[TiDual]

I find myself very persuaded by the new iMacs, despite the mediocre GPU and lack of firewire 800 (a much bigger omission, in my view) ... both of which affect the entire line.

I'm still undecided, however, on which one to get. All seem to be pretty excellent value, making it hard to identify the "sweetspot". I'm leaning towards the 20", since 400 Euro for the bigger screen + bigger disk seems like pretty good value. My only concern really, is size: will it look a little too "ungainly" on my desk at home. On the G4 iMac, I definitely found the 20" too big for the design, but it's difficult to tell with the new one. As one person pointed out, the new 20" gives more of a "wide-screen" impression than the 17" (where the white case seems to dominate more).

Any thoughts, or any other arguments against the 20" (aside from price ... not a major deciding issue in my case). I'd also really welcome comments from people who saw these at the expo, about which of the two looks better in real life ... it's basically impossible to tell from shots on the Apple web pages, since they don't show them in real situations: in the "video" it seems that the couple editing photos are using a 20", and the kid playing music is on a 17". If so, the 20" does actually seem like the "natural" size now, unlike with the G4 iMac.

[Finrock]

From the iMac Tech Specs web site:
http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html

Typical viewing angle:
17-inch models
120° horizontal
90° vertical

20-inch model
170° horizontal
170° vertical

Typical brightness: 200 cd/m (17-inch models); 230 cd/m (20-inch model)

That made a big difference for me. Of course, I haven't seen them in person but if these published specs are true then it would appear that the 20" has a much nicer display.

-Finrock

[vmag]

Having seen both model yesterday at the Paris expo, I must confess that, although I was leaning toward the 20" prior to my visit, I find the 17" much more balanced than the 20", which is significantly thickier and bulkier. It has probably to do with the stand size which is roughly the same for both model, the extra width of the "not-too-happy" white space at the bottom of the screen, and the keyboard which at the expo is just below the screen, hence a position very close to the screen.

I would however stick to the 20", as the design does anyway require time to get used to, and the specs/price are better on the 20". Moreover, I think a 17" might look ridiculous at the end of the 3 years I expect this machine to last.

My overall feeling on imac G5 is that it is a very neet machine, work of engineers with a designer touch while the imac sunflower was more of the opposite

[TiDual]

Originally posted by vmag:
Having seen both model yesterday at the Paris expo, I must confess that, although I was leaning toward the 20" prior to my visit, I find the 17" much more balanced than the 20", which is significantly thickier and bulkier. It has probably to do with the stand size which is roughly the same for both model, the extra width of the "not-too-happy" white space at the bottom of the screen, and the keyboard which at the expo is just below the screen, hence a position very close to the screen.

I would however stick to the 20", as the design does anyway require time to get used to, and the specs/price are better on the 20". Moreover, I think a 17" might look ridiculous at the end of the 3 years I expect this machine to last.

This pretty much echos my suspicions. I have a new 23" cinema at work: beautiful and by no means ungainly. 17" monitors around my offices just look kind of dinky now, so for a machine with this potential life span (3+ years), the 20" really just makes sense.

I really hope the 20" LCD is of similary quality to my 23" ... viewing angle is astonishing.

[im_noahselby]

Originally posted by vmag:
My overall feeling on imac G5 is that it is a very neet machine, work of engineers with a designer touch while the imac sunflower was more of the opposite

Can someone tell me exactly what was the "imac sunflower"?

Secondly, I think the 17" iMac will be fine for most people and it will be Apple's biggest seller for the price. I, along with a lot of other members are getting along just fine with a resolution of 1024 x 768. And a jump to a 20" screen is only really neccessary if you can afford it and/or require that much screen real estate.

I bought a PB so I could eventually upgrade to a new Apple display and I now find myself mildly interested in the new iMac. For cheaper than the lowest end 20" display Apple offers at this time, I could buy a brand new IMac G5! It's unbelievable....

Apple 20" Display: $1799 Cdn
Apple 17" iMac G5: $1749 Cdn

Noah

[babble]

Originally posted by im_noahselby:
Can someone tell me exactly what was the "imac sunflower"?

It's the iMac with a G4 and a FP...

http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...1.0_15_fp.html

[im_noahselby]

Originally posted by babble:
It's the iMac with a G4 and a FP...

http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...1.0_15_fp.html

My old computer! I hadn't heard of that nickname used before sunflower, eh...

Noah

[ddma]

I thought Sunflower refered to the old candy iMac - Flower Power version :-P

[hldan]

Originally posted by ddma:
I thought Sunflower refered to the old candy iMac - Flower Power version :-P

Nah, the FP iMac was dubbed the Sunflower because it actually looked like one. Steve Jobs wanted to call it a SunFlower because the dome was shaped like the bottom of a Sunflower and of course the screen looks like the big blossom. Too Cute for words.

