[Lateralus]

Originally posted by Dex13:
GeForce 5200 64mb Prices

128MB FX 5200 for $53

[Dex13]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
128MB FX 5200 for $53

Just Trying to help prove your point

[mfdynusore]

Originally posted by george68:


THIS IS STUPID. YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING. You guys keep talking about PC gamers.... WHY!?! WHY ARE ALL GAMERS USING PCs?!?!?!?! WHY?!!

HINT: Any freaking Mac they could remotely afford comes with a SHITTY OUTDATED VIDEO CARD.

THEY HAVE NO CHOICE. If you want to play games, you HAVE to get a PC, or spend a TON of money on a mac. THAT IS RETARDED.

- Rob

Actually I think the reason all the gamers are using PCs is a little more nuanced than your statement above indicates. Having said that I do agree that a BTO would be a good idea and since RAM, Drives and Memory are BTO I suspect that the reason Apple does not offer a BTO video card (assuming for the moment that they are NOT idiots) is related to the mother board and enclosure form factors and heat dissipation issues. If accomadating an upgradeable Video card had had a higher priority perhaps the deign of the MB and enclosure would have been different but the demographics of iMac purchasers probably indicated that design asethetics (sp?) outweighed the VC upgradability issue. (ymmv) Oh well there is always Rev B.

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by Dex13:
Just Trying to help prove your point

Oh, okay.

[george68]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Shut up, Ca$h !

Get a PowerMac or a freakin' PC if you need GPU power.
The reasons have been made clear in many threads.
-t

Earth to dumbass.

I use macs.

There is currently no mac I can afford that could play a modern game well.

I like all in ones.

An iMac with a hot videocard would sell like HOTCAKES.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by turtle777:
You get what you pay for, a GEForce 5200.

As D'Espice pointed out, there is virtually NO difference in 2D performance as compared to high-end cards, so the only difference is for 3D. For 99% of the iMac user's, it's NOT an issue !

YOU ARE A COMPLETE ****ING IDIOT! YOUR ARGUMENT IS CIRCULAR! You say 99% of mac users are NOT gamers. WHY!? Because apple does not provide a system that can PLAY GAMES! THE REASON that most 'gamers' are on PCs is that APPLE DOES NOT HAVE SYSTEMS WITH GOOD VIDEO CARDS. HENCE. MOST GAMERS WILL BE ON PCs.

What a ****ing idiot.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=4#post2158964

Quit posting links to your stupid thread. Your number of views is not going to go down anytime soon, as lots of people think that it has a big chin. This topic is MINE and it's about the **** video card that apple has always shoved in it's imacs. The original iMac would have been PERFECT for gaming. PERFECT. It had a f*cking handle for christ's sake! If they had shoved an 8meg 3dfx card or a 16 meg one, it would have ROCKED.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by galarneau:
Who is more likely to play games on their Mac, a consumer or a professional?

What Mac is built for consumers?

It's simple logic, and I just don't understand why Apple would choose a GeForce5200 over a Radeon 9600.

The Radeon wouldn't cost that much more and runs cooler (I believe), and would be better suited for a small enclosure like the new iMac.

And for all the people who say get an xbox for gaming?... I did, and then sold it. Playing FPS type games with a controller is annoying if you're used to WSAD and a mouse.

AMEN. This is a CONSUMER model machine. CONSUMERS play games.

Since apple has been completely f*cking retarded in the past releasing iMacs with shitty video cards. The original had a TWO meg rage IIc. TWO MEGS. This was when 8-16 meg cards were STANDARD. So they designed an attractive, 'cool' machine with a pretty bitchin' processor (at the time), made it portable, gave it everything needed for the perfect quasi portable gaming machine and then....woops. **** video card. It's been that way ever since.

Remember Microconversions? They sold the gamewizard 8 meg voodoo2 upgrade for hte original iMac. I have one. I loved it.

If they would just make an iMac with a PCI slot nobody would be bitching and they'd sell a TON more of these things.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Wrong question !

Who is more likely to buy an iMac ?
A consumer or a hardcore gamer ?

Apple knows the answer and made the iMac accordingly !

-t

THE ARGUMENT IS CIRCULAR YOU STUPID ****.

The REASON that hardcore gamers USE pcs is that the CONSUMER level mac has a SHITTY VIDEO CARD.

Guess what? I have some news for you. "Hardcore gamers" build PCs for about 1000-1500 bucks.

