iMac/eMac Bumps [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

Moxiemike

Dec 14, 2002, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by rman2008
hopefully these new models will have the long awaited 19" flat panel. I also wish that the 19" will be available as a display as well. id like to see significant price drops in the studio and cinema displays. that would make a great belated christmas gift for me!

-ray

the thing is... i looked at a 17" iMac next to a 17" studio display... and man, it's obvious that the size difference is there.

What i'd HOPE upon HOPE that apple would do is keep the iMac at 17", because a 19" iMac, if done properly would be too bulky and done improperly would just be marketing hype.

Apple can't afford that...for sure.

I'd be happy if the spread went like this:

933 iMac 15"/256/60/32mb vram/combo $1199

1.0ghz iMac 17"/256/60/32mb vram/combo
$1399

1.0ghz iMac 17"/512/80/64mb vram/superdrive
$1699

As for the ol' eMac.....

800 mhz 256/40/32mb vram/cd-rw
$999

933 mhz 256/60/32mb vram/combo
$1199

1.0ghz 512/60/32mb vram/superdrive
$1499

I think that's a doable little speed bump. and makes the iMac and eMac very competitive.

Also, I think that if Apple wants to do something with displays.... well:

drop the 15"

Make the 17" 599
Make a std aspect ratio 19" @ $999

Make a wide 17" (same as iMac) @ $999
Make a wide 19" at $1399

I think that would be nice, to have a mixture of wide and traditional aspect ratios....maybe a new case too.

Maybe i'm dreaming.

Who knows. And give me a CF reader that attaches to my iPod! PLEASE!

Megaquad

Dec 14, 2002, 01:02 PM

1GHz eMac? no thanks
those 800 mhz imacs/emacs are fast like powermacs@500 mhz, they all have some sort of crappy scaled down processors
performance in games is terrible compared to half cheaper pc's.. no support for secondary display
they all come with those superdrives? why would i want superdrive who reads cd's @ 24x and burns them @ 8x? Why cant they sell them with some 40x cdrw burner or 32x8x combo, why do they always put inferior stuff in it?

seems to me powermacs/powerbooks are the only way to go.

usersince86

Dec 14, 2002, 01:21 PM

\/\/\/ CAUTION \/\/\/

Speed bumps ahead
for the next
6 to 12 months

After that, the road should be much smoother and faster.

pimentoLoaf

Dec 14, 2002, 01:49 PM

1-gig 19" Photoshop 7 machine w/maxxed-out RAM -- sure, I'll buy it. :cool:

AssassinOfGates

Dec 14, 2002, 02:19 PM

19" on an iMac. I shudder thinking at it. The 17" is already a bit too big for the base, so I'm doubtful. Besides, its MOSR. they totally ****ed up on the reports of my dual 867, all the more reason to doubt. Although I can see a 933 / 1GHz processor in the revisions

bbarnhart

Dec 14, 2002, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike

1.0ghz iMac 17"/256/60/32mb vram/combo
$1399

I would run, not walk, to MicroCenter to put an order in for one. But, I doubt they will be that cheap.

The Sheck

Dec 14, 2002, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike

As for the ol' eMac.....

800 mhz 256/40/32mb vram/cd-rw
$999

The 800MHz model comes equipped with a Superdrive already, so it wouldn't make much sense to take it out. Maybe Superdrive equipped for ALL emacs is a possibility?

Raiden

Dec 14, 2002, 03:06 PM

1.0ghz iMac 17"/256/60/32mb vram/combo
$1399

Imagine that for 1299 with the educational discount. Or 1050 with the student developer discount. I would buy a computer like that for college.

DakotaGuy

Dec 14, 2002, 03:24 PM

I think 933Mhz and 1 Ghz editions of the eMac and iMac would be great, but don't you think as long as they are at it, they should at least jump the bus speed from 100Mhz to 133Mhz? I think an i or eMac with a 1Ghz, 133Mhz bus would help it well against the consumer PC's.

Moxiemike

Dec 14, 2002, 03:47 PM

see... if apple would be a TEENY bit more competitive with pricing... more sales.

They might lose some of the overhead... but ti would be made up in sales, and subsequently market share.

bbyrdhouse

Dec 14, 2002, 03:53 PM

Hot Diggity Dang!!!

1 Ghtz iMac w/ 133Mhz bus speed, 17 inch wide screen, 512 ram, 64 vram, Superdrive, for $1799 or under and I'm buying 2.

I knew that if I waited something better would come along.

Gonna be switchin' baby!!!:D :D :D

Tue12

Dec 14, 2002, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Macrumors
Confirmation abounds that ...

That statement confirms my suspicions. He's been talking to himself in the mirror again. :D

theaz

Dec 14, 2002, 04:47 PM

The rest of the update, however, is primarily speculation and summary of recent events..

you tell 'em

daveg5

Dec 14, 2002, 06:00 PM

touch screen overlays for the 19-22-23 cinema display, also doubles as an antiglare shield. 149-249 with software.
Osx never had it so good

nuckinfutz

Dec 14, 2002, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
see... if apple would be a TEENY bit more competitive with pricing... more sales.

They might lose some of the overhead... but ti would be made up in sales, and subsequently market share.

