PDA

View Full Version : iMacs in September?




MacRumors
Jul 22, 2003, 12:32 AM
LoopRumors.com (http://www.looprumors.com/) kicks off the iMac rumors this time around with rumors of iMac updates in September.

The only info available to MacRumors at this time is that the new iMacs will sport USB 2 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/07/20030720230900.shtml).



Flowbee
Jul 22, 2003, 12:33 AM
Why am I just not interested in the iMacs anymore. Is it just me?

notkevin
Jul 22, 2003, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by Flowbee
Why am I just not interested in the iMacs anymore. Is it just me?

Because they are last years news, but believe me, when you can get a G5 iMac for around $1000 then you will be interested.

Kamu-San
Jul 22, 2003, 01:25 AM
If it is a G5 iMac I *will* be interested.

OOTH, I've got a TFT iMac now and while it's a wonderful machine, I'd really like to have the option to upgrade my machine and use 2 monitors. So I'd better start saving for that dual 2GHz G5 then ;)

tom.96
Jul 22, 2003, 05:29 AM
I need a new Mac, and I've looked at the iMacs. All I need to do is run Doom 3 and Quake 4 when they come out, plus some audio/graphics work. The current iMac is very underpowered, some games need the high end iMac as minimum requirments.

The new iMac should have a G5 to distinguish it from the G4 eMac, even if this is only a 1.2 Ghz G5. As a consumer machine, consumers like to play games, and so having the option of a 128mb graphics card would be nice. It seems the current iMac range won't cut it for Doom 3 etc so I'd like to see something a lot more beefy than we have at present! New PCs come with 256mb graphics so I'm sure something like the Geforce 4 Ti 128mb which has been an option on the G4 PM for ages would not be impossible!

vouder17
Jul 22, 2003, 07:23 AM
Is there at all a chance of some form of iMac G5 in the near future(by the end of the year), but i am happy that it will upgrade to USB 2.0.

Well i quess the only way to know, is to wait:(

rog
Jul 22, 2003, 07:50 AM
I doubt it will be a G5, and if so, they'd probably have to redesign the case. The iMac is an overprice, slow, joke. In 18 months it's gone from 800 MHz, no L3 to 1000MHz, no L3. Sadly, they are unlikely to go above 1.4 GHz given how stuck the G4 is. They will likely still hobble it by leaving out the L3 cache. No wonder iMac sales are in the toilet. I'd like to see prices down to $1299 for the SuperDrive model, $1149 combo, and $999 15" combo. Even that would be pricey.

What PC out there is only 20% faster in the real world after 18 months? None. The iMac 2 was competetive for about a month when it was introduced. But it shipped in volume about 3 months later than it was supposed to, so from the moment it was out it was not a very good deal. Then they had the idiocy to raise the price while sales were already weak. Apple's latest brilliant move is to heavily advertise the G5 which nobody can get their hands on and likely won't for 2 months. People who need computers need them now! They don't think, well gee, I'll go back to a typewriter or a pad and pencil for 3 more months since my PC died because I'd like to wait for a G5. Apple should fire whoever is in charge of their marketing and pricing. They've been totally unable to grow Apple market share and the reasons why aren't hard to figure out.

hvfsl
Jul 22, 2003, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by rog
I doubt it will be a G5, and if so, they'd probably have to redesign the case. The iMac is an overprice, slow, joke. In 18 months it's gone from 800 MHz, no L3 to 1000MHz, no L3. Sadly, they are unlikely to go above 1.4 GHz given how stuck the G4 is. They will likely still hobble it by leaving out the L3 cache. No wonder iMac sales are in the toilet. I'd like to see prices down to $1299 for the SuperDrive model, $1149 combo, and $999 15" combo. Even that would be pricey.

