[bradleykavin]

how do you suppose they release an imac g5 and have it not be almost as fast as the powermac g5? in other words, couldnt they release a imac g5 with 1ghz and it be faster than a 1.25 ghz g4? i dont even think that initially the highest end imac g5 will enclose a 1.6 g5....?....

[demograph68]

I really think it'll be 1.6 ghz. It wouldn't seem right for Apple to use a G5 1 ghz processor. And I doubt It would be much faster than a 1.25 ghz G4. You'll just have to wait and see. Hell, we all are!

[storer]

Originally posted by demograph68:
I really think it'll be 1.6 ghz. It wouldn't seem right for Apple to use a G5 1 ghz processor. And I doubt It would be much faster than a 1.25 ghz G4. You'll just have to wait and see. Hell, we all are!

true, it wouldnt do the idea of a G5 imac justice

[dav]

i'm hoping for a 2 ghz single processor imac g5 as a top-of-the-line model. but yeah, 1.6 is more likely.

[BrunoBruin]

There's no reason (well, marketing-wise) not to have single 1.8 and 2.0GHz iMacs; the Power Macs are all duals. And I suspect that those lower-end Power Macs are not long for this world; they appear to be using the older 130nm processors and will be replaced by +2GHz 90nm machines at the next revision. The original iMac, after all, was as fast as the Power Mac of its day. That was part of its appeal.

The speeds will really depend on how far down the chart IBM is scaling 90nm processors for shipment. I can't imagine that if they're topping out at 2.5, they're reaching all the way down to 1.0, but someone with more knowledge of processor fabrication can weigh in on that.

Keep in mind, too, that Apple absolutely needs to hit a home run with this machine. If they replace 1.0 and 1.25GHz G4s with, say, 1.2 and 1.4 G5s, the collective yawn will reverberate all the way to Cupertino. The iMac needs to be as fast as possible and as inexpensive as possible.

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by bradleykavin:
how do you suppose they release an imac g5 and have it not be almost as fast as the powermac g5? in other words, couldnt they release a imac g5 with 1ghz and it be faster than a 1.25 ghz g4? i dont even think that initially the highest end imac g5 will enclose a 1.6 g5....?....

Depends on the application. On non-mp enabled programs, a there's not going to be much of a difference.

[Will C]

Originally posted by BenRoethig:
Depends on the application. On non-mp enabled programs, a there's not going to be much of a difference.

But are not pro-applications which need speed usually multiprocessor capable? I'm not sure which are and which are not, I suspect most high end Apple apps e.g. FCP, (FCE) Motion and possibly the third party high enders PShop, Maya etc?

Could it be argued that pro users use pro apps that are multiprocessor capable and therefore to get the full benefit require the multiprocessor machines?

Just speculating, I don't actually know.

[mitchell_pgh]

I never thought I would say this, but nothing would ever make me buy the current iMac (with or without a G5 inside).

The enclosure better be more appealing. I've always felt like it was a little too strange for general use. I just hope the smallish outcry for a headless unit doesn't fall on deaf ears.

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by Will C:
But are not pro-applications which need speed usually multiprocessor capable? I'm not sure which are and which are not, I suspect most high end Apple apps e.g. FCP, (FCE) Motion and possibly the third party high enders PShop, Maya etc?

Could it be argued that pro users use pro apps that are multiprocessor capable and therefore to get the full benefit require the multiprocessor machines?

Just speculating, I don't actually know.

Something like. Using something like photoshop a stock dual 1.8 PMG5 is going to beat the living daylights out of a 1.8 iMac. However, on something like UT2004 they'd be pretty close because UT isn't going to use that second processor for much.

[Rev-O]

Don't think the "PowerMacs have 2 G5's, iMac's have 1 G5" concept provides enough market separation between the PowerMac and the iMac for Apple's taste. Y'all aren't going to have the $1000 -$1500 iMac with a 2 GHz G5 and a built in LCD when a dual 2 GHz PowerMac is running at $2500 without the display (but, yes, more expandability). Not sure if the percieved separation is enough for Apple. If the iMacs use 1.8's and 2.0's, I expect the price tag to be substantial. If they use 1.6's, they may be a bit more reasonable. I'm thinking a 1.6 initial release, with a 1.8 down the road. Which doesn't excite me verry much.
just my 2 pence worth.

[kokkao]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I never thought I would say this, but nothing would ever make me buy the current iMac (with or without a G5 inside).

The enclosure better be more appealing. I've always felt like it was a little too strange for general use. I just hope the smallish outcry for a headless unit doesn't fall on deaf ears.

Isn't it amazing how tastes differ! I love the shape and design. I hope the new one is as good and has a similar screen set up!

[bradleykavin]

i dunno just for some reason...ive wanted a g5 since they came out...and my dad finally bought me one a month ago..it would really piss me off if they came out with an imac g5 that had similar speeds to the powermac...im weird like that

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by kokkao:
Isn't it amazing how tastes differ! I love the shape and design. I hope the new one is as good and has a similar screen set up!

I guess I'm just pissy because I'm going to be needing a new system and am having a hard time filling the gap. I need one or two pro tricks (dual monitors and additional internal HDs), but don't want to spend $2K on a system without a monitor.

Just call me grumpy. Who knows, perhaps the new iMac will make me sit up and take notice. I would love to see a reasonably priced 17" wide screen LCD option.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by bradleykavin:
i dunno just for some reason...ive wanted a g5 since they came out...and my dad finally bought me one a month ago..it would really piss me off if they came out with an imac g5 that had similar speeds to the powermac...im weird like that

Even if the CPU was similar in speed, it wouldn't run nearly as fast. There are so many other things going on inside. Video card, type of RAM, etc. etc. etc.

[MrForgetable]

i say 1.6 and 1.8

[PeteWK]

It seems to me that IBM isn't making a G5 slower than 1.6. The difference between pro and consumer looks to be single and dual processor.

PeteWK

[an0therdumbsn]

A processor slower than 1.5 or a headless unit just wont happen. It would narrow the market down too much. And from the pretty sad current imac sales figures i would think apple is doing everything they can to boost that number and make this as appealing as possible to the average guy.

[Zoom]

Folks, this is probably the sixth thread on this exact topic. Currently, we're discussing it in this thread. Let's keep this consolidated.

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I never thought I would say this, but nothing would ever make me buy the current iMac (with or without a G5 inside).

I felt the same way until I actually used one, and was amazed: it's the most ergonomically designed machine I have ever used. The display is, for all intents and purposes, infinitely adjustable and you forget about the base until you need it. As the day wore on, and I slouched more and more, I just tilted the monitor down more and more to retain good contrast. Compared to the 20 and 23 inch displays (I'm typing this on a 20) � which always have a little tilt to them � it's great.

I will probably buy a G5 iMac in 1Q05.

[hldan]

Processor speed may not necessarily play a major role in the price of the iMac G5. Seems as though you can get a rather cheap PC with 3.0 Ghz (without hyperthreading) for around $1000 or less. My point is it's very possible that we will see single processor 2.0 and 2.5 Ghz iMac G5's at first launch and at reasonable prices. Of course there will be limitations in the iMac that will still make the consumer buy the PowerMac but Apple may not undercut the processor speed since they have to be competative.

[Evan_11]

A single 2 ghz G5 with 20" display would move units. Especially if it's designed after the newest Cinema Displays which I think it will. Anyone else notice the similarites in design between the Cinema Displays and iPod mini? I see Apple going all aluminum in the near future and bringing back color to the iMac lineup.

[Shaktai]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
A single 2 ghz G5 with 20" display would move units. Especially if it's designed after the newest Cinema Displays which I think it will. Anyone else notice the similarites in design between the Cinema Displays and iPod mini? I see Apple going all aluminum in the near future and bringing back color to the iMac lineup.

