[IUJHJSDHE]

This is based on the topic in the powerbook forum

Before you start flaming me, I'm not bashing the TiBook.
In fact, I'm looking to pick one up.

But, I'm looking for comments from owners who've lived and experience the TiBook for some time.
What is the one major flaw that really bugs you. Maybe it's an ergonomic thing, maybe it's just the heat. I just want to know the worst case scenario.

I would be using it mainly for writing, some DVD watching, some Illustrator and Photshop work but I have a powerful desktop at the office.

thanks

But what is the worst aspect of the iMac?
Most of the people in the powerbook forum LOVE there tibook!
So what is the worst thing or things about your imacs?

[xyber233]

It would have to be, by far, the graphics card. I have a RagePro and Voodoo2. The voodoo is awesome but can't run any of the newer games. Plus, OS X support for these cards is non-existant. I would be really happy if the next generation iMacs have Radeon mobility chips.

[Indigo Boy]

Love my iMac, but wish the screen were bigger.

[xyber233]

I don't mind the 15" screen too much. The iMac is not suppose to be big. thats why I like the design. If only it could have more graphics power, it would be the perfect computer.

I have a very noisy HD. It's a high pitch whine that becomes very annoying. Eventually, I'll have to replace this drive with a bigger, quieter drive. I just replaced a 4GB drive in a beige G3 box with an IBM 60GXP 40GB drive. It's very fast, and very quiet, and cheap ($105). I'm just not looking forward to taking my iMac apart. It really wasn't designed for upgrades like this.

The 8MB ATI Rage 128 pro is very limited for games. For decent frame rates, you have to use the lowest quality textures, etc. Though it's better than the Rage II+ and Rage Pro before it, it's still not up to snuff for today's games. Apple could easily solve this problem by shipping the iMacs with 32MB nVidia GeForce 2mx chips. They're certainly cheap enough at this point.

Steve

[vmarks]

Originally posted by xyber233:
<STRONG>I don't mind the 15" screen too much. The iMac is not suppose to be big. thats why I like the design. If only it could have more graphics power, it would be the perfect computer.</STRONG>

Actually, for me, the limited memory and power of the video chip isn't so bad for me.

My wife is using her Revision A 233mhz, ATI Rage IIc 2mb, quite happily for email and learning Photoshop 6. The video has more than enough power to display thousands of colors at high resolutions (more if I added another 4mb of VRAM) - she's got it connected to the 17" monitor she stole off my Linux server, so she's happier with the bigger screen size.

My only real disappoinment is in the production quality- anecdotal evidence suggests that there may have been a run of iMacs with bad hard drives, as well as analog/video board failure in the monitor component.

In terms of the concept itself, the iMac meets it's goals pretty well-
It's a one piece unit, with a reduced number of cords and cables, it's got a very reasonably sized display for a one-unit machine, and on newer versions, it plays games adequately. (Not a gamers machine by any stretch, but for a casual hour or three of Oni, it does nicely.)

One question that comes up in higher education discussions is, is it better to be broadly knowledgable across many subjects, or to be very focused and skilled in a single subject. Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart knew nothing of Alchemy or other sciences, but could figure out mathematically complex rhythms without breaking a sweat (study the fractional divisions of note duration and the 'church' modes, and you'll know how hard music really is.)

The iMac accomdates many areas: Desktop Publishing, light use Photoshop, light use iMovie, light use games, Productivity, Internet.

The other Apple computers focus more strongly on specific areas- The G4 is more expandable, and has more processing power for both scientific (human genome project) and multimedia applications.

The iMac is completely servicable for many tasks, as anyone who used to use an SE/30 for MIDI will tell you, but the G4 offers more room to grow. The iMac acheives it's goals as a powerful multipurpose computer that is friendly in appearance and setup to the beginner. The so-called Pro line has more power for specific high level applications. (Of course, it also works well as a gamers machine, and an introductory machine, but it isn't marketed in this manner.)