The reason that they do not use macs is that the ONLY game-capable mac is the dual G5 tower which is extremely expensive. If the iMac came with a good vid card, it would sway a LOT of them. I know tons of people that use PCs, and all of them HATE windows.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by atlcane:
I would say buy a pc if you are that into gaming. The mac has a horrible selection of games. If apple had a larger selection of games I could see them adding a new graphics card.

IT IS CIRCULAR ARGUMENT.

Look. Apple's consumer machines have shitty video cards. This means they can't play games. This means that people who would like to play a game do not buy macs. This means that there is not a wide selection of titles available for the mac.

I don't think Apple even realizes how BIG the gaming industry is....... it's a multi-BILLION dollar industry, and they completely effing ignore it.

- Rob

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by george68:
IT IS CIRCULAR ARGUMENT.

YOU ARE A COMPLETE ****ING IDIOT! YOUR ARGUMENT IS CIRCULAR!

THE ARGUMENT IS CIRCULAR YOU STUPID ****.

What are you trying to say?

[Link]

What he's trying to say is that if apple stopped trying to sell crap like a geforce 5200 in a $1200 machine and actually offered DECENT graphic chips (a 9600 in the lowest config), apple would get more customers who would buy the machines to play games on, which would increase demand for mac games, which would cause companies to port more games over, which would cause more people to switch over to the mac, which would cause more demand for more games, etc, etc, etc, ....


He's got a DAMN GOOD POINT. Of course most of you guys have your heads jammed firmly up your butts and don't realize what a huge difference the lousy $50 to stick a 9600 in there would have been... heck even if that made the bottom end $50 more expensive, it'd be worth it.

You also have to remember that in terms of obsolescence... the video card will be one of the killing points. You can use a PIII to play doom 3 if you have a really good graphics card, but it can't be the other way around. The fact that apple is selling a machine with something *MEDIOCRE* right now means that it will be *utter crap* in about 3 months given the rate of the industry, and knowing apple they won't be updating this damn thing for 9 months.

That means in 9 months, the offering will be complete crap, and in 2-3 years the video card will be totally unusable for anything, INCLUDING OS X.

[george68]

Originally posted by Link:

He's got a DAMN GOOD POINT.

Thank you. It's nice to see that some people use their heads around here for things other than getting bitchy when a thread topic threatens the popularity of a thread they started, like that little b*tch Turtle.

- Ca$h

PS: Turtle mode: "WAh! I want people to post in MY thread! Here is a LINK to it. WAH wah wah!"

[Eug Wanker]

I am getting a G5 iPodMac for work. The GPU is not a big deal there, since the machine is going to see only light usage. BUT:

I have some good coin in the bank at the moment, that was specifically earmarked for a new iMac, IF the specs and prices suited my needs. Guess what? They don't. Actually, overall I think the new iPodMac is a pretty good machine, but the number one issue for me is the crapola video in the 20" iMac. I think the lower end models are probably OK with the 5200 Ultra, but definitely not with a 20" $1900 machine.

In other words, if Apple had released the 20" with a 9600 XT for $1900, or even offered it as an upgrade for say a $1950 machine, I would have bought it. But since they didn't, I am not buying. That makes two people in this thread alone that aren't buying new iPodMacs now, specifically for this reason. How many others out there are thinking the same way?

BTW, aside from games, the Motion people say Motion's performance sucks on the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra. Motion uses technologies from Core Video in Tiger. That does give one pause, since Tiger is coming in 6 months. I suspect that a future version of iLife will leverage Core Video, and it just gets me worried that its performance on a G5 iPodMac may similarly suck like it does in Motion.

Fortunately, I can wait for a rev. B iPodMac. It took Apple so long to release it, that I went ahead and fixed my PC. It should last me another year, now that it's fixed.

[iBorg]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
In other words, if Apple had released the 20" with a 9600 XT for $1900, or even offered it as an upgrade for say a $1950 machine, I would have bought it. But since they didn't, I am not buying. That makes two people in this thread alone that aren't buying new iPodMacs now, specifically for this reason. How many others out there are thinking the same way?

Amen! I am another lost sales to Apple for a 20" G5 iMac, and it is entirely because of the video card. Outdated when Apple put it into the 2003 G4 iMacs last year, it's iindefensible that Apple doesn't at least allow a BTO upgrade, at extra cost (i.e. extra profit to Apple!), to a mid-level card! And I am only a casual gamer - my concern is that after paying $1900 for an iMac ($2300 after adding options), I'll be unable to run newer software and the OS in another 1-2 years. If I'm paying $500 for a bottom-feeder PC I should expect that - but not for $2000+.