What sort of Empirical Evidence do you have to support such claims? Trust me Apple has a Marketing and Financial team that toss around a little more data than you have at your disposal. They know what their projected sales are versus Profits. We can second guess them but we're at a severe disadvantage.

I thinks it's almost a given for an eMac and iMac updates. A 19" iMac is doable but probably is not coming in Jan.

The iMac and eMac will have relatively small bumps IMO. I don't think apple can add too much proc speed without moving to the PPC970 on the Hi End.

Superdrives in everything possible would be the best thing. I'd like to see them in everything above the base model.

Moxiemike

Dec 14, 2002, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz

What sort of Empirical Evidence do you have to support such claims? Trust me Apple has a Marketing and Financial team that toss around a little more data than you have at your disposal. They know what their projected sales are versus Profits. We can second guess them but we're at a severe disadvantage.

I thinks it's almost a given for an eMac and iMac updates. A 19" iMac is doable but probably is not coming in Jan.

The iMac and eMac will have relatively small bumps IMO. I don't think apple can add too much proc speed without moving to the PPC970 on the Hi End.

Superdrives in everything possible would be the best thing. I'd like to see them in everything above the base model.

Who are you to jump on someone who probably has three times the marketing experience you do!

nuckinfutz, nuck off, ok loser?

pantagruel

Dec 14, 2002, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Megaquad
1GHz eMac? no thanks
those 800 mhz imacs/emacs are fast like powermacs@500 mhz, they all have some sort of crappy scaled down processors
performance in games is terrible compared to half cheaper pc's.. no support for secondary display
they all come with those superdrives? why would i want superdrive who reads cd's @ 24x and burns them @ 8x? Why cant they sell them with some 40x cdrw burner or 32x8x combo, why do they always put inferior stuff in it?

seems to me powermacs/powerbooks are the only way to go.
not to get personal but you sound like a grade a moron, first of all the point in having a superdrive is because it BURNS DVD'S!!!! otherwise if you just wanted to burn cds you would just get the combo drive, and its not "inferior" dumbass because all dvd-burner drives give up speed on burning cds and THEY DO SELL THEM WITH COMBO DRIVES not all of them are superdrives. Also there is support for secondary displays, I just got back from my cousings house who has a nice cinema display hooked up to his wonderful looking new 17" imac.! and the processor is not a crappy scaled down one, it performs damn well thank you and I have zero and I repeat zero issues with playing games. I probably sound real harsh but opinions are one thing and just not knowing what the hell you are talking about is another and you dont know squat.Also not everyone can afford the much more expensive powermacs or powerbooks.

I'm thinking of getting a new emac for a child and I would love to see a speed bump in them, it would only be fair for the iMacs to get an even faster speed bump though becaue you wouldnt want the emacs out performing the iMacs.

scem0

Dec 14, 2002, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by pantagruel

not to get personal but you sound like a grade a moron, first of all the point in having a superdrive is because it BURNS DVD'S!!!! otherwise if you just wanted to burn cds you would just get the combo drive, and its not "inferior" dumbass because all dvd-burner drives give up speed on burning cds and THEY DO SELL THEM WITH COMBO DRIVES not all of them are superdrives. Also there is support for secondary displays, I just got back from my cousings house who has a nice cinema display hooked up to his wonderful looking new 17" imac.! and the processor is not a crappy scaled down one, it performs damn well thank you and I have zero and I repeat zero issues with playing games. I probably sound real harsh but opinions are one thing and just not knowing what the hell you are talking about is another and you dont know squat.Also not everyone can afford the much more expensive powermacs or powerbooks.

I'm thinking of getting a new emac for a child and I would love to see a speed bump in them, it would only be fair for the iMacs to get an even faster speed bump though becaue you wouldnt want the emacs out performing the iMacs.

Well, 1st off, he was talking about an 800 mHZ eMac therefore
your comment about how your cousin's 800 MHz iMac is void. I can
relate to what he is saying. THe eMacs seem slower then other
macs with the same amount of MHz.

Also not everyone can afford the much more expensive powermacs or powerbooks.

That's true. THat is why I got a PC. Why get a 700 MHz eMac when,
for the same price, I can get a 2,800 MHz PC? I didn't want that
slow eMac.... I wanted a computer that wouldn't be obsolete that
quick. (Or obsolete before I got it).

You might not have issues playing games on your iMac but I sure
don't on my PC and they run twice as well, and I got my 2.4 GHz
pentium 4 for $700. I am assuming your games are being played
on at least a $1,400 iMac? I can play games more then twice as
well on a machine that cost half as much...

gotohamish

Dec 15, 2002, 08:33 AM

Megaquad

Dec 15, 2002, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by pantagruel

not to get personal but you sound like a grade a moron, first of all the point in having a superdrive is because it BURNS DVD'S!!!! otherwise if you just wanted to burn cds you would just get the combo drive, and its not "inferior" dumbass because all dvd-burner drives give up speed on burning cds and THEY DO SELL THEM WITH COMBO DRIVES not all of them are superdrives. Also there is support for secondary displays, I just got back from my cousings house who has a nice cinema display hooked up to his wonderful looking new 17" imac.! and the processor is not a crappy scaled down one, it performs damn well thank you and I have zero and I repeat zero issues with playing games. I probably sound real harsh but opinions are one thing and just not knowing what the hell you are talking about is another and you dont know squat.Also not everyone can afford the much more expensive powermacs or powerbooks.

