New iMac In September

[g4cubed]

Still new to the forums...I see where I screwed up.

I dont know what we'll see in Sept., but I'm sure it'll be nothing we expect.

I caught the article and that would be a hellva way to go. I would like to see something new and cutting edge again.

I think the iMac model lends itself to a prominent place in the home or office, where it it integrates with the environment as opposed to being just a computer on a desk with a dedicated business function.

I agree with you. The unique styles of the Macs intergrate and becomes a part of your surroundings. I know that my Cube sits on my desk in a place of prominence. I still get an occasional person who never saw one before and are so amazed at it.

 

[iMeowbot]

We all know that right now apple has two faces -the pro face which has allproducts in sleek aluminum and a home/fun face with all products in white (i.e. imac,ipod,emac,ibook). Because the current iMac is a fun home user product in the fun apple line and when we think of g5 we think of pro/serious usage, do you REALLY think that the new imac will go g5 and if so what will it look like? Because i'm not a pro user an one of the main reasons i went mac was because of their look and because my g4 iMac makes me happy everytime I look at it, what if the g5 is...well....ugly?

The current design isn't especially geared to home users. It's just a nifty compact design is all. Take a look at all three sample business customers featured at http://www.apple.com/business/ and notice that all of them have iMacs in the mix.

What these businesses don't have is Apple's current home model, the eMac.

 

[MikeTheC]

:: Begin juvenile rant ::

I am so sick of so many going on and on about this "headless mac"! You've got your headless mac, it's called the PowerMac G4 & G5!

<SNIP>

If you want a computer that will be EXPANDABLE and be CHEAP and yes, be HEADLESS, get a mirror-door G4 as Apple is still selling them -- but for God's sake, PLEASE, SHUT the H-E-Double Hockey Stick up about the iMac Headless Mac! It ain't going to happen!

:: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ::

I feel better now.

I'd have to agree about this. You and others have said that the whole point of an iMac is to have an all-in-one Mac. I'd agree: going headless would defeat the whole point. It would make more sense to me, for the sake of argument, for Apple to introduce a headless consumer Mac other than a headless iMac, but since, as you say, Apple already does this with the G4s and G5s, I think having a consumer machine done the same way would be redundant.

However, I could certainly see some people buying them, especially if they wanted to make servers, etc., with them. But, by that logic, Apple should produce, oh I dunno, call it an "iServe" 1U consumer unit, and sell it through Yellow Dog who can then put their Linux distro on it and make people happy.

Man I'm so sick of this.

<SNIP>

I swear people are NEVER happy, it doesn't matter what Apple does they are never happy, not ever for a day. The glass isn't just half-empty around here its half-empty and got a gun pointed at its head or something. Gimme a break.

I know what you mean. Working in a call center for a PC maker, I get this sort of stuff on a regular basis. "How come you don't give a real Windows XP (or 2K or ME) CD with your system?" or "Why do you partition your hard drives?" or "Your [xyz] program is too simple and doesn't do [abc]!" or "Why can't I just press a button and do this system recovery, why do you make it so technical?" or, if we did supply manuals, "Why do you folks want to chop down so many trees?"

The sad truth is that with many people, you can't win or even break even.

 

[Doctor Q]

Timeline of the iMac...

Thanks for posting that, TranceClubMusic. It gives long-term context to our discussion. Seeing how we got where we are helps me think about what's likely to be next.

 

[mjtomlin]

All-In-One Design - Stick a fork in it, its done!

The biggest complaint about the iMac is that it cannot be upgraded, especially when it comes to video cards. First question I have, how can you have a display built-in and still be able to upgrade the video? Is there such a thing as internal video cards? Or will special video cards have to be made at astronomical prices to the consumer?

Another thing... several people here make the claim that the goal of the AIO design is to make it easier to set up. Well yes this is true, however at a ratio of about 50:1 (given current market share) people don't seem to have any problems setting up a "headless" computer and connecting an external monitor to it.

AIO systems are also very expensive compared to traditional desktops. Just go to Gateway's site and compare prices... the cheapest AIO is $1099. The cheapest desktop, $499.

