$499 Headless iMac?

[ts1973]

First of all : I didn't read all of the thread, but I guess what has to be said was already said.

Then again, I recall at some point the discussion about whether it was Apple software or hardware that made pc-users (reluctant to) switch. I would say it is partially both, but especially software. Most of the hardware Apple manufactures is undoubtedly "sexier" than the PC counterparts, but if you and I can't do the work on the machines that we wan't to, who needs a sexy, expensive toy (except if you are the "showing off" type). Speaking then of the headless iMac or whatever you want to call it, it probably won't be the most attractive Apple kit ever. What it has going for it is the Apple software, which in my opinion remains top of the bill. So I would go out and by this headless thing for my wife right away, were it not that MS Office only exists in English and Frrench, and not in the localized language my wife wants/needs. So actually, in the end it is the software that will work against Apple, in my case anyway.

On a side note, something about the performance of Apple vs PC's. I know it doesn't belong in this thread, but you guys started this discussion. I own a 1,25Ghz Powerbook and a 3Ghz P4 (for the wife and the occasional PC-game). I also do a lot of folding. I can tell you guys that my P4 is at least 2 times faster folding the same work-units. And it does two wu's at the same time using hyper-threading (so you could say it's actually 4 times faster). Not using hyper-threading it's about three times faster than my PB. OK, this could all be down to different software implementation and optimisation, but I think it doesn't look good from a Mac point of view. For me it remains a more academic discussion as I continue using Macs (and have used them for 20 years) mainly because of the superior software.
By the way, can anyone point to a site (not barefeats) that actually compares PC's and Macs with hard figures. I never ran into one.

 

[Platform]

i predict that whatever number the total thread count is at will be the clock speed of the new headless imac/emac in khz

well then for sure this has to be VERY long

 

[BillHarrison]

I think it would be great if the new mac were core image compatible, but I don't feel that it would be a dealbreaker. You can buy brand new macs today that are not, and probably will be able to the day tiger is released. Quartz Extreme is pretty important, and makes a noticable difference on the same machine, I have tried it both ways.

But anything they make will be Quartz Extreme, anything else at this price is just gravy! I mean, we can all HOPE it has this, and that, and that, and that, but really, its a LOW priced entry level machine.

It will NOT be marketed on specs, but on capabilities. This is a novel concept in the PC world, and something that most likely only Apple can pull off.

Imagine the commercial, a box, that does everything a consumer needs, and at a great price. Seamless internet, chat, messaging, email, photos, movies, music. That will be the selling point here, not "Well our G4 at 1.25ghz can outperform some P4's at twice the speed"

That is not what this is about, its about introducing people to a WHOLE new computing experience, and putting it financially on ALOT more peoples menu than it currently is.

 

[Kagetenshi]

Sorry but I take exception to such a comment. Clock speed can measure speed but only to a certain extent and within a certain range. So by and large a 1.5Ghz system is NOT going to outperform a 3Ghz system. But it becomes more foggy when you compare a 1.5Ghz system to a 2Ghz system or a 1.5Ghz system to a 1.75Ghz system.
It’s another variable you need to keep in mind when you are looking at system speeds but its not the end all be all measurement of speed.

Take exception all you want, your exception is bull. Clock speed is meaningless outside of a single line of processors. Try comparing a Cray X1 (800 MHz CPU, by the by) to a OMFG 4 GHz P4… I think it's rather obvious the P4 will get eaten for lunch.

Actually it's more like 1.5.

Not in my experience, it ain't.

~J

 

[Platform]

Hehe.. me neither.. but a lot of people over there are. It seems every piece of Apple-news has to end up like a flamefest!

The reason why they dont like apple is becasue of the avaibilyt and the prices(high taxes on evrything) but if you read the general give the top marks

 

[iGary]

I saw some advertising for Microsoft's "Media Center" over the weekend.

I can't imagine (with Airport Express, iTunes, iDVD etc.) that this new release will not incorporate that theme somehow.

But then again, they may not introduce anything at all.

 

[Platform]

I saw some advertising for Microsoft's "Media Center" over the weekend.

I can't imagine (with Airport Express, iTunes, iDVD etc.) that this new release will not incorporate that theme somehow.

But then again, they may not introduce anything at all.

Well it looks like a desktop/media centre combination thing

 

[Poff]

The reason why they dont like apple is becasue of the avaibilyt and the prices(high taxes on evrything) but if you read the general give the top marks

I'm not talking about Tore and his gang. He seems to have a thing for Apple, even tho he doesn't fully admit it. But if you read the comments, you find the total pro-everything-Apple-does and the never-tried-it-but-know-it-is-crap. It's destined to be a war in there..

