PDA

View Full Version : iMac Review, iMac Software Update 1.0




mchank
Aug 9, 2007, 02:51 AM
In their test the iMac was neck and neck or better than the "17 Macbook Pro, so that might calm some nerves that the iMac is a step back performance wise.

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/aluminum-and-glass-a-review-of-the-new-imac.ars/1



bartelby
Aug 9, 2007, 03:03 AM
Those performance figures are pretty good. But of course, there's no gaming tests. Not that I play games on Macs.

stracky
Aug 9, 2007, 03:19 AM
but what games are for the macs?
oh yeah all those great games that came out 12 month ago on the other platforms....

EA and ID must be really disapointed by this..

otherwise performance looks good

mchank
Aug 9, 2007, 03:34 AM
I think Apple intentionally puts in subpar/average GPUs to discourage pc gamers. PC gamers want to tweak everything to get every last frame and squeeze performance out of their machines, and they would demand regularly updated graphics drivers which Apple has never done. Plus even if they put in a great card, in a couple years it will enviably suck for later games so people will complain about it not being upgradeable. Apple's whole philosophy is that you plug it in and everything works; no tweaking, no messing with the insides. Steve Jobs probably views PC games with all their different requirements and configurations as too much hassle.

bartelby
Aug 9, 2007, 03:37 AM
EA and ID must be really disapointed by this..


Maybe Apple are waiting for EA and ID to develop the games up to a point that need a decent GPU before adding them to the line-up.

As I said, I don't play games so I'm pretty clueless when it comes to this...:o

aswitcher
Aug 9, 2007, 04:31 AM
Glad I got the 24" for the screen angle issues.

Grenadier
Aug 9, 2007, 05:06 AM
The problem us that most of those tess didnt really strain the GPU.
Still, its nice to see it isnt terrible overall at those tasks, anyway :)

Sesshi
Aug 9, 2007, 05:51 AM
Why would it be a step back in those tests? It's a Santa Rosa machine after all with a range of decent CPU's. And as for Apple putting in subpar - and it is definitely subpar - graphics to discourage gamers, that has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard. It's like Ferrari putting in a three-cylinder engine in their cars to discourage speeding.

The truth is more likely that their designers get more priority than their engineers, that the design direction of Apple tends towards the silent, and that the engineers don't quite have the skills of those at Sony or Dell.

dcv
Aug 9, 2007, 05:53 AM
So the wireless reception of the new Aluminium iMac is worse than on the MacBook Pro? Bad move there!

bartelby
Aug 9, 2007, 05:58 AM
So the wireless reception of the new Aluminium iMac is worse than on the MacBook Pro? Bad move there!

No real loss as it's a desktop machine.

bigandy
Aug 9, 2007, 06:02 AM
No real loss as it's a desktop machine.

that's it, you tell her :p

i'd think it could be a small issue as if it's a distance from your AP you might be a little screwed.

but then, with the savings over the old model, buy an airport express and extend your network! :rolleyes:

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 9, 2007, 06:03 AM
Those performance figures are pretty good. But of course, there's no gaming tests. Not that I play games on Macs.True, you dont think consumers play games do you? It looks to me like iMac was ment to be right at MacPro Laptop level and no more.

Ars should have gaming benches and looked a little closer to its high glare TN panels. Other then those two misses a good review.

This new iMac screams......Pro's stay away, consumer gamers stay away but grandma's & grandpa's you are the target audience for this product.:apple:

mavherzog
Aug 9, 2007, 08:08 AM
Hard to take that review seriously when the author thinks the Core Duo is a single-core processor. :rolleyes:

MacRumors
Aug 9, 2007, 08:36 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Arstechnica posts (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/aluminum-and-glass-a-review-of-the-new-imac.ars) a review of the new iMac, and had an overall positive impression.
My biggest areas of concern with the iMac going into this review were the new keyboard and glossy display. Both take some getting used to, but the adjustment period was brief—at least for me—and after awhile the changes with the keyboard and monitor didn't really register with me.

Meanwhile, Apple has already issued (http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/imacsoftwareupdate10.html) a software update for the new iMacs. Apple released iMac Software Update 1.0 yesterday.
This update provides important bug fixes and is recommended for 20-inch and 24-inch iMac models with 2.0, 2.4, or 2.8GHz processors.


Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/09/imac-review-imac-software-update-1-0/)

Evangelion
Aug 9, 2007, 08:50 AM
Hard to take that review seriously when the author thinks the Core Duo is a single-core processor. :rolleyes:

It was a slight error which I believe has already been fixed. And the fact is that Ars Technica is propably the smartest website out there when it comes to tech.

Toddgabweg
Aug 9, 2007, 09:01 AM
:DI am feeling so much better about my choice to buy a new 24" imac now, I was getting worried about all the negative post from people that didn't even see one in person. Anyway it should arrive early next week (my "free" ipod arrived this morning:D

The press is giving the new imacs a lot of praise so far:apple:

Kazr
Aug 9, 2007, 09:02 AM
I think the new iMac looks.... different, and it'll take a while to get used to it. But I'm surprised that - as the review stated - Apple have shipped an aluminium and *white* keyboard whereas the machine itself is Al and Black.

This also goes double for the FrontRow remote - which just totally clashes with the rest of the package.

Artropolis
Aug 9, 2007, 09:11 AM
SO... I'm all excited and I bring my new 24" home and I unbox the wonder of aluminum and glossy glass... power it up and I get 8 (yes eight) startup chimes before it finally starts up. I make my way through the account set-up screens and as I'm beginning to play around with the machine... I notice it's REALLY SLOW - then I get the Software Update message that I need to update the software - no problem... I go through that OK... still, the machine is REALLY SLOW - so I power it down for the night. This morning - power on and I hear a short burst of fan noise...then nothing... it tries to start again... a little fan and nothing... lather, rinse, repeat....

I have an appointment at the Genius Bar tomorrow (couldn't get in today at a time that would fit my schedule).

(sigh)

notjustjay
Aug 9, 2007, 09:12 AM
Seems to me people are very divided over this one (aesthetics in general, and particularly the glossy display) though I also notice that the vast majority of the naysayer comments are from people who, as far as I can tell, have not yet actually seen the new iMac...

From those that have seen it, I have seen just as many "this is fantastic!" as "the glossy display is horrible!" so obviously it's very subjective.

I'm waiting for Leopard anyway (and finances to recharge in the meantime) so I'm withholding judgement until I get a chance to see one in person. Perhaps by then, if the screens are really that bad, Apple will relent and provide a BTO option for matte displays. Or someone will come out with a "take the glass off" hack. (Isn't that all the difference is, the glass over the LCD panel itself?)

Actually I'm torn between a 24" iMac or a 15" MacBook Pro, they're almost the same price...

morespce54
Aug 9, 2007, 09:18 AM
I wonder if this update will fix my screen wake up time... I have an (old) 2.0 which seems to take like forever to wake up from sleep. Sometimes, when I wake up my computer, my screen shows my Desktop for 2 seconds then go back to sleep... I have to move the mouse again (or press keyboard again) to re-wake it up... it's annoying!

Thataboy
Aug 9, 2007, 09:21 AM
I think the new iMac looks.... different, and it'll take a while to get used to it. But I'm surprised that - as the review stated - Apple have shipped an aluminium and *white* keyboard whereas the machine itself is Al and Black.

This also goes double for the FrontRow remote - which just totally clashes with the rest of the package.

I completely agree with this. I do like the design of the iMac, but it is completely inconsistent with the peripherals. They should have released black versions of the keyboard, Mighty Mouse, and Apple Remote to go with the iMac.

blashphemy
Aug 9, 2007, 09:23 AM
ars got it pretty right on the dot. A couple things I disagree/comment on though:

1) Should have had graphics performance benchmarks. As for the comment on PC users wanting updated drivers and such, they should just let (ATI in this case) the GPU manufacturers write them for OS X. After all, for example, ATI distributes mobile GPU drivers to all Vista users on their website regardless of who manufactured their laptop.

2) I'd rather have a eSATA port than a Firewire 800, not a USB instead of FW800. Considering the port is there for the people who need fast storage, eSATA is more prevalent, cheaper, will be well supported soon as more and more machines implement it, and it just makes more sense etc.

Oh and I almost forgot: how would they add Blu-Ray later? I don't assume Apple is intending to make an Apple-branded Blu-Ray drive, is it? And they also didn't berate Apple for at least having a Blu-Ray drive as a CTO option on the 24" model...

freedevil
Aug 9, 2007, 09:26 AM
the remote doesn't stick to the side anymore!!! :(

aswitcher
Aug 9, 2007, 09:28 AM
the remote doesn't stick to the side anymore!!! :(

Wow, really. Thats a shame. I take it theres no magnet on the keyboard for it either?

netsql
Aug 9, 2007, 09:30 AM
The glossy screen is the worst!!

Even worst dell screen is better. Clearly Steve J does not use an iMac.

VanNess
Aug 9, 2007, 09:31 AM
It's more or less a minor thing, but I notice that Apple isn't providing any third-party software freebies with this edition of the iMac.

Previous generations usually threw in a game and/or a few apps. The previous iMac gave you fully functional versions of Comic Life, OmniOutliner, and Big Bang board games, all free of charge. Nothing doing with the new iMac. It's iLife 08 and that's it. Kind of a bummer.

Igantius
Aug 9, 2007, 09:33 AM
It was a slight error which I believe has already been fixed. And the fact is that Ars Technica is propably the smartest website out there when it comes to tech.
Absolutely – plus, it’s not as if anyone is able to reel off a list of inaccuracies in that review.

Mistakes do happen to the best of us – and in journalism, when there’s a mistake in a finished article, it may not be the writer’s fault but whoever subbed the article.

I also notice that the vast majority of the naysayer comments are from people who, as far as I can tell, have not yet actually seen the new iMac...
All par for the forum course. :p

0racle
Aug 9, 2007, 09:46 AM
This morning - power on and I hear a short burst of fan noise...then nothing... it tries to start again... a little fan and nothing... lather, rinse, repeat....

Had an xServe do this a few weeks ago. Logic board replacement (x2) finally fixed it. So you might be getting a new board in that new Mac.

WannaGoMac
Aug 9, 2007, 10:06 AM
Those performance figures are pretty good. But of course, there's no gaming tests. Not that I play games on Macs.

And isn't it a shame you can't?


I think Apple intentionally puts in subpar/average GPUs to discourage pc gamers. PC gamers want to tweak everything to get every last frame and squeeze performance out of their machines, and they would demand regularly updated graphics drivers which Apple has never done. Plus even if they put in a great card, in a couple years it will enviably suck for later games so people will complain about it not being upgradeable. Apple's whole philosophy is that you plug it in and everything works; no tweaking, no messing with the insides. Steve Jobs probably views PC games with all their different requirements and configurations as too much hassle.

What a shame. Gamers represent a nice market of constant upgrades. Apple could not only get more sales, but also lots of upgrade money even if they went with proprietary GPU boards for upgrading imacs/Macbooks etc. Then again, the way apple works they likely figure why sell an upgrade when you can sell a completely new system?

SO... I'm all excited and I bring my new 24" home and I unbox the wonder of aluminum and glossy glass... power it up and I get 8 (yes eight) startup chimes before it finally starts up. I make my way through the account set-up screens and as I'm beginning to play around with the machine... I notice it's REALLY SLOW - then I get the Software Update message that I need to update the software - no problem... I go through that OK... still, the machine is REALLY SLOW - so I power it down for the night. This morning - power on and I hear a short burst of fan noise...then nothing... it tries to start again... a little fan and nothing... lather, rinse, repeat....

I have an appointment at the Genius Bar tomorrow (couldn't get in today at a time that would fit my schedule).

(sigh)

What a shame.It is a good thing that Apple has such better quality than Dell/HP/whatever. Sorry, couldn't resist after reading so many times here how Apple stuff is expensive because the quality is so vastly superior :)

notjustjay
Aug 9, 2007, 10:22 AM
What a shame.It is a good thing that Apple has such better quality than Dell/HP/whatever. Sorry, couldn't resist after reading so many times here how Apple stuff is expensive because the quality is so vastly superior :)

Well, it's not like Apple has access to Magic Solder (tm) that never forms cold joints, or magical IC fabs that never turn out duds. In fact it's not like Apple has anything at all that the competition doesn't have -- they use the same parts, built in the same factories in China.

What they do, of course, is specify higher quality materials (a single piece of stamped aluminum?) and possibly have tighter tolerances which generally leads to better build quality, but failures can obviously still occur. Highlighting one of them, as above, should not be seen as a sign that Apple is better or worse than anyone else.

ChrisA
Aug 9, 2007, 10:35 AM
From those that have seen it, I have seen just as many "this is fantastic!" as "the glossy display is horrible!" so obviously it's very subjective.

Not so much "subjective". The display is acceptable or not depending on you intended use of the iMac. Porsche makes nice cars but if you need to haul around lumber and tools to a construction site they make useless cars. Same here. The glossy screens are designed for "media consummers", that is people who watch videos and play games and so on. They are horrible for "media producers" like photographers and editors. My gues is that Apple knows this and did it so that iMacs sales would not cannibalize Mac Pro sales. The pros simply can't use the glossy screen and are forced in the Mac Pro. Apple may have made the right call, after all very few people are doing serious work in photo or video editing or graphic arts. 99.9% are consumers not producers.

Trout74
Aug 9, 2007, 10:39 AM
The GPU in this sucker stinks so bad is that there is something on the horizon...............like a gamming machine coming out soon???

eeehhhh.maybe?

Trout

Yateball
Aug 9, 2007, 10:50 AM
That review is very well-written and informative and I think they hit it bang on.

I personally wouldn't be able to get past the glossy screen, and am more than content with my "last gen" iMac

WannaGoMac
Aug 9, 2007, 10:54 AM
Well, it's not like Apple has access to Magic Solder (tm) that never forms cold joints, or magical IC fabs that never turn out duds. In fact it's not like Apple has anything at all that the competition doesn't have -- they use the same parts, built in the same factories in China.

What they do, of course, is specify higher quality materials (a single piece of stamped aluminum?) and possibly have tighter tolerances which generally leads to better build quality, but failures can obviously still occur. Highlighting one of them, as above, should not be seen as a sign that Apple is better or worse than anyone else.

Agree 100%. That is exactly my point. Just funny how so many ignore these facts.

UltraNurd
Aug 9, 2007, 11:01 AM
My friend who works as an Apple Genius just completed their training in alMac screen removal - the glass plate is held on by magnets in the bezel, and requires a suction cup tool and special clean gloves to remove and handle.

Given the magnets, it seems like it wouldn't be too hard for a 3rd-party manufacturer to make a standard matte plastic screen of the same size with magnets in the same position as a replacement option for people who don't do glossy.

Headrush69
Aug 9, 2007, 11:09 AM
The truth is more likely that their designers get more priority than their engineers, that the design direction of Apple tends towards the silent, and that the engineers don't quite have the skills of those at Sony or Dell.
Bingo!

Just looking at the cooling requirements between the HD 2600 Pro and the HD 2600 XT show that. The XT model has almost double the texture fill rate of the Pro so why did Apple choose that? Probably because the XT requires better cooling AND the video ram needs heat sinks, the Pro model doesn't.

Obviously the 2600 with all its video enhancements is aimed at a general home user, (aka not game player), apparently from the several articles I read trying to evaluate the 2600, newer games that can take advantage of shader 4 and the 120 streaming processing units will help balance out some of the current sub-par features of the card. (As benchmark using current games.)

I think I might have to hold out a little longer and see if the new iMacs are worth it after hearing some practical reports or save some money and pick up one of the previous models with a Nvidia video chip.

Edit: These cards are obviously not geared to hardcore gamers, but at lower resolutions without high levels of AA and anisotropic filtering enabled they’ll be adequate for casual gaming. These cards are also well suited to HTPC applications where video playback performance and low-noise output are of the utmost importance.
If that doesn't describe an Apple iMac and it's market, I don't know what does.

WannaGoMac
Aug 9, 2007, 11:17 AM
Bingo!

I think I might have to hold out a little longer and see if the new iMacs are worth it after hearing some practical reports or save some money and pick up one of the previous models with a Nvidia video chip.

Edit:

I believe more and more that if you like computer games the most efficient way to own a Mac is to buy the Mac mini and a Windows PC. This way the two can share a single keyboard, monitor, and mouse.

Maccus Aurelius
Aug 9, 2007, 11:27 AM
What a shame.It is a good thing that Apple has such better quality than Dell/HP/whatever. Sorry, couldn't resist after reading so many times here how Apple stuff is expensive because the quality is so vastly superior

This reminds of the time my uncle's Ford Mustang broke down and a bunch of hicks drove by in a GMC pickup wooping and cheering that they saw a 'stang Found On Road Dead.

After dealing with HP's with crappy cooling fans, Dells with dying motherboards and Alienwares with failing keyboards I've come to the conclusion that computers suck.....out and out suck.

It's more or less a minor thing, but I notice that Apple isn't providing any third-party software freebies with this edition of the iMac.

Previous generations usually threw in a game and/or a few apps. The previous iMac gave you fully functional versions of Comic Life, OmniOutliner, and Big Bang board games, all free of charge. Nothing doing with the new iMac. It's iLife 08 and that's it. Kind of a bummer.

It could always be because of some new licensing of this software, but that is a bummer, as I use ComicLife often. I wonder if I can transfer it somehow from my Macbook. Probably not though :/

As for GPU's.......big woop. Maybe Apple will one day provide upgrades so you can also install your own clear case with neon strips and components with flame art printed on the casings, so it can look like a ricer custom while sitting on your desk.

Headrush69
Aug 9, 2007, 11:34 AM
I believe more and more that if you like computer games the most efficient way to own a Mac is to buy the Mac mini and a Windows PC. This way the two can share a single keyboard, monitor, and mouse.
Depends, on the games I suppose. For first person shooters which are the most predominant, the 7300 was sufficient

The test for me is the next UT, if it can't handle that, its not an iMac I can use. People will chime in "well, if you play games buy a Windows machine", but considering there is own two series of games I play, (RCT & UT), its not an easy toss up to sacrifice all others features of OS X for 2 games. (Yes, I know and have run OS X on PC hardware.)

Anyone see an review of the 2600 Pro that includes benchmarks without AA, Antistropic Filtering etc on? Every review seems to always have at least one of those on and generally they are a performance hit. Considering I never had them on past cards if performance is decent with those not enabled, it might be livable.

plumosa
Aug 9, 2007, 11:56 AM
I have a 20" 2.4, and the hard drive seems to be fairly loud. The imac g5 I was using previously was silent.


anybody else notice this?






(in all other things I love, love, love my new imac!)

jellomizer
Aug 9, 2007, 11:57 AM
I think Apple intentionally puts in subpar/average GPUs to discourage pc gamers. PC gamers want to tweak everything to get every last frame and squeeze performance out of their machines, and they would demand regularly updated graphics drivers which Apple has never done. Plus even if they put in a great card, in a couple years it will enviably suck for later games so people will complain about it not being upgradeable. Apple's whole philosophy is that you plug it in and everything works; no tweaking, no messing with the insides. Steve Jobs probably views PC games with all their different requirements and configurations as too much hassle.

I think it would be simpler then that. High end Video Cards tend to give off more heat, bad for thin formfactor systems where all the components are as crammed togeter as it can get. Also there is geting good drivers to work with the OS. Those cards may have been top of the line or close to it when they started R&D the design and making the drivers for it. Having the latest greatest Video would require more time to perfect the drivers. Price besides gamers most people don't know or really care about their video card. Just as long as it can display graphics at or better then the resolution then the screen can provide and software doesn't barf at you because it is lacking a widly used feature.

Apple could make their iMacs top of the line best in everything but they will run $3000 - $5000 each. Then you will get those dell guys saying well I can get a system with the same processor speed for 1/10 the price.

Headrush69
Aug 9, 2007, 12:07 PM
In DX9 based benchmarks the Radeon HD 2600 Pro gets blow away by the NVidia 8600 GT.

Interesting, for DX10 based benchmarks, the 2600 Pro doubled the 8600 GTS. Of course its all academic as the test game, Call of Juarez, produces 10fps on the 2600 Pro, and 6fps on the 8600 GTS. Looks like DX10 is going to be the domain of only very high end gamers.
(Matters to Mac users as these are ported from that code base.)

(Benchmarks from 2600 HD Pro review at extremetech.com)

JGowan
Aug 9, 2007, 12:08 PM
SO... I'm all excited and I bring my new 24" home and I unbox the wonder of aluminum and glossy glass... power it up and I get 8 (yes eight) startup chimes before it finally starts up. I make my way through the account set-up screens and as I'm beginning to play around with the machine... I notice it's REALLY SLOW - then I get the Software Update message that I need to update the software - no problem... I go through that OK... still, the machine is REALLY SLOW - so I power it down for the night. This morning - power on and I hear a short burst of fan noise...then nothing... it tries to start again... a little fan and nothing... lather, rinse, repeat....

I have an appointment at the Genius Bar tomorrow (couldn't get in today at a time that would fit my schedule).

(sigh)It's hard to take you seriously AT ALL when your NEGATIVE "reporting" is your absolute first and only post on this forum.... ever.

how would they add Blu-Ray later? I don't assume Apple is intending to make an Apple-branded Blu-Ray drive, is it? And they also didn't berate Apple for at least having a Blu-Ray drive as a CTO option on the 24" model...You can bet that the first time we see Blu-Ray or HD-DVD in any Mac, it'll be in a Mac Pro.

WannaGoMac
Aug 9, 2007, 12:21 PM
This reminds of the time my uncle's Ford Mustang broke down and a bunch of hicks drove by in a GMC pickup wooping and cheering that they saw a 'stang Found On Road Dead.

After dealing with HP's with crappy cooling fans, Dells with dying motherboards and Alienwares with failing keyboards I've come to the conclusion that computers suck.....out and out suck.


