[Wiskedjak]

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

Perhaps not on a desktop, but to get upgradable graphics on something like the iMac or a laptop, you will be looking at 4-5k.

Yes, Apple could have put a better video card in, or made it an option. But, upgradable graphics on something like the iMac for under $3k is expecting quite a bit.

[george68]

Originally posted by Big Fat Octopus:
Well I'm not sure what all the "Video Card" fuss is about but I do know that my 1 Ghz G4 iMac seems to play Quake 3 just fine!

That game came out in 1999. I do not find it impressive that a brand new computer can reasonably play a game that is almost 5 years old.

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

Yep. 40-50 fps, with a decent amount of quality to the visuals. That's all I ask. When the crap hits hte fan, the FPS will drop to 25ish, which is fine. Unfortunatly with any new game you will not come close to that at full resolution.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by curtlivingston:
i thought that games were for children.

Considering the AVERAGE age of a 'gamer' in the USA is 29, you're very very very very wrong. Gaming is a multi BILLION dollar industry.

Nobody has a clue what video card is in their machine. (i do, but i am a nerd)

Most younger males do.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by Stogieman:
Ok, let's say Apple does put a faster video card into the iMac G5? Will that allow it to run Counter Strike, Half Life 2 or the hundreds of other PC only games?

We GET most of the good games. There are a few exceptions (counter strike, half life), but we get MOST of the good ones.

Will your friends finally dump their PCs and get a iMac G5 if it had a Radeon 9800?

All of them? No. Some of them? Yes.

I doubt it.

Think of how many apple users have a seperate PC just for gaming.

[MrForgetable]

I would have liked a BTO option for a better video card or at least a bigger one. But that's all I have to complain about.

[Sparkletron]

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

- Rob

This is an excellent point. I found that once I acquired a PC, it really took the edge off my need to upgrade my Mac. Now I won't be upgrading until perhaps next year. And when I do I will be considering a lower-priced iMac over a PowerMac (a headless iMac remains my dream).

All this because Apple just doesn't take gaming seriously.

This is unfortunate because games are what drive the entire PC industry to build faster machines. Games and perhaps digital video editing (but that's a tiny market by comparison). Why else do we need faster PCs? Certainly not for email, Web browsing, and WP.

The irony for me is that there are aspects of the G5 PowerMac that I would like to have, but the processor is the *least* compelling factor! The relatively silent operation, the spartan solid metal chassis, the faster DVD drive, the optical digital out--these are the things I find most compelling. Once I take gaming out of the equation, the G5 is overkill.

But of course I don't *want* to take gaming out of the equation; I have too; Apple left me with little choice.

-S

[Sparkletron]

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

You're right. But without decent hardware, Apple will never entice more developers to port their stuff. And if you saddle the average Mac with a crappy GPU that isn't even upgradeable, then the few developers we have are likely to vanish as well.

The point is that Apple will only grow its marketshare when it embraces one of the largest PC markets available: the gaming market.

-S

[macgfx]

FYI, Core-Image needs a GPU with an FPU the R9200/RV200 R200 chip does not have one. Look for an upgrade? to the 5200fx for the iBook and eMac before Tiger ships.

Some may want to look at this.

The new iMac is just more of the same SB that has made it fail to sell before. The first iMac sold well for awhile, but sales fell off quick. Most of the early sales were to PC users.

I've heard of lots of tower owners who would have upgraded to the iMac or G5 tower owners who would have gotten one for the extra Mac. The deal breaker was the 5200fx.

Would a 9600 128MB bring far better sales to the iMac? no

Better sales? yes

Apple crunched the #'s and settled with the 5200fx 64MB. Only time and sales will tell if this were a mistake.

Also, just because the iMac has been this or has been that does not mean it has to be this or that. The iMac name implies home/personal use NOT POOR Performance or AIO.

AIO, Apple has offered a great price for those who are looking for:
17" LCD/G5
20" LCD/G5

,But what about G5's with out LCD's. Apple Has limited the iMac G5 to those looking for an LCD no less than 17" no greater than 20". How smart is that?

Apples market share speaks for it's failure to sell to "most people".
Apples successes in making $$$ has made it not matter that much.

To say most iMac buyers won't care that they are getting a $40 gpu in a $1300+ Mac is false. Most would care, some just won't know.

If Apple makes money with the iMac G5 as it is then they have done what is Best.

If they revise it with a better GPU in the next 90Days we know why.

If it does not ever sell well, lose the LCD.

LCD's are not New lots of people have them and they are not something you just buy every time you upgrade.

[Sparkletron]

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

Exactly. And in all that time, when has Apple ever seriously attempted to woo gamers and game developers?

Since Apple's strategy of ignoring gamers doesn't seem to be doing much for their market growth, perhaps they should try a new strategy.

I think it's pretty sad that the iPod is now a stronger brand name for Apple than the Mac, so much so that the new iMac has iPod written all over it.

-S

[kcmac]

Originally posted by george68:
Think of how many apple users have a seperate PC just for gaming.

Think of how many of us Mac (and PC) users have consoles.

My family has an XBox and a Playstation. Both together cost less than a uber cheap PC or a fancy graphic card. More games. Use on a LARGE tv screen where the family can more easily and more comfortably enjoy the experience. Easily transported to friends and relatives homes or to a more private area of the house.

[Sparkletron]

Originally posted by kcmac:
Think of how many of us Mac (and PC) users have consoles.

My family has an XBox and a Playstation. Both together cost less than a uber cheap PC or a fancy graphic card. More games. Use on a LARGE tv screen where the family can more easily and more comfortably enjoy the experience. Easily transported to friends and relatives homes or to a more private area of the house.

It doesn't matter how LARGE your TV is if the resolution is limited to 320 raster lines and the color gamut is crappy NTSC. And if you think a console is portable, imagine the new iMac. Too bad it's got no game...

-S

[kcmac]

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
And if you think a console is portable, imagine the new iMac. Too bad it's got no game...

-S

Announcement: The iMac cannot play games. Playing games on consoles with crappy TV screens is no good. Sucks even.

The only enjoyable way for Everyone to play games is on a computer. Don't worry though, if you have a good enough game card it will really kick ass!

Until the next card comes along, and the next and the next and the next and the next....

[ecrelin]

Apple has historically used some sort of distorted beancounter oriented "customer positioning projection" to figure their price points and configurations. Regardless of heat and power issues they need to be providing a premium product especially in the higher end model for people who want this type of form factor. If any of you geniuses think that any of the potential iMac customers would even consider a G5 tower as a realistic "next" step in the selection process you need help. This is the only "consumer" machine they make. The typical iMac is a family machine and with a DVD player in the car and Gameboys and Xboxes etc etc it NEEDS to be a good gaming machine, not the best but it has to be able to run common games competently on the ORIGINAL configuration, that's why 256 Megs of RAM and the handicapped video are THE issue. 160 Gb drive? Put the 80 Gig drive in and spend that money on the video, whatever, I've been putting technology in people's hands for 20 years, the customer hasn't changed at all, they don't appreciate the song and dance, $200. wouldn't be a deal breaker if the reputation was that you get everything you need, but its not and the perception is already set. There is marketshare to grab right now and its only going to grow exponentially, shoot yourself in the foot now and you'll rue the day. Dispell the notion that Apple is overpriced for what you get. I will buy one for my family but I will forever feel that I paid too much for what I got because I will not be buying another for four years and the 5200 will absolutely suck then, I'd pay the $200 now without a seconds hesitation. They are responding to customer expectations in the enterprise product market but they haven't changed since the beginning in the consumer market and they have NEVER been successful there. Maybe they should listen to some of this input.

[pliny]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Perhaps not on a desktop, but to get upgradable graphics on something like the iMac or a laptop, you will be looking at 4-5k.

Yes, Apple could have put a better video card in, or made it an option. But, upgradable graphics on something like the iMac for under $3k is expecting quite a bit.

And what is wrong with this picture?

[turtle777]

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

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

Exactly right !

Why should Apple waste time with those notorious whiners...

-t

[H * � �]

Equally important is the soldered on CPU ...for me anyways.
I won't buy anything where it isn't in a socket.

Even though nobody has released a CPU upgrade for my MDD PM, I feel better that it's at least possible.

[hldan]

Originally posted by george68:
NO, it CANNOT. That's the ****ing point, and that's why a lot of us are NOT going to buy one! Everything about hte new iMac is TOP END, except for the videocard which was outdated over a YEAR ago.

- Rob

A lot of us not buying the iMac may really only be you. Just because people are disappointed at one thing (and it's a really small thing) doesn't mean they won't buy one just because they say on this forum they won't.
If people shun the idea of buying this beauty only because it's not the ideal heavy gaming machine then that's basically saying they weren't going to use it for anything else because it will kick the $hit out of most PC's in it's class for overall features and style.
Not necessary to even mention the OS.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by H * � �:
Equally important is the soldered on CPU ...for me anyways.
I won't buy anything where it isn't in a socket.

Even though nobody has released a CPU upgrade for my MDD PM, I feel better that it's at least possible.

I once thought the same, but for me, it never paid off.
By the time you would want to upgrade your CPU, GPU, HD and RAM, you might as well buy a new computer.

-t

[iBorg]

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

You see, that's been the whole point! No one is saying that the stock iMac should have some $400 video card! All it would take to make alot of potential iMac-buyers happy, would be to give us the BTO option of giving Apple another $100-200 of my hard-earned money to upgrade the video card. If you're happy with the 5200, fine - don't option up!



iBorg

[iBorg]

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

i dare you.

Ummmmm ..... how about if you just avoid a forum topic that you don't like to read?



iBorg

[iBorg]

Originally posted by kcmac:
Pretty much spot on.

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

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

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

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

Ain't gonna happen. Get over it already.

I can barely wait for my G5 iMac to arrive.

Did you read Link's post? That was right on-the-nuts, and explains why for the majority of we who refuse to buy this crippled G5 are not buying - and it's not all about gaming! Please scroll back and read Link's post ....

And please: Apple Apologists - stop obsessing that "it's only you gaming nerds - everyone else is happy," 'cuz it ain't so!



iBorg

[klinux]

Originally posted by iBorg:
And please: Apple Apologists - stop obsessing that "it's only you gaming nerds - everyone else is happy," 'cuz it ain't so!



iBorg

Exactly. The gaming industry is worth billions of $$$. And I am too lazy to search but the quarterly PS2/Xboxes/N64 units shipped is probably higher than the entire Mac line!

Older folks are fine with G3s and older PCs as their tasks are not CPU/GPU intensive. It is the younger folks who places a lot of demands on the CPU/GPU e.g. gamers who are buying the new machines.

[Rev-O]

I don't think there is any way around the arguement that even a marginally better video card available as a BTO option would have broadened the new iMacs appeal. Given it's design as an AIO unit, it should be as funtional as possible, taking into consideration market positioning and pricing issues. It does seem somewhat short sighted that Apple didn't make a better video card available for their new pride and joy. Kinda invalidates the AIO concept when people interested in gaming plop a big ass beige box gaming pc next to their small footprint iMac.

[george68]

Originally posted by klinux:
Older folks are fine with G3s and older PCs as their tasks are not CPU/GPU intensive. It is the younger folks who places a lot of demands on the CPU/GPU e.g. gamers who are buying the new machines.

Exactly... old people are fine with their shitty computers. So who the hell is going to buy the new imac??!?!

- Rob

[jamesa]

Originally posted by hldan:
A lot of us not buying the iMac may really only be you. Just because people are disappointed at one thing (and it's a really small thing) doesn't mean they won't buy one just because they say on this forum they won't.

It's not just him, I'll attest to that. He's by far the most vocal, and putting aside the sometimes rough arguments, I agree with most of what he's said.

If people shun the idea of buying this beauty only because it's not the ideal heavy gaming machine then that's basically saying they weren't going to use it for anything else because it will kick the $hit out of most PC's in it's class for overall features and style.

That's not in dispute. But overall features means very little when something you want to be there, isn't there, can't be optioned to be there, and can't be replaced when you get the machine.

Ever heard the saying, "a system is as weak as its weakest link"? Right now, the iMac's weakest link is a four-year, outdated and slow graphics card, that is wh00ped by most of the graphics cards in the portable line up.

We're not talking about changing the price of the machine significantly. I reckon Apple are paying roughly $25/machine for the current GPU. For a company that has shifted so much onto the 3D GPU (quartz extreme, core video) shipping a $30 part that is so integral to a $2000 machine is just lunacy.

Not necessary to even mention the OS.

No doubt, and if we didn't agree with you we wouldn't be here with our pitch forks.

-- james

[JustinD]

Eesh. Check out Barefeat's tests for Motion:

http://www.barefeats.com/motion.html


Completely dependent on the video card. The 9700 Mobility knocks 20 seconds off the render preview times compared to the GeFX 5200!

And don't give me that 'get a pro machine' crap, some people that would love to buy and use Motion can't afford a PowerMac G5. Sure Motion will run, but they could have made it all the more better by putting a LAPTOP video card as a BTO OPTION in the damn thing.

[Sparkletron]

Originally posted by stevec999:
Being in the IT department I get a lot of questions from people buying computers. Not once has anyone asked me what video card the machine has in it. The questions are more about running Office and outlook with some web surfing tossed in.

One hardly needs a G5 for that, let alone a serious GPU.

Originally posted by stevec999:
Most people do not use their computers to play games (ok solitaire is common). Most people want a word processor/spreadsheet and the ability to read email and surf the web.

Well *someone* is playing games on their computer. Otherwise one would be hard-pressed to explain why gaming is a $30 billion dollar a year industry--larger than the movie industry. One would be hard-pressed to explain why CompUSA wastes all that expensive retail space displaying row after row of product that apparently no one buys.

The truth is more likely that either your demographics are not typical or the folks you advise simply don't tell you about their gaming habits.

-S

[macgfx]

Such is this beast that Apple invented.

For those here that say,"It only matters to Gamers" : That's just not so, you have not been around the Mac OS long enough to see what is right in front of you. Tell me how is the speed of the GUI in OS X on a Rage Pro or Rage II. These are "supported" Mac's are they not.

I do concede that it has always been this way in the lowend Mac be it iMac ,LC, what have you, but the iMac is NOT the LOWEND the eMac IS.

Also, I'm with us not against us as some of you seem to be. We are saying, "We're Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore." We're saying it with our MONEY and voicing it here.

I do have respect for others who think the iMac as-is has value and do like hearing counter points, but those Trolling in just to bash anyone who thinks the sun don't shine out Apples *** need to sit down and come up with a counter point rather than posting only to enrage.

For those who think this is pointless "talk" that will not help anything, while you could be right, I have been in many such discussions that do lead to a solution.

[BenG]

Originally posted by stevec999:
Most people do not use their computers to play games (ok solitaire is common). Most people want a word processor/spreadsheet and the ability to read email and surf the web.

...

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

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

Quoting from this report

in 2003, games remained the dominant PC software product, accounting for one-third of all revenue and more than one-half of the unit sales.

And from this report

The PC game software industry ... topping $1.2 billion in sales in 2003

I'll agree that all those business PCs aren't being used for games, but the iMac is being positioned as a consumer machine. It should be the one that should be able to play them well. I'd buy an iMac if it had a better video card (as an option, even). I know I can buy a tower or a game console. I guess I just feel that if I'm going to put down $1500 on a new computer, I'd like it to handle games well.

