[Cubeoid]

What is your take. Think about this one.

[wataru]

Stupid.

[MindFad]

64MB GF 5200 FX ULtra in a brand new product with a G5 in Sept. of 2004?

[X] Stupid.

[ ] Cool.





[/whiner]

[ManOfSteal]

No, Apple is fire-engine red hot right now.

[SafariX]

Originally posted by MindFad:
64MB GF 5200 FX ULtra in a brand new product with a G5 in Sept. of 2004?

[X] Stupid.

[ ] Cool.





[/whiner]

For some reason I lawled. Actually I SSIRL. (slightly smirked in real life). Harz.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by MindFad:
64MB GF 5200 FX ULtra in a brand new product with a G5 in Sept. of 2004?
[X] Stupid.

Are you guys gonna get over this anytime in the next 200 years ?

-t

[Link]

Originally posted by MindFad:
64MB GF 5200 FX ULtra in a brand new product with a G5 in Sept. of 2004?

[X] Stupid.

[ ] Cool.





[/whiner]

[SafariX]

Originally posted by turtle777:


Are you guys gonna get over this anytime in the next 200 years ?

-t

Lets hope by 2204 the iMac has at least a 9600pro (of course downclocked from the PC version that shipped in 2003).

[turtle777]

Originally posted by SafariX:
Lets hope by 2204 the iMac has at least a 9600pro (of course downclocked from the PC version that shipped in 2003).

Ha ! By then, I can afford a G16 PowerMac !

-t

[MindFad]

Originally posted by SafariX:
Lets hope by 2204 the iMac has at least a 9600pro (of course downclocked from the PC version that shipped in 2003).

2204? I can see that, but probably only with a 128MB.

And yes, I plan to continue whining about it until Apple fixes it. I should been more specific, though:

"Integrated 64MB GF 5200 FX ULtra in a brand new product with a G5 in Sept. of 2004? WTF!?!1"

I can live with it�just barely�being in high-end professional dual-processor 64-bit workstations, since you can upgrade via BTO, but the iMac should've had a 128MB 9600 Pro in it at the least.

Unless they figure out a way to get an AGP slot in there, then that would be cool (you could use the ports for dual monitors).

[Superchicken]

I think Apple is making some super popular products and directing resources to those. I would expect any company with a hit to do the same. The iPod I don't think was ever intended to be this, I think it was always supposed to be an MP3 player that didn't suck, and was specifically mac compatable. Ultimately people loved it. I think the iPod would still be in development if it had remained as popular as the iSight is right now.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by MindFad:
64MB GF 5200 FX ULtra in a brand new product with a G5 in Sept. of 2004?

If you're a gamer, yes it will suck. For the rest of the world, it's perfect.

And if you are a gamer, you have three choices: buck up and buy a G5 tower, buy a console, buy/build a PC.

[dodo_nutter]

Why are you complaining about the graphics card?? As Hanks said its plenty good enough for most people. Why are you complaining anyway, its a G5 for less than �1000!! For once Apple is competing with the PC market by putting out a relatively low priced Machine that has apples trademark coolness and has a 64bit processor in it.

Thats what got me, its a very decent computer for everyday tasks and its cheap by Apple standards

[Cubeoid]

This whole hip-hop thing is just sad IMO, not pointing the fiddle at Apple here, I even congratulate them for getting into the picture to make money from it.

However the new iMac is clearly being pushed at the iPod bandwagon crowd. The people who all got iPods because it's cool to have little white earphones. Soon we might see an MciPod Meal.

I wouldn't make a very good business man, I may have too much "beef" with the mechanics of it all.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

i always feel lost when people talk about the graphics card.

i've never played a "PC video game" on my mac ever


i have never seen the big deal about it. as long as it plays porn, i'm happy

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
i always feel lost when people talk about the graphics card.

i've never played a "PC video game" on my mac ever


i have never seen the big deal about it. as long as it plays porn, i'm happy

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by dodo_nutter:
Why are you complaining about the graphics card?? As Hanks said its plenty good enough for most people. Why are you complaining anyway, its a G5 for less than �1000!! For once Apple is competing with the PC market by putting out a relatively low priced Machine that has apples trademark coolness and has a 64bit processor in it.

