23-inch iMac on September 12th?

[dsnort]

You misunderstand me Evangelion, I am arguing neither for or against a Mac minitower. As my iMac fills my needs in a computer perfectly, (and doesn't take up near as much room as the minitower it replaced), I really don't care one way or the other. But many people on this thread are arguing for a minitower by throwing around assertions they cannot prove, and using arguments that are logically flawed. And since it's raining cats and PCs outside, and there is nothing worth watching on TV.......

There are AIO-PC's out there, and there's nothing preventing consumers from buying them. But for some reason they are NOT buying them. WHy is that?

Because they are not common. My point being that you argued that a minitower Mac would sell because minitower PCs are the most popular form. This is a fallacy of logic, ( Fallacy of Accident ), in that your argument did not allow for the fact that a monitor hooked to a box hooked to a keyboard is the most common form of PC going back for decades. It is the most widely available form of desktop PC, and usually the lowest priced. It does not necessarily follow that it is the form that drives it's popularity. This would be similar to me saying that a minitower Mac would fail because the G4 Cube failed. Accurate on the face, but fails to consider that the Cube was a flawed product.

Propably, but they are NOT all-in-one's, they are those dreaded minitowers. Of course when people buy a desktop-computer, they want to use a monitor with it. So they get a monitor, they just don't want the monitor in the computer.

Same as above, plus my feeling and having seen people buy these bundled machines to replace a current PC, monnitor and all.

Compared to typical PC's in the same price-range, it is quite mediocre. Yes the design kicks ass (if you like AIO's that is), but it's GPU (for example) is quite slow.

I quess different people look at it differently. To me this computer is very fast, almost instantaneous, don't know that going any faster would be beneficial to me. Never have to wait on the graphics either. Now, if I needed it for gaming or some other graphics intensive usage, I'd probably look at a MacPro.

That is the exact same argument people used when discussing the possibility of a cheap Mac. "Apple knows what they are doing, nobody wants a cheap Mac". Then they released Mac Mini. And Apple has released products in the past that didn't sell. The Cube anyone? So Apple doing something, or not doing something is not the ultimate argument for or against something. They might release the "Mac pro Mini", they just haven't done it YET. And just because Apple does something, does not mean that people actually want it (like the Cube).

If Apple released the minitower two weeks from now (for example), would all your arguments fly out the window?

None of my arguments would fly out the window. The point is that I have no way of knowing what the market for a minitower would be, and neither do you! The fact that there are 30, 50 100, 1000 people that would come on this forum and argue for a minitower is simply not statistically significant. There are people whose job it is to estimate what the market would be, and what the impact to Apples sales would be. If selling X number of minitowers costs you Y number of iMac or MacPro sales, is it worth it? To date, these market numbers have not been shared with any of us.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

We played Space Invaders when it was new. We remember Pac-Man mania. The C64, the Nintendo NES, the Commodore Amiga, we owned them all.

And my PoS iMac G4 can play all the games you mentioned above plus many more...

Apple does what Apple wants to do. If that means leaving a gap in their lineup, then they will. They want you to buy an iMac or macbook because they're a solution to your "digital lifestyle", not your gaming addiction or needs.

I'm not with or against anybody, I'm simply pointing out Apple's MO over the past few years.... If they see there's money to be made and it makes sense for them to create a mid-level, semi-customizable headless machine, then they will. All the arguing in the world on this forum will not change what Apple will do with regards to the iMac.

 

[dropadrop]

Since when did wanting to play games on a computer denote that they need a "Gamers Rig". Hell I just want to use Xplane and play Warbirds a few times a week. These arent even cutting edge but require a nice upper mid-range card to give best results with reasonable settings. Do you people really think that OttoMattic is a game of normal complexity and everything else is just "crazy geek stuff"?

And yes, I think what most are saying is that the "iMac" doesn't necessarily need to have a different video card in it so much as they are saying that Apple current consumer computer doesn't cut it for everyone.

