[Matt OS X]

I find this funny from apple website.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86816

[Dave N]

They didn't specify which "sides" to grasp though. Should I grasp it by the front and back sides, or the left and right sides? And what do I do with it once I carry it to wherever I wish? Should I set it down, or just keep holding it? I hate it when I have to infer things from instructions. They should be more specific.

[Randman]

If you can't figure out how to move one, maybe you shouldn't be handling one to begin with.

[ManOfSteal]

I bypass all those rules and will just ask my personal assistant (butler) to take care of this...

[Randman]

Didn't you have like 168 posts just a day ago? At this rate, you'll be retiring this name before the World Series is over.

Edit: 34 posts a day average. That trumps Zimph even, doesn't it? At that rate, you're going to pull a Junior (aka hammy) dude.

[storer]

Originally posted by manofsteal:
I bypass all those rules and will just ask my personal assistant (butler) to take care of this...

ha, ::scoffs:: single personal assistants. I'll get all 32.5 of them to do if for me.

[mo]

From the guidelines:

Pick up the iMac G5 by grasping both sides of the computer. Carry it to wherever you wish.

It's nice to know I don't void the warranty by carrying it wherever I wish. (Does that include the car wash?)

[Eriamjh]

At 18 and 25 pounds, you won't get far.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
At 18 and 25 pounds, you won't get far.

Better start working out !

-t

[AlfaMunky]

I don't care how it's suppose to be handled as long as it's on my desk by early Oct.

[eatinwokout]

^ thats the spirit.

btw.. i better start doing the bicep curls to prepare myself for the imac... ill be carrying it all over the house with me.

[ManOfSteal]

Originally posted by Randman:
Didn't you have like 168 posts just a day ago? At this rate, you'll be retiring this name before the World Series is over.

Edit: 34 posts a day average. That trumps Zimph even, doesn't it? At that rate, you're going to pull a Junior (aka hammy) dude.

It's actually 35.31 post/day as of now...

[turtle777]

Originally posted by manofsteal:
I bypass all those rules and will just ask my personal assistant (butler) to take care of this...

Since you're a bot, your digital assistant must be eletronic, too.

Please let me know how you fit the iMac in a PDA.
Does it fit in a Palm T2 ?

-t

[michaelb]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
At 18 and 25 pounds, you won't get far.

Oh, come on, three loaded shopping bags are heavier than that.

[LightWaver-67]

I swear... some people just need something to bitch about.

It's a frickin' iMac...!!! It's Apples LOW-END, CONSUMER, ENTRY-Level, Desktop Computer offering...!!!! Did some of us forget that...?

It's NOT a gaming machine, so stop crying about the GRFX abilities
It's NOT a portable, so stop complaining about it's weight and portability
It's not MEANT to be continually upgraded, or run three displays, or have tons of expansion or critiqued by Mac-enthusiasts who generally JUST BY COMING TO THIS DISCUSSION FORUM have a lot more computer knowledge than the INTENDED target of these machines.

Apple intends for these machines to be:
- Purchased
- Setup on a desk or table in someones house, work dorm or other
- turned-on
- Used to do everyday tasks such as surf the web (original intent of the iMac, remember?) or pay bills (via the web) or upload photos, or make a DVD or listen to iTunes, or to sync their iPods, etc.

They have ALWAYS (with the iMac) attempted to use cost-effective means to put this product out as inexpensive as possible, while maintaining a healthy profit. It hasn't always just been the video card... it's been slower drive RPMs, slower BUS, slower/smaller cache, less RAM or slower RAM, slower CPU, less upgradable...

Besides... as a business... they HAVE to have clear differentiators between product lines. The BEST iMac without add-ons is around $1,900 and the low-end PowerMac Dual 1.8 is around $2,000.

They are asking people to make a decision. Are you a consumer or PowerUser. What some of you are asking for is not possible.. nor is it smart. It seems like you're asking for the speed and flexibility of a PowerMac tower... in the cool, low-profile enclosure of an iMac.

You might as well go to Chrysler/Dodge and say "I want the power of your Dodge Viper in the chassis and price-range of the Dodge Neon". Not only would that be almost impossible to deliver, but it would only be for a LIMITED market and it would drive the price HIGHER than the viper itself due to the amount of extra engineering and effort to make such a request possible.

I know, this is a long rant. I am not saying you don't have a RIGHT to your opinion(s)... I am just trying to help you see it from a different perspective. It doesn't make SENSE for them to make the iMac any closer in specifications to the PowerMac lines. It would blur the lines of distinction and canabalize each line.

