Apple Releases iMacs [Archive]

woodsey

Feb 4, 2003, 07:57 AM

For those of us living down under, it appears apple has the wrong specs on the australian apple store.

17-inch widescreen LCD flat
1Ghz PowerPC G4
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX
64MB DDR video memory
256MB DDR 266 SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
10/100 BASE-T Ethernet
56K V.92 internal modem
Apple Pro Speakers
AirPort Extreme Ready
Bluetooth Ready

17-inch widescreen LCD flat
1Ghz PowerPC G4
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX
64MB DDR video memory
1GB DDR 266 SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
10/100 BASE-T Ethernet
56K V.92 internal modem
Apple Pro Speakers
AirPort Extreme Ready
Bluetooth Built-in

I didnt know they were planing to release a special OziMac 17" with a three year old GeForce2 MX graphics chip!

Bear

Feb 4, 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Swinny
Whats the deal with the Geforce 4 MX? how does it handle under normal OS X / Quartz stuff...I'm not looking to play games or anything too taxing, but would be nice to have something that can handle the actual GUI at a decent speed...

I have the previous 17" iMac with the Geforce 4 MX, but with only 32MB of video ram. It handles the GUI at a decent speed. More than a decent speed I'd say.

But everybodies perceptions are different.

lmalave

Feb 4, 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by iJon
not smart on apple's part.If they are gonna use these prices for the imacs they need to bring down the price of the emac down to the crt imacs price. i hope my customers are satisfied.

iJon

At least they brought down the eMacs prices to where I expected them though. $999 combo drive eMac and $1299 SuperDrive eMac are exactly the sweets spots for that model.

Looks like they've all but abandoned the CRT iMac though. Not only did they not drop the price, they couldn't even put in some of the newer hardware that my iBook has. I mean, c'mon, couldn't they at least put in a Radeon 7500 for QE acceleration? Ideally they would put it that plus one of the the new 700MHz G3s. Oh well. So long, CRT iMac.

I think they missed the "sweet spot" on the FP iMacs, too. A 15" superdrive iMac for $1499 would've been the sweet spot. I would never consider buying these iMacs as they are configured - they're still overpriced. Right now my top options for desktop would probably be $1299 eMac or the $1499 PowerMac with the SuperDrive upgrade option.

dricci

Feb 4, 2003, 07:59 AM

It looks like the 800MHz iMac model is just the old iMac, same old 802.11b AirPort and requires the USB adapter for Bluetooth (and only has a 100MHz bus). The 17 inch supports AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth Internally, and has an Audio-In port (finally!).

Major lameness on the pricing and specs, Steve :eek: :mad:

bbarnhart

Feb 4, 2003, 07:59 AM

I'm disappointed that there is not a 17" version for $1499. That was what I was looking for. And, only a 200 Mhz upgrade? I don't know what else to say except that Apple is extracting a lot of profit from the 17" model.

maehara

Feb 4, 2003, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by dstorey
is it just me or with the bluetooth ready model (17") you can only have it fitted at purchase time otherwise you have to use the usb dongle?
Looks that way:

"The easiest way is to have the Bluetooth module built in at the time you order your system. If you decide after purchase that you want Bluetooth capability, you can easily plug in an external USB Bluetooth adaptor."

wilburpan

Feb 4, 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by MacsRgr8
I really think they need a model in between.
The difference between these iMacs is miles too big
If you put all the consumer models together, there are still 3 levels to choose from:

Fast: eMac, $999
Faster: 15" iMac, $1299
Fastest: 17" iMac, $1799

This makes a lot more sense to me than 1 eMac and 4 iMacs to choose from.

And considering that $500 difference between iMacs buys you:

a bigger screen
faster processor
faster bus
DDR RAM
Superdrive
Airport Extreme capability
internal Bluetooth capability

the gap does not seem too bad.

dricci

Feb 4, 2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by maehara

Looks that way:

"The easiest way is to have the Bluetooth module built in at the time you order your system. If you decide after purchase that you want Bluetooth capability, you can easily plug in an external USB Bluetooth adaptor."

Odd, I just noticed that.... Why can't they just put it on a card like with AirPort?

Man, I'm waiting for Apple to post an "April Fools" press release :o

Bear

Feb 4, 2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by xj9000
Has anyone else noticed that the low-end powerbooks and all the new iMac only have 10/100BASE-T Ethernet? I guess this is an attempt to lower the price of the machine? does anyone have the opportunity to really use Gigabit ethernet on an iMac?
The iMacs and iBooks have only ever had 10/100 Ethernet. 10/100/1000 Only appeared on the PowerMacs and the PowerBooks (except for the 12" one.)

I have not seen anyone really have a use for gigabit ethernet, except on servers. And that is usually datacenter class machines.

woodsey

Feb 4, 2003, 08:04 AM

Where's the FireWire 800?

irmongoose

Feb 4, 2003, 08:05 AM

Seems there are a number of things that have changed... (some have already been pointed out, some obvious)

17" model-
bus speed (133)
audio-in
ports locations changed
4x Superdrive (previously 2x)
S/composite video-out support

audio-in and, 4x superdrive, s/composite video-out are exactly what I have been wanting but lacking in my iMac. In my opinion this is great. Seems Apple is listening to waht their customers want.. I mean they hit bullseye in terms of what I had longed for. I dunno...

irmongoose

Bear

Feb 4, 2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by woodsey
Where's the FireWire 800?
No firewire 800, and I am not really surprised. For now, it's another differentiation between professional and consumer machines.

Maybe once the IBM 970 is available in the professional machines we will see FW800 in the consumer machines.

When they didn't include FW800 in the 12" PowerBook, this should have been a good indication that not all new machines were going to get it.

Sonofhaig

Feb 4, 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
lame

Details.......please. Why lame? :o

sparks9

Feb 4, 2003, 08:09 AM

This definitely proves that the new iPods wont have firewire800...

iAndy

Feb 4, 2003, 08:09 AM

In a word - BUMMER !

I was in the market for a new iMac - but the new limited range and pricing structure seems a joke !

How the h#ll is Apple going to win over more switchers with a price performance range like this !?!

Bad move Apple - you could (and should IMHO) have made this a much more attractive upgrade.

Although I will still be holding onto my shares, I now don't expect next quarters sales figures to be too hot again....

Gus

Feb 4, 2003, 08:11 AM

What? They didn't put a 2.1Ghz IBM 970 in there? Where's the 256MB DDR Graphics card? And hey, what about that 19" holographic display. Man, I'm really pissed abbout this. Heads will roll in Cupertino!

;) :)

Regards,
Gus

MacsRgr8

Feb 4, 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by sparks9
This definitely proves that the new iPods wont have firewire800...

Is there any reason for iPods to have FW 800? There's no way the HD of the iPod will even saturate half the bandwidth of FW 400

dstorey

Feb 4, 2003, 08:11 AM

"the 17-inch model additionally has an audio line-in jack that lets you use it as a sound editing studio" - please be a sign that iTraxs (or whatever people say its called) exists and is coming. I'd love to be able to plug my guitar in a mac and record/produc a song without paying 1000's or even hundreds. it would be a big plus point for kids that are into music and in amature bands that wanna have fun.

PretendPCuser

Feb 4, 2003, 08:12 AM

Apparently Apple doesn't want you to know anything about the 15" iMac. On the Apple homepage, click on the 15" iMac and it takes you to the detail page for the 17" iMac...>WTF?~ Maybe there's just nothing new about them?

Ah well, what monitor issues did the eMac have? I was going to recommend it at work for a very basic machine until i read that there were some issues by a previous poster. Any info would be appreciated.

Now, if APple would just make a portable version of OS X for the iPod and release a tablet PC, we'd all be happy...... oh wait... :rolleyes:

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 08:14 AM

I hear a lot of complaints but look at the 17" it now has 64mb video ram versus 32 and that makes a difference.Its now has a 133 bus instead of the 100 that is going to make a difference.superdrive 4x and cd read at 32.1ghz a 200mhz increase.These are all solid improvements and that makes this one fine little machine!This imac blows my almost 2yr powermac out of the water!Great!I Love it! just isnt enough though for me to get one so ill keep waiting for the 7457 or 970 to show but for anyone out there who was really thinking of getting one of these I say what are you waiting for?

alset

Feb 4, 2003, 08:14 AM

My mother has been looking to me for guidance regarding her upcoming iMac purchase. She's waited patiently as I've watched the rumors. I can't wait till I get to tell her they're here!

Watching your parents learn to use computers must be like when they watched us learn to walk and talk. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. 8)

Dan

robbents99

Feb 4, 2003, 08:19 AM

You can always adjust the ram and the like on the 17" if the price is too steep. Sure you can't edit the Hard Drive size. But the price seems fine to me. Worse case get an Apple loan.

CrackedButter

Feb 4, 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I hear a lot of complaints but look at the 17" it now has 64mb video ram versus 32 and that makes a difference.Its now has a 133 bus instead of the 100 that is going to make a difference.superdrive 4x and cd read at 32.1ghz a 200mhz increase.These are all solid improvements and that makes this one fine little machine!This imac blows my almost 2yr powermac out of the water!Great!I Love it! just isnt enough though for me to get one so ill keep waiting for the 7457 or 970 to show but for anyone out there who was really thinking of getting one of these I say what are you waiting for?

I think somehow normal people or possible switchers won't be turned on by these improvements.

Since LCD's have come down in price we could of seen better pricing at least, i was expecting a higher drop in price.

DominicusG

Feb 4, 2003, 08:20 AM

The previous $1,499 model received an extra 20 GB of hard-drive space and an extra 100 MHz and dropped $200. What's wrong with that?

The previous $1,999 model received an extra 32 MB of video memory and an extra 200 MHz and dropped $200 as well. Again, what is there to complain about.

LCD based systems are still not considered entry level. Just check and see what HP and Dell are selling.

Apple now has a desktop system under the all important $1,000 price point -- the eMac having been reduced to $999.

So now you have a layout of $999, $1,299, and $1,799. Again, wherein lies the problem?

I think this is a nice selection. People are complaining of no 15" SuperDrive model, yet say the prices are too high. What person who is cost conscious is going to pay for a SuperDrive? Apple rightly limited it to the 17" model.

Anecdoter

Feb 4, 2003, 08:22 AM

I'm not disappointed by the iMac upgrades, but when you compare them to last week's Power Mac upgrades, the Power Macs look more than a little disappointing them. Has Apple reached the point where they don't know what else to do but hack away the prices, make everything a build-to-order option and hope that they will sell. Anyone notice that the mid-level iMac is a better deal than the low-end Power Mac (by the time you factor in the cost of the display)?
I'd like to see some tweaks to the Power Mac line: bigger hard drives across all models, bluetooth and Airport Extreme included in every model, double the l3 cache and switch to the 7457 chip (double the l2 cache). Performance would be great, the price would be very competitive and very little R&D costs.

MacsRgr8

Feb 4, 2003, 08:26 AM

iAndy

Feb 4, 2003, 08:31 AM

Dont Hurt Me I hear a lot of complaints ....These are all solid improvements and that makes this one fine little machine!This imac blows my almost 2yr powermac out of the water!Great!I Love it! just isnt enough though for me to get one so ill keep waiting for the 7457 or 970 to show but for anyone out there who was really thinking of getting one of these I say what are you waiting for?
What am I waiting for - well you nailed it when you said "just isnt enough though for me".
I think that after all Apple's efforts on their Switcher campaign - this update will regretably looked back on as a lost opportunity for increasing market penetration.
So who at Cupertino is the genius with the fresh bullet hole in their foot ? ;)

NicoMan

Feb 4, 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by MacsRgr8

Is there any reason for iPods to have FW 800? There's no way the HD of the iPod will even saturate half the bandwidth of FW 400
True. Oh so true... I can't even think of a new DLD that would saturate the FW800.

I NEVER expected FW800 in that revision anyway. I don't see the point.

NicoMan

Swinny

Feb 4, 2003, 08:33 AM

According to the specs page the Hard-discs are 7200rpm...is this another update?...if it is then I think for a lower price Apple have added a lot into the 17" version...

I'm getting one...first desktop mac to sit next to my iBook...PC can go out the window!

scem0

Feb 4, 2003, 08:35 AM

This update is very......... blah.

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Anecdoter
I'm not disappointed by the iMac upgrades, but when you compare them to last week's Power Mac upgrades, the Power Macs look more than a little disappointing them. Has Apple reached the point where they don't know what else to do but hack away the prices, make everything a build-to-order option and hope that they will sell. Anyone notice that the mid-level iMac is a better deal than the low-end Power Mac (by the time you factor in the cost of the display)?
I'd like to see some tweaks to the Power Mac line: bigger hard drives across all models, bluetooth and Airport Extreme included in every model, double the l3 cache and switch to the 7457 chip (double the l2 cache). Performance would be great, the price would be very competitive and very little R&D costs. All I can say is Motorola motorola motorola they are why the powermac line hasnt shown much advance! Heck iam surprised that apple moved a 1 giger in the imac. sure no l3 but big deal. Apple is doing all it can untill the newer chips come but if we know motorola i would not count on them at all!the powermac line really needs a shot in the arm and by that i mean the 970 or least the 7457 but if the 7457 isnt going to show for another year i would just dump motorola , and really get cooking with the 970 so as soon as they are mass produced they could get out the newer model.Still the new IMAC 1 giger is a fine sweet machine.

wallinbl

Feb 4, 2003, 08:36 AM

for anyone out there who was really thinking of getting one of these I say what are you waiting for?

The price to not suck. These are supposed to be consumer machines.

CrackedButter

Feb 4, 2003, 08:36 AM

For the UK version of the 17" imac, you can drop its price by £330 if you lose the RAM and the bluetooth. You are paying nearly £290 for overpriced RAM.

Le Big Mac

Feb 4, 2003, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Anecdoter
. . . . Has Apple reached the point where they don't know what else to do but hack away the prices, make everything a build-to-order option and hope that they will sell. . . . .

In this economy, the "market" wants lower prices, not higher performance, evidently. It's disappointing for anyone wanting higher performance, but that's not what's been selling units.

NicoMan

Feb 4, 2003, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by PretendPCuser Now, if APple would just make a portable version of OS X for the iPod and release a tablet PC, we'd all be happy...... oh wait... :rolleyes: [/B]
Just get yourself a 12" PowerBook and be gone... :D

NicoMan

QuiteSure

Feb 4, 2003, 08:38 AM

I am presuming that the emacs, with no technological changes, remain OS9 bootable. If that's the case, then the sub $1000 price may make it more attractive to education users.

Are the new imacs OS9 bootable? Maybe not such a big deal if offered to switchers and new computer users, but it would be interesting to know.

dstorey

Feb 4, 2003, 08:39 AM

apple uk store has new price sticker on the ibook. is it the same on the us? I never noticed it before the updates but didn't check before to see if the prices have changed.

CrackedButter

Feb 4, 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by dstorey
apple uk store has new price sticker on the ibook. is it the same on the us? I never noticed it before the updates but didn't check before to see if the prices have changed.

no they are the same.

jgp

Feb 4, 2003, 08:41 AM

I am surprised and disappointed. Why they did not put the buss at 133 for both I do not know. Why they did not allow the monitors to twist from landscape to portrait, I do not know. Why they did not give better graphics on these consumer machines to support gaming, I do not know.

robbents99

Feb 4, 2003, 08:42 AM

If you lower the ram, drop extreme card and drop the interal bluetooth then this is the total (without taxes): $1,899.00.

I see no problems with this price, it's 100.00 cheeper than the original high end 17" IMac.

Remember you can *adjust* these prices on in the apple store.

js995

Feb 4, 2003, 08:42 AM

seems (on the 17" imac) that the memory slots are now (probably) both user accessible. On the store the memory in both slots is now SO-DIMM, whereas the old models had a DIMM in the factory slot.

Of course, the second SO-DIMM could still be non-accessible, and only there to reduce size to make room for the internal bluetooth.

NicoMan

Feb 4, 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Swinny
According to the specs page the Hard-discs are 7200rpm...is this another update?...if it is then I think for a lower price Apple have added a lot into the 17" version...

I'm getting one...first desktop mac to sit next to my iBook...PC can go out the window!
I think the previous HDs were 5400rpm. Can anyone confirm this ?

NicoMan

stuartmingay

Feb 4, 2003, 08:44 AM

Hi,

someone earlier said their mate had an 'old' 17" 800MHz iMac and it was "soooo slow". What were you doing on it? Last night: backing 2.8GB of photos to a DVD, posting apps and MP3s to my home page, syncing with my Palm and surfing the BBC news site. With iCal and iTunes running. Oh and changing stuff on my iDisk.

I used to be a PC guy ... I work with databases and felt I couldn't live without a high end PC at home to run MS SQL Server, Oracle, Java dev apps, play games etc. I can honestly say I don't notice the difference. The iMac runs Reason 2 and Cubase fine at the same time (as does my bottom of the range G3 iBook) ... I remember the PC I had (Gateway) not being able to play certain Reason 1 songs without running out of ooomph!

