[tabascoishot]

I've been reading the forums and the endless stream of macheads bitching about the video card, or the 256 RAM standard, or no airport pre-installed. And on the other end we have the zealots being zealots. God forbid Steve Jobs could do anything so foolish and by golly, there must be an explanation (Steve wants and needs me to tell you ingrates off).

Wouldn't all of this be easily sidestepped if Apple simply explained their reasoning? Of course we wouldn't want them to say anything that would jeopordize their business plan, but all I want is something short, something that isn't PR-bulls*t...just something to put my mind at rest, a la "we recognize that users utilize our products differently. If you want to do X, buy Y, it's the best thing for you. If you want to do A, buy B. That's our recommendation." NOT - "if you have a certain sum of $$, spring for the imac. If you've got even MORE $$, well let me introduce you to Mr. Dual G5 over here." It's clear from their product lineup that they have something for everyone, but am I expecting too much in wanting them to say more?

...and no, I don't want Apple reps in here debating with us (or maybe they're the zealots).

[terminator]

Why respond when they can get all this free air time.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Because even with this amount of bitching people are going them, apple with have thousands of orders and not be able to keep up with demand. Why? Because it is a great product for a great price.

Remember all the "the iPod is going to be the next cube" and "The iPod mini costs too much" threads?

[Lancer409]

can the video card be swapped? if .. so .. what's the issue .. swap the card out and add more ram. sorta like why sony and every other company out there bundle shitty earbuds with their products .. get the product out at a cheaper price

[Anilan]

The video card is built into the Logic Board. It cannot be taken out or upgraded.

[sideus]

What he said.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Because even with this amount of bitching people are going them, apple with have thousands of orders and not be able to keep up with demand. Why? Because it is a great product for a great price.

yeah, well, if Apple had listened to their customers maybe you wouldn't be referring to the Cube as a failure but rather a success.

Remember all the "the iPod is going to be the next cube" and "The iPod mini costs too much" threads?

The iPod mini threads were from tech people. The only problem was, it was mostly non-tech people buying the mini. The same won't be true of the iMac, at least not to the same extent. I think the machine will do well, but Apple don't have a mini on their hands. It might do a hell of a lot better with a better graphics card. Everything else can be upgraded or fixed, and so long as it's in the customers hands it's not a problem. The graphics card cannot.

To answer the question, the reason why Apple won't acknowledge the bitching zealots is because for better or worse, the level of complaints has to hit a crescendo before Apple will acknowledge a problem - see cracking Cubes, iBook logic board problems, etc

[Randman]

Problems such as the logic board are one thing. People not happy because an updated computer doesn't have the features/specs that they think it should have is something totally different.

[pliny]

No doubt Apple will have alot of orders but certainly not enough to grow its business appreciably. I'm sure the margin on these iMacs will be quite high.

They are sacrificing greater volume (maybe) for higher margins, by selling nonupgradeable machines with some cheap parts like this 5200 ultra.

I think their strategy is pretty simple. Cheap soldered card: iMac.

Swappable card: powermac, where you pay through the nose.

This is the business strategy that limits Apple to 2-3% of the market. I just don't think most people want to be locked in to parts for the life of a machine.

[kcmac]

The number of people that actively read and respond to these boards is relatively few in the overall picture. And not everyone that reads or replies is unhappy with the iMac. (I for one believe that it is just fine for my needs.)

And has been said many times before, the people on these boards probably have higher demands than the average Joe. The only bad thing (or good depending on your viewpoint) is that the press dig through these sites to form their opinions. And a lot of them love to report that the Apple users are bothered by something.

This iMac compares very strongly to similar featured PC's and is certainly much better than its predecessor. Apple has done well here and they still have room to move in rev 2.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

The cubes only problem was its price.

[george68]

Originally posted by Lancer409:
can the video card be swapped? if .. so .. what's the issue .. swap the card out and add more ram. sorta like why sony and every other company out there bundle shitty earbuds with their products .. get the product out at a cheaper price

NO, it CANNOT. That's the ****ing point, and that's why a lot of us are NOT going to buy one! Everything about hte new iMac is TOP END, except for the videocard which was outdated over a YEAR ago.