Haha . So true. They ALL have problems, and when people say X is so much better than Y, it's so bogus.

Remember when computers were built well back in the 1980s? Those things were made from STEEL (and you paid for it). But wow those suckers took a beating and kept on ticking. it's not uncommon to find some of those 1980s beasts still in perfect working condition...

It's hard to take you seriously AT ALL when your NEGATIVE "reporting" is your absolute first and only post on this forum.... ever.


Very good point. Might not be true at all...

DakotaGuy
Aug 9, 2007, 12:24 PM
I think Apple intentionally puts in subpar/average GPUs to discourage pc gamers. PC gamers want to tweak everything to get every last frame and squeeze performance out of their machines, and they would demand regularly updated graphics drivers which Apple has never done. Plus even if they put in a great card, in a couple years it will enviably suck for later games so people will complain about it not being upgradeable. Apple's whole philosophy is that you plug it in and everything works; no tweaking, no messing with the insides. Steve Jobs probably views PC games with all their different requirements and configurations as too much hassle.

I am going to differ on your opinion here. I think the ONLY reason that Apple puts low-mid GPU's in the iMac is money. The less parts cost the more profit is made. If they did use high end graphics cards, then they would have to raise the price of the iMac to ensure the same amount of profit would be made. Higher prices would equal less sales. Think about it this way...if they can engineer a new computer that takes one less screw to build they can end up saving thousands a year. All corporate businesses work this way and Apple is no different.

Maccus Aurelius
Aug 9, 2007, 12:35 PM
It's hard to take you seriously AT ALL when your NEGATIVE "reporting" is your absolute first and only post on this forum.... ever.

I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt when they post their bad news about their supposed purchase. The things I do find questionable are the comments on the software updates and the multiple chimes. I've only ever heard this when I installed a firmware update or reset the PMU. The last few updates I received were for iTunes and the Security update (and I think another), but this was well over a week ago. I would assume that any computers newly released after this would be preloaded with these updates as well. I could be wrong, but that's just what I think. Maybe they were just sitting in Apple's warehouse since last week and didn't receive them...who knows :p

You can bet that the first time we see Blu-Ray or HD-DVD in any Mac, it'll be in a Mac Pro.


Probably yes, because you can remove it *easily*. But I'd think that the first time you ever see a Blu-Ray disc in any mac at all is when the format wins and Toshiba abandons HD DVD, whenever the heck that is.

Maccus Aurelius
Aug 9, 2007, 01:06 PM
I guess he/she has never seen Sony's All-in-one system. :rolleyes:

JobsRules
Aug 9, 2007, 01:08 PM
Nice review. The machines looks fast. Just need to see that glossy screen in the flesh to see if this is for me.

I hated the glossy MacBook screen when I saw it in an Apple store - it was reflecting everything. Then my wife got one and I never notice any bad reflections when i use it in a domestic environment or out and about, so I'll be fair on the iMac.

Ultimately, though, I don't need a freaking quad core Xeon mac pro, but Apple seem to want to make me spend 100s on overkill to have something that's reasonably configurable.

I think they should have made a sleek pizza-box design where internals were fully accessible and made cinema diplas that can optionally 'integrate' with that design. Then they could still claim it was an easy 'all in one' but allow you options.

It's hard to say Apple are good designers nowadays. They make form-over-function stuff similar to those retro-futurist plastic chairs that are horrible to sit on yet cost 500 quid.

adom
Aug 9, 2007, 01:24 PM
lol i laugh at those who diss the new imac and have not yet used it or seen it in real life. im using my new 2.4 20" right now, and i can say there is not one think i would change about it. its ace!

sbarton
Aug 9, 2007, 01:30 PM
from the article:

"Despite its new ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro graphics chip, the iMac still isn't very well suited to playing 3D games. On our Quake 4 test, at a forgiving 1,024x768 resolution, the iMac turned in an only marginally acceptable 39 frames per second. We were surprised by that, since Quake 4 sits on the tail end of what we consider current 3D games. Comparable Windows PCs from Dell and Velocity Micro perform much better. You should be able to play less-advanced 3D games on the iMac, but we're still disappointed that Apple doesn't want to take gaming seriously."

And to add insult to injury they ran the test at 1024x768. The result for the iMac's native resolution would have been too embarrassing.

Also, why is it that anyone that wants to play a game on one of these things is all of a sudden a "gamer"?? Is playing 3D games occasionally now outside the expectations of a "home" computer??

Madame Defarge
Aug 9, 2007, 01:35 PM
SO... I'm all excited and I bring my new 24" home and I unbox the wonder of aluminum and glossy glass... power it up and I get 8 (yes eight) startup chimes before it finally starts up. I make my way through the account set-up screens and as I'm beginning to play around with the machine... I notice it's REALLY SLOW - then I get the Software Update message that I need to update the software - no problem... I go through that OK... still, the machine is REALLY SLOW - so I power it down for the night. This morning - power on and I hear a short burst of fan noise...then nothing... it tries to start again... a little fan and nothing... lather, rinse, repeat....

I have an appointment at the Genius Bar tomorrow (couldn't get in today at a time that would fit my schedule).

(sigh)

What a bummer. :(

I have an older, pre Intel iMac that needed to be replaced, so that I could upgrade to the new Adobe CS. I had my eye on a refurbished iMac G5 but I wanted to wait until the new iMac came out, before I bought it, in case it turned out to be a really fantastic machine.

The savings on the refurb were good and because of the many iPhone bugs, it seemed possible that Apple might be having quality control problems across the board.

When I saw the latest model, my jaw nearly hit the keyboard. One of the reasons I was attracted to Mac in the first place was the beautiful, forward looking modern design. To my eyes, the G6 looks like a cheap electronic gadget from the 70's. It was so retro, that I wondered if Steve Jobs had suddenly gone ironic on us.

That, plus the the down-sized keyboard and glossy screen which Mac does not recommend for graphics pros who are buying a MacBook Pro.

Within 30 minutes of seeing the newbie, I bought the refurbished model.

The new look combined with the software bugs and this report of a dead iMac is a thoroughly depressing development. And when you consider all of the issues that the iPhone has....

Where have you gone Steve Jobs? (Woo, woo, woo.....woo, woo, woo?)

Lesser Evets
Aug 9, 2007, 01:36 PM
[QUOTE=Headrush69;4025752
Obviously the 2600 with all its video enhancements is aimed at a general home user...[/QUOTE]

BINGO!

Everyone on the iMac hate brigade are caught up in one gigantic, ridiculous misapprehension: it is a gaming machine. Where does anyone get that idea? I think they want a clutter free, fun, simple, stylish machine to game on.

Jobs is smart: he isn't selling to the existing computer market as much as he is selling to the computer semi-literate who wish to use computers. If you look at the function of the iMac he sells you notice it is about 'home movies'. That's a brilliant move. What PC sells to the familial priority for preservation and dissemination of memories in a complex computer platform as simplicity? A: None.

The iMac is a basic business machine, a communication machine, a photobook-video database and viewer. Not a gaming machine.

If Jobs was looking to claw at existing market only when there is a huuugggee market of computer illiterates making good incomes he would be looking to be another tree in the forest. Instead he is trying to connect the computers he makes to a fresh market.

sbarton
Aug 9, 2007, 01:46 PM
BINGO!

Everyone on the iMac hate brigade are caught up in one gigantic, ridiculous misapprehension: it is a gaming machine. Where does anyone get that idea? I think they want a clutter free, fun, simple, stylish machine to game on.

Jobs is smart: he isn't selling to the existing computer market as much as he is selling to the computer semi-literate who wish to use computers.

A home computer that also plays games....yeah...where did we ever get that idea???

BTW, who defines "semi-literate" in your club? Do the just "literate" get to play too?

BayAreaMacFan
Aug 9, 2007, 02:01 PM
Madame Derfarge, what are you talking about? I have no problem with the first reasons you gave about you not liking the looks, the glossy screen, etc., but for the rest I just have no clue. All the iPhone problems? The iPhone might just have been the most stable 1.0 product ever. And 1 story of an iMac fail is so far from the iMac being deathly unstable; also, there was a software update to fix all of the latest bugs.

Doctor Q
Aug 9, 2007, 02:11 PM
arstechnica's bottom line advice about the mandatory glossy screen:[It] takes some getting used to, but the adjustment period was brief—at least for me—and after a while the change didn't really register with me. If I had my druthers, I'd still go with a matte LCD, but Apple doesn't offer that option with the iMac. If you really hate glossy screens, pass on the new iMacs. If you merely think you don't like them, but are open to having your mind changed, give it a shot... it's not as bad as I thought it would be.

tusker
Aug 9, 2007, 02:19 PM
I got a 24" on Tuesday evening and I love it. Had one little hitch with a freeze up during the initial setup, but it seemed to be from a loose connection with the cable and since then everything has been great.

The look of it wasn't exactly what I was hoping for, but it does look pretty darn nice--especially in person. The pics online really don't do it justice.

Keyboard is fine, it may take a bit of adjusting, but no more than when I started typing on this stupid ergonomic kb I have at work.

I was worried about the glossy screen as well, but its been pretty easy to get used to as well, though given the choice I would still take matte.

Maccus Aurelius
Aug 9, 2007, 03:32 PM
lol i laugh at those who diss the new imac and have not yet used it or seen it in real life. im using my new 2.4 20" right now, and i can say there is not one think i would change about it. its ace!

Except for the rabid monkey that pops out of the back and mauls you.

BINGO!

Everyone on the iMac hate brigade are caught up in one gigantic, ridiculous misapprehension: it is a gaming machine. Where does anyone get that idea? I think they want a clutter free, fun, simple, stylish machine to game on.

Jobs is smart: he isn't selling to the existing computer market as much as he is selling to the computer semi-literate who wish to use computers. If you look at the function of the iMac he sells you notice it is about 'home movies'. That's a brilliant move. What PC sells to the familial priority for preservation and dissemination of memories in a complex computer platform as simplicity? A: None.

The iMac is a basic business machine, a communication machine, a photobook-video database and viewer. Not a gaming machine.

If Jobs was looking to claw at existing market only when there is a huuugggee market of computer illiterates making good incomes he would be looking to be another tree in the forest. Instead he is trying to connect the computers he makes to a fresh market.

Actually, this seems more like justification of Apple's unwillingness to supply better graphics cards to their machines. The iMac is not a basic machine, as it doesn't ask for a basic price. It comes with a pretty decent set of hardware elsewhere in the case, but the tight confining form factor limit them when it comes to GPU's. Apple has been able to get away with their lack of focus on quick response displays and top-shelf GPU's, but their last developers' conference completely removes the roof from this little shelter. Apple has officially outed themselves as interested in gaming content. With that said, they must now follow through and run with it and supply better graphics hardware in their devices. If this means that they'll have to add a few more perforations here and there, perhaps widen the case a little (gasp!) and add another fan or two to provide adequate cooling for *adequate* hardware, then that's just something they'll have to live with. I love Apple computers and all, but with their new direction, they need to suit up and start playing hardball with comparable systems now that they've directly confronted a segment that has been severely neglected for far too long.

Of course, Apple isn't fervently pushing the image of gaming device like Dell, Alienware or the rest do, but just the same, they're no longer allowed to let that facet of their hardware starve.

I for one love the new iMac, and have absolutely no issues with its hardware as I am a console gamer, but I believe that your claim that people's hopes and presumptions about the iMac's competency as a gaming device being a misconception is erroneous. Macs may not be well known for gaming (because they're not good for gaming), but with the latest developments, and Apple's push to boot Windows natively, they must now provide the ability to fully exploit these new features. If you cannot play decent games on Windows in a Mac, then people who wanted to have a single machine to cover all grounds of their desktop computing functions (including games) will be hard pressed to be convinced that an iMac, or even a Mac Pro, are good choices for them. Until Apple gets with the program and sees to it that their systems are capable of running 3-dimensional graphics at decent speeds, they will essentially break their promise to combine the full experience of the best of both worlds in a single device.

Now that I'm done ranting, you can all wake up and carry about your business. :p

twoodcc
Aug 9, 2007, 03:49 PM
either the macbook pro is one fast laptop, or the new iMac isn't that fast. (based on those benchmarks)

i hope someone does a review on the 2.8 extreme 24" iMac

MacsRgr8
Aug 9, 2007, 04:10 PM
Here we go:
- The Radeon 2600 Pro is a bad gaming card (not even going to mention the 2400 XT... ugh)
- The iMac is a CONSUMER Mac. Consumers play games. You don't have to be a hardcore gamer to want a DECENT grfx card for some fun new games many consumers like to play once in a while. We are not aiming for the Radeon 2900 XT or GeForce 8800 GTX, just the decent Radeon 2600 XT.
- We assume Apple didn't put the 2600 XT inside due to heat reasons.

So why couldn't the new iMac be 1/4 of an inch thicker? Steve loved to boast about the fact that the new iMac "was even thinner!".... Nice one, Steve. No-one reacted to that in the audience... <audience mumbling.. "who cares">. Nobody cares that much about the ultra thiness of a desktop consumer Mac... :rolleyes:

IMHO Apple could have inserted the 2600 XT card, but make the iMac 1/4 of an inch thicker.
But Steve wanted it to be thinner.... so, there goes some performance. :(

Besides, other apps benefit from good 3D hardware too. It's just that these apps are called Pro apps. So that justifies the fact that an iMac shouldn't be ale to run Pro apps perfectly. :rolleyes:

Artropolis
Aug 9, 2007, 04:49 PM
Some people pointed out that since my first and only post on this forum was a negative post that it might not be true. It is true and I wasn't trying to be negative - I was simply pointing out that my new iMac 24" failed out of the box....and, as I said, I have an appointment tomorrow to figure out what the deal is. I will ABSOLUTELY report what we find out.

I am a big Apple and Mac fan (I've owned everything from a IIsi to the new iMac and just about every model - desktop and laptop - in between) and I've never had any problems until now.

Stay tuned for the report.

MacsRgr8
Aug 9, 2007, 04:58 PM
I believe you, Artropolis.

Good thing you posted this reply, and that you don't feel too hard done by those posts.

Hope your iMac will get fixed very soon! As others have pointed out, it could be the motherboard which needs replacing.

Good luck! :)

mongoos150
Aug 9, 2007, 05:05 PM
BINGO!

Everyone on the iMac hate brigade are caught up in one gigantic, ridiculous misapprehension: it is a gaming machine. Where does anyone get that idea? I think they want a clutter free, fun, simple, stylish machine to game on.

Jobs is smart: he isn't selling to the existing computer market as much as he is selling to the computer semi-literate who wish to use computers. If you look at the function of the iMac he sells you notice it is about 'home movies'. That's a brilliant move. What PC sells to the familial priority for preservation and dissemination of memories in a complex computer platform as simplicity? A: None.

The iMac is a basic business machine, a communication machine, a photobook-video database and viewer. Not a gaming machine.

If Jobs was looking to claw at existing market only when there is a huuugggee market of computer illiterates making good incomes he would be looking to be another tree in the forest. Instead he is trying to connect the computers he makes to a fresh market.I believe you're seriously underselling this machine. It's not a pro machine by any means, but it's certainly not a computer just for moms and grandparents, to "check email, make a home movie and surf the web." It's put to use in plenty of semi-pro applications (labs, photoshop/FCP, etc...). It's absolutely capable of providing a stylish, compact Final Cut solution or Adobe CS3 solution - sure, it's not as fast as a Mac Pro, but it's definitely doable. Especially for college students and offices with limited space. I personally know that many advertising agencies use iMac workstations for CS3, print ads, that type of thing. Please don't pass the machine off as something short of what it is.

Schtumple
Aug 9, 2007, 05:15 PM
either the macbook pro is one fast laptop, or the new iMac isn't that fast. (based on those benchmarks)

i hope someone does a review on the 2.8 extreme 24" iMac

But hasn't it been said before they both share alot of the same kit on the inside?

I kinda guessed they would be on par with the macbook pros, if not slower, they are running the same processor (apart from the 2.8 i know)

Padriac
Aug 9, 2007, 05:19 PM
...
Besides, other apps benefit from good 3D hardware too. It's just that these apps are called Pro apps. So that justifies the fact that an iMac shouldn't be ale to run Pro apps perfectly. :rolleyes:

Bottom line is that these cards only benefit those playing *new, cutting edge FPS games*. Average consumer playing casual games would never come into a limitation due to graphics card. Photography buff would never come into a limitation due to graphic card. Video editor would never come into a limitation due to graphics card. Basically, only cutting-edge gamers and those doing 3D rendering are going to be affected by the "subpar" video card.

Figure out what percentage of potential iMac buyers are cutting edge gamers and/or 3D designers and you can see how Apple can easily make the choice that less heat from the graphics card is better than having a higher-end card.

Not defending them as I think they should at least give a BTO option for a better card, but what we have here is a simple case of cost + statistical insignificance (number of people who need/want the better card)

Sesshi
Aug 9, 2007, 05:23 PM
It's hilarious... like being at a Scientologist / Moonie convention.

Padriac
Aug 9, 2007, 05:25 PM
I believe you're seriously underselling this machine. It's not a pro machine by any means, but it's certainly not a computer just for moms and grandparents, to "check email, make a home movie and surf the web."

I completely agree. People get way crazy with this "pro/non-pro" distinction. The way I see it is that this years consumer products are usally equal if not better than last year's pro products. Somebody using one of these new iMacs would be better off in many ways than somebody using a year-old/low-end Mackbook Pro or Mac Pro.

I consider myself a "prosumer" in photography and video editing, and find the iMac to be a great machine for most my purposes. For thousands less than a Mac Pro + Monitor all I really lose is a minute or two in rendering and encoding times. Not bad.

MacsRgr8
Aug 9, 2007, 05:44 PM
Bottom line is that these cards only benefit those playing *new, cutting edge FPS games*. Average consumer playing casual games would never come into a limitation due to graphics card.

Cutting edge games like Quake 4?

An iMac is a consumer Mac. Consumers expect to be able to play games at decent settings.
Buy the new iMac NOW and "cutting egde" games from 12 months ago will struggle on it.
Consumers should expect that their brand new > $ 2000 Mac should be able to play games decently. Yep the games they buy now, and you can be assured that the games they buy in 2008 will play outrageously bad at low settings on it.
The Radeon 2600 Pro is DirectX10 compatible, but I can't imagine why? No DirectX10 game will play at any reasonable framerates on this POS.

Seriously, if it can't play Quake 4 at a reasonable setting now, what's the near future gonna be... :rolleyes:

Red-red
Aug 9, 2007, 05:48 PM
Also, why is it that anyone that wants to play a game on one of these things is all of a sudden a "gamer"?? Is playing 3D games occasionally now outside the expectations of a "home" computer??

So true, I love the new imac's and if they had a quick GPU I would buy one in a heat beat, but it simply isn't a option. It is also very disapointing especially the way apple hyped up games on the mac with id, EA and then epic announcing UT3 for it I thought we could be getting something a bit speedier, obviously not I really don't see what the problem is, I would rather them make the imac half a inch thicker and have a quicker machine then have one thinner that isn't that much more powerful at all.:(

The fact is, if you pay £1500 for a computer you expect to get a pretty good machine capable of running games pretty well, this new imac doesn't even run old games pretty well. Lets put it into comparision, I could build my self a machine with more memory and quicker processor and a 8800GTS + all the bells and whistles if I wanted. I don't need that power all I was hoping for was something resonable but Apple go and put a graphics card you expect in a £500 pc was dell in it......Shocking.

Padriac
Aug 9, 2007, 05:49 PM
Cutting edge games like Quake 4?


You're still thinking like a high-end PC gamer. Quake 4 runs at about 40 fps. This is more than adequate for the average gamer. And by average I don't mean Grandma, I mean "most everybody". They are used to playing console games which usually run at 30 fps (or maybe 60) fps. PC gamers demanding framerates above 60 fps are a MINORITY.

If 40 fps is not acceptable for most people, then the consoles are doomed.

I H8 UM
Aug 9, 2007, 05:52 PM
I was a little bummed with my new Aluminum Imac. The remote doesn't stick to the side like it did on the white ones. Now I will probably lose it.

WannaGoMac
Aug 9, 2007, 05:58 PM
You're still thinking like a high-end PC gamer. Quake 4 runs at about 40 fps. This is more than adequate for the average gamer. And by average I don't mean Grandma, I mean "most everybody". They are used to playing console games which usually run at 30 fps (or maybe 60) fps. PC gamers demanding framerates above 60 fps are a MINORITY.

If 40 fps is not acceptable for most people, then the consoles are doomed.


You missed the point. Quake 4 is ANCIENT, OLD, GERIATRIC game for most GPUs nowadays. It was released in October 2005. Let me repeat, 2005!!! proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_4

It is PATHETIC that an Imac can only get ~40fps for a game almost 2 years old. How will it handle Crysis next year? it won't! lol

I think Mini is the only way to go mac...

WannaGoMac
Aug 9, 2007, 05:59 PM
I was a little bummed with my new Aluminum Imac. The remote doesn't stick to the side like it did on the white ones. Now I will probably lose it.

Well, you got it 1/4" thinner, something had to go! :)

MacsRgr8
Aug 9, 2007, 06:10 PM
You're still thinking like a high-end PC gamer. Quake 4 runs at about 40 fps. This is more than adequate for the average gamer. And by average I don't mean Grandma, I mean "most everybody". They are used to playing console games which usually run at 30 fps (or maybe 60) fps. PC gamers demanding framerates above 60 fps are a MINORITY.

If 40 fps is not acceptable for most people, then the consoles are doomed.

40 fps at what settings...?
We're talking about a game which is over a year old. :rolleyes:

Now that Boot Camp is here, and the average consumer will keep his iMac for about 4 years, I can guarantee that all popular titles which will become availabe in the 4 years to come wil all run pretty crappy on this iMac.

