Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

$499 Headless iMac?

Jsmit said:
Rod Ram, please prove me wrong but according to Apple, Crucial, and MemoryX eMacs only support up to 1GB of RAM. Since the eMac has two slots for RAM, I can see how you could put two 1GB modules in, but will it recognize it? Maybe some out there has, and can commit on this. The only reason that I even mention this is so no one wastes their money thinking they can get 2GB into the eMac because they hueard that could on Mac Rumors.
Click to expand...
Chip NoVaMac said:
More over are you risking the warranty?
Click to expand...

I'm checking Apple's documentation right now... brb

back... follow the link below to see proof that 2GB works in the PC2700 eMac, and click deeper to get to the Apple developer docs:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/archives/apr04/042904.html#S17348

Although (apparently) Apple developer docs state that 512MB is the largest DIMM supported by the eMac, 1GB DIMMs work. This should not be a warranty problem at all, even though the eMac's developer docs are incomplete. The last generation of G4 iMacs supported up to 2GB of RAM as well.

Based on a very cursory glance of RAM sellers, TransIntl and Coast to Coast (18004memory) both offer 2GB kits for the eMac (PC2700).
 
Jsmit said:
I must have missed where you gave the cache specs for the 3.8. Thanks for the quick lesson.

Even though the 1.25 G4 is not the fattest processor on the market, the only programs where it will really show how slow is, are newer games and some pro apps which this machine is clearly not meant to run. For such a low price that is all you get. I never thought I would have to make the decision on whether to buy a new iPod or computer. I'm glad it will hvte a G4 and not an updated G3. Glass is half-full.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but Office 2004 is slow on a DP 2.5 Ghz G5. Just imagine a potential switcher with their cheap fast PC trying out Office 2004 on a 1.25 Ghz G4. They will instantly be irritated by how slow and unresponsive it is. If this product is targeting people who are reconsidering macs because of their love of the iPod, they also need to feel that the machine is not a step down speedwise from what they currently own. And a 1.25 Ghz g4 would be a step down from virtually any PC sold in the past 3 years!
 
rog said:
I'm sorry but Office 2004 is slow on a DP 2.5 Ghz G5. Just imagine a potential switcher with their cheap fast PC trying out Office 2004 on a 1.25 Ghz G4. They will instantly be irritated by how slow and unresponsive it is. If this product is targeting people who are reconsidering macs because of their love of the iPod, they also need to feel that the machine is not a step down speedwise from what they currently own. And a 1.25 Ghz g4 would be a step down from virtually any PC sold in the past 3 years!
Click to expand...

To be honest I have 1.25gb RAM on my PB rev. B, and I am using the previous version of MS Office. But I don't see much if any performance differences between my Mac and Xp machine for that work.
 
rog said:
I'm sorry but Office 2004 is slow on a DP 2.5 Ghz G5. Just imagine a potential switcher with their cheap fast PC trying out Office 2004 on a 1.25 Ghz G4. They will instantly be irritated by how slow and unresponsive it is. If this product is targeting people who are reconsidering macs because of their love of the iPod, they also need to feel that the machine is not a step down speedwise from what they currently own. And a 1.25 Ghz g4 would be a step down from virtually any PC sold in the past 3 years!
Click to expand...

You have some defective G5 then.

Office 2004 is perfectly fast on my 1ghz G4 Powerbook.
 
Thataboy said:
You have some defective G5 then.

Office 2004 is perfectly fast on my 1ghz G4 Powerbook.
Click to expand...


I can't believe people still think that! Have you never tried Office on a PC? Office on my mothers Pentium 200MHz is faster than it is on any Mac I've ever seen!
 
Poff said:
I can't believe people still think that! Have you never tried Office on a PC? Office on my mothers Pentium 200MHz is faster than it is on any Mac I've ever seen!
Click to expand...

Yes I have. Maybe I need to do a "stop watch" test; but I see no real differences in speed for my uses. Other factors as the ability to print to a PDF from the OS X outweighs small differences that would require added expenditures for the Win Box.
 