Victor Marks
[email protected]

[vmarks]

Originally posted by xyber233:
<STRONG>It would have to be, by far, the graphics card. I have a RagePro and Voodoo2. The voodoo is awesome but can't run any of the newer games. Plus, OS X support for these cards is non-existant. I would be really happy if the next generation iMacs have Radeon mobility chips.</STRONG>

I sort of agree- the ATI video chip does what it does well, and performs as it was meant to. But the Voodoo support was never Apple's problem- They didn't even support putting the voodoo in the mezzanine slot, so it's a little unfair to expect them to write a driver for it in OS X.

Victor Marks
[email protected]

[joe]

I have to agree that the iMac graphics chips are the weakest point. What's worse, there's no way to upgrade them save for the 1st gen iMac. And even that has problems now that 3DFX is gone. Overall, the iMac has not kept pace with the rest of Apple's line from a hardware standpoint. I'm not saying the iMac should have same high end specs as the towers: 867Mhz G4, GeForce3, GigE, DVDr, etc. But Apple's consumer oriented iMac is going to be used for gaming more than any of the Pro Macs - unless the Pros are goofing off at the office So a cut down 16MB Radeon/GF2MX would go a long way towards improving performance for the home user - without taking away the bragging rights of the 64MB GF3 owners and 32MB Radeon/GF2MX owners. Hopefully, Apple will address the graphics chipset issue in the next model. I suppose you could nit pick about other things too. But really, nothing else stands out as much as the graphics chipset....joe

[xyber233]

I wasn't blaming Apple for the voodoo2 problem. Since 3dfx is out of business there is no hope for drivers. It also seems that there is a lack of graphics acceleration for the RagePro. I am very happy with the iMac. It does what it does very well. A Powermac G3 was a little out of my price range but I am very pleased with my purchase. It would be nice to actually use the RagePro to assist my processor with OS X's GUI. But for future iMacs considering the Cube is now gone, the iMac must be used for a larger variety of audiences. They need an inexpensive iMac for schools but also need a powerful iMac to take the place of the Cube. Since a geforce2 mx or a radeon could be placed in the cube, I hope to see something equal or better to be placed in the iMac.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by xyber233:
<STRONG>I wasn't blaming Apple for the voodoo2 problem. Since 3dfx is out of business there is no hope for drivers. It also seems that there is a lack of graphics acceleration for the RagePro. I am very happy with the iMac. It does what it does very well. A Powermac G3 was a little out of my price range but I am very pleased with my purchase. It would be nice to actually use the RagePro to assist my processor with OS X's GUI. But for future iMacs considering the Cube is now gone, the iMac must be used for a larger variety of audiences. They need an inexpensive iMac for schools but also need a powerful iMac to take the place of the Cube. Since a geforce2 mx or a radeon could be placed in the cube, I hope to see something equal or better to be placed in the iMac.</STRONG>

We're in agreement again.

The iMac does what it's intended to, and does it well. You're right that with the lack of a Cube, that the audience for the iMac is wider, and needs to be grown to meet the needs of more people who need less than the pro machine, but more than what we have now.

Of course, with the Rage chipset, IIc and Pro in particular, ATI doesn't really support OpenGL on them (They do, sort of. OpenGL was an afterthought, so it's done in software, more than on the chip.)

In the case of OS X, much of the GUI is done on the CPU chip simply because of the kind of vector math involved- not many GPUs can crunch that yet. But really, you won't be upset with the Rage Pro and how it reacts to the OS X gui after 10.1 is on your machine, or at least, you won't be near as held back as you are with 10.0.4.

Victor Marks
[email protected]

[gumby5647]

iThink the thing that is holding the iMac back the most is CPU speed and Video.

Give the iMac the fastest G3 you have and a half way decent video card.

and if the fastest G3 is faster than the G4, then so be it, half the people that buy iMac's haven't even heard of the G4...

[mithral]

Good thread. I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with everyone else...

The video card.

Is anyone else frustrated by Apple's unwillingness to target the gamer market? The 8MB Rage 128 Pro from my iMac 350 (Summer 2000) is a joke.

