[android8]

Specs for the new iMac G5:


Education model:

- Single 1.6 GHz G5 Processor
- 17" widescreen display
- 40GB Ultra ATA hard drive
- 256MB DDR SDRAM
- 512K L2 cache
- NVIDIA GeForce4 MX med 32MB DDR video memory
- VGA video output, S-video and composite video output
- 10/100BASE-T Ethernet
- to FireWire 400 ports
- tre USB 2.0 ports
- to USB 1.1 ports on the keyboard.

"consumer-level" iMac:


- Single 1.6 GHz G5 Processor
- 17" widescreen display
- slot-loading Combo drive
- 80GB Serial ATA hard drive
- NVIDIA GeForce MX 5200 Ultra med 64MB DDR video memory
- 56K internal modem

Top iMac Model:

- Single 1.8GHz G5 processor
- 20" widescreen TFT display
- slot-loading SuperDrive
- 80GB Serial ATA hard drive
- optional 160GB Serial ATA hard drive
- NVIDIA GeForce MX 5200 Ultra graphics med 64MB DDR video memory
- 256MB DDR SDRAM

What the heck are they thinking!!!?? A 64 mb graphics-card...pfff....Even the lousiest and cheapest pc's comes with at least a 128 mb graphics-card....

Geez

[storer]

those specs may not be true though. ThinkSecret always have reliable sources...

[android8]

Originally posted by storer:
those specs may not be true though. ThinkSecret always have reliable sources...

Well....I sure hope you're right Storer...

[storer]

Originally posted by android8:
Well....I sure hope you're right Storer...

believe me... so do i

[hmurchison2001]

What the heck are they thinking!!!?? A 64 mb graphics-card...pfff....Even the lousiest and cheapest pc's comes with at least a 128 mb graphics-card....

So. While you can game on a Mac everyone knows that it's not a specialty. 64MB vs 128MB not a huge deal outside of gaming yet.

[fibroptikl]

Size doesn't matter in graphics card's, but rather what chipset it is.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally posted by fibroptikl:
Size doesn't matter in graphics card's, but rather what chipset it is.

Well... mostly. There's a lower limit below which a video card will be starved for VRAM, but it tends to be significantly lower than the amount of VRAM given a card. A 128 MB GeForce 5200 will be much slower than a 64 MB Radeon 9600, because the 9600 is a much faster chipset. Then again, the current iBooks and eMacs, with just 32 MB of VRAM for their Radeon 9200s, are probably starved. Increasing VRAM to 64 MB in these models (which would cost essentially nothing) would almost certainly improve performance by quite a bit.

[fibroptikl]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:


Well... mostly. There's a lower limit below which a video card will be starved for VRAM, but it tends to be significantly lower than the amount of VRAM given a card. A 128 MB GeForce 5200 will be much slower than a 64 MB Radeon 9600, because the 9600 is a much faster chipset. Then again, the current iBooks and eMacs, with just 32 MB of VRAM for their Radeon 9200s, are probably starved. Increasing VRAM to 64 MB in these models (which would cost essentially nothing) would almost certainly improve performance by quite a bit.

Of course there's a lower limit in which the chipset will be starved for memory; however the assumption that most people make is that 128MB is better than 64MB, but it all depends on what chipset it is and then go from there.

And to MN. (I live in Apple Valley.)

[SplijinX]

Why would the base model not have an optical drive, use an old GF4 MX card, and use Ultra ATA for harddrive instead of serial?

For the harddrive issue that would mean that Apple would have to make the motherboard handle both (Serial and Ultra ATA), or create two seperate motherboards and therefore adding cost?

Guess we'll have two weeks to ponder.

[Luca Rescigno]

That's rumored to be the cost-cutting education-only model.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by storer:
ThinkSecret always have reliable sources...

Eh, they seem to be right much more often than not; especially more often than other rumors sites.

[iREZ]

They recently missed with the 4G iPod. If I remember correctly, they stated that the new iPods would have colored wheels. Granted the wheel isn't white, but it was definetely not what I was thinking when I read "colored wheels".

