G5 iMac?

[sorryiwasdreami]

I know this has been said a few times before, but I would really love to see the new iMac design in vein of the iPod minis. It would take the sleek, curvey, plastic look of yesteryear's G4's and iPods and transform it to the current hard-edged, industrial, metal look of the PM G5's and minis.

Also you would be able to choose from a handfull of shiny, metalic colors in the fashion of the iPod minis, but also have a couple additional colors like jet black, white, and PM G5 grey.

I'm in as soon as they announce this (any iMac G5) badboy.

 

[jackieonasses]

I know this has been said a few times before, but I would really love to see the new iMac design in vein of the iPod minis. It would take the sleek, curvey, plastic look of yesteryear's G4's and iPods and transform it to the current hard-edged, industrial, metal look of the PM G5's and minis.

Also you would be able to choose from a handfull of shiny, metalic colors in the fashion of the iPod minis, but also have a couple additional colors like jet black, white, and PM G5 grey.

I'm in as soon as they announce this (any iMac G5) badboy.

man that would be so so so so sweet!!!!!!!

 

[ts1973]

Wrong on several pointts. OpenGL could compete with DirectX, until Microsoft leveraged their position to get DX optimizations made on graphics cards, and yet this hasn't ever been challnged in court because there's no commercial OS that people play a lot of games on. The standards are pretty comparable in performance when one doesn't have, say, hooks directly into the OS and the hardware, unlike OpenG, which is portable and flexible.

Also, don't be fooled... Even if the mac platform were to go to something like x86, there's no way in hell that Microsoft would let Apple get away with porting DirectX, nor would they do it themselves. It's a major Windows advantage, and they won't give that up.

Actually you're saying the same thing as I am. I didn't mean to say that the "technology" of OpenGL is inferior to DirectX (on the contrary, as you point out), but until Apple adapts to M$ (which they won't allow, I agree with you, and we don't want anyway) or M$ is forced to withdraw the "hooks" of DirectX, there is no way Mac gaming can compete...

 

[Phillip]

what apple needs....

apple should release a g5 imac, for the consumer space just for marketing... who cares if the g5 1.6 ghz isn't that much faster than a g4 1.5 ghz? i mean, if u tell them about the g5 and virginia tech, then people would be amazed to find out that the worlds 3rd fastest supercomputer used a g5 and it was in their imac as well - or like $999. an imac is not an imac without a monitor.

then for the people who just want a box, and not a monitor, (those people are usually people who are computer literate and want something abit faster and more expandable.) bring back the cube. and put a g5 in that. that could be the missing product that people want thats just in between the imac and powermac. a single 1.8 or 2.0 g5 for $1299 - without the monitor.

the emac should just stay for educational purposes and for those who want a really cheap mac.

so by jan 05

desktops ( too many desktops? the cube should be kinda like a powermac)
powermac g5 - up to 3.0 ghz
powermac cube g5 - up to 2.0 ghz
imac g5 - up to 1.8 ghz

emac for education - 1.5 ghz g4

notebooks;
powerbook g5 - up to 2.0 ghz
ibook g4 - up to 1.5 ghz

 

[thatwendigo]

Actually you're saying the same thing as I am. I didn't mean to say that the "technology" of OpenGL is inferior to DirectX (on the contrary, as you point out), but until Apple adapts to M$ (which they won't allow, I agree with you, and we don't want anyway) or M$ is forced to withdraw the "hooks" of DirectX, there is no way Mac gaming can compete...

Oh, well that's alright, then. I guess that I misunderstood your basic point, but that's probably from hearing the clueless PC gamers I know thinking that DirectX is some amazing godsend. It's really just a hook to keep them in.

OpenGL would work just about as well, but it doesn't have the kind of backing that DX does, which is a shame. I still remember when OS X was releasec and Carmack said that the mac had 99% of what he wanted in a programming environment... Damn, but it would have been cool if something could have come from that.

apple should release a g5 imac, for the consumer space just for marketing... who cares if the g5 1.6 ghz isn't that much faster than a g4 1.5 ghz? i mean, if u tell them about the g5 and virginia tech, then people would be amazed to find out that the worlds 3rd fastest supercomputer used a g5 and it was in their imac as well - or like $999. an imac is not an imac without a monitor.