I'm thinking of getting a new emac for a child and I would love to see a speed bump in them, it would only be fair for the iMacs to get an even faster speed bump though becaue you wouldnt want the emacs out performing the iMacs.
First, my point was that having Superdrive is not worth of sacrificing CD/DVD reading speed and CD burning speed, they should have made a choice on all iMacs/eMacs to get FAST cd-rw, or faster combo drive (these apple offers are slow like hell).

If you think processor performs well, go take a 800 mhz PowerBook or PowerMac and compare, powerbook 800 will kick iMacs ass, check out benchmarks its at least 20% faster.
And if you think games run well on iMac then you dont know what gaming is, can you really say that you can play moh:aa, sof2,ghost recon etc. on high settings all max and get 50fps? (which is considered less then solid) what about upcoming UT:2k3? haha
By the way, 800 mhz tibook will have more then twice better framerates in anything.
GeForce 2 MX graphics? geez, that gpu was almost obsolete for year and half ago.
so everyone stop being such a zealots, put a 599$ pc next to hi-end eMac/iMac and watch how PC is 2.5+ times faster in everything and get a life. if you have low demands for your computer thats ok, but its annoying to pay so much money for so little processing power and tell others it is ok, because it is NOT.

bikertwin

Dec 15, 2002, 11:31 AM

>> put a 599$ pc next to hi-end eMac/iMac and watch how PC is 2.5+ times faster

Well that 599 PC is $1000 when you add a quality 19" CRT or 15" LCD. So that's a fairer comparison, no?

Yes, the PC is much faster but other than games what do you need the speed for? Why not buy an iMac and an XBox? :D

My WinXP machine does the blue screen of death when I do something simple like try to log out so someone else can log in. Probably a bad hardware driver somewhere. Much less frequent problem with Macs.

It's not about speed. It's about style, stability, and ease. Gotta love those iApps.

And excuse my total ignorance here (I'll admit it--I'm no gamer) but what's the point of 50fps gaming, and at what fps does it not matter anymore? I mean, US TV is at 29.97 fps and movies/film are 24 fps. I can see that a game at 5fps would be stupid, but what does 50fps buy you over, say, 30fps? Other than maybe epileptic seizures?

cpt_ahab

Dec 15, 2002, 12:46 PM

And excuse my total ignorance here (I'll admit it--I'm no gamer) but what's the point of 50fps gaming, and at what fps does it not matter anymore? I mean, US TV is at 29.97 fps and movies/film are 24 fps. I can see that a game at 5fps would be stupid, but what does 50fps buy you over, say, 30fps? Other than maybe epileptic seizures?

:D I totally agree with that - the only argument for those Windows users is that the PC performs better in games, buying a new graphic card every few months gets me a few more frames out of the bulky grey box, yeah!!
I got a Mac because I wan't to WORK with it! And for all the stuff I have ever worked on and with the performance of the iMac is more than suitable. I have my old G3 now for almost 5 years. I have never ever had a single problem with it. And with OS9 it still works fine. Show me that 5 year old PC.
The Mac, especially the iMac must be seen as more than just a computer, it's just finest design and something you can fall in love with.
-----
To come back to the original topic - 19" iMacs would be fine, but I think more than the 17" display wouldn't properly fit on the iMac base. Better get a 19" studio display as long announced. What about new graphics for the top models and get the 4mx on the small models (we have the graphics topic again :p )? The top iMac should have one ghz, but the top eMac should stay a little behind the iMac, let's say 933 to keep the iMac clearly above the eMac. Perhaps we also see 120gig drives in the biggest iMac?

arn

Dec 15, 2002, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by bikertwin

And excuse my total ignorance here (I'll admit it--I'm no gamer) but what's the point of 50fps gaming, and at what fps does it not matter anymore? I mean, US TV is at 29.97 fps and movies/film are 24 fps. I can see that a game at 5fps would be stupid, but what does 50fps buy you over, say, 30fps? Other than maybe epileptic seizures?

50fps looks better than 30fps. But it depends on the content etc...

See http://www.cdmag.com/articles/030/159/hardw_column.html for more info.

The gist of it is peak frame rates are important... because the frame rate drops depending on the action. A Peak Frame rate of 50 means that in heavy action, your frame rate will dip to 20 or so.... (for example). While a peak frame rate of 120 might mean that in heavy action the frame rate will only drop to 50-60 or so.

Eye experts say that a video refresh of 50 times a second is the minimum necessary to represent smooth movement without flickering for the average human eye. The key, of course, is to keep the frame rate up above 50 all the time. Benchmarks almost always measure an average frame rate, when it's the swing that matters—a game that runs at a constant 30 FPS will almost certainly look smoother than one that runs at 45 most of the time, but sometimes drops to 25.

arn

hesdeadjim

Dec 15, 2002, 01:01 PM

hesdeadjim

Dec 15, 2002, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by arn

50fps looks better than 30fps. But it depends on the content etc...

See http://www.cdmag.com/articles/030/159/hardw_column.html for more info.

The gist of it is peak frame rates are important... because the frame rate drops depending on the action. A Peak Frame rate of 50 means that in heavy action, your frame rate will dip to 20 or so.... (for example). While a peak frame rate of 120 might mean that in heavy action the frame rate will only drop to 50-60 or so.

arn

This is good point as well.