So I propose instead of building the display into the system, they come up with some way of "attaching" an Apple branded display to the base unit. In the same fashion that we currently attach the iSight camera to the display; depending on which system/display combo you have, you need to purchase a "mounting" kit to attach the display to the system. (kind of like the design of the new monitors which have an optional industry standard VESA bracket which can be purchased separately.)

Another thing this would allow for is a detachable display that can be carried around the house while the base unit remains on the desktop. The display could be rendezvous/wireless enabled and automatically find any display servers (the desktop systems) and allow you to choose which one to connect to. Or it could just auto-switch from a directly-plugged state to an un-tethered state. The display would also be pen based and/or allow you to connect low-speed USB devices to it (keyboard/mouse). It would be the computer equivalent of a cordless phone!

...

Honestly, now that the "pro" line is all dual CPU, the consumer line could be differentiated by only having single CPUs and very limited upgradability

The iMac specs...

CPU: G5 @ 1.6, 1.8, and 2.0GHz
Memory: 2 slots (2GB max)
Hard drive: 80GB - 120GB
Optical Drive: CD-RW/DVD-ROM Combo (low-end), SuperDrive (all other models)
Video Slot: AGP (finally, upgradable video!!!)
PCI Slot: Also have an open PCI slot with enough space for a half-sized PCI card.
Airport Extreme built-in and possibly built-in Bluetooth.

Prices... $799, $999, $1199


Consumer Display Specs...

19" Flat CRT: $399
17" LCD: $599
20" LCD: $999
15" "cordless" LCD: $799


Besides, they need to kill the AIO now, so that in a couple of years they can come out with a iMac "Classic"

 

[MarkCollette]

The biggest complaint about the iMac is that it cannot be upgraded, especially when it comes to video cards. First question I have, how can you have a display built-in and still be able to upgrade the video? Is there such a thing as internal video cards? Or will special video cards have to be made at astronomical prices to the consumer?

A lot of PCs have on-board video, which can be overridden/upgraded by plugging a video card into the AGP port. The unused AGP port probably adds like a dollar or two of cost to the motherboard, but allows for a lot of flexibility down the road. If that slot was PCI-X or PCI Express, then even better, so the user could upgrade the video or something else, later on.

I can't think why Apple couldn't do something like that, and leave it to the third party market to give consumers what they want.

 

[domehead]

Half dome

I've read a lot of this thread but haven't found much discussion about the "Half dome" SJ mentioned in the WWDC04 keynote.

Someone mentioned (sorry I can't find the quote anymore) that the current iMac is a half dome but isn't really a dome (half a sphere). That should mean that if the "half dome" reference is a hint at the form of the new imac, I think we can expect the iMac to look like a quarter of a sphere.

any comments?

 

[thatwendigo]

The biggest complaint about the iMac is that it cannot be upgraded, especially when it comes to video cards. First question I have, how can you have a display built-in and still be able to upgrade the video? Is there such a thing as internal video cards? Or will special video cards have to be made at astronomical prices to the consumer?

As others have noted, there are onboard graphics in many PC motherboards that are overriden when you plug a card into the graphics slot. However, I fail to see how the poster who included PCI-X thought that would at all beneficial. The only cards on the market at the moment are all AGP 8x or 8x Pro specified, with a supposed generation of PCI Express coming up soon.

The jury is still out on whether PCI Express is anything more than a bus that isn't even being saturated on AGP 8x yet.

Another thing... several people here make the claim that the goal of the AIO design is to make it easier to set up. Well yes this is true, however at a ratio of about 50:1 (given current market share) people don't seem to have any problems setting up a "headless" computer and connecting an external monitor to it.

No, some 40 of those 50 pay for it to be set up by people who come to their house, show them at the store, or otherwise have help from friends or family that are conversant with cords and cards. Another 8 or so are knowledgeable but not building their own box, for some reason, and the rest are just there to pad the made-up number you threw out.

