[siflippant]

Originally posted by pgolf:
The new iMac is ALL HEAD A headless one would actually be Macless. lol

LOL!

[Stogieman]

Originally posted by Dave N:
OK, here's my official gripe:

Why doesn't Apple put "real world" photos of their products on their site? All of the pictures of their products look like some sort of idealized artist's rendition of the real thing. When a new Apple item comes out, I always have to wait until someone here buys it and posts some pics before I can tell what it really looks like. Those photos that someone put up of the iMacs at the Apple Expo were better than what's on the Apple site.

You mean like this one? ("real world" picture is located in the software section on Apple's iMac page.)

[teknopimp]

i like it. IMO it carries on the tradition of the imac well while not getting too close to the other mac product lines. nice clean design that works and decent performance for it's inteded use.

good thread BTW, it's nice to see all the b*tches show up.

[hldan]

Originally posted by Dave N:
OK, here's my official gripe:

Why doesn't Apple put "real world" photos of their products on their site? All of the pictures of their products look like some sort of idealized artist's rendition of the real thing. When a new Apple item comes out, I always have to wait until someone here buys it and posts some pics before I can tell what it really looks like. Those photos that someone put up of the iMacs at the Apple Expo were better than what's on the Apple site.

LOL!!! That's funny but true!!!!

[Todd Madson]

I also have been pondering the inclusion of the lowest end video
card available from the vendor in question and I just thought of
something:

Could the low-end-y ness of this card be the reason it was included?

In other words, faster, more powerful cards often require fans, generate
more heat and it must have been an engineering challenge fitting a G5
into a box this small and not have everything melt to a puddle of slag.

So they chose a lower-end card because it wouldn't necessarily cause the
thing to run overly hot leaving the G5 to that task.

[george68]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
Actually, it's perfect for a consumer machine.

No it is not. It's perfect for old farts who do nothing but surf the net and make shitty home videos of their stupid families. It will not play games.

- Rob

[bradleykavin]

how fast is the 1.8 g5 i mac compared to the powermac dual 1.8 ?

[bergen]

george68, you say that like gaming is some kind of "higher computing experience" and people who don't play games are old farts who are only waiting to die a slow and painful death?

Gamers have a voice, I can't deny that, and I understand your viewpoints on how a better graphics card would give you a hard-on at the moment - but how about thinking this through? Because no matter what kind of GPU would be shipped in the iMac at the moment, it will never be a good choice for "powergamers", simply because it ain't upgradable. The requirements for games go up every few months, and as a gamer you wouldn't want to be stuck with a AIO machine that can't keep up.

I used to be a gamer... rather hardcore to tell the truth. Counter-strike was my thing, played it for three years, I played day and night, competed in online leagues (I live in Iceland and played in leagues in the US where games started at 02:00 or even 03:00 icelandic time) and I even have a gold medal from a big LAN tournie. And at the time I wouldn't even have considered an AIO machine, let alone a mac. For any games. Ever. Why?

Because for farts like us, every frame, every performance tweak matters. We want the "best experience" or whatever, I don't know, I think it's just some internal mechanism we gamers have that drives us to not accept anything else. And to do that you have to be able to upgrade your **** at a regular basis, tweak and turn and twist and keep up with the gaming tides. And games also have to run smoothly which they don't do on mac. At the moment there is no harmony between the macintosh and the gaming industry and no upgraded GPU in the new iMac is going to fix that. I sincerely hope, for the good of Apple, the gaming industry - and for mankind - that this will change. But I don't think it's a priority for either side.

But it's really simple, there is no way to make an AIO machine that keeps up with the demands of gamers. So why try? that GPU keeps the price down on a consumer line, It was probably chosen because of easier implementation to the machine concerning heat and other issues, and it's more than enough for all the "old farts" out there that "only" want to use their computers for email and surfing, making family albums, keeping tabs on their finances, talk to relatives far away online, manage their calendar, writing journals, watch dvd's, listen to music, design graphics, making music, use it for extensive programming, and all the other things "inferior computer users" do. I don't understand those people, they do so much of that useless stuff they have no time for gaming! Didn't their mother teach them anything??

What I am trying to say is that until Apple and the gaming industry show some willingness to live their lives together in harmony there is totally pointless barking on about the GPU in the iMac. And I promise you, if Apple will ever ever ever make a machine geared towards gaming, it won't be an AIO.

I stopped gaming, purchased a powerbook and I don't regret it. My school record is better, I have more time for just about anything else, and I am generally more satisfied with live. Sounds like a former junkie preaching against the peril of drugs but hey, it's the truth. And I think the guy going to college to play doom III should spend more time studying... and if not that, then chasing girls!

Besides, Doom III is crap anyway.

[george68]

Don't you get it? An iMac with either a GOOD vid card or an AGP/PCI-X slot woul dbe a PERFECT gaming machine. It's cheaper than the tower, it's portable, it looks cool... its PERFECT.

If the new iMac g5 had a 128 meg kickass card I'd be selling my belongings to buy one. But alas. I will wait. I don't like towers, they're too f*cking big, and I don't like having to buy a seperate LCD. I want an all in one with a GOOD card, or the ability to HAVE a good card, and I don't htink I'm alone here.

- Ca$h

[milhous]

all i'll say is they skimped on the video card like they always do and should've offered a BTO option in addition to the standardized configuration.

now i just checked dell and their boxes come standard with the pcie radeon x300se. it's my understand that they're POS video cards too, so perhaps it's not just apple that does this sort of thing.