LethalWolfe

Dec 15, 2002, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Megaquad

First, my point was that having Superdrive is not worth of sacrificing CD/DVD reading speed and CD burning speed, they should have made a choice on all iMacs/eMacs to get FAST cd-rw, or faster combo drive (these apple offers are slow like hell).

If you think processor performs well, go take a 800 mhz PowerBook or PowerMac and compare, powerbook 800 will kick iMacs ass, check out benchmarks its at least 20% faster.
And if you think games run well on iMac then you dont know what gaming is, can you really say that you can play moh:aa, sof2,ghost recon etc. on high settings all max and get 50fps? (which is considered less then solid) what about upcoming UT:2k3? haha
By the way, 800 mhz tibook will have more then twice better framerates in anything.
GeForce 2 MX graphics? geez, that gpu was almost obsolete for year and half ago.
so everyone stop being such a zealots, put a 599$ pc next to hi-end eMac/iMac and watch how PC is 2.5+ times faster in everything and get a life. if you have low demands for your computer thats ok, but its annoying to pay so much money for so little processing power and tell others it is ok, because it is NOT.

I'm not a fan of zealots on either side of the fence so can you please point me to a $599 PC that is over 2.5 times faster than the best iMac and comes w/equivalent hardware and software(and by faster I mean really faster not just a higher clock speed).

Lethal

LethalWolfe

Dec 15, 2002, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by hesdeadjim

Actually, after 50 fps or so (I forget the actual number, it may be more like 70 or even 30) the human eye can't tell the difference between frame rates. A bigger concern about games is that whether it can still display those fps for the super-duper games next year.

I used to have some really good articles 'bout this subject but I lost them when my computer crashed a few months ago. Anyway... Using movie or TV frame rates as a basis for game frame rates is flawed because movies, TVs, and games have very different visual charactaristics. The biggest difference is motion blur. Games don't have it, TV and movies do. And the only reason movies can get away w/24fps is because they are projected onto a huge white screen that results in an afterimage which helps the eye "fill in the blanks" betwen frames of the movie to give the illusion of fluid motion. Also, the 24fps in movies came about as a cost saving feature in the early 1900s. It had nothing to do w/24fps being the "right" amount of fps or anything like that.

Since games have no motion blur to blend the individual images together they have to have much higher frame rates to give the same illusion of motion TV and Movies have.

You also have to factor in what the eyes ability is, and just how much of that ability we use. For example, I never used to notice the "cigarette burns" that tell the projectionist when to change reels in the theater until someone pointed them out to me. Now I always see them. I've read that the air force is conducting studies to see what the visual limit of the human eye is and pilots have been able to correctly ID planes that were only flashed for 1/220th of a second.

Found a good link here (http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm)

Lethal

DakotaGuy

Dec 15, 2002, 01:40 PM

Does anyone think that the new 7457 chips might be ready for an iMac/eMac intro in January? I know that it would make more sense for Apple to use these better processors in the PowerMac and PowerBook first, but if the pro machines go to the 970, then this processor will help the iMac and eMac scale better, probably to 2Ghz in a year and a half or so. I have been reading a little on the 7457 and it looks like a great processor for the consumer and laptop market, will Apple use these in the next iMac, eMac and Powerbook?

hesdeadjim

Dec 15, 2002, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

I used to have some really good articles 'bout this subject but I lost them when my computer crashed a few months ago. Anyway... Using movie or TV frame rates as a basis for game frame rates is flawed because movies, TVs, and games have very different visual charactaristics. The biggest difference is motion blur. Games don't have it, TV and movies do. And the only reason movies can get away w/24fps is because they are projected onto a huge white screen that results in an afterimage which helps the eye "fill in the blanks" betwen frames of the movie to give the illusion of fluid motion. Also, the 24fps in movies came about as a cost saving feature in the early 1900s. It had nothing to do w/24fps being the "right" amount of fps or anything like that.

Since games have no motion blur to blend the individual images together they have to have much higher frame rates to give the same illusion of motion TV and Movies have.

You also have to factor in what the eyes ability is, and just how much of that ability we use. For example, I never used to notice the "cigarette burns" that tell the projectionist when to change reels in the theater until someone pointed them out to me. Now I always see them. I've read that the air force is conducting studies to see what the visual limit of the human eye is and pilots have been able to correctly ID planes that were only flashed for 1/220th of a second.

Found a good link here (http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm)

Lethal

I wasn't basing it on the fact that TV and movies project things at 24-30 fps (I only said 30 cause I can't remember the number right now). There is a limit though to when it matters for the fps for gaming (and I think it might be 70). Now this is for the average human, fighter pilots B]TEND[/B] to have a higher visual accuity then say I do, so seeing things up to 1/220th of a second doesn't really matter for most people.

And there are some things to having higher fps, espicially during slow down, and does keep the card from being obsolete quickly, but at a certain point it doesn't matter how the fps is, the game will look smooth.

Hawthorne

Dec 15, 2002, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

I used to have some really good articles 'bout this subject but I lost them when my computer crashed a few months ago.

I was reading the article on frames per second rates in computer games, and all of a sudden the computer went "beepbeepboopbeepbeep" and I was like "Huh?"

