Funny, the first time I read that I thought you were being serious! I really need to turn up my sarcasm detector.
Vaio VGC-LS25E really rolls off the tongue, doesn't it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Next Apple iMacs with "Striking New Industrial Design"?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Vaio VGC-LS25E really rolls off the tongue, doesn't it.
I've gotten my wife to agree that our next desktop will be a Mac (and that we'll be a Mac family!), so I can't wait to see what these new ones will look like. I've liked all the designs of the iMac so far, with the G4 being my least favorite though.
Looking fwd to this.
Looking fwd to this.
I would laugh if the iMac became alum clad like the Mac Pro. Wow, that would heat up really quick 
When apple switched to the G5, they said it was great. when they switched the G5 to intel, they said the G5 was crap. The point is they are constantly indicating the performance is there when what they are really saying is "hey, isn't this a great design? and oh, by the way, the performance is there, trust us, here is the 'data' on that..."
Their profit margins can be larger if they are justified by an awe inspiring design. They just can't get great margins from performance alone. People go to dell for raw power, and get it cheaply.
This article is crap. It just reiterates that the next iMac is assumed to be slimmer and sleeker and be optomized for Leopard. The only difference is this article suggests the 17" could be neglected.
People have been speculating on the next iMac for a long time. Read the AppleInsider article, and you'll see that they don't list anything new except the idea of dropping the 17". Which might not even be that new of an idea, it just is to me.
-=|Mgkwho
People have been speculating on the next iMac for a long time. Read the AppleInsider article, and you'll see that they don't list anything new except the idea of dropping the 17". Which might not even be that new of an idea, it just is to me.
-=|Mgkwho
Current Imacs
I think the current Imac Core 2 Duo machines are superb. I owned a g5 version once and they were noisy and hot, but the current line is nearly perfect; quiet, fast, cool. With a reasonable amount of ram, I can have many pro applications running at the same time with no hiccups.
That said, if Apple improves upon the current line that would be great. But the current line still rocks.
Easier portability would be great. A touch screen would only be great for really clean people. The screen could get very nasty very quickly. An ipod is one thing, but a 30 inch screen that you wipe your hands on every day? I'm not so sure about that.
I think the current Imac Core 2 Duo machines are superb. I owned a g5 version once and they were noisy and hot, but the current line is nearly perfect; quiet, fast, cool. With a reasonable amount of ram, I can have many pro applications running at the same time with no hiccups.
That said, if Apple improves upon the current line that would be great. But the current line still rocks.
Easier portability would be great. A touch screen would only be great for really clean people. The screen could get very nasty very quickly. An ipod is one thing, but a 30 inch screen that you wipe your hands on every day? I'm not so sure about that.
Regarding "Dockable Tablet iMac":
WARNING: The premise of this post is that the next iMac will recieve better hardware, which may not be the case!
I would say that my major complaint about the iMac is that it's barely a step above a MB/MBP. Aside from the price advantage and bigger screen, there's no advantage to it (and I can think of a few disadvantages... no ambient light sensor, no back-lit keyboards, not portable). Point is, if I'm going to get a computer with those hardware specs, I'm going to get a MBP.
Apple needs a desktop between the portables and the Pro and since they've shown no interest in a "mini tower," the iMac has to be it. In my opinion, the current iMac's specs don't cut it. In order to beef up the iMac, however, Apple will have to use better parts: 3.5" HDD (please!), faster processors (C2D extreme family, please!), more RAM, etc., but all this requires better cooling, heavier parts. If this device we made into a convertable tablet, it would be an utter beast to carry around. This is not to mention that it'll have to contain a massive battery pack. All around, it'll be like carrying around a large wooden cutting board.......... but heavier. It will not work.
The only way I forsee this convertable tablet iMac is if the specs are so weak that it is less powerful than a MacBook so that it consumes less juice. I mean, you're going to want to be able to use this thing for a few hours, and you're not going to want to be lugging around a heavy brick of a computer, am I right? Apple will not release a tablet that is any less portable than those found on Star Trek: TNG (and later)... y'know, the half-inch thick rectangle with a screen. For this reason, it will have to be much less powerful and much lighter than a current MB. And if this is the case, it will not be a suitable replacement for the iMac.
I do think that Apple will eventually produce a computer like this, but it will not be an iMac. It, like the iPhone, will be crippled (in the right ways) to allow it to do tasks capable of being performed on a truly portable, lightweight device. However, like I said, it will not be an iMac.
Here's hoping the new iMac will not sacrifice too much power for style.
-Clive
WARNING: The premise of this post is that the next iMac will recieve better hardware, which may not be the case!
-- -- -- -- --
I would say that my major complaint about the iMac is that it's barely a step above a MB/MBP. Aside from the price advantage and bigger screen, there's no advantage to it (and I can think of a few disadvantages... no ambient light sensor, no back-lit keyboards, not portable). Point is, if I'm going to get a computer with those hardware specs, I'm going to get a MBP.