- Rob

[jasonv1]

A) People will buy the machines anyway, most of them that is.

B) It sounds like the vid card is integrated, which means "replacing the gpu" isn't that easy. You are talking (assumedly) of not only needing to design another system board, but support it and stock it.

Remember, G5 processors aren't (yet) growing on trees. Apple needs to limit their offerings to help keep up with demand. They already have 2 different versions of the G5 iMac (the 32MB Edu version and the 64MB version). Lowering the specs to hit the education market makes sense because that is one market they really need to "pander" to.

There probably exists somewhere inside Apple a spreadsheet that estimates how many more iMacs would be sold had they a more powerful video card. I'll bet that the number in question is nowhere near enough to justify what it would involve.

Jason

[george68]

Originally posted by jasonv1:
A) People will buy the machines anyway, most of them that is.

B) It sounds like the vid card is integrated, which means "replacing the gpu" isn't that easy. You are talking (assumedly) of not only needing to design another system board, but support it and stock it.

Remember, G5 processors aren't (yet) growing on trees. Apple needs to limit their offerings to help keep up with demand. They already have 2 different versions of the G5 iMac (the 32MB Edu version and the 64MB version). Lowering the specs to hit the education market makes sense because that is one market they really need to "pander" to.

There probably exists somewhere inside Apple a spreadsheet that estimates how many more iMacs would be sold had they a more powerful video card. I'll bet that the number in question is nowhere near enough to justify what it would involve.

Jason

I think they're wrong. Look at how many mac users own a PC just for gaming. They've probably spent a tad on the pc, and would have rather spent it on a mac, but as of right now, the ONLY way to game decently on a mac is to purchase an extremely expensive G5. No other machine will cut it.

- Rob

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by george68:
I think they're wrong. Look at how many mac users own a PC just for gaming. They've probably spent a tad on the pc, and would have rather spent it on a mac, but as of right now, the ONLY way to game decently on a mac is to purchase an extremely expensive G5. No other machine will cut it.

- Rob

So has apple lost you as a customer now and you are moving over to the good life of PC's?

[macaddict0001]

Originally posted by george68:
The ONLY way to game decently on a mac is to purchase an extremely expensive G5. No other machine will cut it.

- Rob

correct me if I'm wrong but you just said you required an imac or powermac but the imac isn't good enough.

[george68]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
So has apple lost you as a customer now and you are moving over to the good life of PC's?

Noooooooo. I am a mac user. I hate using windows. However, you cannot GAME on a mac, unless it's a G5 tower! The video cards in teh rest of the lineup SUCK.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by macaddict0001:
correct me if I'm wrong but you just said you required an imac or powermac but the imac isn't good enough.

Thanks for the correction, I was referring to G5 towers. The iMac will play games like ****.

- Rob

[balls]

Originally posted by george68:
I think they're wrong. Look at how many mac users own a PC just for gaming. They've probably spent a tad on the pc, and would have rather spent it on a mac, but as of right now, the ONLY way to game decently on a mac is to purchase an extremely expensive G5. No other machine will cut it.

- Rob

It was never Apple's intention to make this the "Gamer's Mac."

At the risk of sounding like a zealot, I think the guys at Apple know exactly what they're doing. If they didn't, they wouldn't still be profitable with only a 3% market share.

[macaddict0001]

Yeah even 200 dollar's more would kill the deal for the imac, for some people.

[jasonv1]

You just said what I should have said in my earlier post.

Even if Apple offered a psuedo "mezzanine" slot in these, how many people would eventually use them? Probably not that many when compared to overall sales.

You have to remember that Apple does make a specific distinction between their consumer and professional lines. If you buy a Dell Optiplex versus a Dimension (business versus professional) you aren't really seeing the same difference that would would between an G5 iMac and a tower G5.

