$499 Headless iMac?

[mattmack]

And what is the reasoning for those of us who don't have adware? Don't get viruses? Don't crash, and frankly don't have the issues Mac users time and again bring up as reasons why Windows sucks?
In all honesty like I said on page 1 I will pick up a $499-$599 iMac but in the end its not for the propaganda reasons Mac users routinely use.

I know peoples whose whole job is to support people who have those problems. The computer they use at home are macs but they make their living fixing windows problems. If everyone switched to a mac there would be a long line of IT professionals at the unemployment office

 

[Rootman]

The GPU manufacturers like nVidia have introduced notebook plug-in technologies (mini PCI Express slots) that allow easy BTO video options and user upgrades of notebook GPU modules. (See http://www.nvidia.com/page/mxm.html.) I'd like to see this in the headless as well as iBooks.

 

[areyouwishing]

It looks fine. A 3 GHz P4 is a LOT faster per MHz than a 2.5 GHz one. See, the 3 GHz one has double the cache and faster bus speed, plus other speed boosts.

A 1.25 GHz G4 is about as fast as a 1.8-2.0 GHz Pentium 4 (remember, a 3 GHz P4 is a lot more than 33% faster than a 2 GHz one), and maybe a 2.4 GHz Celeron.

A 2 GHz G5 is about as fast as a 3 GHz p4, although the 3 actually has more cache than the G5.

You seem to be throwing out random speed comparisons without any proof.

You do realize that everything you said about pentium 4s are false?
Intel is killing off the pentium 4 because as they raise the clock speeds there is less and less of the speed gain. That means that a 3ghz p4 is LESS THAN 33% faster than a 2ghz... there are still speed gains, don't get me wrong, but its less than what it should be. Even when intel released the p4 clock for clock it was SLOWER than the P3. Read a few articles on ars technica on the p4 architecture and maybe you will see what im talking about.

 

[k2k koos]

US$ for Pound sterling?

I have no idea what VAT actually is

But I've been to the UK and noticed that pounds are used like dollars.

In the US, a donut that costs $1 costs 1 pound in the UK.

A person that would be payed a yearly salary of $50,000 in the US gets paid 50,000 pounds in the UK.

Basicly, if you lived your life in the UK and moved to America, you'd suddenly have a lot more money

Now then, a $50.000,- salary unfortunalely doesn't translate like that, it comes down to 25.000,- if you are extremely lucky, it is more likely to be 18.000,- pounds as the salaries in the UK are usually lower than in the US, also depending on which area you live (London salaries are usually higher for the same job than a rural area, but so is the cost of living)

In all fairnes, in the UK a lot of your salary goes to taxes, pension schemes, etc etc, which is something that you will have to arrange privately in the US, partly explaining the higher salaries there...
But if you ask me in which currency I would like to get paid, UK sterling please! the US $ is not worth an awful lot at this moment( compared to the pound almost 2 to 1 , (compare to a country like Turkey, 2.7 to 1)) the US is suposed to be a super power, but it seems without the buying power at the moment. Get rid of W, and things might get better for you in that respect. Although I am quite enjoying the cheap shopping in the US at the moment

 

[wdlove]

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

That definitely reminds me of my first PC the Apple IIE, except for the color. It would be flash to the past. That design also wouldn't save room. An updated Cube design would accomplish that very need.

 

[timmyOtool]

I for one think that apple will sell a ton of these, but will still only have limited impact on market share. Maybe from 3% to 5%. Were they are going to make a killing at is by reducing upgrade time for existing Mac users that can't afford for upgrade every 2 to 3 years but want to and heck that’s just about everyone I know. Or people who would want a second Mac, but can't afford one and heck that just about everyone I know too!

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple market share falls to 1.8% from 2.1%

... only have limited impact on market share. Maybe from 3% to 5%.

Actually, climbing to 3% would be a huge boost!

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/10/29.6.shtml

First on TMO - Apple Q3 Global Market Share Falls to 1.8% as Competitors Post Strong Gains


BTW, IMO much of the sales of the micro-mac would cannibalize the sales of other Mac models. Personal sales of the bug-ugly eMac would plummet as people went for the cheaper, more flexible headless unit.

iMac sales could take a hit as well - people who could afford the cheapest iMac would be tempted to save money and keep their old monitor (and not have to deal with a set of fans right in front of their ears). As has been said, few people really need a G5 in the iMac. Those that need the G5 will buy the iMac, those that don't could be tempted to get the micro-mac.

 

[timmyOtool]

Actually, climbing to 3% would be a huge boost!