 

[Platform]

I'm not talking about Tore and his gang. He seems to have a thing for Apple, even tho he doesn't fully admit it. But if you read the comments, you find the total pro-everything-Apple-does and the never-tried-it-but-know-it-is-crap. It's destined to be a war in there..

War it will be and seems like it is in every thread allways goes out of hand. But other sides recomend mac and use it

 

[Poff]

Take exception all you want, your exception is bull. Clock speed is meaningless outside of a single line of processors. Try comparing a Cray X1 (800 MHz CPU, by the by) to a OMFG 4 GHz P4… I think it's rather obvious the P4 will get eaten for lunch.



Not in my experience, it ain't.

~J

Sorry, but you can't say that MHz doesn't mean a thing, and then say you that if multiply a G4 by 2 you get the approx. MHz value of a P4. That doesn't make sense. Ok, for a few applications you might get to multiply by 2, for a lot of applications by 1.5, for another lot by 1.2 and maybe for some even .8. Truth is, there is no constant that you can generally multiply with. It tends to differ from app to app.

And bad ports of programs have to be taken into consideration aswell, because that's the actual reality we are often faced with. When we stop comparing numbers to numbers, we've got to start to look at the whole picture - not just a part of it.

That being said, I wouldn't switch back for the world. Macs are easier. Macs are better. A friend of mine got an Olympus digital camera for Christ-mass. When connected to the computer it mounted as an external drive. So we tried to teach her to manouver to the camera-drive, mark all the pictures, manouver to my pictures, make a new folder, manouver into the folder, paste all the pictures. Well, problem is, many computer-users find it hard to manouver around the file system. As did she. She told us she would never be able to remember all this, so we tried to install the program that came with the camera. Crap program I tell you. It was not at all easy or intuitive, with several sub menus and stuff.

I'm guessing she will have to keep her pictures on the camera for quite some time, until some other computer-savvy friends come visit here again. If she had a Mac, it would be as easy as "plug your camera, unplug your camera". Even if it wasn't supported, and just mounted an external drive, it would be as easy as "start iPhoto, drag mounted drive onto the iPhoto library".

This is what is called the "Apple difference"

 

[Decanus]

Nearly headless, how can you be nearly headless?

I'm sorry but this doesn't prove anything. The author just copied Think Secret.

It doesn't prove much, but the fact that the Daily Telegraph (the UK's biggest-selling broadsheet) is willing to print such an article, when there is no shortage of other news lends creedence to the rumour. You may disagee with the paper's politics -- but its news is generally accurate. I agree, however, that the suggestion of GBP260 being the price is a trifle optimistic.

 

[Platform]

How could you compare this mac to a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz 512MB Ram 80GB 7200rpm WD and Gfx 5200 128MB ??? would very much like to know

 

[Kagetenshi]

Sorry, but you can't say that MHz doesn't mean a thing, and then say you that if multiply a G4 by 2 you get the approx. MHz value of a P4. That doesn't make sense. Ok, for a few applications you might get to multiply by 2, for a lot of applications by 1.5, for another lot by 1.2 and maybe for some even .8. Truth is, there is no constant that you can generally multiply with. It tends to differ from app to app.

But the implication was that a faster-clocked machine would always be faster than a significantly slower-clocked machine, which is an outright lie. There are some rough comparisons you can make that involve megahertz, but 1.25 is not always less than 2.5.

~J

 

[Platform]

But the implication was that a faster-clocked machine would always be faster than a significantly slower-clocked machine, which is an outright lie. There are some rough comparisons you can make that involve megahertz, but 1.25 is not always less than 2.5.

~J

correct

 

[Photorun]

I'm not talking about Tore and his gang. He seems to have a thing for Apple, even tho he doesn't fully admit it. But if you read the comments, you find the total pro-everything-Apple-does and the never-tried-it-but-know-it-is-crap. It's destined to be a war in there..

A rabid super pro Applehead, "never tried it know it's crap" towards the peecee world (well c'mon, that's true) is a good thing, it offsets the larger majority of peecee lusers who are Mac bashers who do so because they're ignorant and worse, actually ARE on a worse platform.

 

[DrBoar]

tell me were it Hertz

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-22.html

A 2 GHz Celeron is a tad slower than a 1.2 GHz PIII and a 1.33 GHz AMD in Quake (FPU performance)

in WinRAR the Celeron and PIII is suddenly on par with a 2 GHz AMD CPU

If you get into comparing x86 with PPC then compliers and OS makes is even more confusing. After switching back and forth a lot I would say that the G4 on a good day can keep up with the PIII and AMDs MHz for MHz and best the P4 by a bit. However in sheer performance using what ever aviable MHz there is the G4 is trailing badly and always had.