It devoured the article.

It was a really good article.

And now I have to defend myself on a message board and I can't do it as well.

It's kind of a...... bummer.

:D ;)

Griffindor73

Dec 15, 2002, 02:08 PM

I was just thinking, could it be that a 19" iMac might not be widescreen, In other words, about the same width as the 17" but with a bit on the top- just like the conventional monitor. Also, if they reduced the width of the white border around the outside of it it wouldn't look so top-heavy.

However, a 1Ghz 17" superdrive iMac might just tempt me into the shop- my ol' 400Mhz purple iMac is starting to show its age. (I've had it three years now- a better lifespan than most $599 PC machines, I believe) In fact I could get another year or two out of it if it wasn't for the lack of hard drive space. (Only 10gis!- I know I could get an external firewire drive- but I'd rather put the money towards a new iMac.:D

bbyrdhouse

Dec 15, 2002, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by cpt_ahab
[BThe top iMac should have one ghz, but the top eMac should stay a little behind the iMac, let's say 933 to keep the iMac clearly above the eMac. Perhaps we also see 120gig drives in the biggest iMac? [/B]

The iMac is already clearly above the eMac. The flat screen vs. the crt monitor, and in case design. It doesn't need to stay ahead in processor speed too.

There needs to be that HIGH quality machine for the masses that cant afford the higher quality machine.

Maybe I could do without the flat screen and fancy design but I dont want to do without the power.
To some they want the power and the sleek look of the iMac and wouldn't lower themselves to get a more bulky CRT monitor all-in-one, but for me it doesn't matter all that much. Show me quality for less $.

I don't know....Does that make sense?

BenderBot1138

Dec 15, 2002, 02:39 PM

wow... I want one... and I've already got the models that are supposed to be top of the line above those... very market friendly without a doubt... Switch Switch Switch...

I'd like to see switch ads featuring Eddie Albert, Robert Wagner, Charlie Callas and Sharon Gless... can anyone guess why?

:cool:

gooddog

Dec 15, 2002, 03:20 PM

rmac

Dec 15, 2002, 05:18 PM

Well, I guess one good thing about the eMac is that I can still use my monitor profiling hardware - only works on CRTs. For color matching I've had much better luck with CRTs (even before profiling). Anyone know if this has changed recently for LCDs? Even my parents 17" iMac seemed less reliable to me, but then I couldn't profile it with the hardware I have.

Anyone know how the CRTs are for the eMacs in terms of color? I know some complain about flickering (though I haven't noticed).

LethalWolfe

Dec 15, 2002, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by hesdeadjim

I wasn't basing it on the fact that TV and movies project things at 24-30 fps (I only said 30 cause I can't remember the number right now). There is a limit though to when it matters for the fps for gaming (and I think it might be 70). Now this is for the average human, fighter pilots B]TEND to have a higher visual accuity then say I do, so seeing things up to 1/220th of a second doesn't really matter for most people.

And there are some things to having higher fps, espicially during slow down, and does keep the card from being obsolete quickly, but at a certain point it doesn't matter how the fps is, the game will look smooth. [/B]

Sry hsdeadjim I meant to qoute the post that mentioned TV and movies.

I was reading the article on frames per second rates in computer games, and all of a sudden the computer went "beepbeepboopbeepbeep" and I was like "Huh?"

It devoured the article.

It was a really good article.

And now I have to defend myself on a message board and I can't do it as well.

It's kind of a...... bummer.

Whoa, that's happend to you too? ;)

Well, I guess one good thing about the eMac is that I can still use my monitor profiling hardware - only works on CRTs. For color matching I've had much better luck with CRTs (even before profiling). Anyone know if this has changed recently for LCDs? Even my parents 17" iMac seemed less reliable to me, but then I couldn't profile it with the hardware I have.

Anyone know how the CRTs are for the eMacs in terms of color? I know some complain about flickering (though I haven't noticed).

I can't comment on the eMac itself, but I know that CRTs are still the way to go for accurate colors.

Lethal

rice_web

Dec 15, 2002, 05:43 PM

The iMac should sport the following after MWSF:

- 800-1000MHz G4
- 256K L2 Cache
- 100MHz System Bus (for heat concerns)
- 256-512MB RAM
- 17" LCD Standard (possibly one 15")
- Radeon 9500 Pro
- ADC Connector and support for monitor spanning
- 80+ GB Hard Drives
- A Faster Superdrive

That isn't asking too much; it's asking a fair amount, but the iMac has seen little done to it in months upon months. Besides, the graphics department desperately needs one of the new Radeons, even if it is only the 9000 (which is still pathetic, but not as pathetic). The ADC connector is important to find the prosumer that needs two monitors, but not the extra cost of the PowerMac, and the extra hard drive space just helps bring in those video hobbyists. The price should remain unchanged. Finally, 1GHz G4 is an absolute necessity, the iMac sales numbers will come to a screetching halt if that number isn't reached.

The eMac should tout similar specifications, with the possible exception of the ADC port, hard drive capacity, and graphics card. Once again, the 1GHz level is very important.