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/10/29.6.shtml

First on TMO - Apple Q3 Global Market Share Falls to 1.8% as Competitors Post Strong Gains


BTW, IMO much of the sales of the micro-mac would cannibalize the sales of other Mac models. Personal sales of the bug-ugly eMac would plummet as people went for the cheaper, more flexible headless unit.

iMac sales could take a hit as well - people who could afford the cheapest iMac would be tempted to save money and keep their old monitor (and not have to deal with a set of fans right in front of their ears). As has been said, few people really need a G5 in the iMac. Those that need the G5 will buy the iMac, those that don't could be tempted to get the micro-mac.

That may be true to an extent, but I also think they will see a greater stream of revenue from users who will adopt shorter times between upgrades. I am two or three years away from upgrading my Imac, but if these things come out I would probably buy one and in two years upgrade again. That may be less money total, but its money more often.

 

[rog]

You seem to be throwing out random speed comparisons without any proof.

You do realize that everything you said about pentium 4s are false?
Intel is killing off the pentium 4 because as they raise the clock speeds there is less and less of the speed gain. That means that a 3ghz p4 is LESS THAN 33% faster than a 2ghz... there are still speed gains, don't get me wrong, but its less than what it should be. Even when intel released the p4 clock for clock it was SLOWER than the P3. Read a few articles on ars technica on the p4 architecture and maybe you will see what im talking about.

Well 3 is 50% more than 2, not 33%. I think the latest 3 Ghz with 800 Mhz bus and hyperthreading is probably nearly 50% faster than an older 2 Ghz P4 with neither of those features. As for the person saying that a 1.25 Ghz P4 is like a 2.4 Ghz Celeron, that just isn't so. The Celeron is not the severly crippled chip it was when it first debuted years ago. A 1.25 Ghz G4 is maybe about as fast as a 1.5Ghz P4, maybe a little faster at Altivec optimized code, but far slower running Office because of how MS hobbles their Mac versions of PC software. Years ago Apple touted that the G3 was UP TO twice as fast as the P2, but that comparison does not carry to G4 vs. P4 or Athlon. PC chips have leapfrogged ahead of power pcs in all those years. The 2.5 GHz G5 probably gives the latest P4 or athlon a run for it's money, but we're talking about a chip that is less than half that speed being put in this $500 box. A 1.25 Ghz G4 was DOA 2 years ago because everyone knew the G5 was coming out in a few months. even then, it was a mid range chip, with the 1.42 being in the top end tower. How many current PCs are being newly announced that use chips that were mid range 2 years ago? None!

 

[nagromme]

$499 too low?

Having just visited Dell, I would NOT be surprised if this headless Mac were $599 instead of $499. Or if it lacks a Combo drive. Or if it has almost no software bundle.

I was hard pressed to scrape together a Dell-minus-display for under $600 (except for a 10%-off holiday sale). And the specs and software bundles at those prices are pretty miserable. We're talking major trade-off decisions to keep the price down, like giving up DVD-ROM playback, or giving up the 1-year warranty. Or having WordPerfect and not much else included. Or doing without anti-virus software

I was surprised. Somehow I had it in my mind that Dells started cheaper than that. (Yes, you can also scrape something together even cheaper than a Dell.)

If Apple really DOES sell a Mac with Combo drive, real VRAM, a word processor and iLife for $499, that will be VERY competitive. But even $599 looks like an easy choice.

Knowing that, I tend to expect that AI is right: "sub-$600." And then, down the road, further price drops are possible. Starting right off at $499 would amaze me.

 

[ASP272]

Awesome! I hope that this unit is easily repairable/upgradeable though. It at least needs easy access ports for Airport/Memory/Hard Drive expansion. A replaceable video card would be the best, but not likely in such a small package. Should be interesting to see.

 

[mattmack]

Well 3 is 50% more than 2, not 33%. I think the latest 3 Ghz with 800 Mhz bus and hyperthreading is probably nearly 50% faster than an older 2 Ghz P4 with neither of those features. As for the person saying that a 1.25 Ghz P4 is like a 2.4 Ghz Celeron, that just isn't so. The Celeron is not the severly crippled chip it was when it first debuted years ago. A 1.25 Ghz G4 is maybe about as fast as a 1.5Ghz P4, maybe a little faster at Altivec optimized code, but far slower running Office because of how MS hobbles their Mac versions of PC software. Years ago Apple touted that the G3 was UP TO twice as fast as the P2, but that comparison does not carry to G4 vs. P4 or Athlon. PC chips have leapfrogged ahead of power pcs in all those years. The 2.5 GHz G5 probably gives the latest P4 or athlon a run for it's money

Just as you can make statistics say anything you want them to you can also say anything seems faster when you make blanket comparisions of different architecture processors. The ultimate question is: Is it fast enough to do what you need it to do? and if a two year old chip is fast enough for most consumers, while being cheap enough to be disposable than that is what most people will buy. I think the times are gone where everyone and their brother needs the newest Intel chip in their computer. Most pro and hardcore users will stay with towers and keep putting the newest technologies in them, but for the average home user, i feel, they are happy to get a functional computer for a rock bottom price

 

[mattmack]

Awesome! I hope that this unit is easily repairable/upgradeable though. It at least needs easy access ports for Airport/Memory/Hard Drive expansion. A replaceable video card would be the best, but not likely in such a small package. Should be interesting to see.