What I mean is that Apple will likely never blur the lines any more than they have with the introduction of the new iMac. If they threw a 9800 in there the product might start eating into the tower G5 sales, which they probably don't want. The G5 represents the flagship of the company, and you never mess with your number 1.

Apple knows that their machines will never be the "ideal gaming rig" (in terms of number of games made for the unit mind you), and that is why they can give this iMac the video card they did and it will still sell.

Jason

Originally posted by balls:
It was never Apple's intention to make this the "Gamer's Mac."

At the risk of sounding like a zealot, I think the guys at Apple know exactly what they're doing. If they didn't, they wouldn't still be profitable with only a 3% market share.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by george68:
Noooooooo. I am a mac user. I hate using windows. However, you cannot GAME on a mac, unless it's a G5 tower! The video cards in teh rest of the lineup SUCK.

- Rob

Well why are you a Mac user then? Just get a cheap PC with an awesome video card, Apple clearly isn't interested in you as a market.

[realitybath]

yeah! just do this, just do that!

anyways, i agree with the point that people who have a pc gaming rig and a mac often would rather just get rid of the pc and just have the mac, thereby apple's losing some cash.

but why would apple explain themselves?

If they did that, it would create publicity around weaknesses in the iMac, and (both if the potential consumer would *actually* want something better in the iMac, or just be influenced by the fact it isn't as top end as present apple advertising suggests) burst that mint-fresh, info-weak free-love bubble that surrounds the new release.

I can see why they would just keep their mouths shut, unless the complaints started hitting some mainstream media outlets (yeah right!)

[george68]

Originally posted by balls:
It was never Apple's intention to make this the "Gamer's Mac."

At the risk of sounding like a zealot, I think the guys at Apple know exactly what they're doing. If they didn't, they wouldn't still be profitable with only a 3% market share.

Look, the majority of PC using friends I have LIKE osx. They are NOT turned away from apple because of the OS, they LIKE IT. They are not turned away because of price. They are turned away because they LIKE TO PLAY GAMES SOMETIMES.

Apple's 2-freakin-thousand dollar iMac is NOT going to be able to run ANY new game decently.

So yeah, you're right, the new iMac is just fine for old farts and apple zealots, but for the FUTURE of apple, the YOUNGER GENERATION, it's a freakin' retarded move.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by macaddict0001:
Yeah even 200 dollar's more would kill the deal for the imac, for some people.

Make it an option.

If they only have this ONE shitty video card, it's 'killing the deal' for a whole lot more people.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by jasonv1:
Apple does make a specific distinction between their consumer and professional lines

Right you are.

CONSUMER AND PROFESSIONAL.

So how many PROFESSIONALS play games on their computers? Not many?

How many CONSUMERS would like to play a game sometimes? MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY.

The iMac is going to play games like ****. This is what's keeping me from buying one, along with a bunch more people here, just on the forums (where we have apple zealots! imagine the people who are a bit more critical than us apple fans?!?!)

Apple lost out BIG time.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by jasonv1:
Apple knows that their machines will never be the "ideal gaming rig"

I've never said they NEEDED to be the 'ideal' gaming rig... but they'd LIKE it to be, which is why they advertise the shitty 3d card on the new iMac as great for playing games. But the thing is, there's a HUGE margin between "acceptable" and "ideal". Ideal is perfect, full resolution, insane FPS, full quality. With the current iMac, you're goign to have to turn off every single option, crank down the res, and crank down the model detail, etc etc etc etc in order to get it to even run at an acceptable FPS. I've NEVER said it needed to be ideal, I said it needs to run the newer games DECENTLY, which it does not.

- Rob

[MrForgetable]

I wish the iMac would do something like the Powerbook. Where it comes with a quality 64MB card, but you can upgrade that to 128MB for 100 bucks. Shouldn't be that much harder.

