[solbo]

Originally posted by selowitch:
I'm so glad somebody finally said this.

Who wouldn't rather play Doom III on an Xbox? The controls are better, configuration and installation is nonexistent, and you can use Xbox Live. Why play it on your Mac or PC when you'll always feel pressured to upgrade your hardware? I like games, but I really don't care much about performance as long as they are of the kind of quality that Xbox games currently reflect.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Sorry, slightly off-topic.

Is World of Warcraft coming out for Gamecube and I didn't know it?

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Parky:
Again for me and many 'home' users who just use, Mail, Word, iMovie, iTunes etc I'm not bothered about the Graphics card. I don't do heavy graphics stuff.

I never play games, just not interested.

I also don't understand why people want to use a computer to play games, when the consoles do it so much better for not much cash.

Agreed. "Gaming" is rapidly moving to consoles. I could care less about playing video games personally .. and my roommate plays all his on a PS II -- he hardly touches his PC. A nicer video card will doubtless be a selling point for a Rev B

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey:
But (and I'm not trying to sound accusatory) then why do you even need a G5?

... because that's what they put in this enclosure ?? Seriously, this is just the next logical speed step in the iMac line. He may not "need" for this to contain a G5 as opposed to a G4, but that's what this enclosure was designed around.

On a sidenote, I'm glad to finally see decent bus speeds starting to trickle down toward the consumer level. Until now, we've been hampered by the same G4 bottleneck that plagued the powermac line until the G5 was intro'd.

Originally posted by im_noahselby:

This is absolutely NOTHING like I could have imagined. I think I may have been expecting Apple to innovate, of which they didn't this time around. How dissapointing...

Noah

I agree with you .. I like seeing Apple putting forth groundbreaking designs. But realistically, the biggest complaint from most people has been the piss poor price/performance for the iMac G4 in the last year or so ($2200 for a 1.25 G4 ?? ... a $799 eMac matches that !!). This update hammers price/performance in a big way ... at the expense of super-shocking-ultra-cool design, I'm afraid. Not uber snazzy looking ... but it'll probably sell better than the FP.

[Parky]

Originally posted by Krusty:
This update hammers price/performance in a big way ... at the expense of super-shocking-ultra-cool design, I'm afraid. Not uber snazzy looking ... but it'll probably sell better than the FP.

The price is partly to blame for the design, it has to be cheaper to make than the G4.
Apple needed to get the price down and it impacted the outcome.

Ian

[D'Espice]

Originally posted by Parky:
Again for me and many 'home' users who just use, Mail, Word, iMovie, iTunes etc I'm not bothered about the Graphics card. I don't do heavy graphics stuff.

I am so glad somebody finally said that. If you want a gaming machine, get a PC. They're cheaper and faster in terms of computer games anyway. I couldn't actually care less about the video card, I myself still have an old Radeon 9000 in my computer - I would have a Radeon 7000 if it would work in my mainboard which it doesn't.
The iMac is not a Mac for gamers, it's a computer for people who like taking things out of the box and simply use it. For gaming, there are lots of better alternatives including the PowerMac, consoles or PCs running Windows. All three are better suited for gaming, the iMac is a computer for daily business like word processing, browsing, writing mails and stuff like that.

I have to admit one thing tho, the iMac does look better in real life than it does on those horrible Apple renderings. I still don't like it very much tho, I've been considering to get the G5 iMac but now that I see it my lust for it is actually fading by the minute.
Plus, other than in the US, it's not really cheap in Germany. 1370 Euro for the cheapest one, the 20" even goes for 2000 Euro. Given the current exchange rate that's US $1660 for the cheapest one and more than US $2400 for the 20" model. Now that ain't cheap at all.

[hldan]

Flat out amazing how most people here are complaining more about the iMac's asthetics and complaining the least about the specs. Well, it's about time!!!

Finally Apple made something where the consumers are not too upset at the speed of the machine. Very nicely spec'd machine. Great G5 speed, great memory speed, great graphics, super fast system bus and the prices are way lower this time.

