[babble]

For all the people thinking about waiting for Rev.B to make a move, don't hold your breath. I wanted to do the same thing with the iMac G4 when it was introduced. I waited over 8 months and still got rev. A. It takes a long time for Apple to come up with a new rev. and then you still have to wait for it to be available... Another 4 to 6 weeks after introduction. So they probably will be introduced in March 2005 and available in April or May... Can you wait that long?

And I read someone talk about the video card in the eMac being a 64MB? That's not true, it's a 32MB card. So the one in the new iMacs are better (but they are the same as the G4 iMac's).

I didn't like the new look of the G5 iMac's at first. Now that I saw "real world" pictures of it, I must say that it's growing on me...

I'm really surprised of the new pricing. It's excellent!

As for the optical drive, 4X DVD-R is not that bad. Anyhow, if you really want to make DVD's your better of getting the base model (Combo Drive) and buying a seperate DVD-R drive (same thing for CD's).

Last thing, for graphic designers... Unless you work in color-corrected environnement (and I mean really color-corrected) you won't suffer working on Apple's LCD screens. I've been working on my G4 iMac, and I never had any problems.

[zeebe]

Originally posted by turtle777:
So, doesn't my answer tell you why ?

-t

Did I say your answer didn't tell me why? No, but what your answer did make it sound like was I wanted a 2" powerbook, when that was not the question.

[funkboy]

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey:
...
I feel like Apple is seriously missing out on a substantial mid-range market.
...
The CRT iMac was an EveryComputer: cheap monitor, proven components, practically indestructable. The introduction of the eMac complicated the previous line-up and altered the product line so that the iMac had no definite purpose--to me, at least, the current iMac feels like an excuse to mount the optical drive sideways. With the G5, Apple has a chance to develop a really killer mid-range system, and let the eMac take up where the CRT iMac left off. What happens when the eMac gets the G5 (assuming Apple will be keeping the eMac form factor around)? We'll just enter another period of eMacs cannibalizing iMac sales. Keeping two AIO designs that have essentially the same upgrade path is just asking for more trouble down the road.

There it is, folks. Someone send this to Steve and the Board of Directors, and maybe they'll change. Well-worded and explained.

[Finrock]

So we all know that people don't like the graphics card offerings of the latest iMacs. My question is this: how much of a difference does it really make? Not being a gamer myself, I'm not so sure how much a "good" graphics card makes. For the average user, however, I can't see why this graphics card, with 64 MB, isn't enough.

I've read the benchmarks, framerates and other data concerning graphics cards, but what kind of difference does it make to gamers?

That being said, this iMac is everything I had hoped for. Of course it is not a pro machine, and like everyone else, I'd love to have a DP Mac as well, but for the price you really can't beat the LCD, G5, fast system bus, Superdrive, etc.

Finrock = Happy.
Thank you, Apple.

[Landos Mustache]

Looks like Apple took a early design for the TAM and used white plastic to modernize it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by babble:
For all the people thinking about waiting for Rev.B to make a move, don't hold your breath. I wanted to do the same thing with the iMac G4 when it was introduced. I waited over 8 months and still got rev. A. It takes a long time for Apple to come up with a new rev. and then you still have to wait for it to be available... Another 4 to 6 weeks after introduction. So they probably will be introduced in March 2005 and available in April or May... Can you wait that long?

I can wait. I had a flaky XP box which I was going to replace hopefully in the spring, and then in June after WWDC, but I got sick and tired of waiting and finally just fixed the machine. Now it works fine.

Since the XP box is already 1.4 GHz I may as well just wait until the G5 goes beyond 2 GHz in rev. B iPodMac before I replace the XP box. If I have to wait until spring 2005, then so be it. Maybe I'll get the bonus of having Tiger pre-installed on it, and by that time it will likely have an 8X DVD burner and a better GPU. The 5200 really does suck @ss, esp. for a $1900 20" computer, and I already have a 2X SuperDrive in my laptop anyway, as well as a 2X desktop Firewire burner. 4X for a desktop DVD burner isn't much of an upgrade.

[owl_luvr]

Originally posted by Spliff:
At least 8-9 months. That's how long it's been since the last update.
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/

Cool link, Spliff. Bookmarked it. Now it just needs to be updated to include the new iMac.

[jcadam]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
Looks like Apple took a early design for the TAM and used white plastic to modernize it.

The TAM has style. The iMac G5 does not.




Or perhaps it is just that the TAM is more in line with MY sense of style?


I DO however foresee this new iMac G5 occupying the desk of many a female college student.

[babble]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I can wait. I had a flaky XP box which I was going to replace hopefully in the spring, and then in June after WWDC, but I got sick and tired of waiting and finally just fixed the machine. Now it works fine.

Since the XP box is already 1.4 GHz I may as well just wait until the G5 goes beyond 2 GHz in rev. B iPodMac before I replace the XP box. If I have to wait until spring 2005, then so be it. Maybe I'll get the bonus of having Tiger pre-installed on it, and by that time it will likely have an 8X DVD burner and a better GPU. The 5200 really does suck @ss, esp. for a $1900 20" computer, and I already have a 2X SuperDrive in my laptop anyway, as well as a 2X desktop Firewire burner. 4X for a desktop DVD burner isn't much of an upgrade.