But then, some here seem to have the "your either with us or against us" attitude for some reason. Where have I heard that before..

My point was addressed towards the "I want an X1900" messages just prior to it. That is a videocard producing more heat alone then the current videocard and processor combined. In the same post there was also a wish that the processor would be swapped for one that produces twice the heat compared to the normal one.

If you really try to understand what I was saying, it was that the iMac chassis will never allow you to use one of the hottest videocards, or processors available. It just can't happen.

The loudest advocates in this thread are directing their computer wishes towards the iMac, but not understanding that it just can't be done. To cater for even lower top end graphics like a basic X1900 you need to have a case that allows usage of larger fans to remove the heat.

If you understood I have something against gamers, or think upgrading the videocard in the iMac is bad, think again. I am however a realist, and have built several computers with the aim (during the last two years) being maximum silence. In that process I've learned alot about percepted silence (silent for some is unacceptable for others), and also about how hard it is to make a REALLY silent computer (which my last one was). I'm biased in a sence that I want a really silent computer, but I'm also a realist by understanding what you can cool even remotely silently and what you can't.

The fact that the most respected silent computer related hardware site has selected the Intel iMac to be the most silent out of the box computer they have seen proves Apple wants the computers to be silent (it can't be a coincidence). This also severly limits the choice of components they can put in it. I believe these are logical conclusions based on facts. Wanting something else won't change it...

And I have stated Apple has a gap in their lineup, and that gap is wider then ever. Personally I would not be in the least bit suprised if Apple did release a smaller form factor version of the Mac Pro. If they wanted to, the only thing they would really have to design themselves is the case.

 

[HecubusPro]

Who are you to tell ME, a Mac user of 15 years that I need to go buy a DELL?? I have hundreds, if not thousands of dollars invested in software for the Mac and your going to tell me to pony up the $2500 for some 65lb monster that I dont need and just "get over it" and go buy a Dell?

The arrogance in some of these comments is just stunning.

I would never buy a Dell, anyway. I build my own crappy PC's.

 

[ergle2]

And my PoS iMac G4 can play all the games you mentioned above plus many more...

Note past tense. Played. We've moved on. Games are more sophisticated.

Apple does what Apple wants to do. If that means leaving a gap in their lineup, then they will. They want you to buy their machines because they're a solution to your "digital lifestyle", not your gaming addiction or needs.

I'm not with or against anybody, I'm simply pointing out Apple's MO over the past few years....

They're not a solution to my "digital lifestyle". That's my point. I want to give them money right now because I really like their OS, and that's tied to their hardware. Fair enough, I'm not about to start screaming they sell it for generic x86 a la Windows because I can see why that's not a great move for them.

But I ain't throwing cash at them if their systems don't fit my needs. As has been suggested in other posts, (sometimes in a rather condescending manner), I'll go elsewhere. I've often built my own systems in the past, I can do it again in a couple of hours for not a lot of cash, so...

 

[asphalt-proof]

Note past tense. Played. We've moved on. Games are more sophisticated.



They're not a solution to my "digital lifestyle". That's my point. I want to give them money right now because I really like their OS, and that's tied to their hardware. Fair enough, I'm not about to start screaming they sell it for generic x86 a la Windows because I can see why that's not a great move for them.

But I ain't throwing cash at them if their systems don't fit my needs. As has been suggested in other posts, (sometimes in a rather condescending manner), I'll go elsewhere. I've often built my own systems in the past, I can do it again in a couple of hours for not a lot of cash, so...

So why are you wasting time here... get to it!

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

Note past tense. Played. We've moved on. Games are more sophisticated.

I hear you... my iMac (of course it's way old....) can't even handle Baldur's Gate II.

They're not a solution to my "digital lifestyle". That's my point. I want to give them money right now because I really like their OS, and that's tied to their hardware. Fair enough, I'm not about to start screaming they sell it for generic x86 a la Windows because I can see why that's not a great move for them.