It's nothing new. Almost all iMacs have had terrible 3d cards.
I remember when the iMac Rev A was introduced, and Steve was on stage bragging about the fact that the iMac used all the latest and greatest hardware. They also made a big fuss about all those games that were coming to the Mac....
Trouble was.... all those new games (Unreal, Quake 2) ran terribly on the iMac. People were complaining then, and the same happens now. But now with the extra burden of being able to Boot Camp, and play all those Windows games.
Even on the newly announced Power Mac G3 B&W Unreal ran like crap (ATi Rage 128). Same goes for Quake 3 which was praised so much by Apple themselves!
Only when the Voodoo 5 card was made available for the Mac, did the Power Mac G3 owners get a glimpse of how nice those game actually could loook. PC gamers had this chance for a year.

It is simple:

Don't ever play a modern game? Then the iMac is the best computer in the world.
Like playing games that are no more than 3 year sold (think about the future)? Tough luck. Or play at embarrassingly low settings.

Padriac
Aug 9, 2007, 06:30 PM
You missed the point. Quake 4 is ANCIENT, OLD, GERIATRIC game for most GPUs nowadays. It was released in October 2005. Let me repeat, 2005!!! proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_4

It is PATHETIC that an Imac can only get ~40fps for a game almost 2 years old. How will it handle Crysis next year? it won't! lol

I think Mini is the only way to go mac...

No, I get it. The fact that every new FPS released every 6 months needs a new graphics card has been slowly killing the PC gaming world for some time now. It's a twisted little world that I think Apple is just ignoring.

For a counter-example, HL2:E1, roughly 1 year old, runs exceptionally well on my 1.5 year-old iMac. I expect Episode 2 will also run great. World of Warcraft runs great. The Sims titles will run great. Maybe games like this are the exception and not the rule, but I'm just pointing out that it's not like all new games are unplayable on the iMac. You are NOT doing brand new FPS on an iMac (unless it's made by Valve, apparently), but other than that you're okay.

I would say that sometimes the iMacs graphics end up being better than others with each new revision: sometimes subpar compared to the competetion, sometimes fairly competent. This revision seems to be one of the "subpar" ones... I'd wager rev B will be better (allowing games like UT3 to at least be playable with decent settings).

sbarton
Aug 9, 2007, 06:35 PM
You're still thinking like a high-end PC gamer. Quake 4 runs at about 40 fps. This is more than adequate for the average gamer. And by average I don't mean Grandma, I mean "most everybody". They are used to playing console games which usually run at 30 fps (or maybe 60) fps. PC gamers demanding framerates above 60 fps are a MINORITY.

If 40 fps is not acceptable for most people, then the consoles are doomed.

I call BS....CNET got 39FPS and THAT WAS AT 1024x768 for a 2 year old game. So what does it look like when you stretch that 1024x768 image across a 1900x1200 pixel LCD?...rhetorical question..

From the review:

On our Quake 4 test, at a forgiving 1,024x768 resolution, the iMac turned in an only marginally acceptable 39 frames per second. We were surprised by that, since Quake 4 sits on the tail end of what we consider current 3D games

soosy
Aug 9, 2007, 06:43 PM
There are several problems, as I see it:
- the iMac is using a pretty low end card considering the possibilities out there... it's not even using an average card.
- there is no BTO option for a better card.
- The expensive Mac Pro is the only option if you want a Mac with a better card.

They really need a high-end Mac mini or a lower end Mac Pro, imo. With Boot Camp, "it can't play games" should no longer be a reason not to get a Mac.

PCMacUser
Aug 9, 2007, 06:45 PM
For a counter-example, HL2:E1, roughly 1 year old, runs exceptionally well on my 1.5 year-old iMac. I expect Episode 2 will also run great. World of Warcraft runs great. The Sims titles will run great. Maybe games like this are the exception and not the rule, but I'm just pointing out that it's not like all new games are unplayable on the iMac. You are NOT doing brand new FPS on an iMac (unless it's made by Valve, apparently), but other than that you're okay.


Yep, the HL2 games are written extremely well to work on a variety of new and older hardware - but this is the exception. On my new PC system (featuring a factory OC'd 8800GTS 640Mb card), Company of Heroes is unplayable in DX10 mode at 1920*1200 with AA switched on. And the 8800GTS is multiple times faster than the iMac's GPU options...

WannaGoMac
Aug 9, 2007, 06:49 PM
No, I get it. The fact that every new FPS released every 6 months needs a new graphics card has been slowly killing the PC gaming world for some time now. It's a twisted little world that I think Apple is just ignoring.

For a counter-example, HL2:E1, roughly 1 year old, runs exceptionally well on my 1.5 year-old iMac. I expect Episode 2 will also run great. World of Warcraft runs great. The Sims titles will run great. Maybe games like this are the exception and not the rule, but I'm just pointing out that it's not like all new games are unplayable on the iMac. You are NOT doing brand new FPS on an iMac (unless it's made by Valve, apparently), but other than that you're okay.

I would say that sometimes the iMacs graphics end up being better than others with each new revision: sometimes sub par compared to the competition, sometimes fairly competent. This revision seems to be one of the "subpar" ones... I'd wager rev B will be better (allowing games like UT3 to at least be playable with decent settings).

So the excuse for why Macs can't have good GPUs has gone from Macs aren't for games to PC gaming is dieing?

I don't get it. Why can't Apple just stick a decent GPU in their computers (or give an option of one GPU) ? What is the big deal? We're talking $100-200 difference which would be customizable. Hell, they could even make the GPU non-upgradeable so they can continue to force people to buy complete systems in lieu of simple upgrades.

Red-red
Aug 9, 2007, 06:53 PM
You're still thinking like a high-end PC gamer. Quake 4 runs at about 40 fps. This is more than adequate for the average gamer. And by average I don't mean Grandma, I mean "most everybody". They are used to playing console games which usually run at 30 fps (or maybe 60) fps. PC gamers demanding framerates above 60 fps are a MINORITY.

If 40 fps is not acceptable for most people, then the consoles are doomed.

No consoles get away with it because they run on a tele generally at a low resolution that blurs the image. You can't run a game like quake 4 at 1024 that resolution is around 4/5 years old in PC terms, 1280x1024 has been the norm for years now. So 40fps in 1024 is absolutely shocking I was running quake 2 in that resolution near on 10 years ago. So on a 24" moniter running at that res is shocking.

All we asked for is a decent graphics chip, Adding some grill holes and a bigger fan/heatsink on the back making it that whole 1/4" thicker would be a small price to pay imo.

WannaGoMac
Aug 9, 2007, 06:56 PM
No consoles get away with it because they run on a tele generally at a low resolution that blurs the image. You can't run a game like quake 4 at 1024 that resolution is around 4/5 years old in PC terms, 1280x1024 has been the norm for years now. So 40fps in 1024 is absolutely shocking I was running quake 2 in that resolution near on 10 years ago. So on a 24" moniter running at that res is shocking.

All we asked for is a decent graphics chip, Adding some grill holes and a bigger fan/heatsink on the back making it that whole 1/4" thicker would be a small price to pay imo.

You're being too kind. On my 20" LCD I have to run 1600x1200 in order to be native resolution. Basically, LCDs have really pushed the GPUs to get more powerful due to their native resolutions.

Red-red
Aug 9, 2007, 07:03 PM
As for PC gaming dying! What a load of tosh that is. If Apple could simply make a PC like the imac maybe a little thicker that runs cames well they would absolutely make a killing within the gaming community. Many many people buy consoles because they are simple, PC gaming is complicated. You mix PC gaming with Apple simplicity you have a Console killer on your hands.

A imac like the current one but revearsed out so the alu is black and the black is alu, a bit bigger with a better graphics chip....I would buy one tomorrow.
Apple really had a chance to take a big chunk of the market with this new imac, they have failed on it imo unless they are bringing something else out and just judging by this forum have lost out on quite a few purchuses and from those you get a pyramid effect going on.

You get a new imac, show a friend how you can organise your photo's and how pretty it looks they will think it looks good but not that impressed as it isn't. You do that while being able to run the latest games they will be far more impressed as gaming isn't just a niche market anymore, It is big bucks. 8 million wow subscribers alone state that. Stop living in caves.

notjustjay
Aug 9, 2007, 08:59 PM
So how DOES the new iMac handle WoW? Any first-hand reports?

soosy
Aug 9, 2007, 09:27 PM
So how DOES the new iMac handle WoW? Any first-hand reports?

I've just started looking at that too... the reports seem a little inconsistent.
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=712000716&sid=1&pageNo=1

BIGIRON
Aug 9, 2007, 09:43 PM
I'm not so sure why alot of people seem so down on the new Imac for gaming its not a bad set up for good gaming, yes the parts aren't bleeding edge but they are damn solid and frame rates will be fine if you aren't nutty with your options on most games.

Yes I have a PC with XP for gaming and I wont be getting rid of it soon but the 2600 HD in the Imac is a fine video card for almost all games and the cpu in the Imac is fine as well. I'm an AMD man myself but the intel stuff is a great cpu so If you combine a solid video card with a solid cpu you will do just fine.

Why some people believe you need dual nvidia 8800,s and quad cpus to game is just odd, My wifes old Athlon 3200 with 2 gigs of ram and a Nvidia 7600 GS runs everything just fine from battlefield 2 all the way to starwars galaxies online it does just fine.

Cheer up guys you don't need to have a gaming complex with macs gaining market share the mac is bound to get a whole new slew of games released and the machines will do just fine. Hell I'm getting a new mac (my first ever) as I am refusing to use Vista and I'm a hard core gamer so the world is changing.

iW00t
Aug 9, 2007, 10:20 PM
I'm not so sure why alot of people seem so down on the new Imac for gaming its not a bad set up for a 6 year's old gaming, yes the parts aren't bleeding edge and they are damned but frame rates will be passable if you are willing to put up with 640 * 480 on a 24" screen.


I think the fact is DirectX is better optimised than OpenGL is.

Sorry Apple. Macs are not exactly the fastest things around.

tom5304
Aug 9, 2007, 10:25 PM
lol i laugh at those who diss the new imac and have not yet used it or seen it in real life. im using my new 2.4 20" right now, and i can say there is not one think i would change about it. its ace!

I just saw the new 20" iMac at the local Apple Store, and though I went in with a neutral attitude at best, I came away thinking the new iMac is tons better looking than the white plastic previous model.

And the glossy screen I was expecting to hate based only on many negative comments on the web... Well, I thought the glossy screen was beautiful. You can create a lot of reflections by tilting the iMac just right, but as far as I could tell, the reflections would be a problem only if I focused on them and thought about them. Otherwise, the 20" iMac had the sharpest screen image I've ever seen on a computer, based on limited experience.

Don't judge the iMac until you've played with it for 10 minutes.

Headrush69
Aug 9, 2007, 11:16 PM
I'm not so sure why alot of people seem so down on the new Imac for gaming its not a bad set up for good gaming, yes the parts aren't bleeding edge but they are damn solid and frame rates will be fine if you aren't nutty with your options on most games.
Because when you're buying a new machine you don't want to buy technology that is already on the lower end of the current curve.
(Especially as we are about to see ports of DX10 games)

I don't think it's a Geforce 8800 GTX power house many of us are suggesting the iMac should have. Even the Radeon HD 2600 XT would have been a welcome upgrade. Obviously this model needs better cooling, which begs the question why is size is so important to Apple for desktop models over the $50 retail price increase for a better video card.

Am I missing something here or is a big deal to the average user if the iMac was 3" deep instead or 2"? :confused:

The question I have is, obviously the 2600 was designed with DX10 in mind, (all the stream processors, etc), will they be as useful/powerful with OpenGL 2.0?

mavherzog
Aug 9, 2007, 11:28 PM
It was a slight error which I believe has already been fixed. And the fact is that Ars Technica is propably the smartest website out there when it comes to tech.
Slight error? There were several mentions, including comments such as "again the lack of a second core really shows in this bench mark".

Ars Technica may have some good content...but their reviewers are FAR from being beyond reproach.

JGowan
Aug 10, 2007, 12:39 AM
8.2 EXCELLENT - The bottom line: With its super-elegant new design and a strong configuration, Apple's new iMac competes with the PC desktop market better than perhaps any previous Mac to date. Unless you're a gamer or an upgrade enthusiast, we can think of very few reasons not to make an iMac your next desktop.I'm not at all surprised by the GAMING COMMUNITY coming out once again to talk down the iMac and the lackluster video card/processors/etc. that it is under the hood. They're here at every speedbump and reinvention of the iMac, but they simply don't get it:

The iMac is NOT FOR YOU.

I know why you're out and proud and upset... the machine looks great and you really would like to have it in your dorm or room or living area. But it's just not upgradable and it's too slow and it now has a glossy screen... that's all good. But realize that you simply are barking up the wrong tree. Jobs is not selling to you. That doesn't make the iMac a bad buy as CNET has graciously given very high marks/words for it. The computer you need is one that can grow with your pastime. You need a tower that is modifiable in every way and there are plenty out there. Sure they're PCs but then most of the games you want to play are made for that OS. Buy a PC and enjoy your gaming.

And finally, please, realize that the iMac was not designed for your hobby in mind.

Sesshi
Aug 10, 2007, 02:25 AM
There are several problems, as I see it:
- the iMac is using a pretty low end card considering the possibilities out there... it's not even using an average card.
- there is no BTO option for a better card.
- The expensive Mac Pro is the only option if you want a Mac with a better card.


Indeed. There's really not much excuse for a $80 retail GPU on a ~$2,000 computer, however you swing it. Of course it's not a gaming machine. It's a general purpose machine. Which is all the more reason it should be able to do everything pretty well. In the overall scheme of things and with general forthcoming software, the ATI will not do various things pretty well.

As I said before, the card (which will undoubtedly be underclocked) is more a decision of the Apple Silence Nazis and a pointer to the relative inability of Apple to bring real computer engineering (as opposed to design, which we all know Apple excels at) innovations to the table than of someone thinking about a balanced premium home machine.

From past experience, I subscribe to the practice that a home machine should be significantly more powerful than a general office machine. Because home users wanting to do even fairly simple things actually place more demands of the CPU and more significantly the GPU for entertainment (and I'm not limiting it to games) software - especially for a 'It just works' experience.

For me, as an occasional gamer who nevertheless insists that no matter how unleet I am the experience be delivered smoothly, it's one of the reasons why the Mac range is of limited use - the capabilities of the Pro for example is limited for me to consider it as a main home PC. Of course, your regular home user would place less uncompromising demands on a PC but the same theory nevertheless applies. All but the 2.8Ghz iteration of the current iMac (and in that case in CPU only) are essentially slightly warmed over 'office drone spec'.

I've ordered one, but I'm doing anything which requires any kind of meaningful power on other (Windows) machines. This will be used to run an important but very undemanding piece of software in the main, I'm not concerned about value, and I'll use it for iLife (for dabbling) at most apart from that, which means I'm unlikely to greatly tax the GPU for example. Doesn't mean I don't think the spec is "off".

There would be far more grumblings about a spec, relatively speaking, like this if it was on a Dell, Sony, etc. It's a measure of the zombification of the Apple community perhaps that people actually actively defend this sort of classic-Apple form (& to a certain extent, margin) over function.

I just wasted 20 minutes writing and editing this - hopefully we can all just agree that the iMac is a fairly reasonable machine given the design, but nothing to get excited about. Of course I don't actually think that has a chance in hell, but hey I can hope.

Red-red
Aug 10, 2007, 05:28 AM
I'm not at all surprised by the GAMING COMMUNITY coming out once again to talk down the iMac and the lackluster video card/processors/etc. that it is under the hood. They're here at every speedbump and reinvention of the iMac, but they simply don't get it:

The iMac is NOT FOR YOU.

I know why you're out and proud and upset... the machine looks great and you really would like to have it in your dorm or room or living area. But it's just not upgradable and it's too slow and it now has a glossy screen... that's all good. But realize that you simply are barking up the wrong tree. Jobs is not selling to you. That doesn't make the iMac a bad buy as CNET has graciously given very high marks/words for it. The computer you need is one that can grow with your pastime. You need a tower that is modifiable in every way and there are plenty out there. Sure they're PCs but then most of the games you want to play are made for that OS. Buy a PC and enjoy your gaming.

And finally, please, realize that the iMac was not designed for your hobby in mind.


This was definately true 2 years ago, But with Steve jobs himself making a announcement on gaming on the mac they certainly ain't ignoring it so what do they expect us to do? Pay at least £2500 for a mac pro that isn't even that fast for gaming?

IMO they have flopped with this imac, It looks good like all apple products but the performance is shocking in the grand scheme of things. The old imac got away with it because we all know apple takes time upgrading the spec of a machine but the performance wasn't to bad even on games when it first came out compared to the hardware available at the time. This one is seriously underpowered, 1gb ram standard? Below average graphics chip......disapointed is a under-statement.

PCMacUser
Aug 10, 2007, 06:13 AM
IMO they have flopped with this imac, It looks good like all apple products but the performance is shocking in the grand scheme of things. The old imac got away with it because we all know apple takes time upgrading the spec of a machine but the performance wasn't to bad even on games when it first came out compared to the hardware available at the time. This one is seriously underpowered, 1gb ram standard? Below average graphics chip......disapointed is a under-statement.

I don't think the spec is too bad. We all knew that Apple would continue with its theme of using notebook hardware in a desktop computer, so performance was never going to be blazingly fast (hence my decision to go back to PC for my latest computer). At least the new iMac is somewhat faster than its predecessor, and the price point hasn't changed much.

For basic users such as my parents, the 20" entry level model will make an excellent home computer - I'll be ordering one for them next week.

BKKbill
Aug 10, 2007, 06:30 AM
This was definately true 2 years ago, But with Steve jobs himself making a announcement on gaming on the mac they certainly ain't ignoring it so what do they expect us to do? Pay at least £2500 for a mac pro that isn't even that fast for gaming?

IMO they have flopped with this imac, It looks good like all apple products but the performance is shocking in the grand scheme of things. The old imac got away with it because we all know apple takes time upgrading the spec of a machine but the performance wasn't to bad even on games when it first came out compared to the hardware available at the time. This one is seriously underpowered, 1gb ram standard? Below average graphics chip......disapointed is a under-statement.

Again you missed the point made.
The iMac is NOT FOR YOU.

As Gowan said I know why you're out and proud and upset... the machine looks great and you really would like to have it in your dorm or room or living area. But it's just not upgradable and it's too slow and it now has a glossy screen... that's all good. But realize that you simply are barking up the wrong tree. Jobs is not selling to you. That doesn't make the iMac a bad buy as CNET has graciously given very high marks/words for it. The computer you need is one that can grow with your pastime. You need a tower that is modifiable in every way and there are plenty out there. Sure they're PCs but then most of the games you want to play are made for that OS. Buy a PC and enjoy your gaming.

Really please don't get all bent out of shape just buy a PC and play all the games you want.
For myself as soon as Leopard comes out glossy screen all it will be mine.
Oh one more thing read this thread in about a week and most of the whiners
bellyachers, moaners, snivellers will be gone.

gregorsamsa
Aug 10, 2007, 07:03 AM
I'm not at all surprised by the GAMING COMMUNITY coming out once again to talk down the iMac and the lackluster video card/processors/etc. that it is under the hood. They're here at every speedbump and reinvention of the iMac, but they simply don't get it:

The iMac is NOT FOR YOU.

And finally, please, realize that the iMac was not designed for your hobby in mind.

People need to know stuff like this. After all, when Steve Jobs invites big gaming companies like EA & ID to announce their commitment to gaming on the Mac, & Steve himself talks about new Macs being off the charts, some people are understandably going to expect new consumer Macs to be at least equipped with decent graphics cards, particularly in non-upgradable AIOs, & to be excellent for gaming.

I already have a Mac laptop, but I definitely won't be buying a new iMac. What's the point of having a non-upgradable desktop with laptop-technology, yet without the portability of a laptop? Where's the benefit in even thinner, lighter AIO's if it then limits the components that can be employed?

AFAIC, these new iMacs are a triumph of style over substance & so a bit of a disappointment. Yes, gamers would do well to avoid!

mikef07
Aug 10, 2007, 07:13 AM
I love all the "It is a flop" comments. A flop means it won't sell or isn't selling. This will be a hit. This will sell more than the previous one and Apple will gain market share which is all they care about. If you don't like it don't buy one.

I am so mad my Honda Accord V4 (iMac) did not come with a V6 (Mac Pro)engine. Other car makers (PC) are putting V8s in crs. What was Honda thinking? Oh If I did not want a V4 then I should not have bought one. What a brilliant idea. People are really dense.

Anyone want to complain how their $299 Wii can't play PS3 Blu Ray games and that the Wii should have put a better video processor in?

WannaGoMac
Aug 10, 2007, 07:23 AM
Well, GPU aside, it is ridiculous it doesn't come with 2gb standard for that price (1gb are like $30 now). I am actually quite surprised that Apple put in a single 1gb chip. In past most manufactureres would have cheaped out and put in 2x512mb chips and force consumer to throw them out to move to 2gb...

But what people should also complain about is Apple removing the remote magnet! lol Damn it, that was a nice feature, why the heck did they remove it?? Oh I know, to reduce the size by 1/4" haha

RRK
Aug 10, 2007, 07:27 AM
I am so mad my Honda Accord V4 (iMac) did not come with a V6 (Mac Pro)engine. Other car makers (PC) are putting V8s in crs. What was Honda thinking? Oh If I did not want a V4 then I should not have bought one. What a brilliant idea. People are really dense.

Does Honda really make a V4 engine? Plus I would have to say the Mac Pro is at least a 8 or 12-cylinder.

Headrush69
Aug 10, 2007, 08:22 AM
To suggest that if you are a gamer the iMac is not for you is a coup out and a weak excuse for Apple.

Obviously for a hardcore gamer the iMac or any all-in-one unit from any PC maker will probably never be sufficient.