Ben

[turtle777]

Originally posted by BenG:
in 2003, games remained the dominant PC software product, accounting for one-third of all revenue and more than one-half of the unit sales.

Apple is soooo gonna die because they are not going after those gamers...
Apple death prediction # 4,974,877,345 !

-t

[BenG]

Where did I say anything like that?

It's just that the sales seem to show that a lot of people still want to play games on their computers, and that it isn't some tiny minority.

I'm certainly not privy to the engineering decisions involved in designing the iMac, but I can't think of a reason that a chip that works in a Powerbook wouldn't work in the iMac.

Ben

[turtle777]

Originally posted by BenG:
It's just that the sales seem to show that a lot of people still want to play games on their computers, and that it isn't some tiny minority.

So ? You can play games on the new iMac.

In case you are new to the discussion:

It is highly unlikely that the majority of those who want to use a Mac for games will need a high-powered 3D GPU.

-t

[Arkham_c]

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

Well, shop somewhere else.

There are enough games out for the Mac that you could make a full-time job out of playing them. I could waste 50-60 hours a week on World of Warcraft alone if my wife would let me. I've got half a dozen games on my "to-buy" list once I tire of WoW (if I ever do -- damn that game is addictive), and I only game on my Mac since my PCs are too slow for modern games.

If you want to buy Mac games, go to:

1) Apple Store
2) Amazon
3) MacMall/MacConnection

Don't bother with Fry's or CompUSA, since their selection is poor at most locations. Most games that sell well on the PC make their way to the Mac.

[Simon]

Originally posted by turtle777:
So ? You can play games on the new iMac.

Yeah, solitaire. Every 3d game will suck just the way it sucks on my 5200-powered PB. No matter what G5 may be in the iMac.

Turtle, your blind Apple defense is slowly starting to get on my nerve: Just because you don't need a faster GPU does not mean everybody or even a large majority doesn't either. How dare you tell other people they have no right to choice because you don't need it. Imagine how pissed you'd be if you only had the choice of buying a $400 more expensive iMac because Apple only incorporated a 6800 Ultra in there... Ya see?

I respect your opinion on this matter and I agree with you that the iMac G5 is a really great computer, but please stop presuming other people's needs based on your own. Sometimes people should agree to disagree. There is not just one right here.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Simon:
How dare you tell other people they have no right to choice

WTF ? Never said anything like that.

Maye YOU are taking things too personal.
After all, it's not ME, but Apple who doesn't give the choice !

-t

[Sparkletron]

I wish Apple would take a good hard look at the mini-PC revolution, at the kind of expandability most people want:

1. memory
2. HD
3. GPU
4. CD/DVD
5. CPU

Mini-PCs are tiny. Cube-like. I can swap out any of the aforementioned components as needed. Overclocking is built into the firmware. Metal chassis. Costs less. I'd be hard-pressed to explain to a PC user why he should consider Mac hardware--other than the fact that it runs the Mac OS.

-S

[DaBeav]

The video card complaint is valid. Considering that the iMac uses a high res LCD, especially on the 20", an FX5200U just doesn't cut it. Granted, for an AIO design, it works well. Most other AIOs on the PC side have integrated graphics, which sucks even more. At the very least, Apple should quit being so stingy with the VRAM. A faster GPU would also help out a little with iMovie and FCE.

I have an XBox for gaming and it works well (and if you have an HDTV, most new games support higher resolution), so it's not necessarily a deal breaker for me. I can play several games way before the Mac port is available (Halo, 007: Nightfire) and they're heavily optimized for the console hardware. Still, some games do work better on a computer.

The GPU is not the only reason I'd wait. Honestly, I'd wait until the next revision to make sure the design and/or manufacturing kinks have been worked out. I imagine they might swap out the GPU, even if it's only for the marginally better FX5500.