Turtle777: please pull your head out of your arse, and realize that what's right for you individually is irrelevant for other buyers. Telling everyone else to "buy a PC" or "buy an XBox" is myopic, and if followed would lead to further erosion of a meager 2.2% market share. Even your Apple-apologist attitude must see that if everyone else buys "something else," and Apple goes tits-up, then your future computer purchases are fuxored, as well.



iBorg

[george68]

more intelligent people. yay!

[cash]

Hi everyone,

I totally agree with Ca$h (yes i know we have the same name!). I am a PC user, ive been thinking about switching for about 3 years now... 3 YEARS!! Why so long? Graphics cards. In order to get a decent graphics card, you need to buy a PowerMac. Like Ca$h said, that is retarded.

I have no plans on spending *that* much money on a computer... the price range of the iMac is just perfect for me. A lot of PC users out there look at CPU/FSB speed, memory size/speed, and ... you got it, graphics card, to decide on a purchase. Yes i am a gamer.

Like i said though, i've *wanted* to switch for many years and for many many reasons. In order for Apple to get more people to switch they need to accomodate the switching PC user: they are used to *current* graphics cards. C'mon a Geforce 5200? what the hell? Switching to Mac means for many people, a *downgrade* in gaphics - a big no-no.

However, seeing as the G5 imac has quite a tiny case, it would make accomdating different graphics cards very hard. Im not sure about the size of the 5200 but my Radeo 9800 Pro is a beast. I was quite surprised when i bought it. Video cards *do* come in differnet sizes. Keep that in mind.

It will be able to run Doom3? lol, id like to see that. My current config is P4-2.8Ghz(HT)/800FSB, 1GB PC3200, 128MB Radeon 9800 Pro, and doing a 'auto-detect system' i get 'medium quality' at 800x600!! I can change it to 'high' (still on 800x600) and still get about 60fps. EVEN IF the iMac can pull off 30fps, wait till a couple of monster comes on screen. Or even 1... (maybe thats how id wanted to scare us

I am currently looking at buyig a powerbook, its graphics card is decent - a mobility 9700 (15"). But for the price, i would much prefer the iMac with a better graphics card... hmmm... what to do?Like many PC users thinkig of switchig, i'll just wait *again*... ;(

Yes i'm picky, thats what happens when you have freedom of *choice* in the PC world. I'm not using PCs because i want to. Trust me, i want to use a Mac! HELP ME!!

--
cash

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by george68:

HINT: Any freaking Mac they could remotely afford comes with a SHITTY OUTDATED VIDEO CARD.


- Rob

Ya right, people don't play games on Mac's because of the video card.

It is more because most games NEVER come out for Mac, if they do they come out many months later and even then they are not optimized as well and run slower no matter the card or processor.

[cash]

Hi everyone,

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Everyone that I know who has bought an iMac (at least 15) not one of them wants to play a game on it. They love the iMac and bought it for every other reason.

[cash]

whoops, accidentally pressed submit

--
That sounds like the chicken and egg dilemma doesnt it? I mean someone has to start giving mac users better games!! Either Apple giving (selling) better video cards making game playing ENJOYABLE, or game developers porting their game over to the mac.

Which one is easier? If you dont know, selling ALREADY-MADE compnents is much easier than porting a game - one of the most complex pieces of software created by man!

--
cash

[iBorg]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Everyone that I know who has bought an iMac (at least 15) not one of them wants to play a game on it. They love the iMac and bought it for every other reason.

And I have 2 family members, plus 3 other acquaintenances, who did not purchase the new iMac, all because of an antiquated video card, without a BTO option. We all logged on yesterday intending to buy a G5 iMac on-the-spot, but this was a deal-breaker! And none of has did what Apple is trying to force upon its customers: Buy an expensive G5 tower.

Nope, just more lost revenue, all because of one glaring deficiency. We'll wait for revision B, and if the card still sucks, still won't upgrade from our current Macs.