Thats what got me, its a very decent computer for everyday tasks and its cheap by Apple standards

You are absolutely right about Apple producing a desktop that can compete price-wise
with the PC market. After the G5 iMac was released many in the financial press reacted
in a rather lackluster way for this very reason. If Apple is releasing a not-revolutionary
(besides design) all-in-one desktop to compete with the PC market the likelihood of them
making "insanely great" profits is much more questionable than if they released a super-
duper exotic iMac that cost several hundred dollars more. Because the financial press
knows the super-duper iMac would get the Mac faithful to pony up and buy one whereas it
is much more tenuous as to how this new iMac will attract PC converts.

Having said all that--I need to work on my punctuation a bit--I think it is a really good
machine (not great, though) for an excellent price. Perhaps Apple is trying to increase
units shipped by decreasing margins. But, people WILL buy a new iMac (unless you are a
gamer) and be very satisfied with it. Remember, it is a consumer machine after all.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by turtle777:


Are you guys gonna get over this anytime in the next 200 years ?

-t

No not likely. The 5200 is such a crappy card. It's not even AVERAGE! Sure throw an average card in the new iMac G5, but this scum sucking bottom feeding thing of a card is well I think I just said it

[amsalpemkcus]

they are not stupid, they arent ambitious either, but they are opportunistic if it can make more money for less input methinks..

[wdlove]

Apple is cool!

[MacGorilla]

I hear the video card is replacable.

[TailsToo]

Apple products are selling great right now... in fact, even without the new iMac sales are better dollar wise than this time last year.

Go Apple!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
If you're a gamer, yes it will suck. For the rest of the world, it's perfect.

And if you are a gamer, you have three choices: buck up and buy a G5 tower, buy a console, buy/build a PC.

No not really, in Tiger and already in Panther the OS is relying HEAVILY upon the graphics card. So do many apps today which will be increasingly more common in the near future. A G5 on a 600 MHz bus is way cool, the 17" to 20" widescreen LCD is major cool and in fact pretty much everything in the new iMac is set to last you for the 2 to 3 years a computer is expected to last. Except the graphics card. That won't last long after Tiger is released. It will be the bare minimum for the system. Games are probably what pushes development of graphics cards ahead, but today almost every graphical aspect of the OS look and feel is made with the graphics card, relying on 64+ MB of memory and serious 3d hardware acceleration. I'd have been very pleased with the GForce 5700 FX or the 5900 FX. (retail price for the 5900 is ca $170 w/128 RAM and retail price for the 5700 is ca $110 for a 256 MB version while the 5200 FX - that is the card in the G5 iMacs retails for roughly $50) The performance difference between the 5200 FX and the 5700 FX is more the 2x. We are talking about $35 to $40 difference (if both cards are 64 MB). In regular retail. Hello? Apple?

[MindFad]

This is part part of my problem with Apple, and everyone seems to agree: that's it's just "good enough." Apple will gladly go "good enough" if you let 'em.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by MindFad:
This is part part of my problem with Apple, and everyone seems to agree: that's it's just "good enough." Apple will gladly go "good enough" if you let 'em.

Dude, who really cares when the Mac doesn't get a PC port until a year later. You don't buy a Mac to game.

With that said because X is quartz intensive and new apps like Motion rely heavily on the graphics card they need to beef up the graphics card....

with that said if you're using programs like Motion then you really should be using a PowerMac instead.

[phoenixboy70]

apple has always been pretty "cool", imho.

i'm not going to buy any "i" product though any more (except for an ipod).

a mid range g5 tower, and of course the top of the line are really good products. the tft displays absolutely stellar.

the imac and ibook, to me, have always been very expensive and overpriced toys. configurability and having as many "ports" as possible is a high priority.

i hope that by the time the new g5/tiger come out i'll have enough money to "invest" again. a dual 3 ghz g5, 20" tft would be ideal to run the newest version of adium.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:

With that said because X is quartz intensive and new apps like Motion rely heavily on the graphics card they need to beef up the graphics card....

with that said if you're using programs like Motion then you really should be using a PowerMac instead.

