[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by D.O.G.S. CEO 

The difference is the RAM and Hard drive have always been upgradable. The GPU, however, has never been, excluding the original 8 meg Gamewizard for the original iMac (and MAYBE the MXM based cards on the last 24" iMac, and today's iMacs).



A few years ago, you would have been correct.... apple consistently put in total CRAP videocards in the iMac lineup, but all that changed when they released the 24" iMac with 7600GT. Finally, the iMac had a pretty gnarly card, that was capable of driving a game at full resolution on it's display. And you know what? I bought one.



Apple has never, to my knowledge, released an iMac with vastly inferior graphics as an 'upgrade'.

Sorry if I was a bit too general in my post, but I wasn't trying to argue specific components in the iMac line. I was using that as an example of what Apple has done all along, but especially with the iMac. There's always one (or more) component that isn't up to par, at least to some people.

We can sit here all year and try to figure out why Apple makes the decisions they make. But the simple fact is, no one outside of Apple HQ knows exactly why they chose this vid card over another. Or why they chose to use a glossy screen. Or why they chose the new keyboard form factor. Apple doesn't disclose the reasons for their decisions. So we can pretend we might know the reason, whether it be laziness, forced upgrading, cheapness, greed or whatever. But no one here knows, and we never really will unless Apple wants us to know.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Not only is it bizarre, but inconsistent. […]
Apple needs to think bigger.

You also need to "think bigger", ie. you need to think about everything that plays a role in such a decision. Note that the new iMac is not only cheaper than the previous one, it is also thinner. So in addition to a cost-cutting measure power consumption, size and heat might have also played a role in selection of the graphics card. There are probably other factors we can't even think about. The perfect computer is always the question of the perfect compromise. Apple optimizes towards what they are strong at (iLife/digital hub, high profit margins), not towards where they are weak (games, high sales volumes). Since we don't know all the factors that played a role in the decision making their decision might seem somewhat bizarre to us, but their current success give them right.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

There's always some component of a Mac that is lacking. Or at least, people will find something. If its not the CPU, then its the GPU. Or its the HD, or its the RAM. A lackluster GPU in an iMac is nothing new, its just a different component than what was lacking before. Not an excuse, just reality.

The previous model iMac's CPU wasn't much worse than the current one. The difference between the GPUs is larger.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

You also need to "think bigger", ie. you need to think about everything that plays a role in such a decision. Note that the new iMac is not only cheaper than the previous one, it is also thinner. So in addition to a cost-cutting measure power consumption, size and heat might have also played a role in selection of the graphics card. There are probably other factors we can't even think about. The perfect computer is always the question of the perfect compromise. Apple optimizes towards what they are strong at (iLife/digital hub, high profit margins), not towards where they are weak (games, high sales volumes). Since we don't know all the factors that played a role in the decision making their decision might seem somewhat bizarre to us, but their current success give them right.

I suppose it is possible that a faster video card would produce too much heat, but I will point out that while you make a completely valid and worthwhile point that there may be factors that we are unaware of, we also cannot assume that there must be. Occam's Razor and all...

[TETENAL]

Occam's Razor applies when you already have an explanation for a phenomenon. You, calling Apple's decision "bizarre" and "inconsisten", do apparently not yet have one, so you can not cut yet.

[besson3c]

Fair enough... Can we agree that at least some of Apple's strategies *seem* strange and are not terribly transparent to the general public?

[Super Mario]

I already explained why the ATI chip had to be used. Without it Apple would only have one ATI chip available across the whole Mac range (the 1900XT for the Mac Pro) and that would only be a BTO option. Not good for maintaining a relationship with ATI, especially when they are owned by AMD whose CPUs are not available in Macs. It's not Apple's fault that the only ATI option for the iMac doesn't perform as well as it should. At least it is a Direct X 10 chip for those who will want that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

I already explained why the ATI chip had to be used. Without it Apple would only have one ATI chip available across the whole Mac range (the 1900XT for the Mac Pro) and that would only be a BTO option. Not good for maintaining a relationship with ATI, especially when they are owned by AMD whose CPUs are not available in Macs. It's not Apple's fault that the only ATI option for the iMac doesn't perform as well as it should.

This is not the only ATI option. There's a better card in the very same line that Apple's using: the Radeon HD 2600 XT. It costs about $50 more, but it would actually be an improvement rather than a step backwards.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

This is not the only ATI option. There's a better card in the very same line that Apple's using: the Radeon HD 2600 XT. It costs about $50 more, but it would actually be an improvement rather than a step backwards.

