia]

So This Is About Buying A Lot Of Style, Not A Lot Of Power?

Ok, we get it...you don't like computers integrated with screens. Why are you posting in an iMac thread?

ps--Have you heard of notebook computers? Just think of all those poeple who have a screen married to a computer with no possibility of divorce...

Sorry to intrude on your party. I thought I was welcome even if I don't like the concept of paying a lot of money for a little power with a lot of style. My bad.

Yes, the iMac combines the disadvantages of a notebook with the disadvantages of a desktop computer.

Well put. Now all I have to do is figure out what that means. But I think it's a joke and I laughed.

 

[AidenShaw]

This Merom continuing in iMacs is nothing less than a NIGHTMARE.

A nightmare would be a hotter, noisier iMac with a Conroe.

I say separate the computer from the screen for the next iMac design so folks can choose their screen apart from the computer - even provide two DVI ports including one Dual DVI like on the Pro models. That way everyone can pick and choose their screens, Apple can sell more monitors, and even allow people to buy an iMac without a screen. How's that for a radical idea?

A "screenless iMac" would be a screenless laptop, basically.

It might be interesting, though.

- "screenless iMac" - very small form factor box (size of a college-edition dictionary book), no expansion

- New Form-Factor Conroe Mini-Tower/Home-Theatre-PC - DVD player size, modest expansion (dual 3.5" disks, memory, graphics)

 

[ergle2]

This Merom continuing in iMacs is nothing less than a NIGHTMARE.

It's also bizarre when we take into account that Merom and Conroe perform similarly at like clockspeeds, and that Conroe is considerably cheaper than Merom. The big differences are down to power management, FSB speed and Conroe comes with higher clockspeeds.

The only thing I can think of is that the redesign costs (vs Merom being a drop-in replacement) would be too high for a short-term upgrade, e.g. Apple plans something which a new chipset (Bearlake?) next year.

Bearlake is due 2Q07, but isn't terribly interesting from an iMac point of view. 2x16 PCIe for SLI/Crossfire isn't likely to find its way into an iMac any time soon, so that just leaves DDR3 support. Whoopee. It will also offer integrated DX10-compatible GPU versions but given the x3000's reputed performance (or lack there-of), it wouldn't see a likely iMac candidate either.

So, unless Apple has reason to believe they need to redesign the case for Conroe due to heat or whatever, this is the only conclusion I can draw -- especially when one bears in mind that Merom is in short supply right now, and Apple would do better to be dropping them in MBP's rather than desktops, and that Conroe should be cheaper for Apple as well as faster...

Well, it's either that or Conroe requiring louder cooling is the problem -- I remember reading, many years ago, what essentially amounted to a mini-rant during an interview with Jobs, about the evilness of fans...

 

[BenRoethig]

then the truth of the matter is this: You are not one of us. You aren't sold on the Mac platform, and therefore you sold out to PC. I look sometimes over the fence at the PC platform and the deals i can get, and then I actually bought one 2 months ago, and sold it in 2 weeks since I despised the OS. I applaud you for making a choice, I am just sad to see a person on MacRumors who wasn't 100% sold on Mac.

It's always easier to blame the user who thinks for himself than admit that Apple is doing something wrong. Apple failed him, not the other way around.

jeez louise! - its a computer, not a religion.

chillax

For about half of those on this board it is a religion.

 

[syriana]

So what if Apple is trying to purposfully create this gapping hole, only to come along a few weeks later and plug it with a pizza box called simply "Mac". Maybe the "and one more thing"?

OR:
what if Apple doesn't want us to be able to upgrade our machines on the cheap?? Your imac is obsolete, buy an all-new one!! More $$$ for them...
The big "hole" between mac mini and mac pro could habe been filled a long time ago with 3.5 HD, dedicated GPU etc etc . upgradable but not pro headless machine can exist even before Conroe...

 

[jouster]

ps--Have you heard of notebook computers? Just think of all those poeple who have a screen married to a computer with no possibility of divorce...