Honestly... How in the hell does market share prove if the computer is easy enough to use? It only shows what people buy, not why. Many homes have computers now because it's what the TV has told parents their kids need for school.

AIO systems are also very expensive compared to traditional desktops. Just go to Gateway's site and compare prices... the cheapest AIO is $1099. The cheapest desktop, $499.

Way to ignore the differences between models... To get that "cheap" computer with a flat panel and comparable secondary equipment, you're looking at $1199 and up. The one place they seem to really skimp on the AIO is the Celeron in the lowest one, but that's replaced by a Pentium 4 in the other two models. All of the non-premium machines are using integrated Intel Extreme 2 graphics, just as another corner cutter.

Gee, I wish DHM were here so I could rub it in his face that another manufacturer "cripples" computers to meet the bottom line.

Another thing this would allow for is a detachable display that can be carried around the house while the base unit remains on the desktop. The display could be rendezvous/wireless enabled and automatically find any display servers (the desktop systems) and allow you to choose which one to connect to. Or it could just auto-switch from a directly-plugged state to an un-tethered state. The display would also be pen based and/or allow you to connect low-speed USB devices to it (keyboard/mouse). It would be the computer equivalent of a cordless phone!

Provided that all you want is text and light web browsing, it can be done. Too bad anything even close to the size of an iMac's current screen size runs you a grand for the screen alone. That's right... Smart Displays, which are what you're talking about, are cheap tablet computers that are more like a neutered client for your desktop than anything all that particularly useful. My mother uses one for data entry at work, while she's seeing patients, then syncs to the main fileserver when she drops it in the cradle upon getting back to her station.

That's about all the technology is good for at the moment, aside from some light web browsing. I've demolished this idea over and over again, but it keeps coming back.

15" "cordless" LCD: $799

Try again. Major electronics manufacturers are showing 15" wireless panels at $800-1,400, and thats with extremely limited functionality and a kind of thin-client tablet mentality. Anything remotely useful for the home will cost boucoup bucks, especially if they're even close to the kind of size used in the current machines.

 

[MarkCollette]

As others have noted, there are onboard graphics in many PC motherboards that are overriden when you plug a card into the graphics slot. However, I fail to see how the poster who included PCI-X thought that would at all beneficial. The only cards on the market at the moment are all AGP 8x or 8x Pro specified, with a supposed generation of PCI Express coming up soon.

The jury is still out on whether PCI Express is anything more than a bus that isn't even being saturated on AGP 8x yet.

If a PCI-X or PCI Express port is there, then it could potentially be used for graphics, or other peripherals, including legacy PCI cards, whereas if it's just AGP, then you're pretty much limited to only putting a graphics card in. It doesn't matter if there aren't currently graphics cards for those other ports, since we're talking about a machine that isn't even released yet, so third parties could make cards later.

 

[MacQuest]

Good catch sherlock, I don't remember birthday though.

I do have a prediction:

STYLE: iPod Mini Colors with metal

Yup. I'm thinking the same thing. Actually myself and "MacBandit" had discussed this possibility for the AlBooks when they were intro'd in January of '03. [see post #21]

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/18319/

MacBandit then provided the following link which shows colored aluminum alloy screws and bolts and guess what? They loook just like the iPod mini's colors!

http://www.fastener-express.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=218

There was also a nice link to colored aluminum alloy bicycle rims with even more colors, but that link is dead now.

BRING ON THE iPod mini COLORED ANODIZED ALUMINUM ALLOY iMacs APPLE!

 

[thatwendigo]

I think the modified LCIII-style casing that was suggested in the parent post would fit your description perfectly.

....

Steve, get down in front of me now and fellate!