But I ain't throwing cash at them if their systems don't fit my needs. As has been suggested in other posts, (sometimes in a rather condescending manner), I'll go elsewhere. I've often built my own systems in the past, I can do it again in a couple of hours for not a lot of cash, so...

But I think they sell the iMac based on the whole iLife, "digital lifestyle" thing. Their OS just happens to be the vehicle in which they deliver the "digital lifestyle". Hopefully Apple does recognize that there is a segment of people out there (and I have absolutely no idea how big that segment is or isn't, unlike others on this place who *know* it's only a minute percentage or swear that that particular demographic is gigantic) that do want something more than the iMac but don't want a pro workstation.

If that mid-level computer were to come out, I think even a low-end, "digital lifestyle" user like me would even entertain that vs. an iMac. But, going way back to some of the original posts, when and if the new iMac comes out w/ a 23-inch Merom - that configuration makes sense to me based on all the arguments I've heard in previous posts (heat, no redesigned MoBo needed, etc.)

 

[dropadrop]

To put things into perspective:

When silentpcreview.com tested the 17" imac, they found that at idle the whole computer (screen dimmed down) used up 33W of power. Under full load with the screen bright it was about 79W (using my memory as their site is down due to moving to a new server). This power was measured from the wall, and considering that most powersupplies are under 85% efficient, this would mean the current iMac (including everything in it) use up 67W under load (as much as the Conroe processor alone). Notebooks use up less power, the iMac get's away with this due to the larger case. This does not mean they could get away with even double the heat.

The top model X1900 uses over 100W under load
Basic X1900 models use 75W under load
The Conroes (not the XE) use 65W under load
Memory, motherboard, display and hardisks use up power.

When planning a computer, the starting point regarding thermal design has to be the maximum heat it will produce. Apple can't design it thinking "nobody will max out the processor and videocard" because the reality is that people will install 3dmark, run it in a loop and expect the computer to survive (and not sound like a chainsaw).

As I said before, there are very valid reasons for going with Merom, and for not including a high end videocard. People wanting these have to dream of another product. This is not a "be with me or against me" thing, it's just simple reality.

edit:

Silentpcreview is back up, here's the imac review:

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article594-page1.html

 

[Multimedia]

iMac Design Change Due • Silent PC Review Of The 17" iMac Link From April 21, 2006

Excellent explanation of why Merom.

However, I do believe that if they perforated all four edges, like in that brilliant aluminum 30" iMac mock up, that it could easily handle the additional heat from Conroe with no additional noise or perhaps even less noise. The current closed plastic design since the premiere of the iMac G5 on August 31st of 2004 is getting pretty long in the tooth and now showing why it needs a refresh - IE this Conroe Merom thermal noise controversy.

The iMac G4 Lamp design started on the January 7, 2002 Cover of TIME Magazine. So it was 2.66 years with that design before they went with the current design. This would indicate a radical refresh is due in the next 6-9 months at most or in the next few weeks as some of us here believe - me included. Only reason for Apple to wait another 6-9 months is that Santa Rosa needs a new CPU Logic Board and Socket next Spring. So I'll give you that good reason if it doesn't happen next week.

I'm sure consumers just looking for "a computer" are confused, but maby it's not Apples intention to produce a computer that will appeal to everyone. The iMac is a niche product, but a growing niche. I don't think it's a coincidence that the 17" imac was rated as the most silent "out of the box" computer by silentpcreview, and that's important for alot of people. Maby Apple are not trying to compete with Dell in specs, rather making a computer that is balanced in estetics (looks and sound) and performance. To achieve this, you generally can't use top of the line components (before mobile components where available most people building a silent computer undervolted and underclocked desktop components to achieve the same outcome).

I can understand people here being upset that Apple is not offering a gamers solution (which most people here seem to be wanting). What I can't understand is that most of the partisipients in this thread seem to want them to make the gaming rig out of something which is clearly not intended for it.