But most of us that have issues with the video chip are not hardcore gamers and for a minor $$$ increase a better solution could have been added.
(Some suggest the iMac is fine for MOST games, but several reputable sites show benchmarks that this video chip is actually worse in some tests with current games than the previous NVidia 7300 used in iMacs!)

So the same question remains: Why, when everything else about the iMac is fine, would they chose to segment this percentage of users over a minor increase in machine depth?

Can anyone who already has one maybe post your xbench and openmark graphic benchmarks?

(PS. People have to quite trying to compare Apple prices with custom built machines. First off they usually don't add all and the same features and they discount the cost of the OS and service to build it. Whether it be the iMac or Mac Pro, build a system with the same parts from say Dell and the prices are almost identical.)

Final comment: This probably won't stop from me buying one, but clearly this choice of video chip shows that form over function is still more important to Apple. I believe Apple is still living a bit on the uniqueness of the all-in-one design. (I have yet to see a PC done this well.)
At some point this will change and then Apple will have to focus more on function.

soosy
Aug 10, 2007, 09:05 AM
To suggest that if you are a gamer the iMac is not for you is a coup out and a weak excuse for Apple.

Obviously for a hardcore gamer the iMac or any all-in-one unit from any PC maker will probably never be sufficient.

But most of us that have issues with the video chip are not hardcore gamers and for a minor $$$ increase a better solution could have been added.

Agreed. Sorry folks, but the "It's not for you" argument is lame. We aren't hardcore gamers, we just want a general purpose machine that we may keep for a while that will at least start out with a decent video card.

From what we can see so far, the new iMac performs great except for this one area. I'm a "Pro" graphic designer thinking of upgrading my dual g5 powermac (that somehow has lasted me 3 years). The iMacs compare pretty well to the Mac Pro's all things considered.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/aluminum-and-glass-a-review-of-the-new-imac.ars/5

It's just that the video card definitely stands out as not being up to par to the rest of the machine.

WannaGoMac
Aug 10, 2007, 09:19 AM
Agreed. Sorry folks, but the "It's not for you" argument is lame. We aren't hardcore gamers, we just want a general purpose machine that we may keep for a while that will at least start out with a decent video card.

From what we can see so far, the new iMac performs great except for this one area. I'm a "Pro" graphic designer thinking of upgrading my dual g5 powermac (that somehow has lasted me 3 years). The iMacs compare pretty well to the Mac Pro's all things considered.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/aluminum-and-glass-a-review-of-the-new-imac.ars/5

It's just that the video card definitely stands out as not being up to par to the rest of the machine.

As a graphics designer, doesn't the sub-par GPU effect your work? I assume video editing is effected by the GPU as well?

soosy
Aug 10, 2007, 09:38 AM
As a graphics designer, doesn't the sub-par GPU effect your work? I assume video editing is effected by the GPU as well?

Well that's part of what's holding me back and making the decision so frustrating, argh!

I'll probably end up getting one, I'm sure it'll be better than the 3 year old card I'm using now (ati 9600xt).

It just means I'll probably want to upgrade the entire machine earlier... which means discarding a perfectly good 24" display... DAMN YOU SEXY AND AFFORDABLE ALL-IN-ONE! (I'd certainly rest easier if there was a way to use an iMac as a second display for another computer.)

What would really be a fit for me is a small low-end tower like the old Cube. Maybe someday Apple will bridge the gap between Mac mini and Mac Pro.

WannaGoMac
Aug 10, 2007, 09:54 AM
Well that's part of what's holding me back and making the decision so frustrating, argh!

I'll probably end up getting one, I'm sure it'll be better than the 3 year old card I'm using now (ati 9600xt).

It just means I'll probably want to upgrade the entire machine earlier... which means discarding a perfectly good 24" display... DAMN YOU SEXY AND AFFORDABLE ALL-IN-ONE! (I'd certainly rest easier if there was a way to use an iMac as a second display for another computer.)

What would really be a fit for me is a small low-end tower like the old Cube. Maybe someday Apple will bridge the gap between Mac mini and Mac Pro.

Yep. I think the AIO is a nice idea, but also feel it is very wasteful. My 2yr old 20" LCD is gorgeous and still about $450 because it is 1600x1200 unlike the lower resolution "wide-screen" 20/20.1 LCDs (including the iMacs). I plan to use it for many years to come. Why should I have to re-invest in another LCD when I have a very nice one now that is STILL better quality than most LCDs out today?

mavherzog
Aug 10, 2007, 11:08 AM
It just means I'll probably want to upgrade the entire machine earlier... which means discarding a perfectly good 24" display...
Why? If I buy a new 24" iMac, I will most surely ALSO buy a 24" LCD display to go with it. Dual displays is the ONLY way to go!

iMacMike
Aug 10, 2007, 11:21 AM
Heading over to the store to have a look at one. If the screen isn't an issue, I will walk out with one too....

I find it funny how everyone rips the graphics card on the machine and states that it cannot be used to play games. It all depends on the GAMES you play. I am using a G4 850 MHZ for pitty sakes and running WOW on it - just about THE most popular game out there. Sure, I have the settings down on it and yes I do have slowdowns at times - but it is perfectly playable. Heck, when I get the new iMac, I will probably be BLOWN AWAY by the speed of WOW.

I have to agree with many of the posts about this - if you want to play serious, hard-core games with the latest graphics, etc, get an x-box or whatever. The iMac isn't for you. But - if you are like me and enjoy playing card games, puzzle games, many sports type games and WOW - then this machine is a great fit. The iMac is made for people exactly like me who fit right in the middle of the consumer computer market.

Ease up everyone!

Regards,
iMacMike

jpirizarry
Aug 10, 2007, 12:02 PM
I bought an Imac 24 for home use a few months ago when the rumors of an update started to show up in this forum. The new model looks pretty good, and I'm sure people are gonna love it, but there's really not a big hardware difference from last model. I honestly don't like glossy screens, they reflect to much light. The blacks looks better, but is really annoying to use in daylight
:-(

The aluminum case is fine, but I was hoping to see a bigger difference in design terms, like the one we got from the lamp like G4 (a model that I had and it worked beatifully for 4 years until it was to slow for me) to the one piece G5. But I guess that was a hard design to beat.

About gaming, well I thinks most mac users don't play games anyway. I don't care about games, I care about video editing, music and web design, and there's is no doubt that if you want a hassle free system to do this things mac is definitely the best choice.

For the ones that waited for this release, enjoy :-)

Artropolis
Aug 10, 2007, 12:12 PM
As posted earlier - I bought a 24" on Wednesday and it pretty much failed out of the box. I took it in today (to the Genius Bar) where they took a look at it and pronounced Time of Death... 10:32am (my appointment was at 10:30). They went in back, grabbed another (the last one) and sent me home with a new unit. Of course, I'm at work now.... so I won't be able to check it out until I get home tonight... but I just wanted to chime back in that while I had a disappointing initial experience with my 24 - (my first issue with a Mac in 20 years) - I was extremely pleased with Apple's handling of the problem. It really is great to have the Apple Stores and Genius Bars!

Headrush69
Aug 10, 2007, 01:57 PM
I find it funny how everyone rips the graphics card on the machine and states that it cannot be used to play games. It all depends on the GAMES you play.
Yes and there are current games that struggle with modest settings now.

I have to agree with many of the posts about this - if you want to play serious, hard-core games with the latest graphics, etc, get an x-box or whatever. The iMac isn't for you.
We're not worried about high end games, its more mid range. Go try RCT3 on an iMac with medium graphics.

But - if you are like me and enjoy playing card games, puzzle games, many sports type games and WOW - then this machine is a great fit. The iMac is made for people exactly like me who fit right in the middle of the consumer computer market.
If you make the argument that the iMac is only for these type games why bother changing the video card at all? Leave it with a X1600 which is going to be dirt cheap and save us on the overall cost.

Ease up everyone!

Don't read too much into comments. I don't think we are angry or anything, but for me if I am investing $2000 for any computer, since this computer doesn't have upgrade options, I want to make sure that the current hardware is going to at least somewhat usable on anything released for the next year.

About gaming, well I thinks most mac users don't play games anyway. I don't care about games, I care about video editing, music and web design, and there's is no doubt that if you want a hassle free system to do this things mac is definitely the best choice.

It's an assumption that most users don't care, and were do you draw the cut off? Well only 25% care about this, so it doesn't matter. 30%?
Everyone is quite to say, "well that's not the iMac's target audience."

And I think that is the question some of us are asking, WHY NOT?
Apple could have pleased everyone and have the iMac considered a gaming machine for all but hardcore gamers with only minor changes to machine and cost. Obviously size was a driving force for this model.

So that begs the question who is Apple targeting with these changes?

It's hardware changes aren't enough for most current iMac users to want to upgrade.
Is the new look going to attract more new iMac users than the old style? Maybe?
Is it going to attract new iMac users because it is only 2" deep instead of 3" or 4"?

I still might end up getting one, but with such small changes I have to re-consider that purchasing a previous model with the NVidia video chip is a cheaper/better alternative.

So you people with the new models, help us out, post some benchmarks.
You can only see so much reading generic PC benchmarks on this video chip.

mikef07
Aug 10, 2007, 02:35 PM
Wow!! People just do not get it.

Honda could put a V8 into their Accord and lower their profit margin and make everyone happy because it could have 375HP but they chose not to. They chose to put a V4 engine into and then set a price. Either you pay for it or you don't. If you want a V8 don't get a Honda.

Same with this. Apple decided on the specs they wanted that "they" felt would make this sell at a maximum profit while achieving maximum sales. The are a company. They have shareholders. This is where their allegiance lies. Not to some kid or adult who wants to play a little Unreal Tournament. There are many more that don't care about gaming than do. These same people don't want to pay even $100 more for a better video card because they will never use it. If you don't like it DON'T FREAKING BUY AN iMAC. Go buy something else. Apple is trying to gain market share. People who play games are not going to increase their market share. People who do everyday things on a computer will. This is their target audience.

Honda wants to go after daily commuters. Do some of those daily commuters want to drive fast and would they prefer a V8? Sure but it is not their target audience. You go after your target audience. Apple has said that their target audience is the normal day to day user, not a heavy gamer.

Why then would Jobs talk about gaming? So that it sells more to the Mom and Dad and Grandma that know junior may use it for games without knowing what games need hardware wise today. It is the same reason Honda publishes its 0-60 times on their V4 even though they know it isn't as good as a BMW 335i. So the daily commuter knows that when he need a little pep he will get it.

mongoos150
Aug 10, 2007, 02:40 PM
It just means I'll probably want to upgrade the entire machine earlier... which means discarding a perfectly good 24" display... Not really. Just sell your iMac when you want to upgrade on eBay. I always recover about 75-85% of my original sale price. No display going to waste. And you get to buy the next, newer machine for approx. 20% of its cost. No waste, no pain.

Red-red
Aug 10, 2007, 02:57 PM
I
Anyone want to complain how their $299 Wii can't play PS3 Blu Ray games and that the Wii should have put a better video processor in?


No because a Wii is £180, A new imac is £1200, there is a "slight" difference.

Also don't take me for just wanting a imac for playing games because I don't, I want one for many things, OSX being the main reason. Now im complaining about the graphics chip not because I want a 8800GTX in it all I ask is for a average graphics chip capable of running some games. Not the sh*te that they put in that a £600 laptop will be able to run the same....

You people who are saying we who just want to play the odd game don't "get it" but imo, it is the other way round and Apple are just ignoring something that could potentional make them a lot bigger then they already are.

Again when they unveiled the new imac, no one really maked a noise and steve jobs had to practically tell the audience to clap. No one cared about it being thinner, no one cared about it looking how to it did for the most part, it looks good yes but nothing so drastically better you just have to buy it. I can garrentee you that if they had put a better graphics chip in, kept it the same thickness I would garrentee people would be a lot happier because with the current spec, we can't even run year old games on it, let alone games that are coming out now. So leave it a year it will be practically obsolete when it comes to gaming and we are meant to pay top doller for it.

mikef07
Aug 10, 2007, 03:13 PM
No because a Wii is £180, A new imac is £1200, there is a "slight" difference.

Also don't take me for just wanting a imac for playing games because I don't, I want one for many things, OSX being the main reason. Now im complaining about the graphics chip not because I want a 8800GTX in it all I ask is for a average graphics chip capable of running some games. Not the sh*te that they put in that a £600 laptop will be able to run the same....

You people who are saying we who just want to play the odd game don't "get it" but imo, it is the other way round and Apple are just ignoring something that could potentional make them a lot bigger then they already are.

Again when they unveiled the new imac, no one really maked a noise and steve jobs had to practically tell the audience to clap. No one cared about it being thinner, no one cared about it looking how to it did for the most part, it looks good yes but nothing so drastically better you just have to buy it. I can garrentee you that if they had put a better graphics chip in, kept it the same thickness I would garrentee people would be a lot happier because with the current spec, we can't even run year old games on it, let alone games that are coming out now. So leave it a year it will be practically obsolete when it comes to gaming and we are meant to pay top doller for it.


Jobs doesn't give a crap about applause. He cares how many he sells and he will sell more with this. Of course people will be happier if it had a better video card. They would also be happier with 2GB Ram and even happier if it came with a supermodel that you get to take home with you. It doesn't though. He priced it according to what they put into it. He lowered the price and put more into it. Good enough for me and good enough for most. It isn't a gming machine. When are you guys going to understand that.

Headrush69
Aug 10, 2007, 03:44 PM
Wow!! People just do not get it.
We do, we're just disappointed because we thought Apple could do both.

Apple decided on the specs they wanted that "they" felt would make this sell at a maximum profit while achieving maximum sales. The are a company. They have shareholders. This is where their allegiance lies. Not to some kid or adult who wants to play a little Unreal Tournament.
You're assuming this is the sweet spot for features, you don't know and can only assume. If this is true, why upgrade and not stay with the cheaper X1600? Do you really think the market you keep suggesting they are after cares or knows the difference between the X1600 and HD 2600 Pro?

There are many more that don't care about gaming than do. These same people don't want to pay even $100 more for a better video card because they will never use it.
There are better options for the same price and whether they care is hardly quantifiable. Apple has never made what most would consider a high end gaming machine so how do you know?
(Don't say market research as early reports also suggested no one would pay the price for early intel Macs and they are selling incredibly well.

If you don't like it DON'T FREAKING BUY AN iMAC. Go buy something else.
Easy fella. What is wrong with discussion about what people may or may not see as issues that they felt could have been improved?

Apple is trying to gain market share. People who play games are not going to increase their market share.
How do you know that?
(It's a guess by you and Apple)
Well if I go back to running OS X on PC hardware than their market share is down 1! :p

Apple has said that their target audience is the normal day to day user, not a heavy gamer.
Who keeps arguing heavy gamers, no one. We know how computer software/requirements change, why start on the bottom?

Why then would Jobs talk about gaming? So that it sells more to the Mom and Dad and Grandma that know junior may use it for games without knowing what games need hardware wise today.
I don't buy that. Apple isn't showing off The Sims, they're marketing high end games like Madden 08, Gears of Ware, etc.

Its just a discussion people, take it easy.

k2k koos
Aug 10, 2007, 03:47 PM
Im impressed with the iMac.

Starting at $1199,-

Now take the Mac mini (base $599,-), add a 20" cinema dispaly ($599,-), add a keyboard and a mouse ($49,- each)
total: $1298,-
YOu get a nice looking system, but with inferior specs to the iMac, for more money..... (slower processor, inferior graphics card, smaller and slower harddisk, no FW 800, no "n' draft airport, need I go on?

Apple should adjust a few prices on the display, and the base Mac mini (both should go down to at least $499,-) And still you'd only be saving about $100,- and get an inferior system. (personally, I think the mini back to 499, and the display should go to 399, that would be highly competitive, and a great package for the money $996,- including keyboard and mouse..., now that is worth considering :-) )

Of course I know that the Mac mini is designed for those switching to the Mac platform, without having to spend high end prices, but still, for those who would like to build their own system with Apple hardware, around a mini, get a bad deal..... and will have to switch to an iMac (be stupid not too)
:apple:

WannaGoMac
Aug 10, 2007, 03:47 PM
Personally, I am frustrated because Apple won't make a computer form factor (i.e. upgradeable) or an AIO with enough power, so I don't have to buy 2 computers (Windows & Mac) in order to switch to Mac.

As I posted, the only thing I can come up with is to buy a cheap dell and then a Mini. But it is silly that I have to buy 2 computers in order to do all I need with a computer. Wasteful....

soosy
Aug 10, 2007, 04:02 PM
If you don't like it DON'T FREAKING BUY AN iMAC. Go buy something else.

At the risk of repeating myself... the problem is there isn't anything else to buy short of the high end Mac Pro. There needs to be a mid range Mac with a decent graphics card. I don't see any reason to intentionally ignore this market.

mikef07
Aug 10, 2007, 04:07 PM
At the risk of repeating myself... the problem is there isn't anything else to buy short of the high end Mac Pro. There needs to be a mid range Mac with a decent graphics card. I don't see any reason to intentionally ignore this market.

Apparently there doesn't need to be. They will gain more market share over the next year and continue to do well. Apple is doing very well. They did upgrade the video card, albeit not very much but it is better than the old one. People wanted more. I can understand that but it is what it is.

sbarton
Aug 10, 2007, 06:43 PM
I'm not at all surprised by the GAMING COMMUNITY coming out once again to talk down the iMac and the lackluster video card/processors/etc. that it is under the hood. They're here at every speedbump and reinvention of the iMac, but they simply don't get it:

The iMac is NOT FOR YOU.


Great, here is another person that desperately wants to pigeon-hole anyone who want's to play a couple of modern 3D games into the "GAMING COMMUNITY". Mr. Jobs has reset your expectations perfectly. The rest of us live in the real world where 4 - 5k is too much for a "home" computer...So where is the compromise?

WannaGoMac
Aug 10, 2007, 07:05 PM
Great, here is another person that desperately wants to pigeon-hole anyone who want's to play a couple of modern 3D games into the "GAMING COMMUNITY". Mr. Jobs has reset your expectations perfectly. The rest of us live in the real world where 4 - 5k is too much for a "home" computer...So where is the compromise?

Dude! You're getting a Dell!! :D

Red-red
Aug 10, 2007, 08:05 PM
How deluded some of you are is untrue. Me and many other seem to be repeating our self to you yet you come out with the same rose tinted view that what ever the imac is it's perfect because its apple.

Again, the imac is for your average consumer, your average consumer's play games. Apple like to put across this image of the mac as a family computer. In a family there is the off chance that some of those children or parents might want to play a game on it god for bid.

The key argument here is that you say the imac "isn't for gaming" and im repeating my self ONCE again to get in your head. Why would apple come out announce games for the mac, big games at that. The new imac is coming out which is what you would expect to play them on as apple seriously cannot expect people to buy a "professional" computer to play a game on surely. Yet they release the imac in-capable of running anything other then a 3 year old game in a low resolution but it's okay because its "apple" so we just have to be quiet about it being stupidly underpowered a work station graphics chip.

jpirizarry
Aug 10, 2007, 08:17 PM
What about the mac pro? I'm a professional video editor, and at work I have a Mac Pro with plenty of upgrades, including a AJA KONA3 and a SATA 5TB RAID. This beast can handle Uncompressed 10 bit video like only a $120,000 system could do three years ago.

I bet that if you can afford a mac pro, you would be able to play any game at it's best settings, given that you have the right video card which you can always upgrade.

mongoos150
Aug 10, 2007, 08:18 PM
I don't by that. You don't what that? ;)

owen-b
Aug 11, 2007, 05:21 AM
Oh for God's sake this is pathetic.

Here's how this thread will pan out for the next dozen pages:

Camp 1 will repeatedly whine that the current iMac is not built for gaming and that this is UNACCEPTABLE STEVE JOBS AND APPLE!

Camp 2 will point out that, well, that's just the way it is and there's no point repeatedly asking why this is because nobody here is from Apple and therefore nobody hwere can give you an answer, and can you just stop going on about it now because while it's a shame that iMac owners have been sold so short, there are some games that will run, but there's not a lot we can do about it, now is there?

Camp 1 will huff and puff and repeatedly reiterate their DEMAND to have it explained to them WHY APPLE DID THIS and WHY ARE GAMERS SO SHORT CHANGED and WHY DOES APPLE HATE GAMERS. And so on.


I'm with Camp 2. It's a shame. It's annoying. But that's the way it is. Email Steve Jobs and ask him why he places so much emphasis on style over content (making the iMac thinner is totally pointless - nobody gives a cr*p except him and it's the reason the components are underpowered, for heat reasons).

People should read Apple Confidential 2.0 and realise that Steve Jobs is a control freak who has absolutely no understanding WHATSOEVER about how things work and how to code them to work better - he just likes to be at the head of the ship being boss, whether he's making good decisions or not.

owen-b
Aug 11, 2007, 05:35 AM
Jobs doesn't give a crap about applause. He cares how many he sells and he will sell more with this. Of course people will be happier if it had a better video card. They would also be happier with 2GB Ram and even happier if it came with a supermodel that you get to take home with you. It doesn't though. He priced it according to what they put into it. He lowered the price and put more into it. Good enough for me and good enough for most. It isn't a gming machine. When are you guys going to understand that.

I'm with red-red.

Mike, you could add all sorts of things to that 'ideal speclist' that you pulled out of your cleverclogs locker there.Why isn't there a top performing sports car thrown in, huh? And why oh why aren't Apple giving me a PS3 free with every iMac, eh? Not to mention a free HDTV, come ON APPLE.

Don't be silly. There is a better graphics card out there than that one and it would have made a big difference. Steve Jobs DOES do it for the applause. AND the money. But red-red is right - the new iMac looks lovely but it's made compromises so that it can be thinner. Well we look at the iMac from the front, not the side, and shaving half an inch off does nothing for me frankly.