[dws]

Originally posted by george68:
With the current iMac, you're goign to have to turn off every single option, crank down the res, and crank down the model detail, etc etc etc etc in order to get it to even run at an acceptable FPS. I've NEVER said it needed to be ideal, I said it needs to run the newer games DECENTLY, which it does not.

- Rob

What a bunch of BS!

On the G4 iMac, which has the same graphics card but much lower processor and FSB speeds, you don't have to "turn off every single option" to get 3D games to run okay. The G5 iMac is going to run games much better than the G4 iMac. It's an improvement. Get over yourself! And stop with the over-the-top blanket statements.

Nobody yet knows exactly how well the new iMacs are going to do at running games. When the numbers come in, and I guarantee that they are going to be in the middle range of any reasonable person's definition of acceptability, then you can argue your point of view (which probably won't change, since you've already made up your mind on a machine that hasn't even shipped yet).

Why doesn't Apple respond to these iMac complaints? That's easy. The "complaints" are coming from people who don't really know what they're talking about. Also, the "complaints" are coming from a handful of spec whore punks who lurk on the forums repeating their rhetoric over and over again. You are an annoyingly-vocal minority; who matter not at all in the grand scheme of things.

Sorry for the rant. I realize that some of you (who think that Apple made a mistake with their choice of graphics card) have presented well-reasoned and balanced arguments; but Rob's "you're going to have to turn off every single option" statement sent me a little over the top!

[Big Fat Octopus]

Well I'm not sure what all the "Video Card" fuss is about but I do know that my 1 Ghz G4 iMac seems to play Quake 3 just fine! Heck I used to play Quake 3 Arena on an old G3 400 iMac and had a whale of a time.

I can appreciate that someone might want more video grunt but really folks, will there ever be a frame rate limit that will satisfy you? Is there a utopian number? Will it ever be acheived? What do you actually gain from a better card?

I don't mean to be antagonistic, I'm actually interested in the answers to the questions I'm posing. Educate me if you will :-)

I only wish I had more disposable time to play games. I'm far too busy doing work on my iMac ;-)

[JustinD]

Originally posted by Big Fat Octopus:
Well I'm not sure what all the "Video Card" fuss is about but I do know that my 1 Ghz G4 iMac seems to play Quake 3 just fine! Heck I used to play Quake 3 Arena on an old G3 400 iMac and had a whale of a time.

Ahhhh, I don't think anyone here would consider Q3A a 'modern game'. We're talkin' UT2K4, maybe Splinter Cell, Worlds of Warcraft, KOTOR, etc.

[curtlivingston]

i thought that games were for children.

For the life of me i cannot understand the attraction of playing computer games on a machine that is designed for creativity.

also, i cannot store my entire music collection on my ipod, and it also won't play movies. and my car will not accelerate fast enough and my hair just won't stay down. and my ibook battery does not last 20 hours and i have flat feet,

and stop using the argument that it is marketshare that should up the video-card ante. nobody has a clue what video card is in their machine. (i do, but i am a nerd)

any reasonable argument for a better graphics card has been laid out already.
so, why won't you people just shut up?

i dare you.

[tabascoishot]

Originally posted by dws:

Why doesn't Apple respond to these iMac complaints? That's easy. The "complaints" are coming from people who don't really know what they're talking about. Also, the "complaints" are coming from a handful of spec whore punks who lurk on the forums repeating their rhetoric over and over again. You are an annoyingly-vocal minority; who matter not at all in the grand scheme of things.

Sorry for the rant. I realize that some of you (who think that Apple made a mistake with their choice of graphics card) have presented well-reasoned and balanced arguments; but Rob's "you're going to have to turn off every single option" statement sent me a little over the top!

First of all, I acknowledge your frustration with, well...all of "us." Contrary to what you said, I think the "annoying" complainers are VERY worried about the "grand scheme of things," and see themselves in tune with the marketplace. I also think their love of things Apple is great enough that when they see what they feel are shortcomings (or lack of effort), they will be vocal.