I think gamers drive the market far more than most people realize. The machines people play on will eventually become the machines they work on. Yet, Apple provides a 3D card that somehow shows slowdown on Bugdom.

Freakin' Bugdom.

How far have we come in a year? 16MB Rage 128 Pro. Oooooo. Frankly, I don't see why Apple should worry about maintaining "Video Card Envy" for tower users. The tower has enough advantages.

Putting a 64MB card in the next iMac would REALLY help Apple tap into a market it has (so far) ignored. It would also give game developers some food for thought.

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: mithral ]

[Indigo Boy]

OK, OK! You're right! It is the video card, not the monitor size! What could I have been thinking?

[Patrick]

I'm going to go with the ergonomic argument on this one. The iMac has no seprate desktop unit to function as a monitor stand, so most people simply place it on their desks, below eye level. And the keyboard often gets placed at the same horizontal level (as was the case back in the computer labs back at the college I went to). The problem that creates is that you have to look downward at the monitor, which is bad for the neck, or slouch downward in your chair, which is bad for the back. The built in stand helps, but only tilts it slightly and raises it an inch or so. If your chair is adjustible, and can be lowered so that the iMac is at eye level, then to reach the keyboard you'd have to bend your elbows upward, which I've heard isn't a good typing position.

Now of course, there's an easy solution - find a computer desk with one of those keyboard trays, then go out and buy a stand for the iMac. But I think Apple should go far enough to bundle these stands with the iMacs (maybe make them optional, since not everyone uses monitor stands).

Not to rant, but I had mine for 2 1/2 years without using a stand, and I often found my neck hurting when I wasn't slouched down in my chair. Bought a 4" tilting stand a couple months ago and it's made a huge difference. Still below eye level, though.

(not rolling my eyes, but thought this would look funny here)

[BRussell]

The screen resolution. Actually, the useable screen resolution. I don't have a problem with the physical size of the monitor, so much as the fact that 1024 X 768 is too wiggy on one's eyes.

It seems that more people use their iMac at 800 rather than 1024 for this reason. But 800 is pretty small these days, with floating windows in so many apps, and web pages that look better in 1024 or larger.

The new iBook shows that you can have a small physical monitor size, but if you've got decent quality at high resolution, people be happy.

I also agree that a better graphics card would help, but many people don't need more than a 2MB rage IIc, so I think it would be a mistake to put a gaming chip in all iMacs. I would like to see a gaming edition iMac (iMac GE?) with a nice graphics chip, while retaining less expensive models without them.

[GraphiteBoi]

needs a faster system bus

im happy with the imac as it is, because it does what its supposed to do, and does it well...
it wasnt designed for high-powered graphics work...
it wasnt designed for burning dvd's...
it wasnt designed for the multitude of things that the faster g4s w/ altivec were designed to do...
(1)...it was designed for first time users...
(2)...for user with limited space...
(3)...for schools...
(4)...for kids and families...
(5)...for browsing the internet...
(6)...for bringing people into the "apple fold"...
and it succeeds at accomplishing each of these tasks...and it accomplishes it well...
if you need a bigger screen, a better graphics card, expansion, superdrive than the imac is not for you...
if you need a computer to accomplish any of the above tasks (1-6) than the imac is for you...
...all i can say is that i am more than happy with my imac...i wouldnt trade it for anything...

[xyber233]

Originally posted by &lt;CityGuy2003&gt;:
<STRONG>im happy with the imac as it is, because it does what its supposed to do, and does it well...
it wasnt designed for high-powered graphics work...
it wasnt designed for burning dvd's...
it wasnt designed for the multitude of things that the faster g4s w/ altivec were designed to do...
(1)...it was designed for first time users...
(2)...for user with limited space...
(3)...for schools...
(4)...for kids and families...
(5)...for browsing the internet...
(6)...for bringing people into the "apple fold"...
and it succeeds at accomplishing each of these tasks...and it accomplishes it well...
if you need a bigger screen, a better graphics card, expansion, superdrive than the imac is not for you...
if you need a computer to accomplish any of the above tasks (1-6) than the imac is for you...
...all i can say is that i am more than happy with my imac...i wouldnt trade it for anything...</STRONG>

There are many people though who are gamers and who would like to have a tower but the tower is a little out of their price range considering you have to also buy a monitor. Apple needs an iMac that has more graphics ability. The Cube was nice because it was the perfect "halfway" model but because the price was too high, it didn't sell well. Did you ever notice that once the Cube was disconitnued and prices were lowered a couple hundred dollars that they started selling like crazy?