So, what was your mate trying to do?

Stu

ChicagoMac

Feb 4, 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Swinny
According to the specs page the Hard-discs are 7200rpm...is this another update?...if it is then I think for a lower price Apple have added a lot into the 17" version...

I'm getting one...first desktop mac to sit next to my iBook...PC can go out the window!

Yes, I read the 7200rpm too and I believe it is another update in the list. I was going to point it out if nobody else had:D I'll be ordering mine today!

yosoyjay

Feb 4, 2003, 08:48 AM

The high end model is okay, but really for that price there should be more features. At a minimum 512MB RAM.

The middle model does not seem to exist and should be placed at the current low end model's price point.

The low end model should be $999 at most. The current price is ridiculous.

I don't expect many of these to be flying off the shelves. I do expect these prices to drop if Apple wants to sell any.

Also, the upgrade to 7200 harddrives in any computer results in little or no gain in system responsivity. This is even more true in Macs running OS X with no L3 cache and only 256MB RAM.

NicoMan

Feb 4, 2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by CrackedButter
For the UK version of the 17" imac, you can drop its price by £330 if you lose the RAM and the bluetooth. You are paying nearly £290 for overpriced RAM.

If you plan on getting 3rd party RAM to max it out, I would advise to downgrade to 512MB - 1 DIMM. Because that said DIMM is VERY difficult to access, and unless you have experience with the iMac, wouldn't advise to do it yourself (unless you like this sort of thing of course. In that case, downgrade it all the way to 256MB, and buy 3rd party 1 GB RAM). The second slot, however, is relatively easy to upgrade.

NicoMan

Bifrost

Feb 4, 2003, 08:49 AM

Does anyone have detailed info about the DDR memory chips in the new iMacs? Enough details that I could order some extra RAM right after I order my 17" iMac? I usually just use crucial.com's memory selector, but of course they don't have info for these machines. I know the chips are PC2100 DDR, 184 pin. What are the others specs (buffered/unbuffered, latency, etc.)? Any help (or even better, a link to the correct chips at some online retailer) would be greatly appreciated. I'm definitely ordering a 17" iMac but I don't want to pay Apple's ridiculous prices for additonal memory. I just want to add a 512MB chip into the second slot. Thanks.

dstorey

Feb 4, 2003, 08:50 AM

also uk ultimate imac doesnt have AE built in, it costs another £79 that you have to add as an option. A mistake maybe or us brits getting ripped off again?

Room40

Feb 4, 2003, 08:51 AM

I knew it. I ****ing knew it.

It was just to good to be true. The run lasted from last novembers rollout of new Powerbooks and iBooks, to last weeks upgraded Power Macs and displays. That was a whopping span of three months of tentative good vibrations coming out of Cupertino. Today Apple opted for a head on collision with a brick wall and the result was anything but good.

What is this? One year after the introduction of the FP iMac all they can muster is a relative minor upgrade of the specs. Yes, I know, the captious minded will surely find something, but in the big picture this amounts to no more than; same ****, same wrapping, more expensive and thus losing its appeal faster than you can spell "No Switch".

Memo to Steve: You had the chance, but blew it. BIG TIME.

MacsRgr8

Feb 4, 2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by js995
seems (on the 17" imac) that the memory slots are now (probably) both user accessible. On the store the memory in both slots is now SO-DIMM, whereas the old models had a DIMM in the factory slot.

Of course, the second SO-DIMM could still be non-accessible, and only there to reduce size to make room for the internal bluetooth.

17-inch model includes 256MB of PC2100 (266MHz) DDR SDRAM expandable to 1GB; one 184-pin DIMM and one open user-accessible SO-DIMM slot
15-inch model includes 256MB of SDRAM expandable to 1GB; one 168-pin DIMM and one open user-accessible SO-DIMM slot

It looks like the same "user-accessible SO-DIMM" slot to me... :(

backspinner

Feb 4, 2003, 08:53 AM

17-inch model includes 256MB of PC2100 (266MHz) DDR SDRAM expandable to 1GB; one 184-pin DIMM and one open user-accessible SO-DIMM slot

edit: he MacsRgr8, je was me voor!

chibianh

Feb 4, 2003, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Hozie
That top-of-the-line model seems out of whack. Who's going to shell out 2,300+$ for a consumer machine? Granted, it's got a gig of RAM and superdrive, bluetooth and aiport extreme, but you could get a low-end powermac + 17" LCD for the same price! Dunno, seems a tad expensive... even more so than usual.

Not if they're to be spec'd the same. The powermac would cost $100 more w/o a 17" monitor.

snahabed

Feb 4, 2003, 08:58 AM

I sort of think people are off the mark in wanting a 15" superdrive middle iMac model, because only a real entry-level consumer is going to want a tiny little 15" screen; such a consumer is not likely to make great use of a superdrive. iMovie/iDVD on a 15" screen? I guess it can be done, but it cannot be fun!

HOWEVER, I do agree that there should be at least an option to have a 17" combo drive model. I think there are people who want the screen real estate, want more video ram, want the airport extreme etc, but dont have much use for a Superdrive. Namely, anyone who doesn't have a DV cam (which covers a hell of a lot of people).

I think the prices are fair. I just don't know why anyone would want a 15" iMac. This is 2003, baby, 15" screens on a desktop machine? No :) Of course, I just caved and bought a 23" Display. And of course, I also think that the iBook and 12" powerbook are completely unusable... I actually played with a 12" Powerbook in a store and was shocked at how iddy bitty it is. I mean it is way cool, but man I couldn't use that for anything. Bless my 15" TiG4 :)

MacsRgr8

Feb 4, 2003, 08:58 AM

to backspinner

sorry.. te snel:) ('es een keertje)

drastik

Feb 4, 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by CrackedButter

I think somehow normal people or possible switchers won't be turned on by these improvements.

Since LCD's have come down in price we could of seen better pricing at least, i was expecting a higher drop in price.

You don't kow what you're talking about. Both machines recieved upgrades and price drops around 200$. I don't like to critisize people, but $200 dolars is a pretty good savings when you are getting more stuff.

Chisholm

Feb 4, 2003, 08:58 AM

WWWWOOOOHHHHHHHOOOO!!!!!!
I just purchased a 17" with bluetooth and applecare! My first PERSONAL mac in 8 years. Now I just have to convince my wife its a good Valentine's Day gift for her (hey, better than a vacuum cleaner, right?)

cheers!
John

crassusad44

Feb 4, 2003, 08:59 AM

Apples specs list the refresh rate at the highest resolution at 72 Hz on the eMac. Weren't the refresh rate 60 Hz before??? Has Apple updated the screen and the screen specs?

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Room40
I knew it. I ****ing knew it.

It was just to good to be true. The run lasted from last novembers rollout of new Powerbooks and iBooks, to last weeks upgraded Power Macs and displays. That was a whopping span of three months of tentative good vibrations coming out of Cupertino. Today Apple opted for a head on collision with a brick wall and the result was anything but good.

What is this? One year after the introduction of the FP iMac all they can muster is a relative minor upgrade of the specs. Yes, I know, the captious minded will surely find something, but in the big picture this amounts to no more than; same ****, same wrapping, more expensive and thus losing its appeal faster than you can spell "No Switch".

Memo to Steve: You had the chance, but blew it. BIG TIME. You are so wrong my freind,the new high end imac simply blows away the older and its cheaper faster more powerful and more expandable. I guess you were wanting steve to just give it to you!:o

DharvaBinky

Feb 4, 2003, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by dricci
It looks like the 800MHz iMac model is just the old iMac, same old 802.11b AirPort and requires the USB adapter for Bluetooth (and only has a 100MHz bus). The 17 inch supports AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth Internally, and has an Audio-In port (finally!).

Major lameness on the pricing and specs, Steve :eek: :mad:

Hey! remember... this is the year of the *laptop*... ;)

Dharvabinky

possible switch

Feb 4, 2003, 09:04 AM

Well, now I don't even know if I want to switch. All the update did was make it more expensive for a college student....

yzedf

Feb 4, 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by CrackedButter

I think somehow normal people or possible switchers won't be turned on by these improvements.

Since LCD's have come down in price we could of seen better pricing at least, i was expecting a higher drop in price.

Most switchers care alot more about hardware specs than Mac people. At least the ones I know do anyway...

Most potential switchers get turned off by the slow bus speeds, bad memory performance and limited config choices.

However, OS X is a HUGE turn-on. More for the BSD-ish underpinnings than the look of it.

If there were more games available... it would be a different market indeed.

*sigh*

NicoMan

Feb 4, 2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by yosoyjay
The high end model is okay, but really for that price there should be more features. At a minimum 512MB RAM.
Sorry but the high end DOES has 1GB.
Originally posted by yosoyjay
Also, the upgrade to 7200 harddrives in any computer results in little or no gain in system responsivity. This is even more true in Macs running OS X with no L3 cache and only 256MB RAM.
BOLLOCKS!!!
What are you talking about? It makes a difference. Especially if you have low RAM, because your system uses the hard drive to page memory.
I think you are confusing the difference between a 7200rpm on ATA-100 and a 7200rpm on an ATA-133 (which is inexistant) and our problem.

I'm not here to bash you but what you just said doesn't feel right at all...

NicoMan

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 09:10 AM

Room40

Feb 4, 2003, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
You are so wrong my freind,the new high end imac simply blows away the older and its cheaper faster more powerful and more expandable. I guess you were wanting steve to just give it to you!:o

No, but it would be nice if Steve gave me a reason to by one.

The high end is OK I guess, but try explain that to my wallet...

yzedf

Feb 4, 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Games are coming to the mac in droves!see inside mac gaming.The new high end imac can smoke with any game on the market for the mac as of right now! Doom3 well that may be another story but even all the pc stuff is going to struggle with that game!Again the new high end imac is very very solid!

DOOM3 - truth

But that just means a upgrade of the video card. No big deal. Can't do that with the iMac :(

I think that is why my g/f sold her iMac to get the iBook. Similar performance, but she can take it to school with her.

New high end iMac is better than I thought it would be. Makes the low end PowerMac seem... neutered ;)

MorganX

Feb 4, 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by bbowdon
Is it me?

Where's the firewire upgrade?? '

What do you need it for? If you want future expandability then you want a PowerMac, not an all-in-one. That's why getting to 1GHZ and putting more value in the iMac was important. You're stuck with what you buy.

brian0526

Feb 4, 2003, 09:17 AM

It seems the mood is one of disappointment with the iMac updates. Since I haven't yet taken the plunge in to the Apple world, I'm not sure what I should have expected.

The updates seem to be pretty much in line with the most recent rumors. The one thing I still find baffling though is in the high end iMac Apple doesn't max out the memory in the first slot. That just seems dumb to me.

Speaking of that, I want to pretty much max out the RAM. Would you suggest I pay the people at the Apple store to switch the 256 MB chip for a 512 and buy a 512 from a third party? Or, maybe I should just leave the 256 in there and buy a 512 from a third party?

Given the price sensitivity in the market right now and the limitation on the G4 clock speed, I think this is about all Apple could have done for now. FW-800. Does a consumer really need this? What's going to drive those kinds of speeds? Gigabit Ethernet to surf the web? Don't think so.

This seems like a reasonable update. The way I figure it, I'm getting a 25% faster CPU, a 33% faster bus, double the graphics RAM for 10% less than I would have paid if I had bought a month ago.

Peace,
Brian

drastik

Feb 4, 2003, 09:19 AM

What you are seeing in these updates is the last of the 15 inch iMacs. That's why there isn't much of an upgrade, they are going to sell them all off. oemone posted about having a 15 inch screen on a desktop being silly. While I like the little iBook and powerbook, I kind of agree for desktop machines. These things are supposed to be work horses, and small screen estate doesn't give into that image.

My guess is that these are the last of the 5 inch releases. Once the 17 goes to 1.25, there will be no 15. Mark my words.

brian0526

Feb 4, 2003, 09:29 AM

Just called my local Apple store and the guy was clueless as to when they'd have the new iMacs in. I didn't see an availability date on the Apple website. Does anyone know when these are expected to be in the stores?

Thanks,
Brian

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 09:30 AM

for yzedf- you are right about the base powermac but if there are people looking to upgrade i guess that would be the ticket but who the heck wants to buy a brand new machine and then be thinking of upgrades? If i get a new unit i dont want to upgrade at all for at least a year plus. sure its nice down the road but down the road there is allways newer better faster.Boils down to 1 word "MOTOROLA" Apple is just doing what it can because of this company and really when you think of it it is amazing where apple has gone considering the hand they are playing with.1 more comment it takes more then just videocard to do the hard core 3d gaming you still have to feed that card to get those frame rates. you could say have ati9700 pro on a 733 PM and you aint going to have anything but a slideshow with doom 3. Now put the 9700 with a 1.25pm and it is going to look pretty good my guess is.

Gus

Feb 4, 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by possible switch
Well, now I don't even know if I want to switch. All the update did was make it more expensive for a college student....

I am confused as to how this makes it more expensive? $200 price-drops across the board, and you're complaining? Sheesh. Get a combo drive eMac from the Edu Store--$949.00. That's a good deal!

Regards,
Gus

dstorey

Feb 4, 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by brian0526
Just called my local Apple store and the guy was clueless as to when they'd have the new iMacs in. I didn't see an availability date on the Apple website. Does anyone know when these are expected to be in the stores?

Thanks,
Brian

uk store at least says shipping now, dunno about usa

iJed

Feb 4, 2003, 09:35 AM

I'm amazed that Apple is still shipping crappy GeForce 2MX and 4MX cards in the iMacs. Surely at the price they charge they could put in at least a low end GeForce 4 Titanium or a Radeon 9000 Pro.

Squire

Feb 4, 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by yzedf

Most switchers care alot more about hardware specs than Mac people. At least the ones I know do anyway...

Most potential switchers get turned off by the slow bus speeds, bad memory performance and limited config choices.

However, OS X is a HUGE turn-on. More for the BSD-ish underpinnings than the look of it.

If there were more games available... it would be a different market indeed.

*sigh*

You have it almost bang on. Although I don't care so much about hardware specs so much as reliability. I will be an "adder" as one news article put it. (Apparently, a good portion of the "switchers" are people buying a Mac to add to their computer arsenal as opposed to complete switchers.)

I use my PC for surfing the Net, listening to tunes, and organizing my digital photos. Windows is just wayyy to unreliable to have my music library and photos of my 14-month old kid. (Gotta learn to back things up more, I guess.) I also have a DV camcorder. In short, I want Apple's Digital Hub. (BTW, bought a 15" iMac for the folks last summer and thought it was great.)

However, with an iMac I don't think I can play online games with PC friends. (Virtual PC? I dunno.) I would continue to do that with my PC and use it as a "quarantine station" for any Net downloads.

Now I just have to decide WHICH digital hub I want.

Squire

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by brian0526
It seems the mood is one of disappointment with the iMac updates. Since I haven't yet taken the plunge in to the Apple world, I'm not sure what I should have expected.

The updates seem to be pretty much in line with the most recent rumors. The one thing I still find baffling though is in the high end iMac Apple doesn't max out the memory in the first slot. That just seems dumb to me.

Speaking of that, I want to pretty much max out the RAM. Would you suggest I pay the people at the Apple store to switch the 256 MB chip for a 512 and buy a 512 from a third party? Or, maybe I should just leave the 256 in there and buy a 512 from a third party?

Given the price sensitivity in the market right now and the limitation on the G4 clock speed, I think this is about all Apple could have done for now. FW-800. Does a consumer really need this? What's going to drive those kinds of speeds? Gigabit Ethernet to surf the web? Don't think so.

This seems like a reasonable update. The way I figure it, I'm getting a 25% faster CPU, a 33% faster bus, double the graphics RAM for 10% less than I would have paid if I had bought a month ago.

Peace,
Brian I would suggest a 512 factory install that way you can still put another 512 later,firewire 800 who needs it? firewire right now jams and i dont think it is yet getting saturated.Again this imac is solid!

davy the bunny

Feb 4, 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by PretendPCuser
Ah well, what monitor issues did the eMac have? I was going to recommend it at work for a very basic machine until i read that there were some issues by a previous poster. Any info would be appreciated.

There are indeed problems with the displays of some eMacs. After some time with some eMacs the screen will start to get waves in it, or it may flicker, or it may skew the color horribly, or if you're really unlucky you will turn your computer on one day and hear a loud pop and have no more video.

Information from AppleCare verifies that all of these issues are related to Apple Care Document #95169 (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=95169). And despite what any veteran user or AppleStore Technician tells you, it is not normal degradation of a CRT or because you have your eMac too close to some magnetic object or the result of bad color settings.

robguz

Feb 4, 2003, 09:43 AM

GF2, no FW 800, no Airport Extreme on the 15", 100 MHz bus on the low end. No L3 even on the high end. Last week I played around with the 17" 800 at an Apple Store. It was embarrasingly slow. 15% faster is ridiculous after an entire year. Even the GF4 MX, which is really a slightly better GF2, is just lame.

the 15" needs to be $999, the 17" needs to be $1499. Both need L3 caches, and the high end needs 512MB and a 120MB HD. Both need FW 800. Apple is so far behind on the MHz wars, that they need to throw in all the bells and whistles. Seriously, why not a GF4 Ti on the 17" model? In the quantities Apple buys, it can't be that expensive, especially for a year old, soon to be obsolete chip.

Apple gets it wrong again.

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by iJed
I'm amazed that Apple is still shipping crappy GeForce 2MX and 4MX cards in the iMacs. Surely at the price they charge they could put in at least a low end GeForce 4 Titanium or a Radeon 9000 Pro. From the reviews i have read the 900 pro(64 video ram) is about the same as geforce4mx(64 video ram) dont confuse geforce4mx(32) with the geforce4mx(64)! I would also guess that will get notched up again but remember you cant step all over the toes of the powermac line!

TyleRomeo

Feb 4, 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Chisholm
WWWWOOOOHHHHHHHOOOO!!!!!!
I just purchased a 17" with bluetooth and applecare! My first PERSONAL mac in 8 years. Now I just have to convince my wife its a good Valentine's Day gift for her (hey, better than a vacuum cleaner, right?)

cheers!
John

way to go john, congrats. Put a big bow around it and add some chocolates and maybe she'll buy it.

Ohh and for everyone complaining about the price gap issue. Look at it this way.

$999 emac
$1299 iMac
$1499 Power Mac
$1799 17 inch iMac

That seems fine to me for the desktops.

Good job apple.

Tyler

MorganX

Feb 4, 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Macrumors
Apple released their new iMacs today (http://www.apple.com).

Vague rumors have been circulating since before MacWorld San Francisco about updates to Apple's consumer line. Detailed rumors ($1799 17" iMac) (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/01/20030129220556.shtml) came just a week ago. Rumor wrapup to follow.

New iMacs

$1299, 15" LCD, 800MHz, GeForce 2MX, Combo Drive
$1799, 17" LCD, DDR, 1GHz, GeForce 4MX, SuperDrive

I'm going to bite. I said if Apple went with 1GHz and 64MB memory I'd jump in. Even though I'll be stuck there, I believe I'll enjoy it as much or more over the next year or two than my PC which I can upgrade to the moon and back. I hope my iMac experience is as pleasant as my iPod and Choplifter and Zork on Apple II expeirences are and were.

Apple is getting a 3rd chance with me. If they lose me again I'm not coming back. There is only one thing I have a major complaint about the purchase I'm not happy about, and that's memory. I can buty 512MB DDR266 for $90. But I'll have to pay and extra $100 to go to 512MB in the first slot which I hear is difficult to access.

Apple should have included 512MB for $1799. They should not try to make a profit on memory. They won't win that war and will pee off a lot of folks; switchers and die-hards. Don't do it. DO NOT DO IT.

Having said that, I'm looking forward to receiving my iMac 17, high end. Don't think I'll need bluetooth any time soon though. Will need 802.11g but I doubt I go with Apple's router, I'll go with a Cable Modem gateway in a couple months from DLink or Linksys.

BTW, I'm shocked to see how many Mac die-hards are not happy with this upgrade. You basically get 1GhZ, 32MB more ram and a $200 price drop. That's about as much as Apple can afford to do. I mean making a profit on RAM died out a long time ago. Clearly Apple is struggling to meet price/performance demands and keep profit rolling in.

NitroPye

Feb 4, 2003, 09:45 AM

No wonder my tibook now says shipping this thursday (2/6) Arg!. It was supposed to ship last friday but they were probably putting all their effort into these machines or something

yzedf

Feb 4, 2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by iJed
I'm amazed that Apple is still shipping crappy GeForce 2MX and 4MX cards in the iMacs. Surely at the price they charge they could put in at least a low end GeForce 4 Titanium or a Radeon 9000 Pro.

A few reasons:

cost

size

heat generated

noise generated

The iMac is using a mix of notebook and desktop components to minimize the size, heat, noise, and costs involved.

GF4 Pro and the Radeon 9000 series cards don't fit inside the iMac enclosure. If they did, people would just compain about the noise and heat anyway... ;)

LethalWolfe

Feb 4, 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Games are coming to the mac in droves!see inside mac gaming.The new high end imac can smoke with any game on the market for the mac as of right now! Doom3 well that may be another story but even all the pc stuff is going to struggle with that game!Again the new high end imac is very very solid!

Errr... the iMac has a GeForce 4 MX which is comparible to GeForce 2 era cards. It's fine for light to moderate gaming, but the only games it will "smoke" are games that are are a couple of years old.

The fact that a $2300 computer has a budget video card in it is rather amusing.

Lethal

MorganX

Feb 4, 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by TyleRomeo

way to go john, congrats. Put a big bow around it and add some chocolates and maybe she'll buy it.

Ohh and for everyone complaining about the price gap issue. Look at it this way.

$999 emac
$1299 iMac
$1499 Power Mac
$1799 17 inch iMac

That seems fine to me for the desktops.

Good job apple.

Tyler

The closest you come to the 17" widescreen in the PC world is Sony's Entertainment Display. At $950 that means your getting the rest of the iMac for $849. I'll buy 1GHz for that. I can get more in the PC world but Apple's style and integration outweighs the extra power at this price point.

If Apple can maintain at these price levels and continue adding value (and stop gouging on RAM prices) they could do some serious damage. They just snagged an MCSE.

MacsRgr8

Feb 4, 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by TyleRomeo

Ohh and for everyone complaining about the price gap issue. Look at it this way.

$999 emac
$1299 iMac
$1499 Power Mac
$1799 17 inch iMac

I forgot about the single 1 GHz PM....
Good one.

MorganX

Feb 4, 2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

Errr... the iMac has a GeForce 4 MX which is comparible to GeForce 2 era cards. It's fine for light to moderate gaming, but the only games it will "smoke" are games that are are a couple of years old.

The fact that a $2300 computer has a budget video card in it is rather amusing.

Lethal

A $2300 PC will drop frames unless you have a $500 video card in it. Game on Xbox.

LethalWolfe

Feb 4, 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
From the reviews i have read the 900 pro(64 video ram) is about the same as geforce4mx(64 video ram) dont confuse geforce4mx(32) with the geforce4mx(64)! I would also guess that will get notched up again but remember you cant step all over the toes of the powermac line!

I think you might be confusing the MX and the Ti or FX. The MX's are Nvidia's budget cards. The Ti's get spanked by the 900 Pro, and the FX Ulta (which will hit shelves next month) barely beats the 900 Pro in benchmarks, but it's also going to cost 1.5-2x as much as 900 Pro.

Lethal

DakotaGuy

Feb 4, 2003, 09:55 AM

I would like to get one of the 17" 1Ghz iMacs to replace my old iMac DV 400, but after reading all the complaints I don't think I will get one. It sounds like it won't have much better performance then my older iMac. ;o(

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Chisholm
WWWWOOOOHHHHHHHOOOO!!!!!!
I just purchased a 17" with bluetooth and applecare! My first PERSONAL mac in 8 years. Now I just have to convince my wife its a good Valentine's Day gift for her (hey, better than a vacuum cleaner, right?)

cheers!
John Hey you did good i really think that is a great all in one,just get her favorite song playing on itunes,a rose and chocalates and when she walks through the door she will be yours!

Centris 650

Feb 4, 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Chisholm
WWWWOOOOHHHHHHHOOOO!!!!!!
I just purchased a 17" with bluetooth and applecare! My first PERSONAL mac in 8 years. Now I just have to convince my wife its a good Valentine's Day gift for her (hey, better than a vacuum cleaner, right?)

cheers!
John

Actually two years ago my wife bought me an iBook for Valentines day. I bought her a vaccuum cleaner(Orek). Believe it or not...we were both very happy! (My wife likes practicle gifts like that. Matter of fact she asked for it and picked it out!)

utilizer

Feb 4, 2003, 09:55 AM

How silly is this?! I usually don't respond but I had to this time around. The upgrades last week to the PowerMac line along with the new display pricing and products give me another reason to splurge and buy the that instead of the 17-in. PB and just wait for the dual-G4 17 in. model when that comes out later in the year.

This is absolutely nuts for them to price the iMac line at this price; It's waaaay too expensive in this economic environment and the 17-in. monitor doesn't cost much either and as we can see in the new entry PowerMac configuration, the G4, bluetooth, Airport extreme technology isn't either. They're going to rip off a lot of people with these machines, which have virtually no upgradable capability: the GeForce MX4? Top of the line????! Please!!

Anyways, sunnier days are ahead at the end of the year and I digress. :rolleyes:

springscansing

Feb 4, 2003, 09:56 AM

I'd never get an iMac anyway, but I think Apple screwed up with bluetooth.

15" - bluetooth optional
17" - bluetooth ready
17" #2 - internal bluetooth

I mean.. damn. How confusing is that? Not to mention most consumers never even heard of bluetooth anyway!

Bottom line is, those computers are too damn expensive. All of them.

The current crop of powermacs are a good deal I think. Maybe $200 too much. But the LCD/form factor on the iMacs, while it is very nice, is very very pricey.

Ah well... I'll stick with my 21" CRT and dual 867. It's very nice, except when you first turn the monitor on, the screen gets bigger proportionate to how bright the image that it is display is. If I open a folder and a white window pops up, the whole screen physically enlarges.

And idea on that guys? heh It goes away after 5 minutes.

e-coli

Feb 4, 2003, 09:56 AM

They're wringing every last drop of profitability out of that pitiful, outdated G4 chip.

Clearly the compay is floundering to differentiate their models on all fronts.

sad.

copperpipe

Feb 4, 2003, 09:56 AM

What happened to the sweet lovable and CHEAP mac! People need a Mac they can get for $800 (or less!) to do the basics - surf the net, use their digital camera, email, write a paper, etc... And they don't need a flat panel display for that! And the thing is that people that buy these computers will fall in love with OS X, and upgrade in the years to follow. The ol' imac was lovable, I still love mine, and it filled a very respectable niche. The new imacs are cool, but they're TOO MUCH! Listen up Steve, you're missing a huge segment of the switchers with this nonsense.

Cp

danman

Feb 4, 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I hear a lot of complaints but look at the 17" it now has 64mb video ram versus 32 and that makes a difference.Its now has a 133 bus instead of the 100 that is going to make a difference.superdrive 4x and cd read at 32.1ghz a 200mhz increase.These are all solid improvements and that makes this one fine little machine!This imac blows my almost 2yr powermac out of the water!Great!I Love it! just isnt enough though for me to get one so ill keep waiting for the 7457 or 970 to show but for anyone out there who was really thinking of getting one of these I say what are you waiting for?

Absolutely..
Someone in this thread complained about a 15% speed increase in the last year???
It -has- been a long time coming but 15% is _way_ off the mark:

Processor: 25% faster
Memory: 33% faster
Video Ram 100% larger (plus commented on, but unknown speed increases with this version of the G4MX)

Now Im sooo nearly tempted, but I know the machine will still have problems with 'snappiness' - that 256kb cache is a problem. stick a L3 in this machine and I would buy tomorrow (Im still holding on with my 450Mhz G4, which is _just_ serving my purposes still)

IndyGopher

Feb 4, 2003, 10:00 AM

Again I find myself utterly stunned by how much folks in here bitch and moan about every little thing. The only thing I can find fault with in these machines is the video chipset, and even THEN my only complaint is that they didn't go with a modular design (which even some notebooks use, notably the Compaq Evo's) so that the video subsystem could be upgraded. If you need that sort of upgradability, they do have towers.

praetorian_x

Feb 4, 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by e-coli
They're wringing every last drop of profitability out of that pitiful, outdated G4 chip.

Clearly the compay is floundering to differentiate their models on all fronts.

sad.

Totally agree. Only fanboys could be impressed with these updates. (The ultimate iMac for $2,348.00? Are they ********* insane? You could get a dual 2 ghz Xeon with a FIRE graphics card plus a 17 inch flatpanel from dell for that!)

*Yawn* Wake me up when the 970 is released...

Cheers,
prat

e-coli

Feb 4, 2003, 10:06 AM

Well....to all of you who keep pointing out the DDR as a big improvement, it has been substantially proven that the G4 chip cannot, and does not, utilize the capabilities of DDR RAM.

...so it's a facade to make apple look better.

:rolleyes:

yzedf

Feb 4, 2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by e-coli
They're wringing every last drop of profitability out of that pitiful, outdated G4 chip.

Clearly the compay is floundering to differentiate their models on all fronts.

sad.

As others have said... this is what happens when you tie yourself to the sinking ship that is Motorola. All they care about anymore is cell phones :mad:

possible switch

Feb 4, 2003, 10:09 AM

Okay, I'm a poor college student with a Dell Insprion 4000 that blue screens at least 5-10 times a day. It runs hot. It's slow. I never carry it anywhere. It doesn't like to let me multi-task.

I was in the market for a new iMac. I almost bought the old low end iMac before I stumbled across macrumors.com. I've since waited patiently for upgrades. FINALLY, they're here. I just don't know what to do though.

The 15 inch one is just the old model, but cheaper. The middle-of-the-line one calls my name, but I don't have $1800 for the computer, $200 for Office X, and the extra bucks for a memory upgrade because 256 seems low.

I have about $1600 I'm willing to spend, but on a low end model that is now working on its second year?

*sigh* I guess I have no choice but to stay in the PC world. I haven't had much time to think about it, but I feel like I'd just be wasting my money by buying an iMac.

**I've heard too many bad things about screens and stuff on the eMacs and simply don't have room for something that size in my dormitory setup.**

DakotaGuy

Feb 4, 2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by danman

Absolutely..
Someone in this thread complained about a 15% speed increase in the last year???
It -has- been a long time coming but 15% is _way_ off the mark:

Processor: 25% faster
Memory: 33% faster
Video Ram 100% larger (plus commented on, but unknown speed increases with this version of the G4MX)

Now Im sooo nearly tempted, but I know the machine will still have problems with 'snappiness' - that 256kb cache is a problem. stick a L3 in this machine and I would buy tomorrow (Im still holding on with my 450Mhz G4, which is _just_ serving my purposes still)

Well this looks like it might perform a little better. I would like to order the new 1Ghz 17" iMac. Does anyone know what type of a difference I will see moving from a 400Mhz iMac DV? I have lost so much faith in Apple when I read the message boards, many times I am not sure if they are moving ahead or going backwards... ;o(

Is it a good buy or not for someone moving up from a 3 year old iMac???

MacBandit

Feb 4, 2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

I think you might be confusing the MX and the Ti or FX. The MX's are Nvidia's budget cards. The Ti's get spanked by the 900 Pro, and the FX Ulta (which will hit shelves next month) barely beats the 900 Pro in benchmarks, but it's also going to cost 1.5-2x as much as 900 Pro.

Lethal

Actually you are the one that is confused. Don't hurt me was referring to the ATI9000 Pro which he is correct in saying performs equally with a G4MX. The major difference being that the ATI9000 has vertex shaders and a bunch of other on hardware goodies that the G4MX doesn't have.

The card you are referring to is the ATI9700 PRO. Yes that little 7 makes a very big difference on an order of almost 3x the frame rates of the ATI9000 or the G4MX.

To anyone complaining about the G4MX for modern games, don't. The G4MX has more then enough muscle to play games like QuakeIIIArena at 1024x768 max everything at 80-100FPS. What more could you ask for.

nickgold

Feb 4, 2003, 10:14 AM

Most of you peeps are tools. This new iMac is a nice bump, and it's cheaper. wtf are you whining about?! I think 80% of this board are windoze trolls or microsoft marketing execs, sometimes. Gimme a break.

What I don't understand is people who say the current iMac 800 is slooooooow. I have a G4 450 sawtooth with Rage 128 card, and I think it's pretty darn snappy in OS X. Of course I have a gig and a half of ram (dirt cheap) which makes a big difference from what I hear. When I move up to a radeon card and can take advantage of quartz extreme, things are going to rock on my 3 year old tower, which seems to get BETTER performance every time apple releases an update, as opposed to another OS company I know of, which releases updates which bog older systems down like mad.

As for lack of firewire 800, give me a frigging break. As has been said time and time again, current hard drives can't even saturate a firewire 400 bus -- why the HELL do you need firewire 800? To compensate for your tiny weiner or something?

TyleRomeo

Feb 4, 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

I think you might be confusing the MX and the Ti or FX. The MX's are Nvidia's budget cards. The Ti's get spanked by the 900 Pro, and the FX Ulta (which will hit shelves next month) barely beats the 900 Pro in benchmarks, but it's also going to cost 1.5-2x as much as 900 Pro.

