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

New iMacs in Early 2004?

I would love a tablet from Apple, something which i could pick up and take to college and then attach back onto the base when i get home.

I'd sell this powerbook in a heartbeat if it looks good enough.

But we shall see in Janaury...
 
according to the way apple talks, i think they would do it if they could do it in the form of a laptop, with out the actual computer inside. they think people want keyboards (which i agree with and have looked down upon tablets for not having). So this would just be a display, (huge) battery keyboard, and trackpad. the advantages are acutally worth it. the weight would be the same, but the entire base could be a battery lasting hours, and for once in a long time, a laptop that generates almost no heat.. right?? theoretically if they could do this, by using airport extreme (is that even fast enough to transmit a good quality video signal and handle the keyboard and mouse as well?) it could even be used with any airport equipped mac.. but that would interfere with the networking wouldnt it.. arg
 
I personally see no point in having a tablet pc as they are today...there is nothing more convenient about them than the current laptops...in fact, I think tablets are less convenient because you have no keyboard or mouse for user input...the only way Apple would enter this market is if they could improve upon the tablet substantially...which, is entirely possible because Apple is a revolutionary company. I just dont understand when people are saying that they would love a portable computer that you can take anywhere with you and its so cool because it has wireless internet and bluetooth......well, HELLO!!! that's called a laptop :D
 
Has DigiTimes ever been correct about a major rumor? I've started to regard them like MacOSRumors.

I think that Apple needs to be very careful about doing a tablet or remote screen or whatever. Given their current consumer pricing (i.e., ridiculous iMac prices) adding features that would significantly increase the cost seems like a bad move. And don't doubt that making a removable, remotable iMac screen would add *significant* cost. It would also weigh a lot more, making it doubtful they could support it on the same arm the iMac currently uses.

Like many others here, I'd much rather see them address the basic issues with their consumer product line before pursuing very high risk ventures, which any tablet-like thing may be called.
 
Originally posted by spencecb
Is it just me, or does everyone else get really tired of the horrible spelling and use of grammar on these damn message boards???? LEARN TO SPELL AND USE PROPER GRAMMAR PEOPLE!!!!!
Click to expand...

You forgot the comma after "GRAMMAR".
 
I 20" iMac but I just can't put my hand in my pocket for a 1.25ghz G4. Anything below 2ghz is an embarrassment now.

Put the 2ghz G5 in it and I will put my cash on the table.


Power Macs should all go duel processor and let the iMac take the middle ground. With duel processors in the powermacs the iMac won't tread on their toes.
 
I think this has been mentioned before, but what if rather than a "tablet" pc, the screen was a touch screen and detatchable but wirelessly "connected" (either Bluetooth or Airport or something similiar - I don't pretend to be very technical) to the box. So I could walk around my house with it, surf the web on the couch, watch a DVD in the kitchen, write an email lying in bed, etc. Maybe it would have a battery that recharged whenever it was plugged into the base.
I think that would be pretty cool.
That being said, I just want a G5 cube (is that really so much to ask).
I did notice the single 1.8 G5's are now $1799 in the Apple Refurb store. I must say that is pretty tempting to me. I do not think it is crazy to believe Apple could put what you need in a smaller box for closer to $1000.
For that I would take my credit card off of hiatus (trying to reduce debt to become a homeowner you see).
 
Originally posted by asphalt-proof
ncreased use of plastic parts?

VERY BAD! BAD BAD BAD!!!


I totally agree. This is why Dell computers are so cheap. You get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

From the outside, my old iMac looks all plastic, and I like it. I think that people automatically equate plastic with cheap.
I have faith that Apple can increase the amount of plastic materials without sacrificing the style and quality we expect.
 
"headless" iMac...NOT "Tablet PC"

Marc the Mac has something here...

A friend and I have been discussing something like this for some time now.

I DON'T think that we will see a "take anywhere, attach to anything" screen (at least not initially, but it would be cool).
I DO think that Apple would really be on to something if they created an iMac with a screen that would detach and function as a touch-sensitive screen (and preferably allow input of some kind via usb [keyboard for text-heavy tasks]).

Picture this:
The processor in the base handles all of the heavy work and sends out information to the display via Airport Extreme and allowing for control with ARD (as people have discussed).

Marc the Mac described a scenario with (presumably) a Quicktime movie playing. Other people mentioned browsing the web and using e-mail clients. All great.

How about taking it a step further...
Using the tablet to control your iTunes with the iMac hooked up to your stereo? I know there are 802.11g stereos "available" but good luck getting your hands on one (go to Philips website and try finding a retail outlet within 200 miles of you that is selling it
[www.consumer.philips.com>home audio>home theatre systems]).