The good thing is that the CPU & GPU is long past having any real effect in performance in web browsing, Office apps and the like. I will hardly notise if spell checking in Word takes 3 times longer with a 1.25 GHz G4 than a 4 MHz P4 ( 0.1 vs 0.3 seconds or so) in the days of 32 MHz 68030 vs a 100 Mhz 486 I would have done so.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Take exception all you want, your exception is bull. Clock speed is meaningless outside of a single line of processors. Try comparing a Cray X1 (800 MHz CPU, by the by) to a OMFG 4 GHz P4… I think it's rather obvious the P4 will get eaten for lunch.



Not in my experience, it ain't.

~J

Hence the reason, like I said, there are other factors that are used to measure speed beyond clocks but the simple fact is that clocks are valid means of measuring speed along with system bus speed, the number of registers the chip uses, L1/L2 Cache, pipeline length, etc and your example is asinine. We aren't even talking in the same class of CPU. Your comparison its like comparing Apples to SUVs. Lets at least stay in the realm of possibilities e.g. x86 to x86 or PowerPC to x86. The only people who screech like monkeys on crack about how clock speeds are completely meaningless are Mac users who use to have craptastic performance with the G4. Amazing isn't it that the hollering has died down now that the G5 is on the scene.

 

[Alb]

Motorla/Freescale = G4?

Hope the new baby will get this :

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps...ncsg/09-28-04_DUALPROC.htm&title=News Release

 

[dcollierp]

Have you actually used a recent "Intel Extreme" motherboard? You might be surprised to find out that they'll tromple some of the low end "non-integrated" chips that Apple's fond of using.

Did you know who was among the first to the market with "integrated graphics"? It was Silicon Graphics, no slouch in the graphics performance arena, which was a pioneer in using system RAM to give the graphics as much memory as it needed.

Of course, it's not a 3D gaming engine, but for the tasks that a $500 PC would be used for it is definitely a cost effective solution.

Having a "litmus test" for "integrated graphics vs discrete graphics" is as silly as blind belief in the "MHz Myth".

If good 3d graphics, damn the price, is important - then don't get a mobo with Intel Extreme.

If you're doing email, surfing, digital photo editing, DV movie editing and the like, however, integrated graphics can be a great way to shave the cost without any perceived loss of performance.

(In my end-of-year "spend-it-or-lose-it" equipment purchases, I bought 24 systems with embedded graphics, and 4 with 256 MiB Quadro FX 3400 PCI Express cards. Didn't waste money when it didn't matter, but bought high end when it did.)

That still didn't answer the question.

 

[malibux]

Maybe the iMac Mini will be called MAC TV

http://www.freeimagesolutions.com/getimg/MacTV.PNG

Check out this link i found at the Applenova Forums....
http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?t=3057

 

[rickmac2005]

New "headless" imac revealed-so sue me!

I have it on good advice that this is a 100% authentic photo as to be revealed by Steve Jobs. My lawyers are waiting.......

 

[Poff]

I have it on good advice that this is a 100% authentic photo as to be revealed by Steve Jobs. My lawyers are waiting.......

Oh wounderful!! This reminds me of good old Commodore!

 

[Yvan256]

I disagree. This can plug into your TV and use the TV as your monitor, but so what, any cheapo PC graphics card has TV-out. If it doesn't have a TV tuner to WATCH TV, I don't see it as a DLD.

A regular TV tuner is now "obsolete", since most cable/satellite providers need their special tuner box to receive channels.

Which digital tuner would Apple include? Or add a BTO choice for different providers?

 

[Rod Rod]

Oh wounderful!! This reminds me of good old Commodore!

I'd have hoped that picture reminded you of the Apple //, Apple //+ and Apple ||e.

 

[nagromme]

Prepare for the usual pattern

It has an almost Apple II look as well

OK, time to fast forward to AFTER the product SHIPS:

1. Tremendous noise from a small but loud group of forum posters that computer shoppers never heard of: "Apple has YET ANOTHER in a string of flops here!" People with egos tied to Mac-bashing AND loyal Mac users who want a quad-G6 for $50 AND simple trolls all will echo this same general feeling. Specs trivia will be discussed instead of how well the machine actually serves the user. Paid MS journalists like Thurott and Enderle will take up the cry as solid proof that Apple stopped mattering at the end of the Civil War.

2. Widespread quieter, more reasoned responses from users and reviewers seeing why the whole package (especially Tiger vs. Windows) offers MORE to many buyers than you could possibly get for the price before this machine rolled out.

3. Massive sales, many happy new switchers/adders, a boost to the iPod halo effect, a new mood in the press bandwagon that "the Mac is back" (as if it went away), and the start of a slow but sure market share climb. (Although user base increases anyway, even with flat market share.)

Or maybe it will be a G3 for $649...