What PC out there is only 20% faster in the real world after 18 months? None. The iMac 2 was competetive for about a month when it was introduced. But it shipped in volume about 3 months later than it was supposed to, so from the moment it was out it was not a very good deal. Then they had the idiocy to raise the price while sales were already weak. Apple's latest brilliant move is to heavily advertise the G5 which nobody can get their hands on and likely won't for 2 months. People who need computers need them now! They don't think, well gee, I'll go back to a typewriter or a pad and pencil for 3 more months since my PC died because I'd like to wait for a G5. Apple should fire whoever is in charge of their marketing and pricing. They've been totally unable to grow Apple market share and the reasons why aren't hard to figure out.

I totally agree, the iMacs are fine if you want a work of art that is just going to be used for office and the Internet, but anything more and you need a G5.

Anyone that wants to run games like Doom3 on their Mac will need at least a 1.4Ghz G4 and a Radeon 9600 or better. Now if the new iMac has these, I will be very supprised.

I expect the iMac to have, Nvidia Geforce 5200FX and a 1.2Ghz G4, although I expect they will add 1Mb L3 cache since the pro models now use G5s.

job
Jul 22, 2003, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by hvfsl
I expect the iMac to have, Nvidia Geforce 5200FX and a 1.2Ghz G4, although I expect they will add 1Mb L3 cache since the pro models now use G5s.

Interesting concept, but wouldn't that suggest AGP 8X on the iMacs? I know that the FXs can run on AGP 4X but it doesn't seem that Apple is willing to make them an option (as seen on the 1.25Ghz MDD towers; the Radeon and GeForce Ti are the only two BTO cards.) I would expect the Radeon 9000 sooner.

c2kvette
Jul 22, 2003, 08:18 AM
I'm very happy with my iMac - I love it!

hvfsl
Jul 22, 2003, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by job
Interesting concept, but wouldn't that suggest AGP 8X on the iMacs? I know that the FXs can run on AGP 4X but it doesn't seem that Apple is willing to make them an option (as seen on the 1.25Ghz MDD towers; the Radeon and GeForce Ti are the only two BTO cards.) I would expect the Radeon 9000 sooner.

The Graphics cards that support 8x AGP also work on computers with 4x and 2x AGP.

hvfsl
Jul 22, 2003, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by c2kvette
I'm very happy with my iMac - I love it!

As long as you don't want to run Doom3 on it, I would be happy with one as well. But I do want to play Doom3, so an iMac will not do.

cavemanstudios
Jul 22, 2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by c2kvette
I'm very happy with my iMac - I love it!

That's what I like to hear. I am looking at buying a iMac soon, hopefully an updated model. The main appeal for me is the price. I can get a nice machine that will do things a heck of a lot faster than my PB G3 Pismo or my PM 8600 with upgrade card and I can still afford things like the Formac Studio to go with it. Being a student I just dont have the cash to put down for a G5 that I would be happy with. Then when I am out of school I can spend the money on the G6 or 7 that will be out and use the iMac as my wife/kids (neither of which do I currently have) machine.

Freg3000
Jul 22, 2003, 10:12 AM
Well, if we assume the PowerBook rumors are true (which I admit is a stretch) then the 7457 will be ready and in production, so the iMac would be able to use them. Therefore we could get higher clock speeds, as well as more cache, both L2 and the addition of L3 in the iMac. I agree though that Apple has left the iMac to sell on its looks alone and that ain't gonna cut it no more. :)

Brother Mugga
Jul 22, 2003, 10:16 AM
I've just 'switched' a couple of friends to iMacs (yesterday, in fact) because they only want to do the email/wordproc/tetris thing.

And they lurve the design.

Personally, I'd have got an iMac ages ago if it had (a) proper extended desktop (just think how many people (and, perhaps more importantly, switchers) already have a decent monitor) and (b) USB 2.0. Yes, firewire is better (blah blah); I agree with you. But an awful lot of consumer peripheral manufacturers don't, it would appear.

Fingers crossed for September, then.