Get real here people, that's what the computer is really for. We just expect Apple to have great looking asthetics because of their past reputation. Show me an "All in One" Wintel box that looks better and cleaner than this and I may consider paying for your next Macintosh purchase.
Most Wintel boxes still get props for speed no matter how bad they look, now Apple gives us speed and a clean design and wall mountable and those live pics look awesome.
http://homepage.mac.com/morgan68/App...toAlbum31.html

I notice that some people here love to complain more than praise. Just know that whatever Apple does some other company will try and copy it but never suceed. That's how you can tell when Apple does a good job. Every Mac has tried to be copied especially by Sony.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally posted by Krusty:
... because that's what they put in this enclosure ?? Seriously, this is just the next logical speed step in the iMac line. He may not "need" for this to contain a G5 as opposed to a G4, but that's what this enclosure was designed around.

My point is more that it's kind of fuzzy logic to say that the G5 is necessary in a "consumer" machine just because it's the next iteration of Mac processor technology, regardless of any real "consumer" need for a more powerful chip, while at the same time saying that a more modern video card isn't necessary because people don't need it.

Other than that, I actually really like the specs of the new iMac. It would just be nice if Apple at least made the video card in the iMac upgradable, to further distinguish it from the eMac, and to not force me to pay an extra $800-$1,000 for upgradability.

[eddiecatflap]

so there's now c. $800 ( �500 ) difference between the top imac and the low end powermac ?

hahah

good lord

the g5 power mac is utterly stunning in every way , no contest

i predict this mac is a total disaster

[D'Espice]

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey:
My point is more that it's kind of fuzzy logic to say that the G5 is necessary in a "consumer" machine just because it's the next iteration of Mac processor technology, regardless of any real "consumer" need for a more powerful chip, while at the same time saying that a more modern video card isn't necessary because people don't need it.

The point is that a user will certainly notice an increase in performance between a G4 and a G5 processor. That is, every user will. Not only gamers but even my grandma writing an email will notice how everything gets a little faster.
On the other hand, would she have a GeForce 6800 Ultra video card with 256MB instead of the 5200 with 64MB, she wouldn't notice a thing. Nothing at all, that's the point.

The bottom line is: Faster CPU = good for all users. Faster GPU = good for a few users, unnecessary expense for most users.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by selowitch:
I'm so glad somebody finally said this.

Who wouldn't rather play Doom III on an Xbox?

...

Sorry, slightly off-topic.

It's not off-topic at all.

I said sth. similar in a different thread earlier.
That whole bitchin' about the graphics card is on my freakin' nerves.
Everywhere, people complain about it. You gamers, just STFU !

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...58#post2158454

-t

[Mike656]

Originally posted by neverwind:
Really, even Ti books had gigabit ethernet...(that was 5 years ago).

FYI the first TiBook came out in Jan 2001, and lacked gigabit ethernet until Oct 2001 (2 years 10 months).

www.apple-history.com

[Betox]

I love it!! Nice design...

[eddiecatflap]

if games are not important , why does apple talk about them so much in the imac presentation , ie: unreal and halo ??

it's a sad fact , but to play games at anywhere near pc levels you have to spend a fortune in macland

the new imac just doesn't cut it

[wowway1]

Good pricepoint, that's the positive.

What I really wanted in a design is that of the new alum. displays. Thin bezel, could have been 3" deep for all I care, as long as it tilts AND pivots. Bummer. I'll wait for the G5 PB thanks.

[Evan_11]

Looks great. Very mod friendly design for those inclining types. I can see people working with the facade. You could turn this into a flower power iMac. I can also see Apple implimenting that chameleon technology they recently patented. You could make the whole thing glow pink if you so desired! Eliminate the wasteful inventory of multiple color codes and make it as easy to change as your desktop wallpaper.

I also see this design eventually going in the tablet direction. Just install a battery and a touch screen and wala! And the cool thing is that when they do this and do it for under $1500 they'll also attract the power user crowd who wants something to add to their creative design tool set.

[Parky]

Originally posted by eddiecatflap:
if games are not important , why does apple talk about them so much in the imac presentation , ie: unreal and halo ??

it's a sad fact , but to play games at anywhere near pc levels you have to spend a fortune in macland

the new imac just doesn't cut it

They talk about games because they have to cover as many uses as possible and it's easy to quote game performance.

As a games machine it's respectable, only hard core games are going to be disappointed.