[istallion]

The imac is ok for what it is. However I don't see it competing more than moderately against the other apple lines and it won't be generating new apple customers. The vast majority of companies and consumers choose not to pay twice as much for an AIO.

These will not be used to play any modern games. The 5200 is around half the performance of my radeon 9600, which is unplayable for the latest games of today. Not to mention the games in the next few years that only build upon the doom & half-life engines. The 5200 will have the additional burden of playing at the monitors resolution or suffering interpolation.

It's strange that apple is told by everybody for years the product that they want. Apple could produce it, but have chosen not to.

[lngtones]

Anyone think the new iMac looks like a Apple-pretty version of this design:

http://www.referenceguide.com/review...ayprofile4.htm

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally posted by bradleykavin:
how fast is the 1.8 g5 i mac compared to the powermac dual 1.8 ?

Probably pretty slow. Dual processors don't necessarily mean twice as good, but probably at least 1.5x as good. Factor in the slower bus speed and overall lower quality and speed of the components used to make the iMac, and I would guess approximately half as fast as a dual 1.8 GHz PowerMac.

[ddma]

[vader89]

It looks like most people here don't know too much about regular consumer PC's. For everyone's information.... at least 50% of regular PC's have ultra-crappy integrated GPU's. Many more have lousy "real" graphics cards (like the geforce2mx).

The card included in the new imac is NOT tragically horrible. It will be able to perform just about every task regular users will want it to do with ease. It should be fine at light gaming too (Warcraft3, Jedi outcast,etc.).

Will it run Doom3? No.
Can 80% of regular PC's run Doom3? No.

[Lancer409]

pff .. who cares .. it's dorkloads cheaper. is the GPU removeable? if so .. swap it out .. if not .. get a powermac or a pc. it's good enough for what it does. The mac ISNT a great gaming solution. It could use a bit more ram but seriously .. sorry it doesnt come with the latest pci express video card ...

[Eriamjh]

Originally posted by vader89:
Will it run Doom3? No.
Can 80% of regular PC's run Doom3? No.

I swear it said on Apple's site it would run Doom3. Now, it doesn't.

Apparently, 6 fps, up from 2 fps, while a 200% improvement, is not good enough.

I think the fact that Apple doesn't actually show the FPS in their chart tells you that the video card is lacking in real punch. Sad.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by george68:
No it is not. It's perfect for old farts who do nothing but surf the net and make shitty home videos of their stupid families. It will not play games.

- Rob

Who gives a wet fart ?

-t

[babywriter2]

You know, it would be so great to compare this thread (and some others like it) to the avalanche of criticism leveled at the original iPod when Apple released it.

Some of the comments I remember: Ugly, uninspired, not groundbreaking, overhyped, "I would never buy one...."

I wonder how many of the same people are now beating on the new iMac design. Or how many have changed their minds about the iPod, now that everyone wants one.

- b

[the_glassman]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
I swear it said on Apple's site it would run Doom3. Now, it doesn't.

Apparently, 6 fps, up from 2 fps, while a 200% improvement, is not good enough.

I think the fact that Apple doesn't actually show the FPS in their chart tells you that the video card is lacking in real punch. Sad.

It was on there, thats why I think its ridiculous for apple to even suggest such thing, when there latest and greatest iMac (Supercomputer in a box) won't even play the damn game, maybe we should turn them in for another false claim. The graphic card is sad now and will be even worse when we are still waiting for a revision 6 months from now. You can still find mention of Doom on the iMac page here.
And for the PC's that ship with crap cards thats what you expect for paying $400 for a machine, but those machines have a AGP or PCI slot to upgrade the card to the latest and greatest. We are paying $1800 for a cheap video card!

[macgfx]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
It was on there, thats why I think its ridiculous for apple to even suggest such thing, when there latest and greatest iMac (Supercomputer in a box) won't even play the damn game, maybe we should turn them in for another false claim. The graphic card is sad now and will be even worse when we are still waiting for a revision 6 months from now. You can still find mention of Doom on the iMac page here.
And for the PC's that ship with crap cards thats what you expect for paying $400 for a machine, but those machines have a AGP or PCI slot to upgrade the card to the latest and greatest. We are paying $1800 for a cheap video card!

And that's the real point. $40 GPU in a $1300-$1900 Mac. Heat is not too bad to put a M9700 128 in the PBG4, does the iMac need that, no. A R9600 128 or 5600fx 128 as a BTO would make this Mac 100% better.

The G5 is a 64bit Pro end chip. Why spend the R&D to make it if it sucks? Apple has done a super job of making the best of what Moto and IBM have given them and the G5 tower put them well in the lead of PC's anyway you cut it. Some of us see the iMac as the G5 for the rest of us. Pro users with G5 towers don't have tons of time to "Game", but home users......if it were not for Gaming how much dust would be on the home Computer.

Apple knows home users want cheap powerful Mac's, yet seem to think folks who fork out $1300 are fools. Apple has iMac LoBo's ready with better GPU's and if sale # are slow and the bean counters say" They want better GPU's" We will see them in Feb '05. If the iMac sells good or great it'll be mid-late'05. Apple should know to get the High End first, then the Mid/Low. They seem to want to fail the iMac.

Apple is do a Lemnon and this one looks like one to me. Ever play a Game on an LCD @640x480. I could be way off, time will tell if I must come back and eat my Hat.

[vader89]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
It was on there, thats why I think its ridiculous for apple to even suggest such thing, when there latest and greatest iMac (Supercomputer in a box) won't even play the damn game, maybe we should turn them in for another false claim. The graphic card is sad now and will be even worse when we are still waiting for a revision 6 months from now. You can still find mention of Doom on the iMac page here.
And for the PC's that ship with crap cards thats what you expect for paying $400 for a machine, but those machines have a AGP or PCI slot to upgrade the card to the latest and greatest. We are paying $1800 for a cheap video card!

Actually according to PC doom3 benchmarks the geforce fx5200 ultra 64mb gets 40 FPS at 640x480,30 FPS at 800x600,and 20 FPS at 1024x768.
So actually this CAN run Doom3. Maybe not at the highest detail levels, but it would still be playable.
Also the fx5200 is very good at playing the current generation of games. It gets 120+ FPS at highest detail in Jedi Outcast benchmarks, and over 80+ in unreal tournament 2003.

I would also like to state that the imac G5 would in most likelyhood be able to play ALL of the games currently out for mac WELL. I looked over the list of mac games at apple.com, and the fx5200 coupled with a 64-bit processor would be more than suffecient to play all of them.

This may not be a great machine for next-gen games, but it can still run doom3 (albeit at low resolutions), and if half-life 2 had a mac version, I'm pretty sure it could run it well.

I'm sure that it COULDN'T run Farcry, but then again, there's no mac version of farcry is there?

In short, the imac G5 can run regular apps well, and all of the current mac games would be fine on it too.
And, please, be realistic. If someone REALLY wants a l337 gaming computer they'll probably buy it from Alienware, not Apple.

[the_glassman]

Have you ever tried playing a game on lower then native resolution on an LCD? It's not pretty trust me. Those are also PC specifications we are talking about, so expect the iMac numbers to be even lower. So your looking at a whole whooping 12 FPS and native resolution if you're lucky on something like Doom III. That is not playable and apple should not be advertising as such!

[vader89]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Have you ever tried playing a game on lower then native resolution on an LCD? It's not pretty trust me. Those are also PC specifications we are talking about, so expect the iMac numbers to be even lower. So your looking at a whole whooping 12 FPS and native resolution if you're lucky on something like Doom III. That is not playable and apple should not be advertising as such!

My brother plays jedi acadamy on 640x480 on his dell inspiron.... and it's sinfully ugly. My point is that it would be playable... not pretty. But you may be right that the mac numbers will be lower. I still believe that ALL of the current generation mac games will run very well on this thing.

Who knows... maybe doom3 will magically be playable on max settings on this thing.

But anyways, what's so great about doom3?

[george68]

HEY APPLE: I would purchase an imac g5 today if it had a better video card.

- Rob

[jamesa]

Originally posted by george68:
HEY APPLE: I would purchase an imac g5 today if it had a better video card.

- Rob

not here.

here: http://www.apple.com/feedback

-- james

[jamesa]

Originally posted by babywriter2:
You know, it would be so great to compare this thread (and some others like it) to the avalanche of criticism leveled at the original iPod when Apple released it.

Some of the comments I remember: Ugly, uninspired, not groundbreaking, overhyped, "I would never buy one...."

I wonder how many of the same people are now beating on the new iMac design. Or how many have changed their minds about the iPod, now that everyone wants one.

- b

nobody here is bashing the design. most people love it.

they just want a couple of extra features, and I for one would be willing to pay some more to get them

oh yeah, and I bough an original iPod straight away

-- james

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by george68:
HEY APPLE: I would purchase an imac g5 today if it had a better video card.

Like I said in the other thread(s). ME TOO!

The main reason I'm not getting the 20" for my home is because of the lame GPU. For a lower end iPodMac I can understand the 5200, but there is just no excuse for it in the 20" $1900 machine. C'mon Apple at least throw us a bone, and offer something else more reasonable, even if it costs us $50 extra as a BTO.

If you want my money, give me a better GPU in an iPodMac. I'm not going to spring for a Power Mac and 20" screen. But I'm not going to get a crippled 20" iPodMac either.

All that said, I'm getting one for work, although even a G4 iMac would have been fine at work, since it's only gonna see light usage.

Originally posted by jamesa:
not here.

here: http://www.apple.com/feedback

-- james

There is no iMac feedback page there so I sent feedback to the Power Mac group:

Dear Customer:

Thank you for your feedback regarding the Power Mac G4. We cannot respond to you personally, but please know that your message has been received and will be reviewed by the Power Mac G4 Feedback Team. If we need to follow up with you on your ideas for improving the Power Mac G4, we will contact you directly.

If you wrote to us for technical support with the Power Mac G4, we need to inform you that the Feedback Team cannot address these types of queries. For available support options, please visit the Power Mac G4 support page.

We appreciate your assistance in making the Power Mac G4 a great computer.

Power Mac G4 Feedback Team
Apple

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
Then you were never in the running for an iMac. It has NEVER been upgradable, and it never will be. Why do people have so much trouble understand this?

The problem isn't so much the iMac design itself as Apple's product lineup as a whole. I don't want an iMac with an AGP slot. That'd just be stupid, it defeats the whole purpose of the design. The iMac has it's purpose and it fills that purpose nicely. The problem is that there's a clamoring market being left to buy PeeCees that wants both affordability and upgradability that Apple doesn't have a product for. I don't think anybody really wants an upgradeable iMac, they want a new product entirely to fill a gaping hole in Apple's lineup.

[macgfx]

If the shipping date slips and no one can get a new iMac G5 anywhere until Dec. Will anyone care?

Really, I hope this one don't sell until you can BTO a R9600 128 or better. I'd kill for even the 533mhz bus and DDR Ram, but what would I do with all that Bandwidth??? Sure, I'd rather have a Cube, but that's one fast bus. Time to buy that PBGA ReWork Station and hack a few lines of fCode.