When has the iMac had high end components in it? Never. People keep saying that the Conroe is finally cool enough to use in the imac, but that simply is not true. At 60-65W the Conroe is about as hot as low-mid range Amd processors have been during the last years, and those have not worked in fully silent computers without undervolting. Sure the Conroe produces alot less heat then a P4, but that is not really a factor to take into account here. The nice thing about the Conroe is that while producing as much heat as low-mid range AMD processors do, it outperforms high end AMD and Intel processors by a large margine.

Apple used a G5 in the iMac because they did'nt have anything else as an option. It was not a top end G5 because those would have been too hot. Now we are in a similar situation. Apple can't use a top end Intel desktop processor in the iMac because it will produce too much heat. This might change when Intel moves to 45nm manufacturing process, but that remains to be seen.

I tracked down the link to that review of the 17" imac rated as the most silent "out of the box" computer by SilentPCReview.com. Thanks for the tip. Excellent critique showing comparable PC Parts and prices to make a similarly featured PC yourself. Only $150 less money for the Build Your Own.

"As configured, the iMac is only about 10% more expensive than the parts priced individually. Consider what you get for the extra $150:

A fully assembled system, with the OS and software installed
A very quiet system, with no tweaking required
A more energy efficient system
All components are purchased from a single vendor, and only one shipping bill needs to be paid
A much more aesthetic and portable form factor
A higher quality, 16x9 widescreen monitor
A remote control and home theater software
Built-in speakers"

Whoops. While I was doing all that you added the link to the your new post just above here. So much for redundancy.

 

[Macmadant]

I'd love it to be true,

But how many of us have received the email with the 'our line up is complete' ???? I've recieved 4 of these since the macpro.....

chances for another imac, slim.....

quite true

 

[50548]

Since when did wanting to play games on a computer denote that they need a "Gamers Rig". Hell I just want to use Xplane and play Warbirds a few times a week. These arent even cutting edge but require a nice upper mid-range card to give best results with reasonable settings. Do you people really think that OttoMattic is a game of normal complexity and everything else is just "crazy geek stuff"?

And yes, I think what most are saying is that the "iMac" doesn't necessarily need to have a different video card in it so much as they are saying that Apple current consumer computer doesn't cut it for everyone.

But then, some here seem to have the "your either with us or against us" attitude for some reason. Where have I heard that before..

Damned, I play CoD on my "old" iMac G5 with a Radeon 9600 in maxed out settings...what the hell you guys want? Constant "bleeding edge" performance? Again, you do NOT represent a sizeable market, sorry.

Go buy a MacPro and spend 4000 grand on a Quadro...I am sure you will all be happy.

 

[Macmadant]

Damned, I play CoD on my "old" iMac G5 with a Radeon 9600 in maxed out settings...what the hell you guys want? Constant "bleeding edge" performance? Again, you do NOT represent a sizeable market, sorry.

Go buy a MacPro and spend 4000 grand on a Quadro...I am sure you will all be happy.

well said my friend, well said

 

[Xtremehkr]

Great news, I was wondering when this was going to come out. I hope that the chin is not taken away though. I find it useful for post it notes, keyboard shortcut cards, and other miscellaneous stuff. I'm not ready for an upgrade yet, so I'll have something to look forward to for a year or two.

 

[brepublican]

This thread makes for some interesting reading. However, I think we all know deep down that a minitower is NOT going to happen. Those of us not willing to accept this have every right to dream.

Personally, I see no need for a minitower. And I consider myself to be a 'power user' (whatever that may be). An all new updated iMac should suffice and keep me happy for the next 2 or so years I think...

 

[steve_hill4]

I'm still planning my next Mac to be a 20" iMac, but a 23" sounds extremely tempting, (perhaps if I have cash to spare in the future, it could be a nice investment for my parents along with a TV tuner as a replacement system in their living room).