[Athens]

Well I love my new(used) Sun Flower LOL, now can some one tell me how to safly clean the LCD im getting sich of seeing specs of dirt on my wonderful screen!

[Maflynn]

Originally posted by TiDual:
I find myself very persuaded by the new iMacs, despite the mediocre GPU and lack of firewire 800 (a much bigger omission, in my view) ... both of which affect the entire line.

I understand why they omitted firewire 800 on the iMac. Apple does not include firewire 800 in any of their consumer computers. That's deemed a profesional feature which in some ways it is. these are (iMacs) are for the average user.

As for the question at hand, as they say size matters, and I'd got with the 20" One factor I think might play into it, cooling, perhaps the larger enclosure will keep the temps down.

Mike

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Can I ask what in the world she needs firewire 800 on and still use a consumer level computer?

[MrForgetable]

I got the 15 inch Powerbook over the 12 inch Powerbook (exact same specs, $300 more expensive than the 12 inch with AppleCare and the 15 inch without APP) almost solely for the screen. I'm not sure if that choice I made would be worth it, but I don't think I will have a need for FW800 and neither will most of the iMac consumers.

[Commodus]

The only thing you want Firewire 800 for today is when you absolutely need high-speed external storage. That's practically the only use for it right now, even. Not even someone with a $5000 camera needs anything more than Firewire 400 to transfer files.

As far as my preference, if I were to buy an iMac: if one expects to use more than two (maybe 3, if they don't take up a lot of screen space) apps at once, go for the 20" model. It's just easier to click directly on a window than to use Exposé or Cmd-Tab. Plus it makes for a nice personal theatre if you like watching DVDs. If you tend to run few (or just background) apps or consider money/space to be a premium, go for the 17" model. The only thing you're really losing is screen space.

[TiDual]

Originally posted by Commodus:
The only thing you want Firewire 800 for today is when you absolutely need high-speed external storage. That's practically the only use for it right now, even.

I agree this isn't a necessity: my point was only that it was a feaature that I would miss much more than a stronger GPU. It's inevitable that people will connect external drives to the iMac, even if just for backups, not to mention iMove + iDVD work. Having switched over to LaCie external FW800 drives for this purpose in my lab, the difference is really noticeable. A FW800 external drive feels almost as fast as internal. In 12-24 months FW800 won't be considered a "luxury" (while 3D games will always be irrelevant to me :-).

But my real question was about the 17" vs. 20" ... so far, the 20" seems to have the advantage, though part of me is worried it's going to be just a little too "visible" in my livingroom!

[Maflynn]

Originally posted by TiDual:
In 12-24 months FW800 won't be considered a "luxury" (while 3D games will always be irrelevant to me :-).

Its not a luxury and I've never thought of it as such. As for the usefulness of it in 12-24 months I think that will remain unchanged since apple is not including it on their comsumer computers.

I personally don't see the need of FW800 with an iMac, heck I have a G5 PM and when I get an external drive it will probably be just a normal FW. I don't need to spend the extra bucks for something to back up my drive with.

Mike

[TiDual]

Originally posted by Maflynn:
Its not a luxury and I've never thought of it as such. As for the usefulness of it in 12-24 months I think that will remain unchanged since apple is not including it on their comsumer computers.

I personally don't see the need of FW800 with an iMac, heck I have a G5 PM and when I get an external drive it will probably be just a normal FW. I don't need to spend the extra bucks for something to back up my drive with.

Mike

Well ... like many things, ones view can change after having been exposed to a given technology. I thought Bluetooth was useless until I started using my Alubook with my K700i cell phone. Similarly, once I hooked up a FW800 drive, I realized I could really use it like an internal drive ... not just for back-ups anymore (FW400 is a touch sluggish, e.g. for editing iMovies, for example). A small increase in price, for tremendous increase in usability of the external drive. But I take the point that for many FW800 is not essential (heck, I suspect many home users don't even do back-ups )

I also agree that by not putting FW800 in the iMac, the impact of that technology will be greatly reduced, which is a shame.

[Simon]

First off, I don't need FW800 since 400 is plenty for me. And of course putting FW400 instead of 800 in the iMac is not going to stop many buyers, but still I don't see what Apple wants to win here?

