Can we go back to talking about whether we really think this is going to happen, what we'd like to see instead of the same old and tired Mac vs PC rumble?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
$499 Headless iMac?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AidenShaw said:
I'd be very, very suprised if it worked like this. What is more likely, I'd say, is that the mem system "waits" so to speak a while to recive enough data to release in a burst to the mem. the spare cycles can be used by other components, or by some bus snooping feature that can pre access mempages to reduce latency. Mai Logics Articia chipsets work this way and iirc nVidia's too, those with a memconroller anyway.
You're right though that only half the bandwidth of the mem is availabe to the G4. But calling it "Pseudo-DDR" is just so sloppy, IMHO anyway.
kcmac said:
finally we're getting back on topic again...
i guess the only thing missing from the different sides who are sitting in the trenches are benchmarks
i found the performance/responsive of the flat-panel imacs (the old g4s) i tested at an apple seller fine... just like the 1,4 ghz P4 dells in the labs on university are running fine as well
for my current pc(2,5 years old) an apple made absolutly no sense because at that time they didn't offer anything for me now it's completly different (especially if this rumour is true... hey not so long ago apple was still selling 128mb ram equipped pcs
) perhaps i should put "2005 1st mac purchase planned" back in my signature
jcroft said:
This is in some senses true. Especially for older systems. With the G5 and enough RAM some of it is overcome though. I might be wrong, but I believe some of the "sluggishnes" experienced is related to the way OS X handles screen-graphics through Quartz - using a lot of CPU power rather than the graphic card (why Macs generally also comes away with lower end videocards). Rumors are saying though this is going to change with Tiger - with a lot more of the load being moved to the GPU (and presumably make up for a performanceboost - for those with high end cards that is
Sidenote: the "sluggishnes" is also percieve by some as the system being "softer" and more human to use... so actually it might be a selling point for "granny" (I know my folks like it
Thanatoast said:
Let me get this straight. You're saying that a media center mac should be $500, but you're also suggesting that the $500 headless iMac would be a great media center Mac WITH an add on "media center dongle?" Unless you expect Apple to give away said "media center dongle," your media center Mac just got more expensive than $500.
With that out of the way, there is at least one major hardware component that is not on ANY current Mac that would be needed for a media center Mac: TV input. By the time you add this, plus outputs for s-video, component, and composite video (which are on powerbooks, but not planning for the headless iMac, as far as wel know), you've upped the cost quite a bit. Plus, the additional software requirements are probably going to cost you something.
Windows Media PCs are amongst the most expensive PCs out there. Why would you expect a Medica Center Mac to be the LEAST expensive Mac?
Don't get me wrong, that'd be awesome if it was -- but it sure seems unrealistic.
jcroft said:
are we thinking of Apple as a pc vendor or software vendor?
I truly think Apple would be really well with only 7% to 10% of the sharemarket.
What is it for Dell, Hp, Compaq, Gateway, etc?
I don't think it is more than 5 for them.
The real winner here is Winblows, it is on every machine, but why care?
We have great apps, only need some more like CAD.
If we want to play, why don't we get a console, they were made for that.
But truly, what is the marketshare for all those companies?
I think people tend to buy more clones.
it doesnt make sense to me that so many people are arguing about "users"
everybody has their reason.
my reason fro prefering mac is that it makes the most sense to me design-wise.
i can use almost any apple product (dvd studio pro..final cut...ipod...powemac) without too much confusion about random program or platform specific jargon.
but i have used for a VERY long time.
i was going to build my own pc way back in the day. i had the mobo picked out and the sound card picked. ...eventually iu found out that my mobo had issues with the sound card...and the only mobos that didnt werent up to snuff for what i demanded. -i saiud this to illustrate that the notion that people simply want to switch because they can't build a computer is foolish. i can. i work tech support for my school. i could dwesign it and have a friend put it together.
form is important..but gamers like video crds and follow the latest.
"general users" don't care so long as it isnt slow as they watch or burn dvds, check email..
and none of this forms a coherent "strategy" which can be attached to the mini mac.
truth is apple has a spread for a reason.
if people want to argue about apples marketing strategy, you would do better to incorporate all of their products into your argument.
everybody has their reason.
my reason fro prefering mac is that it makes the most sense to me design-wise.
i can use almost any apple product (dvd studio pro..final cut...ipod...powemac) without too much confusion about random program or platform specific jargon.
but i have used for a VERY long time.
i was going to build my own pc way back in the day. i had the mobo picked out and the sound card picked. ...eventually iu found out that my mobo had issues with the sound card...and the only mobos that didnt werent up to snuff for what i demanded. -i saiud this to illustrate that the notion that people simply want to switch because they can't build a computer is foolish. i can. i work tech support for my school. i could dwesign it and have a friend put it together.
form is important..but gamers like video crds and follow the latest.