So I should by a PM to run OS X? What's Tiger going to be like on these new iMacs?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by MindFad:
2204? I can see that, but probably only with a 128MB.

And yes, I plan to continue whining about it until Apple fixes it. I should been more specific, though:

"Integrated 64MB GF 5200 FX ULtra in a brand new product with a G5 in Sept. of 2004? WTF!?!1"

I can live with it�just barely�being in high-end professional dual-processor 64-bit workstations, since you can upgrade via BTO, but the iMac should've had a 128MB 9600 Pro in it at the least.

Unless they figure out a way to get an AGP slot in there, then that would be cool (you could use the ports for dual monitors).

I've got to agree here, we're talking about a couple $ difference when purchased in 100K lots. That's nothing when you're looking at a $1500 machine.

The 5200 FX is, IMO, the deal-breaker here. If it had a 9600 Pro I would have bought a couple. As it is, I'm waiting for Rev B.

[george68]

Originally posted by turtle777:


Are you guys gonna get over this anytime in the next 200 years ?

-t

Suck an egg, pogo.com user.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Ha ! By then, I can afford a G16 PowerMac !

-t

>start turtledumbass mode

But why should apple make a G16! For most users a G5 is plenty! Why should they ever increase their processor speeds at all if most users just do web surfing, email, and other non intensive tasks! Why should the .00001 % of the marketshare dictate what apple should make?

>end turtledumbass mode

[george68]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
If you're a gamer, yes it will suck. For the rest of the world, it's perfect.

And if you are a gamer, you have three choices: buck up and buy a G5 tower, buy a console, buy/build a PC.

Wrong. That's the MINIMUM card for core applications. In a year, this new iMac is BARELY going to be able to run all of ilife.

- Rob

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I hear the video card is replacable.

That is incorrect.

[zen jihad]

Apple can barely get their high-end machines right, so it's probably too much to ask for them to get a decent spec for the iMac.

[phoenixboy70]

btw, is anybody here running motion already? what is the performance like on a g4? will a pb 1 ghz be able to handle it (properly)?

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
btw, is anybody here running motion already? what is the performance like on a g4? will a pb 1 ghz be able to handle it (properly)?

Nah, it really needs a G5 for to get decent real-time performance across the board. Soon as you hit it with a G4, the real-time performance drops off a cliff. It's still usable though.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
Nah, it really needs a G5 for to get decent real-time performance across the board. Soon as you hit it with a G4, the real-time performance drops off a cliff. It's still usable though.

damn. thought as much.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
damn. thought as much.

Give it a try though, cause you might find that performance is acceptable. It's really just the real-time stuff that takes a hit on the G4, but I found most other things acceptable.

[khufuu]

Originally posted by MindFad:
64MB GF 5200 FX ULtra in a brand new product with a G5 in Sept. of 2004?

[X] Stupid.

[ ] Cool.

[/whiner]

Gotta agree with this one.

If they weren't stupid, they'd have made it a user-replaceable part.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by george68:
[another post by the forums idot]

-t

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by voodoo:
No not really, in Tiger and already in Panther the OS is relying HEAVILY upon the graphics card. So do many apps today which will be increasingly more common in the near future. A G5 on a 600 MHz bus is way cool, the 17" to 20" widescreen LCD is major cool and in fact pretty much everything in the new iMac is set to last you for the 2 to 3 years a computer is expected to last. Except the graphics card. That won't last long after Tiger is released. It will be the bare minimum for the system. Games are probably what pushes development of graphics cards ahead, but today almost every graphical aspect of the OS look and feel is made with the graphics card, relying on 64+ MB of memory and serious 3d hardware acceleration. I'd have been very pleased with the GForce 5700 FX or the 5900 FX. (retail price for the 5900 is ca $170 w/128 RAM and retail price for the 5700 is ca $110 for a 256 MB version while the 5200 FX - that is the card in the G5 iMacs retails for roughly $50) The performance difference between the 5200 FX and the 5700 FX is more the 2x. We are talking about $35 to $40 difference (if both cards are 64 MB). In regular retail. Hello? Apple?