I'm wondering - has Apple given up on trying to steal market share from the pc makers? Or do they feel like no one will switch unless they keep coming out with better and more over-the-top designs? I believe that ease of use, stability, and great software like iLife are very good reasons to use a mac (my reasons too), but what does the average educated consumer look at first? Price. What do they look at 2nd? The specs. Once you tell them the first number (price), they want to hear the others (RAM, graphics card, hard drive space, etc).

This isn't 1997 anymore, pc makers have seen the light and have tried to emulate the iMac's original "true" plug-and-play capabilities. I think they saw what people liked so much about the iMac and have tried to use elements of that in their own products. So...the gap has closed, design wise.

So I guess I'm on the side of the complainers. But only b/c I think Apple can do better. Less emphasis on design, more on the great software and ease of use, lower the price to compete and attract new buyers, more options for users (graphics, etc), airport standard (or at a significantly reduced price). EXPLAIN why Apple is a better product (the company that brought you the iPod also makes computers!).

Apple strikes me as awful arrogant sometimes. Almost on a Napoleonic-complex level. I'm not feeling the love. I do feel a lot of "Uncle Apple is wiser, much wiser than you - just trust us." And most of us do!

[Link]

Originally posted by curtlivingston:
and stop using the argument that it is marketshare that should up the video-card ante. nobody has a clue what video card is in their machine. (i do, but i am a nerd)

any reasonable argument for a better graphics card has been laid out already.
so, why won't you people just shut up?

i dare you.

*claps* Well written post, they should give you an Academy Award for your utmost best in spelling and grammar.

Eh but personal insults aside, I'll explain to you, why, for the upteenth time, IT IS NOT A FRIGGEN GAMING ISSUE!

The iMac g5 utilizes the Geforce 5200 video chip; This chip is, with a few revisions in firmware essentially a Geforce 4MX, which was a revised Geforce2 GTS.

The Geforce2 GTS was released in early 2001, give or take. Did you want a nearly 4 year old video card in your brand new imac? Oh yeah I thought so.

The cheaper, and 'less powerful' iBook and eMac utilize the Radeon 9200, a rehashed Radeon 8500, which well, outruns the Geforce 5200 in just about every test you throw at it, some by a decent margin.

Now why is this so important? Why am I ranting on and off about a VIDEO chip? Oh yes, you see there's this wonderful new technology called CoreImage which will be implemented system-wide in OS X 10.4, coming out next year, and around the time 10.4 is released, your brand new iMac G5 will be no more than 6, perhaps 8 months old.

While Apple states that the Geforce 5200 is supported by CoreImage (9200 surprisingly isn't listed), and while OS X is still in beta, CoreImage is already implemented in programs such as Apple Motion, that hot new video editor that's even being advertised to work great on an imac g5.

Hrmm oh yes, but CoreImage will be system wide: Move a window around and CoreImage will be have the graphics chip handle it all, contents included. Want to do some crazy video editing? That'll be handled by CoreImage as well..

Essentially, we're looking at the point where everything graphical shall be accelerated, if supported -- but your weakest link will be your video chip!

Oh yeah, suddenly that mighty high end processor doesn't sound so hot when coupled with a 4 year old video chip. -- There's already been reports of motion running like crap on machines equipped with the 5200 so why should that change? The fact is that for a mere few bucks, Apple could have stuck a Radeon 9600 in there, which would have output roughly the same amount of heat and required no more power draw either.. heck it'd last a hell of a lot longer.

Oh but that's not very Apple, now is it. See curtlivingston, this isn't so much about gaming performance anymore, it's about SYSTEM performance, and if the Geforce 5200 is a bottom feeder now, what do you think it'll be in 2 years? 3 years?

I think you might have reached that same conclusion now haven't you.

Before you go off on the "It's a consumer machine! They don't need the benefits of CoreImage!", keep in mind that the eMac is the machine for people like that, or a low end PC which would be as much as $200 cheaper. The fact that for a lousy ~$20 Apple not only missed the gaming market but the mid/upper consumer market is really disappointing.