I concede that Apple could make a G4 system that was small, compact, and somewhat useable by the general masses without making it hideously ugly to have on your desk. In fact, I believe them to be one of the only computer companies that really, honestly cares about how their machines look. What I don't believe is that the G4 could be manufactured all that cheaply much longer, because older RAM and desktop PATA hard drives are starting to be more expensive than they have been in the past, and this will get worse as the PC industry moves onwards. There are still some issues with this idea that go beyond what you're saying, though. The eMac is the cheapest Apple system with a G4 under the hood - $799 with a 17" flat CRT - and it's probably just about good enough for most home needs. I make it fine on mine, and it's an older model without the faster CPU, so I suppose it ought to be even easier with one off the newer models. Let's assume that you can peel off $100 by removing the CRT, which would pare things down to $699 for a machine that's outdated when compared to Apple's other offerings.

So, let's fiddle with numbers, shall we?

I'm going to delve into the world of PC parts once more as a basic comparison. Also, before anyone cries foul on the processor, I'm going with one that roughly approximates my understanding of what G4s cost Apple...

ASUS A7V8X for AMD Socket A
--333mhz FSB
--2x PC2700 DIMM
--2x UltraDMA 133
--1x AGP 8x, 3x PCI
-- 2x PS2, 1x LPT, 1x COM, 1x VGA, 6x USB 2.0, 1xLAN, Audio Ports
--10/100 Ethernet
--Onboard UniChrome grahics
Cost: $59

Athlon XP 3200+ Barton
Cost: $187

ATI Radeon 9600 128MB
--AGP 8x
Cost: $171

Seagate 40GB 7200RPM IDE
Cost: $56

Aopen COM5232 Combo Drive
--52x CD-R, 32x CD-RW, 16x DVD-ROM
Cost: $51

Crucial PC2700 256MB RAM - OEM
Cost: $48

Tack on, say, another $150 for case, power supply, and cooling...

Overall cost, retail: $722

That would mean Apple could probably build one for about $500-550, which makes the $699 selling point for a mointorless eMac not all that bad in the long run. Of course, it could use a few bumps here and there, but that might be entirely doable in this hypothetical pizzabox.

I still don't like the idea, though.

 

[oingoboingo]

What I don't believe is that the G4 could be manufactured all that cheaply much longer, because older RAM and desktop PATA hard drives are starting to be more expensive than they have been in the past, and this will get worse as the PC industry moves onwards.

The current model eMac uses regular old DDR333 SDRAM, which is still in the 'sweet-spot' for commodity RAM. I agree...it may actually be counterproductive to design a system which uses old SDR PC133 or something like that, as it is now more expensive than faster DDR memory. PATA drives are still cheaper on the whole than SATA drives in Australia, but I don't know how much longer that will continue for.

Let's assume that you can peel off $100 by removing the CRT, which would pare things down to $699 for a machine that's outdated when compared to Apple's other offerings.

I have no idea how much it costs Apple to include that 17" CRT, or how much the eMac chassis/casing would cost to produce versus a smaller compact one. I guess the best we can do is speculate. However, I wouldn't be so quick to call the current eMac 'outdated' compared to the rest of Apple's lineup. The eMac, with a 1.25GHz G4 (full 512KB L2 cache and 167MHz FSB) and 32MB Radeon 9200 is faster than any member of the iBook range, faster than the base-level iMac, and as far as I can tell, would be close to identical in general CPU-bound performance to the mid (17") and high (20") end iMacs (the 17" and 20" end iMacs would probably have the edge in video performance because of the 64MB GeForce 5200 FX GPU, but a 5200 FX at best still ain't no rocket ship). So the eMac outperforms the entire iBook range and the entry level iMac, and probably equals the rest of the iMac range in non-OpenGL tasks. There's only the PowerBooks and the PowerMacs that beat it hands down. In terms of Apple's current lineup, the 1.25GHz eMac is actually more of a mid-range performer. Maybe it's an indictment of the rest of Apple's non-pro lineup that the eMac could be considered to be outdated.