Exactly. And there is a solution: allow video in on the iMacs, so a future stand-alone computer could use them as a monitor.

In any case, the obsoletion effect is way overstated.

 

[sbarton]

Ok, I know this is an iMac thread, but I was thinking about how Apple might fill the midrange gap they have. The Mac mini is a decent system that one could start out with. If they would design it with a bus connector on the bottom with a trap door they could offer a mini tower expansion case. This would be a box with the same finish as the mini and be maybe 12 inches high and just a tad deeper than the mini dimensions. You would snap the mini right on top of it and it would provide space for an additional HD and a full size PCIe video card, one PCI slot, plus a small power supply and fan.

I like the idea of the 23" iMac - it gets me closer to the specs I want in my next Mac system. I think I would need to see it with a top end video card though because I think that is the limiting factor on how long the system will last. A top end ati 1950 would take a system like that through a few years.

 

[CEAbiscuit]

Would never buy a 23" imac... at that point just get a macpro with a really nice monitor or 4.

 

[QCassidy352]

You may be correct but I don't see anything in your links that compares a 2.13 conroe to a 2.33 merom.

The 2.33 merom scored an overall sysmark 2004 test of 260. The only Conroes that they show are 1.86, 2.4, and 2.66.
The 1.86 scored 255 which is less than the merom 2.33. And the 2.4 conroe scored 322 which is more than the 2.33 merom. So how does this dispute that a 2.33 merom is faster than a 2.13 conroe? It might be but this doesn't really confirm it. In fact it makes me think that the Conroe and Merom perform pretty similar with the Conroe most likely being faster in this particular benchmark.

LOL you're kidding, right? The 1.83 Conroe has .98x the score of 2.33 merom. The 2.4 scores 1.24x the 2.33 merom. It's not exactly rocket science to figure out that a 2.16 conroe would be more than 2% faster than the 1.83 conroe, and thus faster than the 2.33 merom.

Also, there's not going to be a headless "mac." I've said it so many times that I'm not going to repeat my argument again... but it's not going to happen. Not on the 5th, not on the 12th, not in the foreseeable future. You heard it here first.

 

[50548]

A nightmare would be a hotter, noisier iMac with a Conroe.


A "screenless iMac" would be a screenless laptop, basically.

It might be interesting, though.

- "screenless iMac" - very small form factor box (size of a college-edition dictionary book), no expansion

- New Form-Factor Conroe Mini-Tower/Home-Theatre-PC - DVD player size, modest expansion (dual 3.5" disks, memory, graphics)

First: no new iMac, either Merom or Conroe, would be hotter than an iMac G5 or even a Core Duo.

Second: The "new form factor Mac" doesn't exist, and will not be launched unless Apple decides to make a new Anniversary Mac.

The headless Mac is rabidly desired by a select few here in MR, but has no bearing whatsoever on the normal and SMASHING majority of consumers out there. The need for expansion has always been a lame excuse, especially when you can do practically EVERYTHING with an AIO Mac.

FW is there, USB is there, mike/cam/speakers are there...want more? There is a very good GPU which is enough for years to come. There is a HD with 250Gb, more than suitable for any average user. And there is enough speed to go through any task in no time. Sorry, almost nobody needs a double-SLI card or a fiber channel interface...

Apple is wise in following that path, instead of bowing to a few crazy geeks that have no clue about market strategy. It has suffered the Performa/pizza box syndrome before, and the headless Mac would be no more than a redux of that, sorry; it would pose a dilemma on every consumer out there, confused between a great AIO desktop, a reasonable box, and an expensive tower.

 

[macintel4me]

Also, there's not going to be a headless "mac."

The Mac Mini is a headless mac.
The Mac Pro is a headless mac.

What are you really trying to say??

