FW you pay royalties to Apple. USB to Intel. I've read that the USB royalties are a lot less than firewire so everyone is going with USB
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-Generation iMacs Already in Production?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
FW you pay royalties to Apple. USB to Intel. I've read that the USB royalties are a lot less than firewire so everyone is going with USB
I don't think so.
I think USB 3.0 it's "just the same, but bigger" and thus I don't see big changes in the "balance of power between FW and USB" as we see it today.
I think that Firewire peculiarities will still make it worthwhile to put it as default in every Mac and being preferred over USB of the same generation (so FW3200 vs USB3.0)....and if it is so, I don't see why Apple should drop fw3200 as a default spec...
Also plastic is cheaper than aluminum unibody, normal touchpad is cheaper than glass touchpad, TN panels are cheaper than IPS panels (for the 24"), and so on, but I don't see Apple (and Apple users) caring about what's cheaper and worse....
I reapeat: of course the cheaper product (USB) WAS, IS and WILL BE the most used product, but this doesn't mean that firewire will stop being "developed" and put in every mac in its next iterations...
If they are cutting prices, I doubt they are going to be including a lot of interesting, new technology. Stuff like USB3 or lots of FW ports, etc: count it out.
Just a slight bump of processors is normal. If they can make removable drives it would be helpful. It would be great if they have 2 drives in removable slots, but that's an insane dream, though easy as hell for them to design.
Somehow I doubt iMac has ever been marketed as a high end gaming machine. That discussion is purely insane, because these are machines for the average user, not the high end gamers, programmers, CGI rendering people, etc.
Just a slight bump of processors is normal. If they can make removable drives it would be helpful. It would be great if they have 2 drives in removable slots, but that's an insane dream, though easy as hell for them to design.
Somehow I doubt iMac has ever been marketed as a high end gaming machine. That discussion is purely insane, because these are machines for the average user, not the high end gamers, programmers, CGI rendering people, etc.
Don't even bother to read that "whirlpool" thread. I wasted a few minutes looking at the notes from that "source" and the person who is posting those specs obviously knows very little about practically nothing. What I mean is that he appears to be a complete and utter computer novice. That's not a bad thing in itself (for he could still be an intelligent and good person), but it makes me seriously doubt that he could have the correct contacts and I even wonder whether he fully understands what he is writing (as far as internal specs on any new iMac). Besides, some of the things he is reporting seem like complete nonsense (IMO).
Yeah, it sure does seem like wishful thinking.
Although, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple moved to 16:9 displays instead of the 16:10 display ratio they are using now. Everyone seems to be going to the 16:9 ratio. And, in fact, there are 21.5- and 25.5-inch LCD panels being made by LG & Samsung...two of Apple's favorite LCD vendors. Food for thought.
Although, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple moved to 16:9 displays instead of the 16:10 display ratio they are using now. Everyone seems to be going to the 16:9 ratio. And, in fact, there are 21.5- and 25.5-inch LCD panels being made by LG & Samsung...two of Apple's favorite LCD vendors. Food for thought.
Like I said originally, I don't want to start a "flame" about Firewire and thus this will be my last post on this matter. Sadly, I think your quote above tells the whole story. What I mean is that the "balance of power" has already gone to USB. The only real reason why Firewire exists today on Apple's consumer machines is for support of legacy mini DV cameras and some digital audio devices.
As for the royalties -- USB versus Firewire -- that is an old complaint that was largely resolved when Apple reduced said royalties several years ago. However, Firewire is still more expensive and more difficult to integrate into a hardware design than USB and those are just two more points that are not in Firewire's favor.
Please understand that I actually prefer Firewire and most of my external peripherals are Firewire (or dual Firewire + USB/eSATA). But, over the last few years I've had to accept (or admit) that Firewire is reaching end-of-life in the consumer space. It's a little like the parallel SCSI interface that use to exist on all Macs, very nice in its day but now gone and largely forgotten.