The point is that people like to play games. Now, some people REALLY like to play games, and for that reason they build custom-designed PCs from people like Alienware or wherever, and have ridiculously slick FPS rates.

The Apple comparable system would be a Mac Pro. Expensive, huh! So, what do all the none-Alienware/Mac Pro gamers use? Well, the PC people can buy a reasonably priced PC, put up with Windows and all it's flaws (in my opinion) and can slot a decent graphics card in there. The Apple comparable computer is the iMac. We can't put new cards in there because the iMac is so slickly designed that it can't be upgraded. As such, it's not unreasonable to ask that a card be in there that allows us 'consumers' to play recent games reasonably well, and the card they put in there will play a 3 year old game 'quite well' on a low resolution.

That, to me, is a perfectly reasonable motive to be p*ssed off about the graphics card.

BKKbill
Aug 11, 2007, 05:36 AM
How deluded some of you are is untrue. Me and many other seem to be repeating our self to you yet you come out with the same rose tinted view that what ever the imac is it's perfect because its apple.

Again, the imac is for your average consumer, your average consumer's play games. Apple like to put across this image of the mac as a family computer. In a family there is the off chance that some of those children or parents might want to play a game on it god for bid.

The key argument here is that you say the imac "isn't for gaming" and im repeating my self ONCE again to get in your head. Why would apple come out announce games for the mac, big games at that. The new imac is coming out which is what you would expect to play them on as apple seriously cannot expect people to buy a "professional" computer to play a game on surely. Yet they release the imac in-capable of running anything other then a 3 year old game in a low resolution but it's okay because its "apple" so we just have to be quiet about it being stupidly underpowered a work station graphics chip.

I don't think anyone has said or even thinks the Imac is perfect because it's Apple far from it there are many things that should be of higher specifications.
That being said the fact is the Imac isn't for high end gaming and it doesn't really matter how many times you repeat yourself we do get it. I think the computer is for photo, video, and music enthusiasts—perhaps even graphics professionals. I think the planners at Apple designed it this way and are marketing it this way. It is what it is. You don't have to be quiet and you certainly haven't been about thinking it is a stupidly underpowered work station graphics chip. As said we can all put our two-cents worth in.
Hopefully for the people who want to play "big games" there will be something new in the works. Sorry about having a rose tinted view but I guess that also will have to be blamed on Apple for building a computer that I will buy as soon as Leopard come out.

hms84
Aug 11, 2007, 05:59 AM
I fell so much better with my Mac Pro after this review

These tests ROCK!!

Sesshi
Aug 11, 2007, 06:54 AM
I think it's a bit of a misguided to believe that Apple has a par-Windows game machine in their lineup at all.

The Mac Pro is even less of an all-round home entertainment machine as it's comparable Windows brethren (if you purchased the Pro as a gaming-capable, or even gaming-centric machine), the likes of the Precision 4/690. It has very little chance hoping to match real Windows all-round home entertainment machines even at release.

Its not really about games, although it is a significant issue if you're hoping to do some boot camping. The question as I see it is really more about what you're getting in the style vs substance stakes if you're technically literate, and whether you're happy with that balance.

Headrush69
Aug 11, 2007, 08:02 AM
You don't what that? ;)
That when Apple is promoting new games coming soon that they are appealing to mom and dads and/or grandparents that only care that junior can play some games on the machine.

sellitman
Aug 11, 2007, 08:34 AM
the remote doesn't stick to the side anymore!!! :(

Oh my...I bought my 17" iMac in Febuary and didn't even know it stuck to the side. Thanks for the tip. :)

50548
Aug 11, 2007, 09:28 AM
The GPU in this sucker stinks so bad is that there is something on the horizon...............like a gamming machine coming out soon???

eeehhhh.maybe?

Trout

Apart from the obvious trolling, I wonder why people say that...is it worse than the previous GPU? Is it useless to play any non-bleeding edge games? I don't think so, sorry...:rolleyes:

Apart from the glossy screen which I don't fancy that much, the new iMac is simply THE BEST consumer desktop out there in all counts...even Cnet acknowledges this now.

MegaMan1311
Aug 11, 2007, 09:36 AM
I don't understand why everyone is hating the iMac. It seems like it is mostly gamers that are complaining about the graphics card. The iMac was not built for gamers. They need to get a Mac Pro or a PC.

I don't see what is wrong with a glossy screen. Have a window shining on it? Close the blinds.

50548
Aug 11, 2007, 09:40 AM
I'm not at all surprised by the GAMING COMMUNITY coming out once again to talk down the iMac and the lackluster video card/processors/etc. that it is under the hood. They're here at every speedbump and reinvention of the iMac, but they simply don't get it:

The iMac is NOT FOR YOU.

I know why you're out and proud and upset... the machine looks great and you really would like to have it in your dorm or room or living area. But it's just not upgradable and it's too slow and it now has a glossy screen... that's all good. But realize that you simply are barking up the wrong tree. Jobs is not selling to you. That doesn't make the iMac a bad buy as CNET has graciously given very high marks/words for it. The computer you need is one that can grow with your pastime. You need a tower that is modifiable in every way and there are plenty out there. Sure they're PCs but then most of the games you want to play are made for that OS. Buy a PC and enjoy your gaming.

And finally, please, realize that the iMac was not designed for your hobby in mind.

Couldn't agree more. Most "gaming specialists" posting here are the ones after pure benchmarks and geeky tweaks, without any clue whatsoever as to what the ordinary consumer really needs and wants.

I still have my iMac G5 2.0 and play 3, that's it, THREE games on it with more than enough performance for my "geriatric" GPU (a Radeon 9600)...Neverwinter Nights, Call of Duty and Doomsday, apart from other casual freeware games. Face it, Apple does not need you...and if you really wanna spend 4 thousand grand on something to play games, go ahead and buy a MacPro or a ridiculously bulky behemoth such as AlienWare.

I am glad SJ doesn't fall for these childish market traps which bring only consumer confusion and a nerdish race for FPS rates that means nothing to 99% of the world.

Once more, go ahead and buy your ugly PC box; if you are into gaming, that's gonna make you happy. There's much more to life and quality than bleeding edge gaming for real Apple users.

ahireasu
Aug 11, 2007, 09:59 AM
For a counter-example, HL2:E1, roughly 1 year old, runs exceptionally well on my 1.5 year-old iMac. I expect Episode 2 will also run great. World of Warcraft runs great. The Sims titles will run great. Maybe games like this are the exception and not the rule, but I'm just pointing out that it's not like all new games are unplayable on the iMac. You are NOT doing brand new FPS on an iMac (unless it's made by Valve, apparently), but other than that you're okay.

I would say that sometimes the iMacs graphics end up being better than others with each new revision: sometimes subpar compared to the competetion, sometimes fairly competent. This revision seems to be one of the "subpar" ones... I'd wager rev B will be better (allowing games like UT3 to at least be playable with decent settings).

Sorry to say but where did you see WoW run great on an imac?
I have the last G5 with the 2.1ghz cpu and the X600XT gpu and i can tell you that in a raid i was getting the wooping number of 5-10 frames per second if i was lucky and when i was moving to a city 10-15 fps...:rolleyes:
I wonder,Apple put a 8600GT gpu on a macbook pro and can't handle the heat on the imac???I guess no one would complain in here if apple did put the same gpu on imac's,i mean other than that the machine is great for a AIO.
I guess also that if it wasn't for EA id etc. in the WWDC with Steve saying that games come back in the mac also no one would have high hopes as well.
The only thing left from that is that Apple is going to make a new machine or a very fast upgrade on iMac's,MacWold anyone?

gregorsamsa
Aug 11, 2007, 11:11 AM
Couldn't agree more. Most "gaming specialists" posting here are the ones after pure benchmarks and geeky tweaks, without any clue whatsoever as to what the ordinary consumer really needs and wants.

I am glad SJ doesn't fall for these childish market traps which bring only consumer confusion and a nerdish race for FPS rates that means nothing to 99% of the world.

Once more, go ahead and buy your ugly PC box; if you are into gaming, that's gonna make you happy. There's much more to life and quality than bleeding edge gaming for real Apple users.

Funnily enough, most of the stroppy posts about this issue seem to stem from the non "gaming specialists". Well, if the ordinary Mac consumer was to take your kind of advice & buy an "ugly PC box", what do you think would happen to Mac marketshare? I think you'd see a fairly major dip.

As for what the ordinary consumer wants? I think most consumers want a computer to satisfy a number of popular interests, gaming being just one of them. The graphics on these new iMacs would be fine on upgradable computers, but on new AIOs they're fairly disappointing.

BTW, I have a Mac, always will do, but I'm now considering a PC as well. Thanks to Apple's limited range of consumer computers your advice to buy "ugly PC boxes" is appreciated, but quite unnecessary. Cheers!

BrianH
Aug 11, 2007, 11:27 AM
First time poster here. Hello everyone.

My interest in the iMac is running 3D software, (not games.) along with a variety of illustration and multimedia software (photoshop, flash, inkscape, textmate, coda etc.) Anyone have an idea how Maya or similar might run on the system? I would think that it would do fairly well within reason, especially with upgraded RAM. Much of the same as in most games at reasonable settings.

Reading the ARS review I'm a bit confused as to the issues of many here, the benchmarks don't seem that bad. I'm pretty sure I'll be ok on the unit. The benchmarks show a marked improvement over the previous iMac and the screen (from what I've seen at the shop) is much more crisp in comparison.

Any opinions are appreciated.

50548
Aug 11, 2007, 12:14 PM
First time poster here. Hello everyone.

My interest in the iMac is running 3D software, (not games.) along with a variety of illustration and multimedia software (photoshop, flash, inkscape, textmate, coda etc.) Anyone have an idea how Maya or similar might run on the system? I would think that it would do fairly well within reason, especially with upgraded RAM. Much of the same as in most games at reasonable settings.

Reading the ARS review I'm a bit confused as to the issues of many here, the benchmarks don't seem that bad. I'm pretty sure I'll be ok on the unit. The benchmarks show a marked improvement over the previous iMac and the screen (from what I've seen at the shop) is much more crisp in comparison.

Any opinions are appreciated.

Check www.barefeats.com for some benchs on 3D software for most if not all Macs. My perception is that the new iMac excels at pretty much any ordinary activity out there. If you intend to use pro apps without a lot of expectations, you're gonna be happy.

The Core 2 Duo proc is more than enough for most tasks in the real world, and the iMac GPU is not that shabby either.

And remember: the only people complaining here are PC gamers that love the iMac but wanna have a 8800 inside a 1-inch case at the same time...it's not gonna happen, and I am glad Apple is not letting that happen.

For pretty much everyone else, the iMac is THE BEST desktop out there, hands down.

jpirizarry
Aug 11, 2007, 12:56 PM
First time poster here. Hello everyone.

My interest in the iMac is running 3D software, (not games.) along with a variety of illustration and multimedia software (photoshop, flash, inkscape, textmate, coda etc.) Anyone have an idea how Maya or similar might run on the system? I would think that it would do fairly well within reason, especially with upgraded RAM. Much of the same as in most games at reasonable settings.

Yes. The iMac can run 3D software and most pro apps, incluiding Adobe, Apple, and most Autodesk. I have used mine for most of Adobe and Apple pro apps, without any complaints. I was surprised how well system works in comparison to the Mac Pro I have at work. I can only notice a speed difference when I do heavy rendering.

I haven't tried Maya yet, but I did a mosquito model in 3D Studio Max and it seems to work fine.

ahireasu
Aug 11, 2007, 01:17 PM
And remember: the only people complaining here are PC gamers that love the iMac but wanna have a 8800 inside a 1-inch case at the same time...it's not gonna happen, and I am glad Apple is not letting that happen.

For pretty much everyone else, the iMac is THE BEST desktop out there, hands down.

You couldn't have been more wrong than this,i have a G5 with the isight,before that i had a powerbook g4 15" with 1.5ghz cpu and before that an imac g4.
Most people say that apple sould put a 8600GT or 8600GTS as an option at list for BTO,they can but they didn't and thats a mistake from apple for sure.
On the other hand i really can't wait to see how apple will handle-support EA,epic and id when they announce that there games are ready to ship for mac's(WWDC07 remember):rolleyes:

50548
Aug 11, 2007, 01:53 PM
You couldn't have been more wrong than this,i have a G5 with the isight,before that i had a powerbook g4 15" with 1.5ghz cpu and before that an imac g4.
Most people say that apple sould put a 8600GT or 8600GTS as an option at list for BTO,they can but they didn't and thats a mistake from apple for sure.
On the other hand i really can't wait to see how apple will handle-support EA,epic and id when they announce that there games are ready to ship for mac's(WWDC07 remember):rolleyes:

Sorry, Apple is driven by DESIGN, not by the latest GPU. The iMac ATis are great for any normal work and home activities, including HD video; bleeding-edge games are for PC gamers with their ugly AlienWare boxes and console fans.

As for EA and the others, they look like John Sculley announcing full support to the Apple II just before phasing it out...I don't quite believe them and I couldn't care less...they will all crawl back to Apple based on market growth, not WWDC announcements.

BrianH
Aug 11, 2007, 02:22 PM
Thank you both for your replies. And the excellent link definitely is a good resource. Showed me a few things that makes me not believe the negative perspective of many here.

In many ways the constant back and forth I've witnessed here confuses people and I wish that opinions would be more objective and from those with first hand experience. Like I appreciate the information from the individual whose iMac was DOA. Really those complaining don't seem to realize that they are getting a great deal for $1199+.

20" beautiful widescreen LCD screen
Santa Rosa 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 4 MB L2 Cache
250 GB 7200 RPM HD
DVD/CD Burner
Access to inexpensive high quality processing and database software
Insanely low priced protection plan available.
Better quality hardware in comparison to competitors.

One interesting thing to note in regards to gaming is this quote on the HD 2600 XT and PRO cards sourced from Extreme Tech (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2151753,00.asp):

"Ouch. The first thing you'll notice is that the bars for ATI's new mid-to-low range cards are twice as long as those for the GeForce cards. Is this a preview of what we can expect from all DX10 titles using these cards? The second, and more important, takeaway point is that all these cards are cripplingly slow. 10 frames per second? Six? If these scores are any indication, you're going to have to spend more than $200 on a graphics card to have any hope of running games in DX10 mode. Of course, you could reduce detail levels quite a bit to make things run faster, but that sort of defeats the whole purpose of DX10 if you have to make the game look worse than it does in DX9 mode."

soosy
Aug 11, 2007, 03:00 PM
Sheesh guys, if you disagree fine, but stop misrepresenting what we say.

1. We aren't talking high end gaming. A decent mid-range card isn't that expensive. It could probably be a $50-$150 BTO option. Take another look at that ExtremeTech article. The 2600XT which is $30-$50 more, performs significantly better. (although they are talking desktop versions, not the mobility versions, I think.)

2. We are anxiously awaiting real benchmarks, but the preliminary ones don't look good. Macworld found the previous generation's 7300 (not even the BTO 7600) slower than the 2600 Pro.
http://www.macworld.com/2007/08/firstlooks/imacbenchmarks/index.php

Barefeats reports similarly: "The only concern is the performance of the Radeon HD 2600 Pro graphics processor -- which Anandtech shows running Prey slower than the optional GeForce 7600 GT available on the "late 2006" model."
http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html

3. We think it's stupid to ignore this market especially since the iMac IS a great machine otherwise. Why give people a reason to stick with Windows?

4. It's not the end of the world, but we hope Apple is listening!

5. We still love our Macs and our Mac brethren who don't see this as a problem.

Peace.

flopticalcube
Aug 11, 2007, 03:09 PM
From the 2600xt? thread it looks like the graphics card (2600) is a custom Apple-only version of the Mobility XT, maybe underclocked like the X1600 was on the 1st gen MBPs. I would have liked to see more BTO options on these iMacs, especially considering you can't do anything after purchase really. Matte screen, range of CPU options, GPUs, etc. Either that or have the back flip open to allow for future upgrades.

After doing some comparison shopping with Dell and HP, they seem to be fairly good price-wise save for the Dimension with the Q6600 and 2GB RAM which seems better value but then that is a noisy, hot, bulky, cable-laden tower so really hardware-wise things are fairly competitive.

I am slowly warming to these new iMacs after a fairly dismal first impression. If they really do have the 2600XT card in them (by the way there is no Mobility Pro variant from ATI), then that might just sway me to purchase a couple.

BrianH
Aug 11, 2007, 03:19 PM
Well just made a quick trip to the Mac dealer around the corner. (I live a mere 10 minutes away :D ) I brought my 512 MB thumbdrive with me and got permission to try Blender (http://www.blender.org) out on the 24-inch model. The drive fit wonderfully into the keyboard USB port which made me happy since that was a concern of mine, it would be awkward to repeatedly reach behind the system to plug it in the back.

I downloaded one of the Project Orange Blender files that weighed in at ~100 MB. The scene animated smoothly in realtime which was shocking due to the file size and amount of animation taking place in the scene. And viewport navigation was smooth and easy despite the large file size and model polycount. I'll admit it was weird using the mouse and the keyboard though, a bit different in feel than my experience with Window PC based hardware. The last time I used a Mac daily was on a G3 at work many years ago.

ahireasu
Aug 11, 2007, 03:47 PM
Sorry, Apple is driven by DESIGN, not by the latest GPU. The iMac ATis are great for any normal work and home activities, including HD video; bleeding-edge games are for PC gamers with their ugly AlienWare boxes and console fans.

As for EA and the others, they look like John Sculley announcing full support to the Apple II just before phasing it out...I don't quite believe them and I couldn't care less...they will all crawl back to Apple based on market growth, not WWDC announcements.

Just out of curiousity what is bleeding edge game for you?
Because i find it hard for a game that is 2 years old to be under that category.:)
I don't doubt that ati's(the ones apple use) are ok for home use and for people above 40,but i find it hard that apple is looking to sell only in this category of people there machines.
Also i don't doubt that is a design driven company but that doesn't stop them to put something that fits on a macbook pro,it is thinner than an imac.
Anyway thank you for the responce. :)

50548
Aug 11, 2007, 04:12 PM
Just out of curiousity what is bleeding edge game for you?
Because i find it hard for a game that is 2 years old to be under that category.:)
I don't doubt that ati's(the ones apple use) are ok for home use and for people above 40,but i find it hard that apple is looking to sell only in this category of people there machines.
Also i don't doubt that is a design driven company but that doesn't stop them to put something that fits on a macbook pro,it is thinner than an imac.
Anyway thank you for the responce. :)

Let's put it this way...the people I work or interact with aren't concerned AT ALL with whatever GPUs they might have in their PCs or Macs, and live perfectly well with that.

We tend to get a totally obtuse view in forums like this, presuming that the WHOLE consumer market is made of posters ranting about the absence of a 8800 GTXYR blablabla or the fact that they can only reach 40fps and not 53fps as shown in some geeky site. These 2 companies called ATi and NVIDIA are EVERYDAY launching stupid new GPUs and I don't get a clue what the differences mean, apart from 5 or 10% improvements that mean ZILT to me and billions of people. Yet, people in this forum continue to cry for the bleeding edge, even if the current things serve them more than enough.

Please show me a SINGLE study PROVING that normal people really worry about upgrading something else beyond RAM memory...no, you won't find it; and that's why Apple sells Macs and not beige boxes; to keep it simple and tidy to 99% of the market. Even the MacMini, a headless Mac, follows this rule of simplicity.

When I talk about normal games, I talk about the Mac universe of games and the related universe of NORMAL consumers like me or the girl next door; people who are not buying games every day because they have to either work, study or clean up the flat in 75% of their daily hours. I bought Call of Duty two years ago and I still play it a lot, as do lots of PC users (at least the online servers are always crowded, and they all say CoD 2 is worse). I bought Doomsday and NWN to have some strategy/RPG game with me, even though I barely have time for'em.

Does Warcraft play badly on the new iMacs? Surely not. Does CoD 2 play badly on them? Of course not. What about The Sims, the other Mac RPGs or even the newer simulation games available from Aspyr or MacSoft? ALL of them play at least acceptably well for us all.

I am TOTALLY sure that we would have a thousand PC whiners here EVEN if we had the 2600XT, or if Apple had chosen to keep the seemingly better 7600GT. This is the market Apple DOESN'T WANT to cater to, because these people are ALWAYS dissatisfied. They crave for numbers, not real-life usefulness. These people always want the latest, without ever knowing why things such as the iPod, the iMac or the iPhone are HUGELY SUCCESSFUL.

Reason? Once more, simplicity and integration. For those not seeing the obvious, PCs will keep on serving them well, with their thousand cables, card readers that nobody cares about, unstable and fugly OSs, ridiculously ugly MOBOs and those uncountable features that are never used by normal people.

I hope this clarifies my point once and for all. Is it better to have the best GPU? Sure. Will it satisfy the whiners? Never. Go see the iMac, check it for your needs and see why Apple sells at 3x the industry rate. If Macs fit your needs, buy them. If not, go for a PC or a console, both of them cheapo and ubiquitous.

WannaGoMac
Aug 11, 2007, 04:13 PM
Just out of curiousity what is bleeding edge game for you?
Because i find it hard for a game that is 2 years old to be under that category.

Thank you!
Apple should be EMBARRASSED by the GPUs in these Macs. Anyone who wants to play light gaming in the next 3-4 years (guessed lifespan) is going to be disappointed in 1yr when their Imac won't play nada. Oh wait, you can always play games at 640 x 480! I forgot. Game on Imacs!!

WannaGoMac
Aug 11, 2007, 04:17 PM
BTW, I have a Mac, always will do, but I'm now considering a PC as well. Thanks to Apple's limited range of consumer computers your advice to buy "ugly PC boxes" is appreciated, but quite unnecessary. Cheers!