I didn't tell people not to wait. I've just wanted to let people know the truth, it's gonna be a long wait. I've read people asking for an update before X-mass... Now these people are gonna be complaining in January... "where's my updated iMac?"

[owl_luvr]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
Looks like Apple took a early design for the TAM and used white plastic to modernize it.

I think the new iMac would've looked better in that TAM black.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by owl_luvr:
I think the new iMac would've looked better in that TAM black.

Nope, black for computers is so last centuriesh...
Well, Dell still does it. That should tell you something...

-t

[klinux]

Originally posted by adamschneider:
As I said -- and you apparently chose to ignore this -- there are a number of reasons I prefer CRT monitors. And I'm not alone.

I don't like that LCDs have different colors depending on which angle you view them from; when doing graphic design work, this is a problem. And I don't like that you can't adjust the resolution without getting a fuzzy picture. Some days I want 1280x960, and some days 800x600 feels better.

(I think there are a LOT of consumers out there who are buying LCD displays because they're "cool" and don't realize that a CRT might fit their needs much better -- I especially see this with older people who are farsighted and don't like squinting at the itty-bitty pixels on their flat-panel monitors.)

I don't think Apple should stop putting LCD displays in iMacs. I just wish that we had the choice to use a CRT with a G5 processor while spending less than $2000.

I can't agree with you more. I am at a point in life that I can pretty much buy any tech toy I desire but I am still sticking with a 21" flast screen Trinitron tube I have had for the last 3 years. The images are sharp and clear and just as good as, if not better than, the very best LCDs out there.

[D'Espice]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I can wait. I had a flaky XP box which I was going to replace hopefully in the spring, and then in June after WWDC, but I got sick and tired of waiting and finally just fixed the machine. Now it works fine.

Since the XP box is already 1.4 GHz I may as well just wait until the G5 goes beyond 2 GHz in rev. B iPodMac before I replace the XP box. If I have to wait until spring 2005, then so be it. Maybe I'll get the bonus of having Tiger pre-installed on it, and by that time it will likely have an 8X DVD burner and a better GPU. The 5200 really does suck @ss, esp. for a $1900 20" computer, and I already have a 2X SuperDrive in my laptop anyway, as well as a 2X desktop Firewire burner. 4X for a desktop DVD burner isn't much of an upgrade.

Very well said. I'm going to wait too, not because I don't like the specs of the new iMac (I actually find them quite nice) but for two reasons: First I already have a 1.8 GHz Opteron so I would like to see at least a little speed improvement when spending 1500 bucks. Second I'm gonna have to save some money first and not put more debt on my credit card. And well there's a third reason, the girlfriend would start if she'd find out... and even though I really hate the looks, I'm gonna go for it. I don't want a G4 which would actually be slower than my Opteron. I don't want a PowerMac either, too expensive.

I don't mind the 4x DVD burner I'm actually very satisfied with my 2x. I don't mind the 64MB GeForce 5200 I'm actually very satisfied with my Radeon 9000. The specs are fine, the money's not. Plus the iMac G5 is quite expensive in Europe, even the low-end costs over US $1600 so I'll have to wait and save some money first. Until then we're probably gonna either see a Rev C iMac or a totally new design - which I wouldn't mind at all.

[jfinete]

You TAM fans are crazy. The TAM (like the Cube) was an overpriced, underpowered wank-fest for industrial designers. The iMac G5 is the true evolution of the original iMac. Instead of saying, "Hey look at me! I'm so stylish you're not worthy enough to use me" like the iMac G4, the new iMac says, "Hey buddy, let's hang out together and do stuff."

Lots of computer companies have tried the "computer attached to the back of an LCD" design, and they all suck. Apple wanted to do it for the iMac G4, and they couldn't make it work either. The iMac G5 is different, because the computer is inside the display.

Normal people don't know the difference between a computer and a display anyway. They think the display is the computer and the computer is just some big, noisy thing that needs to be connected to it. The iMac G5 meets their expectation that the thing they look at is the computer.

[owl_luvr]

My current iMac is the DV SE 400 MHz, 13 GB HD, 15" screen/monitor. (I believe the code name was Kihei.) Just for fun, I did some configuring on Apple's site of possible replacements:

20" iMac G5
256 MB RAM
250 GB HD
ISight
Bluetooth Module, Apple Wireless Keyboard & Wireless Mouse
Apple Protection Plan
Super Drive
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra w/ 64 MB video memory
----------------------------------------------------
$2426
= $1348 per GHz
= $9.70 per GB of HD space

17" PowerBook
512 MB RAM
80 GB HD
SuperDrive
Airport Extreme Card
Professional 17 Shoulder Case by Brenthaven
Airport Extreme Base Station
Rechargeable Battery
Apple Protection Plan
--------------------------------------
$3625
= $2417/GHz
= $45.31/GB

Power Mac G5
20" Apple Cinema Display
256 MB RAM
80 GB HD
iSight
SuperDrive
Airport Extreme Card
Dual 1.8 GHz G5
ATI Radeon 9600 XT w/ 128 MB video memory
Apple Keyboard & Mouse
Apple Protection Plan
---------------------------------------
$3825
= $1912.50/GHz
= $47.81/GB

Which of these would be the best 'Bang for the Buck' choice?