Apple needs a desktop between the portables and the Pro and since they've shown no interest in a "mini tower," the iMac has to be it. In my opinion, the current iMac's specs don't cut it. In order to beef up the iMac, however, Apple will have to use better parts: 3.5" HDD (please!), faster processors (C2D extreme family, please!), more RAM, etc., but all this requires better cooling, heavier parts. If this device we made into a convertable tablet, it would be an utter beast to carry around. This is not to mention that it'll have to contain a massive battery pack. All around, it'll be like carrying around a large wooden cutting board.......... but heavier. It will not work.
The only way I forsee this convertable tablet iMac is if the specs are so weak that it is less powerful than a MacBook so that it consumes less juice. I mean, you're going to want to be able to use this thing for a few hours, and you're not going to want to be lugging around a heavy brick of a computer, am I right? Apple will not release a tablet that is any less portable than those found on Star Trek: TNG (and later)... y'know, the half-inch thick rectangle with a screen. For this reason, it will have to be much less powerful and much lighter than a current MB. And if this is the case, it will not be a suitable replacement for the iMac.
I do think that Apple will eventually produce a computer like this, but it will not be an iMac. It, like the iPhone, will be crippled (in the right ways) to allow it to do tasks capable of being performed on a truly portable, lightweight device. However, like I said, it will not be an iMac.
Here's hoping the new iMac will not sacrifice too much power for style.
-Clive
Ya, IBM sort of screwed Apple on that one... they didn't really have a whole lot of choice, although I would have liked to see them work with Moto and Freescale to build a smaller die G4 capable of quad CPUs, etc. rather than go to all G5s.
They were up against a wall, and the G5 was pretty crappy, all said and done. The G4 was a good chip, imo, but the only thing the G5 had going for it was it's massively fast FSB (compared to the systems out at the time). The CoreDuo chips are pretty fantastic, though. Fast, low power and heat, relatively cheap. Lot of potential there.
For the record, I ditched my G5 and got a G4 because it was loud and not all that fast, comparatively.
To a degree. But what exactly would be the change in function if an imac were 2 inches thick as opposed to 1.5?
Form is important, but so is price, performance, upgradability, durability, and lots of other things. There needs to be a balance. (and just to be clear, i think the current imacs strike that balance pretty well)
Just to clarify, the G5 wasn't crap, it just wasn't going anywhere. Apple had to struggle to come out with a cost-effective Mac Pro that would trump the Quad G5... and in many ways, their current top-of-the-line Mac Pro still doesn't. CS3 will change that statistic, however.
-Clive
Having just purchased an iMac I'm a bit disappointed but I knew something like this could happen and decided not to wait.
Style is one thing, but if the display is dramatically improved or there's a big speed boost I might start grumbling about Apple's secrecy.
Style is one thing, but if the display is dramatically improved or there's a big speed boost I might start grumbling about Apple's secrecy.
Unfortunately Santa Rosa is Intel's new mobile platform, not a Core 2 Quad platform (unless Intel start making quad core notebook processors, which I suppose is ultimately inevitable but probably not this year). I'd PREFER to see a real desktop platform put into the iMac with FSB1066 or the new FSB1333, DDR2-800 (or higher), etc. Santa Rosa is, essentially, just bringing last year's desktop platform into the mobile space while desktop platforms are starting to move ahead.
Since when has there been such a long history of dual core processors in desktops? I thought that was the whole story- new architecture.
Since when has there been such a long history of dual core processors in desktops? I thought that was the whole story- new architecture. I think when Apple originally introduced the iMac it was supposed to be a consumer oriented machine, which does not have the Power of a Powermac or a Powerbook (Powerbooks had G4s long before the iMacs). This only changed when Apple couldn't fit the G5 in their Powerbooks but managed to include them in the iMacs.
The iMacs already use 3.5" HDs. The "extreme" CPUs by Intel are usually much more expensive than the average CPUs. But using desktop versions of the CPUs could already be a step ahead.
hahaha, i walked right into that. I was on the G5 dev team from the very beginning of the project. I could write a tell all book on that whole project, but I can't. let's just say many companies are living quarter to quarter these days, and if something isn't working out, the order of progression goes like a dilbert cartoon : restrict money -> restrict commitments -> reduce team size -> cripple your product -> wait for it to be replaced by something/someone that can do it better -> cancel
What on earth would I ever want to use something like that. It's WOW! factor is certainly undermined by the WTFIF? factor. How many improvements would there need to be made to actually make it do something other than just for playing in the virtual sand pit!!!!
Thank you for defending the G5. Honestly, the G5 was a the prodigy of a supercomputer processor. trying to fit that thing into a consumer box was difficult. It also suffered from a small cache, hi leakage, and other things I really can't say. all in all, it was a decent processor, but you are right, there was no low power solution, and I think it was just a stop-gap measure until mac os was properly ported for x86 architecture.
Surely, the MacBook and the iMac are consumer laptop and desktop and the MBP and Mac Pro are the pro laptop and desktop. It's all in the name (or not).
Indeed. That was by far my favorite of the three iMac designs. Probably because it looked the least like a computer, and the most like something...well, beautiful.
My original 15" 800 mhz dome iMac still has a proud place of honor in the kitchen as our household e-mail/internet station.