I don't have a mac yet. My only option is the Mac Mini. But it is crazy I have to have 2 computers in order to do all I want. Grr, may just have to stick with Windoze for a while longer as I am not in Apple's customer base. Hmm, there is only OSx86 I guess, but that kinda defeats the purpose of buying a Mac (i.e. make computing simpler).

ahireasu
Aug 11, 2007, 05:50 PM
Well as i said above i have an imac...and on the back i have 5 cables running,..yes 5 (sounds like pc doesn't it?) 1 for external HD,1 for external dvd-wr(yup matsushita sucks big time),1 for my mouse,1 for my modem and 1 for my headset,i guess that means mac's are just pc's as all are OSX running or winblows.
Point is 98% of world market is a pc market,not because they love to have blue screens every now on then or freeze crash etc.,but because apple doesn't give something that could give a smille to many of the people that are forced in the end to go and buy a pc,why?
I don't believe that is the upgrades that they ask for,(not 50% of the market anyway)but the lack of basic things on an apple computer,...hell i don't care to upgrade my imac's hardware(they are just fine as they are) at all, i just want for apple to respect me and my money and give me at list a head starts with a 8600GT like MBP's have,that could keep the imac good and running for more than 5 months that is the next macworld event.
I do believe like many say in here that mac's will never be a gaming computer and i really don't care,i am not a gamer myself (if you take away WoW) BUT besides OSX mac's are overpriced machines.
Also guys you sould stop defending apple once in a whille,maybe that will do some good to us the mac users and see Steve one day to give something that worth's 2 months of paycheck.
Btw the new imac 20" with the 2600HD pro costs 2130$ in my country.

gregorsamsa
Aug 11, 2007, 06:37 PM
I don't have a mac yet. My only option is the Mac Mini. But it is crazy I have to have 2 computers in order to do all I want. Grr, may just have to stick with Windoze for a while longer as I am not in Apple's customer base. Hmm, there is only OSx86 I guess, but that kinda defeats the purpose of buying a Mac (i.e. make computing simpler).

I don't think you'd regret buying a Mini, but I'd consider waiting for Leopard in October & then perhaps get the cheaper combo Mini. Yes, it may seem a bit "crazy" having 2 computers, then again you may also consider it as having the best of both worlds. Bar gaming, there really isn't a thing that Macs aren't much better at than PCs. There are of course a number of games that will run quite well on a Mini, just not the graphically-intensive ones.

Personally, I'm still after a desktop Mac to complement my G4 iBook & see the Mini combo as an affordable solution, perhaps allowing me to fit in at least a mid-range PC tower for gaming later on. So I might end up with 3 computers. Even crazier! But what the hell, life's too short to worry about such stuff. At least the tower, unlike the iMac, can be upgraded over the years.

Overall, it's good to debate these things, however much it may sometimes upset acolytes of the Church of Apple.

sbarton
Aug 11, 2007, 06:49 PM
[QUOTE=BRLawyer;4035523]Sorry, Apple is driven by DESIGN, not by the latest GPU. The iMac ATis are great for any normal work and home activities, including HD video; bleeding-edge games are for PC gamers with their ugly AlienWare boxes and console fans.
/QUOTE]

I'm just curious, what games do you consider not "bleeding edge"? Let me help... Yes or No...are these games bleeding edge:

- XPlane
- Warbirds
- Quake IV
- Battlefield 1942

If not...tell me what the minimum frame rates are going to be on the 24" iMac at it's native resolution and Medium settings.


Time to put some facts to this discussion....

50548
Aug 11, 2007, 07:40 PM
[QUOTE=BRLawyer;4035523]Sorry, Apple is driven by DESIGN, not by the latest GPU. The iMac ATis are great for any normal work and home activities, including HD video; bleeding-edge games are for PC gamers with their ugly AlienWare boxes and console fans.
/QUOTE]

I'm just curious, what games do you consider not "bleeding edge"? Let me help... Yes or No...are these games bleeding edge:

- XPlane
- Warbirds
- Quake IV
- Battlefield 1942

If not...tell me what the minimum frame rates are going to be on the 24" iMac at it's native resolution and Medium settings.


Time to put some facts to this discussion....

None of them are bleeding edge; but do I need to play them at the native resolution? I never did that with CoD on my G5, especially because the image scaling gets messed up and a bit tiny...

As for frame rates, visit www.barefeats.com

Edit: just check it out at http://www.barefeats.com/imcd4.html

Not shabby at all for an older C2D iMac...in summary, the iMac plays those games at more than satisfactory speeds for any normal gamer out there, including UT2004, Doom 3 and Quake.

WannaGoMac
Aug 11, 2007, 07:47 PM
I don't think you'd regret buying a Mini, but I'd consider waiting for Leopard in October & then perhaps get the cheaper combo Mini. Yes, it may seem a bit "crazy" having 2 computers, then again you may also consider it as having the best of both worlds. Bar gaming, there really isn't a thing that Macs aren't much better at than PCs. There are of course a number of games that will run quite well on a Mini, just not the graphically-intensive ones.

Personally, I'm still after a desktop Mac to complement my G4 iBook & see the Mini combo as an affordable solution, perhaps allowing me to fit in at least a mid-range PC tower for gaming later on. So I might end up with 3 computers. Even crazier! But what the hell, life's too short to worry about such stuff. At least the tower, unlike the iMac, can be upgraded over the years.

Overall, it's good to debate these things, however much it may sometimes upset acolytes of the Church of Apple.


I actually plan on buying the refurb mini. Will the refurb mini CD come with Leopard in October?

gregorsamsa
Aug 11, 2007, 07:56 PM
I actually plan on buying the refurb mini. Will the refurb mini CD come with Leopard in October?

It's by no means out of the question to have some refurb Minis selling with Leopard in October, but it'll be far more likely that most will still have Tiger. It's something you'll need to watch out for when you buy. But after October, you should certainly get a steadily increasing number of refurb Minis selling with Leopard.

BKKbill
Aug 11, 2007, 09:44 PM
You couldn't have been more wrong than this,i have a G5 with the isight,before that i had a powerbook g4 15" with 1.5ghz cpu and before that an imac g4.
Most people say that apple sould put a 8600GT or 8600GTS as an option at list for BTO,they can but they didn't and thats a mistake from apple for sure.
On the other hand i really can't wait to see how apple will handle-support EA,epic and id when they announce that there games are ready to ship for mac's(WWDC07 remember):rolleyes:

It's interesting how the previous post by BRLawyer became bold. As for the 8600GT or 8600GTS are they not slightly longer and run hotter which could be a problem in the tight confines of the iMac.
As for EA, Epic and id don't you think if they are designed for the iMac and not just for the PC everything should run just fine? IMO. :apple:

macbotics
Aug 11, 2007, 09:57 PM
I think the High end iMac should @ least include a expansion slot they used to do it.

Why cant they still

BKKbill
Aug 11, 2007, 10:12 PM
Thank you!
Apple should be EMBARRASSED by the GPUs in these Macs. Anyone who wants to play light gaming in the next 3-4 years (guessed lifespan) is going to be disappointed in 1yr when their Imac won't play nada. Oh wait, you can always play games at 640 x 480! I forgot. Game on Imacs!!

I think it is going to be rather difficult to embarrass Apple.

DesignerOnMac
Aug 11, 2007, 10:59 PM
I used to sell computers on a retail level, 5 to 6 days a week. I sold IBM, HP, Apple, Toshiba, Packard Bell, Compact, and more. Out of all the computers I sold, Apple had the least problems. Most problems were OWNER related! I would disagee that all computer makers get their parts from the same source! PC's in general get there parts from a parts bin (so to speak) and mix an match etc. When I had to take a computer apart, I found that Apples parts were made much better.

Apple is the only computer manufacturer that controls hardware and software, not like other PC manufacturers...not saying something can't go wrong, but my experience in the 7 years I sold computers was that Apple made a superior product!

sushiman
Aug 12, 2007, 12:27 AM
This review , from an acquaintance :


I’ll try to categorize this:

The hardware: The best build quality you’ve ever seen in a PC. The previous iMac looked like a toy — an iPod desktop sort of — but this one looks like a high-end consumer device, maybe a flat panel TV. The glare from the glass is over-hyped, I don’t even notice any glare now. The thin keyboard was uncomfortable at first, but now I love it — and I’m a long-time touch typist who’s finicky about keyboards. “Chin”?? What chin? Seriously, they look much better in person than in photos.

OS X: Very easy to get used to just by playing around. Everything works fast and is well-polished.

An example, I bought a new UPS for this, same as I have for my PC. I plugged it in and ran around looking for the software to install so I could configure it, etc., just like I did on the PC, and couldn’t find any on the disk or at the manufacturer’s site. I was frustrated! Then I noticed that there was now an UPS section under power management in OS X that allowed me to configure the UPS. Things just seem to work easier on the Mac.

IOW, I’m totally happy.

I also installed Windows XP using Boot Camp, and games run reasonably well. I game, but I’m not a hardcore gamer, so the system was enough for me.

And if you want to use it as a DVD player, Front Row really makes this look like a high-end TV.

I was going to wait for Leopard, but it’s a tradeoff. Macs are the best deal hardware-wise when they first get updated, then they lose ground as chips get faster but the Mac models stay the same. So I bought now, and I’ll upgrade to Leopard later.

Suggestion: Buy the base model of what you’re getting and upgrade from other sources. Apple charges $100 for 1 GB more memory, and I got an extra 2 GB stick for about $120. Apple charges $100 to go from 320 GB HDD to 500 GB, and I bought a whole extra 500GB external drive for just a little more.

Good luck!

Jason Kenney
Aug 12, 2007, 01:02 AM
I currently have an older computer, but most games worth playing are playable.

Games I Play:
Civilization IV
Sim City 4
(Used to play WOW, no time now)
Warcraft III
Battlefield 1942

Now... I tried Roller Coaster Tycoon, and it works... just unstable. Now these new games EA is throwing through Cidega well most of them are crap.

Game I am anticipating: Starcarft 2.
Game I can't play due to processor speed: Doom 3
Game I could play if it weren't intel only: Heroes 5.
My config:
1.2 ghz PPC G4
768 MB RAM
ATI Raedeon 9600 w/ 256 MB VRAM
Siritek SATA adapter with 150MB Hard Drive (Civ IV never worked right with standard ATA, the Disk I/O slowed everything down).

I've had this thing for almost 4 years. I could possibly play Doom 3 if I upgraded the processor. At this juncture I am going to save for a new Mac Pro. I got the G4 when the G5 came out for $1200. In all honesty the best investment is a Mac Pro. I probably can play Starcraft 2, the only thing stopping me from playing some of the other new games is the cidega not working on ppc.

Here is also something to think about: A Good Game is playable without spectacular graphics. I think for someone who doesn't have the space, cant afford a laptop will find the iMac acceptable. Especially in college where Counterstrike (boot camp i guess), wow, warcraft 3 will be what is popular. Even if Quake IV is the rage 39fps is still good considering network lag is going to kill that anyhow.

Chris Welch
Aug 12, 2007, 01:21 AM
Gah.. I can't wait to get mine.

BKKbill
Aug 12, 2007, 01:33 AM
I actually plan on buying the refurb mini. Will the refurb mini CD come with Leopard in October?

Just wondering when you get your mini will your name change? ;)

50548
Aug 12, 2007, 05:18 AM
I currently have an older computer, but most games worth playing are playable.

Games I Play:
Civilization IV
Sim City 4
(Used to play WOW, no time now)
Warcraft III
Battlefield 1942

Now... I tried Roller Coaster Tycoon, and it works... just unstable. Now these new games EA is throwing through Cidega well most of them are crap.

Game I am anticipating: Starcarft 2.
Game I can't play due to processor speed: Doom 3
Game I could play if it weren't intel only: Heroes 5.
My config:
1.2 ghz PPC G4
768 MB RAM
ATI Raedeon 9600 w/ 256 MB VRAM
Siritek SATA adapter with 150MB Hard Drive (Civ IV never worked right with standard ATA, the Disk I/O slowed everything down).

I've had this thing for almost 4 years. I could possibly play Doom 3 if I upgraded the processor. At this juncture I am going to save for a new Mac Pro. I got the G4 when the G5 came out for $1200. In all honesty the best investment is a Mac Pro. I probably can play Starcraft 2, the only thing stopping me from playing some of the other new games is the cidega not working on ppc.

Here is also something to think about: A Good Game is playable without spectacular graphics. I think for someone who doesn't have the space, cant afford a laptop will find the iMac acceptable. Especially in college where Counterstrike (boot camp i guess), wow, warcraft 3 will be what is popular. Even if Quake IV is the rage 39fps is still good considering network lag is going to kill that anyhow.

Exactly what I meant above; pretty much every game out there is more than playable on the new iMac; you talk from a G4's perspective, I talk from a G5, and we are both happy campers with our "geriatrical" GPUs.

Once and for all, it's time to put down the spec and FPS talks and see the real facts behind normal gaming by normal users. As for the informal review above, it only corroborates how far ahead Apple is of the usual PC scum pack...the iMac rocks, and has always rocked.

Manic Mouse
Aug 12, 2007, 05:39 AM
Once and for all, it's time to put down the spec and FPS talks and see the real facts behind normal gaming by normal users. As for the informal review above, it only corroborates how far ahead Apple is of the usual PC scum pack...the iMac rocks, and has always rocked.

They're nice computers, but they certainly 'aint gaming powerhouses. Apple need to release some kind of Mac with high graphics capability because they have no product in that area. With all this talk of new games on Macs you have to wonder what machine people are going to play them on. ID always make games that push hardware, and no consumer Mac as much graphical hardware to push. What are people going to play their Tech 5 game on?

ahireasu
Aug 12, 2007, 06:01 AM
It's interesting how the previous post by BRLawyer became bold. As for the 8600GT or 8600GTS are they not slightly longer and run hotter which could be a problem in the tight confines of the iMac.
As for EA, Epic and id don't you think if they are designed for the iMac and not just for the PC everything should run just fine? IMO. :apple:

I really don't know my friend,but i think the ati ones run hotter,in any case i was talking for a BTO in a 24" imac,... i mean it has lots of space more than the MBP is in it?
As for the game company's i think if in the end transfer this games also for the mac it will be made for mac not specifically for imac, that maybe means that A) apple will have a BTO gpu for the 24" that can handle the games in decent fps(frames per sec) B)a revision of all the imacs with buffed gpu's or C)some totally new mac that is on the works(something that i doubt).

BKKbill
Aug 12, 2007, 06:14 AM
I really don't know my friend,but i think the ati ones run hotter,in any case i was talking for a BTO in a 24" imac,... i mean it has lots of space more than the MBP is in it?
As for the game company's i think if in the end transfer this games also for the mac it will be made for mac not specifically for imac, that maybe means that A) apple will have a BTO gpu for the 24" that can handle the games in decent fps(frames per sec) B)a revision of all the imacs with buffed gpu's or C)some totally new mac that is on the works(something that i doubt).

One can hope. :)

gregorsamsa
Aug 12, 2007, 07:25 AM
They're nice computers, but they certainly 'aint gaming powerhouses. Apple need to release some kind of Mac with high graphics capability because they have no product in that area. With all this talk of new games on Macs you have to wonder what machine people are going to play them on. ID always make games that push hardware, and no consumer Mac as much graphical hardware to push. What are people going to play their Tech 5 game on?

or C)some totally new mac that is on the works(something that i doubt).

An "Apple Insider" report a few weeks ago accurately predicted the new iMacs, demise of 17" iMac & claimed that the Mini would receive one more minor update, before it too was retired. This apparently wasn't based on rumour, but sources whose reliability AI had complete faith in.

If the Mini goes, Apple may introduce a new headless Mac with upgradable graphics. SJ's recent comment that future Macs would be "off the charts" leaves room for some doubt that these new iMacs will finalize their desktop line-up for the foreseeable future.

Also, I think that the Cube was well ahead of its time & if Apple released something similar today, it could sell really well.

WannaGoMac
Aug 12, 2007, 08:21 AM
An "Apple Insider" report a few weeks ago accurately predicted the new iMacs, demise of 17" iMac & claimed that the Mini would receive one more minor update, before it too was retired. This apparently wasn't based on rumour, but sources whose reliability AI had complete faith in.

If the Mini goes, Apple may introduce a new headless Mac with upgradable graphics. SJ's recent comment that future Macs would be "off the charts" leaves room for some doubt that these new iMacs will finalize their desktop line-up for the foreseeable future.

Also, I think that the Cube was well ahead of its time & if Apple released something similar today, it could sell really well.

I hope you're right. Because I don't see how these imacs are "off the charts" given they are barely faster than the prior gen and the only big design difference is a black border around a glass screen -- whoopee!

I currently have an older computer, but most games worth playing are playable.

Games I Play:
Civilization IV
Sim City 4
(Used to play WOW, no time now)
Warcraft III
Battlefield 1942

Now... I tried Roller Coaster Tycoon, and it works... just unstable. Now these new games EA is throwing through Cidega well most of them are crap.

Game I am anticipating: Starcarft 2.
Game I can't play due to processor speed: Doom 3
Game I could play if it weren't intel only: Heroes 5.


These are OLD OLD games in the gaming world.

Just wondering when you get your mini will your name change? ;)


Haha, maybe! :D

50548
Aug 12, 2007, 09:27 AM
An "Apple Insider" report a few weeks ago accurately predicted the new iMacs, demise of 17" iMac & claimed that the Mini would receive one more minor update, before it too was retired. This apparently wasn't based on rumour, but sources whose reliability AI had complete faith in.

If the Mini goes, Apple may introduce a new headless Mac with upgradable graphics. SJ's recent comment that future Macs would be "off the charts" leaves room for some doubt that these new iMacs will finalize their desktop line-up for the foreseeable future.

Also, I think that the Cube was well ahead of its time & if Apple released something similar today, it could sell really well.

Surely it makes sense for Apple to release a new box in case the Mini is retired; a new Cube could happen, although I still doubt they wanna enforce that "fully upgradable" concept...but it's possible to have the fabled headless Mac with a bit more expandability in the near future, following the Mini's demise.

Headrush69
Aug 12, 2007, 09:38 AM
It's interesting how the previous post by BRLawyer became bold.
BRLawyer keeps suggesting anyone here not liking the video decision wants a GeForce 8800 series and is a hard core gamer.
Even though no one is suggesting that and is labeled a whiner just for daring to question the decision. (Quite easy to see how Mac users are labeled zealots from reading this thread.)

As for the 8600GT or 8600GTS are they not slightly longer and run hotter which could be a problem in the tight confines of the iMac.
Yes. That is why we questioned Apples desire for 2" deep. Why not 3" and give yourself more options now and for future models. I highly doubt any customer would or wouldn't buy this model over that 1" difference.

Even the XT model would have been good for me. Some posters keep talking about the barefacts link and even it says:

The only concern is the performance of the Radeon HD 2600 Pro graphics processor -- which Anandtech shows running Prey slower than the optional GeForce 7600 GT available on the "late 2006" model.

Well that leaves me less than inspired, why shouldn't I just get the previous model than? (.24GHz isn't gonna make much difference)

Other than that I don't have an issue with these Macs. (Haven't seen the glossy screen yet.)
I don't understand the color complaints.
Who cares what color the back is, you don't see it! My Dell LCD has a gray border and black edges and it looks great.

I think the biggest incentive to buy the newer iMac over and the previous generation is the inclusion of iLife '08.
Anyone hear any official word if these new models are entitled to a free upgrade to Leopard?

EdT
Aug 12, 2007, 10:58 AM
I think the biggest incentive to buy the newer iMac over and the previous generation is the inclusion of iLife '08.


I am planning to buy a new IMac, my first Apple computer since the Apple II, this week. My original reason for looking at the Mac line (besides a distrust of Vista) was that I have a lot of digital photos, and some movies, that I wanted to organize and edit. From the preliminary reviews of IPhoto and IMovie in the new ILife, it looks like they made a very good product better.

I also was one of the irritating "Should I buy an IMac now" posters. I am unfamiliar with Apple and how it publicizes/handles upcoming hardware releases and this is an aspect of Apple that I don't like. If I had known when and what the releases were going to be, I would have bought last March. Styling that doesn't improve performance doesn't mean much to me. Sure, in a battle between 2 roughly comparable computers I'd pick the better looking one. But in a battle between a 'cool' computer and a hideous one with great perfomance, I'd go ugly.

Speaking JUST for me, the AIO/tower battle doesn't mean much. The last 2 computers I purchased I kept for around 4 years each, and although they were mid-towers I never did more than add memory. I bought them with the largest hard-drive, a near top speed processor and a very good (not best) graphics card, and by the time something significantly better was out in all 3 of these categories, I felt I was better off buying a new machine than trying to upgrade the old one because of ALL of the hardware/software that I would need to change/upgrade. And upgrading MS software and drivers has been a real pain ever since Windows 95. I once was, but no longer am, a build it yourselfer. I feel that, with the very notable exception of the video card, that this machine keeps with my philosophy.

I too wish that they had stuck at least a medium high end gamer card in this machine. It is one of the reasons I waited. The 'cost' of adding an inch or so to the thickness of what was, to me, an already very thin IMac so that you could install or cool a more powerful graphics card was not a cost at all. Although I currently don't play games on my computers (for ME, consoles are for gaming) I know that Starcraft 2 is coming out, and this game might change my attitude on this point. But the main reasons for me for buying an IMac: a stable OS, very good photo and video editing , good (if not great) IWorks or other reasonably priced 'Office' type products and fewer virus worries, are all still true, so hopefully by Friday I'll have my new IMac.

Cabbit
Aug 12, 2007, 11:24 AM
Anyone ever thought tha market for this new imac is the people who like my self buy a nice mac + a nintedo Wii.
To be fair the new AMD Radion HD is a good card and very low power, and heat compared to the geforce 8. What this really means is that for the first time Apple is using a AMD made graphics card on a new machine and could be proving ground for letting intel know that steve will not bend i can see intel trying to push something on steve and this being a personal up yours we still use AMD tactics.