Sadly, I think that you're right. It seems that even people here on MacRumors have bought into the glitz and hype of the "it's got a bigger number" marketing, even though we've all been steeped in the megahertz myth for a while now. The G5 iMac would sell better than the G4, even if it were hotter, noisier, and uglier. Just look at Dell.

I still maintain that proper engineering is the way to go, though, not appeasement.

then for the people who just want a box, and not a monitor, (those people are usually people who are computer literate and want something abit faster and more expandable.) bring back the cube. and put a g5 in that. that could be the missing product that people want thats just in between the imac and powermac. a single 1.8 or 2.0 g5 for $1299 - without the monitor.

Bad, bad, bad idea... Unless the 970fx is going to drop even lower in heat, it's not going to do so well in a passive cooling solution. The entire cube was built around a 450mhz processor (the MPC7410, which ran at 4.5 watts at peak power), and a lowly Rage 128 Pro 16MB card, using PC100 RAM and a 100mhz bus.

By comparison, the 970fx 2.0ghz runs at 24.5-30w peak power (five to six times the heat), and has a GeForce FX 5200 as the lowest installed card (using either a giant heatsink or a fan to rid itself of heat. By comparison, the Rage 128 is pretty skimpy. It only gets worse as you move up.), along with an FSB that's half the clock (1.0ghz in this case) and requires its own heatpipe, and PC 3200 RAM.

If you think that this would be cheaper than the original cube... By all means, keep dreaming.

The way to make a cheap mac is to skimp on the features, something that I don't think Apple is going to like doing. Notice how a lot of people reacted to the single 1.6ghz machine, just to give an example. However, as I've previously stated, I've swung around to the point where I could see there being a line of prosumer, single-processor towers intended for the people who don't want to pay for a dual machine and who can deal with the fact that they won't be getting top of the line. Make the pro line all dual-procssor (even if we get dual-core chips) and leave the cMac, for consumer macintosh, to soak the midrange people that don't want a full-on tower. Have the same speed processors as the pro towers, but without the second chip, stay at PC3200 while moving the pros to PC4200, single SATA drives while the pros get SATA 10000RPM RAID, and offer second-tier graphic with a BTO option on better. Start the line around $1400 and watch them fly.

 

[ts1973]

The way to make a cheap mac is to skimp on the features, something that I don't think Apple is going to like doing. Notice how a lot of people reacted to the single 1.6ghz machine, just to give an example. However, as I've previously stated, I've swung around to the point where I could see there being a line of prosumer, single-processor towers intended for the people who don't want to pay for a dual machine and who can deal with the fact that they won't be getting top of the line. Make the pro line all dual-procssor (even if we get dual-core chips) and leave the cMac, for consumer macintosh, to soak the midrange people that don't want a full-on tower. Have the same speed processors as the pro towers, but without the second chip, stay at PC3200 while moving the pros to PC4200, single SATA drives while the pros get SATA 10000RPM RAID, and offer second-tier graphic with a BTO option on better. Start the line around $1400 and watch them fly.

Apple used to have a name for this : "performa's" (and later PPC6400 and the like)

But indeed : I also think we need a machine like this...

 

[thatwendigo]

Apple used to have a name for this : "performa's" (and later PPC6400 and the like)

But indeed : I also think we need a machine like this...

The first mac bought specifically for me, when I was a child, was a Performa 635CD. However, I'm not advocating crippling the processor, just leaving one off. Oh, and pushing the pro towers as hard as possible. It's basically a "here's what the pros had last year" machine, with the option to upgrade just about anything but the CPU.

 

[Phillip]

Bad, bad, bad idea... Unless the 970fx is going to drop even lower in heat, it's not going to do so well in a passive cooling solution. The entire cube was built around a 450mhz processor (the MPC7410, which ran at 4.5 watts at peak power), and a lowly Rage 128 Pro 16MB card, using PC100 RAM and a 100mhz bus.

By comparison, the 970fx 2.0ghz runs at 24.5-30w peak power (five to six times the heat), and has a GeForce FX 5200 as the lowest installed card (using either a giant heatsink or a fan to rid itself of heat. By comparison, the Rage 128 is pretty skimpy. It only gets worse as you move up.), along with an FSB that's half the clock (1.0ghz in this case) and requires its own heatpipe, and PC 3200 RAM.