If gaming is completely irrelevant, then Apple should remove its Games page and quit bundling 3D games with its consumer machines. Like it or not, there are plenty of people who would gladly fork over the dough for an iMac, but the lack of GPU options will likely keep them from sealing the deal. Honestly, there's no reason the 9600XT shouldn't be the standard for the G5 tower. That would clear the path to put a faster GPU (5700?) in the iMac.

You'd think a company that espouses the video capabilities of its OS and other software would put in a better GPU to ensure good performance, even in its consumer machines.

[hldan]

Originally posted by jamesa:
[B]It's not just him, I'll attest to that. He's by far the most vocal, and putting aside the sometimes rough arguments, I agree with most of what he's said.



That's not in dispute. But overall features means very little when something you want to be there, isn't there, can't be optioned to be there, and can't be replaced when you get the machine.

Ever heard the saying, "a system is as weak as its weakest link"? Right now, the iMac's weakest link is a four-year, outdated and slow graphics card, that is wh00ped by most of the graphics cards in the portable line up.




No doubt, and if we didn't agree with you we wouldn't be here with our pitch forks.

-- james

I understand your point but the fact of the matter is regardless of the rants in this forum the majority of the people complaining will end up owning Rev A iMac G5. That's the way of the consumer. I work in a retail environment and I hear customers complain everyday saying things like;
"Everytime I come to your store I get bad service"!!!
So, I'm thinkin', " but your whiney ass keeps coming back"!

I'm sure anyone one of you that work in retail like I do knows what I'm sayin'.

My point is the same complaining consumer has a "CHOICE" but still buys.

I'm sure at least some of the complainers about the iMac G5 have already placed an order for one, they are just afraid to admit it. They just wanna keep complaining.
You can always wait for Rev B. What's wrong with that?

[Simon]

Originally posted by turtle777:
WTF ? Never said anything like that.

After all, it's not ME, but Apple who doesn't give the choice !

Yes, but instead of accepting the fact that some people aren't happy with the lack of choice Apple offers, you excessively defend the company, even if it means arguing against rational ground. Apple needs criticism to stay on top not blind followers.

[iBorg]

Originally posted by Simon:
Yes, but instead of accepting the fact that some people aren't happy with the lack of choice Apple offers, you excessively defend the company, even if it means arguing against rational ground. Apple needs criticism to stay on top not blind followers.

I've come to the conclusion that "turtle" simply enjoys p*ssing people off, just for sh*ts & giggles. There's no way that he/she could be that stupid .....



iBorg

[stevec999]

Sparkletron writes

"One hardly needs a G5 for that, let alone a serious GPU."

You are right, that was my point. Most people do not need a lot of power.


Sparkletron writes

"Well *someone* is playing games on their computer. Otherwise one would be hard-pressed to explain why gaming is a $30 billion dollar a year industry--larger than the movie industry. One would be hard-pressed to explain why CompUSA wastes all that expensive retail space displaying row after row of product that apparently no one buys.

The truth is more likely that either your demographics are not typical or the folks you advise simply don't tell you about their gaming habits."

Yes someone is playing games, no doubt about tha. My point is that most people use computers for things more than games and for most gaming is not a major part of the purchase decision.

As far as demopgrahics go I deal with a cross section of people and gaming is not on the list of important things to do.If i recall correctly the last numbers I saw put the gaming group in the 20-29 age group. This is a small subset of the total population that uses computers.

I think most gamers tend to hang with gamers becuase of their common interests (not a bad thing) so they tend to only see that all of their friends are into games so it it important to them.

Many people will play a game now and then (my wife plays the sims on her 12" PB) but they do not need high powered graphics cards to do it. If your into the online FPS games you need the higher frame rates to compete. I do play games (even being an old guy, 47) but I use a xbox and gamecube hooked to a HiDef TV so I have no interest to play then on my PCs.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by iBorg:
I've come to the conclusion that george68 simply enjoys p*ssing people off, just for sh*ts & giggles. There's no way that he/she could be that stupid .....