ATi is dead btw, AMD is ATi. Welcome DAMMIT(the term the inquirer pulled out there behind for the merger)

Artful Dodger
Aug 12, 2007, 12:00 PM
I downloaded one of the Project Orange Blender files that weighed in at ~100 MB. The scene animated smoothly in realtime which was shocking due to the file size and amount of animation taking place in the scene. And viewport navigation was smooth and easy despite the large file size and model polycount. I'll admit it was weird using the mouse and the keyboard though, a bit different in feel than my experience with Window PC based hardware. The last time I used a Mac daily was on a G3 at work many years ago.

Thanks for that info. I've been using Flash, some mild PS as of late and just started using Maya PE without any issues. I find most posts funny about the Pro/non-Pro issue with concerns about software. Well mostly you can't do "PRO" stuff on an iMac :rolleyes: I use my iMac (see sig.) to do illustrtations, cartoons and some animation (2D as of now) but to some people I wouldn't be a "PRO" because I use an iMac :confused: My issue with this line of thinking (if it really is that) is getting/using a Mac Pro makes a person a true professional and not based on what they can do. So going along with that thinking should mean any of us using our iMacs to make a living or create artwork in various forms is telling us, were not Pro's, even though the money we make and the jobs we've done or are doing shows this different ;) Hey if a Mac Pro makes my left hand create better art, guess I needed a better GPU and not a vacation :p

So based on this thread title I'd really like to see some numbers or more like real life work flows/reports as to how the new iMacs are handling some projects. Yes, an actual review from members that make a living using iMacs or use them at school in design departments (If any new ones are placed in upcoming classes for the fall please post even if this is wishful thinking).
I'd love to have an iMac that could have 4GB RAM and a bigger screen than I have now. What I don't want is to spend my money on (about $2000 more) something that won't really matter if I'm not using programs that need extra power even once in a great while.
Let's keep reviews on the new iMacs rolling in and if anyone uses Adobe programs please give some results. Maybe using Flash, Illustrator and PS or even another program like Painter.

gregorsamsa
Aug 12, 2007, 01:08 PM
Surely it makes sense for Apple to release a new box in case the Mini is retired; a new Cube could happen, although I still doubt they wanna enforce that "fully upgradable" concept...but it's possible to have the fabled headless Mac with a bit more expandability in the near future, following the Mini's demise.

My personal preferences aside, I too doubt Apple will ever do a "fully upgradable" consumer-priced computer, not least because it'd be directly competing with cheap PC towers. As you well know, Apple's business is currently so profitable they simply don't need this kind of product.

But if the Mini has seen its final update, I'd expect either a new headless consumer-priced Mac, or for Apple TV to evolve into a viable games/media computer. I feel Apple TV still needs that something extra before it captures the public's imagination. The addition of some kind of gaming facility here could do the trick.

Then again, SJ also quite recently said he can see a time when Apple "sell 80-to-90 per cent notebooks", so who knows. Maybe his new "off the charts" Macs are just new iMacs & a surprise new range of Mac laptops in the near future (but not to replace the highly-successful MacBooks).

My money is on a new headless Mac, not radically different from the Mini, but with discrete (though not cutting-edge) graphics. I also think such a Mac would be far more successful with switchers than the Mini with its GMA 950.

whiteyanderson
Aug 12, 2007, 01:42 PM
I'd love to have an iMac that could have 4GB RAM and a bigger screen than I have now. What I don't want is to spend my money on (about $2000 more) something that won't really matter if I'm not using programs that need extra power even once in a great while.
Let's keep reviews on the new iMacs rolling in and if anyone uses Adobe programs please give some results. Maybe using Flash, Illustrator and PS or even another program like Painter.

This'll be my first post and i've been reading the forum for some time, i'll try to keep it short but i wanted to touch on a few points.

1) For Artful Dodger: I am a professional photo retoucher out here in L.A.. And i'm also an EX- pc tech of many years. I have a brand new "old" 24" imac, just bought about 3 weeks ago from the local apple store. At work i edit on a couple different mac pros that utilize intel and mac chips. anyhow, i had been tossing around holding out for the new silver imac or going for the white unit. considering i needed a new computer, was sick and tired of windows (vista being the final straw), and enjoyed the ease of os x at work, and the fact that i am getting married in november and wanted to have a big screen well powered machine to design some grapic intense invites on; i went ahead for the 24" in white and purchased the 3GB RAM upgrade from crucial.

To the point- my imac with it's 2.16 cpu, 7300gt gpu and 3GB of RAM is an EXCELLENT editing machine with the entire CS3 suite. i mainly use photoshop and illustrator and edit and retouch and work on some pretty huge files in both of these apps. so PERFORMANCE wise the new imac will do as well and probably SLIGHTLY better than my white 24", also considering you can pop 1GB more RAM in there and you get a bigger nudge. as far as the new screen though for me and most other photo editors it's a deal killer.

2) As mentioned i worked on windows PC's for many years. imagine sitting and waiting for a living for PC's to boot for 30 minutes, drivers to load, apps to uninstall, i even did a job at a small business where they had on 5 machines- 30,000 viruses, incompatible hardware issues, phone calls at 2am because the owner had screwed up what i had fixed earlier that day. and then vista...

This misconception that an IMAC is a mid level consumer machine is not correct. IMO the mini is a mid level machine. The AVERAGE windows machine i worked on from the average EVERYDAY customer is more like a $500 dell or HP, with 512 mb (1GB max) of RAM and an intel celeron or the lowest common denominator cpu. and funny, the average BUSINESS customer was much lower speced than that. Heck- my fiance recently purchased a dell with 1GB of ram an AMD 3800+ dual core, and a 19" LCD shipped for $700. she will get my imac when apple upgrades the imac respectably.

the absence of a tower is a non-issue to the average joe. all they want nowadays is a pretty 19" LCD. which can be had for $200. the tower can be tucked away out of sight in their little pre-fabbed "desktop hutch". in other words a $2000 imac with it's hardware configuration- is not a lowest common denominator machine.


3) the gpu. i'm no longer an avid custom rig building gamer like i once was. But, i can see where so many people are coming from. for $2000 you can roll your own pretty mean gaming machine that will trounce the imac. BUT, the reason many more KNOWLEDGABLE consumers (yes there are a few) wish to switch to mac is for the OS. yes you can get os x to run on a pc but not optimally. the styling of the mac does come into play but, it does take a back seat to the performance freaks.

4) aesthetically the imacs (old and new) are very pleasing but, it amazes me how many mac freaks consider that to be the deciding factor. especially out here in L.A.

5) to say that Jobs does want this or that type of consumer is nutso IMO. he constantly is bashing microsoft (rightfully so) in his ads, now has intel chips, and is forever touting the fact that mac can run windows. what is apples market share in the computer market? 6-7%? do you not think he wants a piece of that windows purse? isn't that what his ad campaign is geared for (and working better towards)? isn't the announcement of new modern games for mac another selling point to draw folks from windows?

6) the new imac. i'm glad i got my "older" one. the glossy screen is a deal breaker. the increase in performance is nice but not earth shattering. the looks are ok but, not mind numbingly briiliant or new. i've had a black and silver LCD for my (now unused) PC for 3 or 4 years. but performance/ hardware wise (gpu not included) it is a very nice machine.

don't get me wrong i love my imac. IMO it bridges a gap (in many ways but, not all) between a high end mac pro and something i could afford and justify with huge beautiful screen that i can do my work on at home. i no longer support anything windows, i won't even install an MS program on my mac. i'm done with them. but, with that being said if Jobs wants to corner the windows market he needs to keep evolving. with vista MANY, MANY ms customers are ready to jump ship. and many more will when xp is no longer supported by them. But, then again he is not an idiot is he? i have a feeling the new imac is a holdover for a while and something new that will drop all of our jaws will come, maybe not "soon" but in a fair amount of time. which is another reason i'm glad i just went an got my new "old" imac a few weeks ago.

sorry for the long post there.

EdT
Aug 12, 2007, 02:58 PM
whiteyanderson said everthing I was trying to say but he said it better.
The exception for me is that I am not a graphic designer, and therefore glossy screens do not make a difference to me as pure color matching is not necessary for what I expect to be doing.

Data
Aug 12, 2007, 03:57 PM
I'm really glad i don't play games on a computer ;-)

mongoos150
Aug 12, 2007, 04:00 PM
Anyone hear any official word if these new models are entitled to a free upgrade to Leopard?There's no free upgrade.

BKKbill
Aug 13, 2007, 08:18 AM
Yes. That is why we questioned Apples desire for 2" deep. Why not 3" and give yourself more options now and for future models. I highly doubt any customer would or wouldn't buy this model over that 1" difference.

Even the XT model would have been good for me. Some posters keep talking about the barefacts link and even it says:
Well that leaves me less than inspired, why shouldn't I just get the previous model than? (.24GHz isn't gonna make much difference)

I think you have a good point here The only time the back is seen is when some cord has to be plugged in or out. It sure wouldn't matter to me but I'm sure it did to Steve.

Richardlol
Aug 13, 2007, 10:36 AM
OK, so I had been waiting since last year to upgrade my old G4 lampshade iMac. So when the new ones came out, I was ready to buy even if I was not totally thrilled. Got the standard 24" configuration. After a week of using it, here are my comments:

- The 24 is big! Now that I have it home on my desk, I see that I could have been very happy with the 20". Not a biggy but something to keep in mind if you are on the fence.
- The glossy screen is great for my use and office. Not an issue at all.
- I was worried about the new keyboard but I actually like it. The keys are more responsive than they look. Works better than my old keyboard that was prone to entering double characters even after tweaking preferences.
- The new keyboard is not backlit! Damn, seems that I read somewhere that it was going to be. If they can do it for the MBP, then why not the iMac?
- Wireless reception is fine. I have my router upstairs and the iMac downstairs... no reception problems, never drops.
- Design wise, I'm not thrilled. It's a pretty machine, but I was hoping for something a little more distinctive. I completely skipped the last generation of iMacs because I was so let down after having the gorgeous lampshade design. But I could not wait another three years for the next update so I had to buy.
- I agree with others that the white mouse seems out of place design wise. But I took my gray and black wireless USB mouse that I was using on my old Windows laptop and plugged it in just to see ... and it worked great. So my white mouse is gone.
- Migration Assistant sucks!!!! I can't say enough bad things about it. I had many calls to Apple support and none of them really helped. If it can't be used to go from a PowerPC machine to an Intel machine... just say so!!!! The first few times it just locked up and ran for 12 hours or so... would have gone on forever. Then it actually ran and completed after 9 hours but only migrated my accounts... nothing else. Nothing like having a brand new iMac on your desk for 2 days and not being able to use it!!! I finally had to migrate everything manually. I got it all done and only lost my iTunes play lists for the iPod. I'll have to rebuild those. Firewire Target Disk worked great though, it's a great feature.
- All my old non-UB apps work great - which is frankly more than I expected.
- My only current frustration is trying to get Front Row to run on an external monitor. I have my 106 inch projection system hooked up to the iMac to watch movies I have stored on my big external HD. But FR always launches on the main screen. I could always use mirroring if I have to. I'll figure it out eventually.
- I wish I had more control of the external audio port. I'd like to be able to keep the connector plugged in all the time without killing the sound from my internal speakers. Like to be able to mute the internal speakers while using my external theater sound system. I know that's a software issue, but it needs to be addressed if Apple wants to move Macs into the living area and serve as a home theater server.

Overall, I love my new iMac. The design is way too conservative, but it is attractive and works great for what I need.

johnmcboston
Aug 13, 2007, 02:24 PM
- Migration Assistant sucks!!!! I can't say enough bad things about it. I had many calls to Apple support and none of them really helped. If it can't be used to go from a PowerPC machine to an Intel machine... just say so!!!!

hmmmm. Any more details? I've used to from machine to machine for many years, and would be surprised that it doesn't work now. Any specific issues?? Were you moving from an old ilamp or something newer? (and I'd hate to move 200GB by hand, and lose any kind of library or playlist...)

Has anyone else yet used the target disk/auto transfer method on the new machines yet?

I wish I had more control of the external audio port. I'd like to be able to keep the connector plugged in all the time without killing the sound from my internal speakers.

I think this has been on a lot of our wish lists for years. All this technology, and the 1/8" jack in back is a simple 'defeat' mechanism... How about a preference - alerts to here, other sounds to there...

NewtypeCJ
Aug 13, 2007, 02:38 PM
- Migration Assistant sucks!!!! I can't say enough bad things about it. I had many calls to Apple support and none of them really helped. If it can't be used to go from a PowerPC machine to an Intel machine... just say so!!!!

Well crap! I have an iMac G5 and was planning on using Migration Assistant to get everything over. Is it an issue with your particular model or all PowerPC machines to the new one? :'( Was this an issue before with going from PPC to Intel?

Richardlol
Aug 13, 2007, 03:53 PM
hmmmm. Any more details? I've used to from machine to machine for many years, and would be surprised that it doesn't work now. Any specific issues?? Were you moving from an old ilamp or something newer? (and I'd hate to move 200GB by hand, and lose any kind of library or playlist...)

...

This is the first time I've used Migration Assistant so it's new to me. I was migrating from an old 800 mhz G4 lampshade iMac to the newest iMac just released on Tuesday. On the first call to Apple Support they told me to just try it again. So I did and that didnt work. Then I called back and they told me to just manually move my Documents folder, then delete it from the old machine, then retry. So I did and that didnt work. So I called back and they upped me to a higher level of support. This guy told me to skip this process during setup, and then try again using the app in the Utilities folder (this app starts automatically when you start the machine for the first time. It asks if you want to move data from another Mac. He said to skip this process.) So I did and that didn't work. So I found a good post on Apple's Support forum about how to move things manually and all went well. Everyone at Apple Support was very nice and helped as much as they could, the app just wouldnt work. It would just run for hours and hours and transfer nothing but the account information (over and over agian so I wound up with like 8 accounts on the new iMac.

brian0526
Aug 13, 2007, 04:04 PM
- Migration Assistant sucks!!!! I can't say enough bad things about it. I had many calls to Apple support and none of them really helped. If it can't be used to go from a PowerPC machine to an Intel machine... just say so!!!! The first few times it just locked up and ran for 12 hours or so... would have gone on forever. Then it actually ran and completed after 9 hours but only migrated my accounts... nothing else. Nothing like having a brand new iMac on your desk for 2 days and not being able to use it!!! I finally had to migrate everything manually. I got it all done and only lost my iTunes play lists for the iPod. I'll have to rebuild those. Firewire Target Disk worked great though, it's a great feature.

OK now I'm scared. I have an PowerPC G4 that I need to migrate to my new iMac and I run my business on this thing. I need to have my apps up and running ASAP.

Does anyone know where I can find instructions on the best way to manually migrate if it comes to that?

Eidorian
Aug 13, 2007, 04:23 PM
OK now I'm scared. I have an PowerPC G4 that I need to migrate to my new iMac and I run my business on this thing. I need to have my apps up and running ASAP.

Does anyone know where I can find instructions on the best way to manually migrate if it comes to that?Drag the contents of the home directory from one machine to the home directory on the other.

Be wary of keychain issues though.

brian0526
Aug 13, 2007, 04:28 PM
Drag the contents of the home directory from one machine to the home directory on the other.

Be wary of keychain issues though.

Will that "downgrade" my apps that are shipping on the new machine? For example, it's coming with iLife '08 and I'm on a prior release.

Thanks,
Brian

Eidorian
Aug 13, 2007, 04:36 PM
Will that "downgrade" my apps that are shipping on the new machine? For example, it's coming with iLife '08 and I'm on a prior release.

Thanks,
BrianYou'd only be moving your user files and not your applications. Migration Assistant does handle application migration and version checking when you choose to move applications as well.

Richardlol
Aug 13, 2007, 05:29 PM
OK now I'm scared. I have an PowerPC G4 that I need to migrate to my new iMac and I run my business on this thing. I need to have my apps up and running ASAP.

Does anyone know where I can find instructions on the best way to manually migrate if it comes to that?

When I asked about this on Apple Discussion Forum, I was pointed to this file: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=435350

Like I said, by doing it this way everything worked OK, except I lost my iTunes Playlists. But that might have ben my fault, maybe I forgot to migrate something. I guess that's the problem with migrating manually.

brian0526
Aug 13, 2007, 06:31 PM
When I asked about this on Apple Discussion Forum, I was pointed to this file: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=435350

Like I said, by doing it this way everything worked OK, except I lost my iTunes Playlists. But that might have ben my fault, maybe I forgot to migrate something. I guess that's the problem with migrating manually.

Thanks. This is very helpful. If I only lose my iTunes Playlists, I'll be very happy (besides they're in my iPod). I'm more concerned about losing documents and settings.

jeffbax
Aug 13, 2007, 09:45 PM
The amount of dumb ignorance in this thread is astounding.

First, as a former DIY PC user/gamer and someone who through a 12" PowerBook grew to love Macs after formerly scorning them for ages and who bought an Intel iMac the day it was announced - this thread is just ridiculous.

There is plenty of reason to complain to Apple about the GPU whether or not you are a casual or hardcore gamer. Any casual player, if they even play ONE game or want to play the new Quake Wars game is going to have a terrible time on ANY iMac. Please, I played Doom 3 and Quake 4 on my iMac and it was mediocre at best. Choppy framerate even on low settings. Seeing brand new $2000 computers struggle to play games from 2004 and 2005 like WoW and Quake 4 is horrendous.

I can build a rig myself for around $1000 that will smoke any Mac at games but maybe a $3500+ Mac Pro configuration. This is where the complaint is.

I don't need a workstation, my only option is the iMac. I want to play a few games that happen to get native Mac ports (see John Carmack at WWDC... he must surely be pissed about the new iMacs). I grew out of building my own machine and tweaking the **** out of everything, but I'd like the ability to purchase a reasonably priced Mac with good video. There is NO option for this.

The 2400 and 2600 series is just crap for games. Why couldn't they have included the 8600 GT in the MBP ? That would have been 3-4x faster than what they put in the iMac. Hell the older 7600 GT is faster.

This is the complaint. A 3rd revision Intel iMac is shipping with video no faster than that of my 1st revision Intel iMac - ridiculous.

I can deal with Mac's limited game library, since there are only a few I really care about and they are all here but I'm sorry - I want value for my money. Apple has no real option for me right now and after buying 3 Macs within 3 years for me and my family and recommending and getting others to buy quite a few, I'm thinking they might be pushing me back into the Wintel world because there's no option for me at all.

How does Apple not care about that again?

mikef07
Aug 13, 2007, 09:52 PM
The amount of dumb ignorance in this thread is astounding.

First, as a former DIY PC user/gamer and someone who through a 12" PowerBook grew to love Macs after formerly scorning them for ages and who bought an Intel iMac the day it was announced - this thread is just ridiculous.

There is plenty of reason to complain to Apple about the GPU whether or not you are a casual or hardcore gamer. Any casual player, if they even play ONE game or want to play the new Quake Wars game is going to have a terrible time on ANY iMac. Please, I played Doom 3 and Quake 4 on my iMac and it was mediocre at best. Choppy framerate even on low settings. Seeing brand new $2000 computers struggle to play games from 2004 and 2005 like WoW and Quake 4 is horrendous.

I can build a rig myself for around $1000 that will smoke any Mac at games but maybe a $3500+ Mac Pro configuration. This is where the complaint is.

I don't need a workstation, my only option is the iMac. I want to play a few games that happen to get native Mac ports (see John Carmack at WWDC... he must surely be pissed about the new iMacs). I grew out of building my own machine and tweaking the **** out of everything, but I'd like the ability to purchase a reasonably priced Mac with good video. There is NO option for this.

The 2400 and 2600 series is just crap for games. Why couldn't they have included the 8600 GT in the MBP ? That would have been 3-4x faster than what they put in the iMac. Hell the older 7600 GT is faster.

This is the complaint. A 3rd revision Intel iMac is shipping with video no faster than that of my 1st revision Intel iMac - ridiculous.

I can deal with Mac's limited game library, since there are only a few I really care about and they are all here but I'm sorry - I want value for my money. Apple has no real option for me right now and after buying 3 Macs within 3 years for me and my family and recommending and getting others to buy quite a few, I'm thinking they might be pushing me back into the Wintel world because there's no option for me at all.

How does Apple not care about that again?


The ignorance is in your reply. I can buy a Honda and build it up to smoke a BMW 335i. It still doesn't make it a BMW. There are many cars that can outperform a 328i at a lower price. If you want the BMW you pay for it. If you want the Apple you pay for it. Apple never claimed to give you the best bang for your buck. They gave people an all in one system that will satisfy most. If it does not satisfy you then I suggest you move on. It is that simple. How do people not understand that they chose to build 4 different systems and if those do not fit your need get something else. Car manufacturers do the same thing. When my wife wanted a minivan she wanted an LX Odyssey with some of the "touring edition" features. Guess what? It didn't work that way. So she "manned" up and bought the Touring.

DaiKirai
Aug 13, 2007, 10:51 PM
Ah, car analogies. Delightful.

The ignorance is in your reply. I can buy a Honda and build it up to smoke a BMW 335i. It still doesn't make it a BMW. There are many cars that can outperform a 328i at a lower price. If you want the BMW you pay for it. If you want the Apple you pay for it. Apple never claimed to give you the best bang for your buck. They gave people an all in one system that will satisfy most. If it does not satisfy you then I suggest you move on. It is that simple. How do people not understand that they chose to build 4 different systems and if those do not fit your need get something else. Car manufacturers do the same thing. When my wife wanted a minivan she wanted an LX Odyssey with some of the "touring edition" features. Guess what? It didn't work that way. So she "manned" up and bought the Touring.