[rareflares]

Think Secret also said we would be getting 2.0, 2.2, 2.6 updated PowerMacs before revising their story to the 2.5 Ghz we would end up recieving.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
So. While you can game on a Mac everyone knows that it's not a specialty. 64MB vs 128MB not a huge deal outside of gaming yet.

Actually, it makes a big difference with Exposé, if you're running dual screens and you have a lot of windows open. 64 MB -> stutter. 128 MB -> smooth.

This won't matter much on an iMac though, unless you do the spanning hack or something.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Actually, it makes a big difference with Exposé, if you're running dual screens and you have a lot of windows open. 64 MB -> stutter. 128 MB -> smooth.

This won't matter much on an iMac though, unless you do the spanning hack or something.

I would totally agree with you, but you can't dual monitor on an iMac without cracking the case.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I would totally agree with you, but you can't dual monitor on an iMac without cracking the case.

Huh?

There is a spanning hack that works with the iMac G4, and there is a VGA video output on the back of the iMac G4. There is no need to crack the case.

[andersbk]

Why won't they put FW800 in the new iMac??

[hmurchison2001]

Originally posted by andersbk:
Why won't they put FW800 in the new iMac??

Evidently those are "Pro" features

Apple irks me with unecessary stripping of features.

Gigabit is likely included in the chipset and turned off somehow. With Tiger having Xgrid built in you'd think Apple would want to have Gigabit ethernet in everything beyond the eMac/iBook

FW800. Ok let me get this straight. A homegrown Apple technology and Apple won't use it? I see nothing wrong with using an iMac to hook up FW800 drives or what about the musician that wants to use a FW800 interface for audio(ok ok I know those are $1400 lol but still)

[Luca Rescigno]

I hope it does get FW800. Leave it off the eMac and iBook, I don't care. But if they're going to be charging $1300+ for an iMac, they better not saddle it with a "consumer-level" feature set. $1300 is not a consumer price point, it is for prosumers. People who may not need internal expansion but may well take advantage of things like FW800 and/or Gigabit Ethernet.

[BenRoethig]

I don't think the problem is really with the iMac specs. I think the problem is that is iMac is thrust into a role that it is not well suited to. It is not a true mid level machine. However since Apple does not make such a machine, it is all we have between the eMac and the PowerMac.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by BenRoethig:
I don't think the problem is really with the iMac specs. I think the problem is that is iMac is thrust into a role that it is not well suited to. It is not a true mid level machine. However since Apple does not make such a machine, it is all we have between the eMac and the PowerMac.

Agree. Make the graphic card expendable, use every penny on throwing a non-crippled CPU and bus in there (push it to the max), and let such things as FW 800 and Giganet come second. Wishful thinking, but something like that might be what it takes for it to fill the roll as the mid-range brother in the Mac family IMHO. But radical changes like this wont happen unless Apple decides it's time to take a new direction with the new iMac, like i.e. making it the mid level machine.

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by sniffer:
Agree. Make the graphic card expendable, use every penny on throwing a non-crippled CPU and bus in there (push it to the max), and let such things as FW 800 and Giganet come second. Wishful thinking, but something like that might be what it takes for it to fill the roll as the mid-range brother in the Mac family IMHO. But radical changes like this wont happen unless Apple decides it's time to take a new direction with the new iMac, like i.e. making it the mid level machine.

I'm talking more about a new line. Call it the cMac. I was thing more along the lines of a single processor consumer tower based on the iMac's chipset with an AGP slot and a couple of PCI slots. Basically the Mac equivilant to this.

[Don Pickett]

Watergate is a scandal. The Plame affair is a scandal. What GPU Apple specs for the new iMac is NOT a scandal.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by BenRoethig:
I'm talking more about a new line. Call it the cMac. I was thing more along the lines of a single processor consumer tower based on the iMac's chipset with an AGP slot and a couple of PCI slots. Basically the Mac equivilant to this.

I am afraid that could kill a lot of the marked for the iMac, so it's potentially either your suggestion and ditch the iMac or refine the iMac to better fit the hole in the Mac line up. Not sure what'll be the best pat. I think the all-in-one iMac "idea" have a lot of potential. Agree with the need for a true mid-range Mac thought.

[nextadvantage]

I think they will come with 64mb ram....

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by sniffer:
I am afraid that could kill a lot of the marked for the iMac, so it's potentially either your suggestion and ditch the iMac or refine the iMac to better fit the hole in the Mac line up. Not sure what'll be the best pat. I think the all-in-one iMac "idea" have a lot of potential. Agree with the need for a true mid-range Mac thought.

I really don't think the iMac will have much of a market. It's not fast enough for a mid level machine and the entry level buyers aren't going to spend the extra $300-400 dollars for the LCD display. The iMac only sold 60k units for a reason, when it comes down to it, the machine is more about the coolness factor than it is a practical computer. People may like its looks. but in the end the money goes to the computer that suits their needs. The only reasons I would see getting an iMac would be desktop publishing, business where you need some power and space is at a premium, and for those who wanted an LCD display anyway and do not really care about the graphics. The eMac draws in the entry level users and the PowerMac draws in professionals and wealthy gamers who can afford the step price tag.

[PKRADD]

The iMac sold 60,000 units in the last quarter. The LCD iMac in all it's incarnations has sold over 600,000 units total at a time when desktops were not as popular as iBooks. It has been out for two years and is getting long in the tooth. Apple planned to have the replacement this July but as we know IBM let them down by not providing enough G5 chips. I am typing this on a 17" iMac LCD. It is a pleasure to use and with all the software bundled with it and Superdrive it is the same price as a Dell similarly equipped. Go to their site and see. Funny, it's only Mac "fans" that complain. PC magazines and PC centric writers have praised the current iMac. There's no such praise from some Apple fans. These are probably the same ones who said the original iPod was a joke and wouldn't sell. There's a lot of Thurrott in some people!

Oh yes, here's someone's guess on what the new iMac may look like. Obviously not exactly, but I'd say pretty close. It's nice, like the mini iPod.

http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofm...cr16400300.jpg

[sniffer]

Originally posted by BenRoethig:
The only reasons I would see getting an iMac would be desktop publishing, business where you need some power and space is at a premium...

Sounds very similar like the discussion of the Cube, thought the iMac LCD did come out a little better.

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by PKRADD:
The iMac sold 60,000 units in the last quarter. The LCD iMac in all it's incarnations has sold over 600,000 units total at a time when desktops were not as popular as iBooks. It has been out for two years and is getting long in the tooth. Apple planned to have the replacement this July but as we know IBM let them down by not providing enough G5 chips. I am typing this on a 17" iMac LCD. It is a pleasure to use and with all the software bundled with it and Superdrive it is the same price as a Dell similarly equipped. Go to their site and see. Funny, it's only Mac "fans" that complain. PC magazines and PC centric writers have praised the current iMac. There's no such praise from some Apple fans. These are probably the same ones who said the original iPod was a joke and wouldn't sell. There's a lot of Thurrott in some people!

Oh yes, here's someone's guess on what the new iMac may look like. Obviously not exactly, but I'd say pretty close. It's nice, like the mini iPod.

http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofm...cr16400300.jpg

I liken the current situation to going to a dealership looking for a mid sized truck and being given the choice between a Subaru Baja and a F-350 dually. The dealer doesn't sell mid-sized truck because they might interfere with Baja and F-350 sales. The car based Baja is nice and convienient but does not really meet your needs because it has a 2 foot bed. The dually F-350 is overkill and out of your price range. Another dealer accross town but he has the kind of truck you're looking. However this dealer will screw you over every time and you would rather not go to them. You're stuck between getting a truck that doesn't meet your needs or getting ripped off.

[Luca Rescigno]

Ooh... expanding on the analogy, said dealership has announced that they are going to start selling a new line of trucks. However, rather than start selling midsized trucks, they're just going to sell a luxury version of the Baja. It'll be much more comfortable and have a slightly better engine, but in the end it won't be a whole lot better despite the significantly higher cost. Thus, many people will flock to the used car dealership and buy used F-150s for a fraction of the price of a new F-350. Sure, they're not as powerful or brand new, but they cost slightly less than these "luxury Bajas" while offering a lot more power and versatility.