True, but considering Apple cut the price of the iMac by $200 and increased the size of the screen on the base model, another $50 would cut profits on what is supposed to be the desktop equivalent of the MacBook. It's an all round consumer model not a gaming machine. If you want better gaming performance out of the ATI card that is shipping in the iMac, booting into Windows will do that anyway. Windows has GPU overclocking utilities that are much better than anything on OS X.

iMac purchasers should consider themselves lucky. The Wintel equivalent from other manufacturers would have integrated graphics or a poorer graphics option. Look at the crap Sony offers in their Vaio LS series.
This is their top model.

VGC-LS37E
19" screen @ 1680x1050
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor T7200 @ 2Ghz with 667Mhz bus
320GB HDD (maximum)
NVIDIA® GeForce® Go 7400 graphics processing unit with shared memory
$2,049.99 + TAX

Now you know Apple offers the best hardware, software, design, integration and value for money.

[MacosNerd]

Still does the average user really know or care about this. I like TETENAL's post that Apple has always geared the imac towards a digital hub and games/ high volume was never a marketing strategy.

Finally I've seen some benchmarks from barefeats and macworld. To me (I don't play much games) the numbers seem ok. Yes they're slower then the machines in the benchmark test but at the frame rates shown is it playable and they appear to be so.

This computer is marketed towards the home consumer, not for the serious gamer and for the home consumer its a great computer.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Still does the average user really know or care about this. I like TETENAL's post that Apple has always geared the imac towards a digital hub and games/ high volume was never a marketing strategy.

Finally I've seen some benchmarks from barefeats and macworld. To me (I don't play much games) the numbers seem ok. Yes they're slower then the machines in the benchmark test but at the frame rates shown is it playable and they appear to be so.

This computer is marketed towards the home consumer, not for the serious gamer and for the home consumer its a great computer.

The last sentence is QFT. Simple, concise, and accurate.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Now you know Apple offers the best hardware, software, design, integration and value for money.

You cited a single example from the competition and decided Apple wins over everyone ever?

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You cited a single example from the competition and decided Apple wins over everyone ever?

Sony is the only competitor creating stylish computers with their own digital hub devices and software solutions. Apple beats their all-in-one solution badly in specs, software, design and price.

If we add the lower end competitors things look worse for the competition.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Sony is the only competitor creating stylish computers with their own digital hub devices and software solutions. Apple beats their all-in-one solution badly in specs, software, design and price.

If we add the lower end competitors things look worse for the competition.

I just spec'd out a 2.4GHz Dell vs a similar iMac and the price is within $50, except the Dell comes with Office.

[ort888]

Saw them yesterday. These things look really nice in person. Much cooler then the old ones.

The glossy screen isn't that big of a deal either.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I just spec'd out a 2.4GHz Dell vs a similar iMac and the price is within $50, except the Dell comes with Office.

The only thing Dell sells close to a slim (keyword) all-in-one is their Inspiron and ultra lame Vostro series. Both have external screens.

The closest Dell all-in-one, slim, desk saving solution with basic productivity software I could configure was the following:

Dell Inspiron 530s

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6550 2.33GHz 1333 FSB
Genuine Windows Vista® Ultimate
24 inch UltraSharp™ 2407WFP Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
500GB Serial ATA Hard Drive
OPTICAL DRIVE 16X DVD+/-RW Drive
256MB ATI Radeon X1300 Pro
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
10/100 Ethernet
Dell USB Keyboard and Dell Optical USB Mouse
Internal PCI 802.11g Wireless Network Card
IEEE 1394a Adapter
Dell A225 2.0 Speakers
Microsoft® Works Suite 2006 -Includes MS WORD 2002,Encarta 2006 + more
Corel Paint Shop Pro XI - Advanced photo editing
Roxio Creator 9.0 Premier - Ultimate Burn/Authoring

TOTAL COST $1975 + TAX


How does that costly mess compare to the iMac?
1. Slower CPU
2. Slower GPU
3. External screen
4. No Gigabit Ethernet
5. No Firewire-800
6. No 802.11n
7. External speakers
8. Software doesn't compare to iLife
9. It looks ugly and takes up lots of space
10. It costs more

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Still does the average user really know or care about this. I like TETENAL's post that Apple has always geared the imac towards a digital hub and games/ high volume was never a marketing strategy.

Is that why they have several sections on their Web site touting Macs (even the iMac specifically) as being good for games? Because that's not a message they want to convey?

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Finally I've seen some benchmarks from barefeats and macworld. To me (I don't play much games) the numbers seem ok. Yes they're slower then the machines in the benchmark test but at the frame rates shown is it playable and they appear to be so.

Would you like to trade your computer for my old 400 MHz G4 tower? All your software will be runnable — well, the software that doesn't have high requirements, that is — so it's clearly an equal value. Only serious users could possibly want to use software that requires more than that, and Apple isn't aiming for them.

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

This computer is marketed towards the home consumer, not for the serious gamer and for the home consumer its a great computer.

Are you just trying to troll or what? Nobody's talking about hardcore gamers. Those people will want the latest in gaming technology, which isn't available in any Mac and never has been. Those people are not going to complain about this, because they already have built their own awesome gaming rig. I'm talking about casual gamers like me, who use their computer primarily for other things, but do enjoy playing games and want a computer that gives a good experience. This is actually not uncommon. Most people I know occasionally play games with their computers. And the fact is that Apple has left us worse off than we were before. The improvements to the rest of the iMac are smaller than the hit to the graphics card.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

...the fact is that Apple has left us worse off than we were before. The improvements to the rest of the iMac are smaller than the hit to the graphics card.

If a casual gamer, as you call yourself, isn't pleased with 59FPS in Prey at 1280x800 on high detail settings then you cannot be rescued. I suggest you buy a console. They run at less resolution, less FPS and satisfy many hardcore gamers

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

If a casual gamer, as you call yourself, isn't pleased with 59FPS in Prey at 1280x800 on high detail settings then you cannot be rescued. I suggest you buy a console. They run at less resolution, less FPS and satisfy many hardcore gamers

I'm not thinking about Prey; I'm thinking about Prey 2. When I bought my old 400 MHz iMac, it was good enough for Starcraft, which was out at the time. Then the next year, Warcraft 3 came out, and all of a sudden my passable computer couldn't play my new game at all. $50 wasted on a game that I thought my relatively recent computer should be able to play acceptably.

By the way, I do own a Wii. The software selection isn't really comparable.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm not thinking about Prey; I'm thinking about Prey 2.

Why stop at Prey 2? Let's go for Prey 3. You'll never be happy with an all-in-one in that case. You could lower the settings to 1024x768 with medium settings when newer games come out after two years but even that won't make you happy by the look of it. You need a machine with PCI Express slots.

[Dagny]

The difference is with a PC, you can usually fix ailing performance by spending $75-100 on a mediocre videocard, and it will run everything great again. With an iMac, it is not so.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Dagny 

The difference is with a PC, you can usually fix ailing performance by spending $75-100 on a mediocre videocard, and it will run everything great again. With an iMac, it is not so.

Comparing an all-in-one to a machine with expandable motherboard is like having a conversation in 1995 again.

[Dagny]

So basically there is no way we can prove anything to you, because you'll keep coming up with excuses. Whatever. I enjoyed playing games at 1900X1200 with my 7600GT 24" iMac last night. It ran really well. Over 50% faster than the **** they sell today.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Why stop at Prey 2? Let's go for Prey 3. You'll never be happy with an all-in-one in that case.

I'm not talking about after the machine is EOLed. I'm talking about the near future, when the machine should still theoretically not suck. Or do you think that since the new iMacs probably won't be able to run the new Mac OS in 2017, it would be reasonable if they couldn't run Leopard?

Seriously, if you think people should have to buy a new machine every few months just to use new software, you're completely out to lunch.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Dagny 

So basically there is no way we can prove anything to you, because you'll keep coming up with excuses.

Yes, I work at Men In Black Agency and this is a big conspiracy against hardcore gamers

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Comparing an all-in-one to a machine with expandable motherboard is like having a conversation in 1995 again.

Well problems that existed in 1995 exist now too. Apple remedied this partially by giving us the 7600 GT option in the previous iMac, but in their infinite wisdom, they reversed this decision.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm not talking about after the machine is EOLed. I'm talking about the near future.

How the hell will it be EOL in the near future? I've got Call of Duty 2 running on a craptacular 1.5Ghz PowerBook and it runs good. I even downloaded the Quake IV demo on this Mac and it runs well enough to see that I don't like the game. That's a three years old Mac running latest Mac games.

I've seen Leopard running with all features and faster than Tiger on PowerBooks that shipped with Panther. You're going mad for no damn reason as if daddy bought you an iMac instead of a gaming console and locked you in the room with no freedom or choice.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well problems that existed in 1995 exist now too. Apple remedied this partially by giving us the 7600 GT option in the previous iMac, but in their infinite wisdom, they reversed this decision.

Man, this is like a crop circles discussion.

Wanna play games? Boot into Windows and OC the GPU. Problem solved. Frame rates are faster there anyway and you've got a million more games to play with.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

How the hell will it be EOL in the near future?

Exactly. You're saying that because it will suck in several years, after it's EOL, I should be OK with it sucking right now. I'm saying that I want it to play games OK in the near future.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

You're going mad for no damn reason as if daddy bought you an iMac instead of a gaming console and locked you in the room with no freedom or choice.

Can you read? I just said that game consoles and computers are not the same thing. Stop bringing up irrelevant ****. When it comes to Macs, I don't really have any choice.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Wanna play games? Boot into Windows and OC the GPU. Problem solved. Frame rates are faster there anyway and you've got a million more games to play with.