ASUS A7V8X for AMD Socket A
--333mhz FSB
--2x PC2700 DIMM
--2x UltraDMA 133
--1x AGP 8x, 3x PCI
-- 2x PS2, 1x LPT, 1x COM, 1x VGA, 6x USB 2.0, 1xLAN, Audio Ports
--10/100 Ethernet
--Onboard UniChrome grahics
Cost: $59

Athlon XP 3200+ Barton
Cost: $187

ATI Radeon 9600 128MB
--AGP 8x
Cost: $171

Seagate 40GB 7200RPM IDE
Cost: $56

Aopen COM5232 Combo Drive
--52x CD-R, 32x CD-RW, 16x DVD-ROM
Cost: $51

Crucial PC2700 256MB RAM - OEM
Cost: $48

Tack on, say, another $150 for case, power supply, and cooling...

Overall cost, retail: $722

That would mean Apple could probably build one for about $500-550, which makes the $699 selling point for a mointorless eMac not all that bad in the long run. Of course, it could use a few bumps here and there, but that might be entirely doable in this hypothetical pizzabox.

Reasonable figures, although the PC you specified would perform significantly faster than the eMac. The Athlon 3200+ CPU and the 128MB Radeon 9600 are definitely superior performers to the 1.25GHz G4 and the 32MB Radeon 9200, respectively. Anyhow, at the $699 pricepoint you suggest, a well designed entry-level Macintosh system which they could use with the monitor they already own, would definitely make people look twice.

I still don't like the idea, though.

Fair enough. Personal preference. But if there's one thing you can count on reading in any Apple-related discussion, on just about any discussion forum, it's the 'headless iMac/eMac' discussion. There is definitely a big interest in this out there, and there has been for years. I don't think it needs to be done in a non-Apple 'cheap and nasty' kind of way. Apple has the parts it needs in its inventory now...all it needs is a slick little monitor-free case to deliver it in, and a lower-than-eMac price tag to get people saying "Damn, I didn't know you could get a Mac for that much!!"

 

[MontgomeryBurns]

all it needs is a slick little monitor-free case to deliver it in, and a lower-than-eMac price tag to get people saying "Damn, I didn't know you could get a Mac for that much!!"

This is great, but this hypothetical computer won't be $699 in the eyes of most people when they end up having to buy a thousand dollar screen to even get to use the thing.

 

[mjtomlin]

Originally posted by MarkCollette
A lot of PCs have on-board video, which can be overridden/upgraded by plugging a video card into the AGP port. The unused AGP port probably adds like a dollar or two of cost to the motherboard, but allows for a lot of flexibility down the road. If that slot was PCI-X or PCI Express, then even better, so the user could upgrade the video or something else, later on.

Hm. Interesting. So this works for displays that connect internally also? Or is this just for monitors that plug into the external video port on the motherboard?

What i am wondering is, since the iMac display connects internally (as we all know, there is no video cable that needs to be plugged into the back of the computer), how could you connect the display to a new video card?

Hypothetically speaking, if the iMac were to be upgradable this way, we would simply open it up, disconnect the display cable from the current video card, remove the old video card, insert the new, better, faster video card and reconnect the display cable. Correct? Well, are there any video cards on the market that have an internal video port on them? Or would a new, special "iMac" only card need to be developed?

Or is it simply impossible to have an AIO system with upgradable video?

Cause I'll tell you what... Having to buy a brand new computer to make use of CoreImage and CoreVideo in Tiger is gonna hurt. Would be nice if it weren't so, but them's the facts. As it was with Quartz Extreme, kinda sucks for all those people to have to buy an entire system, just to make use of one system component. ... Now before I hear, "But you don't HAVE to buy a new system, you're not FORCED to buy a new system" ... I'm just saying having the option of spending $100 to replace a video card would be nice vs. dropping a grand or more for a new system.

Not a game player, but if I was, owning a Mac would force me to have two computers; the other being a PC so I can play the newest games.

 

[oingoboingo]

This is great, but this hypothetical computer won't be $699 in the eyes of most people when they end up having to buy a thousand dollar screen to even get to use the thing.

Why would they need to spend $1000 on a screen? Wouldn't PC switchers just plug in the monitor they already own? Wouldn't budget-conscious consumers buy a 17" or 19" CRT, or something like a 15" LCD panel? Alternatively, if they did decide to spend $1000 on a screen, they can keep the screen for years after their 'headless Mac' has become obsolete and has been upgraded or abandoned.