This could also be the "killer app" that X11 (devices controlled by computer remotely) needs to become more ubiquitous. You are getting ready for bed and you grab your iMac screen, turn down the heat, turn on the security system, shut off all the lights in the house, turn on the outside light, and set it into it's charging cradle next to your bed where it would go into sleep mode to wake up at 6:30, turn the heat up, turn off the motion detectors on the security system and wake you up with your favorite song gradually getting louder over your stereo!

If this thing weren't exorbitantly priced, I'd buy one in a minute because my "computer desk" is upstairs with a 17" lcd, scanner, printer, firewire hard drive, iSight, digital video camera, etc. I only use that setup for "hard core" computing. 75% of the time, I'm not editing digital video, backing up to firewire hd, scanning, etc. I just want to check e-mail, browse the web and listen to music.

Instead, I have a 12" powerbook that I plug into my stereo downstairs with an 1/8" mini-stereo cable in my living room to listen to music (effectively prohibitting me from using it for anything else). Unplug, (no music in the house but the radio [puke]) and sit downstairs at the kitchen table and check e-mail, browse web, etc. (over Netgear 802.11g).

Last thing...don't expect a G5 iMac for 1+ years if history tells us anything about processor cycles on the Mac...

j
 
Originally posted by JW Pepper
I could believe a swivel top lap top with a touch sensitive screen that would make perfect sense, if a little expensive, but it make no sense to do this to an iMac.

As far as a change in design I believe that what they have said is entirely reasonable. Apple would always want to try to reduce costs, they have too. We all know a change is coming to accommodate the G5, it is just a matter of when. Given the recent introduction of he 20" version I find it hard to believe that the new model will debut in January.
Click to expand...

Why? The 20" is hardly a new model, just a differnet monitor. No research and development there. Might have decided to get the 20" out there and not wait until the new G5 models were ready.
 
Originally posted by Photorun

$2199 for a consumer machine is laughable. BUT some consumer and prosumers would give it a look if it ducked just under the four digit rollover(s).
Click to expand...

I'd pay $2199 if they gave me 512MB RAM and a better video card. Bluetooth would also be nice.
 
Re: "headless" iMac...NOT "Tablet PC"

Originally posted by jmerk
...
Last thing...don't expect a G5 iMac for 1+ years if history tells us anything about processor cycles on the Mac...

j
Click to expand...

But isn't the G4 -> G5 transition very different from the G3 -> G4 transition (which I had been led to believe are basically the same chip but the G4 has Altivec).
And the iMac vs. PowerMac lines have only existed since the G3. I just don't know if we can assume the change to all G5 will be as slow. When Apple went to PPC chips originally how long did they keep making x80 chips? It is just a different computer market out there then the old G3. To many people (not me) MHz is everything and Mac's just sound slow.
I bought my G3 iMac when G4's where in PowerMacs, but the G3 wasn't nearly the "outdated" chip that the G4 is now in the minds of many consumers.
I think it is very important to get the G4 out of new computers and differentiate between "low-end" (iMac and iBook) and "high-end" (PowerMac and PowerBook) lines in other ways.
 
Originally posted by rdowns
Why? The 20" is hardly a new model, just a differnet monitor. No research and development there. Might have decided to get the 20" out there and not wait until the new G5 models were ready.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, I still wonder if the 20" iMac wasn't more about getting rid of 20" LCD and less about increasing the iMac line.
 
Originally posted by spencecb
Is it just me, or does everyone else get really tired of the horrible spelling and use of grammar on these damn message boards???? LEARN TO SPELL AND USE PROPER GRAMMAR PEOPLE!!!!!
Click to expand...
ef yuar wried bout spelin & gramar go reed a papor ore mgzine!
 
I don't believe that 802.11g (Airport Extreme) could handle a high-resolution bit-mapped display at any decent frame rate. You could probably do a VNC-like encoding for text and simple graphics, but forget about video games or movies or any high-resolution motion graphics. I don't think such a device would be practical, since when operating in the wireless mode you'd be restricted to a simplified graphics display and even then you'd probably need two processors, one in the "main" computer and another in the display (the latter to process the compressed/encoded video sent from the main processor).

In any case, you would not have the same graphics experience with a wireless display as you currently have with a dedicated AGP port and a fast, local graphics processor.
 
Originally posted by spencecb
Is it just me, or does everyone else get really tired of the horrible spelling and use of grammar on these damn message boards???? LEARN TO SPELL AND USE PROPER GRAMMAR PEOPLE!!!!!
Click to expand...

