$499 Headless iMac?

[iMan]

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.

It’s 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.

Well, you might just not be in the targetgroup then

Myself I am a bit on the pragmatic side on this - Apple is not exactly known for making cheap low-end stuff. Both this and the flashpod discussion reminds me a bit of the iPod mini rumoring a year ago... there's some truth to it, but it's just not the cheapo-thing some people expect.
Generally I would suspect Apple of great cynism - and if they gear toward a market they do so with an intent on making money rather than increasing marketshare or selling inferior products (wisely enough).

I second the need for a Mac that incorporates more nicely in the living room than the current lineup - and I am leaning more towards a box that blends easily with the stereo/DVD and even can use the TV as its screen, capable of acting as a sort of mediaserver - and maybe even double as a regular computer. Specs doesn't have to be that great really. This thing has been in the works for over a year - and last year there was actually frantic rumors about some kind of settop box from Apple. This might actually be it - just that Apple as usual made its own twist to it

 

[iGary]

This thread went from interesting to lame really quick.

Have fun bickering, I'll be back when they announce it.

Geebus. Children.

 

[jcroft]

Well, you might just not be in the targetgroup then

Myself I am a bit on the pragmatic side on this - Apple is not exactly known for making cheap low-end stuff. Both this and the flashpod discussion reminds me a bit of the iPod mini rumoring a year ago... there's some truth to it, but it's just not the cheapo-thing some people expect.
Generally I would suspect Apple of great cynism - and if they gear toward a market they do so with an intent on making money rather than increasing marketshare or selling inferior products (wisely enough).

I second the need for a Mac that incorporates more nicely in the living room than the current lineup - and I am leaning more towards a box that blends easily with the stereo/DVD and even can use the TV as its screen, capable of acting as a sort of mediaserver - and maybe even double as a regular computer. Specs doesn't have to be that great really. This thing has been in the works for over a year - and last year there was actually frantic rumors about some kind of settop box from Apple. This might actually be it - just that Apple as usual made its own twist to it

I, too, would LOVE something like this. I just kinda doubt this is it. I hope you're right, though!

 

[AnimeUnrivaled]

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...

I actually didn't really know what CoreImage was until a short while ago. Apple has some good stuff for you to get very basic info through on their website. Their Tiger preview in particular is good for gathering very basic info. You can find that here. There is a link to CoreImage information on the bottom right of the page. Once you're on the CoreImage page you can scroll down and the very bottom of the right column shows supported GPUs.

 

[Spidermanjohn]

I AM LITTLE CONFUSED

I have now opened and closed Finder, folders and every other window on my 1.33 12" PowerBook about 200 times. Springs open in a blink on this little girl. We also have 333 iBook in the house running X 3.7 and it's still spunky with only 256RAM. Have many dual 2.5's at work, and darn it if Word opens just a little faster than the two seconds it takes on my PowerBook. I play Spiderman and Halo on my little PowerBook too. Every PC user who plays with my 12" has remarked about the battery life, how quite it is, speed and is surprised when I tell them it is only running 1.33.

I will get one for each of my three children if this is true. I have four old CRT's in the garage.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Sorry, not trying to gang up here - but you did come across as a Mac user that tolerates the Mac; but feels that that the Win PC rules above all. For many of Mac users our experiences tell a different story.

No hard feelings, OK?

 

[jcroft]

Sorry, not trying to gang up here - but you did come across as a Mac user that tolerates the Mac; but feels that that the Win PC rules above all. For many of Mac users our experiences tell a different story.

No hard feelings, OK?

Of course no hard feelings. None of this is personal to me at all.

If I came across that way, I didn't do a very good job of expressing my thought. I've been a Mac users since 1986, and while I also have PCs, I absolutely adore Apple and Macs and even touted their benefits through the dark days of OS 8 and 9.

I've spent most of my adult life working on Unix machines for my career. As someone who uses all three major platforms (Mac, Windows, and Unix), every single day, I feel I have a pretty good idea of what is out there and what is great about each one.

Just because I take issue with the responsiveness of OS X certainly doesn't mean I don't think it's the best operating system on the market today (I do). I've written a number of articles on how great Mac OS X is for magazines. I simply think it has a few flaws, and while it's overall much better than Windows, there are one or two things that Windows does better.