Of course, many people just plain give up on Apple, and "go to the dark side," and "buy a PC," as many of the myopic Apple-apologists in this and similar threads suggest. Yep, that 2.2% market share just continues to shrink ...... DAMN YOU, Apple! We want to stay with Mac OS, but our patience is not infinite!



iBorg

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by iBorg:
And I have 2 family members, plus 3 other acquaintenances, who did not purchase the new iMac, all because of an antiquated video card, without a BTO option.iBorg

Well that is 20+ and -5. You will never please everyone.

Tell them to get a PC with a high end video card that costs less and is nothing but fun. Or get the cheepos to bone up for a G5 tower.

[i am yujin]

It is sad because my Geforce4MX will play games just as good as that lowly Geforce 5200.

Have you guys seen the benchmarks for this shitty card?

[Zoom]

Originally posted by george68:
PS: Turtle mode: "WAh! I want people to post in MY thread! Here is a LINK to it. WAH wah wah!"

Dude, chill out. It's fine to be frustrated and angry, and there's nothing wrong with a spirited debate... but let's can the ad hominem stuff, okay? Let's keep the discussion focused on the issues.

I agree that Apple should offer a better GPU as a BTO option. I wonder if this card will be soldered in? If not, then you can bet that some third party will come out with an upgrade option. However, it's probably soldered in. Is there any way to confirm this prior to the thing hitting the street?

I'm ready to buy right now and I'm torn between the top end iMac and the low end PM. I'm solidly in the middle of those two markets. An iMac isn't flexible enough for me (no real upgrade path), but the PowerMac is way more than I need and way more expensive. I'm finding the choice extremely hard to make and I'm worried about major 'buyer's remorse' either way.

Problem is, I'm sitting on this old G4 Sawtooth (CPU upgraded to G4/900) and a 32MB Radeon... the iMac would probably feel great by comparison. But I like keeping my computer for a long time, upgrading it, fiddling with it... an iMac doesn't fit that bill. One option, though... I could upgrade in 1-2 years and give this iMac to my daughter... hmm.

[Silas]

So here is my take on the gaming performance (using some very easily available information) of the new iMac and please tell me if it is incorrect.

Apple claims that this iMac runs games at nearly 3 times the FPS of the previous model. Many claim that Apple possibly inflates these statistics, therefore lets give them a margin of error of 33% (which is quite high to me) and say that this iMac has twice the gaming performance of the previous model.

Using benchmarks provided by barefeats, we see that the iMac G4 ran UT2004 (1024x768, high settings) at 15.5 FPS and we can see that the iMac G4 ran Halo (1024x768, high settings) at 22.2 FPS. Using Apple's testing, including the margin of error, we can expect UT2004 to run at 31 FPS (1024x768, high settings) and Halo to run at 44.4 FPS. If Apple is correct in there assessment, those games should run at 46.5 FPS and 66.6 FPS, respectively.

To me this seems like very adequate game performance for current titles and future titles that will be based on current game engines. That is not to say that Doom III will run with even medium settings, but I don't think is overly concerning to the great majority of gamers out there. Looking at GameRanger stats, the most played games are those that would appear to run exceptionally well on the iMac G5. Personally, I am more concerned with whether or not Close Combat is going to run well on this machine than Doom III.

I feel that I am an average consumer, much like the great majority of those that Apple targets with the iMac. All I would really like to do with my machine is internet, email, word processing, data collection, home photo and video work, make and record some music, and play an occassional game. For someone like myself, do you find that the new iMac will suite those needs or are my estimations completely off?

[Randman]

Originally posted by Link:
Of course most of you guys have your heads jammed firmly up your butts and don't realize what a huge difference the lousy $50 to stick a 9600 in there would have been.

Luckily, you're here to inform everyone of the one, true way.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Everyone that I know who has bought an iMac (at least 15) not one of them wants to play a game on it.

Yeah, no sh!t, because you can't without ripping your hair out. ie. If you're looking to play games, you don't buy an iMac. Myself included, and a bunch of others in this thread and others included as well. Apple is losing out, and so are we. Remember, this is the exact same card as in the iLamp G4, and even back then we thought it was a crappy card... because it is.

And like I said, the 5200's poor performance with Core Video should make you think twice, considering that Tiger is only half a year away.

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Well that is 20+ and -5. You will never please everyone.

Tell them to get a PC with a high end video card that costs less and is nothing but fun. Or get the cheepos to bone up for a G5 tower.

Quite frankly, that's a lame argument. People looking at the iPodMac for $1899 INCLUDING A 20" SCREEN, aren't suddenly going to change their order to a $3348 tower with dual processors and 20" screen, simply to play Doom III a couple times of month.