The Classic iMac should do one of four things things:
1. Price Drop to $499
2. Upgraded CPU (to 800Mhz) and video card (GeForce2MX for Quarts Extreme)
3. Both one and two. The Classic iMac becomes to models, the 600Mhz model at $499, and a faster model at $699.
4. Cease to exist.

daveg5

Dec 15, 2002, 07:09 PM

in the video console area 60 fps per cecond is considered awsome, 30 okay at 640*480 what is considered okay and awsome in the pcmac world and what is the human eye capable of reconizing, 200-300fps??. anyone know?

LethalWolfe

Dec 15, 2002, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by daveg5
in the video console area 60 fps per cecond is considered awsome, 30 okay at 640*480 what is considered okay and awsome in the pcmac world and what is the human eye capable of reconizing, 200-300fps??. anyone know?

The "problem" of rating the human eye in terms of FPS is that the human eye is, for lack of a better term, analog not digital. It is always "on." If we only saw at, lets say, 30fps we'd be missing *alot* of info not to mention probably be unable to function effectively. What we watch on TV, or in the movies, or on a monitor only appears to be smooth because it creates an optical illusion. The brain, basically, interpolates what's missing to make us think we are seeing smooth motion when we really aren't.

Sorry to hijack the thread. :o

Lethal

jelloshotsrule

Dec 15, 2002, 09:38 PM

of course the imac and emac will be slower at the same mhz.... bus speed's lower....

sure, they could offer a choice of fast combo drive or slower superdrive, but as we all know, apple doesn't usually offer that many options in the consumer line. that's how it's been....

as for the emac line all having superdrives.. i'd hope not. i mean, it's nice in theory, but the prices would have to go up... and even if they don't, say the bottom one is still 999 and has a superdrive.... there will be people who don't need the superdrive and want to save some cash, so they should have the option of the say.. 799 cdrw version. or something.

daveg5

Dec 16, 2002, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

The "problem" of rating the human eye in terms of FPS is that the human eye is, for lack of a better term, analog not digital. It is always "on." If we only saw at, lets say, 30fps we'd be missing *alot* of info not to mention probably be unable to function effectively. What we watch on TV, or in the movies, or on a monitor only appears to be smooth because it creates an optical illusion. The brain, basically, interpolates what's missing to make us think we are seeing smooth motion when we really aren't.

Sorry to hijack the thread. :o

Lethal
i get that but is a game any better at say 200fps than 100fps, this seems to be the only bench mark people take other than anti aliasing, lighting,fog and other effects. personally i would like the videocard manufacturs to increase 2d speed by the same leaps and bounds unless it cant go any faster(screen redraw, scrolling, resizing,zooming, video playback and encoding ,etc. ) but the only thing on thier mind is 3d fps and antaliasing and 3d efx. not a bad thing mind you but when an old radeon 32MB pci can do 2d about as good as the latest gforce4 128MB something is missing.

Machead III

Dec 16, 2002, 10:33 AM

Speed bumps? Great. Higher Bus speeds? Cool. More RAM? Sweet. But what Apple really needs, and I mean needs, not just could do with, is to lower their god damn prices!

They have the worlds on tender hooks, everyone is bursting to get a new iMac or eMac or whatever, but the prices are way to high! If they can get bottom range iMac to $899 then they have done it.

jrv3034

Dec 16, 2002, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Machead III
They have the worlds on tender hooks, everyone is bursting to get a new iMac or eMac or whatever, but the prices are way to high! If they can get bottom range iMac to $899 then they have done it.

I agree completely. They got the prices right with the iBook and PowerBook, and even the PowerMac offer the $1700 alternative. I think Apple's new iMacs should go all the way down to "starting at $899, fully loaded at $1799", eliminate the classic iMac, and put the low end eMac at $599.

By lowering the prices, they get more sales. Period. Look at the rush of iBook sales recently. It doesen't even matter that they're G3's. If more people buy cheap Macs now, in the future they WILL upgrade to another Mac, possibly a more expensive one. This is how Apple can gain more marketshare. Sure, they'll lose some of the profit margins with the low cost eMacs and iMacs, but they'll get more customers who will be happy with OSX and not want to switch back to PC.

Apple, if you're reading this: Please offer some low cost eMacs and iMacs. You'll be glad you did! ;)

daveg5

Dec 16, 2002, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Machead III
Speed bumps? Great. Higher Bus speeds? Cool. More RAM? Sweet. But what Apple really needs, and I mean needs, not just could do with, is to lower their god damn prices!

They have the worlds on tender hooks, everyone is bursting to get a new iMac or eMac or whatever, but the prices are way to high! If they can get bottom range iMac to $899 then they have done it.

lower prices o% interest
No wiser words were ever spoken
speed can come later
lower prices now already!
across the board
screw the high profit margins
no yearly $129 upgrades either make it two
apple can servive and get bigger
why do you think pcs have such a large market share
its not because they are better
just dont let the quality suffer

BenderBot1138

Dec 16, 2002, 11:31 AM

I'm totally in favor of speed bumps for any Mac.

The Wolfe boils it down to its essentials once again.

I'd say arguing whether a game is capable of even one frame per second above a figure of say 24 fps is nothing more than a glorified speed test, and serves no useful purpose.

The problem of people saying, "Oh but it only runs at 38 or 50 fps is a real study in human socialization. If in fact programs didn't have animatic, proxemic, and semiotic mistakes and falacies contained within the coding itself, the need for over 24 frames would be a truly moot issue.