Anyone Know if better FX chips are pin compatible with the 5200, i.e. 5600-5900.

[macgfx]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
The problem isn't so much the iMac design itself as Apple's product lineup as a whole. I don't want an iMac with an AGP slot. That'd just be stupid, it defeats the whole purpose of the design. The iMac has it's purpose and it fills that purpose nicely. The problem is that there's a clamoring market being left to buy PeeCees that wants both affordability and upgradability that Apple doesn't have a product for. I don't think anybody really wants an upgradeable iMac, they want a new product entirely to fill a gaping hole in Apple's lineup.

What would it matter if it had an AGP slot if you never opened it. Other than the fact that when you sold it you could get more $ for it. Now no one is saying alter the design from the "I sure do like the look of it" stand point. We are saying "GF5200FX, what do I look like over here?"

Some one come up with ONE good point to a built-in video card.

The only things with Built-in Video Cards should not have Apple LoGo's on them. Save the iPod.

MacGFX--!!

[iBorg]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Like I said in the other thread(s). ME TOO!

The main reason I'm not getting the 20" for my home is because of the lame GPU. For a lower end iPodMac I can understand the 5200, but there is just no excuse for it in the 20" $1900 machine. C'mon Apple at least throw us a bone, and offer something else more reasonable, even if it costs us $50 extra as a BTO.

If you want my money, give me a better GPU in an iPodMac. I'm not going to spring for a Power Mac and 20" screen. But I'm not going to get a crippled 20" iPodMac either.

Well said, Eug!



iBorg

[george68]

Originally posted by jamesa:
not here.

here: http://www.apple.com/feedback

-- james

Where? I see an ipod, a powerbook, and a G5 tower. No place to bitch about the iMac.

- Rob

[jamesa]

Originally posted by george68:
Where? I see an ipod, a powerbook, and a G5 tower. No place to bitch about the iMac.

- Rob

yeah, I know, pretty useless huh?

just send it through to the powermac team. Hopefully they'll get so sick of seeing 'em they'll tell someone about it.

-- james

[the_glassman]

Originally posted by george68:
Where? I see an ipod, a powerbook, and a G5 tower. No place to bitch about the iMac.

- Rob

Kind of Ironic isn't it? I also sent my concerns to http://www.apple.com/feedback/powermac.html and I think everyone else who feels that we have been screwed on the GFX do the same, maybe we should start a new thread for that or start an online petition? There is no reason that apple could not at least offer it as a BTO option for more money which I would happily pay. If the backlash is big enough, they will have no choice but to address the concerns!

[Chulo]

I have got to agree, the video card is the sour point on the new iMac. It would be nice to have a few extra items (gig ethernet & FW800) but if you want it (or really need it that bad) the PowerMac is the system for it since it is geared for professionals. I really don't think it would have cost too much more to have the ATI 9600 which is a much better card and is already a couple of generations old. It can definitely play a large number of games at somewhat decent frame rates (which is something the kids would want) and process your digital pictures on iPhoto and home videos on iMovie (which parents and teens will want to do) better than the fx5200. Isn't that the purpose of a family computer to do these things?? You are using some of the latest technology (a G5 CPU, faster bus speed, design with lcd monitor) so why cheapen it with this GPU?

I agree that Apple should offer an upgrade option (BTO) which would at least satisfy most peoples desire and ultimately increase their sales. If I could afford one (which I can't right now), I probably wouldn't purchase this one just because of the video card. If the video card gets updated in the future, I will definitely get one.

I have no beef with Apple, I just think they sold themselves a little short and need to rethink this over.

[dreamBweaver]

If you currently own a 12" PowerBook, and are using it as a desktop replacement, look at the iMac---but not yet.

I bought the 12" PowerBook because of its power, price, and small (portable) size. But even as a college student, i rarely move it from my desk. It is usually set up on the iCurve stand with external kb/mouse, and sometimes connected to my TV.

I can see the all-in-one iMac saving me desk space and doing what i want. I would love more screen space and a higher quality screen that is visible from more angles. It wouldn't be able to come with me on short visits home. But I could take it home winter break.

I am looking at a 20" iMac, BTO, with 250gb drive and my own RAM, BT, and all. Around $2300 with warranty through education discount.

The current iMac is gorgeous but disappoints. The video card is not much of an improvement for me. The G5 processor jump (twice the speed of my 867mhz G4) sounds great. I know the 7200rpm SATA hard drive would be a very big speed improvement over my slower 4200rpm ATA100 (or 66?) drive.

But the price is wrong. I want AirPort extreme and BT standard. I want a more powerful video card that is guaranteed to make Tiger purr. I am happy enough with my current system and AirPort Express to wait out the holiday buying season and Jan keynote. In fact, I will wait until Tiger comes out to be sure I have a system powerful enough for the next generation.

Why buy a G5 when it's not natively supported in 64-bit mode (a la Tiger)? All I know is, the iMac G5 is a beautiful machine but just not enough to make me replace my beloved PowerBook.

[chrisutley]

I see lots of people complaining because the iMac G5 isn't a Pro machine. Just keep in mind, it isn't supposed to be.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by chrisutley:
I see lots of people complaining because the iMac G5 isn't a Pro machine. Just keep in mind, it isn't supposed to be.

no, you see lots of people complaining that Apple are using an old, outdated and underperforming graphics card in a desktop machine that can cost upwards of $2000

having a decent GPU does not a pro machine make!

