[PEHowland]

Originally posted by jamesa:
But exactly what differentiates the iMac from a "gaming machine"? What does the iMac come with that the gaming machine does not? Yes, the design of the iMac is more innovative, but that doesn't add to per unit costs - the iMac is still just a collection of components put together by a PC manufacturer in Taiwan, even if it is in a pretty white box. So the question then becomes - why should we be forced to pay more than those Alienware or Dell rigs when for the most part the components they get put in their boxes are better than ours?

I'll only respond to the above paragraph, as I think we can go round in circles on the other points, and this one seems the most interesting.

What differentiates the iMac from a gaming machine? Well, it's a whole combination of things. Firstly, we out of choice are buying into a complete package with a Mac. This inevitably puts Apple in the position of a monopoly, so it can charge a premium price. That's really the truth of the matter here - if we don't like it, there are a gazillion PC brands we can buy to cater for every possible taste, which we can then slap Windows or Linux on. Why do you think Apple refuse to release MacOS for x86 - it aint because the code won't compile...

Apple aren't alone in this - Sun owners pay a premium for Sun Hardware and Solaris, HP Workstation owners pay a premium for HP workstations and HPUX, SGI workstation owners for SGI-UNIX, etc.

So, what do you get in return for that premium price? A better designed product (compare the insides of a PC with any of the above and you'll see what I mean), and a more stable product because the manufacturer only has to test his software with a limited number of hardware variants, and a better OS with nicer applications. We're paying for the stability and usability that Mac owners mock Windows owners for. We're paying for a computer that is less of a commodity than the normal Wintel PC.

But that comes at a price - and Apple choose the price they believe the market can stand. We can whinge about that, but money talks & I'm sure Apple know their business far better than we do.

Look, I'm not stupid. If I could go and buy a faster computer with screaming GPU, the good looks of the iMac and running MacOS, and costing less than $2000, I would. But I can't. So I have to decide whether I'm prepared to pay $2000 for what Apple offer. "Is it worth it?". For me, and many others, that answer is "Yes". Therefore, that is the value of the machine, and Apple have pitched the price right. The Apple package is worth more to me than what I could get for $2000 with a PC. The GPU may be slower, but so many other things are much better.

That's basically it - better hardware design, better software, better testing and a nicer look and feel. And let's be honest, they're selling some kind of lifestyle statement too. That's all worth $2000 to me, and worth $2000 to many, as Apple iMac sales appear to be showing.

Alternatively, you can have a shitty hardware design, shitty software and a shitty look and feel - but better sound, faster CPU and better GPU. That's also worth $2000, and its called a mid-range PC with nice LCD screen.

Or I guess you could have both, and that's called a PowerMac - and it costs $5000 with screen. $3000 for the components, $2000 for the design, lifestyle statement and stability. [But you still have no decent gamers sound acceleration or a decent range of games!]

The bottom line is that a computer is worth much more than the sum of its parts.

A Rolls Royce and Trabant are both made of steel, have rubber tires and run on petrol/gasoline. But there are good reasons why the Rolls Royce costs 100 times more.

[Joshua53077]

Originally posted by jamesa:
Ah yes, the anecdotal "it's right for me and I know someone who switched, therefore everyone else must be taking drugs/delusional/expecting too much/etc if they think that there's anything wrong with this machine". A valuable contribution to this topic.

I for one truly appreciate your introspective psychoanalytic assessment as to whether you may or may not have "jumped if the models were $250 more" and come with the added benefits of more features. I found it truly insightful, and I'm sure everyone else did too. The fact that you liked having an option to either add/remove the features as you saw fit, and that this actually encouraged your purchase, was something I found particularly interesting.

I also appreciate your appraisal of the iMac machine as entry level. However, I would be delighted if you'd share with us what you would classify the eMac as? Sub-entry level? Also, and I realise this is a personal question, but how much money you must be making to consider a $2000 machine with a 20" screen as "entry level"?

Finally, I would very much like to know what makes you think that having a BTO GPU (or even just a better GPU model on the most expensive iMac) would constitute Apple having "15 different models". Maybe it's just my sorely lacking intellect, but I thought if they changed a component, or offered a different component as BTO, it would remain the same model. This is especially considering that's what happens when Apple provide the option of a different GPU on the Powerbook laptops. It's still considered the same model - and like the iMacs, they have the GPU on the motherboard.