"general users" don't care so long as it isnt slow as they watch or burn dvds, check email..
and none of this forms a coherent "strategy" which can be attached to the mini mac.
truth is apple has a spread for a reason.
if people want to argue about apples marketing strategy, you would do better to incorporate all of their products into your argument.
I'm still most interested in what video card the machine will have, and how RAM expansion will be handled.
Will this computer be based on a mobile motherboard? if so, we're looking at either a Radeon 9000, 9200, 9600(Some PBs had one right?, but I doubt it) or a Go5200 (don't bother with the 9700).
I hope that it won't be a 9000 or 9200, but the 9200 seems very likely to me (i.e. iBook). Still, that wouldn't necessarily keep me from buying one.
Will this computer be based on a mobile motherboard? if so, we're looking at either a Radeon 9000, 9200, 9600(Some PBs had one right?, but I doubt it) or a Go5200 (don't bother with the 9700).
I hope that it won't be a 9000 or 9200, but the 9200 seems very likely to me (i.e. iBook). Still, that wouldn't necessarily keep me from buying one.
kcmac said:
Perhaps I misunderstood. I wasn't quite sure what you meant when you said "media center dongle," but not I see that you mean the video adpater that lets you hook it up to a TV. So, in response to that, I'd say:
1. A computer that hooks up to a TV does not a media center PC make.
2. That "dongle" connects to your S-Video port, right?. As far as I know, an S-Video port is not planned for the headless iMac. Adding it to the moetherboard would increase cost.
Folks, in a nutshell:
Apple innovates. In the "media center" arena, there is little innovation. Why a headless Mac? It is because this "Mac mini" is destined for the livingroom.
So the eMac, iMacs, and PowerMacs will still be around. It is not designed to compete with these computers.
The new "cMac" as I like to call it, will be a consumer electronics device. The center of the livingroom. You can plug it into a TV or computer monitor. It will come with Airport Extreme and a Bluetooth remote control. Just like nobody cares the speed of the CPU in an Xbox, the target market for the cMac will be people looking to stream music, movies and surf the web from their living room.
Apple innovates. In the "media center" arena, there is little innovation. Why a headless Mac? It is because this "Mac mini" is destined for the livingroom.
So the eMac, iMacs, and PowerMacs will still be around. It is not designed to compete with these computers.
The new "cMac" as I like to call it, will be a consumer electronics device. The center of the livingroom. You can plug it into a TV or computer monitor. It will come with Airport Extreme and a Bluetooth remote control. Just like nobody cares the speed of the CPU in an Xbox, the target market for the cMac will be people looking to stream music, movies and surf the web from their living room.
Fx5200's price went up to 20 bucks so its hard to say if we will see that or something cheaper. maybe more 9200Lord Blackadder said:
my 6800gt snickers...... 
Blue Velvet said:
At least he got some kind of response
I asked earlier for pointers to basic switcher faq type info, like what all this core image stuff means, so I know how it affects me if(when) I get a little mac, and people were too busy flaming over stuff 10 pages back to see it. Oh, and I think if they had left the built-in iPod dock in the spec, they could have a nice ad in saying "something to come home to" with shots of an iPod on someone's desk, being put in their pocket, in hand on the subway, etc., culminating in watching it sliding from out of frame down into the cute little dockbox. Would be even cuter if the Apple logo lit up and the box came off standby when it saw the iPod, of course...