Imagine you project only 24 frames per second, but flashed each image fully for only 1/1,000,000th of a second. You'd be hard pressed to have any reasonable understanding of what went on. But if you cut a second into 24 equal parts, and display each of 24 images for a carefully optimized amount of time within each of its 1/24th of a second, you will receive an excellent benefit. Modern Motion Picture Projectors and Newer Digital Film Technologies go to great lengths to strike this balance perfectly for audiences.

To argue over whether 24fps is enough, let alone 100fps, is missing the point entirely, and focusses attention inordanantly on one subsystem of an entire computer. 10 years ago (or maybe even as little as 5) this was a good issue for gamers, but not any more. Like the pilot of a Sopwith Camel that Snoopy imagined, argueing with and a seasoned F15 pilot over the shape of their joysticks, it's just no longer relevant.

It's also like saying I won't buy a coke or pepsi because the cap only holds a sip. The plain and simple truth is that Apple Computer outperform non-Apple computers in the precise areas where it counts most, and will continue to do so, despite the attemps of PC lovers to buy overpriced heaters and burn their fingerprints off without anything to show for it.

:cool:
______________________________

In the virus hall of fame one reference to a disgruntled employee in silicon valley can be found. Knowing he was about to be fired, he wrote a little program that waited for stations to be inactive for more than an hour and then increased the horizontal scan rates on the monitors. Security camera's witnessed the montors begining to smoke and then melt and eventually starting on fire, burning the entire building to the ground. Needless to say, it was the last "rays that programmer would be in contact with for a while.

Pants

Dec 16, 2002, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by daveg5

i get that but is a game any better at say 200fps than 100fps, this seems to be the only bench mark people take other than anti aliasing, lighting,fog and other effects. personally i would like the videocard manufacturs to increase 2d speed by the same leaps and bounds unless it cant go any faster(screen redraw, scrolling, resizing,zooming, video playback and encoding ,etc. ) but the only thing on thier mind is 3d fps and antaliasing and 3d efx. not a bad thing mind you but when an old radeon 32MB pci can do 2d about as good as the latest gforce4 128MB something is missing.

essentially, 200fps *IS* quantifiably better - teh overhead built into displaying 200 allows for an acceptable dip when things get complex (flak fights in UT spring to mind...). And like someone above rightly mentioned, the eye isnt digital but analog - if I remember rightly, the film analogy is a little fixed - dont they show each frame twice or something? Simply, faster is better- 50 fps is unacceptably headache inducing - especially if you play games with precise hitscan weapons whilst dodging like a rabbit on speed! (try turning 360 degrees fast in ut and lining up a shot as you do so - now fix the frame rate at 30 fps, and increase it by 10 each time and see teh difference...)

ChicagoMac

Dec 16, 2002, 01:25 PM

This is supposed to be about Imac/Emac upgrades, not your opinion or knowledge on fps.

I'm betting it all on MWSF. New Imac with 19" screen, $2,099. 133mhz bus and larger hard drive. Apple is going to pull through on this one. I can feel it.;)

As for the Emacs I don't care as much, but there should be some kind of upgrade to stay competitive. Hopefully the bad screen problem is solved.

Future Man

Dec 16, 2002, 02:00 PM

I Know the frame rate of games is a little off topic here, but I just bought MOHAA2 and am really not happoy with its performance on my dual 533.

At maxed settings it is a joke to try to play. At all medium to high settings it is still choppy and frezzes for a second or two when big action starts. I play it through the orginal radeon rage 6 32mb vram AGP card that my 15 inch Studio D is plugged into, and I guess the card could be the issue. Do I need a Gforce 4 64 meg card or whatever to play this game?

But isn't the real problem that most games are written for an x86 chip and ported to th mac?

I am waiting for Black and White, i hope its got a great port...

FM

rmac

Dec 16, 2002, 02:18 PM

1 Ghz eMac would be awesome. I have the pretty much the lowest model (700 Mhz, CD-RW) with some extra RAM, and it seems plenty fast.

I never could understand people complaining about OS X speed, especially since I'm using a first generation G4 tower at home and it runs great....then I saw what was happening with my parents 17" iMac....some problem between an HP driver and the 10.2.2 update made everything grind to a halt after the computer being on for a day or so (it worked great before 10.2.2).

I wonder if conflicts like this are the reason some people keep complaining about how slow OS X is. Otherwise I just don't get it. If OS X runs great on a bottom line eMac, how can people with dual processor machines be running into slowness issues?

Pants

Dec 16, 2002, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Future Man

But isn't the real problem that most games are written for an x86 chip and ported to th mac?

partly - but the main deal is probably bandwidth - something that certainly could do with an upgrade! :)

ok - a bluetooth enabled iPod please! :) and a colour screen too.

DharvaBinky

Dec 16, 2002, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by bikertwin
>> put a 599$ pc next to hi-end eMac/iMac and watch how PC is 2.5+ times faster

Well that 599 PC is $1000 when you add a quality 19" CRT or 15" LCD. So that's a fairer comparison, no?

Yes, the PC is much faster but other than games what do you need the speed for? Why not buy an iMac and an XBox? :D

My WinXP machine does the blue screen of death when I do something simple like try to log out so someone else can log in. Probably a bad hardware driver somewhere. Much less frequent problem with Macs.