-- james

James, my friend, why so rude? I simply related my own story, take it as you may. I bought the iMac on the day it came out and I would not have if it was a few hundred dollars more per model. Perhaps if I had the option to add or remove features as I saw fit (which incidentally, I could have added ram, added a larger hard drive and gone wireless, if I wanted to pay more), production costs would have been higher across the board, thus causing me to pay more on my non-configured model. Further, why would Apple see fit to canibalize their Power Mac line by allowing the kitchen sink to be put into my machine that costs less and has a lower profit margin then the Power Mac line? I know you want to avoid recognizing this but Apple is a business with a bottom line. The reason that they don't allow James to set their agenda is because James doesn't have a constituency of shareholders and a board of directors that expects Apple to maximize profits. So if the trade off is that only the Joshuas of the world buy their iMac and not the Jameses, they will still sell a lot of computers and they will hope that James, who recognizes what his needs in a computer are, will opt for the PRO line of computers and thus give Apple a larger profit margin.
For example, Lexis produces a car called the IS300, I have test driven it and I think it sucked (no offense to those who may own it). I didn't get out of the car after and say "Gee, Lexis should have included the advanced transmission and handling system that they include in their expensive cars." I recognized that this car is significantly cheaper then Lexis' luxury cars, but that people will still buy it because it is a Lexis and for some, having a Lexis is important enough to forego a lot of the extras (I bought a Volvo, but alas).
Though you crow about how this machine is expensive, I do remind you that the my iMac DV/SE cost the same price 5 years ago! I understand technology gets cheaper over time but what about inflation? 5 years ago, I shelled out $1500 and got a 15 (13.8 inches viewableinch CRT, a 400 Mhz G3, 128 megs of PC100 SD Ram, a 13 gig HD, 8 megs of VRAM, a system bus that ran at 100 Mhz, no CD-R and a DVD player (not a burner). At the time, I thought I had a speed demon.
Now, 5 years later, I spent $1500 on a system that gives me a 17 inch LCD, a 1.8 Ghz, 64 bit processor, 256 megs of PC3200 DDR Ram, an 80 gig hard drive, a 64 meg video card (not VRAM like my last iMac), a CD-R/DVD-R, a 600 Mhz system bus (yes, the bus is faster then the processor on my old iMac), etc. etc.
So much technology at the SAME PRICE I spent 5 years ago! Take everything in perspective James, and you'll see why so many are excited.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Joshua53077:
James, my friend, why so rude?

Sorry, irritated. And I wasn't that rude

Perhaps if I had the option to add or remove features as I saw fit (which incidentally, I could have added ram, added a larger hard drive and gone wireless, if I wanted to pay more), production costs would have been higher across the board, thus causing me to pay more on my non-configured model.

But they've already made that choice! It is already customisable, and they've proven they can do it along side all the other customisations with the Powerbook at not much extra $$$.

Further, why would Apple see fit to canibalize their Power Mac line by allowing the kitchen sink to be put into my machine that costs less and has a lower profit margin then the Power Mac line?

Oooh, now this really shits me off. I hate people arguing this line with me.

Why not logically extrapolate it. Apple makes more $$$ off the Powermac than the iMac - why not can the iMac altogether? I mean, it's only cannibalising sales!

The reason is because there are people that want to give their money to Apple for their products, but there are some things they need and some things they don't. One of the things that an increasing number of people want (obviously by this thread) is a better GPU in a mid level machine. This is not too much to ask, and it's what almost all other PC manufacturers offer. Yet Apple won't do it. In the same way that taking away the iMac would lose sales for Apple (though their margins would go up because a few of those people might buy G5s), people who want an mid range machine with a good GPU (pretty much typical PC consumers) will for the most part not suddenly go grab a Powermac. They'll either pocket their money or give it to someone else.

Cannibalisation only works up to such a point. After that, you start getting diminishing returns if you're too worried about your margins.

For example, Lexis produces a car called the IS300, I have test driven it and I think it sucked (no offense to those who may own it). I didn't get out of the car after and say "Gee, Lexis should have included the advanced transmission and handling system that they include in their expensive cars." I recognized that this car is significantly cheaper then Lexis' luxury cars, but that people will still buy it because it is a Lexis and for some, having a Lexis is important enough to forego a lot of the extras (I bought a Volvo, but alas).

Cars and computers, those analogies are banned on some forums (e.g. ars technica). So I'll avoid getting into this, other than to say that Lexus would typically only appeal to people that knew how to spell it's name

Though you crow about how this machine is expensive, I do remind you that the my iMac DV/SE cost the same price 5 years ago! I understand technology gets cheaper over time but what about inflation? 5 years ago, I shelled out $1500 and got a 15 (13.8 inches viewableinch CRT, a 400 Mhz G3, 128 megs of PC100 SD Ram, a 13 gig HD, 8 megs of VRAM, a system bus that ran at 100 Mhz, no CD-R and a DVD player (not a burner). At the time, I thought I had a speed demon.

Well, the rate of technology getting cheaper exceeds inflation by a good amount, that's why we're not paying $10k for a desktop PC any more. It comes back to my point I guess - we're paying above the par for this machine, but the GPU is below it.

Now, 5 years later, I spent $1500 on a system that gives me a 17 inch LCD, a 1.8 Ghz, 64 bit processor, 256 megs of PC3200 DDR Ram, an 80 gig hard drive, a 64 meg video card (not VRAM like my last iMac), a CD-R/DVD-R, a 600 Mhz system bus (yes, the bus is faster then the processor on my old iMac), etc. etc.

Looking at your comparison, the RAM that Apple is shipping in this iMac is pathetic too, but least that can be fixed.

So much technology at the SAME PRICE I spent 5 years ago! Take everything in perspective James, and you'll see why so many are excited.

Heh, why don't you hook up a direct debit for your credit card to Apple's servers

-- james

[jamesa]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
I'll only respond to the above paragraph, as I think we can go round in circles on the other points, and this one seems the most interesting.

What differentiates the iMac from a gaming machine? Well, it's a whole combination of things. Firstly, we out of choice are buying into a complete package with a Mac. This inevitably puts Apple in the position of a monopoly, so it can charge a premium price. That's really the truth of the matter here - if we don't like it, there are a gazillion PC brands we can buy to cater for every possible taste, which we can then slap Windows or Linux on. Why do you think Apple refuse to release MacOS for x86 - it aint because the code won't compile...

Apple aren't alone in this - Sun owners pay a premium for Sun Hardware and Solaris, HP Workstation owners pay a premium for HP workstations and HPUX, SGI workstation owners for SGI-UNIX, etc.

So, what do you get in return for that premium price? A better designed product (compare the insides of a PC with any of the above and you'll see what I mean), and a more stable product because the manufacturer only has to test his software with a limited number of hardware variants, and a better OS with nicer applications. We're paying for the stability and usability that Mac owners mock Windows owners for. We're paying for a computer that is less of a commodity than the normal Wintel PC.

I'm short on time, but those excuses all come off as reasons to give Apple money as opposed to specific reasons why I should pay more for the iMac. There's a difference; they are all generic to all Apple machines, not just the iMac. They cost Apple no extra in costs, assuming that we pay the same amount for OS X as PC users pay MS for Windows.

The design is nice, but designing a machine isn't that expensive, even a nice one like the iMac. What it boils down to is that the same components go into a bog standard PC as do an iMac - with the exception of the G5 of course, but most of the PCs in this price bracket ship with CPUs that are a lot closer to the top of Intels Mhz tree (3.4 Ghz top, 3 and 3.2 on most machines) than Apple does with theirs (2.5 ghz top, 1.8 shipping on the iMac). So they should be paying less there too.

I know we are expected to pay a premium, and I do, and here I am on a Mac. What shits me is when we're expected to jump up an entire product category to get a certain piece of functionality because Apple has intentionally hamstrung it to get people to buy the next model up. They should be about focusing on making each machine the best it can be, as opposed to hamstringing certain machines so they don't get too close together. That's the reason why when you compare the iMac to certain PC manufacturers, Apple still gets left for dead.

Look, I'm not stupid. If I could go and buy a faster computer with screaming GPU, the good looks of the iMac and running MacOS, and costing less than $2000, I would. But I can't. So I have to decide whether I'm prepared to pay $2000 for what Apple offer. "Is it worth it?". For me, and many others, that answer is "Yes". Therefore, that is the value of the machine, and Apple have pitched the price right. The Apple package is worth more to me than what I could get for $2000 with a PC. The GPU may be slower, but so many other things are much better.

Now we're going into circle territory - economics and opportunity cost. I dare not go there or we'll be here way too long.

That's basically it - better hardware design, better software, better testing and a nicer look and feel. And let's be honest, they're selling some kind of lifestyle statement too. That's all worth $2000 to me, and worth $2000 to many, as Apple iMac sales appear to be showing.

Well, none of those things are specific to the iMac, yet most of Apple's other offerings don't have the same drawbacks with functionality when compared to their PC brethren.

Alternatively, you can have a shitty hardware design, shitty software and a shitty look and feel - but better sound, faster CPU and better GPU. That's also worth $2000, and its called a mid-range PC with nice LCD screen.

Or I guess you could have both, and that's called a PowerMac - and it costs $5000 with screen. $3000 for the components, $2000 for the design, lifestyle statement and stability. [But you still have no decent gamers sound acceleration or a decent range of games!]

No. I've already posted in another thread about that same point; don't go justifying Apple overpricing! There's no reason why they should hamstring certain machines to get you to buy a more expensive one; it might help their margins, but it sure as hell sucks on total revenue and market share. It hurts more in the long term!

-- james

[Joshua53077]

Originally posted by jamesa:
Cars and computers, those analogies are banned on some forums (e.g. ars technica). So I'll avoid getting into this, other than to say that Lexus would typically only appeal to people that knew how to spell it's name

Heh, why don't you hook up a direct debit for your credit card to Apple's servers

-- james

Sorry about the Lexis/Lexus flub....I work all day with Lexis.com so its sort of a conditioned typing error

I practically do hook my direct debit up to Apple's servers, which is quite dangerous. I don't want you to think that I'm a slave to Apple though. Before my iMac DV/SE, I had a Powerbase 180 from Power Computing, which I bought because although I desperately wanted the Performa 6400 at the time, the Powerbase was cheaper (the CD drive went within 2 years on it, however).

I do understand your point that you feel the graphics card is underpowered and can't be upgraded...I won't even tell you to get a Playstation or an Xbox to play games (I still feel slimy for buying an Xbox). I just want you to understand that my mac use is mainly for surfing the web, instant messaging, listening to my iTunes library, transferring digital photos, and occasionally dabbling in iMovie to embarass friends and I do consider myself to be an avid mac user. Obviously I haven't gotten a chance to use my iMac for any of this yet (though I'm at work with my brand new iMac sitting in its box right next to me....yes, I want to go home now ), but if my quicksilver, with its inferior specs has served this purpose for the past couple of years, the iMac can only be better (my Quicksilver is the one graced with the Radeon 7500 and 32 megs of vram). I try to stick to an upgrade cycle of 2 1/2 years on my macs, just because staying somewhere on the technology curve is important to me. The iMac G4 always looked cool to me but the allure of the G5 sold me.
When I bought the Quicksilver, I thought it was time for me to go away from the all-in-one design. I relished the idea of customizing my Mac and the ability to upgrade down the road. Now, 2 and a half years later, the only "upgrade" that I did was throwing in the 5400 RPM 13 gig hard drive from my old iMac to be a second drive. I realize now that I didn't need a Pro system. If anyone is interested in the Quicksilver, contact me by the way.
So I do consider this the computer for me, and though the graphics card could be better, it's going to suit my needs just fine.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Joshua53077:
I relished the idea of customizing my Mac and the ability to upgrade down the road. Now, 2 and a half years later, the only "upgrade" that I did was throwing in the 5400 RPM 13 gig hard drive from my old iMac to be a second drive. I realize now that I didn't need a Pro system.

There's my point, just there.

There are people that don't need the expandability of the pro line, but just want a decent GPU with their system. They don't want to have to buy a tower to get a decent GPU. And I think that Apple leaving us with that as the only option is grossly unfair.

-- james

[kokkao]

I know this is the bitching thread, but jamesa, you've made your belaboured point , and we all know your views.
So why don't you all leave us in peace, and go off an buy yourself your ideal machine with sh*t-hot GPU and as much Ram as you need!
For some (most?) of us the G5 iMac and its current GPU will be just the ticket and will provide us with exactly (or acceptably nearly so) what we want and/or need.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by kokkao:
So why don't you all leave us in peace, and go off an buy yourself your ideal machine with sh*t-hot GPU and as much Ram as you need!

I would, but I can't. They don't offer it yet.

But you are right about one thing - this is the bitching thread.

For some (most?) of us the G5 iMac and its current GPU will be just the ticket and will provide us with exactly (or acceptably nearly so) what we want and/or need.

Well, you are fortunate, and I wish Apple could provide the same for the rest (most?) of us.

-- james

[Graymalkin]

A handful of supporters on this forum and those on others is hardly a majority. The iMac has pretty strong pre-order numbers and great industry reviews. As such I hardly think most people find the new iMac inadequate, only the folks who want to play Halo at 100fps while hosting a 4GB MySQL database entirely in RAM.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
A handful of supporters on this forum and those on others is hardly a majority. The iMac has pretty strong pre-order numbers and great industry reviews. As such I hardly think most people find the new iMac inadequate, only the folks who want to play Halo at 100fps while hosting a 4GB MySQL database entirely in RAM.