If that makes me not good enough for the Mac Geek Circle of Trust, so be it. I'm not a zealot or a bigot -- just a happy Mac user who considers Apple a business and part of corporate America, not some kind of Temple Of Righteousness To Which We Shall All Worship.

Sorry if I didn't come off that way. I'm an Apple fan through and though -- just not one who is so blinded that I can't see their faults once in a while.

Feel free to check out my website/blog (http://jeffcroft.com) for proof that I've been an Apple pimp for a very, very long time.

 

[Rootman]

Sorry, not trying to gang up here - but you did come across as a Mac user that tolerates the Mac; but feels that that the Win PC rules above all.

But do you have any idea how rare you are? You're a mutation. You are the exception that proves the rule. Truly one in a million. Proof that it takes all kinds. A rare, rare bird indeed. If there were any more of you, you COULD gang up here.

 

[jcroft]

But do you have any idea how rare you are? You're a mutation. You are the exception that proves the rule. Truly one in a million. Proof that it takes all kinds. A rare, rare bird indeed. If there were any more of you, you COULD gang up here.

Yeah, I would be a rare bird if that were really the case -- but it's not. I much prefer Mac OS X to Windows. I only said that the Mac OS Finder is less responsive than Windows Explorer. I stand by that. In nearly every other way, though, OS X bests Windows XP.

It's amazing how you can't even make one tiny, innocent, negative comment about something of Apples without being gang-raped and called a Windows troll.

I sat here and debated back and forth with B-Gates about how much better OS X is and everyone COMPLETELY ignored it. But as soon as I said Windows Explorer is more responsive, I got jumped by the whole damn Mac Nation.

Crazy.

 

[iMan]

I have now opened and closed Finder, folders and every other window on my 1.33 12" PowerBook about 200 times. Springs open in a blink on this little girl. We also have 333 iBook in the house running X 3.7 and it's still spunky with only 256RAM.

Have a PB 1.25 myself - and could not be more happy with it: best computer I ever had!

That said; there is a profound difference in the way the GUI reacts in OS X and XP - I actually like it (most of the time), but I get the point that some people would feel the Mac as sluggish...

Here's a little funny trick to see how Quartz graphics loads your CPU just like that:
Open Activity Monitor, and let it show the CPU loads.

Then mark lets say 10 folders and open them simultanously - keep an eye on the monitor.

Do the same with just running the mousepointer across the dock with the magnifyer effect turned on... or just grab a window and shake it vigorously. Some flash animations on a webpage in the background also does a bit of damage...

It is actually devastating to the CPU! Doesn't take much to say that things might pile up a bit with some of this constantly in action.

But; it is not like the computer is anything near unusable or slower than XP - its just that they are different. Some people might not think more to it though...

 

[jcroft]

Have a PB 1.25 myself - and could not be more happy with it: best computer I ever had!

That said; there is a profound difference in the way the GUI reacts in OS X and XP - I actually like it (most of the time), but I get the point that some people would feel the Mac as sluggish...

Here's a little funny trick to see how Quartz graphics loads your CPU just like that:
Open Activity Monitor, and let it show the CPU loads.

Then mark lets say 10 folders and open them simultanously - keep an eye on the monitor.

Do the same with just running the mousepointer across the dock with the magnifyer effect turned on... or just grab a window and shake it vigorously. Some flash animations on a webpage in the background also does a bit of damage...

It is actually devastating to the CPU! Doesn't take much to say that things might pile up a bit with some of this constantly in action.

But; it is not like the computer is anything near unusable or slower than XP - its just that they are different. Some people might not think more to it though...

Thanks for stating my point much better than I did.

 

[Sir_Giggles]

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.

I think you may be right. It WILL BE a media center mac.

 

[jcroft]

I think you may be right. It WILL BE a media center mac.

I hope so, but I can't see how Apple could release a media Mac for under $1000, let alone $500. How much is the least expensive Windows Media 2005 PC?

 

[VicMacs]

so...

looks like the iCockroach is going to come to life after all..