Gawd, I love car analogies .

[turtle777]

Originally posted by android8:
What the heck are they thinking!!!?? A 64 mb graphics-card...pfff....Even the lousiest and cheapest pc's comes with at least a 128 mb graphics-card....

Not true.

Many lousie PCs come with shared memory. Yes, that might be 128 MB or even 256MB, but still shared -> Bullcrap...

-t

[storer]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Not true.
Many lousie PCs come with shared memory. Yes, that might be 128 MB or even 256MB, but still shared -> Bullcrap...
-t

I know someone who paid for a 256MB graphics card in her PC and ended up with crap, crap performance. simply put, it borrowed memoe.

[Luca Rescigno]

I think the point is that when a PC actually DOES get a real video card (as all PCs in the iMac's price range do), it will have 128 MB of VRAM. Even if it's just a GeForce 5200, 128 MB is basically the standard amount now.

I applaud Apple for putting real video cards with dedicated VRAM in every Mac for years and years. Even older Macs with integrated video cards at least have dedicated VRAM. Hell, an old LC III+ I had a while back had its own supply of VRAM, and those were something like $999 back in 1993 (extremely cheap for a computer back then).

[DeathMan]

To me, the ideal situation would be an optional, detachable screen, and either a replaceable video card, or an option to put a really nice one in. If it had those two things, I think that it could come in at a good price point for the low end people, but could be upgradeable enough for those who wouldn't want to go into full-on $2500+ G5 Tower territory. Its that screen that is hiking the price up. Apple is charging over $500 for the 17 inch screen. If they could take $500 off the price of an iMac (without a screen), I believe it would sell.

As I recall, when the original iMac came out and was so popular, it was a pretty good performer. Since then they've fallen quite behind, and I'm glad to see them catching up with a G5. Lets hope Apple doesn't needlessly underpower these machines.

I'm not sure anyone looking for a pro machine would go for an iMac (except the cheapskate low-end design/desktop publishing industry) who will navigate toward the pc as well, if they haven't already. Anyone looking at the mac for the first time will see the underpowered specs and/or high price, and just decide to go for a pc.

[yoyoman]

Originally posted by PKRADD:
The iMac sold 60,000 units in the last quarter. The LCD iMac in all it's incarnations has sold over 600,000 units total at a time when desktops were not as popular as iBooks. It has been out for two years and is getting long in the tooth. Apple planned to have the replacement this July but as we know IBM let them down by not providing enough G5 chips. I am typing this on a 17" iMac LCD. It is a pleasure to use and with all the software bundled with it and Superdrive it is the same price as a Dell similarly equipped. Go to their site and see. Funny, it's only Mac "fans" that complain. PC magazines and PC centric writers have praised the current iMac. There's no such praise from some Apple fans. These are probably the same ones who said the original iPod was a joke and wouldn't sell. There's a lot of Thurrott in some people!

Oh yes, here's someone's guess on what the new iMac may look like. Obviously not exactly, but I'd say pretty close. It's nice, like the mini iPod.

http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofm...cr16400300.jpg

What the heck is this himac crap? It looks ugly.

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by yoyoman:
What the heck is this himac crap? It looks ugly.

Rumor has it that's basically what we're getting.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by yoyoman:
What the heck is this himac crap? It looks ugly.

Well, it will end up with something like that.
The CPU is behind the screen, so that leaves only certain room for "cool" design...

I'm sure it won't be too ugly. People get used to everything. Remember how many felt about the current iMac when it came out ? And now, everyone thinks it is THE sh!t...

-t

[Nodnarb]

Originally posted by yoyoman:
What the heck is this himac crap? It looks ugly.

Maybe you'll like this one better.