Lethal

LethalWolfe i think you are mistaken. Although I will agree with you that the MX cards arent the greatest gaming performance cards made by Nvidia. Their Ti 128MB DDR card for macs destroys ATI's 9000 Pro (they don't make a 900), only ATI's 9700 beats out the Nvidia Ti 128 by 30-40%. And Nvidia's latest offering, the FX Ultra barely beats out the 9700 by about 10%. Unfortunately for Nvidia's sake, ATI is dropping their latest card in early spring that will once again put them on top of the graphics card kingdom.

If you need some more technical proof of this, I'd be happy to provide it to you Lethal.

Tyler

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

Errr... the iMac has a GeForce 4 MX which is comparible to GeForce 2 era cards. It's fine for light to moderate gaming, but the only games it will "smoke" are games that are are a couple of years old.

The fact that a $2300 computer has a budget video card in it is rather amusing.

Lethal Last i checked it was 1799 and the geforce 4 mx is still 64 mb:eek:

CaVoLo

Feb 4, 2003, 10:16 AM

All's I can say is.....

I WANT ONE!!!

NicoMan

Feb 4, 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Room40

No, but it would be nice if Steve gave me a reason to by one.

The high end is OK I guess, but try explain that to my wallet...

Muahahahahaha. Good one mate.

NicoMan

geocave

Feb 4, 2003, 10:20 AM

Ordered the 17" with 512MB (One Chip) Bluetooth and Airport Extreme. Can't wait.

I'm a switcher. I'm a data network engineer. I was an MCSE (let it lapse). I am a CNE5, a CCNP (Cisco) and a CCDP (Cisco). Work heavily with Microsoft stuff and hate it. Love Unix and Linux.

Looking forward to finally editing 10+ hours of videotape.

Looking forward to organizing 2-3 GBs worth of photos.

Looking forward to organizing 8 GBs worth of music.

Looking forward to my wife not having to call me 2-3 times a day asking for help with the computer.

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

I think you might be confusing the MX and the Ti or FX. The MX's are Nvidia's budget cards. The Ti's get spanked by the 900 Pro, and the FX Ulta (which will hit shelves next month) barely beats the 900 Pro in benchmarks, but it's also going to cost 1.5-2x as much as 900 Pro.

Lethal you are the one wrong my freind,the ti's are getting spanked by the 9700 not the 9000. the 9000 is a 64 mb card in the mac world the ti is a 128. so again not much difference in 2 64mb cards. And the fx just edged out the 9700 but by a slim margin. REMEMBER THE GEFORCE4MX CAME WITH 32 or 64mb. we are now talking about the 64 version like the 9000 which is 64.

DeusOmnis

Feb 4, 2003, 10:25 AM

GF4 MX blows. it doesnt matter though, since you dont want to be gaming on an lcd anyway. It's as funny as hell to watch my friend playing on his. the guys in counterstrike actually do look like ghosts, lol

Billy_ca

Feb 4, 2003, 10:26 AM

that the Hard Disk speeds got bumped to 7200 RPM and the bus on the 17" model is now at 133 MHz?

wilburpan

Feb 4, 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by utilizer
This is absolutely nuts for them to price the iMac line at this price
I disagree. Go to the Dell website and price out a Dimension 2350 with a 2.0GHz P4, equivalent RAM, HD, LCD monitor, DVD burner, etc., and you will find that you will come within $200 of the 17" iMac.

This is including outfitting the Dell with WinXP Pro because of OSX's superior networking capability. Add into this the fact that the base software package for the Dell is nowhere near as good as the iMac software package, and the fact that the built in video on the Dell is inferior to the GeForce4 MX on the 17" iMac (and not upgradable), and the iMac starts looking like the better deal.

In fact, the software package is the most overlooked part of any discussion of the performance of Macintosh computers.

All the usual disclaimers in trying to compare Mac and PC systems apply.

jelloshotsrule

Feb 4, 2003, 10:27 AM

at first glance, i was somewhat unimpressed..

now i'm a little more impressed... just one note

to all those who mention that the low end is now 200 dollars cheaper and 100 mhz faster... yes, true.

but.

in general. when machines are upgraded, one looks at the price points, as opposed to the machines themselves... so for instance, unless i'm wrong (which i could be.) the old low end (700 mhz 15") was 1199.... well now the current low end (800 mhz, 15") is 1299.

so yes, it's faster. but the lowest end is now 100 bucks more.

which, for an upgrade, is a bit weak. however, like folks have said, clearly apple is squeaking by here until there are some good chips ready.

granted, this is not quite comparable to the "hey, we have to raise the imac prices 100 bucks" thing, but it's still a bit crappy... however, the high end is quite impressive i'd say.

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
I would like to get one of the 17" 1Ghz iMacs to replace my old iMac DV 400, but after reading all the complaints I don't think I will get one. It sounds like it won't have much better performance then my older iMac. ;o( the new high end imac will smoke your classic easily in every test! think of the new powermac 1 gig versus your machine and your telling me no difference? Heck my powermac 800 smokes my wifes imac500 crt in everyway.

yzedf

Feb 4, 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by possible switch
Okay, I'm a poor college student with a Dell Insprion 4000 that blue screens at least 5-10 times a day. It runs hot. It's slow. I never carry it anywhere. It doesn't like to let me multi-task.

I was in the market for a new iMac. I almost bought the old low end iMac before I stumbled across macrumors.com. I've since waited patiently for upgrades. FINALLY, they're here. I just don't know what to do though.

The 15 inch one is just the old model, but cheaper. The middle-of-the-line one calls my name, but I don't have $1800 for the computer, $200 for Office X, and the extra bucks for a memory upgrade because 256 seems low.

I have about $1600 I'm willing to spend, but on a low end model that is now working on its second year?

*sigh* I guess I have no choice but to stay in the PC world. I haven't had much time to think about it, but I feel like I'd just be wasting my money by buying an iMac.

**I've heard too many bad things about screens and stuff on the eMacs and simply don't have room for something that size in my dormitory setup.**

Couple of things... Inspiron is a laptop. Do you not want another laptop? If you might want a laptop, check out the iBook.

As for the iMac... I would look at the intro model with 512MB and the AppleCare warranty for $1568/$1668 depending on if you want 2 or 1 sticks of memory in it. This machine would do most anything you want... unless you are doing serious programming and/or gaming.

As for the "low end model" being old... it also very reliable. The DDR that is in the higher models has been a joke so far. BlueTooth is not very usefull for most people yet, and Apple is not the company to get it moving (that would be Dell and Gateway).

If you want to straight up compare the low to mid range of the PC world vs the Mac world... you can't do it. PC is going to be cheaper.

I feel your pain as for the Inspiron though. Those things are truly horrid hot flimsy machines. I assume your warranty has expired...?

davy the bunny

Feb 4, 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by copperpipe
What happened to the sweet lovable and CHEAP mac! People need a Mac they can get for $800 (or less!) to do the basics - surf the net, use their digital camera, email, write a paper, etc... And they don't need a flat panel display for that! And the thing is that people that buy these computers will fall in love with OS X, and upgrade in the years to follow. The ol' imac was lovable, I still love mine, and it filled a very respectable niche. The new imacs are cool, but they're TOO MUCH! Listen up Steve, you're missing a huge segment of the switchers with this nonsense.

Cp

It sounds like you may have contradicted yourself. . .
If people want a Mac to do just the basics with, they can still get a G3 iMac for under $800, just like you want (not that I'm saying it's worth that much).

And you who own an G3 iMac (I know you paid more than $800 for it) are not willing to upgrade because the new ones are too expensive?

LethalWolfe

Feb 4, 2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit

Actually you are the one that is confused. Don't hurt me was referring to the ATI9000 Pro which he is correct in saying performs equally with a G4MX. The major difference being that the ATI9000 has vertex shaders and a bunch of other on hardware goodies that the G4MX doesn't have.

The card you are referring to is the ATI9700 PRO. Yes that little 7 makes a very big difference on an order of almost 3x the frame rates of the ATI9000 or the G4MX.

To anyone complaining about the G4MX for modern games, don't. The G4MX has more then enough muscle to play games like QuakeIIIArena at 1024x768 max everything at 80-100FPS. What more could you ask for.

D'oh, yer right. I got my 9x00's mixed up. :o

I wouldn't call Q3A a modern game though. ;)

Lethal

yzedf

Feb 4, 2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by wilburpan
In fact, the software package is the most overlooked part of any discussion of the performance of Macintosh computers.

All the usual disclaimers in trying to compare Mac and PC systems apply.

Yeah. Because we all know that iMovie 3.0.1 is such a good program ;)

Apple's free packaged software is better than Dell's? Big whoop! If you want real software (Photoshop 7) then you have to pay for it, regardless of the new system you buy.

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
GF4 MX blows. it doesnt matter though, since you dont want to be gaming on an lcd anyway. It's as funny as hell to watch my friend playing on his. the guys in counterstrike actually do look like ghosts, lol you will be able to game on this machine and your friends are using the old hardware!

Backtothemac

Feb 4, 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the new high end imac will smoke your classic easily in every test! think of the new powermac 1 gig versus your machine and your telling me no difference? Heck my powermac 800 smokes my wifes imac500 crt in everyway.

Yea, his old DV will do about 200 million instructions per second, and the new iMac somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 billion.

Man, are people really this dense?

MacBoyX

Feb 4, 2003, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by e-coli
They're wringing every last drop of profitability out of that pitiful, outdated G4 chip.

Clearly the compay is floundering to differentiate their models on all fronts.

sad.

Let's all say it...eMac eMac eMac.

It's obvious that Apple is integrating the eMac (read CHEAP iMac) into it's consumer desktop line. I kind of expected this. You can get a good cheap Mac. 999 for a G4 700 MHz G4? Add a little ram and you got a work horse and a half. The screen bugs have been worked out as Apple has admitted and offered to fix the screen! If you want cheap then you aren't going to get a FP. I don't think it matters. I am still using my G4 TiBook 667 with 512 MB or RAM and truthfully I am hardly maxing it out. One thing I learned when I switched a year ago was that like V8's and old American Muscle bigger isnt always better. My G4 667 SMOKES my P4 1.8GHz Thinkpad...they even have the same amt of memory. The truth is no one really needs a 1Ghz G4 to run OS X and it think it's damn nice that Apple gave us one. I wont be upgrading my TiBook ever because of speed, it will be because something cooler and more envious comes out. Isn't that the way it is with Apple users? I think too many POWER HOGS are making to much noise. It is further more obvious that the 15' iMac is going the way of the dinosaur. In 6 months we'll see 17" only iMacs.

AND why is it that everyone keeps forgetting the awesome thing Apple did today with the eMac? A 17" G4 Mac for 999? Weren't we all asking a year ago for just that? Maybe if Apple would have called the eMac the the iMac II you'd all stop complaining.

And if i hear one more person complain about how apple is floundering especially APPLE PEOPLE i am going to go postal. Apple is doing the best it can while waiting for the 970 or G5 or what ever else will come out.

Again we caused this ourselves. We all wanted more power G4's in every model line MORE POWER! and now we got what we asked for. 4 model lines basically identical in every way.

Ask you self are you really using this much power or do you want bragging rights? Who cares if the PC idiot next to you has a 2.2 GHz P4? Why isn't it enuff to have a more efficent, more elegant, more unique computer?

Ok...now off my soap box...I got splinters from standing on it so long!

possible switch

Feb 4, 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by yzedf

Couple of things... Inspiron is a laptop. Do you not want another laptop? If you might want a laptop, check out the iBook.

As for the iMac... I would look at the intro model with 512MB and the AppleCare warranty for $1568/$1668 depending on if you want 2 or 1 sticks of memory in it. This machine would do most anything you want... unless you are doing serious programming and/or gaming.

As for the "low end model" being old... it also very reliable. The DDR that is in the higher models has been a joke so far. BlueTooth is not very usefull for most people yet, and Apple is not the company to get it moving (that would be Dell and Gateway).

If you want to straight up compare the low to mid range of the PC world vs the Mac world... you can't do it. PC is going to be cheaper.

I feel your pain as for the Inspiron though. Those things are truly horrid hot flimsy machines. I assume your warranty has expired...? \

I don't want another laptop. I've determined that I don't like them and don't ever move them, so it's pointless for me to get another. Heck, I don't care about bluetooth and all that stuff. I don't even know what it is/does. Yes, my warranty has expired on my laptop. The problems started within a month of the warranty's expiration, and that's been over a year ago. No matter what I or anyone else does, it still sucks.

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by wilburpan

I disagree. Go to the Dell website and price out a Dimension 2350 with a 2.0GHz P4, equivalent RAM, HD, LCD monitor, DVD burner, etc., and you will find that you will come within $200 of the 17" iMac.

This is including outfitting the Dell with WinXP Pro because of OSX's superior networking capability. Add into this the fact that the base software package for the Dell is nowhere near as good as the iMac software package, and the fact that the built in video on the Dell is inferior to the GeForce4 MX on the 17" iMac (and not upgradable), and the iMac starts looking like the better deal.

In fact, the software package is the most overlooked part of any discussion of the performance of Macintosh computers.

All the usual disclaimers in trying to compare Mac and PC systems apply. The imac is a better machine and when you do go to sell it it will be worth more!iphoto is just to cool,same with itunes,imovie,OSX, mac software is just better and easier:)

NicoMan

Feb 4, 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by brian0526
It seems the mood is one of disappointment with the iMac updates. Since I haven't yet taken the plunge in to the Apple world, I'm not sure what I should have expected.

The updates seem to be pretty much in line with the most recent rumors. The one thing I still find baffling though is in the high end iMac Apple doesn't max out the memory in the first slot. That just seems dumb to me.

Speaking of that, I want to pretty much max out the RAM. Would you suggest I pay the people at the Apple store to switch the 256 MB chip for a 512 and buy a 512 from a third party? Or, maybe I should just leave the 256 in there and buy a 512 from a third party?

Given the price sensitivity in the market right now and the limitation on the G4 clock speed, I think this is about all Apple could have done for now. FW-800. Does a consumer really need this? What's going to drive those kinds of speeds? Gigabit Ethernet to surf the web? Don't think so.

This seems like a reasonable update. The way I figure it, I'm getting a 25% faster CPU, a 33% faster bus, double the graphics RAM for 10% less than I would have paid if I had bought a month ago.

Peace,
Brian

You are right. This is a reasonable update, given what was available to Apple. Now we can always argue about prices...

NicoMan

synthetickittie

Feb 4, 2003, 10:39 AM

I dont understand how people are complaining about how these computer or now to exspensive and thier susspost to be consumer machines... Hell they were more exspensive a day ago. The updates I can understand why your not all to happy with them, but I dont see what else apple could of done considering the processors thier working with and also the fact that if they did all that much more they would of had to jack up the price even more and most of you are complaining about what the price is NOW. All I know is if I was in the market for an imac Id definitly be getting one right now

MacBoyX

Feb 4, 2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by possible switch
\

I don't want another laptop. I've determined that I don't like them and don't ever move them, so it's pointless for me to get another. Heck, I don't care about bluetooth and all that stuff. I don't even know what it is/does. Yes, my warranty has expired on my laptop. The problems started within a month of the warranty's expiration, and that's been over a year ago. No matter what I or anyone else does, it still sucks.

You really should consider an eMac. It's an awesome machine. My best friend bought one because he wanted a cheaper iMac and has no regrets. True it is a bit bigger than the iMac but not that much bigger. It's a great machine for just about everything. If you really want the iMac the lower end iMac is the best deal for you. It will fly past your Dell and will be more than enough power for anything you want to do. Don't be confused by all the people in this group who complain and squabble over Mhz. I have a G4 TiBook 667 and an iMac 15" FP 700Mhz and they both do everything i throw at them, iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, Office, Photoshop, the Sims etc.

Also I'd go with the older model because it has shown to be a very dependable machine with little or no issues with it's hardware.

Please switch and enjoy. I did and I guarantee you won't be sorry!

davy the bunny

Feb 4, 2003, 10:43 AM

I agree with MacBoy X about everything except how ready Apple is to fix the screen on your eMac. . .

MacBoyX

Feb 4, 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by davy the bunny
I agree with MacBoy X about everything except how ready Apple is to fix the screen on your eMac. . .

Davy,

there was an article posted in these forums a bit back that said if you quoted the apple care document that states the issues with ur eMac they gave you no problem.

I am trouble to hear about ur issues. Apple has been soo good about fixing my TiBook when the famous gray spot appeared above my sleep light. They also replaced my iPod that wouldn't hold a charge....

I hope you find a fast solution to this issue.