Anyhow... I cannot fully judge MY opinion on its aesthetics until I get to see one in-person at an Apple Store. I thought the "Half-Dome" ones were ugly in photos until I saw one in-person, and then I was awe-struck. Same with the iBooks... didn't like the snow-white until I got my hands on one in-person.

Anyhow... have a good-one...! Peace...!

[jamesa]

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
I swear... some people just need something to bitch about.

It's a frickin' iMac...!!! It's Apples LOW-END, CONSUMER, ENTRY-Level, Desktop Computer offering...!!!! Did some of us forget that...?

Apparently so, because for the price, it's not a low-end, entry-level desktop offering.

It's NOT a gaming machine, so stop crying about the GRFX abilities

So why do Apple put gaming benchmarks up on their iMac site?

It's not MEANT to be continually upgraded, or run three displays, or have tons of expansion or critiqued by Mac-enthusiasts who generally JUST BY COMING TO THIS DISCUSSION FORUM have a lot more computer knowledge than the INTENDED target of these machines.

Apple intends for these machines to be:
- Purchased
- Setup on a desk or table in someones house, work dorm or other
- turned-on
- Used to do everyday tasks such as surf the web (original intent of the iMac, remember?) or pay bills (via the web) or upload photos, or make a DVD or listen to iTunes, or to sync their iPods, etc.

Well, the intended use depends on who purchases it, and who purchases it depends on what it can do. So that's a kind of circular argument.

Suffice to say, in the hardware ballpark, there are a lot of other computer manufacturers doing a lot better a job. If Apple put in a better GPU, they might find that the intended use expands a bit, resulting in more sales.

Besides... as a business... they HAVE to have clear differentiators between product lines. The BEST iMac without add-ons is around $1,900 and the low-end PowerMac Dual 1.8 is around $2,000.

Ha! Like a AIO vs tower, dual processor, upgradeable to 4-gig of RAM (or is it 8? I forget), two hard drive capability, multiple PCI slot, gigabit ethernet and FireWire 800 wasn't enough

They are asking people to make a decision. Are you a consumer or PowerUser. What some of you are asking for is not possible.. nor is it smart. It seems like you're asking for the speed and flexibility of a PowerMac tower... in the cool, low-profile enclosure of an iMac.

Man, there's a better graphics cards in the PowerBooks, so don't pull the cool, low-profile card out.

You might as well go to Chrysler/Dodge and say "I want the power of your Dodge Viper in the chassis and price-range of the Dodge Neon". Not only would that be almost impossible to deliver, but it would only be for a LIMITED market and it would drive the price HIGHER than the viper itself due to the amount of extra engineering and effort to make such a request possible.

now you're just making stuff up. A better analogy would be a nicely styled car that's underpowered, compared to a whole lot of less-nicely styled cars that are more powerful at the same price.

Apple could have easily put a better GPU in there, instead they went for a $40 GPU (that's a card price - the en masse chip price would probably be about $20)

I know, this is a long rant. I am not saying you don't have a RIGHT to your opinion(s)... I am just trying to help you see it from a different perspective. It doesn't make SENSE for them to make the iMac any closer in specifications to the PowerMac lines. It would blur the lines of distinction and canabalize each line.

A better graphics card wouldn't cannabilise anything. Look at the differences I outlined above.

Anyhow... I cannot fully judge MY opinion on its aesthetics until I get to see one in-person at an Apple Store. I thought the "Half-Dome" ones were ugly in photos until I saw one in-person, and then I was awe-struck. Same with the iBooks... didn't like the snow-white until I got my hands on one in-person.

Anyhow... have a good-one...! Peace...!

yeah, you too

-- james

[The Jackalope]

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
I swear... some people just need something to bitch about.

It's a frickin' iMac...!!! It's Apples LOW-END, CONSUMER, ENTRY-Level, Desktop Computer offering...!!!! Did some of us forget that...?

It's NOT a gaming machine, so stop crying about the GRFX abilities
It's NOT a portable, so stop complaining about it's weight and portability
It's not MEANT to be continually upgraded, or run three displays, or have tons of expansion or critiqued by Mac-enthusiasts who generally JUST BY COMING TO THIS DISCUSSION FORUM have a lot more computer knowledge than the INTENDED target of these machines.