In general though, I think areas Apple needs to concentrate on for their next revision are RAM and storage. Conroe would be nice, but if it compromises the design, heat, power and noise, Merom is a better option:

17" 2.00GHz Merom, 1GB RAM, 250GB HD
20" 2.16GHz Merom, 1GB RAM, 320GB HD
23" 2.33GHz Merom, 2GB RAM, 500GB HD

The rest of the specs would have to be near identical to the current line-up though, perhaps replacing the ATI with nVidia graphics.

 

[Peace]

I'm still planning my next Mac to be a 20" iMac, but a 23" sounds extremely tempting, (perhaps if I have cash to spare in the future, it could be a nice investment for my parents along with a TV tuner as a replacement system in their living room).

In general though, I think areas Apple needs to concentrate on for their next revision are RAM and storage. Conroe would be nice, but if it compromises the design, heat, power and noise, Merom is a better option:

17" 2.00GHz Merom, 1GB RAM, 250GB HD
20" 2.16GHz Merom, 1GB RAM, 320GB HD
23" 2.33GHz Merom, 2GB RAM, 500GB HD

The rest of the specs would have to be near identical to the current line-up though, perhaps replacing the ATI with nVidia graphics.

Although the new MacPro came out with an ATI card I see Apple moving towards NVidia GPU's in the future because of AMD's purchase of ATI..

This makes me think the new iMac's coming out will have NVidia chips.

 

[steve_hill4]

I actually would also like to point out my choice of 23" coming with 2GB, while the Mac Pro comes with 1GB as standard.

While this would be un-Apple like, I think adding it in for a slight increase in costs to Apple and a further increase on top to the consumer would give them a marketing edge over those complaining of low specs.

 

[technicolor]

I would really consider this over the MacPro, if it had more than 2 ram slots. Is that possible? Any chance Apple can add another ram slot on a higher end iMac, being capped at 2 gigs is more than a little old now for a desktop.

 

[Peace]

I would really consider this over the MacPro, if it had more than 2 ram slots. Is that possible? Any chance Apple can add another ram slot on a higher end iMac, being capped at 2 gigs is more than a little old now for a desktop.

The 23" is gonna have a lot more room inside so who knows what they can do.

I personally hope they put in a video card with HDMI input.

 

[steve_hill4]

I would really consider this over the MacPro, if it had more than 2 ram slots. Is that possible? Any chance Apple can add another ram slot on a higher end iMac, being capped at 2 gigs is more than a little old now for a desktop.

Well, with 64 bit, we can go above 4GB in the system. However, I think what would be more likely would be an upper limit of 4GB. Be nice however if they didn't skimp on costs and gave us 4 slots each able to hold 2GB sticks.

 

[sbarton]

Damned, I play CoD on my "old" iMac G5 with a Radeon 9600 in maxed out settings...what the hell you guys want? Constant "bleeding edge" performance? Again, you do NOT represent a sizeable market, sorry.

Go buy a MacPro and spend 4000 grand on a Quadro...I am sure you will all be happy.

Uh, I think you've got it confused there....Your trying to suggest that the 2% of the 5% of Mac owners make up the entirety of Mac userbase. Forget the hundreds of thousands of G4/G5 users that are NOT professionals sitting on the sideline while you make yourself the center of the Mac universe.

The fact is, that *many* mainstream games availible for the Mac right now are unplayable on the current iMac with full settings enabled and running at the 20" iMac's native resolution which is 1680x1050. With setting maxed Doom 3 as a Universal Binary at gets you a whopping 21 Frames Per Second. FYI thats basically unplayable. Xplane, which is a flight simulator gets about 30fps maxed out but dips to 20 in certain places. Those are 2 of the 3 that I play. Unreal 2004 I think squeeks by at 30fps which is barely adequate. And yes, of course you can lower the resolution, which makes for a blurry picture on LCDs, or you can lower the quality settings for the games in question - both are compromises.