For all intensive purposes, your right. They're must be a better way. I could care less.

:D
 
Re: Model Lines

Originally posted by lynnpye
It's interesting...as I read through the comments and consider Apple's marketing strategy, it occurs to me that, as a recent switcher, I have some notion of why I had as difficult a time as I did switching. (Consider it a testimony to the utter sweetness of Apple's product that I did switch)

The problem as I see it is the lack of variability. Want an iMac with a 1.25 Ghz proc but only need 15" of screen? Too bad. Want an iMac configured like the 20" model but with a 15" screen to reduce cost (you want the bigger HD, more RAM, better video card)? Can't do it. Granted, this is part of offering an all in one. But as has been pointed out, the only headless model available is the PowerMac. Which has it's own problems.

Want a dual 1.6? Nope. How about a single proc 1.6 with the faster bus? Not available. Dual 1.8 with the fastest bus? Also not offered.

Essentially, rather than offering a smooth curve allowing the user to gradually increase performance and cost simultaneously, Apple customers are required to jump in discrete performance/cost hops. If I want the next better "thing", I have to pay for several other next better "things" in order to get the one I want. This increases my cost.

As a result, the customer looks over the offerings and sometimes (often?) walks away thinking "I just didn't see what I wanted", even though Apple clearly has the technology to offer just that.

Apple needs to do (in my view anyway) a few things here. First, they need to either divorce the LCD screen from the iMac so that I can use any of several sizes for any given iMac model OR they should allow any size screen to come preconfigured with any processor. I would prefer the LCD be separated (I'm sure they could engineer this) since the cost of the LCD is beginning to play heavily into the final total for the unit. Second, they need to offer a headless low end model. If they can separate the LCD from the iMac, this might do it. However, if they still keep the armature design and simply let you pick the size you want, they need to offer a separate model, too. Third, they should, frankly, remove the distinction between the various levels of PowerMac. Currently, the only difference between the various PowerMacs is the proc/bus configuration. If there is a valid technical reason why a 1.6 G5 can only run at an 800 Mhz bus speed, then let us know. If there is a valid technical reason I can't run a dual 1.6, let us know that too.

Personally, the G5 PowerMac differences are sort of a nit of mine. The price structure might stand some tweaking, but that's a nit, too.

Anyway, you've heard a lot from me. I'll go be quiet for awhile now.
Click to expand...

I think Apple would have a winner if they had complete BYO iMac at their site as well as a few standard models.

Build your iMac:

Select processor speed- G5 1.6, 1.8, 2.0
Select RAM- 512MB, 1GB
Select HD size- 40, 80 or 120
Select video card- 32, 64 or 128
Select LCD size- 15", 17" 20"
Select Airport/Bluetooth
 
Any one remember the powerbook duo dock? You had a desktop and at the push of a button you had a portable, that idea didn't stay around long, why would they think an evolution on that idea would work?
 
One thing, in order to transmit uncompressed video at 1024x768 you would need bandwith that could support transfer speeds of roughly 3 MB/sec, or 24.5 Mbps. That is a lot of bandwith, and I don't think that 802.11g can really handle it despite the fact that it can theoretically handle 54 Mbps.
 
i like what rdowns said, how about the ability to have your imac the way YOU want it rather then Having things forced on you such as slow cpu's and monster size hard drives and the least powerful videochip in the industry made meaning fx5200. Apple is not burger king that is for sure, its apples way or the pc highway.
 
Re: 2-in-1

Originally posted by MacMarino
So i was thinking when i saw the tablet being mentioned and how people are always saying they want an iMac with a detachable screen. How about a screen that clips in and out of a a kind of cradle on the metal arm, but can be used as a tablet PC when disconnected from the main body...and when you reconnect the 2 parts everything just syncs together. Could it work?

MacMarino
Click to expand...

Heck, that would be worthwhile even if it couldn't be used as a tablet. It would be nice to be able to disconnect the iMac (err, new iMac according to Arn's list) screen and use it with another computer.
 
Originally posted by rikers_mailbox
What is this whole thread about. . . some kind of wireless display pretending to be a tablet PC?

Check this out. . .
http://www.viewsonic.com/pdf/airsyncV210datasheetfinal.pdf

Just wanted to throw that in the mix.
Click to expand...

Ars just did a review that I can sum up in one word: slow.

If Apple could get the speed issue solved they would have a winner. But still, it would be a winner of a very, very tiny market so I doubt it would be worth it.
 
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