If you think that this would be cheaper than the original cube... By all means, keep dreaming.

then i guess they could use some other form factor; but if apple wants to gian market share, they have to carter for more ppl. most switchers from pcs are people who already have a pretty decent pc; and don't want an imac because its not very expandable, and the g5 is too expensive to them when they compare it to pcs.

The way to make a cheap mac is to skimp on the features, something that I don't think Apple is going to like doing. Notice how a lot of people reacted to the single 1.6ghz machine, just to give an example. However, as I've previously stated, I've swung around to the point where I could see there being a line of prosumer, single-processor towers intended for the people who don't want to pay for a dual machine and who can deal with the fact that they won't be getting top of the line. Make the pro line all dual-procssor (even if we get dual-core chips) and leave the cMac, for consumer macintosh, to soak the midrange people that don't want a full-on tower. Have the same speed processors as the pro towers, but without the second chip, stay at PC3200 while moving the pros to PC4200, single SATA drives while the pros get SATA 10000RPM RAID, and offer second-tier graphic with a BTO option on better. Start the line around $1400 and watch them fly.

i would have to agreed to some extent. do make every product in the "pro" line dual processor, but why not different speeds as well? (like a pro line of dual 2.6/2.8/3.0 ghz machines? its an incentive for them to go pay the best one, and lets face it, the first thing we look at is the processor speed.

 

[thatwendigo]

then i guess they could use some other form factor; but if apple wants to gian market share, they have to carter for more ppl. most switchers from pcs are people who already have a pretty decent pc; and don't want an imac because its not very expandable, and the g5 is too expensive to them when they compare it to pcs.

A G5 only looks bad compared to PCs if you don't know what you're doing on the comparison or doing one of two things - buying your own parts or acquiring from a company that doesn't make a profit. If you go to the only profitable PC manufacturer and compare prices (Dell), the G5 is pretty competitive on features.

i would have to agreed to some extent. do make every product in the "pro" line dual processor, but why not different speeds as well? (like a pro line of dual 2.6/2.8/3.0 ghz machines? its an incentive for them to go pay the best one, and lets face it, the first thing we look at is the processor speed.

Why not different speeds? Because the RAM and single processor will be enough of a hit. We need every edge we can get at the moment, and that means a consumer line that screams, but is reasonably separated from the pro line. The changes I outlined would allow that and also prevent even the top of the line consumer tower from beating the lowest pro tower on most tasks, unless you spend a lot of money to do so.

I repeat:
iBook 12" 1.8ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC2700(2-DIMM), 40GB 4200RPM, Combo, Radeon 9200 Mobile 64MB, $1,299
iBook 14" 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC2700(1-DIMM), 60GB 4200RPM, Superdrive, Radeon 9200 Mobile 64MB, $1,699

eMac 15" LCD 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60 GB/80GB, Combo/SuperDrive, Radeon 9600 128MB, $1,099/$1,499

cMac 2.2ghz 975 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 80GB SATA, SuperDrive, NV 6800 GT 128MB, $1,499
cMac 2.6ghz 975 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 160GB SATA, SuperDrive, NV 6800 GT 128MB, $1,799
cMac 3.0ghz 975 (dual-core), 1GB PC3200, 250GB SATA, SuperDrive, NV 6800 Ultra 256MB, $2,099

PowerBook 15" 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60GB 5400RPM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $1,799
PowerBook 15" 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60GB 7200RPM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $1,999
PowerBook 17" 2.2ghz 2600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60GB 7200RPM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $2,399
PowerBook 17" 2.2ghz 2600 (dual-core), 1GB PC 3200, 80GB 7200RM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $2,699

PowerMac 2.2ghz (dual-core, dual-processor), 512MB PC4200, 2x60GB SATA 10000RPM RAID, SuperDrive, ATI x800 128MB $1,999
PowerMac 2.6ghz (dual-core, dual-processor), 512MB PC4200, 2x80GB SATA 10000RPM RAID, SuperDrive, ATI x800 128MB $2,499
PowerMac 3.0ghz (dual-core, dual-processor), 1GB PC4200, 2x120GB SATA 10000RPM RAID, SuperDrive, ATI x800 256MB $2,999

 

[oingoboingo]

Why not different speeds? Because the RAM and single processor will be enough of a hit. We need every edge we can get at the moment, and that means a consumer line that screams, but is reasonably separated from the pro line. The changes I outlined would allow that and also prevent even the top of the line consumer tower from beating the lowest pro tower on most tasks, unless you spend a lot of money to do so.