[joe]

Originally posted by xyber233:
<STRONG>

There are many people though who are gamers and who would like to have a tower but the tower is a little out of their price range </STRONG>

Exactly! Gamers are completely ignored in the current lineup unless you go for the high end. The difference between the Rage 128 and GF3 chipsets is like 3 generations!! I'm not trying to be unreasonble though. A GF3 iMac would obviously hurt sales of Apple's high end machines. But a cut down low cost 16MB GF2MX or similar should definitely be included for the xtra money paid for "SE" iMacs. That would give Apple a mid range Mac for gamers who can't afford a tower or simply don't want one. The Cube would've been ideal for this. But as pointed out earlier, it was too expensive and actually overlapped the G4 Tower line while providing less in the way of hardware and expansion. Until they dropped the price, it simply didn't fit anywhere in the Apple line. And by then it was too late. An improved iMacSE would go a long way towards fixing the situation.....joe

[McNugget]

Yes, definitely without any doubt the problem is the graphic capabilities of the machine. I mean, you can change memory, the HD, even use a better monitor through video mirroring...dear G-d, you can even update it to a G4!!!! But video???
no, you are stuck!!!!
Don't get me wrong, I love my iMac, and I use it for surfing, gaming (VGS rocks!!!) and medschool projects.
What I think that Apple needs to do is not to give a definite solution, more like an option, like the mezzanine slot on the first rev iMacs...but the twist this time would be that instead of a mezzanine or some non-standard solution, an entry level card with some sort of AGP port so that you'll only have to change the card if you want better performance.

the worst thing is clunky Appleworks - and having to pay an arm and a leg of Office

i will agree that the graphics capabilites of the machine are lacking...and that apple needs to introduce a third line...like the cube...that can have some expansion/upgrade possibilities...but that does not cost as much as the pro line...i do not think that a g3 tower line would cut into pro line sales because they would be marketed to different people...

i also agree on the appleworks point...as much as i dislike ms apple needs to start bundling either ms office with the mac or another full fledged suite...but i cant think of another one...

[xyber233]

I love the mezzanine slot. I currently have a voodoo2 in mine. That would be great if Apple brought it back and 3rd party compaines make graphics cards for the iMac. That would solve this huge problem. Even if they don't, I'm expecting an updated graphics card in the iMac. I'm not asking for a GF3 or anything of that nature. I would like at least a 16mb geforce2mx or radeon mobility.

[mrPopocatepetl]

I guess that should be the absence of a G4...

but also the size of the screen, although it's small size also makes it kinda charming

i really dunnoo

i'm just happy

[MrBenn]

Originally posted by &lt;Steve S&gt;:
<STRONG>I have a very noisy HD. It's a high pitch whine that becomes very annoying. Eventually, I'll have to replace this drive with a bigger, quieter drive. I just replaced a 4GB drive in a beige G3 box with an IBM 60GXP 40GB drive. It's very fast, and very quiet, and cheap ($105). I'm just not looking forward to taking my iMac apart. It really wasn't designed for upgrades like this.

The 8MB ATI Rage 128 pro is very limited for games. For decent frame rates, you have to use the lowest quality textures, etc. Though it's better than the Rage II+ and Rage Pro before it, it's still not up to snuff for today's games. Apple could easily solve this problem by shipping the iMacs with 32MB nVidia GeForce 2mx chips. They're certainly cheap enough at this point.

Steve</STRONG>

I'll second that, any advice about changing an iMacs HD would be gratefully recieved. Is it posible to add a second internal drive?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by MrBenn:
<STRONG>

I'll second that, any advice about changing an iMacs HD would be gratefully recieved. Is it posible to add a second internal drive?</STRONG>

MrBenn, welcome-

We're discussing adding the second hard drive over in the Mac Modification forum here at MacNN.com.