Dont bet on an upgradable video card, probably just ram and maybe the hard drive/ optical drive if you are daring. This is still Apple we are talking about

 

[mahoobley]

For those of you who look forwards to seeing the masses switching from their Windows PCs to this rumoured new iMac to get away from viruses and adware etc, will you not be concerned when Macs take a large enough userbase for virus writers and spammers to start taking notice?

I'm sure OSX is inherently more secure than the hole-infested mess that is Windows, but you know these guys always find a way...

 

[Jsmit]

For those of you who look forwards to seeing the masses switching from their Windows PCs to this rumoured new iMac to get away from viruses and adware etc, will you not be concerned when Macs take a large enough userbase for virus writers and spammers to start taking notice?

I'm sure OSX is inherently more secure than the hole-infested mess that is Windows, but you know these guys always find a way...

I am not an expert on the subject but my feelings are that Macintosh operating system will not gain a large enough user base just because Apple releases a low cost system. I would say say the most optimistic gain be up to 10% market-share. A realistic upper limit would probably be just over 5% market-share. I wouldn't expect the majority of malware writers to target the Macintosh until they have at lest a 30% market-share.

I can't speak for everyone else here, but I am not excited about the "headless iMac" because of all the new switchers and Apple making oodles of money. I am excited because it means I may save some money in the future or get a cheap Macintosh toy to play with. Maybe, a low cost Apple display. Sure I will be happy that Apple does well (assuming it does), but am excited about what it means to me. I know, I am greedy.

This was discussed already, didn't you read the monstrous thread first?

 

[Converted2Truth]

Apple should be focusing on their poor graphics performance.

I doubt this computer will have better than the imac, which means it won't support 10.4 fully. The computer is already outdated and it's not even released yet. Also the eMac and the iBook... they've all got crappy VPU's stuffed inside.

Apple needs to focus on putting good video hardware into new models. Half of their current lineup won't run the new OS! That's pretty sad... and it's a problem. People don't want to hear that the new mac they bought last month won't run 10.4.

 

[GFLPraxis]

You seem to be throwing out random speed comparisons without any proof.

You do realize that everything you said about pentium 4s are false?
Intel is killing off the pentium 4 because as they raise the clock speeds there is less and less of the speed gain. That means that a 3ghz p4 is LESS THAN 33% faster than a 2ghz... there are still speed gains, don't get me wrong, but its less than what it should be. Even when intel released the p4 clock for clock it was SLOWER than the P3. Read a few articles on ars technica on the p4 architecture and maybe you will see what im talking about.

No, it's because the highest one generate more heat that they're losing performance. The ones OVER 3 GHz. The 3 GHz and up ones have 1 MB of cache, 800 mhz bus speed, and HT. The 3.2 is barely faster than the 3 GHz, the 3.4 is a little faster than that, and the 3.6 runs so hot that it actually runs slower than the 3.4.

But comparing a 2.5 to 3, the 2.5 has less cache.

 

[GFLPraxis]

Well 3 is 50% more than 2, not 33%.

Look at it the other way. 2 is 33% slower than 3.

 

[GFLPraxis]

Apple should be focusing on their poor graphics performance.

I doubt this computer will have better than the imac, which means it won't support 10.4 fully. The computer is already outdated and it's not even released yet. Also the eMac and the iBook... they've all got crappy VPU's stuffed inside.

Apple needs to focus on putting good video hardware into new models. Half of their current lineup won't run the new OS! That's pretty sad... and it's a problem. People don't want to hear that the new mac they bought last month won't run 10.4.

What the heck are you talking about? You don't have to have a Geforce FX 5200 Ultra to run Tiger. Just to use the most advanced CoreImage features. You can still use the basic CoreImage stuff and run Tiger at full speed on a current eMac.

 

[Sir_Giggles]

Apple should be focusing on their poor graphics performance.

Maybe for 3D games, but comon. I have a FX5200 and I am driving a 1600x1050 LCD monitor AND a 2048x1536 CRT monitor @ 75Hz. It runs extremely smooth TYVM. Please explain again to me how this relates to poor performance.?

I love it when people make such general statements.

 

[nagromme]

Apple should be focusing on their poor graphics performance.

Have you looked at a low-end PC?

And YES these new machines will run Tiger (in fact, I bet they don't even ship for months until Tiger is ready). Even some G3 Macs can run the dev version of Tiger! Do you think a Mac without a DVD burner won't run OS X just because OS X supports DVD burning?