Poff said:
I can't believe people still think that! Have you never tried Office on a PC? Office on my mothers Pentium 200MHz is faster than it is on any Mac I've ever seen!
Click to expand...

We are getting slightly off topic here, but I have been using Excel ever since version 2 on Windows and the latest version of Office for windows is driving me up the wall. Every time I try and do something it throws pop up windows everywhere offering to increase my productivity. I spent ages working out how to disable them all, some I still can't work out how to turn off.

To me this sums up what is wrong with Windows, it has to pop up windows all the time to tell you how to get the job done, rather than being intuitive in the first place.
 
Looks like no new hardware

Now that apple has lowered the prices on mac, it would seem to me that there will be no new apple hardware anytime soon. My bet is that this headless mac is for the living room only and not a general purpose computer. I'm taking bets.
 
briomaster said:
Now that apple has lowered the prices on mac, it would seem to me that there will be no new apple hardware anytime soon. My bet is that this headless mac is for the living room only and not a general purpose computer. I'm taking bets.
Click to expand...

I hope not, Apple need alterative to the all-in-one imac & emac. Let's just hope they release a line of them like the imac & the specs for the one the rumor are the slowest they offer.
 
briomaster said:
Now that apple has lowered the prices on mac, it would seem to me that there will be no new apple hardware anytime soon. My bet is that this headless mac is for the living room only and not a general purpose computer. I'm taking bets.
Click to expand...

Hopefully it will be an entry level Mac for many new customers to Apple. We are now less than a week away of hearing and seeing the newest Mac.
 
WHAT IF...?

What if...

Apple actually listened to us and gave us an expandable little headless mac? Where we can put in whatever graphics card we want, and so on.

Anyways, if this is something similar to the new iMac G5, just without the screen - I'm in. It'll be a temporary stationary before I can afford a full blown beefed up PowerMac. And when I get the PowerMac, this machine can be used in another room in the house.

My G4 PowerBook 867 is getting old anyway. Any stationary is the next for me.
 
At least the Canadian pricing on the headless iMac will be updated to reflect the strong CDN dollar. Very exciting times ahead. I may just pick one up.
 
Rod Rod said:
I'm checking Apple's documentation right now... brb

back... follow the link below to see proof that 2GB works in the PC2700 eMac, and click deeper to get to the Apple developer docs:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/archives/apr04/042904.html#S17348

Although (apparently) Apple developer docs state that 512MB is the largest DIMM supported by the eMac, 1GB DIMMs work. This should not be a warranty problem at all, even though the eMac's developer docs are incomplete. The last generation of G4 iMacs supported up to 2GB of RAM as well.

Based on a very cursory glance of RAM sellers, TransIntl and Coast to Coast (18004memory) both offer 2GB kits for the eMac (PC2700).
Click to expand...

I have seen the posts about the Trans memory. It would give many of us greater comfort to see that Crucial or OWC supported this option as well.
 
Rod Rod (sorry I got your name wrong last time), I knew you would come through and prove me wrong.

Regarding Office for Mac: Office 2004 runs very well on my 1.33 GHz PB, I know slightly faster then the hypothetical specs of this new system. My 500 MHz G3 iMac runs Office V.x useably, but not perfectly. I don't notice any major speed difference between using my bosses X GHz P4. I am sure a slight speed difference is there but I'm not going to notice it. Also remember that many of the people who switch are coming from sustems that are bogged down by malware. Yes not evey PC is bogged down, but a lot of people who would like to switch have PCs that are.

This speed will suffice. It will not break any records, but it will not be an unpleasant computing experience. The average person that uses a computer does not need a G5.

Maybe this thread should have been called "$499 Headles iMac and Other Ramblings and Mutterings."
 
Success of the iMac G5.