The eternal dilemma for Apple...how to segment the consumer and the pro lines...just enough to not make the consumer lineup totally suck, and just enough to stop low-margin consumer sales from eating into high-margin pro sales.

One thing which isn't related to hardware specifications at all which Apple could do to differentiate pro from consumer is to introduce a decent warranty and support level on the pro machines, ie: a professional level of warranty to go along with a professional level machine. On site warranty would be a great start. Dell has this standard on just about every machine they sell here in Australia, from cheapest to most expensive. Hell, even an AU$299 Lexmark laser printer that a friend bought recently had an on-site inspection and repair service included. People who truly earn their living on their Macs can't afford to waste time driving broken machines to and from dealers, and waiting 3 days for a backlogged technician to get around to figuring out that all that was wrong in the first place was a faulty DIMM that could be diagnosed and replaced in 15 minutes.

I live in hope.

 

[PRØBE]

i think with a g5 the entire dome should be perforated sort of like the g5 towers. It would look like those folding vegetable boiling pots. Like this:

Ah, you might be on to something there...make room for the
isputnik!

To be honest, I can't see them changing the form factor of the imac in such a hurry. Thats why I doubt the G5 imac rumor is accurate as the current design couldn't cool one without plenty of whirring and clunking.

 

[babbage]

MacWorld thinks G5s are imminent?

There may be nothing to this, but it seems interesting anyway. I recently bought a PowerMac G5, and when I registered it with Apple, I was offered a free subscription to MacWorld. When signing up for the subscription on MacWorld's web site, one of the questions you're asked is which Apple product you purchased most recently -- and one of the items on the list was "iMac G5". Does the MacWorld marketing department know something that the rest of us don't, yet? Very interesting...

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Ah, you might be on to something there...make room for the
isputnik!

To be honest, I can't see them changing the form factor of the imac in such a hurry. Thats why I doubt the G5 imac rumor is accurate as the current design couldn't cool one without plenty of whirring and clunking.

It wont be current design it will be something new & improved and for all those neysayers yelling about heat a single G5 can go anywhere just as a P4 has gone everywhere! wake up! chop a dual powermac into something half its size. the single 1.6 is lost in that case. they could make that sucker 1/3 less in size and weight and call it a consumer mac. presto

 

[windowsblowsass]

It wont be current design it will be something new & improved and for all those neysayers yelling about heat a single G5 can go anywhere just as a P4 has gone everywhere! wake up! chop a dual powermac into something half its size. the single 1.6 is lost in that case. they could make that sucker 1/3 less in size and weight and call it a consumer mac. presto

that loks pretty cool have you seen this this guy did a good job heres the link http://www.applefritter.com/node/view/2241

 

[thatwendigo]

It wont be current design it will be something new & improved and for all those neysayers yelling about heat a single G5 can go anywhere just as a P4 has gone everywhere!

Right. Loud fans, ugly enclosures, and no expandability... I'm sure that what Apple wants is to make a crappy version of their elegant products.

 

[jayscheuerle]

I'm amazed at people's focus on the semantics of an iMac needing to be "all in one". Let's call it a "PeopleMac" or "MyMac" (or something like that). Have the PowerMac for pros and power hounds and the MyMac for consumers that don't need PCI slots or more than one internal drive, put a fanless G4 in it. Essentially, make it a "headless iMac", but without the laptop sized parts. Put enough room into it for people to upgrade the graphics card and add RAM, but that's it. It would be minimal, but not necessarily cheap. Firewire and USB2 ports make machines expandable to put on extra drives, so there really shouldn't be an issue here. Start at $700, like the $799 eMac but with $99 off for the lack of a monitor and a smaller enclosure. I'd upgrade my trusty beige G3 if only for the chance to run Panther. PowerMacs are overkill for my home use. iMacs are too expensive. eMacs are too big. I've already got a nice lcd. Apple is forcing me to work eBay because they have this gaping hole in their product line.