Ian

[AMDB7]

Originally posted by Parky:
I also suspect that in the flesh it will be much better.
When you see the quality of the materials, the reflections on the shiny case, the scale compared to it's surroundings and the quality of the 20" screen and when you can touch it and feel the tactile properties feelings will change.

Ian

I second that. Traditionally it has really been in the details that Apple's design shines, and I have no doubt that this iMac will have the details to make it stand out.

[osxisfun]

ahhh if its the first day of an apple expo... its must be bitch day.

Seriously, this is a perfect computer for the market it is intended for.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by wowway1:
Good pricepoint, that's the positive.

What I really wanted in a design is that of the new alum. displays. Thin bezel, could have been 3" deep for all I care, as long as it tilts AND pivots. Bummer. I'll wait for the G5 PB thanks.

Pointless bitch there. The bezel fits the internals. Besides I think it looks great. Read my above post and get a clue!

[Parky]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
ahhh if its the first day of an apple expo... its must be bitch day.

Seriously, this is a perfect computer for the market it is intended for.

AT LAST - EXACTLY!!

[Parky]

Originally posted by wowway1:
Good pricepoint, that's the positive.

What I really wanted in a design is that of the new alum. displays. Thin bezel, could have been 3" deep for all I care, as long as it tilts AND pivots. Bummer. I'll wait for the G5 PB thanks.

Not sure how the PB Pivots ! Won't you have the same problem ?

At least with the G5 iMac you can turn the screen round and the keyboard does not go with it.

[Luca Rescigno]

2bl post

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
The bottom line is: Faster CPU = good for all users. Faster GPU = good for a few users, unnecessary expense for most users.

Exactly right. Although, it would be nice if you could at least have the option for a better card. Say, $150 or $200 extra for a 128 MB Radeon 9800 (maybe even just a 9800 SE, it's slower but still very good). That's the main disadvantage over the PC counterparts - the price/performance is now actually pretty good, with a fast processor, DVD burner, widescreen LCD, and so on for a good price, but there are almost no BTO options.

[velocitychannel]

Originally posted by hldan:
Flat out amazing how most people here are complaining more about the iMac's asthetics and complaining the least about the specs. Well, it's about time!!!

Finally Apple made something where the consumers are not too upset at the speed of the machine. Very nicely spec'd machine. Great G5 speed, great memory speed, great graphics, super fast system bus and the prices are way lower this time.

Get real here people, that's what the computer is really for. We just expect Apple to have great looking asthetics because of their past reputation. Show me an "All in One" Wintel box that looks better and cleaner than this and I may consider paying for your next Macintosh purchase.
Most Wintel boxes still get props for speed no matter how bad they look, now Apple gives us speed and a clean design and wall mountable and those live pics look awesome.
http://homepage.mac.com/morgan68/App...toAlbum31.html

I notice that some people here love to complain more than praise. Just know that whatever Apple does some other company will try and copy it but never suceed. That's how you can tell when Apple does a good job. Every Mac has tried to be copied especially by Sony.

This is true. Thanks for saying it. Personally, it is tiring reading posts from all these Armchair CEO's.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by Macrat:
Anyone know the viewing angle specs for the old 17"? The new one looks pretty bad:

Typical viewing angle:

* 17-inch models
o 120�� horizontal
o 90�� vertical
* 20-inch model
o 170�� horizontal
o 170�� vertical

Personally, I never use my computer unless I am sitting infront of it.

[Sparkletron]

Originally posted by Parky:
I also don't understand why people want to use a computer to play games, when the consoles do it so much better for not much cash.

Well allow me to enlighten you!

First, there's just no way a console can compare to a PC. Gigs of RAM and the latest CPU and graphics card? I don't think so...

Serious gamers have PCs that are tricked out, my friend, and you can feel the difference when you're zapping your enemies in BF Vietnam.

And then there's the convenience factor. Since you have to have a PC for Web and email and WP, why not for games as well? One system is easier to manage than two.

Finally, there's the psychological factor. I play games but I sure as shooting don't like to admit it--even to myself. This is especially true when I should be using that time on more noble pursuits like writing my representatives to complain about my taxes. With a console, there's just no getting around the fact that you have invested in a dedicated game machine. A toy. Contrast this with playing the occasional game every now and then on your PC, stretching your fingers, so to speak, while your important letters of state are printing or what have you. Why you'd hardly call that game playing at all!