-- james

[Graymalkin]

Of the current crop of OpenGL 1.4/2.0 capable GPUs the GeForce 5200 Ultra is one of if not the coolest running. It requires no active cooling at all. The Radeon 9600 is in a similar performance catagory but doesn't begin to trounce the GF5200 until it is clocked much higher, as in the 9600 Pro and 9600 XT models. Higher core and memory clocks lead to much higher running temperatures. Had Apple gone with a GeForce 5700 or Radeon 9600 Pro it is doubtful the iMac would get away with quiet cooling.

The ideas of $599 headless Macs has been beaten to death. There's little incentive for Apple to enter that market and just because someone's cousin's friend said he might buy a Mac if he could get a G5 with 1GB of RAM for $600 doesn't mean the world is clamoring for such a machine. Apple can't compete with the sub-$600 PC vendors. Pound for pound the sub-$600 PC vendors will always win because Athlons will always be cheaper than G5s due to a higher production volume. The PC vendors also don't have to cover things like R&D; Antec, Shuttle, Asus, Via, AMD, Intel, etc. do it all for them. All they have to do is slap electronics into a box.

There might be a few thousand or even tens of thousands of folks clamoring for $599 G5 Macs that would actually buy them. That isn't enough people to make such a line of Macs worth selling. While it is nice to be able to replace an old PowerMac G4's single processor with two clocked over 1GHz it is something that only a handful of people do even when they can. Most people see computers as magic boxes that spit pretty colors on a screen. They've no interest or requirement to learn otherwise. Ergo highly customizable/upgradable systems are largely useless to a very large portion of computer users. OEM PCs have slowly begun to lose PCI slots and sometimes just the space to fit a normal sized card even when a slot is available. I'm not saying people don't upgrade their computers, just that most don't so trying to sell a computer on its upgradability merits won't go far with most people.

To the bitchers:
Step back for a second and go over the things that have been said. The iMac is not a big-ass professional machine. The market segments it is aimed at ought to be very clear from its design. However for some reason people think it ought to be some heavy game machine.

• Home users - This has always been one of the iMac's biggest markets. People that want a computer to do internet things and to use to listen to music and handle their photographs. Some are even plugging in their digital camcorders and making movies that friends and family don't find excrutiating to watch. To the typical home users a GeForce 6800 and 8GB of RAM are not necessary. If their computer plays the Sims, Age of Empires, and Zoo Tycoon they're all set. The G5 and high-bandwidth memory will just serve to let the typical home user do their typical home user tasks a little quicker.
• Office users - This market segment is set for a large buying spree over the next eighteen or so months. The last major buying spree was around 1999/2000 and the machines purchased then are getting a little long in the tooth now. Office users want reliable systems that are ergonomically considerate yet don't eat up valuable desk real estate. Tons of expandability is not a necessity because upgrades/expansion is best done by knowlegable IT folk and said upgrades/expansions are rarely worth the time spent working on them.
• Scientists - This is a market that is often overlooked by marketeers but is one Apple's become a bit more focused on lately. They're now offering systems to go on people's desks that run the same hardware and software that those same people can run on their workgroup cluster. Researchers can optimize code on their iMac in their office or at home and ship that exact same binary off to their cluster in the lab. The saved money over the G5 PowerMac (+monitor) can go towards a better ethernet switch or another cluster node.
• Graphic designers - Some people wish to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that it is neigh impossible to work in Photoshop or Illustrator with less than 4GB of RAM and at least seven processors. Magazines were being laid out and advertisements were being designed before it was feasible to stick even 1GB of RAM in a desktop computer. Saying the new iMac won't run Photoshop well because it is limited to only 2GB of RAM is silly. For offices doing a lot of mundane pre-press work an iMac would make a nice desktop system. Heavy duty Photoshop work would be nicer on RAM-laden PowerMacs but the iMacs could hold down a nice percentage of the work without a hitch.

[Spliffdaddy]

There's a $40 GPU in a $1500+ machine.

Tell me, what is the primary point of user interaction with a computer?

The video display?

hmm.

Apple would have been better off using a keyboard with 25 keys - along with a decent GPU.

[Joshua53077]

Ok people, lets stop the insanity. Let me tell you the story of when I first saw the iMac. I woke up for work, immediately remembered the keynote happened sometime during my dreams and went straight for my computer to check out what the keynote had to offer. We all knew a new iMac was on its way but as soon as I saw it, I had the "Wow" factor that has drawn all of us to apple. The wow wasn't just the computer, but the price point!
I could have a fast G5 with a 17 inch LCD display on a hot looking computer, burn my own CDs and DVDs and get rid of my old desktop for under $1600. I wasn't even planning on upgrading my computer but by 3 P.M that day, I was talking to MacMall and wondering if I was being too impulsive. Any day now I should be getting my impulse buy via UPS.
It doesn't end there. My girlfriend who recently moved in with me still uses a Dell laptop from 1997 that weighs about as much as her. On Saturday, I dragged her to the Apple Store at Roosevelt Field and sold her on the iMac. We got home and ordered one for her from MacMall (i like all their freebies).
My point is that I'm not a heavy gamer, neither is she. Apple made this computer for her and I. It has the most striking looks of any Mac I've seen in years (this coming from a former owner of an iMac DV/SE) and I've been drooling for a G5 for the past year. Apple hit the right price point. Psychologically, I may not have jumped if the models were $250 more but included more Ram (which MacMall gives you an extra 256 anyway), Bluetooth and a better video card. To some, price is just as important as features. And we all know Apple isn't interested in making 15 different models to appease everyone (who remembers trying to keep up with the out of control Performa lines?) So this iMac is essentially an entry level machine that blows away any other entry level machine because it has amazing specs. Not everything on this computer is perfect but the mere sight of it made one Apple user (myself) upgrade in less than 12 hours and a PC user (my girfriend) switch after seeing it in the Apple Store. B%itch all you want, but mark my words, this thing is going to have a trememndous effect on Apple's finances and market share. Just watch.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Joshua53077:
Ok people, lets stop the insanity. Let me tell you the story of when I first saw the iMac. I woke up for work, immediately remembered the keynote happened sometime during my dreams and went straight for my computer to check out what the keynote had to offer. We all knew a new iMac was on its way but as soon as I saw it, I had the "Wow" factor that has drawn all of us to apple. The wow wasn't just the computer, but the price point!
I could have a fast G5 with a 17 inch LCD display on a hot looking computer, burn my own CDs and DVDs and get rid of my old desktop for under $1600. I wasn't even planning on upgrading my computer but by 3 P.M that day, I was talking to MacMall and wondering if I was being too impulsive. Any day now I should be getting my impulse buy via UPS.
It doesn't end there. My girlfriend who recently moved in with me still uses a Dell laptop from 1997 that weighs about as much as her. On Saturday, I dragged her to the Apple Store at Roosevelt Field and sold her on the iMac. We got home and ordered one for her from MacMall (i like all their freebies).
My point is that I'm not a heavy gamer, neither is she. Apple made this computer for her and I. It has the most striking looks of any Mac I've seen in years (this coming from a former owner of an iMac DV/SE) and I've been drooling for a G5 for the past year. Apple hit the right price point. Psychologically, I may not have jumped if the models were $250 more but included more Ram (which MacMall gives you an extra 256 anyway), Bluetooth and a better video card. To some, price is just as important as features. And we all know Apple isn't interested in making 15 different models to appease everyone (who remembers trying to keep up with the out of control Performa lines?) So this iMac is essentially an entry level machine that blows away any other entry level machine because it has amazing specs. Not everything on this computer is perfect but the mere sight of it made one Apple user (myself) upgrade in less than 12 hours and a PC user (my girfriend) switch after seeing it in the Apple Store. B%itch all you want, but mark my words, this thing is going to have a trememndous effect on Apple's finances and market share. Just watch.

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

[PeterKG]

Originally posted by lngtones:
Anyone think the new iMac looks like a Apple-pretty version of this design:

http://www.referenceguide.com/review...ayprofile4.htm

No.

[PEHowland]

Has anyone seen Steam's Half Life 2 User Survey? Steam is run by Valve Software, makers of Half Life and Counterstrike - two of the most popular FPS games around. Steam is the mechanism by which Valve offer automatic game software updates to their users. Their automated survey looks at what graphics cards users of Half Life 2 (on a PC) are actually using. The poll is completely current (published yesterday) and the results may surprise you. In order of popularity:

• GeForce 4MX - 12.24%
• Radeon 9800 - 10.7%
• GeForce 4 - 10.24%
• Radeon 9600 - 10.15%
• GeForce 5200 - 8.94%
• GeForce 2MX - 6.9%
• Radeon 9200 - 4.4%

(that's the top 63% of respondents, the remaining cards are tiny percentages and include anything from integrated GPU to GeForce 5900)

This is from an automated sample of almost 500,000 PC Half Life 2 users. In other words, serious gamers. Other than the 10% of users using the Radeon 9800, all the remaining cards (in the top 63%) are slower or comparable to the 5200 Ultra. (GF4MX, GF4, GF2MX, Radeon 9200 are all slower - that represents 34% of the gamers) 10% use the Radeon 9600 which is comparable to the 5200 Ultra (a little faster) and 9% use the 5200 series (presumably non-Ultra and Ultra).

So, the 5200 Ultra is roughly in the upper quartile of the GPU's used by the enthusiast PC gaming market today.

I think this at least put's Apple's decision to use the 5200 Ultra into some kind of perspective. The GPU may "suck" but it still remains faster than what the majority of enthusiast PC gamers are actually using. Given that the iMac is not aimed at enthusisat gamers, that seems a fairly reasonable decision from a marketing/product perspective.

Flame away.

[klinux]

Originally posted by turtle777:
So get yourself a stupid PC, put in a mighty graphics card and STFU !

Next time someone b!tches about marketshare, I will be sure to tell me Mac users are to blame too!

Originally posted by turtle777:
The remaining 0.01% power-hardcore-gamers complain.

Apparently you chose to ignore the many of us here who are not power gamers but are complaining because we do not want to be stuck using a graphic intensive OS with a low-end card.

Originally posted by turtle777:
Since Apple is not stupid... a HUGE loss. That's what happened with the Cube.

Apple is not stupid but they are not infallible are they? No need to defend Apple at all cost.

Originally posted by turtle777:
Have you ever worked in a large company and been involved with strategic marketing and planning, target costing, integrating R&D efforts as well as production ?

Yes. I am currently in the marketing analytics department of a US $45B market cap company (FWIW, Apple's market cap is $14.5B).

My turn.

Have YOU ever worked in a large company and been involved with strategic marketing and planning, target costing, integrating R&D efforts as well as production?

Is that what makes you think you can be rude and condescending?

Originally posted by turtle777:
The well respected German IT news Heise points out that better cards like the Nvidia GeForce 6800 Ultra or ATIs Radeon 9800 Pro have to be ACTIVELY cooled.