Room40

Feb 4, 2003, 10:48 AM

This is hilarious (from Think Secret, February 3)

"Sources report Apple's decision to lower prices is based on the current economic climate, price competition from rival Windows-based PCs and surveys taken in Apple retail stores showing customer dissatisfaction with prices. "During the Christmas buying season, we found many customers bringing in ads from competitors literally comparing system prices and features," said one unnamed source who works at an Apple retail Store. "This was reported back to corporate, and they decided this was becoming more of a factor we had to address to continue gaining 'switchers'."

We got new iMacs all right, but the reported reasoning behind the new lineup and price structure are at best MIA or worse - gone AWOL. I guess that report from the front line just got lost in the mail somehow.

Never mind the fact that iMacs already was rather expensive compared to most consumer PCs. Increasing the price on the entry level model by $100 (8,3%) just adds insult to injuries, and can hardly be characterized as a smart move.

Never mind the fact that iMacs are truly state of the art consumer PCs.
But why on earth are Apple then making it harder to get one? If you're luring switchers to the Mac-platform, narrowing the window of opportunity to sell your best stuff is just plain stupid. An affordable entry level model is the gateway to sell more high end models. You take a good look at the 15", like it, adore it, but the 17" wide screen is so much sweeter - and before you know it, you go for it. On the other hand, If the stuff is out of your range from the get go, you're never even going to reach for the next level.

I have never ever doubted Apples "non plus ultra" ability to make truly awesome products, but I'm having second thoughts one their business model.

undefined

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 10:58 AM

EMAC!

davy the bunny

Feb 4, 2003, 11:02 AM

MacBoy X,

I just don't want to have another knock down drag out argument in the middle of AppleStore WillowBend (http://www.apple.com/retail/willowbend) with a MacGenius that doesn't even believe that it's within the realm of possibility that this is part of the known issue. *sigh*

But I will say that if my eMac hadn't been afflicted by the issue, it would be the perfect machine for my needs, it's fast, it's a workhorse, and it benchmarks faster than an iMac rated at the same speed with the same amount of RAM.

MacBandit

Feb 4, 2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

D'oh, yer right. I got my 9x00's mixed up. :o

I wouldn't call Q3A a modern game though. ;)

Lethal

Name a more current FPS engine besides UT2K3 (which isn't out for macs yet).

yzedf

Feb 4, 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Room40
Never mind the fact that iMacs already was rather expensive compared to most consumer PCs. Increasing the price on the entry level model by $100 (8,3%) just adds insult to injuries, and can hardly be characterized as a smart move.

Never mind the fact that iMacs are truly state of the art consumer PCs.
But why on earth are Apple then making it harder to get one? If you're luring switchers to the Mac-platform, narrowing the window of opportunity to sell your best stuff is just plain stupid. An affordable entry level model is the gateway to sell more high end models.

$100 price bump was stupid. Regardless of increased "capabilities."

And what is state of the art about the iMac? Surely you don't mean the hardware? Outdated video/memory/bus/CPU specs on the entire range. All in one form factor is no longer unique, albeit still the nicest implementation of it. The OS is nice, but kind of slow feeling still.

Does the CRT iMac 700 MHz still count as an affordable entry level machine? Me thinks not...

wilburpan

Feb 4, 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by synthetickittie
I dont understand how people are complaining about how these computer or now too expensive and they're supposed to be consumer machines...
A bit of historical perspective:

I remember when my dad made an investment in our first computer.

Apple II+, with 64K RAM (we got the 16K RAM expansion card), two floppy drives, Epson dot matrix printer, and 40x25 color monitor with graphics card.

Set him back $2500 in 1980 dollars. I remember him getting a bank loan to finance this.

Chisholm

Feb 4, 2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Hey you did good i really think that is a great all in one,just get her favorite song playing on itunes,a rose and chocalates and when she walks through the door she will be yours!

Man! That's a great idea! go ahead and transfer her 5 gigs of Napster tunes into iTunes. And a rose. HHmmm. maybe a rose on the desktop will work. Its always so hard to buy flowers ON Valentine's Day.

And for all you folks complaining about the prices....That price drop of $200 allowed my AppleLoan to work without groveling to up the credit limit. Not to mention it covered Alabama's repressive city, county, and state tax of 9%.

Hahahahaha!

Oh, and I told the Apple sales rep about the new machines. He had neglected to read the memo on his desk until I called.

cheers!
John

Abstract

Feb 4, 2003, 11:09 AM

Sorry, I read up to page 3 of this thread but have no time to read the rest, so I'm sorry if this has already been replied to:

The previous $1,499 model received an extra 20 GB of hard-drive space and an extra 100 MHz and dropped $200. What's wrong with that?

The problem with this is that it has been a very very very long time since the last updates, and in the computer world, a year is a long time. Heck, a month is a long time, and while the PC world is making leaps and bounds in every aspect, the iMac is now only starting to get things like a 7200 rpm hard drive, a 64Mb video card (of course, this is only offered on the 17" starting at $1700 :rolleyes: ), and not much else. All obsolete, and at a price drop that doesn't mean squat. If I wait a year to purchase a PC, I know it will be much much better than the machines being sold 1 year ago. This is the way computers work, not like this.
The 133Mhz bus is nice, but it should have one already? Also, the price range is garbage!!! The extra $500 you pay to get a 17" is definitely not worth the money. I agree with people when they say that the best desktop deal is either the eMac or the low end 1Ghz PowerMac.
Again, the extra 100Mhz hike in cpu speed and a $200 price drop on the low end machine is nothing in the computer world, not after such a long period of time. They have offered consumers nothing to really choose from. Its either a pricey low end 800Mhz machine --- a complete rip-off for the same technology they had from 1 year ago; or a 17" $1799 machine that would be great if it had a sale price of $1599. And the high end 17" iMac for $2348? Well, lets not even go there, please. :rolleyes: When looking from the mid 17" machine to the high-end 17" machine, all I can see is the most expensive DDR Ram ever sold.

Mr Jobs

Feb 4, 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by woodsey
For those of us living down under, it appears apple has the wrong specs on the australian apple store.

keep you pants on man, its not the wrong specs just a few hours old. give them a little time, they dont have superman working for them u know.

3-22

Feb 4, 2003, 11:20 AM

I'm pretty impressed with the new iMacs... DDR..

jonzal

Feb 4, 2003, 11:27 AM

Well, this is much less of a blow than I feared when I bought my 17" iMac at the day-after-Thanksgiving event. Cost was reduced to $1,888 that night, and the machine's got plenty of what I need. Definitely don't feel like I got burned. Phew.

-JZ

LethalWolfe

Feb 4, 2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit

Name a more current FPS engine besides UT2K3 (which isn't out for macs yet).

Q3A is three years old. It's not a modern game. If you want to talk engines (which can be tweaked and modified) that's a different story.

Lethal

cr2sh

Feb 4, 2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by NicoMan
That's the cheap'o model.

We prefer to call it 'The Dell Killer' :D

chetwilliams

Feb 4, 2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by sparks9
This definitely proves that the new iPods wont have firewire800...

Why would you want FW800 on an iPod. The compact hard drives used in the iPod are not fast enough to need any more bandwidth than what FW400 provides.

OnaMacSince1989

Feb 4, 2003, 11:37 AM

Guess I'll be waiting another year to replace my 3yr old 400mhz G3iMac DV. I just upgraded it to OSX.2 and it still performs good enough for home use. The new iMacs are just still not fast enough to justify spending $1300 or $1800. That snail paced 133 mhz system bus is the real show stopper! Hope the new IBM G5 chips trickle down to the whole line real soon!

Where's the $999 G4 iMac? Why isn't there a $499 or $599 G3 iMac? Apple is missing out on so many millions of possible customers that can easily go buy any number of decent PC's in this price range. If Apple really wants to gain market share, they need to seriously go after the lower end of the market. These are the masses and if they can get them to convert, they can hopefully sell them a higher end machine next time around - and may get some of their friends in the process!

James.Paul

Feb 4, 2003, 11:44 AM

I think what Apple has done today is the right move. They've now created a price dividing line between pro and consumer. The consumer end is getting messy, too many product lines, too many different types of chips they have to buy. It's confusing for the customer and increases their overheads.

What you have to remember is that those who want a 1ghz G4 iMac get a monitor (decent monitor as well) included in the price. If you get a 1ghz G4 power mac you have to buy a monitor which can add at least £500 ($699) to the total. There's the superdrive, and lots of additional extras. It all adds up!

That 1ghz iMac is a superb purchase and if I was in the market for one at the moment I'd purchase. I have an 867 Power Mac at the moment and soon will be getting a 1.25 dual, Mac OS X and all the apps perform flawlessly on an 867. They will fly on 1ghz.

Go out and buy one today!!!!

cr2sh

Feb 4, 2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by geocave
I'm a data network engineer. I am a
Looking forward to my wife not having to call me 2-3 times a day asking for help with the computer.

The down side to that is, from now on, oyuu'll use a Mac at home and be like 'Wow.. that was so easy' then you'll go to work and just get furious at the nonsense that it windows. My friend, work is going to suck a lot, from now on...

cr2sh

Feb 4, 2003, 11:51 AM

My one complaint is, this new line of Consumer Desktops.. makes the PRO laptop look kinda pathetic. Don't you think?

iAndy

Feb 4, 2003, 11:54 AM

Robguz
Lame-O
GF2, no FW 800, no Airport Extreme on the 15", 100 MHz bus on the low end. No L3 even on the high end. Last week I played around with the 17" 800 at an Apple Store. It was embarrasingly slow. 15% faster is ridiculous after an entire year. Even the GF4 MX, which is really a slightly better GF2, is just lame.

the 15" needs to be $999, the 17" needs to be $1499. Both need L3 caches, and the high end needs 512MB and a 120MB HD. Both need FW 800. Apple is so far behind on the MHz wars, that they need to throw in all the bells and whistles. Seriously, why not a GF4 Ti on the 17" model? In the quantities Apple buys, it can't be that expensive, especially for a year old, soon to be obsolete chip.

Apple gets it wrong againI don't know about "again" Robguz - the new 20" display was definite proof that Apple CAN be competitive on price if it really wants to - but you certainly nailed my main qualms on the price breaks, cache, RAM, graphics card, and HD size. Other than that these new iMacs are perfect :p

MorganX
Apple should have included 512MB for $1799. They should not try to make a profit on memory. They won't win that war and will pee off a lot of folks; switchers and die-hards. Don't do it. DO NOT DO IT. I couldn't agree with you more on the memory front - most switchers are going to look on this as (dare I say it) a M#crosoft pricing tactic. Perhaps they have just become too used to selling these small incremental upgrades to their own captive audience.

praetorian_x
Totally agree. Only fanboys could be impressed with these updates. (The ultimate iMac for $2,348.00? Are they ********* insane? You could get a dual 2 ghz Xeon with a FIRE graphics card plus a 17 inch flatpanel from dell for that!)

*Yawn* Wake me up when the 970 is released... Wished I could have put it as eloquently as you praetorian_x ;)
As for me, even though the money has been burning a hole in my pocket I am going to sit this one out (again). It's a shame because I love the iMac, but it's just that it's price performance compared to non-Apple hardware is nowhere near compelling enough yet. And if the folks at Cupertino can't even sell a potential (Apple shareholding) switcher like me on their iMacs - they haven't got a hope in hell on most of my games oriented buddies...!

evilfunkgenius

Feb 4, 2003, 11:55 AM

Ok so I have read about people saying that the PowerMac 1ghz is cheaper and faster. (Although, technically, if you fit them up with the same innards the iMac is only $15 more expensive and you get a 17" LCD monitor thrown in in leiu of l3 cache). So what really needs to be asked is:

If the only thing that is different between an iMac and a PowerMac is the presence of L3 cache, how much of a speed difference will I see? (and what will be most affected?)

In weighing the options between getting a new tower and getting an iMac, It basically comes down to that. I really enjoy the iMac styling and would love to own one, but if it is going to be sluggish like my Sawtooth G4 450, then I would probably be better off waiting. (As of now, the plans are to use the Sawtooth as a house server, get an iMac for daily use now and then upgrade to a g5 if/when they ever come out next year.)

QuiteSure

Feb 4, 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by OnaMacSince1989
Why isn't there a $499 or $599 G3 iMac?

Apple knows that iMovie 3.0.1 and iPhoto 2.0 will run a bit too slow on a cheap G3 to make for a truly enjoyable customer experience. It is important for switchers to feel confirmed in their post-switch experience that they made the right choice. Allowing switchers to have a disappointing experience with the central iLife apps will hurt more in the long run than maintaining a slightly more expensive product line which will satisfy consumer expectations. ergo, no $499 or $599 G3 iMac.

DrGruv1

Feb 4, 2003, 11:57 AM

I've saved up $2000 for my next computer and still waitting...

I desperately need the power for virtual software synths and samplers for music.

HOW MANY ARE GOING TO BUY 1ST GEN. of the 970?

From my experience, it is better to wait for the the 2nd gen. at get the bugs worked out.. especially on a $2000+ purchase.

So... WHEN ARE YOU BUYING?

BobVB

Feb 4, 2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by snahabed
I sort of think people are off the mark in wanting a 15" superdrive middle iMac model, because only a real entry-level consumer is going to want a tiny little 15" screen; such a consumer is not likely to make great use of a superdrive. iMovie/iDVD on a 15" screen? I guess it can be done, but it cannot be fun!
I think the prices are fair. I just don't know why anyone would want a 15" iMac. This is 2003, baby, 15" screens on a desktop machine? No :)

Ahhhh a classic example of monitor size fixation. ;)

All I have is a 15" LCD on my PowerMac and use iMovie just fine, 'thank-you-very-much'. I've looked at bigger ones but the cost vs need (everything I have runs fine in 1024x768) ratio just isn't there yet.

I think your fixation with monitor size isn't one that john q public public has. Web surfing, checkbook balancing, game playing and email correspondence can all be done within the confines of a 15" 1024x768 screen.

Maybe you're just sitting too far away from your screen? :P

jamilecrire

Feb 4, 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by MorganX

A $2300 PC will drop frames unless you have a $500 video card in it. Game on Xbox.

Horse**** I have a AthlonXP 2000+ (1.67Ghz) and a Geforce 4 Ti 4200 64MB and I get 92 fps (lowest rate) in Quake 3 at 1280x960 with all textures on high and running at 32bit. Oh and btw I got it around 9 months ago for Neverwinter Nights (try that on a Mac) since it's all 3D rendered. The whole system cost $800 to build.

Don't compare Apples to PC's because on games there is no comparison. Oh and the XBox only runs at 640x480 so the clarity is really poor (which is why the frame rate is good). And don't be a complete fool and discuss price.

macdiehard

Feb 4, 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Gus
What? They didn't put a 2.1Ghz IBM 970 in there? Where's the 256MB DDR Graphics card? And hey, what about that 19" holographic display. Man, I'm really pissed abbout this. Heads will roll in Cupertino!

;) :)

Regards,
Gus

Yeah and it should be all for $999!

Xerov

Feb 4, 2003, 12:04 PM

did they fix the L3 cache problem on the g4's in the iMacs?? I heard this is the reason they under-preform..even at the speed they are at (ie: 1ghz iMac not as fast as single CPU 1Ghz PM)

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 12:05 PM

I had a buddy just buy a new HP with a 2.4 ghz intel in it. He paid just over 1 grand and i was thinking that it must be cool. Anyways i went over there and looked at this thing and it was garbage-it had the cheapest looking and feeling keyboard i had ever seen with no ports on it! I guess macs just spoil us.The mouse that came with this thing was a rollerball mouse! I didnt even know they still made those considering my wifes 500 imac was optical!the whole system looked like it was made of cheapass plastic(sorry arn) and this thing came with wow 64 mb of video memory but it turned out it was just using 64 of the system memory and had no video card!-So off he goes and buys a newer video card agp for his brand new machine! well it turns out this thing didnt even have a agp slot! only pci! so he took it back for a pci one. Now WOW! a 2.4 p4 INTEL that was wrapped around with pure garbage!I wont even go into the problems he had with all his software which by the way he is chucking most of it!And the games looked like sh_ _! Ill take the new Imacs any day of the week even if i have to pay more! You get what you pay for! The new Imacs are just to cool!--- Just a little story for all the pc weenies out there to who i would say there is more to a computer then just all those specs like OOUUUWHEE 2.4 intel! I think this friend of mine is still trying to figure it out since he has been so quite. If it wasnt for my powermac 800 I would be placing my order today for that 1 giger imac!

frescies

Feb 4, 2003, 12:09 PM

I must say I am content with this update. The 17" has enough to be a considerable upgrade and the price drop is nice. However, these upgrades aren't fantastic enough for me to kick myself in the a## for getting my 800mhz 17" last November and not waiting. For one thing these new machines aren't OS 9 compatible (IMHO I still think OS 9 is essential for the crap I use on my computer) and the 200mhz update isn't enough to make me upset about not waiting to ditch OS 9.