I am viewing this message on a 19" Philips Brilliance 109P monitor. I paid AU$1000 for this monitor in 2000, and it has been connected to 3 different PCs, and now to my 1.6GHz G5. It will probably outlast the G5, like it outlasted the last 3 PCs. I can justify a $1000 investment if I'm going to get use out of it for 5, 6, 7 (or more) years, and if I can de-couple its upgrade cycle from the faster upgrade cycle of the computer driving it. Hence one of the major selling points of a headless, low-cost Mac.

 

[oingoboingo]

Hypothetically speaking, if the iMac were to be upgradable this way, we would simply open it up, disconnect the display cable from the current video card, remove the old video card, insert the new, better, faster video card and reconnect the display cable. Correct? Well, are there any video cards on the market that have an internal video port on them? Or would a new, special "iMac" only card need to be developed?

Or is it simply impossible to have an AIO system with upgradable video?

Certain Dell notebooks (and some notebook systems from AlienWare also, I believe) have the GPU and video RAM installed on a small daughtercard. It is possible to upgrade the video in these 'closed all-in-one' systems by pulling open the notebook chassis, and swapping one GPU daughtercard for another. Unfortunately as far as I know (please someone tell me if this is incorrect), these GPU modules are vendor specific...if Dell or Alienware doesn't produce the module you want, then tough luck.

Recently, nVidia has announced plans to create a standard for notebook/compact form factor GPU daughtercards (the MXM system: http://www.nvidia.com/page/mxm.html), which will allow graphics card manufacturers to produce standardised graphics card modules for notebooks and small form factor devices, which will work in any compatible system much like an AGP graphics card does today. The MXM standard implements a PCI Express interface, so it will support newer graphics chipsets well into the future.

So...to cut to the chase, yes, it is possible technically and physically to upgrade an all-in-one system, be it a notebook computer, or an iMac. Proprietary solutions already exist, and more standardised ones are being developed. A different, and more important question is 'would Apple ever be interested in implementing such a modular, upgradable design into their all-in-ones and notebooks?'

Probably not.

 

[pigwin32]

Why would they need to spend $1000 on a screen? Wouldn't PC switchers just plug in the monitor they already own? Wouldn't budget-conscious consumers buy a 17" or 19" CRT, or something like a 15" LCD panel? Alternatively, if they did decide to spend $1000 on a screen, they can keep the screen for years after their 'headless Mac' has become obsolete and has been upgraded or abandoned.

I agree with you about the screen, I don't agree that the eMac is the right way to encourage PC users to switch. The eMac is a budget choice, the iMac is more of a style choice and potentially a much better tool to encourage users to switch. Of course Internet Explorer and operating system vulnerabilities are a much cheaper way of getting users to switch platforms, thanks MS.

But if I had had enough of Windows I would want to buy the best Mac I could afford and if I could keep my current monitor that would help a lot, especially since I would have to ditch any PC software I had bought. Apple does provide fantastic functionality out of the box (does the iMac still ship with AppleWorks?) but replacing Office, Photoshop, or Macromedia etc is a substantial cost.

 

[elliemarshall]

when to buy

I've been in the market for a new iMac for about 4 months but have been waiting to see if Tiger would come out. WIth this wild and crazy wait we have for a completely new iMac I was wondering, should we actually buy right in September? Should we wait for 6 months when a new shipment comes and the presales are over and some of the bugs are fixed. And on another note, i'm incredibly happy with the current iMac. Should i just go out and buy one or get the g4 imac in september when they drop the price. Is a G5 really worth the wait? And if it is should i jump into presales?

 

[Master Windu]

Not quite ture

This doesn't sound like good news to me. It sounds like Apple is in trouble. They have no real computer offer between $1000 and $2000 for the next months. If you consider the fact that the iMac was very old and has been an even worse purchase ever since the eMac got upgraded, Apple will have no good offer between $1000 and $2000 for almost half a year!

This is ture in the desktop market only. The 12 powerbook and all ibooks fall in this range.