Fixinated�



-t

[jamesa]

Originally posted by hldan:
I understand your point but the fact of the matter is regardless of the rants in this forum the majority of the people complaining will end up owning Rev A iMac G5. That's the way of the consumer. I work in a retail environment and I hear customers complain everyday saying things like;
"Everytime I come to your store I get bad service"!!!
So, I'm thinkin', " but your whiney ass keeps coming back"!

I'm sure anyone one of you that work in retail like I do knows what I'm sayin'.

My point is the same complaining consumer has a "CHOICE" but still buys.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept that as a legitimate justification for Apple's choice.

It applies perfectly to Microsoft, and it's an attitude that Apple simply cannot afford to take.

-- james

[hldan]

Originally posted by jamesa:
I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept that as a legitimate justification for Apple's choice.

It applies perfectly to Microsoft, and it's an attitude that Apple simply cannot afford to take.

-- james

Apple CAN afford to take any chance they want. They would have been dead by now if it wasn't for the iMac in the first place.
All the iMacs throughout the line have sold very well and will continue to do so. I bought the FP iMac when it first came out with a 15" screen, 800Mhz and superdrive, then a couple of months later comes the new 17" model with a slightly better GPU and a much larger HD. I wasn't too happy but I have bought the latest 17" Powerbook, latest iPod this year and still have the iMac.

Microsoft has been doing this crap for years. They keep promising the Windows OS will get better and consumers kept trusting them and no promises have been kept. We all kept paying for 95/98/2000/XP and XP has been the most vulnerable to attacks yet the consumer still buys a new PC and will spend more money on anti-virus hoping for better.

I am not an Apple apologist but if you have noticed Apple has not merged with any company like HP/Compaq or has had to result to online sales only to protect profit margins like Dell and IBM or has had to "BEG" other companies for deals like Real.
You say Apple can't afford to take chances like disappointing a few consumers over the lackluster GPU? If you think things like that will make someone switch back to using a PC full time and deal with all the drama, lack of great apps, lack of security and stability issues then you are on drugs!!!!

[JustinD]

Hehehe want to get more PO'd? The Education model iMac has a different video card.



Talk about getting screwed on the middle and high end. If they're making 2 different LoBos already, they should have just made a third one available as BTO. Something's definitely rotten in the state of Apple! Methinks they were just keeping an eye on the cost and absolutely nothing else.

They're completely eliminating one of their own markets: people that want to run their pro apps but can't afford a PowerMac. (mainly talking Motion, which is 95% dependent on the GPU).

Boooo!

[iBorg]

Originally posted by hldan:
Apple CAN afford to take any chance they want....You say Apple can't afford to take chances like disappointing a few consumers over the lackluster GPU?

LOL - are you serious? With a 2.2% market share, every single sale counts! Yes, Apple has alot of cash in the bank, and isn't "going under," but each sequential drop in market share means that developers have even less reason to develop Mac products, something that even "Apple Apologists�" should be concerned with! And once again, it's not all about gaming! This applies to desktop publishing, word processing, presentation software, etc., etc., etc. Apple makes some fine products (I've bought most of them, I think!), but we need 3rd party software developers, or I will eventually not be able to do things on my beloved Mac that I can do on a PC, don't you see? I love Mac OS, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD - but if I don't have any 3rd party choices (e.g. Photohop, Illustrator, MS Office, Quicken, etc.), I, and many, many, many other Mac users would have to "go to the Dark Side."

They would have been dead by now if it wasn't for the iMac in the first place.

True, but that was 1998, and how much has market share dropped despite this? (It was over 5% back then) Apple has once again debuted a great iMac redesign, but the crippled video they chose is going to cost them sales, which is a shame!

Microsoft has been doing this crap for years. They keep promising the Windows OS will get better and consumers kept trusting them and no promises have been kept.