Its great to hear that you can play a 2 year old game on a 1 year old computer with good performance.

 

[~Shard~]

Uh, I think you've got it confused there skippy...

His username is BRLawyer, not "skippy". Looks like you're the one who's confused.

 

[sbarton]

This thread makes for some interesting reading. However, I think we all know deep down that a minitower is NOT going to happen. Those of us not willing to accept this have every right to dream.

Personally, I see no need for a minitower. And I consider myself to be a 'power user' (whatever that may be). An all new updated iMac should suffice and keep me happy for the next 2 or so years I think...

I disagree, I think it's and absolute certainty. Whether it takes the form of an upgradable iMac (unlikely) or a mini tower, or something entirely different is really the only question.

 

[Gurutech]

Its great to hear that you can play a 2 year old game on a 1 year old computer with good performance.

Hahahahaha well said

Anyhow, I basically agree on most of people in this thread that if I were to get a desktop, I don't want to spend whole multiple grand to purchase 4 Quad whatever crap.

Although my work sometimes needs considerable amount of processing power, I don't consider my self as that "professional" to require all the power Quad gives w/ extra costs.

Overall, including Apple and PC market, USD 400 desktop market constitutes majority of number of sell in US, and I agree on that. However, there are also considerable people who are in mid-range desktop with fair chance of upgrade.
Apple currently doens't have any product for that market segment.

And admit it, the all in one solution w/ laptop parts is only a part of total market.
At this moment, I have only one mac computer, a MBP. I've always wanted to get a desktop since I was satisfied by switching to Mac OS. However, I don't want to spend atleast 2k which is overkill for me. I don't want iMac because of my 21" LCD TV which can also function as a monitor. I do many programming so I invest fair amount of money to good Keyboard (HHK2 Prof, mechanical cherry switch types.. if any of you guys know this stuff).

I even considered purchasing Intel Mac Mini due to it's cheap cost depite lack of upgradable GPU.
Anyway, by introducing midtower solution, Apple can gain multiple segments of computer market.
those who want consumer level headless desktops that has enough upgrade possibilities, those who don't want to waste money on LCD panel in imac that they already have, those that want desktop parts which generally costs less, and those who want decent processing power w/o investing too much.

If you guys insist that there aren't that many people constituting above market segments, you clearly are very wrong.

 

[technicolor]

Hahahahaha well said

Anyhow, I basically agree on most of people in this thread that if I were to get a desktop, I don't want to spend whole multiple grand to purchase 4 Quad whatever crap.

Although my work sometimes needs considerable amount of processing power, I don't consider my self as that "professional" to require all the power Quad gives w/ extra costs.

Overall, including Apple and PC market, USD 400 desktop market constitutes majority of number of sell in US, and I agree on that. However, there are also considerable people who are in mid-range desktop with fair chance of upgrade.
Apple currently doens't have any product for that market segment.

And admit it, the all in one solution w/ laptop parts is only a part of total market.
At this moment, I have only one mac computer, a MBP. I've always wanted to get a desktop since I was satisfied by switching to Mac OS. However, I don't want to spend atleast 2k which is overkill for me. I don't want iMac because of my 21" LCD TV which can also function as a monitor. I do many programming so I invest fair amount of money to good Keyboard (HHK2 Prof, mechanical cherry switch types.. if any of you guys know this stuff).

I even considered purchasing Intel Mac Mini due to it's cheap cost depite lack of upgradable GPU.
Anyway, by introducing midtower solution, Apple can gain multiple segments of computer market.
those who want consumer level headless desktops that has enough upgrade possibilities, those who don't want to waste money on LCD panel in imac that they already have, those that want desktop parts which generally costs less, and those who want decent processing power w/o investing too much.

If you guys insist that there aren't that many people constituting above market segments, you clearly are very wrong.

nevermind i was mistaken
my bad