 

[CoreForce]

Pictures

A product ready to go halted the last second and still no picture of it? C'mon!

 

[Master Windu]

upgrade path

I've been in the market for a new iMac for about 4 months but have been waiting to see if Tiger would come out. WIth this wild and crazy wait we have for a completely new iMac I was wondering, should we actually buy right in September? Should we wait for 6 months when a new shipment comes and the presales are over and some of the bugs are fixed. And on another note, i'm incredibly happy with the current iMac. Should i just go out and buy one or get the g4 imac in september when they drop the price. Is a G5 really worth the wait? And if it is should i jump into presales?

It is important to note that the current imac is little more than a laptop in a really differnet formfactor. Tiger may have very demanding minimum hardware requirements and mean that your current imac will not be supported. I find it interesting that the imac will get the G5 processor followed by the powerbooks. Once that has happened the support life for the G4 will die fast. It will be easier in releases after tiger to support only one CPU width. Try to run panther on the G3. Rumors of G5 ibooks and emac will follow the powerbook launch. I would wait for a imac with tiger preinstalled if you possibly could.

 

[Rantipole]

Prices... $799, $999, $1199

LOL... dream on. I mean, I hope so! But no way.

 

[Master Windu]

logical argument

Why would they need to spend $1000 on a screen? Wouldn't PC switchers just plug in the monitor they already own? Wouldn't budget-conscious consumers buy a 17" or 19" CRT, or something like a 15" LCD panel? Alternatively, if they did decide to spend $1000 on a screen, they can keep the screen for years after their 'headless Mac' has become obsolete and has been upgraded or abandoned.

I am viewing this message on a 19" Philips Brilliance 109P monitor. I paid AU$1000 for this monitor in 2000, and it has been connected to 3 different PCs, and now to my 1.6GHz G5. It will probably outlast the G5, like it outlasted the last 3 PCs. I can justify a $1000 investment if I'm going to get use out of it for 5, 6, 7 (or more) years, and if I can de-couple its upgrade cycle from the faster upgrade cycle of the computer driving it. Hence one of the major selling points of a headless, low-cost Mac.

Logical thinking and I am sure this is why apple is switching over to the DVI standard, but the imac market is in a whole system in a box for 1 to 2 thousand range. If a headless imac is introduced apple will not be able to supply this market with all apple products. If you have to buy a new apple LCD and a new IMAC you will go over the 2000 limit and interfer with low range power macs. If they go ahead with the headless design we will see more apple displays at a smaller size and price.

 

[Master Windu]

concur

LOL... dream on. I mean, I hope so! But no way.

My bet is 100 to 200 plus the current cost. (w/ built in LCD)

 

[Master Windu]

what about the other way to upgrade?

Certain Dell notebooks (and some notebook systems from AlienWare also, I believe) have the GPU and video RAM installed on a small daughtercard. It is possible to upgrade the video in these 'closed all-in-one' systems by pulling open the notebook chassis, and swapping one GPU daughtercard for another. Unfortunately as far as I know (please someone tell me if this is incorrect), these GPU modules are vendor specific...if Dell or Alienware doesn't produce the module you want, then tough luck.

Recently, nVidia has announced plans to create a standard for notebook/compact form factor GPU daughtercards (the MXM system: http://www.nvidia.com/page/mxm.html), which will allow graphics card manufacturers to produce standardised graphics card modules for notebooks and small form factor devices, which will work in any compatible system much like an AGP graphics card does today. The MXM standard implements a PCI Express interface, so it will support newer graphics chipsets well into the future.

So...to cut to the chase, yes, it is possible technically and physically to upgrade an all-in-one system, be it a notebook computer, or an iMac. Proprietary solutions already exist, and more standardised ones are being developed. A different, and more important question is 'would Apple ever be interested in implementing such a modular, upgradable design into their all-in-ones and notebooks?'

Probably not.

I agree with you that apple will not do this. the only advantage to a new headless imac would be keep the display and upgrade the other hardware, and not putting a new monitor on an old mac.