[yoyoman]

actually that does look better. They should some how go with oled to make it thiner or something.
http://theapplecollection.com/design...iMac-G5big.jpg


http://theapplecollection.com/design.../XServeBig.jpg

for a high end nice 30+ inches.

http://theapplecollection.com/design...iMacG5-4-1.jpg


what do yout think something like this for the powerbook/tablet apple has been filing a thing on.

http://theapplecollection.com/design.../PBG502big.jpg
http://theapplecollection.com/design.../PBG501big.jpg

Now that would work. Tablet/laptop and than just for movies with out lookin at the keyboard.

[brianbobcat]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
So. While you can game on a Mac everyone knows that it's not a specialty. 64MB vs 128MB not a huge deal outside of gaming yet.

wrong. I have a cube, and i run fianl cut express on it. I was told that I should change out my rage 128 to something better, seeing as how this card is 3+ years old.

-Brian

[brianbobcat]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
So. While you can game on a Mac everyone knows that it's not a specialty. 64MB vs 128MB not a huge deal outside of gaming yet.

wrong. I have a cube, and i run fianl cut express on it. I was told that I should change out my rage 128 to something better, seeing as how this card is 3+ years old.

-Brian

[tr]

Originally posted by brianbobcat:
wrong. I have a cube, and i run fianl cut express on it. I was told that I should change out my rage 128 to something better, seeing as how this card is 3+ years old.

-Brian

umm, despite the "128" in the name, a Rage 128 doesn't have 128 mb VRAM. it has 16 mb, if you are talking about the Rage 128 Pro that the cube originally came with.

and yes, you should change it out for something better if you can.

tr

[kokkao]

Originally posted by PKRADD:
The iMac sold 60,000 units in the last quarter. The LCD iMac in all it's incarnations has sold over 600,000 units total at a time when desktops were not as popular as iBooks. It has been out for two years and is getting long in the tooth. Apple planned to have the replacement this July but as we know IBM let them down by not providing enough G5 chips. I am typing this on a 17" iMac LCD. It is a pleasure to use and with all the software bundled with it and Superdrive it is the same price as a Dell similarly equipped. Go to their site and see. Funny, it's only Mac "fans" that complain. PC magazines and PC centric writers have praised the current iMac. There's no such praise from some Apple fans. These are probably the same ones who said the original iPod was a joke and wouldn't sell. There's a lot of Thurrott in some people!

Oh yes, here's someone's guess on what the new iMac may look like. Obviously not exactly, but I'd say pretty close. It's nice, like the mini iPod.

http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofm...cr16400300.jpg

Same machine - same pleasure!
I note that most of the attempts to second guess the looks tend to use a conventional ratio screen and not a wide one which is IMO more likely.

We can all moan but it ain't going to influence things one iota. The specs. were decided when.... Jan '04? Certainly a long time ago.

Ever thought about a gradual upgrade strategy? Apple start with roughly what TS has indicated and then every so often throw in a bit better kit and tweak the price down a little.

[jonbwfc1]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
So. While you can game on a Mac everyone knows that it's not a specialty. 64MB vs 128MB not a huge deal outside of gaming yet.

But isn't the iMac the machine of the whole Apple range that is most likely to be used for gaming? If the powermacs are for serious work and the portables are for people on the move, the iMac is the machine that is for the whole family and is therefore supposed to supply entertainment as well as 'non-professional' computing performance. That means decent performace in games. Not stellar - no reason to put high end 256MB cards in there - but putting in a pretty old video card and skimping on the RAM seems a pretty counter productive cost cutting measure to me.

Let's face it, anyone who has powermac money to spend on a games machine will buy a PC. The people who want iMacs want them to do more or less everything well enough. If it fails to do so, the technical reasons for the failure (bad graphics CPU, shared memory, whatever) will be irrelevant and incomprehensible to most buyers. They'll just see the reviews that say '...but it's no good for games..' and that will put some people off. All for the want of spending $10 rather than $30 on a video card CPU.

I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I for one can't believe that, given there are some pretty good budget chipsets around at the mo, Apple would be daft enough to leave the iMac lagging behind in an area which is actually of higher importance to the iMacs target market than any other market sector.