Try again. http://www.sapphiretech.com/vga/9800proult.asp

[Ryan McGann]

Well this thread keeps going on, and here's my two cents.

I want a comptuer that will last me at least three or four years. That's not unreasonable I think. But Apple refuses to make a headless Mac that isn't a pro computer. So I can spend $1500 on an iMac that will, in two years time (if not already) have a low-end video card. Or I can spend $3000 for the equivalent G5 tower (including monitor) and soup up the video card. $1500 is quite a bit of money for the average Joe user who likes to play games ocassionaly. Let me give an example.

People on this thread seem to think that all gamers are geeks that spend all their time gaming. Those people obviously haven't visited a college campus lately. A staggering number of guys in a dorm will be gaming at any given time. Doom 3, WarCraft 3, whatever. That's a prime target, because it's very obvious that people develop brand loyalty based on the first brand that they owned.

You can also forget about the "top end, hard core" games requiring the best video cards. I recently bought Railroad Tycoon 3 for my sister. She's 16 years old and can hardly be called a hard core gamer, but SimCity and RR Tycoon hit some sort of sweet spot. The minimum requirements for SimCity are notoriously high; my G4 1GHz plays the game well on medium settings; a G5 imac would fare better but would not be stellar since it's mainly texture memory (video memory). Railroad Tycoon requires AT MINIMUM 256MB memory and a 32 MB video memory. At those settings everything defaults to low quality. At 64MB, you get some decent graphics but forget about anti aliasing or large texture maps.

So the iMac G5 would get you, with two very recent, family-oriented games, so-so quality and so-so speed. In two years, you'll have a heap of metal with a nice monitor on it. NOW a G5 with an upgradeable monitor makes sense.

BUT....for technical reasons I can see not including anything higher then the 5200; as a hardware and software engineer I've seen the effects of overheating on circuit boards, it's not pretty. But that's more of Apple's "form over function" mentality that irritates me too (i know it's not THAT hard to put a power button on the FRONT of the frigging iMac!). But that's a shame, for the reasons cited above. It may look pretty in a couple of years, but what can you honestly play?

[jamesa]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
Has anyone seen Steam's Half Life 2 User Survey? Steam is run by Valve Software, makers of Half Life and Counterstrike - two of the most popular FPS games around. Steam is the mechanism by which Valve offer automatic game software updates to their users. Their automated survey looks at what graphics cards users of Half Life 2 (on a PC) are actually using. The poll is completely current (published yesterday) and the results may surprise you. In order of popularity:

• GeForce 4MX - 12.24%
• Radeon 9800 - 10.7%
• GeForce 4 - 10.24%
• Radeon 9600 - 10.15%
• GeForce 5200 - 8.94%
• GeForce 2MX - 6.9%
• Radeon 9200 - 4.4%

(that's the top 63% of respondents, the remaining cards are tiny percentages and include anything from integrated GPU to GeForce 5900)

This is from an automated sample of almost 500,000 PC Half Life 2 users. In other words, serious gamers. Other than the 10% of users using the Radeon 9800, all the remaining cards (in the top 63%) are slower or comparable to the 5200 Ultra.

Your statistics are entirely flawed based on one main point - that you claim Steam users are Half Life 2 users, and these are in turn serious gamers.

I would absolutely dispute this fact. First off, Half Life 2 is not available, just the "promise" of Half Life 2 over Steam. Valve has never said it will only be available over Steam. To take the users that have installed Steam and extrapolate this out to hard core game users is a big mistake. Nobody who knows much about computers would install Steam to get Half Life 2 unless they absolutely had to. They wouldn't. Instead, you've got people who don't understand the technology installing it because they think it's the only way to get access to these games - when really all it is is a nasty DRM system. No person who understood this would install it, and I'd say most serious gamers would make it their business to understand it.

So, we've eliminated HL2 from the equation, let's deal next with Counterstrike. That is a game that you can get over Steam (the updates, anyway). However, how many years old is this game? Isn't it 4 years old or something?

So, basically, what we have here is a poll of non-serious gamers - people who think Steam is the way to get HL2 - and gamers who are playing a game that is ancient. If you're a big CS fan, you don't need a good machine to play it. Which is fine, but it's like polling bungie.org to find out the graphics card people who like playing Marathon 2 use. It's not a valid test of what should be shipping today in a computer that costs $2000.

All that Steam poll is hitting on is people who don't understand technology (Steam users), and people who are using a very old game. Of which a 5200U would be an excellent graphics card for both, but that doesn't make it what should be shipping in Apple's brand new $2000 consumer system.

And finally, just because they're doing it, does it mean Apple should? These people might have wanted to get a Radeon 9800 but their budgets wouldn't stretch to anything more than a 5200. If they'd had $2000 to spend, I bet most of the people there would have picked a good (i.e. a fair bit faster than a 5200U) graphics card for their system. This is a market Apple could be targeting, but why would they bother upgrading when all that is offered is virtually the equivalent of what they already have, just at a $2000 price point?

This is not a flame either btw.

-- james

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by jamesa:
Your statistics are entirely flawed based on one main point - that you claim Steam users are Half Life 2 users, and these are in turn serious gamers.

I would absolutely dispute this fact. First off, Half Life 2 is not available, just the "promise" of Half Life 2 over Steam. Valve has never said it will only be available over Steam. To take the users that have installed Steam and extrapolate this out to hard core game users is a big mistake. Nobody who knows much about computers would install Steam to get Half Life 2 unless they absolutely had to. They wouldn't. Instead, you've got people who don't understand the technology installing it because they think it's the only way to get access to these games - when really all it is is a nasty DRM system. No person who understood this would install it, and I'd say most serious gamers would make it their business to understand it.