So you're telling people to reorganize their hard drives and pay hundreds more for an OS they have no need for?

That's the ultimate example of defending Apple at all costs, regardless of common sense.

I applauded Apple for the choice they offered us with the last iMac. In fact, I rewarded them by giving them money. Now that Apple has removed that choice, I will criticize them.

[turtle777]

Hai guys, is teh store still down ?

Thx.

-t

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So you're telling people to reorganize their hard drives and pay hundreds more for an OS they have no need for?

Ah come on man. You know how to get Windows for free like everyone else

[Dakarʒ]

That doesn't make it a valid, legitimate option.

[Super Mario]

It's a valid illegitimate option.

[Dakarʒ]

Too much work for a casual gamer, though.

[Eug]

Actually, it's an invalid illegitimate option, as BootCamp doesn't work with previously partitioned drives either.

(This would not be a problem if Apple had an option for 2 hard drives in the 24" iMac.)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So you're telling people to reorganize their hard drives and pay hundreds more for an OS they have no need for?

That's the ultimate example of defending Apple at all costs, regardless of common sense.

I'm more concerned with the fact that the iMac doesn't have the cooling for an overclocked GPU. Like, I can think of more fun ways to destroy my computer.

[Dakarʒ]

An oversized blender?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Ah come on man. You know how to get Windows for free like everyone else

Some of us have a conscience.

[Dagny]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Yes, I work at Men In Black Agency and this is a big conspiracy against hardcore gamers

But nobody here is a hardcore gamer. If we were hardcore gamers we'd have built PCs specifically for it. I play games maybe every other day in the summer, and not that often during the school year. I just want a computer I spent well over a grand on to not suck ass at it.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Some of us have a conscience.

That's as bad as having your virginity.

[Dagny]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

How the hell will it be EOL in the near future? I've got Call of Duty 2 running on a craptacular 1.5Ghz PowerBook and it runs good. I even downloaded the Quake IV demo on this Mac and it runs well enough to see that I don't like the game. That's a three years old Mac running latest Mac games.

I've seen Leopard running with all features and faster than Tiger on PowerBooks that shipped with Panther. You're going mad for no damn reason as if daddy bought you an iMac instead of a gaming console and locked you in the room with no freedom or choice.

Just because it runs doesn't mean it's useable. I always laugh when portable owners say a game 'runs good'. Yeah. Right. How about you type 'stat fps' in the console and tell me exactly how 'good' that game is running. My guess is 20ish FPS. And down into 9-13 in a firefight. No thanks.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm more concerned with the fact that the iMac doesn't have the cooling for an overclocked GPU. Like, I can think of more fun ways to destroy my computer.

Nobody has bothered to ponder if the HD2600 isn't underclocked in the first place like the 8600GT in the MBP. There are guys who have switched from Wintel PCs to the MBP just to have a sleek laptop for gaming who have OC'd the GPU with Rivatuner. Even at stock underclocked speeds they aren't complaining. Look at this thread full of drooling PC boys.....

Mac Book Pro Benchmarks - Notebook Forums and Laptop Discussion

Install Windows, OC the chip if you are desperate to play at 80-100FPS, play your games.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Dagny 

Just because it runs doesn't mean it's useable. I always laugh when portable owners say a game 'runs good'.

It's running good and not jerking like a monkey otherwise I wouldn't play it.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Nobody has bothered to ponder if the HD2600 isn't underclocked in the first place like the 8600GT in the MBP. There are guys who have switched from Wintel PCs to the MBP just to have a sleek laptop for gaming who have OC'd the GPU with Rivatuner. Even at stock underclocked speeds they aren't complaining. Look at this thread full of drooling PC boys.....

Mac Book Pro Benchmarks - Notebook Forums and Laptop Discussion

Install Windows, OC the chip if you are desperate to play at 80-100FPS, play your games.

That's dumb.

Casual gamer ≠ hardcore overclocker geek

The unfortunate part is that even for the casual gamer, the 2600 Pro on the Macs sucks, even though the previous generation 7600 GT didn't.

[Super Mario]

Awesome. Powerstrip is still around after all these years and supports the latest GPUs.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

That's as bad as having your virginity.

Does maintaining one prevent the loss of the other?*
Finally...I won't have to be bored all day

[bradoesch]

I think I can help clear this up.

Too add a percentage increase don't forget to add the 1.

In this case our 245%=2.45. Add the 1 and then it's 3.45

29 X 3.45 = 100.05

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Does maintaining one prevent the loss of the other?

Not unless you're some type of prude.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Not unless you're some type of prude.

Well Jawbone already has that job taken care of on this board so I don't know where to stand.