Heh heh heh - M$ is evil, but despite the fact that we Apple-lovers love to hate anything M$, it is undeniable that each successive Windows version has been noticeably better than the last one, and Windows Xp isn't that bad! Yes it has security and virus concerns, but the GUI has become increasingly more Mac-like, is quite easy for a novice to use, and with basic knowledge, you can beef up security and virus-protection (especially if you browse the internet with Firefox instead of IE.)

If you think things like that will make someone switch back to using a PC full time and deal with all the drama, lack of great apps, lack of security and stability issues then you are on drugs!!!!

Market share continues to dwindle each year, meaning that each year's crop of computer buyers is increasingly more PC-centric. Marketing analysis of Apple's "Switcher Campaign" indicates that it hasn't worked, despite our best hopes. The new G5 iMac was/is a great chance to convince more people to "go Mac," and Apple didn't need a reason to alienate any buyers. Well over 90% of the market is just fine with "all the drama, lack of great apps (?), lack of security and stability issues" without "being on drugs."



iBorg

[chrisutley]

Maybe because the uber geeks that read this forum will not dictate how Apple attacks the bulk of their target market. You assume because lots of people on MacNN complain about these things instantly translates into a gaping hole in the iMac lineup. Trust me, if such configurations made sense for Apple to sell - they would sell them. Most of the people that complain aren't even legit potential buyers of these machines, and the ones that are don't amount to a large enough market to justify another stock configuration. This also takes into account the complainers that will give in and buy anyway.

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

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

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

[jamesa]

Originally posted by chrisutley:
Maybe because the uber geeks that read this forum will not dictate how Apple attacks the bulk of their target market. You assume because lots of people on MacNN complain about these things instantly translates into a gaping hole in the iMac lineup. Trust me, if such configurations made sense for Apple to sell - they would sell them.

I have one word for you.

Cube.

Apple don't always get it right, no matter how much you might wish it were the case.

-- james

[Sparkletron]

Originally posted by stevec999:
Sparkletron writes

"One hardly needs a G5 for that, let alone a serious GPU."

You are right, that was my point. Most people do not need a lot of power.

Well then by your own admission, most people don't need the new iMac. Apple could offer a new iMac with a G4 in it for considerably less. Instead, they are forcing what you believe to be most of their base to purchase a CPU they don't really need. That's an interesting assertion.

Originally posted by stevec999:
Yes someone is playing games, no doubt about tha. My point is that most people use computers for things more than games and for most gaming is not a major part of the purchase decision.

That doesn't sound accurate to me and certainly doesn't correspond with any facts I have seen. Yes, most people use computers for a variety of things--not just games. But it doesn't follow from this statement that therefore gaming is not a major part of the purchasing equation.

http://www.idsa.com/pressroom.html

"50% of all Americans play video games." That means approximately one out of every two people you advise at work plays video games. That they don't bother to mention this to you may be due to a variety of reasons. You cannot claim that just because they DON'T mention it to you, that it ISN'T important to them. That's pretty much your entire argument. One can imagine many things that are important in our lives that we just don't bother to mention to our local IT guy...

Originally posted by stevec999:
If i recall correctly the last numbers I saw put the gaming group in the 20-29 age group. This is a small subset of the total population that uses computers.

"41% of most frequent game players are over 35 years old."

I think there is a tendancy to believe that one's immediate experience represents the norm. I don't doubt the validity of your experiences at work. But please understand that you are basing your conclusions on an assumption, that because the people you work with don't mention games that games are not an important purchasing factor. Polls and sales show otherwise.

-S

[turtle777]

Originally posted by jamesa:
I have one word for you.

Cube.

Apple don't always get it right, no matter how much you might wish it were the case.

-- james

Right.

And Apple learned from that lesson, and has had much more success with their iMac linup in the last 2 years.
With this new iMac, they are changing nothung in their strategy. The old iMac only had a medium GPU, so does the new one.

Customizable small computers ?
Doesn't work, the Cube is an excellent example.
Even though you were able to change the GPU in the Cube, you'd pay way to much. For most users, it just doesn't make sense.
That's why Apple even doesn't go down that road anymore.

-t