Man I'm such a cliche upgrade hater. I dont have the willpower to wait for anything that's not first generation and I still get upset when Big, affordable, Upgrades come along (mostly at myself).

I think the best addition to this upgrade is definately the 64megs of vram. 32 sometimes doesn't cut it in some of my games.

Mark my words everyone!!!! I will find a way to upgrade the graphics in the FP imac! I weild a soldering iron like a sword, but with the finess of a hummingbird!!!

copperpipe

Feb 4, 2003, 12:11 PM

remember that this board is for Mac-Nerds, who get so wrapped up in the world of Mac, that we lose perspective on the big picture. So if you're thinking about a new Mac, remember that 90% of the people complaining here LOOOOOVE their machines and would never go back to a PC. We just want Apple to do so much, not to mention these rumor sites get us all strung out.

Anyway, I want to say that when Apple came out with the new imac, they lost the ability to make low priced consumer machines. The new imac, look at it - it a marvel of engineering with a flat screen that swivels! READ - NOT A BUDGET MACHINE. And that's what I think Apple is missing out on. Now we do have the emac, which is cool, and is more appropriate the next imac. But, IMHO, it's not as affordable and friendly as the original imac. I say, and this will never happen, bring the old imac back with a kick @ss G3 and sell it for $699!

Cp

macdiehard

Feb 4, 2003, 12:13 PM

I am pretty happy with the new config, and will probably go for a $1799 with a Ram upgrade (which you can usually get for free anyway from mail order houses.

Honestlly I am getting by fine with most of day to day tasks on G3 225 Mhz so I am hardly going to complain about the performance.

What I like about this upgrade is: 1ghz and audio line in.

I like this machine:
- Great erogonomics - I often view web sites with another colleague.
- Great screen
- Great drives, DVD R is very handy for backups and storage

I think it's a great machine for small businesses.

High speed doesn't always mean more productivity, think how much time we spend on this chat board. That's all lost productivity. I admit it that if you are vid pro or gamer or whatever than it might matter.

Xerov

Feb 4, 2003, 12:14 PM

I know its kind of an odd request but does anyone know where I could but a single 1ghz or maybe even dual 1.25 without any ram, Hard drive, or video card...I already have these parts that are mac compatable and do not wist to 'Repurcase them'

yosoyjay

Feb 4, 2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by NicoMan

Sorry but the high end DOES has 1GB.

It can have 1GB. It ships with 256MB.

BOLLOCKS!!!
What are you talking about? It makes a difference. Especially if you have low RAM, because your system uses the hard drive to page memory.
I think you are confusing the difference between a 7200rpm on ATA-100 and a 7200rpm on an ATA-133 (which is inexistant) and our problem.

I'm not here to bash you but what you just said doesn't feel right at all...

NicoMan

Your absolutely correct, it does make a difference but not necessarily a perceivable difference in the responsiveness of the system. On this point I was commenting from personal experience where I had replaced a 5400rpm hard drive with a 7200rpm. I was never able to perceive a difference but the system benchmarks improved by over 10%... I have a few friends that have had similar experiences as well.

I don't even think a 7200rpm hard drive with a 8MB cache can saturate ATA-100 during bursts so ATA-133 is not a problem.

iShater

Feb 4, 2003, 12:20 PM

wbragg17

Feb 4, 2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Squire

You have it almost bang on. Although I don't care so much about hardware specs so much as reliability. I will be an "adder" as one news article put it. (Apparently, a good portion of the "switchers" are people buying a Mac to add to their computer arsenal as opposed to complete switchers.)

I use my PC for surfing the Net, listening to tunes, and organizing my digital photos. Windows is just wayyy to unreliable to have my music library and photos of my 14-month old kid. (Gotta learn to back things up more, I guess.) I also have a DV camcorder. In short, I want Apple's Digital Hub. (BTW, bought a 15" iMac for the folks last summer and thought it was great.)

However, with an iMac I don't think I can play online games with PC friends. (Virtual PC? I dunno.) I would continue to do that with my PC and use it as a "quarantine station" for any Net downloads.

Now I just have to decide WHICH digital hub I want.

Squire

I guess that makes me an "adder" as well. I was hesitant about the 'speed', but the overall user-bility with ilife and overall design is what I am after. It's hard not to want the fastest/most powerful, but in reality, it's not necessary for me. It's never been necessary for me - I am back in grad school, but have also been and Information Systems Manager, amongst other things.

Just ordered the new 17" CB IMac, and I for one am very happy - seems to be shipping in 5-7days.

As far as gaming goes, I don't know that I would even buy a computer with gaming as my primary purpose, and less so a Mac, I guess. But I can't speak to that really.

Overall, very happy, switcher/adder or whatever label I need.

William

MorganX

Feb 4, 2003, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by nickgold
Most of you peeps are tools. This new iMac is a nice bump, and it's cheaper. wtf are you whining about?! I think 80% of this board are windoze trolls or microsoft marketing execs, sometimes. Gimme a break.

Give me a break. You think all mac users are rich? Do you really believe that anyone not happy with Apple's prices or their recent products are windoze trolls or microsoft marketing execs? Grow up my man.

iShater

Feb 4, 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by geocave
Ordered the 17" with 512MB (One Chip) Bluetooth and Airport Extreme. Can't wait.

I'm a switcher. I'm a data network engineer. I was an MCSE (let it lapse). I am a CNE5, a CCNP (Cisco) and a CCDP (Cisco). Work heavily with Microsoft stuff and hate it. Love Unix and Linux.

Looking forward to finally editing 10+ hours of videotape.

Looking forward to organizing 2-3 GBs worth of photos.

Looking forward to organizing 8 GBs worth of music.

Looking forward to my wife not having to call me 2-3 times a day asking for help with the computer.

Rock on! I am sure you will love it. :D

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Xerov
I know its kind of an odd request but does anyone know where I could but a single 1ghz or maybe even dual 1.25 without any ram, Hard drive, or video card...I already have these parts that are mac compatable and do not wist to 'Repurcase them' you need to rephrase what the heck you are trying to say cause i read it twice and still have not figured it out?:confused:

MorganX

Feb 4, 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by jamilecrire

Horse**** I have a AthlonXP 2000+ (1.67Ghz) and a Geforce 4 Ti 4200 64MB and I get 92 fps (lowest rate) in Quake 3 at 1280x960 with all textures on high and running at 32bit. Oh and btw I got it around 9 months ago for Neverwinter Nights (try that on a Mac) since it's all 3D rendered. The whole system cost $800 to build.

Putting on my boots. And I though the Mac fanatics were the only one's living lies.

I didn't say you couldn't get 92fps. I said you will drop frame rates and you will. I have a 128MB Ti4200, 1GB DDR, and a 2GHz PIV. I can get over 100fps in Quake. And there are times when it drops frames. You are not getting a constant 92fps except on a benchmark.

And PC games are suffering from resolutionitis. Good artists will take more color over resolution any day. I'll put the Xbox on HDTV against any PC game today. And I'll put DOA 3, on a regular flat screen sony Vega against anything on the PC for performance and visual quality. Judge with your eyeballs, not specs.

JW Pepper

Feb 4, 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by robguz
GF2, no FW 800, no Airport Extreme on the 15", 100 MHz bus on the low end. No L3 even on the high end. Last week I played around with the 17" 800 at an Apple Store. It was embarrasingly slow. 15% faster is ridiculous after an entire year. Even the GF4 MX, which is really a slightly better GF2, is just lame.

the 15" needs to be $999, the 17" needs to be $1499. Both need L3 caches, and the high end needs 512MB and a 120MB HD. Both need FW 800. Apple is so far behind on the MHz wars, that they need to throw in all the bells and whistles. Seriously, why not a GF4 Ti on the 17" model? In the quantities Apple buys, it can't be that expensive, especially for a year old, soon to be obsolete chip.

Apple gets it wrong again.

You seem to have ignored the bus speed is now 133mhz and DDR ram. I agree with you regarding the high end HD 120GB minimium partically as these machines are designed as video editing stations for homne users. By the time you have ripped your CD collection and added a couple of hours of DV footage you are out of space. :mad:

possible switch

Feb 4, 2003, 12:34 PM

I have considered the eMac, but given my living arrangements both at home and school, it's simply not practical a practical size. It wouldn't fit on my desk. I have friends with the old G3 iMacs, and let's just say they don't have a desk. :-) My laptop is the perfect size, and the iMac footprint wouldn't be any more intrusive. I'm still considering that low end iMac. I wouldn't know what to do with a 17" screen anyway.

It's gotta be better than my Insprion, right? Hopefully it would last longer than 2 years too.

reyesmac

Feb 4, 2003, 12:34 PM

Apple is lowering prices at the cost of not advancing the platform. Can they do anything right these days?
I think Steve declared this to be the "year of the notebook" because he knew not many people would buy these underpowered overpriced macs their rolling out these days.
A little bus tweeking and L3 cache adding would make a 1ghz iMac easier to buy.

Think about this, the $699 17in display apple sells is bigger and better than the 17in screen on the imac. If you subtract the cost of this screen from the imac then you get $1,100. Apple makes a profit on the $699, and since the iMacs screen is smaller than that, that means that $699 pays for the superdrive and the screen on the imac. Now, is $1,100 worth what you get? NO WAY!!! Not when there are other Apple computers that give you more for your money.

praetorian_x

Feb 4, 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
EMAC!

No. EMACs. The one true editor.

All your base,
prat

DakotaGuy

Feb 4, 2003, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac

Yea, his old DV will do about 200 million instructions per second, and the new iMac somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 billion.

Man, are people really this dense?

Well I am not trying to be that dense. I was like WOW when I saw the new 1Ghz iMac, thinking that must really haul ass, then after I read what a lot of people on here, I am left with the impression that the new iMac = an Atari.

But I am going to try one out at the local Apple retailer when they come in. I might go for one if I can come up with the cash. Stat wise they look awesome. I think the price is not too bad either. I paid about $1,400 for my iMac DV so these are not way out of line.

nickmcghie

Feb 4, 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by praetorian_x

Totally agree. Only fanboys could be impressed with these updates. (The ultimate iMac for $2,348.00? Are they ********* insane? You could get a dual 2 ghz Xeon with a FIRE graphics card plus a 17 inch flatpanel from dell for that!)

*Yawn* Wake me up when the 970 is released...

Cheers,
prat

oh my gosh i couldnt agree more

i mean come on 256 ram for the the 1799 model?? thats absolutely ridiculous they should have included at least a MINIMUM of 512 for even the low end model!!! most PC desktops that cost more than about $800 nowadays already have 512

and an extra $550 for an an additional 768 of ram and bluetooth and airport extreme?? thats also ridiculous airport extreme card is $99 and bluetooth cant be more than $49 so theyre basically charging FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR AN ADDITIONAL 768 OF RAM

theyre still using geforce 2mx?? that card is like 3 yrs old the low end model should use at least the geforece 4mx and the high end models should use geforce 4ti or radeon 9000 pro

and hard drive size?? 60GB for low end is acceptable but 80GB in a 2349 machine is ridiculous. for the extra FOUR HUNDRED dollars they charged for the 768 of ram they shouldve upgraded the hard drive to AT LEAST 120 gigs

i cant tell you how incredibly disappointed i am and i think this is probably apples worst product update in many years

chubakka

Feb 4, 2003, 12:45 PM

The 15" iMac didn't get a big refresh because it'll be phased out... the iMac will eventually come only in 17 inches... a combo drive version, a superdrive version... and a tricked out top of the line version.

Why are people complaining about no superdrive 15" iMac? Spend the extra $500 and get the bigger screen, faster and bigger hard drive, more ram and better video and a superdrive! oh yeah... and a a 200 Mhz faster chip and a faster bus. oh and a Geforce 4mx versus a 2mx.

buncha whiners.

If you are considering the tricked out 17" imac you should look at the $1500 tower... with a 17" Studio display... That's $2200.

nuckinfutz

Feb 4, 2003, 12:45 PM

Totally pathetic is what I'm seeing here.

Apple can't even standardize on FW800 their own homegrown technology.

Bluetooth...so what. There's no Killer Bluetooth app.

Miniscule processor updates. No L3 cache.

These are clearly "stopgap" machines...or at least I'm hoping so. Because this is NOT "Strong Product" .

LethalWolfe

Feb 4, 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
you need to rephrase what the heck you are trying to say cause i read it twice and still have not figured it out?:confused:

He's looking for stripped down tower to buy (case, mobo, proc, and PS only) so he can take the video card, RAM, and HDDs outta his current rig and put it in the stripped down tower.

Lethal

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by reyesmac
Apple is lowering prices at the cost of not advancing the platform. Can they do anything right these days?
I think Steve declared this to be the "year of the notebook" because he knew not many people would buy these underpowered overpriced macs their rolling out these days.
A little bus tweeking and L3 cache adding would make a 1ghz iMac easier to buy.

Think about this, the $699 17in display apple sells is bigger and better than the 17in screen on the imac. If you subtract the cost of this screen from the imac then you get $1,100. Apple makes a profit on the $699, and since the iMacs screen is smaller than that, that means that $699 pays for the superdrive and the screen on the imac. Now, is $1,100 worth what you get? NO WAY!!! Not when there are other Apple computers that give you more for your money. then buy a powermac and the 17 inch screen!and the l3 will make a lil difference it aint going to make a lot.-Everyone that has been to this post knows they all love the new imac they either wont admit it or they cant afford it but we all know it is one super style awsome machine with the best software!

GPTurismo

Feb 4, 2003, 12:57 PM

As for not getting Bluetooth installed at purchase, it says you can easily connect with the USB dongle. You still can get the internal Blue tooth device put in but you have to send it to apple or a shop so they can open it up.

I am happy with the upgrades. I just wish the lower end model was had DDR. As for 10/100/1000, it's still to expensive for a switch or even a basic hub, and a mass majority of the networks out there, even Cat 5e and some Cat 6 networks still can't handle the badnwidth. The only time we used it was between machines and even then turning the targeted computer to Target Disk mode and copying things over firewire was better.

Xerov

Feb 4, 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

He's looking for stripped down tower to buy (case, mobo, proc, and PS only) so he can take the video card, RAM, and HDDs outta his current rig and put it in the stripped down tower.

Lethal

Exactly! Sorry about the previous typos...Im in class and was trying to do it very quickly.

Also, there has been alot of bitching about the iMacs...so lets go ahead and give it some praise...

1. Best design ever
2. Small (good for space)
3. 1ghz G4 (pretty darn good)
4. increased bus and DDR ram
5. Best OS
6. Best applications made

although they can do alot more to these machines...they are still very good for the consumer...so try not to bitch to much.

chubakka

Feb 4, 2003, 01:00 PM

a jump from 800 to 1 Ghz is a 25% increase. that's not miniscule...
and a Xeon 2 Ghz is no speed demon.

ALSO Firewire 800 is a prosumer level connection. It's only offered in the top
two towers. Why on earth would they put it in a consumer machine?

The iMacs are for consumers... for the home... if you want PowerMac level
computing and connections buy one. Or buy the lame PC tower and shut it.

GPTurismo

Feb 4, 2003, 01:00 PM

BTW, Go ahead and take your cheaply built 300 horsepower Camero over my 200 horsepower well built BMW >:|

e-coli

Feb 4, 2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by MacBoyX
And if i hear one more person complain about how apple is floundering especially APPLE PEOPLE i am going to go postal. Apple is doing the best it can while waiting for the 970 or G5 or what ever else will come out.

Again we caused this ourselves. We all wanted more power G4's in every model line MORE POWER! and now we got what we asked for. 4 model lines basically identical in every way.

well....i don't know how else to say this...but...you're completely wrong, and a total apple cultists if this is the way you truly feel.

Apple _is_ floundering in its efforts to differentiate its product lines. That much is dead obvious, and needs little explanation. Why else would they put a chip in a _NEW_ computer (Apple's flagship computer) that is only 300 MHz faster than the ORIGINAL CHIP DESIGN when they have much faster chips? It's simply because if they did use a chip with an acceptable speed, it would be identical to their "pro" line. The pro line doesn't truly support DDR or higher BUS speeds, so the only thing they can do to differentiate the lines is to put a 1.5 year old chip into the "consumer" model.

Also, I hardly feel responsible for Apple's decision to put all their faith in the efforts of a single chip maker who barely makes any chips presently. They are miserbly far behind PC's, at a higher price point. People should demand performance that isn't being dusted by other makers...especially at this price point.