A while ago I needed to buy a PCI USB card for my elderly Mac that had USB 1.1 only. It turned out there were cards for PCs and cards for Macs. The only difference was that cards "for Macs" were three times as expensive. Bought a PC card, plugged it into the Mac, and of course it worked just fine.
Exactly what is the point of going to a 16:9 display. Sure then you have the same aspect ratio as HDTVs but exactly what does that do for computers. If you watch movies are you really going to notice that little extra black space on the top and bottom. I don't even notice the bars when I watch movies on my tv so I just don't see how this would really bother people. And most computers would be able to handle the necessary pixel scaling to keep things from being distorted...
I don't know, I personally like the extra screen space. I got to be missing something obvious here.
Hmmmm....
Wouldn't it be funny if Apple waits until the day before MS begins selling Windows 7 in stores to say "...and they're on sale in our retail stores TOMORROW!" -- thus, taking the wind out of Win7 sails even more.
Wouldn't it be funny if Apple waits until the day before MS begins selling Windows 7 in stores to say "...and they're on sale in our retail stores TOMORROW!" -- thus, taking the wind out of Win7 sails even more.
I think the reason 16:9 is becoming popular is that it costs less to produce since it matches the aspect ratio used for production and development on HDTV panels. However, I hope they don't change from the current 16:10.
I don't think it would. Every iMac is another PC out there on which Win 7 could be installed.
Well see I'd believe that but the LCDs in monitors aren't exactly expensive these days. And we are getting panels in monitors for less money like those Dell E-ISP? (not sure if that's right) monitors. I don't see the market converging...I thought there were different panels for tvs and monitors anyway. Not to mention the panels are built in different resolutions optimized for viewing distances and reading text and what not, stuff you wouldn't do with a tv necessarily.
I don't know... What you said was the only real thing I could think of nut I don't even see that making sense. I'll keep my 1080p 24" monitor, something you won't find often or cheap in the tv market.
The advantages of FW over USB have traditionally related to their origins. USB was meant to be a low bandwidth serial interface for slow peripherals like keyboards, mice, printers and such. It consumed a lot of CPU cycles for its purpose. Firewire was, and is, a good bit more efficient for bandwidth in that arena. However, with the advent of quad core CPUs and GCD, one could have a CPU core dedicated to handling USB overhead and still have plenty of power left for other tasks. Thus, the disadvantages of USB could be ameliorated through sheer processor power. I'd say that any new iMac needs to sport quad core processors to compete. Intel is beyond the Core 2 quad, even in mobile processor space, so Apple needs to get with the program. However, going to the i7 extreme (Clarksfield) draws a max of 55 watts, over the Core 2 Duo at 3.06Ghz currently offered in iMacs at max of 35 watts. It seems unlikely to me that the iMac will be able to reduce its physical footprint while going to a more power hungry processor due to heat dispersal issues. Should be interesting.....
Sadly, I think you missed this sentence:
gianly1985 said:
When I said "balance of power", of course I didn't mean FW and USB are actually "balanced" (like 50:50), I meant that NOW there is a certain "status quo", a certain "situation", a certain "ratio" (eg. 3 firewire devices every 100 usb devices) and I don't think that this "ratio" has reason to change in the next iteration (fw3200 and usb3.0) of the 2 technologies.
I never thought you were "against firewire".
I simply think (or hope?) you're too pessimist about the fate of fw.
If that's true, I'll order one instead of those ridiculously expensive towers. I was looking for a monitor and a CPU, I'd rather just get one iMac.
In my dream world, in regards to the new iMac...
Apple WILL:
- Go Quad-core
- Have Blu-ray
- Keep firewire
- USB 3.0?
- Bigger screen, for the fun of it!
Apple WON'T:
- Worry about how much thinner the thing is
- Make the screen any glossier than it already is
- Raise the price
Let's see it!