Aluminum iMac? I really don't think so. It would raise the cost of production too much. They might go for an "aluminum appearence" or aluminum front panel but I think we will still see molded plastics for the most part.

Colors? Easy to do with the small ipods, but less likely with something as large as the iMacs. Again, primarily a cost of construction consideration. Though, I would'n't put color highlight panels of some sort out of the question.

I tend toward the 1.6 to 1.8 school of thought. The dome base is history I am guessing due to the known heat issues with the G5.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
A single 2 ghz G5 with 20" display would move units.

While killing many G5 tower sales...

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
While killing many G5 tower sales...

Nope. They are aimed at different markers, and any iMac, no matter which processor, is not a pro machine. I say this in a room of DP G4s and G5s, with nary an iMac in sight. Even our MP3 server is a G4.

[Randman]

I think the new iMacs will have to top up at 2Ghz. If not, the new design alone might not be enough for people to buy an iMac rather than wait for the G5 PowerBooks.

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by Randman:
I think the new iMacs will have to top up at 2Ghz. If not, the new design alone might not be enough for people to buy an iMac rather than wait for the G5 PowerBooks.

There are a number of reasons to go with a G5 iMac. I have been preparing to buy a new machine, so I will share my thought processes. In short, I found that a g% iMac will give me more bang for the buck. Assuming the pricing stays constant, for ~$2,000 I will get a G5 machine with a better graphics card and a larger display than I would get for ~$2,000 worth of Powerbook. Obviously I am discounting the main reason for getting a laptop �_mobility �_but my personal experience is that my current Powerbook rarely leaves my desk.

There is also the question of when G5 Powerbooks will appear, which could be anywhere in the next year.

[kcmac]

I'm with you Randman. And I think the entire unit/kit will cost $2100.

The 2 gig chips have been out for a year. The way shipping has gone recently, I doubt the iMac will ship till the end of the October. The PM will be at 3 gigs soon after the first of the year. That will make the speed separation even better for the PM crowd.

I think I paid $1900+ for my graphite iMac DVSE in 1999. I'm ready to do it again. I am dying to see what they will be but it almost doesn't matter any more. My family needs a new Mac and it won't be a laptop or a PowerMac.

[Commodus]

Actually, I wonder if PowerMac supplies are constrained because one or both of the lower clock speeds is shared by the iMac G5, and Apple is setting aside some of the processors so that they can be used in the iMac.

[Randman]

At home, I'm a die-hard portable user (1Ghz G4 iBook right now). And while I'd love a G5PB, I've been giving some consideration to getting an iMac G5 and keeping the iBook for portability, at least until the G5 PBs come out (and maybe go to rev b).

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by Randman:
At home, I'm a die-hard portable user (1Ghz G4 iBook right now). And while I'd love a G5PB, I've been giving some consideration to getting an iMac G5 and keeping the iBook for portability, at least until the G5 PBs come out (and maybe go to rev b).

I'm going to keep my Pismo around. If I really need a portable, I will have one.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
While killing many G5 tower sales...

Not necessarily. Many pro users want the dual processors and expandibility (though the current G5 isn't all that expandable). It would be a difficult decision though.

[kcmac]

Think Secret is reporting the specs of the new iMacs. Still rumors of course...

They say 1.6 and 1.8 gigs.

[Okonomiyaki]

Think Secret is calling it 1.6 and 1.8 with 17 and 20 inch monitors.

More interesting is what they're reporting for the form factor. All in one with the brains all located behind the monitor. Closest comparison is this sony:
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTE...ctSKU=PCVW700G

I find a lot of flaws in the sony design but then Apple isn't copying them exactly and there are some good things about that design as well. For one thing, it was a lot more popular in Japan than in the states because it takes up very little space and replaces a Computer, TV, Stereo, Tivo, and DVD player. The new iMac will not be cable ready as the vaio is but there are a few USB devices now that could make that happen for those who want that feature.

I love the old design with the adjustable neck but I suppose all good things... I predict this new design will sell even better than the old one in places where space is at a premium and just as well in places where it isn't.

One thing I found interesting was the educational model (is this the end of the emac?), I actually wish they'd dumb it down even further. Smaller hard drive, weaker video card, slower processor, if they could manage to bring the price down far enough they could sell loads of these to web cafes, libraries, and other places that need cheap terminals that don't need to do too much. Just by virtue of running OSX they'd be a lot more capable than Windows or even Linux machines in the same situation. And the form factor would be just about perfect.

[Krusty]

Hmmm, ... somehow the proposed design idea doesn't wash. Didn't Apple criticize other makers for mounting cpu/optical drives on the backs of their monitors in all-in-one machines ?? Doesn't a vertically oriented optical drive have performance limitations compared to a horizontally oriented one ? (at least, they used to). Perhaps this new iMac design will be a bit more of a shocker than the Sony design that it supposedly comes close to.

If the specs are correct for speed, base ram,etc , then I feel a lot better about my recent eMac purchase. 1.25mhz G4 ain't so great ... but with 1.5 gigs of ram, internal bluetooth, 160gb/8mb cache hard drive, and 8x SuperDrive all for around the price of a base model iMac. I think I can live with the speed hit in exchange for the astronomical price gap to get an iMac that otherwise matches those specs.

[bradleykavin]

how can someone say though that the g5 will be at 3.0 ghz by the end of the year..steve jobs announced it was difficult using 90 nm processors..i think the g5 will be 3 ghz by spring of next year, if not later...but taking that into consideration, the top of the line 2.5 is still extremely fast..i just dont want some imac being faster than my g5 thats all lol

[pliny]

i don't see the thinksecret specs as very impressive or competitive. if the guts of this thing cant be upgraded some i dont see it as being very popular. a $1500 desktop that cant be upgraded is not that attractive. the video card needs to be upgradeable at least.

[kcmac]

bradley.

I said after the first of the year with the 3 gig G5. Less than a single 2 gig on the top end iMac will cause an uproar. Especially at the Think Secret rumored price which they say may even go higher. Just rumors of course as are their specs...

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by BrunoBruin:


Keep in mind, too, that Apple absolutely needs to hit a home run with this machine. If they replace 1.0 and 1.25GHz G4s with, say, 1.2 and 1.4 G5s, the collective yawn will reverberate all the way to Cupertino. The iMac needs to be as fast as possible and as inexpensive as possible.

Yes! Which is why it should be headless.

seriously, the rumors about the 17" bottom of the line iMac have to be complete bull. They have to realize that the iMac is getting killed by sub $1,000 computers and the iMac market (AIO and expensive) is dying.

But maybe not, what the hell do I know? I just know what I personally would buy.. and what the people I know would buy..

[dannyillusion]

Ouch, the least they could do would be to put a 128MB version of the MX 5200 in the iMac. Preferably a completely different card but I guess this won't happen as the two smaller towers are shipping with the 64MB version. Maybe they'll do a small revision of the graphics cards on the power macs when introducing the new iMac... or not...

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by dannyillusion:
Ouch, the least they could do would be to put a 128MB version of the MX 5200 in the iMac. Preferably a completely different card but I guess this won't happen as the two smaller towers are shipping with the 64MB version. Maybe they'll do a small revision of the graphics cards on the power macs when introducing the new iMac... or not...

mosr is reporting the 20 inch will have the 128 meg version. We have a battle of unreliable rumor sites!

My gut says the 20-inch version will have the 128 meg card.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
mosr is reporting the 20 inch will have the 128 meg version. We have a battle of unreliable rumor sites!

My gut says the 20-inch version will have the 128 meg card.

I have a gut feeling these systems aren't going to sell well. I'll reserve judgment until they are released, but it sounds like a redesigned iMac with a CPU bump.

No big deal.

[Randman]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I have a gut feeling these systems aren't going to sell well. I'll reserve judgment until they are released, but it sounds like a redesigned iMac with a CPU bump.

No big deal.

Going to a G5 is a big deal.

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I have a gut feeling these systems aren't going to sell well. I'll reserve judgment until they are released, but it sounds like a redesigned iMac with a CPU bump.

No big deal.

Don't forget that the G5 automatically means a huge boost in bus speed, which means a huge boost in real time performance.

[BrunoBruin]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
seriously, the rumors about the 17" bottom of the line iMac have to be complete bull. They have to realize that the iMac is getting killed by sub $1,000 computers and the iMac market (AIO and expensive) is dying.

I'd have no problem with the 17-inch coming in at $1,299; after all, it's $1,799 now, with a 1.25GHz G4 on a 167MHz bus and no DDR RAM implementation.

But could we not also have a 15-inch for $999 or so? I just can't believe Fred Anderson would say TWICE that iMac sales are lousy because the competition is in the $1,000 range and then introduce a new model that's still $300 too expensive. It makes no sense.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
Don't forget that the G5 automatically means a huge boost in bus speed, which means a huge boost in real time performance.

I guess what I'm saying is... performance alone isn't going to make me drool over a new iMac. Yah, everyone wants a Dual 2.5 GHz G5... but what I'm looking for more then speed is flexibility. The G5 offers it, but at a $2000 ($1800 edu.) starting point.

I guess my issue is, does the all in one iMac mentality make sense with LCD screens?

[Randman]

If the rumours are true, then the design could be something to save space on a desk.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Randman:
If the rumours are true, then the design could be something to save space on a desk.

True... the funny thing is... I fell in love with the current (now no longer in production) iMac at first, when I thought you would be able to detach the LCD screen from the body.

Having a swing arm iMac with an LCD for under $1000 is my personal dream, but I keep that to myself

[Pierre B.]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
mosr is reporting the 20 inch will have the 128 meg version. We have a battle of unreliable rumor sites!

Unfortunately, MOSR is the unreliable rumor site. I don't believe they have any real sources and I read them only to have some fun.

Think Secret on the other hand, has a very good track over the years. It is the most reliable rumor site around, although sometimes they can get things wrong. Unfortunately, this seems to be rather the exception. And don't forget that the newest low and middle Power Mac models, come standard with a Geforce FX 5200 with 64 MB of VRAM. So it would not be a surprise to see the new iMac generation to have maximum 64 MB VRAM. And a GPU not better than an FX 5200.

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I guess what I'm saying is... performance alone isn't going to make me drool over a new iMac. Yah, everyone wants a Dual 2.5 GHz G5... but what I'm looking for more then speed is flexibility. The G5 offers it, but at a $2000 ($1800 edu.) starting point.

I guess my issue is, does the all in one iMac mentality make sense with LCD screens?

\

For me, yeah. I'm getting ready to buy a new machine to replace my current Powerbook. The current Powerbooks are G4s, and I don't expect the G5 Powerbooks out until 2Q or 3Q05. I can get a reasonably cheap G5 tower, but I am looking at a minimum of $500 to $700 for a decent LCD monitor. Given 1) I will be able to buy some configuration of a G5 iMac, with a 20 inch LCD, for ~$2,100 and 2) I don't do any seriously heavy lifting at home, the G5 iMac makes perfect sense to me.

[dannyillusion]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
mosr is reporting the 20 inch will have the 128 meg version. We have a battle of unreliable rumor sites!

My gut says the 20-inch version will have the 128 meg card.

Aaa, didn't see that... just a rumour but at least it's something. Anyway, as a possible customer I wouldn't opt for the 20" cause it's too big... I want the 128MB in the 17".

Maybe Apple thinks it is a little emberassing that the GPU memory would only be one "step" below the RAM included, hehe...