For those of you who look forwards to seeing the masses switching from their Windows PCs to this rumoured new iMac to get away from viruses and adware etc, will you not be concerned when Macs take a large enough userbase for virus writers and spammers to start taking notice?

I'm sure OSX is inherently more secure than the hole-infested mess that is Windows, but you know these guys always find a way...

There WILL be Mac viruses no matter what, someday. But there will NOT be the huge problem Windows has. The inherently-better design of the Mac OS will NOT cease to be a good thing, and Macs will NOT reach the userbase of Windows, so that advantage won't go away either. Hoping Mac marketshare doesn't grow is unnecessary. Mac security will never be perfect, but it will continue to be much better than MS.

 

[AidenShaw]

Do you expect anyone to believe that? Do you even believe it?

No, it's because the highest one generate more heat that they're losing performance. The ones OVER 3 GHz. The 3 GHz and up ones have 1 MB of cache, 800 mhz bus speed, and HT. The 3.2 is barely faster than the 3 GHz, the 3.4 is a little faster than that, and the 3.6 runs so hot that it actually runs slower than the 3.4.

LOL - what a load of bull....

HPaq DL380 - Xeon, ServerWorks

  Speed      Cache        Bus     SPECint   SPECfp
3.06 GHz    512 KiB L2  533 MHz     1068     1065
3.06 GHz   1024 KiB L3  533 MHz     1258     1184
3.2 GHz    1024 KiB L3  533 MHz     1313     1197
3.2 GHz    2048 KiB L3  533 MHz     1534     1349
3.4 GHz    1024 KiB L2  800 MHz     1477     1453
3.6 GHz    1024 KiB L2  800 MHz     1553     1514

http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cint2000.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cfp2000.html

You're wrong about the cache sizes, wrong about the bus speeds, and wrong about the performance.

Now, what were you claiming about the chips slowing down?

 

[mattmack]

LOL - what a load of bull....

HPaq DL380 - Xeon, ServerWorks

  Speed      Cache        Bus     SPECint   SPECfp
3.06 GHz    512 KiB L2  533 MHz     1068     1065
3.06 GHz   1024 KiB L3  533 MHz     1258     1184
3.2 GHz    1024 KiB L3  533 MHz     1313     1197
3.2 GHz    2048 KiB L3  533 MHz     1534     1349
3.4 GHz    1024 KiB L2  800 MHz     1477     1453
3.6 GHz    1024 KiB L2  800 MHz     1553     1514

http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cint2000.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cfp2000.html

You're wrong about the cache sizes, wrong about the bus speeds, and wrong about the performance.

Now, what were you claiming about the chips slowing down?

He was talking about the P4 not the xeon which is an entirely different chip and only used in servers not desktops so the speeds are irrelevant to the discussion

 

[AidenShaw]

He was talking about the P4 not the xeon which is an entirely different chip and only used in servers not desktops so the speeds are irrelevant to the discussion

Excuse me, my bad. Where did he mention "desktop", BTW.... Anyway, my Dell workstations PW 450/470/650/670 all have "Xeon" processors - that's just the Intel branding for a Pentium 4 with dual CPU enabled.

(But if you think that the Xeon DP is an "entirely different chip", you aren't really aware of how Intel does product stratification....)

Intel Corporation Intel D925XECV2 motherboard(2.8E GHz, Intel Pentium 4 proces 1 core, 1 chip, 1 core/chip with HT Technology enabled 1286 1290 
Intel Corporation Intel D925XECV2 motherboard(3.0E GHz, Intel Pentium 4 proces 1 core, 1 chip, 1 core/chip with HT Technology enabled 1365 1369
Intel Corporation Intel D925XECV2 motherboard(3.46 GHz, Intel Pentium 4 proces 1 core, 1 chip, 1 core/chip with HT Technology enabled 1701 1772 
Intel Corporation Intel D925XECV2 motherboard(3.80 GHz, Intel Pentium 4 proces 1 core, 1 chip, 1 core/chip with HT Technology enabled 1666 1671

Ooops, it still gets faster at higher GHz.... (The 3.46 has 2 MiB L3 and a 1066 MHz bus - oops, another mistake in the original post.)

 

[Jsmit]

I'm not an expert on chips, but doesn't your chart show that the 3.8 actually performs slower than the 3.46? That is why the numbers on the right go down, right? If I'm wrong please correct me since I am not an expert on chips, and am not even really sure what those numbers really do mean.

Back on topic: I am so excited about this headless Macintosh. I keep checking this thread. I think having the computer build into the keyboard would be cool. It would be "where is the computer?" all over again. O picture it as a slightly thicker iBook without the screen, or even maybe a slightly thicker keyboard with a slot drive on the right. I don't think it will happen because the rumor states the design is meant to be able to be placed vertically as well as horizontally.