Brother Mugga

PS: On this theme (or possibly one involving a 'headless' (cubelike?? Please say it's true...) box): I wonder what happened to all those 1.4 Gig G5s that were supposed to be churning out of Fishkill?

Like I said; here's hoping for September, eh?

Albeit in a completely unrealistic 'yeah-right-like-Apple-is-going-to-knacker-its-Pro G5-sales' kind of way...:(

Ambrose Chapel
Jul 22, 2003, 10:56 AM
Everyone I know who has a flat-panel iMac loves it. None of them are gamers, they use it for general work - Internet use, iLife stuff, word-processing. They are all switchers too.

As for an update, I hope they either get very beefed up in order to better differentiate them from the eMac, or else get a price cut to bring them in line with the eMac. Given that the G5s are more expensive that the Power Macs they replaced, I'm guessing that the iMac will get boosted to better fill the mid-price desktop space in the product matrix.

Jerry Spoon
Jul 22, 2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Flowbee
Why am I just not interested in the iMacs anymore. Is it just me?
I figure high end users represent a higher than normal percentage on these discussion boards. iMacs aren't high end machines, especially now with the new g5.
I read this rumor and my first thought was "who cares"

cavemanstudios
Jul 22, 2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Jerry Spoon
I figure high end users represent a higher than normal percentage on these discussion boards. iMacs aren't high end machines, especially now with the new g5.
I read this rumor and my first thought was "who cares"

I consider myself a high end user, on a budget. If I had the money for a G5 I would order it right now, but for the money iMacs are still good machines that can do high-end things maybe slower but one can still get the job done on an iMac when the funds are not currently available for a G5. Plus with the lower price of the iMac one might be able to afford the software and other hardware needed (i.e. Photoshop, Formac Studio, Final Cut Pro, etc. etc.)

I don't mean to beat this point to death.

I think in some way I am trying to make myself feel better about lowering my hopes to an iMac due to money in spite of really wanting that G5!

Flowbee
Jul 22, 2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by cavemanstudios
I consider myself a high end user, on a budget. If I had the money for a G5 I would order it right now, but for the money iMacs are still good machines that can do high-end things maybe slower but one can still get the job done on an iMac when the funds are not currently available for a G5. Plus with the lower price of the iMac one might be able to afford the software and other hardware needed (i.e. Photoshop, Formac Studio, Final Cut Pro, etc. etc.)



For the budget-concious, the eMac seems like a much better deal to me.

hvfsl
Jul 22, 2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Flowbee
For the budget-concious, the eMac seems like a much better deal to me.

I think the PM G4 is an even better deal, since you can get the 1.25ghz version for around $1200 and a 19in CRT display will only cost you $150 extra. Plus the PM is upgradable unlike the i/eMacs.

Fender2112
Jul 22, 2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
I think the PM G4 is an even better deal, since you can get the 1.25ghz version for around $1200 and a 19in CRT display will only cost you $150 extra. Plus the PM is upgradable unlike the i/eMacs.

Interesting. I had not thought about this option. I've been waiting for the iMac updates. I'll wait a bit to see what the updates bring.

An expandable PowerMac for about $1500 - $1700 sounds quite tempting even it is a bit out dated.

CubeHacker
Jul 22, 2003, 01:15 PM
Doom3 on an iMac? At the current rate that the iMacs are speeding up, that might happen in 2 years.

Seriously, the absolute minimum requirements to run Doom3 are a 1ghz processor and a Geforce card. But lets be realistic. To get any kind of playable framerate out of Doom3, you'd want at LEAST a 2ghz processor and a Geforce4 or higher (not this Geforce4MX crap). Thats already bordering on the Dual G5 specs.

In other words, the iMac isn't going to be running Doom3 anytime soon unless Apple ditches the long outdated G4 and starts sticking G5's in most if not all of their computer lineup.