Also, you may email me as I and a few other folks are doing this modification.

Victor Marks
[email protected]

[cdhostage]

I love my iMac. I use it as my music player, homework typer, web page viewer, and Finale music notator. My only bad vibe is that it's too slow to play games effectiv\ely. My next buy will be a G4, if only for the games.

[angevine41]

I've got the new Snow 500 w/ internal CD-RW. I was quite disappointed to find out that MP3 CD's converted w/ Audion 2.5 and burned w/ apple disk burner 1.0.1 were not recognized by my Memorex MP3 CD player.

I used Audion because it is literally twice as fast at converting to MP3 (from AIFF) as itunes. I discovered through experimenting that Toast 4.1 could burn MP3 CD successfully, whether the conversion had been done w/ Audion or at MP3.com sourse.

Why would apple include such second--or third--rate software with its otherwise good hardware. Audion 2.5 cost me $20; I bet apple could have gotten it in bulk for $1.50.

Hardware issues:

#1 - Video Card, all revisions.
#2 - Shadow Mask screen.

But you can't complain for USD $799!!!

Software Issues:

#1 - Open Firmware 4.1.8/4.1.7
#2 - DVD Player betas

Both of those issues have been addressed, thankfully.

The worst aspect of the iMac is also the best: the all-in-one design. I mean, if the CPU or the monitor goes bad you have to take in (or ship) the whole thing as a unit. The worst real aspect, for me, is the lack of a fan. I use my Mac sometimes for hours at a time, and it gets what I feel is very hot inside. I would rather have a little bit of fan noise and have the cooling capability, than have no noise and have it heat up.

[knifecarrier]

Graphics card. I could poop on my motherboard and have about the same 3d acceleration as a current iMac. I find it hilarious that my 333mhz/8 meg voodoo2 iMac has about the same performance as the 600mhz G3/16 meg Rage128. What a f*cking joke.

Apple &gt;NEEDS&lt; to put a nice graphics card in their machines, its pathetic that they produce iMacs with WAY outdated cards... I mean it isnt the usual "outdated as soon as you open the box", its like outdated 2 years before you even get the box. They &gt;NEED&lt; like ONE PCI SLOT or ONE AGP slot, that way people arent screwed into spending over 2,000 on a nice gaming macintosh.

If they don't, screw apple. I hope they go bankrupt, because its their own stupidity that caused their death.

- Ca$h

[IUJHJSDHE]

Originally posted by knifecarrier (AKA CA$H):
<STRONG>
If they don't, screw apple. I hope they go bankrupt, because its their own stupidity that caused their death.

- Ca$h</STRONG>

Ca$h I hope you go bankrupt!
LOL

And anyway so the way I see it is that the imac is a good mac but with a bad graphics card and one line of imacs had bad HD.

Hey look at all the bad pc's are out there?

[IUJHJSDHE]

Originally posted by knifecarrier (AKA CA$H):
<STRONG>
If they don't, screw apple. I hope they go bankrupt, because its their own stupidity that caused their death.

- Ca$h</STRONG>

Ca$h I hope you go bankrupt!
LOL

And anyway so the way I see it is that the imac is a good mac but with a bad graphics card and one line of imacs had bad HD.

Hey look at all the bad pc's are out there?

[Justin W. Williams]

Originally posted by mithral:
<STRONG>

Putting a 64MB card in the next iMac would REALLY help Apple tap into a market it has (so far) ignored. It would also give game developers some food for thought.

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: mithral ]</STRONG>

I don't really think Apple would put a 64 meg card. I think that gives a tower one of its advantages. Regardless, a 16-32 meg GF2 or Radeon would be great. If they update all the hardware, why not the video?