A majority of what? A majority of people already buying the iMac don't care. Well, maybe. A majority of people that want to buy the iMac but aren't? Well, probably.

But look at the bigger picture. Apple's stated goal is to get to 5% market share. Why on earth they'd alienate people over something so stupid I just don't get.

-- james

[Graymalkin]

They're alienating you personally because you've got strange ideas about what sort of graphical power a consumer system ought to have. As it stands the iMac has more graphical capabilities than Windows PCs in its class and is only slightly more expensive than the equivilent system from the competition. Most PCs being sold have Intel Extreme(ly lame) graphics chips or old Radeons. A Dell Dimension 4600 with roughly comparable components comes out to about $1280 after all the rebates are applied. Most HP systems in the same class as the iMac only offer Intel's integrated graphics chips. The iMac even with the GeForce 5200 is bettwe than a majority of PCs sold every single day.

The iMac will play existing Mac games, run Tiger, handle Word 2004, and probably not do too badly with Doom 3 once it is released. The GeForce 5200 will handle CoreImage effects and has enough VRAM to support Quartz 2D Extreme. For what is available right now and what is in the works for Macs the iMac is a pretty adequate system. In six months it will probably end up with a Radeon 9700 or maybe even a GeForce 5900. BareFeat's benchmarks showed the iMacs doing fairly well.

I think anymore you have to keep on complaining because you've already put so much effort into the enterprise. I think you ought to step back and take a long look at your arguments and look at what other folks like me have been saying. I think you're picking at straws and are hoping that a mass of people feel the same so your somewhat silly ideas can be justified. I think in reality however most people do not feel similarly to you and your complaints are only supported by a minority albeit a vocal one.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
They're alienating you personally because you've got strange ideas about what sort of graphical power a consumer system ought to have. As it stands the iMac has more graphical capabilities than Windows PCs in its class and is only slightly more expensive than the equivilent system from the competition. Most PCs being sold have Intel Extreme(ly lame) graphics chips or old Radeons. A Dell Dimension 4600 with roughly comparable components comes out to about $1280 after all the rebates are applied. Most HP systems in the same class as the iMac only offer Intel's integrated graphics chips. The iMac even with the GeForce 5200 is bettwe than a majority of PCs sold every single day.

I'm sorry, but the 5200U is not better than a majority of >$1900 PC systems sold today.

I think anymore you have to keep on complaining because you've already put so much effort into the enterprise. I think you ought to step back and take a long look at your arguments and look at what other folks like me have been saying.

I have, and all you've done so far is provided excuses for Apple why they shouldn't address a problem that some of their customers have identified in their product line up. I mean, other than excuses, what else have you been saying?

I think you're picking at straws and are hoping that a mass of people feel the same so your somewhat silly ideas can be justified.

A mass of people do feel the same way. Why don't you go over to somewhere like Ars Technica and post a topic like "what's holding you back from buying a G5 imac?"

There are a surprising number of people who want to switch but won't for this very reason.

You can claim otherwise all you want.

-- james

[Spliffdaddy]

well said.

[Graymalkin]

Ars Technica and the MacNN forums are not indicitive of the market, that is the first thing you need to realize. The second thing you need to realize is I'm not providing excuses for the actions of Apple's designers, I've been trying to explain to you why they made the choices they did.

The G5 iMac has a form factor and size roughly equivilent to a typical LCD monitor of equal size. The 17" model is only 2" thick. Thermally there's got to be a trade-off between power, heat, and acoustics. They could have stuck a Radeon 9700 in them but would have needed to add another fan because just a heat sink wouldn't provide enough cooling. Another fan would make the system louder overall, especially when running full tilt. Every fan in a system also increases the liklihood of mechanical failure which is a death sentence for an All-in-One system.

Of the two GPUs able to run fanless the GeForce 5200 was chosen because it performs about as well as the Radeon 9600SE. The Radeon 9600 Pro and XT both beat the GF5200 but only because their cores are clocked at 400MHz and 500MHz respectively, neither of which will run fanless. Ergo the only fanless 9600 is the SE model with a 325MHz core clock and has essentially the same performance characteristics as the GF5200.