 

[jayscheuerle]

It wont be current design it will be something new & improved and for all those neysayers yelling about heat a single G5 can go anywhere just as a P4 has gone everywhere! wake up! chop a dual powermac into something half its size. the single 1.6 is lost in that case. they could make that sucker 1/3 less in size and weight and call it a consumer mac. presto

What it needs is 1/3 less cost. That would make it consumer. It can't be over $1000 and be a consumer model. It needs to match the eMacs starting price or lower.

 

[gdicenzo]

1) Are they going to make a headless iMac?

2) Are they going to allow it to be upgradeable?

These are 2 weaknesses of the current iMac's sellability.

Yes! Yes!!! YES!!!! A consumer box with some PCI slots in it, the G5 and, then, (or is it asking too much??) a 3-BUTTON MOUSE! And, don't be stingy withholding ports as was done previously with USB 1.1 vs 2.0, etc.

Because, from my perspective, my son and I are either buying a G5 consumer Mac or we are building a 64 bit Athlon Linux box, as teenagers are wont to do. And we can't wait much longer .....

 

[windowsblowsass]

Yes! Yes!!! YES!!!! A consumer box with some PCI slots in it, the G5 and, then, (or is it asking too much??) a 3-BUTTON MOUSE! And, don't be stingy withholding ports as was done previously with USB 1.1 vs 2.0, etc.

Because, from my perspective, my son and I are either buying a G5 consumer Mac or we are building a 64 bit Athlon Linux box, as teenagers are wont to do. And we can't wait much longer .....

blasphmey 1 button forever

 

[ingenious]

blasphmey 1 button forever

ill take my one button mouse forever too. its much easier for me to use, and i am no newbie. i am just sick and tired of acc. pressing the right click button and then opening some menu on my PC (where i am no newbie either.) But I do think that apple should seel a two button scroll mouse and a one button mouse.... so both sides would be satisfied.

 

[ingenious]

I repeat:
iBook 12" 1.8ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC2700(2-DIMM), 40GB 4200RPM, Combo, Radeon 9200 Mobile 64MB, $1,299
iBook 14" 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC2700(1-DIMM), 60GB 4200RPM, Superdrive, Radeon 9200 Mobile 64MB, $1,699

eMac 15" LCD 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60 GB/80GB, Combo/SuperDrive, Radeon 9600 128MB, $1,099/$1,499

cMac 2.2ghz 975 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 80GB SATA, SuperDrive, NV 6800 GT 128MB, $1,499
cMac 2.6ghz 975 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 160GB SATA, SuperDrive, NV 6800 GT 128MB, $1,799
cMac 3.0ghz 975 (dual-core), 1GB PC3200, 250GB SATA, SuperDrive, NV 6800 Ultra 256MB, $2,099

PowerBook 15" 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60GB 5400RPM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $1,799
PowerBook 15" 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60GB 7200RPM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $1,999
PowerBook 17" 2.2ghz 2600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60GB 7200RPM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $2,399
PowerBook 17" 2.2ghz 2600 (dual-core), 1GB PC 3200, 80GB 7200RM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $2,699

PowerMac 2.2ghz (dual-core, dual-processor), 512MB PC4200, 2x60GB SATA 10000RPM RAID, SuperDrive, ATI x800 128MB $1,999
PowerMac 2.6ghz (dual-core, dual-processor), 512MB PC4200, 2x80GB SATA 10000RPM RAID, SuperDrive, ATI x800 128MB $2,499
PowerMac 3.0ghz (dual-core, dual-processor), 1GB PC4200, 2x120GB SATA 10000RPM RAID, SuperDrive, ATI x800 256MB $2,999

wait wait wait.....


wheres the 12" PowerBook? I thot that it was the most popular PB! I could be confused tho... maybe im just biased towards my little baby.

Anyway, I like that cMac name. It has a catching ring to it... just like iMac did when they first came out. This might also help dispell some "all macs are iMacs- iMacs are a piece of junk" rumors. I know someone who truly believes that and also believes that Apple, Mac, and iMac are interchangeable. This I guess is good that he recognizes the brand, but he (up to last week when i made him an *iMovie* presentation *and* told him that M$ mad office for mac and they said that it was better than their windows version. he's hooked, but still believes all macs are iMas. ) does so in a negative way.