 

[blybug]

You are talking about paying through the nose for a screen married to a computer with no possability of divorce in future. Makes absolutly no sense to me whatsoever. I don't get it. What is with the fascination with the computer behind the screen? I'm sorry but I am starting to lose it. Forgive me.

The beauty thing is that even though the whole banana may be "obsolete" in the eyes of the cutting edge Mac user within a year (or for many as soon as they take it out of the box), the hardware is so reliable that the machine can always be re-purposed when you decide to upgrade. Sell it on eBay. Give it to a school. Use it as a second machine, give it to one of the kids or Grandma.

All 3 of my kids have their own "computer married to a screen"...blueberry, grape, and strawberry iMacs circa 1999, running smooth and snappy OS9 with plenty of educational software, internet access, and Appleworks. Perfect for a 9, 6, and 4 year old. If one does eventually go belly-up I can find another on eBay for less than $100. And I bet today's soon-to-be-obsolete all-in-one iMac would be perfect for them when they are 15, 12, and 10.

 

[CJM]

The beauty thing is that even though the whole banana may be "obsolete" in the eyes of the cutting edge Mac user within a year (or for many as soon as they take it out of the box), the hardware is so reliable that the machine can always be re-purposed when you decide to upgrade. Sell it on eBay. Give it to a school. Use it as a second machine, give it to one of the kids or Grandma.

All 3 of my kids have their own "computer married to a screen"...blueberry, grape, and strawberry iMacs circa 1999, running smooth and snappy OS9 with plenty of educational software, internet access, and Appleworks. Perfect for a 9, 6, and 4 year old. If one does eventually go belly-up I can find another on eBay for less than $100. And I bet today's soon-to-be-obsolete all-in-one iMac would be perfect for them when they are 15, 12, and 10.

Trust me, when your kid is 15, they *will* want something better

I know I do. I'm 16 and looking at getting the 23" incher.

Oh and this is great news! Though I wonder why it wouldn't be the conroe...

Also it will be releasing a week before my 17th, even better!

 

[Evangelion]

Um, hate to break it to ya, but Apple sells television shows.

hate to break it to you, but the sell televion-shows in the usa, while rest of the world gets basically nothing

 

[Spagolli94]

First: no new iMac, either Merom or Conroe, would be hotter than an iMac G5 or even a Core Duo.

Second: The "new form factor Mac" doesn't exist, and will not be launched unless Apple decides to make a new Anniversary Mac.

The headless Mac is rabidly desired by a select few here in MR, but has no bearing whatsoever on the normal and SMASHING majority of consumers out there. The need for expansion has always been a lame excuse, especially when you can do practically EVERYTHING with an AIO Mac.

FW is there, USB is there, mike/cam/speakers are there...want more? There is a very good GPU which is enough for years to come. There is a HD with 250Gb, more than suitable for any average user. And there is enough speed to go through any task in no time. Sorry, almost nobody needs a double-SLI card or a fiber channel interface...

Apple is wise in following that path, instead of bowing to a few crazy geeks that have no clue about market strategy. It has suffered the Performa/pizza box syndrome before, and the headless Mac would be no more than a redux of that, sorry; it would pose a dilemma on every consumer out there, confused between a great AIO desktop, a reasonable box, and an expensive tower.

It's nice to see somebody gets it! The type of user that actually chat on this board is probably less than 5% of Apple's target market. Professionals included. I've worked at more than my fair share of ad agencies in my day and my mother was a school teacher (Macs were huge in her education market). Anyway, I would say less than 1% of them would have a clue what Mermom or Conroe meant. They don't follow update cycles. They would never dream of upgrading a hard drive, adding a second monitor or swapping a processor. Lets face it... Most of us on here are GEEKS. I mean that in a nice way. However, us geeks represent a VERY small maket for Apple. Don't believe me? Just go to your local store and talk to the people who are shopping there.

Apple's whole strategy has always been simplicity.... to provide a simple shopping experience, with logical choices and a good, well-rounded consumer machine that does everything well. For the average user, all of the options available in the PC market can be overwhelming. Imagine creating a BTO computer on Dell if you're not really sure what a GB, RAM, or Ghz are.