 

[Bhennies]

very cool indeed if true.


Now how about working on the g5's apple? Still a dual 1.8 on the low end after all this time????

 

[SeRgIo_42]

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

May Steve hear you...that's what I wish !

 

[Sir_Giggles]

Oh god, a new G4 desktop. Why not give it at least a 1.5GHz G4? The benefit of getting this system should be that it is absolutely tiny. Otherwise, they basically just made a headless eMac. YAY!!

I'm willing to bet that it'll be the size of a firewire harddrive enclosure or a hardcover textbook. Put 2 cd jewel cases end to end, and 1.5" thick, and that's basically how tiny the new Mac mini will be.

Something like this, just not as ugly.
http://www.cappuccinopc.com/cappuccino.asp

 

[artifex]

You conveniently left out the shared video memory and the lack of anything coming CLOSE to the iLife suite... not to mention DAMN is that thing ugly.

It's already clear of one thing after reading the peecee lusers apologists posting in this thread, there's no accounting taste when you clearly have none.

And the FUGLY rather worthless Celery-on processored P.O.S. machine you referenced has a FLOPPY drive... LOL!!!

I like your cute squirrel icon. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for your attitude. In my experience, many people fetishize whichever flavor of computing they prefer, and I've seen proponents of "either" current consumer flavor be incredibly snobbish and impatient to outsiders.

 

[macrobay]

I'm willing to bet that it'll be the size of a firewire harddrive enclosure or a hardcover textbook. Put 2 cd jewel cases end to end, and 1.5" thick, and that's basically how tiny the new Mac mini will be.

Something like this, just not as ugly.
http://www.cappuccinopc.com/cappuccino.asp

I'm not so sure... Apple has to make sure it's not small enough to make people feel like they're not getting enought for their money. You know those little box-enclosed PCs with enough room for a cd drive and hd? NOBODY buys those. I'm sure whatever it is, it will be stunningly beautiful, but it better not be a little box.

 

[~Shard~]

I'm not so sure... Apple has to make sure it's not small enough to make people feel like they're not getting enought for their money. You know those little box-enclosed PCs with enough room for a cd drive and hd? NOBODY buys those. I'm sure whatever it is, it will be stunningly beautiful, but it better not be a little box.

You mean those PC Shuttles? Yah, whatever happened to those? Or am I just out of touch?

 

[mdriftmeyer]

I'm 200% with you on this. I have an Epson CX 5400 and the SOB eats ink like we breathe air.

Give me a laser printer and a separate scanner any day. The drum toner holds way more and for double my money I get more than the space I lose.

Which means I'd rather they not give me one, pass the savings on to me, and I can put it towards a decent laser printer...

 

[davey-nb]

Media Centre?

I hope so, but I can't see how Apple could release a media Mac for under $1000, let alone $500. How much is the least expensive Windows Media 2005 PC?

Shouldn't a Media Centre be able to store your digital movies and recorded TV shows? I can't see how a 60 to 80 GB HD can be the best choice for this purpose.

P.S. from many, many pages ago... Blue Dalmation iMacs are Absolutley Fabulous, hold on to it, it's hot! Are there any skins yet for iMac G5s??? So much empty white space... so many dalmation possibilities!

 

[iKwick7]

You mean those PC Shuttles? Yah, whatever happened to those? Or am I just out of touch?

I would have to disagree with that. I have a shuttle as my primary desktop and it is absolutely wonderful. From what I understand, the company is selling those systems like hot cakes.

 

[pimentoLoaf]

My own experience with a 2.4ghz Pentium 4 is that, when Windoze wasn't causing problems (randomly crashing for random reasons), it was significantly faster at playing some games than my current 1.33ghz G4 -- most notably, the newer Sims scenario packs, like Superstar and Makin' Magic, and especially X-Plane.

In regards to business programs, a 500mhz system is fast enough for most work, so I never noticed or cared to worry in that department.

 

[Rootman]

You mean those PC Shuttles? Yah, whatever happened to those? Or am I just out of touch?

I saw them in the TigerDirect outlet store last month, and am considering one as a case for a 64-bit gaming PC. They are adorable compared to most barebones PC kits.