Get it?

-S

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
Get it?

Yes. The message is:

Hardcore gamers, get a PC and stop bitchin' !

-t

[WizOSX]

A number of people have expressed a desire for upgradable video in the iMac. There is a major problem with this--upgradable in what way?

1) If you want an AGP slot that will hold off the shelf video cards then you have two major problems--the same problems that Apple ran into with the Cube. Video cards generate lots of heat and can be very large. Apple "solved" those problems with the Cube by severely limiting what kind of video card could be put in and as a consequence people will now pay hundreds of dollars for very weak, old cards to put in their aging Cubes just to get any upgradability. That, to me, is not really upgradability.

2) If you just want the ability to increase the memory from 64mb to 128mb then Apple would have to add something to the initial price of the machine to include that option. And most really aren't wiling to pay, say $50 extra, on the machine initially just so they can possibly pay to add another 64mb later.

3) If you want a specialized, removable video card that is built just for a low heat, low noise, compact Mac, that will increase the cost of the machine initially and will be very expensive to upgrade later. Again, not worthwhile.

Really, the options for this kind of Mac is the same as for a PowerBook--use a chipset that doesn't generate too much heat or use too much power but still has acceptable performance for the majority of users. And then probably you still have to throttle the video a bit to make it more usable in the form factor. But upgradability just doesn't seem reasonable in this kind of machine.

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
Well allow me to enlighten you!

First, there's just no way a console can compare to a PC. Gigs of RAM and the latest CPU and graphics card? I don't think so...

Serious gamers... (the rest is snipped)

That's it. That's the difference. Serious gamers do not buy iMacs. They do not buy Sony Viao all-in-ones and they do not buy "family level" computers.

People who buy family computers will play occasional games on their computer or they'll already have a Playstation/Xbox.

People who want a machine on which to play the latest and greatest games will buy a fully-expandable tower. They want upgradable RAM, video, HD, display, etc.

While I know some people here would like an iMac that had more oomph, remember that we here tend to be "power users" for the most part, and expect higher-end equipment. Also, Apple (and every other consumer electronics designer) don't develop in a vacuum. Apple, no doubt, has conducted hundreds of focus groups/user surveys to come up with the best compromise possible. We don't want to go back to the days of the billion-configuration Performas, do we?

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Yes. The message is:

Hardcore gamers, get a PC and stop bitchin' !

-t

Thank you. It is like buying a boat and being pissed off you can't drive on the road with it.

[Cincinnatus]

It is strange to be sure, why its not included, as the cost difference is seemingly negligible, and its inclusion would future proof the machine (well, at least for networking - until 10Gbit is available). BTO would probably not work well with the form factor, as Apple would have to make the ENET module swappable on the assembly line...so why not spring for the extra $10 (retail, so wholesale would probably be cheaper) for Gigabit.

If my office is any indication, larger organizations only recently deployed FastEthernet to the desktop. The switches for non Data Center servers are only 10/100. Gigabit would be nice, to be sure, but unless you have the infrastructure in place (including cableing that can handle the increased signal frequency), or can go out and purchase your own gigabit switch (16-32 ports in the case of workgroups, 8 ports for most home use), gigabit on a consumer computer will not, on balance, be widely used at home, or even in dorms connected to a university's LAN. The educational market is a bit of a fuzzy area to me though - neverwind makes an interesting argument: The exclusion of this feature could prevent the adoption of this new model iMac in particular markets where it might otherwise be ideal.

/Cincinnatus

[Sparkletron]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Yes. The message is:

Hardcore gamers, get a PC and stop bitchin' !

-t

I agree but consider this...

People who are exposed to PCs at a young age are more likely to use PCs later in life (all those fond memories; it's what they're used to). Kids like playing games. PCs have all the games. Kids use PCs to play games. MS gains new converts without even trying...

I submit that IF Macs had all the game titles that PCs have, and IF Macs were as affordable as PCs, THEN Apple would have a significantly larger market share. Parky may not be interested in games but I guarantee you that most computer enthusiasts are, as evidenced by the vast majority of software titles on display at CompUSA--and that holds true for the Mac corner as well.

-S

[RTiMac]

My eyes! They burn! Take it away!!!