IMO, the Powermacs should be all Dual G5's (except for maybe the lowend model), and the iMacs should all have single G5's of similar speeds. That would keep the Powermacs at about 2x the performance of the iMacs, yet still keep the iMacs powerful enough to run any modern application or game. Meanwhile, the eMacs should use G4's or G3+'s and be sold as lowend sub $1000 computers for schools and students who need an all-in-one yet affordable mac.

bennetsaysargh
Jul 22, 2003, 01:39 PM
i have to say argh on this one.
apple needs no revamp evrything (except the powermacs) in august so the don't lose the back to school market. that is a critical market.

also, my dad says next year we'll get a new iMac. i hope by then apple will have gotten to thier senses and done this to thier whole line of products. the iMacs need to speed up. i did a little research, and i found out that
Flat panel iMac (since january 2002) has only in creased speed by 200 to 300Mhz.
the powermacs have increased speeds by
300-687Mhz since last january.
argh

here's my idea for the product line for mid next year.
G5 PowerMac
G5 iMac
G5 PowerBook
G4 iBook
G4 eMac
G4 Low End Box

they need to kill the G3 by mid-next year, meaning that they need to update the powerbooks to a G5. the eMac will stay a G4 or be killed off, and the iMacs will get a G5. and of course, a low end box G4.

crenz
Jul 22, 2003, 03:26 PM
Something I really don't understand is why they don't sell a 17" iMac with a ComboDrive, or at least let you reconfigure it to a ComboDrive in the Apple Store. I find 15" too small for a screen, but the 17" is just too expensive.

Also, here's a small comparision:

Middle 17" iMac US store: US$ 1799,-
Middle 17" iMac German store: 2203,-
Low-end 1.25 GHz Power Mac US store: US$ 1299,-
Low-end 1.25 GHz Power Mac German store: 1391,-


As you can see, we pay a much higher premium for the iMac than for the PowerMac. I don't see how they want to sell a consumer machine for 2200,- when anybody can buy a cheap-o PC with 17" display for 600,- to 700,- . I know because my sister just bought an 400,- Athlon PC (2 GHz) to replace her old computer (and that one is faster than she needs it to be). Something like the iMac would have been perfect for her, but hey, there's no way she could have afforded it and buying an office suite.

Seems the iMac became a toy for the rich.

kangaroo
Jul 22, 2003, 03:38 PM
Basically, for an additional ~$500 you can buy the good looking version of the eMac--it's called an iMac. ;)

It's unlikely that we'll see a G5 in an iMac anytime soon. Apple will limit the G5 to the PowerMac as an inducement to buy into their most expensive hardware.

wizard
Jul 22, 2003, 05:05 PM
I'm not convinced that the G4 needs to be replaced in the IMac, but I'm convinced that it needs a much better implementation than it currently has. As with the Laptops the big question is can Motorola deliever an improved processor, and can Apple integrate it into a reasonable mother board.

If niether of them can do this then they really need to rethink the consumer line. The problem is that most people looking at the consumer line don't need or want the cost of the PowerMacs, but do need reasonable performance. To get this with the G4 you need the L3 cache and good supporting video. Apple hasn't gotten the video equation right on the G5 so I'm not to sure they will get it right on the IMac line. Its like they don't know who is buying the machines or why. Now if Motorola can't deliver significant processor improvements then I relaize that Apple has no choic bu to go with the G5, I'm jsut not sure they can do it in the form factor of an IMac at this time.

I do have to totally agree with you suggestion to fire the marketing person / team responsible for the IMac lines. Even a novice can recognize a castrated machine sitting next to a more robust implementation. This doesn't mean get rid of the low cost machine, but to sell models of IMacs with real distinctions and differrences in value for the money charged.

In the quest for a new PC I did look briefly at the IMacs, believe it or not I like the IMac appearance, but you talk about too little for the money!!! If nothing else you would think that Apple would stuff these things to the gills with RAM to make up for some of the other ommisions. Nope; instead they just let the market slip away. I can just imagine the marketing person trying to put a spin on this during a meeting. I understand that there may be a market for a minimalist configuration of a machine, but you really shouldn't apply that thinking to everything in a specific product line.