LOL! :) Nice to know that your computer is "trustworty" enough to BSOD you regularly. So dependable... ;)

And excuse my total ignorance here (I'll admit it--I'm no gamer) but what's the point of 50fps gaming, and at what fps does it not matter anymore? I mean, US TV is at 29.97 fps and movies/film are 24 fps. I can see that a game at 5fps would be stupid, but what does 50fps buy you over, say, 30fps? Other than maybe epileptic seizures?

I'm going to chime in and agree that 50FPS looks better. While it *is* true that US television is at 30 fps, it's actually 60 fields per second. it makes a huge difference. And while it *is* true that film is 24 fps, each of those 24 frames is flashed 3 times, so it's actually 72 framelets(yes I made that word up for lack of a better one) per second. I used to work projection at a movie theatre....

My experience with gaming framerates is this... over 40 or 50 fps or so... it all looks the same. so what *I* do is set all the fanciness as high as the game will go and still run at 40-50 fps. These days, my PC with a GeForce4Ti4400 gives me 45fps in Return To Castle Wolfenstein at 1280x1024x32bit with 4x FSAA and 4x aniostropic filtering. Looks *very* nice.

Now... what most people don't think about, though, is that if you're getting framerates in your games *over* the refresh rate of the screen (75hz-85hz typically) you really are just throwing those frames away since the monitor can't get them out of the buffer before it's cleared again.

Besides, I think Apple is going in the right direction with gaming... as more and more work of the game is off-loaded to the graphics card (and more and more work *will* be as hardware becomes better), the speed of the CPU matters less. For example... What's the single most expensive component of a modern computer?

Well... a few years ago, it was the CPU. Buy the fastest and the best and you'd have to put out a few hundred dollars for the single item. These days, if you're building a game rig, your money is much better off spent on a fancy GPU. If you built an AMD box to play games, you'd spend *way* less on the CPU and the motherboard than on the Radeon 9700 PRO you put in there to whoop up some RTCW!

I think that a lot of this faw-faw mines faster crap about CPU speeds is going to become pointless in the next few years. How much faster than "instantaneous" does something have to be?

No, I think the next items that "drive" pc competitive sales will be other features like connectivity, bandwidth, video, storage, etc... And I think Apple sees that, since they're choosing to concentrate on smooth integration of those features into OS X. Windows is much more of a "strap-on" kind of mentality. You can get Windows XP, but you have to get the USB2.0 driver pack to extend it. You can get Winxp, but you have to get the blueTooth pack to get it to work in a separate app. really un-elegant.

Just my gazillion cents worth?

Binky

LethalWolfe

Dec 16, 2002, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by BenderBot1138
I'm totally in favor of speed bumps for any Mac.

The Wolfe boils it down to its essentials once again.

I'd say arguing whether a game is capable of even one frame per second above a figure of say 24 fps is nothing more than a glorified speed test, and serves no useful purpose.

The problem of people saying, "Oh but it only runs at 38 or 50 fps is a real study in human socialization. If in fact programs didn't have animatic, proxemic, and semiotic mistakes and falacies contained within the coding itself, the need for over 24 frames would be a truly moot issue.

Imagine you project only 24 frames per second, but flashed each image fully for only 1/1,000,000th of a second. You'd be hard pressed to have any reasonable understanding of what went on. But if you cut a second into 24 equal parts, and display each of 24 images for a carefully optimized amount of time within each of its 1/24th of a second, you will receive an excellent benefit. Modern Motion Picture Projectors and Newer Digital Film Technologies go to great lengths to strike this balance perfectly for audiences.

To argue over whether 24fps is enough, let alone 100fps, is missing the point entirely, and focusses attention inordanantly on one subsystem of an entire computer. 10 years ago (or maybe even as little as 5) this was a good issue for gamers, but not any more. Like the pilot of a Sopwith Camel that Snoopy imagined, argueing with and a seasoned F15 pilot over the shape of their joysticks, it's just no longer relevant.

It's also like saying I won't buy a coke or pepsi because the cap only holds a sip. The plain and simple truth is that Apple Computer outperform non-Apple computers in the precise areas where it counts most, and will continue to do so, despite the attemps of PC lovers to buy overpriced heaters and burn their fingerprints off without anything to show for it.

:cool:
______________________________

In the virus hall of fame one reference to a disgruntled employee in silicon valley can be found. Knowing he was about to be fired, he wrote a little program that waited for stations to be inactive for more than an hour and then increased the horizontal scan rates on the monitors. Security camera's witnessed the montors begining to smoke and then melt and eventually starting on fire, burning the entire building to the ground. Needless to say, it was the last "rays that programmer would be in contact with for a while.

Actually BenderBot1138 you might want to go back and re-read my posts. I said the frame rates for movies and TV "worked" because of visual charactoristics that computer games lack, but a computer game at movie or TV framerates wouldn't look good.

And part of films 24fps being acceptable is because it's part of the "film look." We accept it 'cause its always been that way, even though the 24fps "standard" was choosen to save money, not 'cause it was the right amount of FPS or anything like that.

I work w/video all day so when I go to see a movie it looks choppy (same with progressive scan video) 'cause I'm used to seeing 30fps (well 29.97) and film in the theater is only 24.

Anyway...

Lethal