Exactly. This same debate also happened when Windows XP was brand new. I have many friends who, for a long time after XP's release, refused to switch from Windows 2000 because of XP's lack of responsiveness. Now XP is just as responsive as Win2K was back then. The same is happening with Mac OS X, and the same will happen with the Longhorn release.devwild said:
Exactly. I use Windows XP, Win2K, Gentoo Linux, and FreeBSD right now. All of them run just fine because I know how to take care of the system. But many people either don't think about it, or are just not tech savvy enough. Those people should stick with, or switch to, Macs.budugu said:
I am a huge fan of Apple's aesthetic. I've wanted a Mac for awhile and just haven't had the funds. I'm saving up for one now and hopefully this headless Mac will be my first (although a major upgrade to the Powerbooks would be irresistable). That said, I wanted an iPod for awhile and decided not to get one. My friends all have iPods, and I would have recommended iPods to them if they asked. The iPod suits their needs and preferences. It did not suit my needs as much as a competing product did. I got said competing product because of my needs. I recommended a third product for my brother, because it suits his needs more and recommended a pink iPod mini to my mom because it suits her needs and personality. I'm currently trying to switch my entire family over to Macs because the Mac suits them better. Period. I'm just agreeing with you in that people have their reasons for purchases, and what seems like the best product for one person may not be the best product for somebody else. Sometimes people have bad justification for said products, but it's justifaction enough for them.kcmac said:
And yes, we should get back to the dilemma of how realistic this product release is. I think it sounds very plausible and would absolutely love for it to happen. It'll give me a great avenue through which to switch over my family, and give me my first Mac earlier than I would have one otherwise.
B_Gates said:
Hey man, I know people that buys a car without looking at the specs! They just happened to like the color or some other weird thing...
Specs are important - but only to a certain level. Then the market fragments into categories; those who care about performance, of form, of function, of everything... + +
The iPod success was never about specs alone. The future success of the Mac-platform likewise. Both will be in areas like ease of use, no-hassle, form etc. There are a lot of people out there that could not care less about computers - technically - but need them to do some of a modern life basic things; check e-mail, chat, pay bills and so on... your folks and grandparents might be among them... Remember that PCs are soon becoming commodities - just like TVs, DVD players and other tech-stuff.
artifex said:At least he got some kind of response
Yeah, this threads been frantic but there are heaps of threads all over this forum about your topic.
Do a search for CoreImage, start a new thread of your own, just don't expect to get useful answers from this particular maelstrom of a thread.
There's a Tiger forum... and some FAQs out there too.
Blue Velvet said:
Yah, I should try a little harder, I know. I haven't had much time to search today. But thanks for the response.
Oh, and keeping with another off topic subject mentioned in... waves... in this thread, hopefully the maelstrom will subside long enough for people to pass on the charity appeal I'm trying to start in my .sig...
iMan said:
You guys so excited about a Headless G4 iMac, 1.25GHz, 256MB of RAM, 40GB to 80GB hard drive, a Combo optical drive, USB 2.0, Firewire 400, 10/100Base-T Ethernet, a modem.
Its just not working for me.
I would rather see a Headless G5 iMac, 1.6GHz, 512MB of RAM, 80GB to 120GB hard drive, a Super drive, USB 2.0, Firewire 400, 10/100Base-T Ethernet, a modem.
I would pay $700.00 maybe $800.00 but not $500.00 for a G4 Headless iMac.
First, I confess that I've *only* read through 25 or so of the pages of this megathread, so apologies to those who demand my full compliance. I also confess that my post is not exactly ground-breaking, but man I've spent this much time reading ...
I want to cast my vote that a G4 @1.xx GHz is fine, and perfectly understandable if this is going to sit at the price we're discussing. Unless everything above it in the Apple product lineup miraculously jumps to G5s, the low-end still has to have a G4. That WILL put it at a disadvantage in terms of marketing raw spec comparisons to cheap wintel boxes, but I think the official marketing for this will flow in different directions.
Lastly, I don't know which of these mock-ups will turn out to be most accurate, but you can be sure this thing is going to be pretty, whatever else it is.
I want to cast my vote that a G4 @1.xx GHz is fine, and perfectly understandable if this is going to sit at the price we're discussing. Unless everything above it in the Apple product lineup miraculously jumps to G5s, the low-end still has to have a G4. That WILL put it at a disadvantage in terms of marketing raw spec comparisons to cheap wintel boxes, but I think the official marketing for this will flow in different directions.
Lastly, I don't know which of these mock-ups will turn out to be most accurate, but you can be sure this thing is going to be pretty, whatever else it is.
B_Gates said:
I think you're missing the point B boy. It's about making it as low cost as possible. G4 still a nice powerful chip. Even if it means knocking it down by $300.
Agreed, I remember seeing Joe Public buying a new stereo. The shop assistant was showing him a great system like a NAD, stylish, understated, great sound. Joe was more interested in the boom box with the flashing lights, and I don't believe price was the issue, some people just like flashing lights. Of course at the other end of the scale there are the audiophiles who consider anything below a 15K valve amp a travesty.iMan said: