[Vader�s Pinch of Death]

It is no secret that the iMac's are not selling well. I think it is because people don't want to pay that much for a computer that basically has the same guts as an eMac but costs much much more.

If Apple dropped the price by about $250 and slapped in a single 1.6 GHz G5 in it I think it would do much better.

They could also update the look a bit with aluminium or more of a glossy white.

[Eug Wanker]

Yeah, add the G5 and drop the price, but the latter may not be possible with an integrated LCD. If not, then lose the LCD, too.

BTW, I'd be very surprised if the iMac3 had a G4 in it. I think we've seen the last of the G4 iMacs.

[Vader�s Pinch of Death]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Yeah, add the G5 and drop the price, but the latter may not be possible with an integrated LCD. If not, then lose the LCD, too.

BTW, I'd be very surprised if the iMac3 had a G4 in it. I think we've seen the last of the G4 iMacs.

No way. If they drop the LCD then it would be a G5 eMac. Also that would look TERRIBLE for Apple taking a step back. I know they would never do that.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Vader�s Pinch of Death:
No way. If they drop the LCD then it would be a G5 eMac. Also that would look TERRIBLE for Apple taking a step back. I know they would never do that.

No it wouldn't. It'd be a G5 Cube, but this time it'd be reasonably priced, and aimed at a different market than the G4 Cube was.

I know several people who'd consider getting a G5 Cube, because they already own monitors. And even those who who want new LCD monitors would consider the G5 Cube if reasonably priced, since good quality LCDs aren't too expensive these days. Or if you have a G5 iMac3 with built-in LCD, at least drop the prices. The iMac line is too expensive for what you get.

[Lateralus]

I think the eMac would have made a better successor to the original iMac than the iMac G4.

AIO + LCD = Not popular, and very weird looking. Both on the PC and the Mac side. And I have a particular problem with LCDs in AIOs becuase most AIO buyers do not care about the differences between CRTs and LCDs, and would get along just fine with a sharp CRT.

I think if Apple had waited another year or two to introduce an AIO LCD machine until LCDs were more of a standard, the iMac might have done a little better. But when the iMac G4 came out, LCD prices were still fluctuating, and many felt that the machine just looked too weird. Combine that with Apple's poor judgement in raising the price of the machine a little over a month after it came out and taking far too long to update the machine and it leads to the iMac G4 having a bad image, which it does.

It could have been a great machine, I just think it was poorly planned. If it had been priced a little more agressively and been updated more regularly, things would be much different I think. But for now, the iMac is the boat anchor of the desktop lineup.

[Eug Wanker]

Check out the (educational) prices I can get for the consumer Macs (CAD$):

iMac 1.0GHzG4/15"LCD/256MB/80GB/Combo/GeForce4 MX/Speakers $1,675
iMac 1.25GHzG4/17"LCD/256MB/80GB/SuperDrive/GeForce FX 5200Ultra/Speakers $2,299

eMac 1GHzG4/128MB/40G/Combo/56K $1,025
eMac 1GHzG4/256MB/80G/SuperDrive/56K $1,248

iBook 12.1"TFT/800MHz G4/256K L2 Cache/256MB/30G/Combo/VGA-out/Enet/56K $1,349

There is no excuse for an 17" iMac 17" to cost over $1000 more than an eMac with very similar specs. IMO, if an eMac SuperDrive 1 GHz (Radeon 7500) is gonna cost $1248, then an 17" iMac 1.25 GHz should cost at most $1899, not $2299. That means I think the 17" iMac is about CAD$400 (US$300) overpriced.

IOW, I think the US retail price of the 17" iMac 1.25 (or G5 1.6) should be $1499 or less.

[Vader�s Pinch of Death]

Ya you are right that it is overpriced slightly but remember all those small computer parts cost more then just the big parts in the eMac. Also I would take a widescreen LCD over a 17 inch CRT no matter the cost.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Vader�s Pinch of Death:
Ya you are right that it is overpriced slightly but remember all those small computer parts cost more then just the big parts in the eMac. Also I would take a widescreen LCD over a 17 inch CRT no matter the cost.

What you say is partially true, but it's interesting to note that the iBook 12" only costs CAD$1349. That's why I posted its price. Compare that to the $2299 for the 17" iMac. That's a difference of $950, with the desktop being the higher priced machine over a 5 lb laptop.

I think a 17" iMac 3 with G5 1.6 for CAD$1899 (not $2299) is a reasonable educational price for Apple. In fact, it's arguable that they could go even lower and still make money.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Vader�s Pinch of Death:
What would you change?

The fact that once the machine is obsolete so is the (very expensive) display. I like the integrated design, just let me take the display with me when the computer is useless.

[rixter55]

I have an 800 Mhz 15" iMac FP and absolutely love it. Granted, I'm not a power user, but for my purposes this machine is terrific. I wouldn't change a thing. The 20" FP iMac has me considering an upgrade, but will wait to see what the next big thing is. I would jump at a G5 iMac with a 20" FP in a heartbeat, provided the price is kept in the same ballpark as the current 20" machine.

I sincerely hope that Apple would not consider discontinuing the iMac line. If price is effecting sales that much, you'd think Apple would have adjusted it to a more appealling level to try to stimulate sales. There must be more going on to explain it. Perhaps it's simply the prospect of a G5 iMac looming out there that has people holding off on an iMac purchase. I agree the price could be better, but to me it's a worthwhile expense. I've never been happier with a computer than I am with my current iMac. (Except for maybe my new 933Mhz 14" iBook G4.)

Here's my hope: 1.6 - 2Ghz G5 processor, up to 2GB RAM capability, 20" LCD and a redesigned look for under $2,000. Oh yeah, and a kick-ass video card. I'm sure that's a pipe dream, but I can dream, can't I?

[Big Fat Octopus]

The G4 iMac rocks! I love my 17" iMac. It is beautifully quite and space efficient. I could not replace it with an eMac without major rearrangement of my office setup.

I am much taller than my wife so we both find it easy to move the screen to our ideal position. You cannot move the eMac screen around without a AU$125 stand!

However, we sell way more eMacs from our store because they are cheaper. People fall in love with my iMac all the time (some have been blown away by how small and COOL it is) but they find it hard to justify the cost when they can "play it safe" with a cheaper eMac or, heavens forbid, a AU$1299 Dell/Windows POS with LCD display and save over $1000!

Unfortunately, casual computer users will go for the cheapest PC they can get and don't often consider the cost of ownership over time and the frustrations involved with windows.

I LOVE my iMac and would highly recommend them to anyone who is prepared to pony up the dollars for a superior computing experience.

[beetleboy]

Who said the iMac wasn't selling well?

Beetleboy

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by beetleboy:
Who said the iMac wasn't selling well?

Apple's own sales figures, and Fred Anderson, the Chief Financial Officer of Apple up until recently (retiring).

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

I love the design of the damn thing. It is probably one of the best things apple has ever made next to the original and the cube. They just need to drop the price and improve the guts a little.

The whole headless iMac idea is rather silly.

[slider]

Definitely drop the price. A friend of mine just got an eMac, she walked out the door to get a 17"iMac, had her heart set on it. When all was said and done the iMac was $2500 with everything she added on; don't know the specifics. She wanted a super drive, which she did get with the eMac. It's the price. I am also telling everyone to wait to see what Apple releases next. No body knows. We might see a G5 iMac, we might not. January has come and gone, February has a month left and the best rumor sites and muster is "sometime in March". I think something is up, might not be. Apple probably won't drop the price more than $100, but a 64bit cpu would do wonders for sales too.

[dru]

Originally posted by Vader�s Pinch of Death:
They could also update the look a bit with aluminium or more of a glossy white.

I think you hit it. It looks too feminine with the shapes but also the materials. Of course that probably helps G5 and PowerBook sales.<p>

For those who claim the iMac has no place and the eMac would be good enough... the eMac monitor is a POS. There's nothing like the yumminess of an LCD.

[Vader�s Pinch of Death]

Originally posted by dru:
I think you hit it. It looks too feminine with the shapes but also the materials. Of course that probably helps G5 and PowerBook sales.

Well it is a bit tricky because Apple makes its pro consumer electronics silver and consumer white. The iMac is not pro.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Vader�s Pinch of Death:
Well it is a bit tricky because Apple makes its pro consumer electronics silver and consumer white.

You mean like this?

[Vader�s Pinch of Death]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
You mean like this?

Ya that is the one exception.

Apple is very conscious of this. When they came out with the first G4 tower Steve specifically said "And our new PRO COLOUR Gray".

[XiaXin]

I want to buy a 20" LCD iMac to replace my cube. However, the question is: Why should I buy a computer which is still using last centry's technology(G4)? Also, I wonder if the G4 processor can handle 04'iLife well, especially, the GarageBand. If Apple put a G5/2 GHz and Geforce 5600 Ultra in it today, I will pay for the 20"LCD iMac/G5 instantly without any hestiance.

[P]

The question is this: who should buy it?

* The graphics are too slow for gaming, and they were even worse before. * It's not a pro machine and never were: no expansion, no duals and no G5 (ok, it shouldn't be a pro machine).
* It's way too expensive for someone who wants a secondary machine (for trying OS X) or just a cheap Mac.

Basically, it's Cube 2: a great machine without a market. Market research, Apple! I'm not saying that there is no space for such a machine, but there has to be a good, well marketed, low-end machine as well, and not just a step-child thing like the eMac.

[discotronic]

Originally posted by P:
The graphics are too slow for gaming, and they were even worse before.

I have to disagree on it being to slow for gaming. I have a 17" 1.25GHz. I have played many games on mine and it doesn't do bad at all. These are some of the games I've tried:

Jedi Knight II
Return to Castle Wolfenstein
Ghost Recon
Medal of Honor
America's Army
Halo (granted it doesn't play great but you almost need a G5 in order for it to run decent)

I should buy it and did. It's people like me that Apple has targeted for the iMac. Your right about it not being a pro machine. The iMac isn't made for a pro machine audience. If I had wanted a PowerMac I would have bought one. It wouldn't have cost much more than the iMac. I was tired of having a tower and actually wanted an AIO. The iMac was perfect for what I was looking for. The look and size made all the difference in the world. I don't care that I can't upgrade it with a bigger video card or that it doesn't have duel processors. It isn't the fastest machine out there but I don't care about that either. There isn't anything that I would be able to do on a G5 that I can't do on my iMac. I mainly use it for surfing the net, typing papers, the occasional game, the iApps, and above all else keeping my CD collection in order. I looked at the eMac for 2 seconds (maybe less).

If I want to upgrade something I will mess around with my Linux box.

The iMac is a work of art on my desk. I enjoy using it and I think that the price was reasonable. Macs are reliable and visually stunning. Probably the main reason that they aren't selling right now is the fact that the form factor is a few years old and it is time for a change. Lowering the price a little would help but lower the price on anything helps.

[P]

Originally posted by discotronic:
I have to disagree on it being to slow for gaming. I have a 17" 1.25GHz. I have played many games on mine and it doesn't do bad at all. These are some of the games I've tried:

Jedi Knight II
Return to Castle Wolfenstein
Ghost Recon
Medal of Honor
America's Army
Halo (granted it doesn't play great but you almost need a G5 in order for it to run decent)

I should buy it and did. It's people like me that Apple has targeted for the iMac. Your right about it not being a pro machine. The iMac isn't made for a pro machine audience. If I had wanted a PowerMac I would have bought one. It wouldn't have cost much more than the iMac. I was tired of having a tower and actually wanted an AIO. The iMac was perfect for what I was looking for. The look and size made all the difference in the world. I don't care that I can't upgrade it with a bigger video card or that it doesn't have duel processors. It isn't the fastest machine out there but I don't care about that either. There isn't anything that I would be able to do on a G5 that I can't do on my iMac. I mainly use it for surfing the net, typing papers, the occasional game, the iApps, and above all else keeping my CD collection in order. I looked at the eMac for 2 seconds (maybe less).

If I want to upgrade something I will mess around with my Linux box.

The iMac is a work of art on my desk. I enjoy using it and I think that the price was reasonable. Macs are reliable and visually stunning. Probably the main reason that they aren't selling right now is the fact that the form factor is a few years old and it is time for a change. Lowering the price a little would help but lower the price on anything helps.

So you're part of the target audience - you appreciate it as "a work of art". But that's not a large audience, and it's not really a gamer machine. It's $1800, and the graphics is just Nvidia 5200 FX. Sure, it's much better than the Geforce2MX they had not long ago, but the AA is bad in so many ways and it's barely mid-range performance-wise. Do a BTO Powermac and compare the premium of getting a Radeon 9600 instead of the 5200 - it's $50. Don't you think Apple could have added this much better board in at least the top-of-the-line?

This post only reinforces what I thought: those who buy it are the same people who would have bought the Cube back in those days. Fine, let them - I might buy an iMac myself one day, once there is one that is decked out the way I want it. But there should be another Mac for the audience that bought the original iMac and want to upgrade. The eMac only almost fits - it feels old. The answer to the question in the subject is this: because it targets a limited audience, and sells well to that audience.

[funkboy]

I will not buy a new iMac (and not sell my current iMac, therefore) until the iMacs have G5 chips in them. Simple as that.

So... add a G5 to the iMac, Apple, and you'll have one more sale.

I'm somewhat disappointed with the performance of my iMac 800 at this point, but I do run a lot of applications all at once and do a lot of stuff with it... Dreamweaver and fireworks run dog slow on it, but I don't know if that can be helped on *any* computer!

[Vader�s Pinch of Death]

Originally posted by funkboy:
I'm somewhat disappointed with the performance of my iMac 800 at this point, but I do run a lot of applications all at once and do a lot of stuff with it... Dreamweaver and fireworks run dog slow on it, but I don't know if that can be helped on *any* computer!

Just so you don't feel too bad, DreamWeaver MX 2004 is DOG Slow on a Dual G5 with 1.5 Gigs of RAM.

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

The 20 inch model is astrange. The apple 20 inch LCD display sells for $1300 and the 20 inch iMac for $2200 so really you are paying another $1100 for the rest of the computer. Is that cheap?

[mbryda]

Originally posted by XiaXin:
I want to buy a 20" LCD iMac to replace my cube. However, the question is: Why should I buy a computer which is still using last centry's technology(G4)? Also, I wonder if the G4 processor can handle 04'iLife well, especially, the GarageBand. If Apple put a G5/2 GHz and Geforce 5600 Ultra in it today, I will pay for the 20"LCD iMac/G5 instantly without any hestiance.

Then you shouldn't really buy any computer. They are all powered by last century's technology....

My 15" FP iMac handles iLife '04 perfectly. iPhoto really works well now, even editing 6MP images. I havn't tried GB, but it does OK on the wife's iBook - a little slow, but I think that may becase it only has 256MB - it does a lot of disk thrashing.

[mbryda]

You guys are missing the other target audience.... Switchers with old systems that want new boxes.... When I bought my 15" SD iMac back in '02, I wanted an LCD panel, I wanted a DVD burner, I wanted to try a Mac. The choices were:

1) Build another Wintel for $1300 or so and have to deal with the problems associated with it. (never could edit video, didn't really like Windows, was ready for something new)

2) Buy an OEM Wintel box (never really an option) for $1500-1600 and have a mish-mash of software that never worked right.

3) Buy a G4 tower with Apple display for like $2-3000. The wife said no. And this was a G4/833, IIRC.

4) Buy an iMac 15" FP. $1700, gorgeous LCD, DVD burner, Mac, software that was best of breed, and something new to try. Perfect fit. I gained some space on my desk back, got an awesome machine, and a great display. It runs for months (currently at 53 days) without a reboot, handles most of what I throw at it, edits movies and 6MP digicam pics fine... I don't game and could care less about the graphics card in the machine. Most of the high graphics cards are a waste for me.

The iMac is still relatively great machine for what you get. You get a space saving design, decently fast CPU, and a gorgeous form factor. Price out a comparable machine from a teir-1 vendor and you'll see that they are within $1-300 of the iMac. The less hassles are worth it. IF you need someone to come out once to look at your PC, those savings have been erased...

As for me - you can take my Mac when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!

[Link]

I highly doubt that the imac's design or features are necessarily what is causing it to sell so poorly, the design and whatnot are wonderful.

The price is almost entirely to blame for it.

The imac's target price should be in the $899-1499 range and it's FAR over that.

Otherwise the iMac would be a nice machine

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

Originally posted by Link:
I highly doubt that the imac's design or features are necessarily what is causing it to sell so poorly, the design and whatnot are wonderful.

The price is almost entirely to blame for it.

The imac's target price should be in the $899-1499 range and it's FAR over that.

Otherwise the iMac would be a nice machine

I agree, I don't think anyone would not buy it because they don't like the design. If some low end home user thinks they will need PCI slots they are just fooling themselves.

[antizero]

Considering the cost of a 20" Cinema display, I think the 20" iMac is a relatively decent deal. It could be better, but I don't think Mac is the epitome of bargain pricing. Right now I'm shopping for my first Mac, and it's a tossup between a 15" PowerBook and a 20" iMac. I'm happy with the pricing on both (but I would be a LOT happier if the prices dropped a bit).

So to answer the original question - drop a couple hundred bucks off the 20" iMac and I'll buy one immediately.

[neilw]

The iMac G4's problems are about three things:

1) Price/performance. This speaks for itself. What is outrageously frustrating about Apple is that even when they have a machine that is obviously sucking wind, they would rather let it wither and die then try to move them by dropping prices. In combination with their ridiculously long update schedule and you have... well, you have 3% market share.

2) Too much $$$ invested in a disposable LCD. This is made much worse by item #1; if the iMac had state-of-the-art guts, you wouldn't mind the all-in-one as much because you'd feel more confident about the machine's longevity. But when you know you're buying old technology, the thought of tying up a bunch of money in an LCD that you have to chuck when you upgrade the computer in the future is very off-putting. I know that this doesn't bother *everyone*, but there are definitely *some* potential customers that have a big problem with this (these would be the target for a headless consumer machine).

3) The design just doesn't resonate with consumers like the old one did. That's too bad, really, because I think it's a brilliant design. The original iMac had a warmth and cuddliness about it that made it very appealing. The newer design, though very innovative and technically better in most ways, has a cooler, more stark aesthetic that isn't *bad* but lacks universal appeal. That's my theory, anyway.

[Han's Hands on Leia]

Originally posted by neilw:

2) Too much $$$ invested in a disposable LCD.

What the hell are you talking about?

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by Han's Hands on Leia:
What the hell are you talking about?

He means that the LCD is the part that is most likely to still be useful in another 5 years, when the rest of the hardware has already been long obsolete. And since it is attatched to the machine as a part, once the machine becomes obsolete, so does the LCD. And this couldn't be anymore true than it is with the 20" iMac. The guts of the machine are already outdated.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by neilw:
2) Too much $$$ invested in a disposable LCD.

IMHO this is not an issue for many. As one that's been building and using computers forever, I've upgraded my monitor many times as well.

Started out with a 14" VGA, then 15", then 17" CRT, now 15" LCD. At some point I'll probably upgrade to a 17" or bigger LCD when I get my next Mac. You could say I wasted my money by investing in the LCD, but just about every time I upgrade my computer, the monitor goes with it.

I'd imagine the same will happen once the prices of the big LCD's increase. People will see them and want one, just like they do with TV's and have done with computer screens.

[neilw]

Originally posted by mbryda:
IMHO this is not an issue for many. As one that's been building and using computers forever, I've upgraded my monitor many times as well.

I agree it's not an issue for many, as I said in my post. However, it is an issue for *some*, exacerbated by the current out-datedness of the iMac's innards. Unfortunately, with Apple's current one-size-fits-all policy, they leave you with very little option if you prefer something different.

Price/performance is clearly the #1 problem by far, but the other two factor in there as well.

[funkboy]

Originally posted by Immortal K-Mart Employee:
I agree, I don't think anyone would not buy it because they don't like the design. If some low end home user thinks they will need PCI slots they are just fooling themselves.

How many PC users at my high school hated the original (bondi blue/colors) iMac design? Many, many. They said an all-in-one was a horrible idea.
How many of those same PC users recoiled at the LCD iMac's design? Pretty much the same amount. Some people simply won't like anything put in front of them... they're partisan.
I will like a nicely-designed PC if I see it - some case mods are unbelievable, though many are not genuinely more useful, just look cool.

Many PC devotees will not look at a Mac at all... and I feel sorry for these weak-minded, brain-washed individuals.

[terryS]

Originally posted by funkboy:
Many PC devotees will not look at a Mac at all... and I feel sorry for these weak-minded, brain-washed individuals.

I swear, nothing does more to create Mac detractors than this sort of elitist, condescending bull@#%$. Don't you realize potential Switchers come to places like this forum to help make up their minds? And that crap like that is a sure-fire way to completely turn them off to the idea?

I, myself, have been lurking here for the last few days, trying to push myself over the edge to finally buy the 20" iMac I wanted. I was looking for threads pointing to any pervasive problems the product line might have before committing.

I know it's irrational, but after seeing this kind of attitude, completely unchecked by the rest of the community here, in so many posts and front page comments, I've almost completely lost interest in Switching. I really like Apple's design sensibilities so I'll probably be interested again in some new, sexy product in the future [G5 cube?]; I'll be sure to try a different Mac site then which hopefully won't piss me off as much as MacNN has.

bye

[I Me Mine]

Originally posted by terryS:
I'll be sure to try a different Mac site then which hopefully won't piss me off as much as MacNN has.

bye

Steer clear of AppleInsider then

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by terryS:
I swear, nothing does more to create Mac detractors than this sort of elitist, condescending bull@#%$. Don't you realize potential Switchers come to places like this forum to help make up their minds? And that crap like that is a sure-fire way to completely turn them off to the idea?

I, myself, have been lurking here for the last few days, trying to push myself over the edge to finally buy the 20" iMac I wanted. I was looking for threads pointing to any pervasive problems the product line might have before committing.

I know it's irrational, but after seeing this kind of attitude, completely unchecked by the rest of the community here, in so many posts and front page comments, I've almost completely lost interest in Switching. I really like Apple's design sensibilities so I'll probably be interested again in some new, sexy product in the future [G5 cube?]; I'll be sure to try a different Mac site then which hopefully won't piss me off as much as MacNN has.

bye

If all it took to push the thought of switching from your mind was a few zealot posts, then maybe you shouldn't have considered switching in the first place.

And just so you know that there are two ends on every stick: One of the best things about being a Mac owner is the community of users. You will not find another group of more dedicated and helpful computer users that are willing to go out on a limb to assist other people than you will with the Mac community.

Also, you need to get out more man. The anti-Mac and anti-Linux zealotry in the PC world is far more extreme, common, heated and misinformed than anything you will see here.

[discotronic]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
If all it took to push the thought of switching from your mind was a few zealot posts, then maybe you shouldn't have considered switching in the first place.

And just so you know that there are two ends on every stick: One of the best things about being a Mac owner is the community of users. You will not find another group of more dedicated and helpful computer users that are willing to go out on a limb to assist other people than you will with the Mac community.

Also, you need to get out more man. The anti-Mac and anti-Linux zealotry in the PC world is far more extreme, common, heated and misinformed than anything you will see here.

I couldn't have said it better

[Link]

Originally posted by neilw:
The iMac G4's problems are about three things:
3) The design just doesn't resonate with consumers like the old one did. That's too bad, really, because I think it's a brilliant design. The original iMac had a warmth and cuddliness about it that made it very appealing. The newer design, though very innovative and technically better in most ways, has a cooler, more stark aesthetic that isn't *bad* but lacks universal appeal. That's my theory, anyway.

I always thought the design of the g3 imac was hideous.

[ChasingApple]

Well I for one will pay $$$ for anything that is as beautiful and complete as the iMac. I just bought the 17" G4 1.25Ghz monster with Superdrive and I couldnt be happier. My wife loved it so much we ran right out a week later and got her a 14" iBook G4 933Mhz for school (college). We are both happy switchers and love our new baby's.

Lets review the price that so many complain about.

17" iMac - $1799. A regular 17" NON-WIDESCREEN Cinema Display is $699. So adding the extra space and making it Widescreen lets be fair and say it would be worth around $799. Lets subtract that from the Price of an iMac. $1799-799 = $1000. So what am I getting for my $1000?

G4 1.25Ghz CPU / 256MB Ram. (G4 towers are still around with these specs, and MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE!

Geforce FX 5200 Ultra - Nice upgrade from the GF MX and VERY good at games, UT2004 and everything run great on it, seriously, the Mac is better with this card the the PC's were.

80GB HD - tons of room

4x Superdrive - YES! DVD Burner, CD-R Burner, and DVD player all in one!

Quiet machine, takes up VERY LITTLE room if any on a Desk, the monitor is attached with the most kick ass swivle arm thingy that everyone that sees it loves it (even my mother-in-law) and a cool keyboard, mouse, and speakers. ALL FOR $1000!!! Tell me where the hell in PC land are you going to find a neato computer like this? I would ANY DAY OF THE WEEK pay $799 for a 17" widescreen Cinema Display, wouldnt you?

Of course my wife is in College like I said so we got a nice discount on the iMac, $1699 and I added applecare to it. Best money I haave even spent on a computer and everything runs FAST, not 1 problem. Soon I will add a 512MB stick of Crucial memory to it and that will be it, I will own this thing for years.

My only regret is I didnt switch earlier, I would have love to have an original iMac DV and then later the CUBE sitting on my desk for a few years while this OS X revolution hit, but at leasst I DID get here

Cheers.

P.S. Some of us (me and my wife) are willing to drop a bankroll on form, funtion, and perfection.

[I Me Mine]

Originally posted by ChasingApple:
I would ANY DAY OF THE WEEK pay $799 for a 17" widescreen Cinema Display, wouldnt you?

Yes - but only if I could use it with other computers in the future. You're stuck with it forever on that iMac.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by I Me Mine:
Yes - but only if I could use it with other computers in the future. You're stuck with it forever on that iMac.

So you use it for 3-5 years (average) and either pitch it or sell it on Ebay. In 3-5 years, you'll probably want to upgrade to a 20-22" (which will drop in price) anyway. I know I have almost always upgraded - 14" CRT - 15" CRT - 17" CRT - 15" LCD - next will be another big LCD when I get my next Mac.

[diehlr]

Originally posted by ChasingApple:
17" iMac - $1799. A regular 17" NON-WIDESCREEN Cinema Display is $699. So adding the extra space and making it Widescreen lets be fair and say it would be worth around $799. Lets subtract that from the Price of an iMac. $1799-799 = $1000. So what am I getting for my $1000?

17" is measured diagonally. The fact that it is widescreen doesn't make it any larger. Physically, a 17" widescreen is actually smaller, area-wise.

Geforce FX 5200 Ultra - Nice upgrade from the GF MX and VERY good at games, UT2004 and everything run great on it, seriously, the Mac is better with this card the the PC's were.

The FX 5200 is a dog in gaming performance. Bandwidth starved and crippled from the get-go. UT2004 runs on just about anything. It was designed to be very scaleable. It runs on my GeForce2 GTS on my PC.. a 4 year old card.

[I Me Mine]

Originally posted by mbryda:
So you use it for 3-5 years (average) and either pitch it or sell it on Ebay. In 3-5 years, you'll probably want to upgrade to a 20-22" (which will drop in price) anyway.

No offence, but there would have to be something seriously wrong with my finances if I was to be still using a 1.25 Ghz G4 in the year 2009.

[discotronic]

Originally posted by I Me Mine:
No offence, but there would have to be something seriously wrong with my finances if I was to be still using a 1.25 Ghz G4 in the year 2009.

Not everyone feels the need to upgrade every 2 years. What are you saying about the people still using the original iMac from 98-99? They are still running strong and they see no reason to upgrade right now. No offense, but some people don't need the latest and greatest.

[discotronic]

Originally posted by I Me Mine:
No offence, but there would have to be something seriously wrong with my finances if I was to be still using a 1.25 Ghz G4 in the year 2009.

Not everyone feels the need to upgrade every 2 years. What are you saying about the people still using the original iMac from 98-99? They are still running strong and they see no reason to upgrade right now. No offense, but some people don't need the latest and greatest. Not every Mac user is rich.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by diehlr:
17" is measured diagonally. The fact that it is widescreen doesn't make it any larger. Physically, a 17" widescreen is actually smaller, area-wise.

And smaller in actual pixel real estate too, by about 1%.

Widescreen 17" iMac: 1440x900 = 1296000 pixels
Standard 17" LCD: 1280x1024 = 1310720 pixels

That said, I do prefer the widescreen format.

The FX 5200 is a dog in gaming performance. Bandwidth starved and crippled from the get-go.

Yep. The FX5200 sucks royally for games. A Radeon 9600 would be very welcome in the next (G5) iMac update.

I do agree the iMac form factor is very nice for some people, but it does need a serious CPU and GPU upgrade to better justify its price.