Thanks
dave


Originally posted by rog
I doubt it will be a G5, and if so, they'd probably have to redesign the case. The iMac is an overprice, slow, joke. In 18 months it's gone from 800 MHz, no L3 to 1000MHz, no L3. Sadly, they are unlikely to go above 1.4 GHz given how stuck the G4 is. They will likely still hobble it by leaving out the L3 cache. No wonder iMac sales are in the toilet. I'd like to see prices down to $1299 for the SuperDrive model, $1149 combo, and $999 15" combo. Even that would be pricey.

What PC out there is only 20% faster in the real world after 18 months? None. The iMac 2 was competetive for about a month when it was introduced. But it shipped in volume about 3 months later than it was supposed to, so from the moment it was out it was not a very good deal. Then they had the idiocy to raise the price while sales were already weak. Apple's latest brilliant move is to heavily advertise the G5 which nobody can get their hands on and likely won't for 2 months. People who need computers need them now! They don't think, well gee, I'll go back to a typewriter or a pad and pencil for 3 more months since my PC died because I'd like to wait for a G5. Apple should fire whoever is in charge of their marketing and pricing. They've been totally unable to grow Apple market share and the reasons why aren't hard to figure out.

bluedalmatian
Jul 22, 2003, 08:00 PM
"they need to kill the G3 by mid-next year"

the G3 has got Life eXtension Technology (tm) which has allowed it to be the only processor to be used in a PC for almost six years.

it must be eligable for some sort of award ;)

crenz
Jul 22, 2003, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by bluedalmatian
the G3 has got Life eXtension Technology (tm) which has allowed it to be the only processor to be used in a PC for almost six years.

But is it because if its inherent qualities, or because there were no qualified successors...?

PC users could still be using Pentium IIIs if Intel hadn't finally gotten their act together and released a usable version of the P4.

Sun Baked
Jul 22, 2003, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Macrumors
The only info available to MacRumors at this time is that the new iMacs will sport USB 2 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/07/20030720230900.shtml). Pangea does NOT support USB 2.0, therefore this would mean a move to the single chip DDR chipset (Intrepid) at the least and killing of OS 9 bootability.

Basically it's the Intrepid chipset that's in the PB12/PB17/DDR iMac -- though the PowerBook17 is the best representation of what the chipset is capable of, right now.

Hopefully the Intrepid chipset is USB2.0 capable. It would be expected that it would be, and Apple is known to build in capabilities into the Chipsets that are not used.

---

Chipsets are a little scattered right now.

eMac/TiBook - UniNorth/KeyLargo
iBook/SDR iMac - Pangea
XServe/MDD PowerMac - UniNorth2/KeyLargo
PB12/PB17/DDR iMac - Intrepid
PowerMac G5 - UniNorth3/KeyLargo2

rice_web
Jul 22, 2003, 09:47 PM
Specs we need on the high-end... well, need is subjective. However, I'd say that these specs would make the iMac an attractive purchase next to the PowerMacs.

- 1.4GHz G4 Processor
- 256K L2 Cache
- 200MHz System Bus
- 400MHz DDR Memory
- SuperDrive
- 120GB Hard Drive
- GeForce FX 5200 Ultra

A top-of-the-line system like this is plenty fast, and may actually be faster, if we see the 7457 in action, which would bring twice the L2 cache and full-DDR memory support.

capitalhood
Jul 22, 2003, 09:56 PM
for one Apple needs to make the imac middle line, not top line, and a g-4ce fx is not middle end. Second 120 gb is huge bigger than the basic g5! so that i think is out. as for 1.4 ghz, yes but not for a few months, that would eclipse the g4 desktop and the future:D powerbooks so i think they'll aim lower than you say but it would be great if they did make it high end like that at a good price!

bennetsaysargh
Jul 22, 2003, 11:24 PM
argh! i figured it all out!