Thank you.

P. S. I'm not a 'gamer.'

[Commodus]

I would think it a bit odd to judge a computer's value based solely on hard drive space, but I can see where you're going. If you just want more storage space than a laptop can offer and at the lowest possible cost while still maintaining a good screen size, the iMac is a pretty good proposition (at least as far as Macs go). The 17" PowerBook is really just for the mobile type who needs a lot of screen space, and the PowerMac is simply overkill if all you need is decent speed and lots of storage.

Isn't it kind of funny, by the way, how the features you can get in an iMac have changed? The top-end iMac might have cost $1499, but you also had no choice but to get a 15" CRT, a read-only DVD drive, and 13 GB of hard drive space. The same now will get you a 17" LCD, a DVD burner, and six times the hard drive space. And of course, a much faster CPU as well as double the memory.

[owl_luvr]

Originally posted by Commodus:
I would think it a bit odd to judge a computer's value based solely on hard drive space, but I can see where you're going. If you just want more storage space than a laptop can offer and at the lowest possible cost while still maintaining a good screen size, the iMac is a pretty good proposition (at least as far as Macs go). The 17" PowerBook is really just for the mobile type who needs a lot of screen space, and the PowerMac is simply overkill if all you need is decent speed and lots of storage.

Isn't it kind of funny, by the way, how the features you can get in an iMac have changed? The top-end iMac might have cost $1499, but you also had no choice but to get a 15" CRT, a read-only DVD drive, and 13 GB of hard drive space. The same now will get you a 17" LCD, a DVD burner, and six times the hard drive space. And of course, a much faster CPU as well as double the memory.

OK, Commodus. Thanks. Taking the Power Mac off my list, would you still say what you did? With a La Cie external 120 GB hard drive already on my desk, I'm not using that spec as an indicator of my next Mac. (At least, that's not my intent.)

[klinux]

Originally posted by jfinete:
You TAM fans are crazy. The TAM (like the Cube) was an overpriced, underpowered wank-fest for industrial designers. <snip> The iMac G5 meets their expectation that the thing they look at is the computer.

Funny, many people is thinking this exactly: "iMac is an overpriced, underpowered wank-fest for industrial designers."

[torp]

Originally posted by Zoom:
I would pay $1000 for a headless Mac with a single 2 GHz G5, a replaceable GPU, at least one PCI slot, FW800, 8x SuperDrive, GigE, and a 900MHz FSB. Put it in a simple but elegant case where the components are easy to get to. It would be cheaper to manufacture than the new iMac (less cramped, fewer custom parts) and the upgrades I rattled off don't really amount to much - the profit margin would probably be higher than on the iMac. And then I might still buy a 20" LCD, though I probably wouldn't buy one next time I upgraded. (Granted, I might not buy an Apple LCD.)

Me too.

Besides, all in one: not at all. As long as there are a keyboard and a mouse filling my desk, I would have preferred a slightly bigger keyboard in favor of a normal sized screen.

[kirk26]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Nope, black for computers is so last centuriesh...
Well, Dell still does it. That should tell you something...

-t

Yea, that Dell still, yes still makes the best computers (next to Apple).

[arkitus]

I just did a little experiment to see whether the iMac looks better widescreen or not and to see if it would better in another shape but using the same concept ( LCD � all in one ). Obviously apple chose the right kind of setup.

[Tyler Dockery]

My first thought at looking at it is:

For less than $3000, you can get a machine that has better specs than the 17" powerbook g4. Can you disassemble the thing?

The website states you can take the whole back off, but does the stand itself come off, or do they offer a tiny stand? if so, you could pack the whole thing up like a wide laptop and take it to meetings and classes.

Except for that power cord issue, it seems like a great idea. And that vertical slit near the top of the back- is that an air intake or a possible place for a wider, shorter stand?

They could just sell some kind of padded front cover, but what about power?

http://dockerydesigns.50megs.com

[owl_luvr]

Originally posted by Tyler Dockery:
My first thought at looking at it is:

For less than $3000, you can get a machine that has better specs than the 17" powerbook g4.

Even a better graphics card?

The website states you can take the whole back off, but does the stand itself come off, or do they offer a tiny stand? if so, you could pack the whole thing up like a wide laptop and take it to meetings and classes.

Except for that power cord issue, it seems like a great idea. And that vertical slit near the top of the back- is that an air intake or a possible place for a wider, shorter stand?

They could just sell some kind of padded front cover, but what about power?

http://dockerydesigns.50megs.com