Apple intends for these machines to be:
- Purchased
- Setup on a desk or table in someones house, work dorm or other
- turned-on
- Used to do everyday tasks such as surf the web (original intent of the iMac, remember?) or pay bills (via the web) or upload photos, or make a DVD or listen to iTunes, or to sync their iPods, etc.

They have ALWAYS (with the iMac) attempted to use cost-effective means to put this product out as inexpensive as possible, while maintaining a healthy profit. It hasn't always just been the video card... it's been slower drive RPMs, slower BUS, slower/smaller cache, less RAM or slower RAM, slower CPU, less upgradable...

Besides... as a business... they HAVE to have clear differentiators between product lines. The BEST iMac without add-ons is around $1,900 and the low-end PowerMac Dual 1.8 is around $2,000.

They are asking people to make a decision. Are you a consumer or PowerUser. What some of you are asking for is not possible.. nor is it smart. It seems like you're asking for the speed and flexibility of a PowerMac tower... in the cool, low-profile enclosure of an iMac.

You might as well go to Chrysler/Dodge and say "I want the power of your Dodge Viper in the chassis and price-range of the Dodge Neon". Not only would that be almost impossible to deliver, but it would only be for a LIMITED market and it would drive the price HIGHER than the viper itself due to the amount of extra engineering and effort to make such a request possible.

I know, this is a long rant. I am not saying you don't have a RIGHT to your opinion(s)... I am just trying to help you see it from a different perspective. It doesn't make SENSE for them to make the iMac any closer in specifications to the PowerMac lines. It would blur the lines of distinction and canabalize each line.

Anyhow... I cannot fully judge MY opinion on its aesthetics until I get to see one in-person at an Apple Store. I thought the "Half-Dome" ones were ugly in photos until I saw one in-person, and then I was awe-struck. Same with the iBooks... didn't like the snow-white until I got my hands on one in-person.

Anyhow... have a good-one...! Peace...!

Dude, chillax. We're just laughing at that document.

[LightWaver-67]

First of all... I am not really "Upset"... just giving a different view.

Originally posted by jamesa:
Apparently so, because for the price, it's not a low-end, entry-level desktop offering.

Maybe not to you, but it IS Apple's least expensive desktop (barring the eMac stuff - non consumer-based)

So why do Apple put gaming benchmarks up on their iMac site?

Hmmm... good question. Seems I am far from all the answers.

Well, the intended use depends on who purchases it, and who purchases it depends on what it can do. So that's a kind of circular argument.

Well... I was making MY assumption on how I THINK they are trying to market it.

Suffice to say, in the hardware ballpark, there are a lot of other computer manufacturers doing a lot better a job. If Apple put in a better GPU, they might find that the intended use expands a bit, resulting in more sales.

True, but I'm not comparing it to other computer manufacturers... just to Apple's own lineup.

Ha! Like a AIO vs tower, dual processor, upgradeable to 4-gig of RAM (or is it 8? I forget), two hard drive capability, multiple PCI slot, gigabit ethernet and FireWire 800 wasn't enough

I don't know much (anything) about that.

Man, there's a better graphics cards in the PowerBooks, so don't pull the cool, low-profile card out.

I was referring to "form-factor" with the cool referrence

now you're just making stuff up. A better analogy would be a nicely styled car that's underpowered, compared to a whole lot of less-nicely styled cars that are more powerful at the same price.

Well of COURSE I am making it up... it's an analogy... I just used an extreme example to make my point... It may not have been ACCURATE, but you got what I was saying, right...?

Apple could have easily put a better GPU in there, instead they went for a $40 GPU (that's a card price - the en masse chip price would probably be about $20)

Sure they could... I'm sure they could make LOTS of $20-$50 improvements here & there... but I really think they're drawing lines in the sand.

A better graphics card wouldn't cannabilise anything. Look at the differences I outlined above.

Maybe... maybe not...
I don't know for sure... I guess I'm just looking at it from a professional designer's point of view. I need a tower (PowerMac) to get my work done efficiently... in MY eyes.. an iMac is an entry-level machine for doing lightweight tasks. I guess if I were a consumer who didn't have the same needs, I might look at it the way others do... but that's not me right now.

BTW... I do realize that my initial (knee-jerk) posting sounded (read) antagonistic and self-righteous. I get that way sometimes. Just realize my INTENT is to view the topic from another point of view.

double-peace.

[jcadam]

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:

Apple intends for these machines to be:
...
- turned-on

No. That is what the machine is supposed to do for me.