However, many would change their $1899 order with 5200 Ultra to a $1975 order with 9600 XT. I would have ordered this very machine had it been a possibility.

A BTO 20" iPodMac a win-win situation for everyone. Apple gets more money and they sell more machines. Eug and other people in these threads get the machine they want.

[OpenStep]

Ca$h, take it easy. It's just a computer.

[videian28]

You get what you pay for, a GEForce 5200.

As D'Espice pointed out, there is virtually NO difference in 2D performance as compared to high-end cards, so the only difference is for 3D. For 99% of the iMac user's, it's NOT an issue !
So WTF should I pay a dime more ? Just because some 0.1% minority needs more GPU power ?

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=4#post2158964

-t

99% ??? bull, you don't know what your talking about, the gaming industry is HUGE for computers as well as consoles

Shut up, Ca$h !

Get a PowerMac or a freakin' PC if you need GPU power.
The reasons have been made clear in many threads.

There is a bitchin' thread for folks like you, please rant out there !

I am so tired of the narrowminded view of you "only kids waste their time on games" crap

THERE IS A BIG MARKET FOR GAMES....good lord how damn difficult is it to get it through your thick heads? Apple is shooting itself in the foot...no, let me rephrase...wasting potential marketshare...due to the simple fact that thier vid cards SUCK in the iMac. That simple issue is a make or break for a switcher.. Well then you reply with "buy a powermac"... hmm lets look at that one, enormous case, expensive as hell (yet comes stock with a crappy vid card)... gotta buy a monitor.... see my point?

your other answer is "buy a PC or get a console" well why? we love OSX, gaming is becoming more and more viable on it every day, more developers are building games for both platforms.....OMG THAT WOULD MEAN PEOPLE WANT TO GAME ON MACS!!!!!

It took me a long time to switch back when I did, for one reason, I like to play games... I am 30, married with 2 children, full time job, we are in the upper middle class for income....yet (OMG) I like to play games?


why is this concept so hard to deal with?


apple is foolish in this way...kinda like the one buttoned mouse... but you would defend them on that as well lol


ps, I did not read the whole thread, I picked out a few posts that bugged me, this rant is not directed and anyone in general, but all of you who think gamers are basically "immature whiners"

[videian28]

Originally posted by george68:
Earth to dumbass.

I use macs.

There is currently no mac I can afford that could play a modern game well.

I like all in ones.

An iMac with a hot videocard would sell like HOTCAKES.

- Rob

what I was trying to say but this pretty much says it all

[Eug Wanker]

Actually I like the one-button mouse. And even if I didn't, I could just plug in a US$20 USB mouse (which I would need for gaming).

Too bad getting a better GPU isn't as simple.

[videian28]

True enough Eug

I like the one button mouse as well for how it works with the mac, I have yet to have as fluid movement and control with any mouse as I did with the apple mouse, but that was not enough to keep me using it

edit: let me add, that despite the lacking vid card features, I think the new iMac will be a hit could be a bigger hit...but oh well

[handras]

Here is what Apple say:
( http://www.apple.com/imac )

"Extreme Graphics


The sizzling graphics processor and next-generation high-bandwidth architecture kicks 3D games and graphics into high gear, with three times the frame rate as the previous iMac in Unreal Tournament 2004. NVIDIA graphics provides hardware transform and lighting (T&L), per-pixel shading and drop-dead gorgeous effects at high resolutions. All models deliver over a billion textured pixels per second and an advanced Live FX engine engineered to generate the most lifelike characters. With Quartz Extreme, the graphics processors take over transform and lighting calculation functions from the CPU, freeing the G5 processor to perform essential system tasks faster than ever before."

and:

Spectacular 3D Effects


"The iMac ships combat-ready with advanced graphics processing capability, thanks to the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra graphics processor with 64MB of DDR SDRAM. Kicking your games and 3D graphics into high gear with hardware transform and lighting (T&L), per-pixel shading and drop-dead gorgeous effects at high resolutions, the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra takes over the transform and lighting calculation functions from the iMac CPU � and delivers standout gaming experience."


This is the bigest lie, I ever heard!!

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Yeah, no sh!t, because you can't without ripping your hair out. ie. If you're looking to play games, you don't buy an iMac

No actually it is because those people want to use the iMacs for everything but games. I don't think they even conceive of spending $2000 just to play games.