So, we've eliminated HL2 from the equation, let's deal next with Counterstrike. That is a game that you can get over Steam (the updates, anyway). However, how many years old is this game? Isn't it 4 years old or something?

So, basically, what we have here is a poll of non-serious gamers - people who think Steam is the way to get HL2 - and gamers who are playing a game that is ancient. If you're a big CS fan, you don't need a good machine to play it. Which is fine, but it's like polling bungie.org to find out the graphics card people who like playing Marathon 2 use. It's not a valid test of what should be shipping today in a computer that costs $2000.

All that Steam poll is hitting on is people who don't understand technology (Steam users), and people who are using a very old game. Of which a 5200U would be an excellent graphics card for both, but that doesn't make it what should be shipping in Apple's brand new $2000 consumer system.

And finally, just because they're doing it, does it mean Apple should? These people might have wanted to get a Radeon 9800 but their budgets wouldn't stretch to anything more than a 5200. If they'd had $2000 to spend, I bet most of the people there would have picked a good (i.e. a fair bit faster than a 5200U) graphics card for their system. This is a market Apple could be targeting, but why would they bother upgrading when all that is offered is virtually the equivalent of what they already have, just at a $2000 price point?

Well, I see that you are correct that Steam are only allowing people to download the game at present, and it isn't activitated. Nevertheless, their survey is entitled "Half Life 2 User Survey", and so is a measure of the cards used by people who have downloaded and intend to play Half LIfe 2. Whether or not Steam users are hard-core gamers or not, I think one could debate ad nauseam. Noone other than a gamer would subscribe to Steam, as that's its only raison d'etre. Nor would a casual gamer bother. So perhaps its somewhere between a casual gamer and a hard core gamer :-)

The $2000 quote is an unreasonable one. $2000 buys you the computer and a $1200+ 20" LCD. If someone had $2000 to spend on a general purpose home computer with 20" screen, the iMac remains a damn good choice. If someone had $2000 to spend on a gaming machine, excluding a 20" screen, then of course they'd expect more than a 5200U. They'd also expect more than a G5 1.8GHz, more than 256MB, more than the integrated sound, support for DirectX, a far greater choice of games and the few games that are released to not appear 12 months late. The iMac will never be even half-way interesting for gamers, regardless of the GPU. A gamer is far better off saving $500 and getting something like this.

This is precisely why I think this whole 5200U issue is a storm in a tea cup. It's better than most casual PC owners have anyway, and as a gaming platform the Mac will never compete. It needs wholesale major changes, not just a change in GPU. Decent hardware accelerated sound, new procesor, more memory, different OS. In fact, the Mac needs to be a PC. It's a total red herring.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
Well, I see that you are correct that Steam are only allowing people to download the game at present, and it isn't activitated. Nevertheless, their survey is entitled "Half Life 2 User Survey", and so is a measure of the cards used by people who have downloaded and intend to play Half LIfe 2.

Come on! Get off the grass! If I put out a survey called "who wants to play Doom 3", and half the responses came back with a GF2mx, would that suddenly justify Apple in putting a GF2mx in their iMac? Because that's what you're saying!

These people that have downloaded Steam can't even HL2 play it yet. They may have just downloaded it to see if it would work on their computer; it's hardly some kind of vindication for crappy graphics cards.

Whether or not Steam users are hard-core gamers or not, I think one could debate ad nauseam. Noone other than a gamer would subscribe to Steam, as that's its only raison d'etre. Nor would a casual gamer bother. So perhaps its somewhere between a casual gamer and a hard core gamer :-)

All that download displays is an intention to want to play Half Life 2, or playing CS at the moment which is a 4 year old game. As for hardcore vs casual, I only used that term after you claimed all those downloading it were "serious gamers".

The $2000 quote is an unreasonable one. $2000 buys you the computer and a $1200+ 20" LCD. If someone had $2000 to spend on a general purpose home computer with 20" screen, the iMac remains a damn good choice. If someone had $2000 to spend on a gaming machine, excluding a 20" screen, then of course they'd expect more than a 5200U. They'd also expect more than a G5 1.8GHz, more than 256MB, more than the integrated sound, support for DirectX, a far greater choice of games and the few games that are released to not appear 12 months late. The iMac will never be even half-way interesting for gamers, regardless of the GPU. A gamer is far better off saving $500 and getting something like this.

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 realise that we pay a premium for a better product... except, when every other manufacturer ships a mid range (i.e. around $2000 with monitor) product that has a decent GPU or the option of having a decent GPU, suddenly getting locked in to the Apple platform isn't so fantastic. That's why people are pissed off - they want one component to be better, but they don't want to be forced into a Powermac when for the most part it's entirely unnecessary. Apple have taken this "not wanting the iMac to eat into Powermac sales" way too far this time.

This is precisely why I think this whole 5200U issue is a storm in a tea cup. It's better than most casual PC owners have anyway, and as a gaming platform the Mac will never compete. It needs wholesale major changes, not just a change in GPU. Decent hardware accelerated sound, new procesor, more memory, different OS. In fact, the Mac needs to be a PC. It's a total red herring.

I'm sorry, I disagree. The GPU is the first step in totally changing this, but with 500 000 people downloading a program on the promise that eventually they might get to play a game, the gaming market is one that Apple can no longer afford to ignore. If they want to get people to switch, they need to provide them with justification, and shipping a computer with a GPU that's so old that PC people looking to upgrade probably already have in their old machine is not the way to do it.

-- james