everything was waiting for the PMG5. by this, the iMacs couldn't get too close to the old powermacs, so there would be a difference. because of this, the eMac was also slow, as to not be faster than the iMacs. also, the powerbooks weren't as fast as they could have been because i don't think apple would want powerbooks for more $ being slower than the iMacs for less $.

please give me some input. i think that i may have messed up in there. it's late;)

rice_web
Jul 22, 2003, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by capitalhood
for one Apple needs to make the imac middle line, not top line, and a g-4ce fx is not middle end. Second 120 gb is huge bigger than the basic g5! so that i think is out. as for 1.4 ghz, yes but not for a few months, that would eclipse the g4 desktop and the future:D powerbooks so i think they'll aim lower than you say but it would be great if they did make it high end like that at a good price!

But I'm talking about the top-of-the-line iMac, which has often eclipsed the low-end PowerMac, especially in overall value.

rice_web
Jul 22, 2003, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
argh! i figured it all out!

everything was waiting for the PMG5. by this, the iMacs couldn't get too close to the old powermacs, so there would be a difference. because of this, the eMac was also slow, as to not be faster than the iMacs. also, the powerbooks weren't as fast as they could have been because i don't think apple would want powerbooks for more $ being slower than the iMacs for less $.

please give me some input. i think that i may have messed up in there. it's late;)

I'd say you've hit the mark perfectly, since Apple was trying to salvage any PowerMac sale they could during this most recent slump (which I'm guessing they effectively shattered with the G5 website mistake). Now that the PowerMacs are finally up to par, the iMacs can see an equal or similar performance increase, with the PowerBooks likely mirroring or slightly edging the iMacs.

The only real piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit is the iBook. G3 or G4? Update schedule? Hell, we even have to question screen sizes.

bennetsaysargh
Jul 23, 2003, 01:26 AM
i think since the Powerbooks can't go G4 yet, they will stay G4 as will the iBooks. The iBooks should go G4 as soon as possible, which means the PowerBooks must go G5. as for the screens, i think that the screens will stay pretty much the same, maybe getting a little largewr by .1 inches or do.

Lanbrown
Jul 23, 2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Freg3000
Well, if we assume the PowerBook rumors are true (which I admit is a stretch) then the 7457 will be ready and in production, so the iMac would be able to use them. Therefore we could get higher clock speeds, as well as more cache, both L2 and the addition of L3 in the iMac. I agree though that Apple has left the iMac to sell on its looks alone and that ain't gonna cut it no more. :)

I would not expect any L3 cache. Cache is very expensive so I cannot see them installing it. They could, but highly doubtful. The 7457 is supposedly cheaper then the 7455 so they could take that money and put it towards the cache though. Or they could drop the price of the machine down. I really hope they do more then just a new processor. A new GPU, Serial-ATA and FW800, DDR400 memory and support for more then 1GB would be very nice additions.

daveg5
Jul 23, 2003, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Brother Mugga
I've just 'switched' a couple of friends to iMacs (yesterday, in fact) because they only want to do the email/wordproc/tetris thing.

And they lurve the design.

Personally, I'd have got an iMac ages ago if it had (a) proper extended desktop (just think how many people (and, perhaps more importantly, switchers) already have a decent monitor) and (b) USB 2.0. Yes, firewire is better (blah blah); I agree with you. But an awful lot of consumer peripheral manufacturers don't, it would appear.

Fingers crossed for September, then.

Brother Mugga

PS: On this theme (or possibly one involving a 'headless' (cubelike?? Please say it's true...) box): I wonder what happened to all those 1.4 Gig G5s that were supposed to be churning out of Fishkill?

Like I said; here's hoping for September, eh?

Albeit in a completely unrealistic 'yeah-right-like-Apple-is-going-to-knacker-its-Pro G5-sales' kind of way...:(
there is a hack that allows extended desktop on ibooks and imacsg4 on www.xlr8yourmac.com