What Apple needs to think about is that it targets an iMac for the home. What do most familes use their computer for? Internet, Email, and gaming. If they can only accomplish 2/3 of that, they may decide to sell their sole to Gateway Country and Bill Gates' Empire

[mithral]

Originally Posted by Justin W. Williams:

I don't really think Apple would put a 64 meg card. I think that gives a tower one of its advantages.

Conventional thinking would suggest that you're right. However, let me suggest a possible scenario where a 64 meg card in an iMac might work:

iMac

Fast , Faster , Fastest
G3 , G3 , G3
20 gig , 40 gig , 60 gig
CD-RW , Combo , Combo
32MB GF2/Rad , 32MB GF2/Rad , 64MB GF2/Rad

Tower

Fast , Faster , Fastest
G4 , G4 , G4
40 gig , 60 gig , 80 gig
Super , Super , Super
64MB GF2/Rad , 64MB GF3 , 64MB GF3

This configuration gives plausible differentiation within the tower and iMac lines, as well as between the two lines. Assuming the pricing stays the same (Fastest iMac = $1499, Lowest Tower = $1699), $200 gets you:

• a G4 (presumably at a higher clock speed)
• a higher bus speed (currently 100Mhz to 133Mhz)
• 20 gig less on the hard drive, but...
• a Super Drive
• expandability (card slots, AGP graphics)
• gigabit ethernet
• the option for a larger monitor (sold seperately)

Isn't this enough distinction between the two lines? Do we really need to throw in the graphics card, too? I think graphics professsionals are going to choose the G4-Superdrive-faster bus combination - I don't see a gaming-rig iMac cannibalizing Tower sales from that sector.

Whatever they choose to do, Apple should commit to putting a serious graphics card in the high-end iMac. Every year (EVERY YEAR), nationwide, students going off to college purchase a new computer. Games are (for better or worse) one of their priorities, along with video playback (DVD), and intense graphics (via the web, etc).

And every year, Apple prevents themselves from competing in this market sector by offering a 2-generation-old graphics card in its consumer level machine.

Thoughts?

-mithral

[ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: mithral ]

[Justin W. Williams]

Originally posted by mithral:
<STRONG>

iMac

Fast , Faster , Fastest
G3 , G3 , G3
20 gig , 40 gig , 60 gig
CD-RW , Combo , Combo
32MB GF2/Rad , 32MB GF2/Rad , 64MB GF2/Rad

Tower

Fast , Faster , Fastest
G4 , G4 , G4
40 gig , 60 gig , 80 gig
Super , Super , Super
64MB GF2/Rad , 64MB GF3 , 64MB GF3

Isn't this enough distinction between the two lines? Do we really need to throw in the graphics card, too? I think graphics professsionals are going to choose the G4-Superdrive-faster bus combination - I don't see a gaming-rig iMac cannibalizing Tower sales from that sector.

[ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: mithral ]</STRONG>

Those are good points. Didn't really think of it that way

But I don't really know if Apple would keep the same price range if they jacked up the graphics capability. I think the reason that the graphics hasn't been updated is because Apple is trying to appeal more to the casual buyer who only knows two specs: Mhz and Hard Drive Gigs. I guess they figure they can give faster clockspeed and more storage rather than better video. I personally wouldn't do it that way, but I am not Steve

[xyber233]

Originally posted by Justin W. Williams:
<STRONG>


I don't really think Apple would put a 64 meg card. I think that gives a tower one of its advantages. Regardless, a 16-32 meg GF2 or Radeon would be great. If they update all the hardware, why not the video?

What Apple needs to think about is that it targets an iMac for the home. What do most familes use their computer for? Internet, Email, and gaming. If they can only accomplish 2/3 of that, they may decide to sell their sole to Gateway Country and Bill Gates' Empire
</STRONG>

Exactly. A 64 mb card will raise the price by hundreds of dollars. Plus, the processor will be the limiting factor. That big a card would not be an advantage over a 32mb card. I would be happy even with a 16mb video card that wasn't an ATi rage series.

i want my GEFORCE 3...either in an empty PCI slot or built in WITH another empty PCI....

[xyber233]

A geforce 3 would need a lot of processing power just to make it useful not to mention the price would be unnecessarily high.