[Randman]

Originally posted by tabascoishot:
EXPLAIN why Apple is a better product

Apple's been a better product for a very long time and that hasn't resulted in any significant market growth.

Attaching the iMac design to the iPod is a very savvy mood, I think. And just wait until the iMacs show up. Lots of people are going to be attracted by the form and small footprint (what? no computer under the desk, or taking up space?).
There's always room for improvements and maybe some of the changes that people here are whining about will come true with later revs.
But I have to wonder. Is everyone grousing just to grouse? Or are people, especially on this forum, conditioned to look at the negative.
I'm perfectly happy with the 17PB I bought a few weeks ago instead of waiting for the iMacs. And I think the wireless options should be standard at the same price, but I'm still going to try and tell people (should it come up) that the iMacs are one helluva computer and be more than sufficient for whatevermost people throw at it.

Besides, if the iMac had everything listed on this thread, people would still find something to bitch about rather than discuss intelligently.

[Stogieman]

Originally posted by george68:
Look, the majority of PC using friends I have LIKE osx. They are NOT turned away from apple because of the OS, they LIKE IT. They are not turned away because of price. They are turned away because they LIKE TO PLAY GAMES SOMETIMES.

Apple's 2-freakin-thousand dollar iMac is NOT going to be able to run ANY new game decently.

So yeah, you're right, the new iMac is just fine for old farts and apple zealots, but for the FUTURE of apple, the YOUNGER GENERATION, it's a freakin' retarded move.

- Rob

Ok, let's say Apple does put a faster video card into the iMac G5? Will that allow it to run Counter Strike, Half Life 2 or the hundreds of other PC only games? Will your friends finally dump their PCs and get a iMac G5 if it had a Radeon 9800? I doubt it. If your friends are not turned off by the higher price of macs, they would have gotten a PowerMac long ago. Let's face it, the state of mac gaming sucks not because of hardware, but from its small selection of games. Not many game developers are willing to devote their time and effort win over a small fraction of Apple's 3% market share. That's why the mac gaming market is flooded with crappy PC ports. Until Apple gains market share, things aren't going to change.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Stogieman:
Let's face it, the state of mac gaming sucks not because of hardware, but from its small selection of games..

That's true.

But...

Why the hell shouldn't we at least be able to play the few games that exist with decent frame rates? The iMac is a consumer and home machine. That's where games are played. People don't buy an iMac to play games, but many may want to play one of the few existing Mac ports casually. Ands these people will be completely pissed off when they see 10fps.

Apple wouldn't lose one god damn thing. Heck, they'd even make good cash and gain a few sales if they would just give a $100 BTO option to upgrade to a more decent card (9600 or 9700 maybe) which would cost them a mere $20 more to build in.

There are people here that try to negate this simple logic with some rather narrow-minded zealotry (not directed at you Stogieman). How can anybody be against freedom of choice, Apple selling more iMacs and making more money?

God almighty!

[Randman]

Jesus wept.

People here are trying to make the graphic card the biggest crime since OJ. The fact is the iMac now has a G5 and in an amazingly small profile.
Let me repeat that: iMac G5.
And it sells at a very good price. The video card could be upgraded but for most of the people who'd buy the iMac, it'll do just fine.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Randman:
Let me repeat that: iMac G5. And it sells at a very good price. The video card could be upgraded but for most of the people who'd buy the iMac, it'll do just fine.

You are missing the point. The G5 and the price, the whole package, it's all great. That's what's making people here wonder: How can Apple make such a perfect new iMac and then stumble by not offering a BTO GPU upgrade?

It's precisely because the iMac is such a great computer that people are demanding. If everybody thought it were a POS nobody would care about it's GPU.

[pliny]

All's Apple needs to do is make things BTO. Let the buyer swap some things out. Important things like gpu, hdd, optical drives, memory. End of story. This is standard industry practice. Apple's consumer desktop offerings are the exception to the practice.