Apple WILL:
- Go Quad-core
- Have Blu-ray
- Keep firewire
- USB 3.0?
- Bigger screen, for the fun of it!
Apple WON'T:
- Worry about how much thinner the thing is
- Make the screen any glossier than it already is
- Raise the price
Let's see it!
Tilt screen, but not raise
Actually, I've owned 2 iMac's (G3, G5) in addition to Power Macs (towers) and the iMac has NEVER been able to raise up and down. So, a child sitting at a desk can see the monitor fine, but an adult using the same computer must look down.
There is no reason why the monitor could not have a telescopic arm that re-positions the monitor up-and-down depending on the users preference.
That is my #1 complaint about iMac's.
As for sales. iMac's do better than mini's and towers since they have the right price point -- due to their components. Average users certainly do not need Xeon processors. However, mini's are a bit underpowered.
So, the happy medium has no choice is allowing one to retain their previous monitor. If you have a monitor you like, you get the choice of underpowered mini or spending $3,500 for a workstation level computer. No in-between.
Eco? Yes, new Mac's are better than the rest. No PVC's, etc. However, the term "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" means that if you have an old Cinema Display and want a new computer, you can not go with the happy middle ground as iMac's are bundled with the monitor.
My last iMac G5 has a great monitor, but its getting slow, has always been noisy, inserting a CD requires "special assistance" in loading, and while the monitor is still in perfect shape, the computer should be replaced. It would be nice to not have to get rid of 2 components when 1 is bad.
Um, I think part of the significance of the latest iMac's has been the merging of the screen and system unit as 1, and it's here to stay. Poor decision to you maybe, but the sales numbers speak for themselves. You're basically asking for a more powerful Mac Mini.
Actually, I've owned 2 iMac's (G3, G5) in addition to Power Macs (towers) and the iMac has NEVER been able to raise up and down. So, a child sitting at a desk can see the monitor fine, but an adult using the same computer must look down.
There is no reason why the monitor could not have a telescopic arm that re-positions the monitor up-and-down depending on the users preference.
That is my #1 complaint about iMac's.
As for sales. iMac's do better than mini's and towers since they have the right price point -- due to their components. Average users certainly do not need Xeon processors. However, mini's are a bit underpowered.
So, the happy medium has no choice is allowing one to retain their previous monitor. If you have a monitor you like, you get the choice of underpowered mini or spending $3,500 for a workstation level computer. No in-between.
Eco? Yes, new Mac's are better than the rest. No PVC's, etc. However, the term "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" means that if you have an old Cinema Display and want a new computer, you can not go with the happy middle ground as iMac's are bundled with the monitor.
My last iMac G5 has a great monitor, but its getting slow, has always been noisy, inserting a CD requires "special assistance" in loading, and while the monitor is still in perfect shape, the computer should be replaced. It would be nice to not have to get rid of 2 components when 1 is bad.
We're an all mac shop here for production work. In fact, most of the businesses in my area are mac based!
Yeah, all the games that I play on Xbox 360 come out way later, if at all on the mac.
Oh wait, that's why I have a game console!
Yeah that's pretty much where I am at. I've got a Wii and a PS3 (which is a nice Blu Ray player itself) and therefore haven't really had the need to play games on a laptop or desktop. I do play L4D on my MBP15 now and then, and I do have a workstation at work that we all play L4D at lunch, but that's the only PC game I even own these days. The rest is console.
I'm pretty sure this was covered earlier in this thread, but the G4 iMac had an adjustable neck:
That doesn't change your critique of the current iMac, however. I understand where you're coming from. I find the problem is more likely that a child or shorter adult would have to crane their neck upwards more likely than not. There's a general trend to putting monitor shelves up higher on desks resulting in incorrect ergonomics--people are now looking up at monitors when their eyes should be level with the top of the screen.
How about this as an idea for a refreshed line-up?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielmacdonald/3953536478/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielmacdonald/3953536478/sizes/l/