They are interested in iLife.

[solbo]

Originally posted by handras:
This is the bigest lie, I ever heard!!

Actually it is called "marketing" and it more of a "special" interpretation of the facts

[smacintush]

I know plenty of gamers that HATE windows and would buy a Mac if they had kick-ass graphics and better prices. To bad Apple doesn't care.

I don't just want a better card, now that they finally made an iMac with squarish features, it seems as they have no "design excuses" for not fitting it with an AGP slot. None.

They just want you to upgrade the entire machine instead of just the graphics card.

Oh well, what do I care?

[Silas]

Has anyone read through the list of things that Apple claims are user replaceable on the iMac G5?

Take a look:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86812

Wonder if this could lend itself to the prospect of futre upgrades that may include a better video card?

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by Silas:
Has anyone read through the list of things that Apple claims are user replaceable on the iMac G5?

Take a look:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86812

Wonder if this could lend itself to the prospect of futre upgrades that may include a better video card?

Mid-plane assembly (contains the main logic board, the G5 processor, fans, and so forth).

Looks promising.

[deboerjo]

I see a lot of people on this forum who are basically saying either "well gamers can just stuff it", or "nobody wants to game on an iMac". I think Apple might share the same sentiment, and I see these as terrible attitudes to have toward a huge potential market.

I've been gaming with an ever-growing group of friends for close to 7 years now (starting with Marathon). We're not "hardcore" gamers, just casual gamers (we only play games once in a while and we don't spend big bucks on gaming rigs). Initially, most of us were Mac users. We could afford to be; back then, Macs were competitivly priced with PCs, and even consumer-level Macs (my Starmax, for example) had PCI slots that we could add a Voodoo card for playing Myth or Futurecop. Then Steve jobs came back to apple. He killed the clones, prices spiraled upwards, upgradeability went away. One by one, we all got PCs to sit alongside our Mac, or switched to PC entirely (around 2000-2001, after Windows 2000 and before OS X and before the spyware plague really hit, the Windows world really wasn't a terrible place to be). Now, of the friends I had 5 years ago, 2 have switched to PC entirely, 3 are using mainly PC but still have a Mac, and 2 are mainly Mac users but have spent money (that otherwise would have been spent on Macs) on PCs for gaming. (the rest I either don't see anymore or were always using PC).

This isn't an unusual scenario, either. I keep in touch with some of my old friends and coworkers from school, and I know the school of art housing building at the university I recently graduated from is FILLED with art students I know who are dumping thier beloved Macs and buying PCs 'cause they want to game, and they want to do it on a student's budget.

Don't be too quick to write off gaming.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
Then Steve jobs came back to apple. He killed the clones, prices spiraled upwards, upgradeability went away.

Pricing has come WAY down since Steve came back. I paid $4000 for a Performa before steve was around.

This new iMac is cheaper then the old, even the laptops and towers have come down in price.

[Eriamjh]

It would be nice if Apple at least offered a better gaming chip, or told us how much more it might cost if they used it.

There could be technical limitiations (like huge fans), space problems (too big!) or big price penalties.

I think the target market is getting a good computer. Gamers are not the target. Gamers by Xboxes or PCs.

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
Pricing has come WAY down since Steve came back. I paid $4000 for a Performa before steve was around.

This new iMac is cheaper then the old, even the laptops and towers have come down in price.

For one thing, you can't compare prices over time, it's apples to oranges, so to speak. Prices of Macs have come down because the price of computing throughout the industry has come down. Sure, Macs are cheaper than they used to be, at $799 for an eMac. But so is the rest of the industry. Prices went up compared with the rest of the industry (that is, PCs). Secondly, you bought a Performa. If you had bought a PowerCurve or a Starmax clone, you would have gotten more Mac for a far lower price. When I say prices went up I don't mean Apple's products specifically (though they did) so much as I mean the price for the Macintosh platform went up, because Apple killed the clones.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
No actually it is because those people want to use the iMacs for everything but games. I don't think they even conceive of spending $2000 just to play games.

They are interested in iLife.

It's a circular argument. People who want to play a few games generally don't buy the iMac, because it's inadequate for this purpose. Thus, people who OWN iMacs are the ones who generally don't play games as much.