[Randman]

Apple has enough trouble just shipping stuff. Maybe the current dearth of G5 chips precluded extra bto orders so Apple went with the basic line.
Perhaps the bto options will come with rev b and when the chip is easy to acquire.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Randman:
Apple has enough trouble just shipping stuff. Maybe the current dearth of G5 chips precluded extra bto orders so Apple went with the basic line.
Perhaps the bto options will come with rev b and when the chip is easy to acquire.

Hmmm, I don't think a shortage of CPUs has any influence on the the availability of BTO options. Either they can solder 970fx's on their boards or they can't, regardless of what GPU is on that board.

And nobody expects BTOs to ship as quickly as pre-configured systems. I'm sure many of the people that are complaining about the 5200 and saying they will not buy the new iMac due to this crippling, would willingly wait another 5-10 days to get their BTO with a 9700.

[FlatLyna]

Originally posted by Link:

While Apple states that the Geforce 5200 is supported by CoreImage (9200 surprisingly isn't listed), and while OS X is still in beta, CoreImage is already implemented in programs such as Apple Motion, that hot new video editor that's even being advertised to work great on an imac g5.

The 9200 isn't listed because its a DX8.1 level part rather than DX9 and does not have 2.0 hardware shaders. This is why its not going to be supported.. so where does that leave the G4 iBook users in the future ?

[kcmac]

Originally posted by Stogieman:
Ok, let's say Apple does put a faster video card into the iMac G5? Will that allow it to run Counter Strike, Half Life 2 or the hundreds of other PC only games? Will your friends finally dump their PCs and get a iMac G5 if it had a Radeon 9800? I doubt it. If your friends are not turned off by the higher price of macs, they would have gotten a PowerMac long ago. Let's face it, the state of mac gaming sucks not because of hardware, but from its small selection of games. Not many game developers are willing to devote their time and effort win over a small fraction of Apple's 3% market share. That's why the mac gaming market is flooded with crappy PC ports. Until Apple gains market share, things aren't going to change.

Pretty much spot on.

Go on and whip down that 4-5k for the alienware machine so you can stick your hairless 13 year old chests out to the geek world.

The problem is you drool for a Mac and 99% of what it is. The remaining 1% is the game component and you still won't have the games you want and maybe your mature pimply faced friends may laugh if they see you with something you haven't pieced together yourself.

Sorry about being over the top but this is getting outrageous. The teeter totter is getting a little too heavy on one side.

A different graphic card will not make you happy. Then you will want 5 open card slots, serial ports, floppy drives, the color beige and an OS that sucks just to make you feel more at home.

Ain't gonna happen. Get over it already.

I can barely wait for my G5 iMac to arrive.

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by Simon:

But...

Why the hell shouldn't we at least be able to play the few games that exist with decent frame rates? The iMac is a consumer and home machine. That's where games are played. People don't buy an iMac to play games, but many may want to play one of the few existing Mac ports casually. Ands these people will be completely pissed off when they see 10fps.

Apple wouldn't lose one god damn thing. Heck, they'd even make good cash and gain a few sales if they would just give a $100 BTO option to upgrade to a more decent card (9600 or 9700 maybe) which would cost them a mere $20 more to build in.

The iMac doesn't use a graphics card as far as I can tell. The graphics is integrated into the logic board. Therefore, Apple would have to offer a completely different iMac logic board in order to provide a faster card. That's not trivial. Secondly, more decent cards produce much more heat and use much more power (which in itself needs a large PSU and more heat]. There may have been sound thermal design reasons for not including a 9700 or similar. The upgrade would be nice: I'm not sure it is as trivial as you suggest.

[Simon]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
The iMac doesn't use a graphics card as far as I can tell. The graphics is integrated into the logic board. Therefore, Apple would have to offer a completely different iMac logic board in order to provide a faster card. That's not trivial.

Yes, the GPU seems to be soldered. And yes, that means Apple would have to make different boards to make BTO GPU upgrades possible. But the issue is, they already do that. They have different boards already. The BTO would cost them if they had one iMac board fitting all models, but since they gave that up already, they might as well offer BTO.