If you want a high-performance machine with all the latest bells and whistles, upgradable, etc, Apple has one. It's called the Mac Pro. If you want a consumer-level machine that doesn't force you into using a built-in Apple display, Apple has that too. It's called the Mac Mini.

 

[sigamy]

The headless Mac is rabidly desired by a select few here in MR, but has no bearing whatsoever on the normal and SMASHING majority of consumers out there. The need for expansion has always been a lame excuse, especially when you can do practically EVERYTHING with an AIO Mac.

FW is there, USB is there, mike/cam/speakers are there...want more? There is a very good GPU which is enough for years to come. There is a HD with 250Gb, more than suitable for any average user. And there is enough speed to go through any task in no time. Sorry, almost nobody needs a double-SLI card or a fiber channel interface...

Apple is wise in following that path, instead of bowing to a few crazy geeks that have no clue about market strategy. It has suffered the Performa/pizza box syndrome before, and the headless Mac would be no more than a redux of that, sorry; it would pose a dilemma on every consumer out there, confused between a great AIO desktop, a reasonable box, and an expensive tower.

Exactly. Perfect post. Ever since the iMac DV the iMacs have included more than enough power and capabilities for the average user. I just edited a 30 minute short film with FCE and Soundtrack Pro on my 17" iMac G4.

 

[sigamy]

Sorry to intrude on your party. I thought I was welcome even if I don't like the concept of paying a lot of money for a little power with a lot of style. My bad.

Hey, I know what these forums are for...I've been here for a long time. It's just funny (not really) that I'm still reading headless iMac rants and the power vs. style comments. I had to check the date on your post--I thought a post from 2003 got thrown in here somehow.

 

[DrFrankTM]

First: no new iMac, either Merom or Conroe, would be hotter than an iMac G5 or even a Core Duo.

Second: The "new form factor Mac" doesn't exist, and will not be launched unless Apple decides to make a new Anniversary Mac.

The headless Mac is rabidly desired by a select few here in MR, but has no bearing whatsoever on the normal and SMASHING majority of consumers out there. The need for expansion has always been a lame excuse, especially when you can do practically EVERYTHING with an AIO Mac.

FW is there, USB is there, mike/cam/speakers are there...want more? There is a very good GPU which is enough for years to come. There is a HD with 250Gb, more than suitable for any average user. And there is enough speed to go through any task in no time. Sorry, almost nobody needs a double-SLI card or a fiber channel interface...

Apple is wise in following that path, instead of bowing to a few crazy geeks that have no clue about market strategy. It has suffered the Performa/pizza box syndrome before, and the headless Mac would be no more than a redux of that, sorry; it would pose a dilemma on every consumer out there, confused between a great AIO desktop, a reasonable box, and an expensive tower.

EDIT: By the time I finished writing my rant, sigamy and Spagolli94 said pretty much the same thing. My apologogies for the repeat.

I have to agree with you that the average non-gaming Joe will be pretty happy with an iMac. If Apple can fit a decent graphics card in a soon-to-come 23-inch iMac, it could also satisfy the demands of a large number of gamers. Like many here, I assume the iMac will switch to a desktop chip when they replace the Merom, so it will probably become an even more kick-ass machine around the time Leopard is released. By that, I mean relative to the rest of the desktop market. (In the meantime, with Merom, I assume that gamers will prefer something else, but not everyone is a gamer.) And if you already have a screen, Apple will basically be upselling you to a dual-screen system if you keep the extra screen and connect it to the iMac.

Sure, eventually, you'll upgrade and you'll have to find a way to recycle it, but since it's an all-in-one, I think it's much more likely to find some use somewhere than a headless PC whose screen has been stolen by a younger sibling. I've given my not-so-old iMac G5 to my parents and it should serve them well for the foreseeable future. If I had another one to get rid of, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be too tough to find buyers: Macs are built to last, and not everyone needs the latest and greatest hardware.