Does anyone know how successful the iMac G5 is? The reason I ask is if it was hugely successful I wonder if the Apple would even be thinking of a headless mac?
 
rog said:
I'm sorry but Office 2004 is slow on a DP 2.5 Ghz G5. Just imagine a potential switcher with their cheap fast PC trying out Office 2004 on a 1.25 Ghz G4. They will instantly be irritated by how slow and unresponsive it is. If this product is targeting people who are reconsidering macs because of their love of the iPod, they also need to feel that the machine is not a step down speedwise from what they currently own. And a 1.25 Ghz g4 would be a step down from virtually any PC sold in the past 3 years!
Click to expand...

Office is a peice of crap when it comes to speed on the Mac.

I timed it. I got a 500 mhz Pismo PowerBook G3, and installed Office for OS 9 (it was 98 or something like that), and Office v. X. I started up classic mode.

Office 98 (or whatever) loaded FOUR TIMES FASTER and was far more responsive in CLASSIC mode, than the OS X-native version was.

Office X and 2004 suffer from massive bloat and are also several times slower than the Windows counterparts.
 
B_Gates said:
Does anyone know how successful the iMac G5 is? The reason I ask is if it was hugely successful I wonder if the Apple would even be thinking of a headless mac?
Click to expand...

Hey, the iPod was hugely successful and they still came out with an iPod Mini.
 
B_Gates said:
Does anyone know how successful the iMac G5 is? The reason I ask is if it was hugely successful I wonder if the Apple would even be thinking of a headless mac?
Click to expand...

Anything to increase marketshare. Apple's already hit rock bottom.
 
my thoughs

Harry K. said:
Hey, the iPod was hugely successful and they still came out with an iPod Mini.
Click to expand...

I like others, hope that there will be a whole lineup of these little headless guys. (if they offered a cheaper headless G5 that would be great!) I wonder what graphics card option(s) will be available

I think the new iMac is faily successful, but the headless mac will deffinatly fill in a big gap if it's implemented right. even if it's not for "switchers"
for example. my wife just needs a computer to browse the net, do email. yadda yadda, but I need the powermac for College school/homework
so she either asks to use the powermac while stuff is rendering, or uses a little linux box I built. This little headless-mac "hMac" would be perfect for her and would be perfect for most average users. even if it is a "step-down" in MHZ than the pc they got 3 years ago, it's likely most users wont notice.
and provides a nice benifit that users can use exhisting monitors, etc...

anyhow, just my thoughts. :)
 
briomaster said:
Now that apple has lowered the prices on mac, it would seem to me that there will be no new apple hardware anytime soon. My bet is that this headless mac is for the living room only and not a general purpose computer. I'm taking bets.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily see it that way. The major price reductions happened away from the states, possibly due to the floundering dollar. In the US, only the display prices were reduced and that could pave the way for a line of affordable consumer displays, maybe 15" and 17". Announcing the X-serves means there must be plenty of other tackle for Steve to boast about next week. We'll know in less than a week, anyhow.
 
Harry K. said:
Hey, the iPod was hugely successful and they still came out with an iPod Mini.
Click to expand...

The question was,,,,"is iMac G5 currently a big seller for Apple?"

I noticed at Apple web site the iMac G5 is below iPod mini, iPod, Apple care, & the iTrip.
 
Sir_Giggles said:
Anything to increase marketshare. Apple's already hit rock bottom.
Click to expand...

There stock price is pretty high at the moment, I know most of that is due to the success of the iPod.
 
Poff said:
I can't believe people still think that! Have you never tried Office on a PC? Office on my mothers Pentium 200MHz is faster than it is on any Mac I've ever seen!
Click to expand...

i have an iMac G5, a little iBook 1.2 and a very stupid 2. something amd pc that will colect dust till i find me a digital camera to record when i am igniting it, upppssss, sorry

the thing is that in both my macs Word runs very fast ...
 
Poff said:
I can't believe people still think that! Have you never tried Office on a PC? Office on my mothers Pentium 200MHz is faster than it is on any Mac I've ever seen!
Click to expand...

i have an iMac G5, a little iBook 1.2 and a very stupid 2. something amd pc that will colect dust till i find me a digital camera to record when i am igniting it, burning it into flames and, upppssss, sorry

the thing is that in both my macs Word runs very fast ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back