:rolleyes:

Abstract

Feb 4, 2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by nickmcghie

oh my gosh i couldnt agree more

i mean come on 256 ram for the the 1799 model?? thats absolutely ridiculous they should have included at least a MINIMUM of 512 for even the low end model!!! most PC desktops that cost more than about $800 nowadays already have 512

and an extra $550 for an an additional 768 of ram and bluetooth and airport extreme?? thats also ridiculous airport extreme card is $99 and bluetooth cant be more than $49 so theyre basically charging FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR AN ADDITIONAL 768 OF RAM

theyre still using geforce 2mx?? that card is like 3 yrs old the low end model should use at least the geforece 4mx and the high end models should use geforce 4ti or radeon 9000 pro

and hard drive size?? 60GB for low end is acceptable but 80GB in a 2349 machine is ridiculous. for the extra FOUR HUNDRED dollars they charged for the 768 of ram they shouldve upgraded the hard drive to AT LEAST 120 gigs

Like I already said, going from the mid level iMac to the high-end iMac is like buying the most expensive RAM EVER!!!!!

And the thing I'm disappointed with most is the fact that I was thinking of either getting a new iMac, or a new iBook after the iBooks get their scheduled update in 2 months. However, now that the $1299 iMac model sucks, and the $1800 model is waaaay too expensive for what you get, the only thing that's left is the 12" iBook, which can't and won't be updated in 2 months because of the 867Mhz "wall" that is set by the 12" PB. :(

Now I'll just sit and wait. Hopefully, after another year, they'll give us more than a 200Mhz speed bump and a semi-modern day 60 GB 7200rpm harddrive circa 2001.

GPTurismo

Feb 4, 2003, 01:01 PM

Btw Prat, prat means idiot in old english O:-)

iAndy

Feb 4, 2003, 01:07 PM

CopperPipe
For those looking to switch...
remember that this board is for Mac-Nerds, who get so wrapped up in the world of Mac, that we lose perspective on the big picture. So if you're thinking about a new Mac, remember that 90% of the people complaining here LOOOOOVE their machines and would never go back to a PC. We just want Apple to do so much, not to mention these rumor sites get us all strung out.
Point taken CopperPipe, but equally please do not tar all of us non Mac-nerds as Apple-bashers or M#crosoft lovers - many of us are surfing over here because of our frustration/hatred at the latter, and interest in possibly switching. BUT maybe we are just harder to please on the hardware price front, because we have become used to a much larger and price competitive market (economy of scale) and (apparently) more rapid rate of hardware evolution. Perhaps Abstract put it best above when he said:
The problem with this is that it has been a very very very long time since the last updates, and in the computer world, a year is a long time. Heck, a month is a long time, and while the PC world is making leaps and bounds in every aspect, the iMac is now only starting to get things like a 7200 rpm hard drive, a 64Mb video card (of course, this is only offered on the 17" starting at $1700), and not much else. All obsolete, and at a price drop that doesn't mean squat. If I wait a year to purchase a PC, I know it will be much much better than the machines being sold 1 year ago. This is the way computers work, not like this.

Anyway, I want to say that when Apple came out with the new imac, they lost the ability to make low priced consumer machines. The new imac, look at it - it a marvel of engineering with a flat screen that swivels! READ - NOT A BUDGET MACHINE. And that's what I think Apple is missing out on. Now we do have the emac, which is cool, and is more appropriate the next imac. But, IMHO, it's not as affordable and friendly as the original imac. I say, and this will never happen, bring the old imac back with a kick @ss G3 and sell it for $699!
I agree with you entirely about the iMac not being a budget machine on the design/esthetics front - but NOT on some of its internals !
It seems amazing to us switchers/ adders/ potential switchers that 7200rpm HDs should have only NOW made it into the iMac units - which have often been sold on the strength of their multimedia editing capability. Furthermore with 200GB 7200rpm HDs now available at ~1GB/$, why would Apple want to limit its "Ultimate" iMac to just 80GBs - that doesn't give you much room for manouvre if you have large iTunes and iPhoto libraries AND want to do some reasonable iMovie work ! And don't even get me started on the graphics card choice, L3 cache exclusion and DDR RAM pricing... ;)

Abstract

Feb 4, 2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by chubakka
a jump from 800 to 1 Ghz is a 25% increase. that's not miniscule...
and a Xeon 2 Ghz is no speed demon.

ALSO Firewire 800 is a prosumer level connection. It's only offered in the top
two towers. Why on earth would they put it in a consumer machine?

The iMacs are for consumers... for the home... if you want PowerMac level
computing and connections buy one. Or buy the lame PC tower and shut it.

For the money that you spend on an iMac, I don't care what Apple decides to call their machines: their consumer line, pro line, crap, whatever, as long as its good value for the money. Firewire 800? Sure, I'll take it even if I can't fully utilize it. Why not? If I'm going to be overcharged, I may as well get all the bells and whistles that Apple will throw in. And if Apple isn't supporting FW800 by putting it into both the PM and iMacs, then who else will even bother incorporating the technology?

And its funny how people put down PC's when I can build a $1000 PC machine that is (at least) 2 times faster than any Mac. Yes, it will use Windows XP Professional, but I will also promise that they won't crash. They don't crash on my machine, so I'm sure they wouldn't crash on yours. ;)

I still want an iMac (or iBook), but not if a year to Apple = a 200Mhz cpu increase and a 7200rpm semi-modern harddrive.

PS: And thanks to iAndy for actually quoting little old me. ;)

Chisholm

Feb 4, 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by geocave
Ordered the 17" with 512MB (One Chip) Bluetooth and Airport Extreme. Can't wait.

I'm a switcher. I'm a data network engineer. Work heavily with Microsoft stuff and hate it. Love Unix and Linux.

Looking forward to finally editing 10+ hours of videotape.

Looking forward to organizing 2-3 GBs worth of photos.

Looking forward to organizing 8 GBs worth of music.

Looking forward to my wife not having to call me 2-3 times a day asking for help with the computer.

Ditto!:p

MacBoyX

Feb 4, 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by possible switch
I have considered the eMac, but given my living arrangements both at home and school, it's simply not practical a practical size. It wouldn't fit on my desk. I have friends with the old G3 iMacs, and let's just say they don't have a desk. :-) My laptop is the perfect size, and the iMac footprint wouldn't be any more intrusive. I'm still considering that low end iMac. I wouldn't know what to do with a 17" screen anyway.

It's gotta be better than my Insprion, right? Hopefully it would last longer than 2 years too.

Possible. Trust me on this one. Do it. You won't regret it. YOu will not be hurting with the 15" iMac. It will do what you want just fine. I mean to be honest in my opinion u could even look about for a sale on the older ones (sometimes the MicroCenter near me does that after new models come out). As long as you are at 700MHz with a G4 you'll do fine. Trust me it's gonna be balls out faster than your Dell and the usablity and stability will really make it worth it. I can't tell you how happy you're gonna be. I got my first Mac this time last year a G3 iMac DV, I sold it and got my TiBook cause i wanted portability. I waited til they announced the TiBook 800MHz. I got my 667 TiBook which listed at 2699 for 1799 2 weeks later. I do not regret it. Rememeber...what was awesome yesterday isnt crap beacuse something faster came out today.

Please keep in mind alot of the folks on here are indeed MacGeeks (present company included) and are prattling on about wanting more and more from our beloved company.

I recommed you get out there and get the most iMac you can afford. And also buy yourself the following book...Macintosh...The Naked Truth...you'll love it.

Good Luck...Godspeed...Rock on witcha bad self!

freemidnight

Feb 4, 2003, 01:16 PM

Still too much expensive:o

mass

Feb 4, 2003, 01:18 PM

I will agree with people that the low end should've been maintained at $1199 if not dropped to magic price point of $999. Apple essentially dropped the price of the 15" combo model by $200 with virtually no improvements except a 7200 rpm drive mechanism. Considering the lack of improvements made to this model, a $300 price drop would be more appropriate, if not more.

The high-end 17" model also receieved a $200 price drop but comes with an improved feature set. Cpu speed increase from 800mhz to 1ghz. System bus increase from 100mhz to 133mhz. Video ram increase from 32meg to 64 meg. Upgrade from 5400 rpm to 7200 rpm(also for the 15"). Upgrade from ata 66 to ata 100. Upgrade to AE ready. Optional bluetooth built-in. Upgrade on superdrive from 2x to 4x. A worthy set of improvements IMHO. It certainly improves the price value ratio on the machine.

When you compare the two models, the $500 disparity can be made up by the inclusion of the superdrive and the 17" widescreen display. When you add in all the other features, you really have to wonder how apple justifies the entry level price of $1299. The 15" model is the red-haired stepchild of the two and is not overly desireable, unless of course $1299 is all you have to spend. I think apple has goofed on the low-end model. Last year's feature set with a price cut isn't going to have people rushing down to the apple store.

Clearly, this is yet another case of Apple not getting it. Apparently the only switchers apple seems interested in getting are the well-heeled kind, with lots of disposeable income.

Sonofhaig

Feb 4, 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by geocave
Looking forward to finally editing 10+ hours of videotape.

Just don't use imovie 3 and you'll be fine....

Xerov

Feb 4, 2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Abstract

For the money that you spend on an iMac, I don't care what Apple decides to call their machines: their consumer line, pro line, crap, whatever, as long as its good value for the money. Firewire 800? Sure, I'll take it even if I can't fully utilize it. Why not? If I'm going to be overcharged, I may as well get all the bells and whistles that Apple will throw in. And if Apple isn't supporting FW800 by putting it into both the PM and iMacs, then who else will even bother incorporating the technology?

And its funny how people put down PC's when I can build a $1000 PC machine that is (at least) 2 times faster than any Mac. Yes, it will use Windows XP Professional, but I will also promise that they won't crash. They don't crash on my machine, so I'm sure they wouldn't crash on yours. ;)

I still want an iMac (or iBook), but not if a year to Apple = a 200Mhz cpu increase and a 7200rpm semi-modern harddrive.

PS: And thanks to iAndy for actually quoting little old me. ;)

Windows XP not crash? I have and athlon 2100+ with 640megs of ddr PC 3000 ram and a voodoo 5 5500...and Windows XP pro (which is a legal bought version ;) ) crashes all the time...since buying that machine...which I built myslelf I am a much happier Mac user.

and as a side note...Windows XP is a terible looking OS...It looks like M$ hired a 2 year old kid to draw / color their GUI!

iAndy

Feb 4, 2003, 01:29 PM

Abstract
PS: And thanks to iAndy for actually quoting little old me. The least I can do when you are making points that I want to make, but much more eloquently than me. There again it doesn't help much that it is 3.15am over here ;-) ZZzzz...

Abstract
And its funny how people put down PC's when I can build a $1000 PC machine that is (at least) 2 times faster than any Mac. Yes, it will use Windows XP Professional, but I will also promise that they won't crash. They don't crash on my machine, so I'm sure they wouldn't crash on yours.
This is something that Mac-Nerds here really don't seem to realise. I HATE M#crosoft (for various historical reasons) but XP Pro is not Win ME or Win98. Add this to the latest (let alone the soon to be released) generation of Intel cpus and Apple has got a real battle on its hands winning over any switchers.

Abstract
I still want an iMac (or iBook), but not if a year to Apple = a 200Mhz cpu increase and a 7200rpm semi-modern harddrive. EXACTLY !!! I also want an iMac AND don't mind paying a bit of a premium over PCs to own the gorgeously designed iMac. It's just that Apple appears to be ripping the arse out of how big a premium we are expected to pay (including some old technology) at present.

MacBoyX

Feb 4, 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by e-coli

well....i don't know how else to say this...but...you're completely wrong, and a total apple cultists if this is the way you truly feel.

Apple _is_ floundering in its efforts to differentiate its product lines. That much is dead obvious, and needs little explanation. Why else would they put a chip in a _NEW_ computer (Apple's flagship computer) that is only 300 MHz faster than the ORIGINAL CHIP DESIGN when they have much faster chips? It's simply because if they did use a chip with an acceptable speed, it would be identical to their "pro" line. The pro line doesn't truly support DDR or higher BUS speeds, so the only thing they can do to differentiate the lines is to put a 1.5 year old chip into the "consumer" model.

Also, I hardly feel responsible for Apple's decision to put all their faith in the efforts of a single chip maker who barely makes any chips presently. They are miserbly far behind PC's, at a higher price point. People should demand performance that isn't being dusted by other makers...especially at this price point.

:rolleyes:

I couldn't disagree more and I take offense to being called a Cultist. I think that anyone who reads these boards should understand the whole "Motorola sucks" and the need for a next generation chip. But Apple is doing what you ask. It is giving you everything it has to give at this point. What more can you expect? Goodness last year everyone was praying for a 1GHz chip now that you have it in almost every model line (hang on folks rumours say the G4 iBook is on it's way) we are complaining about prices. And I did not say we were responsible for Apple putting it's future in Motorola but that we have definitely helped to cause the stagnation in the product lines.

For most people a 500 Mhz G4 is fine for what we do but everyone wants a 1GHz G4 in the model they like most. That causes stagnation and fewer offerings. Apple likes to keep us happy so they gave us what we want. Ghz in every line. I'd also love a 1.43 Ghz iMac with every thing in the world in it and a 17" FP for 999 but that's not gonna happen.

I am glad there were upgrades and if I had a need the 1799 iMac would be the desktop I'd buy.

geocave

Feb 4, 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Sonofhaig

Just don't use imovie 3 and you'll be fine....

I am probably going to wind up using Final Cut Express, but I am curious about the iMovie 3 bashing. Is it really that bad? I can't imagine that Apple would put out a 'top-end' consumer machine that had trouble with what is basically a 'consumer' level software program.

It also scares me that Final Cut Express may run slow on the iMac. Can anyone comment on this?

vniow

Feb 4, 2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Xerov

Windows XP not crash?

Twice, when I had a bad ethernet card and tried to install RealONE. Both not flaws of the OS.

I have and athlon 2100+ with 640megs of ddr PC 3000 ram and a voodoo 5 5500...and Windows XP pro (which is a legal bought version ;) )

Home built 667Mhz PIII, 256MB RDRAM, Intel VC820 MB, ATI AIW 32MB Radeon, XP Pro.

crashes all the time...since buying that machine...which I built myslelf I am a much happier Mac user.

Built mine myself too, can't say that I'm really happier than not owning one, it's just a computer, jeez.

and as a side note...Windows XP is a terible looking OS...It looks like M$ hired a 2 year old kid to draw / color their GUI!

Matter of personal opinion.

Mine: XP's not so bad looking..........after you change the theme from blue to silver.

Sorry Apple, this update was good, but you could've done better.

Chisholm

Feb 4, 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by geocave

I am probably going to wind up using Final Cut Express, but I am curious about the iMovie 3 bashing. Is it really that bad? I can't imagine that Apple would put out a 'top-end' consumer machine that had trouble with what is basically a 'consumer' level software program.

It also scares me that Final Cut Express may run slow on the iMac. Can anyone comment on this?

I think you'll be just fine judging from my experience with FCP3. It even runs smooth on older powerbooks.

iAndy

Feb 4, 2003, 01:36 PM

Hey Arn, how about a new Daily Poll ?

Something along the lines of:
(Q) What do you think of the new iMac ?
(A) sux, yawn, OK, tempted, where do I sign

but split the poll for:
(i) Mac-Nerds
(ii) Switchers / Adders / Possible switchers

MorganX

Feb 4, 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by James.Paul
I think what Apple has done today is the right move. They've now created a price dividing line between pro and consumer.

This is an Appleism. There does not need to be division between pro and consumer. All form factors should be customizable enought to give the buyer the best performance possible. I wouldn't doubt that the iMac can't support anything hotter than a 1GHz G4, so that's the highest you can get.

How low could you go before you can't drive the display with reasonable performance?

The only product line differentiations need to be laptop, desktop, and server. It becomes a consumer machine when it is purchased for home/personal use. The average home PC comes with much more power than the average business desktop or workstation.

If I buy a PowerMac with Dual G4s to run iLife and Safari is it a Pro line machine or is it a consumer machine. I think Apple needs to think different here and I believe they are beginning to. The iMac cost more to manufacture and/or has a lower profit margin and must be priced slightly higher but still priced reasonably. For me, they have achieved reason, with the new configs and pricing on the 17" models. And that's all I'm interested in.