 

[instantypo]

HOW THE iMAC BECAME A PROSUMER MACHINE

Since the great concept of an All-in-one-flatscreen-Mac would inevitable be too expensive for the general consumer it would end up between the cheaper iMac and the PowerMacs, thus risking ending up like the Cube.

Apple-solution: let's give it the iMac name to keep it from being another in-between-Mac. And let's quietly add a cheap Mac that will sell simply because it is cheap.

So it is really the eMac that followed the iMac and the new iMacG4/G5 is the new Cube and is no longer a typical consumer machine but rather a prosumer machine. Also, the Cube failed because it was headless. Another reason why the iMac isn't. Apple hates the idea of having a beige CRT connected to a beautifully designed Mac. OS X does not wear well on a beige CRT
anyway.

Oh yes, the iCube, I mean the iMac will have a G5. No doubt.

 

[jayscheuerle]

Also, the Cube failed because it was headless.

Nope. The Cube failed because it was ridiculously overpriced by around $500-$700. If you bought one, you were paying for the design, not the machine inside.

 

[thatwendigo]

What it needs is 1/3 less cost. That would make it consumer. It can't be over $1000 and be a consumer model. It needs to match the eMacs starting price or lower.

So I checked out that "consumer" machine you're throwing around. Here's the acutal specs for what you're getting:

Dell Dimension 2400
Intel Pentium 4 2.66ghz on 533mhz FSB
XP Home
128M PC2700 Shared Memory
40GB ATA/100
48x CD-ROM with no burning software and no media
WordPerfect and MS Money
Norton Internet Security 90-Day Trial
17" CRT
Intel 3D Extreme Integrated Video with shared memory
"Integrated Audio" - 2.0, no mixing or editiing input/output, poor music and gamins support (admitted under "Help Me Choose")
Dell A215 basic speakers
PS/2 Keyboard and non-optical mouse
$100 Mail-In Rebate (actual price $599)

If you spec a computer to equal the eMac...

Dell Dimension 4600
Intel Pentium 4 2.8ghz on 533mhz FSB
XP Professional
MS Plus! for XP and Digital Media Edition
256MB PC2700
40GB ATA/100
48xCD-RW/DVD-ROM Combo Drive with RecordNow! and MyDVD Deluxe
WordPerfect Office 11
McAffee Security Center with VirusScan, FireWall, Privacy (1-Year)
17" CRT
GeForce FX 5200 128MB
SB Live! 5.1
PS/2 Keyboard and USB optical mouse
Dell A215 basic speakers (as opposed to Harmon Kardons)
Dell JukeBox PLUS
Dell Picture Studio and Photo Album Plus
IEEE 1394 Adaptor

Cost: $918

For that money, you can get the SuperDrive eMac. Hmmm. Looks like we're not so far off after all. Or, to be completely fair, we can knock about $100 off the price for the difference in graphics cards and processor. That's still ridiculously overpriced and *gasp* not expandable, because three of the fixes I had to do to equal the mac need slots.

wheres the 12" PowerBook? I thot that it was the most popular PB! I could be confused tho... maybe im just biased towards my little baby.

It was sacrificed to the heat gods, in order that the line may live.

 

[jayscheuerle]

So I checked out that "consumer" machine you're throwing around....Cost: $918

For that money, you can get the SuperDrive eMac. Hmmm. Looks like we're not so far off after all. Or, to be completely fair, we can knock about $100 off the price for the difference in graphics cards and processor. That's still ridiculously overpriced and *gasp* not expandable, because three of the fixes I had to do to equal the mac need slots.

I didn't understand why you upgraded the processor, so I specced a system out myself to match the low-end eMac ($799) as close as possible, and after the rebate that Dell offers, I came to ($808), which is still more expensive than the eMac and doesn't run OSX (which really is the most important issue here anyway). Point taken.

That said, I'd still like an eMac without a monitor built in. I'd even pay $799 because the space saved is more important to me than the monitor. My present machine is in my coat closet with wires running through the wall to a flat display on my bar with a hidden keyboard and wireless mouse. I don't think I've seen any eMac mods around, though some of the original iMac mods are inspiring.