So, in conclusion, I guess the gap between a Merom-based iMac and the Mac Pro is pretty big, but Merom's replacement should close it enough that Apple won't feel the need to offer an in-between model. Apple could easily offer a Mac Pro with only one Woodcrest, but the existence of a less-than-quad Mac Pro would take away from the aura of power that the Mac Pro has at the moment. Sure, quad-core is too much for most people, but I think it's part of Apple's branding effort, i.e. if you get a Mac Pro, you can be sure that it won't suck.

 

[ChrisME]

You are talking about paying through the nose for a screen married to a computer with no possability of divorce in future. Makes absolutly no sense to me whatsoever. I don't get it. What is with the fascination with the computer behind the screen? I'm sorry but I am starting to lose it. Forgive me.

...I don't like the concept of paying a lot of money for a little power with a lot of style.

A lot of people see enough value in the AIO form factor that they're willing to accept having the computer tied to the monitor, just like a lot of people see enough value in the small form factor of the iPod that they're willing to accept not having a user-serviceable battery. I don't think it's fair to imply that all those people are choosing style over substance just because it's not a tradeoff that makes sense to you.

I'm actually thinking about making the move from a G4 tower + LCD to an iMac. After living with a big, hot, noisy tower, the idea of having a compact, cool, whisper-quiet iMac is appealing enough to me that I'm willing to live with the tradeoff of being forced to upgrade the computer and monitor together down the road.

 

[QCassidy352]

The Mac Mini is a headless mac.
The Mac Pro is a headless mac.

What are you really trying to say??

Notice that "mac" was in quotes. As in a lineup composed of "mac mini," "mac," and "mac pro." I've never thought apple would call any one model "mac," but some around here apparently do. It does fit nicely in to the naming structure, but is a bad idea for other reasons.

"headless imac" is a misnomer because people really want an upgradeable tower, not just an imac with the screen cut off.

BRLawyer, well said. That's what I've been repeating for weeks on this forum but didn't have the energy to post again.

 

[dropadrop]

I'm extremly happy if Apple chooses to use Merom in the imac. If they would have gone for Conroe, it would surely have been one of the lesser models with 2MB of Cache vs. the 4MB in the Merom models they will be using.

While Apple has used a G5 in the Imac, which happens to produce a bit LESS (according to IBM documents linked to at macnn forums) heat then the Conroe does at full blast, it was really hard to cool down. Conroe features better powersaving features then the G5 did, but as soon as you would do something taxing with the computer it would start whining bigtime.

I find even my macbook pro to be too loud. I understand it can be hard to cool down such a hot processor in such a thin case, but that's the exact reason Apple should be using the Merom in the imac. Having a bit of a thicker chassis allows Apple to cool down the processor fairly silently even when you are doing something heavy which lasts for a longer time then a few minutes. For me this is extremly important (I'm allergic to noise).

People are really exagerating the differance in performance between the Conroe and Merom. Actually I'm getting a feeling people are confusing Merom to be some future offspring of the current Core Duo which is certainly not the case. The biggest differance is the lower fsb, which will NOT make a big differance in most applications. Merom has a LARGER L2 cache in the lower end models, with Conroe you have to go up to 2.4Ghz before you receive 4MB of L2, Merom gets it alot sooner.

I do appreciate the idea of having cheaper cpu's that are available at higher speeds (the only valid reason to pick Conroe over Merom), but this is not your normal desktop computer, and in my opinion that would have been a halfbaked solution.

What most people here seem to be wanting is a small Cube or similar, and I can understand that well. Both the Conroe and Merom offer well enough performance for me, but if Apple would have gone with Conroe I would have gotten one of the current Imacs to be sure it's not noisy.

Don't you think Apple would have thought this through? Sure they would like to have a better profit margin / higher sales by using the Conroe of they felt it was feasable, and coolable in the imac case...