Apple can devote enough time to optimize the hell out of Quartz to make sure it will run on even a meager card like the 5200. Game designers, on the other hand, cater to the high end crowd, and typically are on much tighter time tables, so the low end gear typically doesn't get much love.

Originally posted by george68:
Wrong. That's the MINIMUM card for core applications. In a year, this new iMac is BARELY going to be able to run all of ilife.

- Rob

I've tested Tiger on lesser hardware with no hardware acceleration, and it ran surprisingly well. A minimum card will do extremely well.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
btw, is anybody here running motion already? what is the performance like on a g4? will a pb 1 ghz be able to handle it (properly)?

Motion is heavily dependent on the graphics card.

I have a stock 2.0 G5 rev. A (1.5gig of ram) that gets about 20fps with 2 layers and about 10 objects. Things start slowing down as soon as you start adding filters and more layers.

It's a revolutionary program though and well worth it's $300 price. Tiger with it's core graphics system will undoubtedly improve things.

Everyone bitches about gaming (which is expected based on the average age around here) but X really needs a good graphics card for everything else.

[fireside]

Originally posted by turtle777:


-t

haha, you're the idiot now, you misspelled "idiot".

dumbass.

[MrForgetable]

Well I guess I'm screwed by getting a new Powerbook with only 64MB graphics.

[Superchicken]

I am surprised Apple keeps only shipping "OK" cards with their machines if they're going so GPU happy. Shouldn't they be encouraging users to get the best cards possible?

And I imagine if they put the same card in the PM they could probably save money by buying only a couple cards instead of more... buy buy higher end.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
Apple can devote enough time to optimize the hell out of Quartz to make sure it will run on even a meager card like the 5200. Game designers, on the other hand, cater to the high end crowd, and typically are on much tighter time tables, so the low end gear typically doesn't get much love.
I've tested Tiger on lesser hardware with no hardware acceleration, and it ran surprisingly well. A minimum card will do extremely well.

Tiger is not ready yet.

That said, we are talking about $35 difference to Apple. How much will it cost them to optimize OS X for the low end graphics cards? THIRTY FIVE DOLLAR DIFFERENCE and you are DEFENDING THEM!! HAHAHAHA

I'm an Apple apologist but damn.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by MrForgetable:
Well I guess I'm screwed by getting a new Powerbook with only 64MB graphics.

The RAM on the video card is only half the story. It's just to store textures. Obviously the bigger the textures are the more RAM you need, and the more textures there are the more RAM you'll need. That said the rest of the card is what REALLY matters. For instance a 64 MB GForce 5200 Ultra (like in the iMac) is utter crap because it is slow. The 64 MB ATi 9600 Radion mobility that is in the (high end) Power Books wipes the floor with the GF5200U despite the 5200 and the ATi 9600 share the same amount of RAM on board. Also despite the ATi card being a mobility card, that is much lower power than the stationary cards (and in this comparison the 5200 is stationary).

[Sealobo]

Apple is cool. The new new iMac shall sell like a red-hot mofo.

[Lancer409]

Originally posted by voodoo:
No not likely. The 5200 is such a crappy card. It's not even AVERAGE! Sure throw an average card in the new iMac G5, but this scum sucking bottom feeding thing of a card is well I think I just said it

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Tiger is not ready yet.

That said, we are talking about $35 difference to Apple. How much will it cost them to optimize OS X for the low end graphics cards? THIRTY FIVE DOLLAR DIFFERENCE and you are DEFENDING THEM!! HAHAHAHA

I'm an Apple apologist but damn.

Tiger is far from ready, but as with almost any piece of software Apple works on, the early builds run like ****, and each progressing build is faster.

$35 difference?

Yeah, you're an apologist, but you're virging on sounding like an idiot (as most apologists do.)

[voodoo]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
Tiger is far from ready, but as with almost any piece of software Apple works on, the early builds run like ****, and each progressing build is faster.

$35 difference?

Yeah, you're an apologist, but you're virging on sounding like an idiot (as most apologists do.)

The comment "yeah I'm an apologist but damn.." was an open comment that would have ended like "you're even worse!"