Secondly, more decent cards produce much more heat and use much more power (which in itself needs a large PSU and more heat]. There may have been sound thermal design reasons for not including a 9700 or similar.

That is actually the (only) remaining question. There are better cards like the 9600 or the 9700, and maybe (with a big question mark) the heat production of these cards is too high for the (hopefully quiet) cooling system of the iMac G5.

But until Apple tells us that there are engineering feasibility reasons for not including better GPUs (I'm anxious to see rev b's GPU), I think not offering a GPU BTO upgrade option was a rather stupid blunder.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by george68:
How many CONSUMERS would like to play a game sometimes? MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY

What games? I went to the software section of a store that sells both Mac and PC games ... the Mac section was about 1/5 the size of the PC section and was stocked almost entirely with OLD games.

[pliny]

well, games aren't the only reason to have swappable cards (as opposed to a soldered chip). and you certainly don't need to spend 4-5k on a PC to get good gaming, or to get upgradeable graphics!

that's the whole point.

I think the 64 mg card is decent, but not quite up to par with the restof the iMac parts. But apart from taking out the chip and soldeirng a new one, there is no way to get a new one when the card no longer offers decent performance.

Apple IMO should not be (1) eliminating a potential swath of users who don't like machiens thata ren't as upgradeable as others, (2) expect that Mac users like to be locked in to parts within a nice form factor.

Granted many people probably don't care, but many people do, so why not make a machine that appeals to a wider segment???

Nice design and upgradability aren't mutually exclusive, and as a long time Mac user if I were to spenmd $2000 for a Mac I certainly would want to have options to upgrade the entire thing but for the cpu.

Since on this machine I couldn't, I won't buy one, which makes you wonder, who are they targeting this 20" inch iMac at??

The 17" inch ones are more competitive but even then I wince at the lack of swappable gpu. Like others have said the rest is so nice it makes you wonder why that part is hobbled.

[stevec999]

It�s always fun to come and read the rants about the �low end� video card in the new iMac. You need to understand the people that hang out on these forums are not typical users.

I use Mac, Windows, Linux, HPUX and do not game on any of the machines. I have a mix of Mac and Windows at home and games are not played on any of them. We have over 100 Macs at work and guess what no games, the 600 PCs also have no games.

Being in the IT department I get a lot of questions from people buying computers. Not once has anyone asked me what video card the machine has in it. The questions are more about running Office and outlook with some web surfing tossed in.

Most people do not use their computers to play games (ok solitaire is common). Most people want a word processor/spreadsheet and the ability to read email and surf the web.

It is normal for me to fill the 1GB of RAM on my PB but I am using it to earn a living. They kinds of things I do a high-end graphics card would make no difference. It would just add cost to the system and no benefit.

Most of the points being made about games are conjecture. Find hard facts and post that then maybe there would be an argument for better graphics cards.

I do admit my evidence is anecdotal but I have a larger sample than most.

[george68]

Originally posted by dws:
What a bunch of BS!

Actually not.

On the G4 iMac, which has the same graphics card but much lower processor and FSB speeds, you don't have to "turn off every single option" to get 3D games to run okay.

Yes you do. I own one. In order to play UT2004, I have to crank everything down the lowest setting and even then it's not very fluid. If you're referring to Quake3, and the original UT, then yes, it runs those games acceptably, WHICH IT SHOULD SINCE THOSE GAMES ARE FOUR YEARS OLD.

The G5 iMac is going to run games much better than the G4 iMac. It's an improvement

Considering the vid card is exactly the same that was in the G4 imac, I don't see how it's much of an improvement. Sure, the processer and everything else on the G5 imac is WAY WAY WAY faster....yet it's still the same shitty video card.

Nobody yet knows exactly how well the new iMacs are going to do at running games. When the numbers come in, and I guarantee that they are going to be in the middle range of any reasonable person's definition of acceptability,

Unfortunatly your guarantee doesn't mean much. It'll suck.

- Rob