Anyways, Apple would disagree with your contention that games are irrelevant for iMac'ers:

Spectacular 3D Effects

The iMac ships combat-ready with advanced graphics processing capability, thanks to the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra graphics processor with 64MB of DDR SDRAM. Kicking your games and 3D graphics into high gear with hardware transform and lighting (T&L), per-pixel shading and drop-dead gorgeous effects at high resolutions, the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra takes over the transform and lighting calculation functions from the iMac CPU � and delivers standout gaming experience.



Let the Games Begin

Or use the 3D capabilities when you�re in the heat of battle, playing one of the hundreds of games available for Macintosh. Such as Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. Up against the Sith, you�ll appreciate the combined strengths of the iMac widescreen display and NVIDIA graphics processor.

It seems pretty clear that Apple would love to win some of the light gamers over.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
For one thing, you can't compare prices over time, it's apples to oranges, so to speak. Prices of Macs have come down because the price of computing throughout the industry has come down. Sure, Macs are cheaper than they used to be, at $799 for an eMac. But so is the rest of the industry. Prices went up compared with the rest of the industry (that is, PCs). Secondly, you bought a Performa. If you had bought a PowerCurve or a Starmax clone, you would have gotten more Mac for a far lower price. When I say prices went up I don't mean Apple's products specifically (though they did) so much as I mean the price for the Macintosh platform went up, because Apple killed the clones.

Sorry man but comparing Clones to Mac's is like Apples to oranges. Clones were junk, yes they were faster but they had their own software issues that Apple had to patch separately, they were loud as hell and cheap plastic. The CD doors were flimsy and I saw many clones die when Mac's were still alive and kicking.

You get what you pay for.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:

It seems pretty clear that Apple would love to win some of the light gamers over.

So if this iMac is 189% faster then the old why wasn't there half as much bitching about the old iMac?

Apple is just showing those benchmarks as it is as dumbed down as benchmarks get. Frame-rates for games is rather duh duh.

[Lateralus]

Clones were junk? That's news to me because in my experience, UMAX and PowerComputing were making higher quality pro machines than Apple was. The best mid-90s Macs I have owned have been clones.

Have you ever owned a clone?

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
Sorry man but comparing Clones to Mac's is like Apples to oranges. Clones were junk, yes they were faster but they had their own software issues that Apple had to patch separately, they were loud as hell and cheap plastic. The CD doors were flimsy and I saw many clones die when Mac's were still alive and kicking.

You get what you pay for.

That was not my experience with the clones. Of all the clones, the only ones with subpar case construction were the Umax clones (and even then, the only problem was the flip-open door covering all the drives tended to break off). In fact, most were constructed better than Apple's Macs; most biege Macs are largely plastic construction, most clones are mostly steel construction. Though some of Apple's case designs were quite excellent (8600/9600 for example), this was offset by the designs that were absolutly atrocious (8500 for example). All of my clones were noticably quieter than my 7600, which generates a lot of drive vibration noise due to the drive sleds. As far as reliability, I've never had a clone die. Seen dozens of 9600s croak, though. As for software issues, some manufacturers required 3rd-party drivers for certain things, like Ethernet cards. A non-issue if you ask me. The only real issue was the fact that System 7.5.5 didn't work with Starmax systems, but his issue affected Apple's 4400 and 7220 as well. The clones were great machines, offering more innovation, more power, higher quality, better compliance with industry standards, and better prices.

-Jon

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
Clones were junk? That's news to me because in my experience, UMAX and PowerComputing were making higher quality pro machines than Apple was. The best mid-90s Macs I have owned have been clones.

Have you ever owned a clone?

Funny thing is after your post Mr. Pro-clone posted:
"Of all the clones, the only ones with subpar case construction were the Umax clones."

And yes. I had a clone at work and it was absolute junk. Almost every part in it failed after 2 years.

[the_glassman]

chalk up another lost sale due to the 5200. I might have bought two of them if they at least offered a better option. One for the bedroom and one for the living room.
Maybe people are right, should just jump ship now and give up!

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
Funny thing is after your post Mr. Pro-clone posted:
"Of all the clones, the only ones with subpar case construction were the Umax clones."

And yes. I had a clone at work and it was absolute junk. Almost every part in it failed after 2 years.

Well, I should qualify that; the Umaxes had a flip-open door that covered all the drives. The hinges were somewhat flimsy, the two Umaxes I've ever used both had this door broken off. But it's just a door. Breaking off didn't affect the computer's operation the tiniest bit, just the asthetics.