• FW800 ports can run FW400 devices over a tiny dingle if necessary, vice-versa doesn't work
• FW800 has better numbers to show off than USB2, FW400 doesn't
• FW800 makes internal expansion a non-issue (as mentioned by others here), FW400 is a tad too slow for that

So what is Apple saving by being skimpy on FW? They want to promote FW over USB2, so they should invest something into it. Unless of course they want to watch manufacturers drift off to USB2 because 480 sounds better than 400. And no, real-world tests do not count since we recall Mac vs. Win, Beta vs. VHS... It's bad marketing on Apple's behalf.

How much money is Apple saving by not including FW800? How many more PowerMacs over iMacs will Apple sell due to this move? Apple is hurting itself here.

[pantalaimon]

Originally posted by TiDual:
In 12-24 months FW800 won't be considered a "luxury" (while 3D games will always be irrelevant to me :-). [/B]

Could someone answer this for me, is the graphics card in the imac only a concern for gamers? I'm not really into 3D games much, in fact the only game i've played recently on my mac is Fallout 2 and the only game i'm buying in the near future is the new Myst game which requires 32mb, 64mb is recommended. If I do find I want to get back into gaming in the future i'll just buy the PS3.

Will the graphics card be of concern in Tiger? My 32mb geforce works fine with osx on a 1ghz imac. I'm a graphic designer so the only apps I use are photoshop, freehand etc.

i'm very tempted to get the 17" G5 1.8ghz imac, i'd like the larger screen than my 15" and a G5 i assume is big boost in speed from my 1ghz imac. The only thing holding me back is the graphics card.

What would you reccomend, wait for the revision b or buy now?

Only thing is I would HATE to wait for the revision b only to find out the graphics card isn't upgraded. How certain is it that is would be upgraded?

[gperks]

If you look near the bottom right of this page:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/core.html

You'll see that the 5200 meets Tiger's requirements.

[P]

Originally posted by pantalaimon:
Could someone answer this for me, is the graphics card in the imac only a concern for gamers? I'm not really into 3D games much, in fact the only game i've played recently on my mac is Fallout 2 and the only game i'm buying in the near future is the new Myst game which requires 32mb, 64mb is recommended. If I do find I want to get back into gaming in the future i'll just buy the PS3.

Will the graphics card be of concern in Tiger? My 32mb geforce works fine with osx on a 1ghz imac. I'm a graphic designer so the only apps I use are photoshop, freehand etc.

i'm very tempted to get the 17" G5 1.8ghz imac, i'd like the larger screen than my 15" and a G5 i assume is big boost in speed from my 1ghz imac. The only thing holding me back is the graphics card.

What would you reccomend, wait for the revision b or buy now?

Only thing is I would HATE to wait for the revision b only to find out the graphics card isn't upgraded. How certain is it that is would be upgraded?

If you're not going to play any 3D games, then the graphics card is not a problem. I do play games some, and I did complain about the graphics card, but I caved anyway and ordered the mid version.

Of course noone outside of Apple can know what Tiger will require - but Apple DOES know by now what Tiger will require, and they still make all but their top model with Geforce 5200U by default. That is to me a strong sign that Tiger will work just fine with that board, or they would have put a Radeon 9600 (Pro or XT) in there instead.

The 5200 essentially has four faults that make people dislike it:

* Lower clockspeed - though the Ultra used in the current version helps this a bit
* Dated memory interface - it's the system from the Geforce4 boards, two models old by now.
* Terrible full screen antialiasing - Nvidia has always had bad FSAA. They shaped up with the Geforce FX 5x00 boards, but kept the old version on the 5200s.
* Only 64 MB onboard memory - I'm hoping that the faster bus on the new Macs will help cure that.

[pantalaimon]

Originally posted by P:
* Terrible full screen antialiasing - Nvidia has always had bad FSAA. They shaped up with the Geforce FX 5x00 boards, but kept the old version on the 5200s.

what does that effect? only games or watching a dvd full screen?

[pantalaimon]

can the ram in my imac g4 1ghz be used in the new imac?

[Simon]

Originally posted by pantalaimon:
can the ram in my imac g4 1ghz be used in the new imac?

No, the 1GHz iMac uses PC2100 (266MHz) DDR SO-DIMMS, whereas the new iMac G5 uses PC3200 (400MHz) DDR DIMMs. They are not compatible.

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by pantalaimon:
what does that effect? only games or watching a dvd full screen?

FSAA only affects 3D gaming. It's a process whereby the GPU attempts to smooth-out the jagged edges seen on diagonal lines on vector graphics. It doesn't affect DVD playback.

[TiDual]

Well, for the record, I went ahead and ordered the 20" with airport xtreme, and the bluetooth package (the only way to go, I think). Also, getting my supplier to put in 1GB ram (they buy back the 256MB chip, wich is nice). Now I just have to wait :-(