Now, the memory situation is BS, but I ordered with 256MB and I'll upgrade both slots with my own, cheap DDR.

nuckinfutz

Feb 4, 2003, 01:40 PM

Mr. MacPhisto

Feb 4, 2003, 01:42 PM

With all these complaints up here, let's all remember that 1 GHZ PowerMac introduced last week. A 1GHZ iMac for $1499 or $1599 would undercut the market for that. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a push for the 1GHZ to be more of a high-end consumer machine. The eMac will likely be made out as the entry-level machine. If the iBook does get a G4, as rumored, then Apple may have it set up that, by summer, you can get an G4 - 800 in an eMac for $899. In an iBook for $999-$1099. It would've been nice to stick a G4 867 in the 15" iMac while increasing the FSB speed and atchitecture, providing a definite upgrade for that model. I think that we'll see a restructuring of models in the coming months to reflect a new strategy - and we may see the iMac become more upgradeable, giving it a greater advantage over the eMac and such.

yzedf

Feb 4, 2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I had a buddy just buy a new HP with a 2.4 ghz intel in it. He paid just over 1 grand and i was thinking that it must be cool. Anyways i went over there and looked at this thing and it was garbage-it had the cheapest looking and feeling keyboard i had ever seen with no ports on it! I guess macs just spoil us.The mouse that came with this thing was a rollerball mouse! I didnt even know they still made those considering my wifes 500 imac was optical!the whole system looked like it was made of cheapass plastic(sorry arn) and this thing came with wow 64 mb of video memory but it turned out it was just using 64 of the system memory and had no video card!-So off he goes and buys a newer video card agp for his brand new machine! well it turns out this thing didnt even have a agp slot! only pci! so he took it back for a pci one. Now WOW! a 2.4 p4 INTEL that was wrapped around with pure garbage!I wont even go into the problems he had with all his software which by the way he is chucking most of it!And the games looked like sh_ _! Ill take the new Imacs any day of the week even if i have to pay more! You get what you pay for! The new Imacs are just to cool!--- Just a little story for all the pc weenies out there to who i would say there is more to a computer then just all those specs like OOUUUWHEE 2.4 intel! I think this friend of mine is still trying to figure it out since he has been so quite. If it wasnt for my powermac 800 I would be placing my order today for that 1 giger imac!

Your friend did not purchase a machine based on what he wanted to do with it. He bought it for the price.

You can make a custom machine, with top notch hardware, for a comparable price.

AMD alone saves hundreds of bucks...

MorganX

Feb 4, 2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz

Are you really as stupid as you sound. FW800 "Prosumer?" Where'd you pull that shiza from. You sound like an Assimilate Apple Apologist(AAA).

I don't know why I'm responding to this, but as a non Apple Apologist, who finds strenghths and weaknesses in both platforms, what would you run on FW800 today if you had it? Are you upset that there are no FW800 cards available for PCs?

yzedf

Feb 4, 2003, 01:51 PM

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy

Well I am not trying to be that dense. I was like WOW when I saw the new 1Ghz iMac, thinking that must really haul ass, then after I read what a lot of people on here, I am left with the impression that the new iMac = an Atari.

But I am going to try one out at the local Apple retailer when they come in. I might go for one if I can come up with the cash. Stat wise they look awesome. I think the price is not too bad either. I paid about $1,400 for my iMac DV so these are not way out of line. That atari comment makes me think that your 400dv is probably more computer then you will ever need! What the heck are you rambling about atari for!-WAKE UP! The 1 giger imac is for all practical purpose a powermac with super cool styling and a 17"display to go with it! OF coarse they are awsome!It will be so much faster then your dv you wont believe it.Start listening to the power-mac users and stop listening to the peecee'rs out there who have new imac envy!

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by e-coli

well....i don't know how else to say this...but...you're completely wrong, and a total apple cultists if this is the way you truly feel.

Apple _is_ floundering in its efforts to differentiate its product lines. That much is dead obvious, and needs little explanation. Why else would they put a chip in a _NEW_ computer (Apple's flagship computer) that is only 300 MHz faster than the ORIGINAL CHIP DESIGN when they have much faster chips? It's simply because if they did use a chip with an acceptable speed, it would be identical to their "pro" line. The pro line doesn't truly support DDR or higher BUS speeds, so the only thing they can do to differentiate the lines is to put a 1.5 year old chip into the "consumer" model.

Also, I hardly feel responsible for Apple's decision to put all their faith in the efforts of a single chip maker who barely makes any chips presently. They are miserbly far behind PC's, at a higher price point. People should demand performance that isn't being dusted by other makers...especially at this price point.

:rolleyes: Apple still builds the best consumer computers bar none,also i would take a 1 giger mac over any 2.4 intel machine 7 days a week! Sure motorola has not advanced as fast as they should have,thats a given! But still there is nothing in the wintel world that can compare to the new 1 giger imac when you look at the complete machine,how its built,what it can do,how easy it is to operate,resell value,software,style etc.--Face it macs are just cooler and better!

yzedf

Feb 4, 2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by mass
I will agree with people that the low end should've been maintained at $1199 if not dropped to magic price point of $999. Apple essentially dropped the price of the 15" combo model by $200 with virtually no improvements except a 7200 rpm drive mechanism. Considering the lack of improvements made to this model, a $300 price drop would be more appropriate, if not more.

The high-end 17" model also receieved a $200 price drop but comes with an improved feature set. Cpu speed increase from 800mhz to 1ghz. System bus increase from 100mhz to 133mhz. Video ram increase from 32meg to 64 meg. Upgrade from 5400 rpm to 7200 rpm(also for the 15"). Upgrade from ata 66 to ata 100. Upgrade to AE ready. Optional bluetooth built-in. Upgrade on superdrive from 2x to 4x. A worthy set of improvements IMHO. It certainly improves the price value ratio on the machine.

Clearly, this is yet another case of Apple not getting it. Apparently the only switchers apple seems interested in getting are the well-heeled kind, with lots of disposeable income.

Exactly. The real switchers are those running Pentium2 200MHz machines that can't upgarde to WinXP or Office XP. They see the ads for $499 Dells, hear someone mention Apple, see the prices, and go buy a Dell. That is the market right now.

As for us that appreciate modern hardware... the new iMacs have finally made it past 1999 PC specs. Who cares? I can spend $1799 for a Gateway (blech) with a 533MHz system bus, UltraATA hdd, smoking fast DDR (unlike Apples), freestanding 17" LCD, DVD burner, 1 AGP and 3 PCI slots, etc etc

Why should someone buy the iMac? If you want to upgrade the hardware later on (motherboard/CPU/vid card) you can't really do it. Bigger hdd, more RAM you can do... anything else is unlikely.

Signed,
yzedf (wants iBook)

yzedf

Feb 4, 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by MacBoyX
It is giving you everything it has to give at this point. What more can you expect? Goodness last year everyone was praying for a 1GHz chip now that you have it in almost every model line (hang on folks rumours say the G4 iBook is on it's way) we are complaining about prices.

Huh. 1GHz sucks when you look over at machines with DUAL 1.42GHz

1.25GHz woulda been nice. It's still a single proc dude...

NicoMan

Feb 4, 2003, 02:14 PM

awinn233

Feb 4, 2003, 02:15 PM

I'm only a high school student, 15, trying to save up for a new iMac (my parents won't pay for it), and was waiting for lower prices and new technology I thought Apple would definantly include (like bluetooth, Airport Extreme, DDR, FW 800), but that didn't happen and now I think i'll stick with my PC for a little while longer. With $100 more for basically 100mhz on the low end, and without any new technology, I can no longer afford a new iMac, and am looking at the G3 iMacs, or old G4 iMacs! I was excited about what the updates would bring, now I don't really want one anymore.

Dissapointed,
"Switcher" who changed his mind because he couldn't afford it.
:(

Flowbee

Feb 4, 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by geocave

I am probably going to wind up using Final Cut Express, but I am curious about the iMovie 3 bashing. Is it really that bad?

iMovie 3 runs just fine on my G4 Cube. This is not to say that some people aren't having problems with it... just not everyone.

Best advice is to visit a mac retailer and try it for yourself.

NicoMan

Feb 4, 2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy

Well this looks like it might perform a little better. I would like to order the new 1Ghz 17" iMac. Does anyone know what type of a difference I will see moving from a 400Mhz iMac DV? I have lost so much faith in Apple when I read the message boards, many times I am not sure if they are moving ahead or going backwards... ;o(

Is it a good buy or not for someone moving up from a 3 year old iMac???

It should be like night and day... honestly, the difference should be quite big. And it should answer your needs the same way the iMac DV did...

Good luck

NicoMan

nuckinfutz

Feb 4, 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by MorganX

I don't know why I'm responding to this, but as a non Apple Apologist, who finds strenghths and weaknesses in both platforms, what would you run on FW800 today if you had it? Are you upset that there are no FW800 cards available for PCs?

Well I was overly harsh but I object to people saying FW800 is for Prosumers or fast Hard Drives. My Proof

http://www.barefeats.com/fire34.html

FW800 in addition to offering twice the theoretical speed of FW400 also offers.

Improved and more efficient Arbitration.
Data Encoding based on Gigabit/Ethernet(important for eventual FW IP networks)

Cabling options with longer maximum lengths.

This would not be an issue if eMacs and iMacs support PCI...they don't so once you've bought into them you're stuck. Apple loves planned obsolesence but that policy is not good for longterm survival. FW800 is a negligle cost increase over FW400

It's bad enought that there's no L3 cache or Airport Extreme as well. These machines will be out in the cold in 2 years...sitting on ebay waiting for some sucker.

QuiteSure

Feb 4, 2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by awinn233
I'm only a high school student, 15, trying to save up for a new iMac (my parents won't pay for it), and was waiting for lower prices and new technology I thought Apple would definantly include (like bluetooth, Airport Extreme, DDR, FW 800), but that didn't happen and now I think i'll stick with my PC for a little while longer. With $100 more for basically 100mhz on the low end, and without any new technology, I can no longer afford a new iMac, and am looking at the G3 iMacs, or old G4 iMacs! I was excited about what the updates would bring, now I don't really want one anymore.

Dissapointed,
"Switcher" who changed his mind because he couldn't afford it.
:(

Don't be discouraged. You should look into a refurbished computer. You can usually get an excellent bargain for a darn good machine. You don't need to be bleeding edge, just to have a powerful machine that works for you. Regardless of computer specs, your computing experience on one of the last generation apple computers (any of them) will be superior to your computer experience on your pc. Notice I did not say that the mac will be better, only the computing experience. If you are interested in a mac, get one and start living the good life!

jacg

Feb 4, 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by geocave

It also scares me that Final Cut Express may run slow on the iMac. Can anyone comment on this?

I use FCP on my 800Mhz 17" iMac (with an external FW drive) and it runs fine. Interface is tons quicker than iMovie. Just don't expect a lot of realtime effects.

MacBoyX

Feb 4, 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by yzedf

Huh. 1GHz sucks when you look over at machines with DUAL 1.42GHz

1.25GHz woulda been nice. It's still a single proc dude...

THEN GET A POWERMAC i mean come on guys. This is again what I am saying about wanting everything in all product lines. The iMac is a consumer market machine. If you want 1.25Ghz get a PM MDD. Why are we comparing iMacs to PowerMacs?

Next you're gonna start comparing Apples to Oranges...sorry for the pun.:p

flyfish29

Feb 4, 2003, 02:31 PM

I have a couple of things to add to the value discussion concering the high-end iMac.

It is more than a $200 price drop in that you not only are getting a faster machine (bus,mhz,etc.) but you are getting iLife for free ($49 value), more expensive memory (DDR) not to mention double the speed of DVD burning!

I for one would have bought the Superdrive 15" model as I am only going to do limited burning (putting old family slides, pictures, etc. on DVD) and would have had plenty of monitor space to do so with the 15". I am working with an old 15" CRT so a 15" LCD would have seemed like heaven. I will probably end up with the 17" but would have been happier with a $1499-1599 15" superdrive.

I do have a question though: Why did someone say you can't boot up with OS 9 on the new iMac. Isn't it running Jaguar 10.2 just like the older iMacs were?

Another thing to think about is: Your negative posts are pushing people away from Mac...just remember that!

Hemingray

Feb 4, 2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by TyleRomeo
Ohh and for everyone complaining about the price gap issue. Look at it this way.

$999 emac
$1299 iMac
$1499 Power Mac
$1799 17 inch iMac

Uhhh, okay, so you're going to run a PowerMac without a monitor, eh?

Add the cost of a 17" to that PM price and you get $1998. Doesn't work. You guys are better off with the 17 inch iMac.

nickgold

Feb 4, 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by MorganX

Give me a break. You think all mac users are rich? Do you really believe that anyone not happy with Apple's prices or their recent products are windoze trolls or microsoft marketing execs? Grow up my man.

You grow up, man. I can't afford a BMW. I bought an Echo. I don't make too much money, but I could save up for a Mac if I tried. Does Apple somehow owe it to you to price things inexpensively, even if it means losing money for them? They are a corporation that exists in a (semi)capitalist system. There are there to make money. They charge a specific price for a given thing, based on market pressures. Does the fact that you can't afford one, or do not think it is worth what they are charging, give you the right to beeyatch and moan?

Sure, you have the right, I guess. It's just sort of obnoxious, I suppose.

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 4, 2003, 02:41 PM

To all you who have been thinking of a new purchase the best advice is to go to your local apple store or dealer and check them out!It may take a week for them to get em in stock but go look at them and see how they perform with whatever you are planning on doing! Those comments about the emac remember that was a new machine, apple has worked out the bugs just remember its a mac!

MacBoyX

Feb 4, 2003, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by flyfish29
I have a couple of things to add to the value discussion concering the high-end iMac.

It is more than a $200 price drop in that you not only are getting a faster machine (bus,mhz,etc.) but you are getting iLife for free ($49 value), more expensive memory (DDR) not to mention double the speed of DVD burning!

I for one would have bought the Superdrive 15" model as I am only going to do limited burning (putting old family slides, pictures, etc. on DVD) and would have had plenty of monitor space to do so with the 15". I am working with an old 15" CRT so a 15" LCD would have seemed like heaven. I will probably end up with the 17" but would have been happier with a $1499-1599 15" superdrive.

I do have a question though: Why did someone say you can't boot up with OS 9 on the new iMac. Isn't it running Jaguar 10.2 just like the older iMacs were?

Another thing to think about is: Your negative posts are pushing people away from Mac...just remember that!

I agree a 15" superdrive would have been nice.

Starting this January, you cannot boot into OS 9 directly. You boot into OS X and use classic. It is not possible to switch ur startup disk and reboot into 9.

flyfish29

Feb 4, 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by MacBoyX

I agree a 15" superdrive would have been nice.

Starting this January, you cannot boot into OS 9 directly. You boot into OS X and use classic. It is not possible to switch ur startup disk and reboot into 9.

So how does this really affect me running some older software. Much of the software will be for my kids...things like Math Munchers, etc. that never took too much computing power anyway (will these run in classic?) I do have an old version of Quark (3.2 I believe) that I would like to run but only a few times a year to modify things I have already created in it and don't have a major use for a new version of Quark. Would it run on Classic?

So what revision of Jaguar is not bootable in OS9? 10.2.?

On a side note: There have always been things Apple has done that have not been right, and there will always be things that Apple does that we don't think are right and they end up working. Just remember to give Apple feedback. Your voicing major negative concerns in public forums like this do in fact push people away. If you have a complaint then voice it, but be careful not to push people away.

flyfish29

Feb 4, 2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
To all you who have been thinking of a new purchase the best advice is to go to your local apple store or dealer and check them out!It may take a week for them to get em in stock but go look at them and see how they perform with whatever you are planning on doing! Those comments about the emac remember that was a new machine, apple has worked out the bugs just remember its a mac!

This is so true! Remember that everyone in this forum has different needs and wants. Many people just want the newest technology and are upset when it is not there (and often times never would have used it in the first place). Then there are the ones who only need basic computing to surf and write letters. Everyone else is in the middle someplace and the best way to find out what you need is talk to someone who is trained to find out your needs and translate that into a machine that will accomplish what you want it to.

possible switch

Feb 4, 2003, 03:02 PM

LOL I wasn't meant to be a decision maker. If I look at it one way, I'm getting the computer I would have been happy with just a week ago for $200 less, I guess. I can also run it up to 512 MB RAM. I don't need SuperDrive, and I wouldn't know what to do with 17". I abhor notebooks, so this could work out after all. I had to step away from my computer and ask some current college student iMac users because it's true, some of these posts make everything seem like crap by comparing Powermacs to iMacs. Oh how I want to switch! We'll see....

nickgold

Feb 4, 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by DrGruv1
I've saved up $2000 for my next computer and still waitting...

I desperately need the power for virtual software synths and samplers for music.

HOW MANY ARE GOING TO BUY 1ST GEN. of the 970?

From my experience, it is better to wait for the the 2nd gen. at get the bugs worked out.. especially on a $2000+ purchase.

I bought a 1st gen G4 450 Sawtooth, and it's been really good to me. And I use a lot of softsynths and plugs on it, too! :)

yzedf

Feb 4, 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by MacBoyX

THEN GET A POWERMAC i mean come on guys. This is again what I am saying about wanting everything in all product lines. The iMac is a consumer market machine. If you want 1.25Ghz get a PM MDD. Why are we comparing iMacs to PowerMacs?

Next you're gonna start comparing Apples to Oranges...sorry for the pun.:p

Both the PowerMac and the iMac are consumer machines. As someone else on this forum has said, there is no "pro" machine in Apple's line. This is a market they have tried to invent to account for their pricing. It's BS.

The XServe is as close as it gets. And that thing flopped, big time. Again, due to Apple not analyzing the market... just wandering in and saying "this is how WE do it..."