[bergy]

This design is the only logical way it could have gone. Computers are starting to meld into our surroundings. Only the display is left and how can you eliminate that? What would you surround it with for design purposes .. an empty shell?

What i would like to know is .. can you take it off the stand .. tuck into a bag and make it portable ? This would be a huge advantage..

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
People who are exposed to PCs at a young age are more likely to use PCs later in life (all those fond memories; it's what they're used to). Kids like playing games. PCs have all the games. Kids use PCs to play games. MS gains new converts without even trying...

I disagree.

First of all, kids don't buy computers, grown-ups do. If they are stupid to buy a PC just because they used a PC when they were kids, so shall it be. The more educated consumers compare and make a decision based on more reasons than just sentiments.

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
I submit that IF Macs had all the game titles that PCs have, and IF Macs were as affordable as PCs, THEN Apple would have a significantly larger market share.

What's your point ? If Macs were like PCs in all aspects, of course they would have a larger share. Again, what's your point ?

Besides that, IMHO, there is no money to be made with gamers.
Trust me, that market niche is SO overrated.

As an add-on, to play games now and then, fine.

-t

[adamschneider]

How stable is this thing? And I don't mean the OS. I mean it looks like it could tip over to the right or left; that "foot" is quite small.

[threestain]

I think the new format is quite stunning and EVERYONE I have shown it too today (all of whom are not particularly computer literate and only ever use pcs) love it, and are impressed by it.

These are the people you are looking to influence - they don't need the 'hardcore' aspects of all the new games, they need something that won't look out of place in their front room, and will do all the documenting and e-mailing they need.

Besides, you can still play doom3 and stuff like it on an older machine, you just have to turn settings down. Not particularly tricky, and I know many people who play with ridiculously fast pcs with everything turned off because they only care about the fps

[Parky]

The Keynote is now up on the Apple Site.

iMac looks even better !!

Ian

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
The point is that a user will certainly notice an increase in performance between a G4 and a G5 processor. That is, every user will. Not only gamers but even my grandma writing an email will notice how everything gets a little faster.
On the other hand, would she have a GeForce 6800 Ultra video card with 256MB instead of the 5200 with 64MB, she wouldn't notice a thing. Nothing at all, that's the point.

The bottom line is: Faster CPU = good for all users. Faster GPU = good for a few users, unnecessary expense for most users.

Given how GPUs are becoming more and more integral to the basic running of the operating system, that line of argument is becoming less relevent. No, you don't need a super-fast card to run OS X, and I'm not arguing for a 6800 Ultra , but the way in which Apple seems to treat its graphics card selection like an afterthought doesn't help anyone. Given that the iMac is an AOI design, and, in fact, is the <i>higher tier</i> AOI design, I at least want more video card options for a BTO order.

Apple needs to make the underlining concepts of its designs a little more differentiated. The eMac can stay fully AOI, the iMac should have slightly more upgradability (RAM, HD, GPU), while the PowerMacs can go for it all (RAM, HD, GPU, CPU, etc.). I should not have to shell out $2000 just to be able to change my video card. I feel like Apple is ignoring a huge core of its user base by making 2/3 of its desktop line-up AOI designs.

[LightWaver-67]

I think I'm gonna toss a vote into the "I like it" pile.

Taste is all subjection. Some may not connect with this offering... some of us already do. I "get it" right away and I like it. My current job is a 98% Mac shop and there are iMacs EVERYWHERE. Graphics department and myself use G5 towers and there are only a handfull of WinPCs for task-specific things.

I could EASILY see these new iMacs on the desks of our sales staff, or production staff. yep... I think I like 'em.

[chrisutley]

To those of you complaining about the cosmetics/design, the iMac G5 form factor is the most logical and efficient next step in the evolution of the all in one concept. The average display size is climbing and no matter how thin you can make a display, you are always going to have the display area itself. Why design some fancy enclosure that's unnecessary? What's the point? Apple designs usually keep things simple and clean. This is the all in one boiled down to the most clean and simple enclosure possible, while still being aesthetically pleasing. They could have used notebook parts and shrunk it down further, but then it cost WAY more and end up like the Cube.

Design for the sake of design is worthless. Apple designs things to be functional, aesthetically pleasing, and simple. I think all of those things apply to the iMac G5.