You and the Ars Technica people want an iMac that isn't necessarily feasible to build right now. For the hundreds of thousands of pre-orders and the scores of reviewers giving the iMac high ratings they're perfect systems. The low-end models compare very favorably to the equivilent PC in both price and processing power and the 20" models come with a 20" widescreen LCD monitor. They're luxury items like the 20" G4 iMacs were. The real price/performance winners are the two 17" models. If you and the Ars Technica folks don't want to buy the iMacs in their current incarnation there's still plenty of people who will buy them without a second thought. There's already more than a hundred thousand picking up iMacs without a second thought. While Ars Technica and MacNN are popular, they're not that popular.

[toti]

What I wanted to say, exactly.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
Ars Technica and the MacNN forums are not indicitive of the market, that is the first thing you need to realize. The second thing you need to realize is I'm not providing excuses for the actions of Apple's designers, I've been trying to explain to you why they made the choices they did.

Indicative of which market? The kind of people that spend $2000 on a system nowadays? I disagree, I think they are indicative.

The G5 iMac has a form factor and size roughly equivilent to a typical LCD monitor of equal size. The 17" model is only 2" thick. Thermally there's got to be a trade-off between power, heat, and acoustics.... You and the Ars Technica people want an iMac that isn't necessarily feasible to build right now. For the hundreds of thousands of pre-orders and the scores of reviewers giving the iMac high ratings they're perfect systems.

I'm not disagreeing with the reviews. It's a great machine, I want to get one myself. If I didn't, I wouldn't be here.

However, I think they could have put a better GPU in the 20". Let me explain why, since you tried to explain to me why they couldn't.

The 1.8ghz G5 17" and the 20" machines are exactly the same in terms of componentry, bar the display (which puts out virtually no heat). However, the 20" model is substantially bigger in volume, and is also thicker. This means if they were going to have a heat problem, it was going to be with the 17" model. By virtue of the fact the 20" has a greater volume, it has a greater heat dissipating capacity. They didn't change any internal componentry - but they could have, on this simple fact. They could have easily put in a better GPU. The fact is, compared to the amount of power a G5 consumes (which relates directly to heat) at 1.8ghz - approx 90W in full performance mode - a 9600pro maxes out at 18W, and most of the time is running closer to 10W. The 5200U is barely any different - although it's max wattage is actually 20W (the only figures I could find were on the 128MB version though). Either way, the way that it's been painted - that the GPU was an "only option" for the iMac, especially the 20", ignores the simple fact that they upped the volume on the 20" without adding anything hot.

And it wasn't for reasons of cost with relation to additional tooling either, because Apple have already changed the GPU on the bottom of the line model for schools.

-- james

[Graymalkin]

The iMac is designed to appeal to the same people the G4 iMac did, groups I already outlined in this thread. If you would scroll down a ways you'd be able to see that quite easily. These people aren't needing a Radeon 9700 in their desktop, they're happy enough with the small footprint or the LCD screen. The 20" model is a luxury system not aimed at a good price/performance ratio, just like the 20" G4 iMac. I'm repeating now what I've already said. Your argument's footing has been steadily eroding and anymore you're just being obstinate because you can see that.

It is entirely possible a Radeon 9600 Pro is a possibility in the 20" iMac. That however is predicated upon the Radeon having the same availability as the GeForce. Assuming it does then yes, the Radeon 9600 Pro could have been stuck in the 20" models. Don't assume however that an LCD produces no heat. Standalone LCDs require inverters that spit off quite a bit of heat and powering a 20" LCD with a computer's power supply is going to increase the amount of dissipated heat from it. It is entirely possible that the extra power of the larger LCD in the 20" put a similar thermal cap on the system's internal components.

[klinux]

Originally posted by kokkao:
So why don't you all leave us in peace...

A better question would be since that this is a b*tching thread, why don't you leave people who want to b*tch in peace?

[klinux]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
The 20" model is a luxury system not aimed at a good price/performance ratio, just like the 20" G4 iMac.

Hmm, great selling point. I wonder why Apple did not mention this??

In any case, one do not buy a luxury car with velour seats or 15" rims and with no options to change.

Even with that said, I got a 17" iMac on order. Then again, I have my PCs to use for other things that I do not expect the iMac to do.

[klinux]

Originally posted by klinux:
Hmm, great selling point. I wonder why Apple did not mention this??

In any case, one does not buy a luxury car with velour seats or 15" rims and with no options to change.

Even with that said, I got a 17" iMac on order. Then again, I have my PCs to use for other things that I do not expect the iMac to do.