When I wanted an AIO Mac, I wanted one with the video processor that a computer in the $1500-$2000 range deserves, which should be respectable if not superb. I didn't care too much about the exact price; I'd have cheerfully paid $100 more or however much it would take to put a good GPU in the the thing. Guess what? It didn't work that way; no upgrade path as usual, no BTO graphics options at all. So I "manned" down, bought the new iMac anyway, and will probably regret it when the new crop of games we were promised at WWDC (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/11/wwdc-game-on/) come out and run terribly on my brand-spanking new donation to Apple. (Didn't Apple mention something about a "commitment to gamers" at that conference as well?)

I could have "manned" up and bought the Mac Pro instead, but I'm incensed that either Apple is ignoring those people who enjoy playing the occasional high-end game completely, or thinks it's perfectly alright to make them pay considerably more money, make an additional cash outlay for an LCD, and put up with the bulk and noise of having a Mac Pro in their room instead of offering them a midrange option that suits them. I don't mind the Apple Tax, but when it becomes almost the same amount extra as the price of computer I really wanted, it feels to me like nothing short of extortion.

Do I really have no right to complain simply because something bigger, better (and possibly cheaper) then what I wanted to buy exists, whether it be a Mac Pro or a beige box? Am I 'ignorant' for being annoyed that the past revision of the iMac, and the past two revisions of the Mac Mini, have done hardly a thing to improve the graphics? Sure, they're cheaper, but people who want to save a little money (or just like the form factors, like me) shouldn't be punished with the same graphics technology that gets more outdated revision after revision. If Apple keeps treating their low-end consumers like this, some of us may head on back to PC land.

flopticalcube
Aug 13, 2007, 11:00 PM
The amount of dumb ignorance in this thread is astounding.

I agree.

The 2400 and 2600 series is just crap for games. Why couldn't they have included the 8600 GT in the MBP ? That would have been 3-4x faster than what they put in the iMac. Hell the older 7600 GT is faster.
That is wrong. The Mobility 2600XT is faster than the 8600M GT (http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html?&or=&search=&sort=3dmark06). Desktop cards cannot be used in the slim casing of the iMac so please don't compare the iMac to a desktop tower. Apple has a gap for a desktop tower below the Mac Pro but I think they would rather let the PC market deal with that.

jeffbax
Aug 13, 2007, 11:54 PM
I agree.

That is wrong. The Mobility 2600XT is faster than the 8600M GT (http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html?&or=&search=&sort=3dmark06). Desktop cards cannot be used in the slim casing of the iMac so please don't compare the iMac to a desktop tower. Apple has a gap for a desktop tower below the Mac Pro but I think they would rather let the PC market deal with that.
I was talking about the 2400 and 2600 pro they chose to include... not the XT which wasn't ever a blip for Apple's radar.
The ignorance is in your reply. I can buy a Honda and build it up to smoke a BMW 335i. It still doesn't make it a BMW. There are many cars that can outperform a 328i at a lower price. If you want the BMW you pay for it. If you want the Apple you pay for it. Apple never claimed to give you the best bang for your buck. They gave people an all in one system that will satisfy most. If it does not satisfy you then I suggest you move on. It is that simple. How do people not understand that they chose to build 4 different systems and if those do not fit your need get something else. Car manufacturers do the same thing. When my wife wanted a minivan she wanted an LX Odyssey with some of the "touring edition" features. Guess what? It didn't work that way. So she "manned" up and bought the Touring.Sorry, but the iMac is priced well above most PCs, it deserves better graphics. Its a "BMW" class computer. Maybe not the Ferarri that the Mac Pro is, but even the Mac Pro is doing poorly graphically.

I'm sorry you are so willing to get bent over. I love Apple, OS X is the best thing I've ever used on a computer, but I'm not so blind as you are to not see when they are being extremely lazy. There is a blatant gap in their lineup and it is not in their interests to just tell people to suck it up and "buy a PC" instead. The Apple tax is justifable, but a having to pay $3000+ for a Mac comparable gaming wise to a $1000 PC is not - a PC that is far above being a Honda.

They cannot parade game developers on conference and then not ship machines incapable of playing them adequately.

flopticalcube
Aug 13, 2007, 11:56 PM
I was talking about the 2400 and 2600 pro they chose to include... not the XT which wasn't ever a blip for Apple's radar.
Actually, Apple is calling it a Pro but its a slightly underclocked XT. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=339616)

soosy
Aug 14, 2007, 12:47 AM
... So I "manned" down, bought the new iMac anyway...

LOL! That's exactly where I'm headed...

A better video card BTO option is all we ask for. But really, Apple badly needs to wake up and offer a lower end tower or higher end mini. There really is a tremendous gap. But at least offering a BTO video upgrade would be a great step.

Some relevant articles:
http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2007/08/08/wheres-the-mac/
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/06/midrangemac/index.php

brian0526
Aug 14, 2007, 06:19 AM
The amount of dumb ignorance in this thread is astounding.

First, as a former DIY PC user/gamer and someone who through a 12" PowerBook grew to love Macs after formerly scorning them for ages and who bought an Intel iMac the day it was announced - this thread is just ridiculous.

There is plenty of reason to complain to Apple about the GPU whether or not you are a casual or hardcore gamer. Any casual player, if they even play ONE game or want to play the new Quake Wars game is going to have a terrible time on ANY iMac. Please, I played Doom 3 and Quake 4 on my iMac and it was mediocre at best. Choppy framerate even on low settings. Seeing brand new $2000 computers struggle to play games from 2004 and 2005 like WoW and Quake 4 is horrendous.

I can build a rig myself for around $1000 that will smoke any Mac at games but maybe a $3500+ Mac Pro configuration. This is where the complaint is.

I don't need a workstation, my only option is the iMac. I want to play a few games that happen to get native Mac ports (see John Carmack at WWDC... he must surely be pissed about the new iMacs). I grew out of building my own machine and tweaking the **** out of everything, but I'd like the ability to purchase a reasonably priced Mac with good video. There is NO option for this.

How does Apple not care about that again?

Here's my take on the gaming thing (coming from a former occasional gamer). When I bought my first iMac almost 5 years ago I gave up on the idea of gaming on my computer. The iMac is clearly not a gaming machine. With all the relatively cheap consoles on the market now I can't imagine why people get upset that their iMac isn't a gaming machine. If you're that into it, why wouldn't you want to play on a PlayStation or X-Box or whatever? (rhetorical question).

Here's the deal. Apple does have a huge gap in their product line. Before I started buying Macs I would never have dreamed of buying an AIO (just figured out what that means). I was constantly upgrading my PC, adding memory, a bigger hard drive, new graphics card, whatever. I don't know why Apple doesn't build a middle-of-the-road machine that is upgradable. But, they don't. If you're a hard-core PC gamer, this is probably not the product line for you.

I know when I buy my iMacs to just be happy with what I've got for the next several years. It's one of the trade-offs you make for a small, quiet, elegant machine that "just works".

Maybe some day Apple will make the machine you gamers want. But, right now I don't think they do and I don't see the iMac becoming that. It just goes too far against its design objectives of being small, quiet, elegant and working flawlessly.

Peace,
Brian

k2k koos
Aug 14, 2007, 06:30 AM
Glad I got the 24" for the screen angle issues.

Are you sure it isn't just because it's bigger and therefore nicer to have ;-) :apple:

k2k koos
Aug 14, 2007, 06:34 AM
LOL! That's exactly where I'm headed...

A better video card BTO option is all we ask for. But really, Apple badly needs to wake up and offer a lower end tower or higher end mini. There really is a tremendous gap. But at least offering a BTO video upgrade would be a great step.

Some relevant articles:
http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2007/08/08/wheres-the-mac/
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/06/midrangemac/index.php

Agree, BTO option for video card sounds great, along side the standard configs offered, there should be another, on which you can configure a custom iMac, select CPU, select GPU, select RAM, select HD, select optical drive (blueray, superdrive etc)
They could do this with all their Macs , and everybody happy :-)

mikef07
Aug 14, 2007, 07:20 AM
Apple made a business decision on what they wanted to do. No one is ignorant for being annoyed and there are a lot of "negative" posts that are good. The posts saying "I wish Apple had done this", or "I wonder why Apple didn't do this", or "Had Apple done this I would have.... There are other posts where people are pissed and act as if Apple has insulted them and taken their children. They chose what they chose just like the car makers do. I have a Satellite dish that has about 400 channels I never use. I would love to buy an a la carte package but that isn't the way it works. I know what is offered and I make my choice based on the choices. You know what Apple offers, make your choice. For all the people saying it would have only been $20 more for another card, if they sell 1,000,000 of these iMacs that is $20,000,000 in profit that they would not have gotten otherwise. Learn how business works people. Jobs' #1 priority is to his Shareholders and if he can maximize sales and slip in an extra $20 in profit he is going to do so. He has taken their stock from $15/share up to $120/share. There is a reason for this.

gregorsamsa
Aug 14, 2007, 08:29 AM
Apple made a business decision on what they wanted to do. No one is ignorant for being annoyed and there are a lot of "negative" posts that are good. The posts saying "I wish Apple had done this", or "I wonder why Apple didn't do this", or "Had Apple done this I would have.... There are other posts where people are pissed and act as if Apple has insulted them and taken their children... You know what Apple offers, make your choice. For all the people saying it would have only been $20 more for another card, if they sell 1,000,000 of these iMacs that is $20,000,000 in profit that they would not have gotten otherwise. Learn how business works people. Jobs' #1 priority is to his Shareholders and if he can maximize sales and slip in an extra $20 in profit he is going to do so. He has taken their stock from $15/share up to $120/share. There is a reason for this.

Wholly agree with your initial points, not so re graphics card. For many people it's not just about having better, more expensive video cards for zilch. It's more so about having some choice in non-upgradable AIOs.

I've said previously, these cards on upgradable computers would be fine (for me at least); but on newly-rleased AIOs they're quite disappointing. I'd far rather Apple charge us a few dollars more than not & at least give us a choice of better graphics on non-upgradable computers, which you're unlikely to want to replace for years to come.

Also I disagree that SJ's "#1 priority is to his Shareholders" (as important as they are). Surely it's to his customers, without which all his shareholders end up counting their losses.

mikef07
Aug 14, 2007, 08:53 AM
Wholly agree with your initial points, not so re graphics card. For many people it's not just about having better, more expensive video cards for zilch. It's more so about having some choice in non-upgradable AIOs.

I've said previously, these cards on upgradable computers would be fine (for me at least); but on newly-rleased AIOs they're quite disappointing. I'd far rather Apple charge us a few dollars more than not & at least give us a choice of better graphics on non-upgradable computers, which you're unlikely to want to replace for years to come.

Also I disagree that SJ's "#1 priority is to his Shareholders" (as important as they are). Surely it's to his customers, without which all his shareholders end up counting their losses.


Then you don't know business, especially a public business. His #1 priority is to the owners of the company (shareholders), then his customers. If it was to his customers he would just sell everything at cost which would benefit his customers and not his shareholders. You think doctors #1 priority is to their patients? It isn't. Their #1 priority is to their business and then to their patients. That is not to say that they will make bad decisions for their patients jsut to make money however decisions are made as far as treatment goes with profitability in mind. Second, by offering a $30 video card upgrade as an option the expense is much more than $30. There is inventory, tracking, accounting, manufacturing processes, testing, and a ton of other expenses that go with carrying more than one option.

gregorsamsa
Aug 14, 2007, 09:21 AM
Then you don't know business, especially a public business. His #1 priority is to the owners of the company (shareholders), then his customers. If it was to his customers he would just sell everything at cost which would benefit his customers and not his shareholders. You think doctors #1 priority is to their patients? It isn't. Their #1 priority is to their business and then to their patients. That is not to say that they will make bad decisions for their patients jsut to make money however decisions are made as far as treatment goes with profitability in mind. Second, by offering a $30 video card upgrade as an option the expense is much more than $30. There is inventory, tracking, accounting, manufacturing processes, testing, and a ton of other expenses that go with carrying more than one option.

I can see how SJ might think this way, after all, with OS X Apple are basically a monopoly & all monopolies tend to exhibit arrogance towards their customers, not least because they can get away with it. But for most PC companies in direct competition with each other, customers are prioritized & given what they want, often at highly-competitive prices.

Be under no illusions here... if people had a choice of running OS X on generic PCs rather than being limited to Apple's hardware, SJ would soon start giving his customers a much higher priority than his shareholders, for eg,. giving us decent video cards in AIOs, consumer-priced midi-PCs, etc.

As things stand, if you want OS X, you have no choice but to buy from Apple & accept any hardware limitations accordingly. That's why Apple's profit margins per Mac sold far exceed that of all PC companies per PC sold. Fact is, most competitive companies can't afford to think along your lines. Usually, the customer comes first, profits roll in, then the shareholders invest more & profit accordingly, etc...

Richardlol
Aug 14, 2007, 09:59 AM
I can see how SJ might think this way, after all, with OS X Apple are basically a monopoly & all monopolies tend to exhibit arrogance towards their customers, not least because they can get away with it. But for most PC companies in direct competition with each other, customers are prioritized & given what they want, often at highly-competitive prices.

Be under no illusions here... if people had a choice of running OS X on generic PCs rather than being limited to Apple's hardware, SJ would soon start giving his customers a much higher priority than his shareholders, for eg,. giving us decent video cards in AIOs, consumer-priced midi-PCs, etc.

As things stand, if you want OS X, you have no choice but to buy from Apple & accept any hardware limitations accordingly. That's why Apple's profit margins per Mac sold far exceed that of all PC companies per PC sold. Fact is, most competitive companies can't afford to think along your lines. Usually, the customer comes first, profits roll in, then the shareholders invest more & profit accordingly, etc...

I agree with you in principal, but in this case the monopoloy also equals control which equals - Mac hardware and software generally work well together.

I jumped to a Mac years ago out of frustration with trying to get things to work together on my Windows PC. Apps stomp all over each other, leak memory, new hardware installs cause all kinds of conflicts - I just wanted to be able to forget all about system interupts and port conflicts! So by limiting hardware variations and controlling OSX, the comuting environment on a Mac is much more predictable and makes me a happy customer. I'm willing to give up some amount of hardware and OS flexability for stability. The monopoly on OSX systems is not a bad thing in my mind.

mikef07
Aug 14, 2007, 10:04 AM
I can see how SJ might think this way, after all, with OS X Apple are basically a monopoly & all monopolies tend to exhibit arrogance towards their customers, not least because they can get away with it. But for most PC companies in direct competition with each other, customers are prioritized & given what they want, often at highly-competitive prices.

Be under no illusions here... if people had a choice of running OS X on generic PCs rather than being limited to Apple's hardware, SJ would soon start giving his customers a much higher priority than his shareholders, for eg,. giving us decent video cards in AIOs, consumer-priced midi-PCs, etc.

As things stand, if you want OS X, you have no choice but to buy from Apple & accept any hardware limitations accordingly. That's why Apple's profit margins per Mac sold far exceed that of all PC companies per PC sold. Fact is, most competitive companies can't afford to think along your lines. Usually, the customer comes first, profits roll in, then the shareholders invest more & profit accordingly, etc...

Actually you ar wrong there as well. Investors come first, as in Investment capital, then usually products roll out, and a company may go public well before they achieve a profit. Investors invest on future potential. Potential comes first, investment comes second, customers come third, profits come 4th, and increased investment comes last. Once a profit is reached on a consistent basis then a company puts profit usually before customers because as a public company the pressure is on and usually the customer is moved to last, or close to it. You walk into a board meeting not one person in that meeting will say to Jobs "Why did you not give the option to get a better video card and take care of the customer?" They will be asking "What are you doing to increase profit and reduce expenses?" In fact they may be asking if they could have put a cheaper video card in and made more profit or if there could have been a higher price in the first place.

jeffbax
Aug 14, 2007, 10:15 AM
Here's my take on the gaming thing (coming from a former occasional gamer). When I bought my first iMac almost 5 years ago I gave up on the idea of gaming on my computer. The iMac is clearly not a gaming machine. With all the relatively cheap consoles on the market now I can't imagine why people get upset that their iMac isn't a gaming machine. If you're that into it, why wouldn't you want to play on a PlayStation or X-Box or whatever? (rhetorical question).Because not all games were meant to be played on consoles.

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is a PC game. The sense of community, the controls, and customizability of your game is just not there on a console. This is the game I want most, and will put the most time into. I have a 360, and while its great, its not a multiplayer machine like a good PC is.

Maybe some day Apple will make the machine you gamers want. But, right now I don't think they do and I don't see the iMac becoming that. It just goes too far against its design objectives of being small, quiet, elegant and working flawlessly.

Peace,
Brian

See, I don't think it would be a overly large, loud, or ugly machine. Its perfectly possible to make a nice mid tower. I don't upgrade too much, my last PC lasted me about 4.5 years playing all kinds of games, and I upgraded the video only one time.

The iMacs barely last one year playing a new game acceptably and the new iMacs are dead out of the gate. They will not play Quake Wars worth a damn, which is what is so lame. I want to buy a Mac again so badly but its really quite difficult to justify the $2500 for a Mac Pro with a card that is from 2006!

There's no problem with paying a premium for a Mac, they are worth it, the problem is that there is a massive hole in the lineup that was made ever more apparent with the release of the new iMacs.

I'm tempted to go the hackintosh route which I definitely don't want to do but financially it might be the only thing I can do since my 1st gen iMac just got flooded.

mikef07, stop being such a tool. Seriously. Apple is not perfect and there are plenty of reasons to give them criticism over this. No complaints? Fine thats great, but stop bitching when others have perfectly valid reasons to be upset over this update or Apple's lineup.

brian0526
Aug 14, 2007, 10:25 AM
I can see how SJ might think this way, after all, with OS X Apple are basically a monopoly & all monopolies tend to exhibit arrogance towards their customers, not least because they can get away with it. But for most PC companies in direct competition with each other, customers are prioritized & given what they want, often at highly-competitive prices.

Be under no illusions here... if people had a choice of running OS X on generic PCs rather than being limited to Apple's hardware, SJ would soon start giving his customers a much higher priority than his shareholders, for eg,. giving us decent video cards in AIOs, consumer-priced midi-PCs, etc.

As things stand, if you want OS X, you have no choice but to buy from Apple & accept any hardware limitations accordingly. That's why Apple's profit margins per Mac sold far exceed that of all PC companies per PC sold. Fact is, most competitive companies can't afford to think along your lines. Usually, the customer comes first, profits roll in, then the shareholders invest more & profit accordingly, etc...

Maybe, people would choose generic PCs. Maybe not. Apple's hardware is superior to your run-in-the-mill generic PC manufacturer who exercises very little, if any quality control. I've heard people who work on PC and Macs say this time and time again.

But, you're right. OS X is Apple's HUGE competitive advantage and why should they take advantage of that. They'd be doing their shareholders a disservice if they did not. OTOH, if you look at the customer satisfaction and loyalty numbers Apple has I dare guess they'd blow any individual PC manufacturer away.

There are trade-offs with just about any decision in life. PCs are more prone to problems-one of the reasons is you can stick any card or harddrive or whatever into them. By tightly controlling their hardware, Apple eliminates a lot of potential problems. Many people are actually willing to pay more for this. As a former upgrader of my PC, it took me a while to get used to this when I switched almost 5 years ago. I still find it absurd that because I wanted a bigger HD in my new iMac I had to order it from Apple and could not pick it up from the Apple store (or order from Amazon). But, that's one of those quirks about Apple I just accept. I have both a PC and a Mac on my desk currently (and have had since I switched).

I don't think Apple limits choice because of arrogance or because they can get away with it. I think it's a strategic decision to limit potential problems.

Peace,
Brian

mikef07
Aug 14, 2007, 10:32 AM
Because not all games were meant to be played on consoles.

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is a PC game. The sense of community, the controls, and customizability of your game is just not there on a console. This is the game I want most, and will put the most time into. I have a 360, and while its great, its not a multiplayer machine like a good PC is.


See, I don't think it would be a overly large, loud, or ugly machine. Its perfectly possible to make a nice mid tower. I don't upgrade too much, my last PC lasted me about 4.5 years playing all kinds of games, and I upgraded the video only one time.

The iMacs barely last one year playing a new game acceptably and the new iMacs are dead out of the gate. They will not play Quake Wars worth a damn, which is what is so lame. I want to buy a Mac again so badly but its really quite difficult to justify the $2500 for a Mac Pro with a card that is from 2006!

There's no problem with paying a premium for a Mac, they are worth it, the problem is that there is a massive hole in the lineup that was made ever more apparent with the release of the new iMacs.

I'm tempted to go the hackintosh route which I definitely don't want to do but financially it might be the only thing I can do since my 1st gen iMac just got flooded.

mikef07, stop being such a tool. Seriously. Apple is not perfect and there are plenty of reasons to give them criticism over this. No complaints? Fine thats great, but stop bitching when others have perfectly valid reasons to be upset over this update or Apple's lineup.

Ok keep whining. You should go complain to BMW that there cars are too expensive and you want Honda prices. Or complain to Tiffany's that thei jewelry is twice the cost as other jewelry even though it is made out of the same thing. You want to play, you have to pay. If you can't afford it, get a better job. See when a company releases something I either accept it or I don't buy it. This is my first Apple. They released it, I was fine with the specs, I bought it. If I wanted to play games and that was my goal then I would have bought a computer that I was able to do so on. If you spent as much tim trying to make more money instead of whining you might be able to get that Mac Pro. IF you say you can afford it then go get one. Apple is a premium computer, you pay a premium price. There are people who complain and find excuses their whole life and there are others who accept the un-important things in life and move on.

WannaGoMac
Aug 14, 2007, 10:33 AM
I'm tempted to go the hackintosh route which I definitely don't want to do but financially it might be the only thing I can do since my 1st gen iMac just got flooded.

While you can build one that will be darn workable and close. Realize you will not have the Mac experience. Any upgrade/patch that comes out you will have to investigate to see if it breaks your hackintosh. They require significant effort to maintain even if you buy 95% supported hardware. Honestly, I think it not worth the risk and time and suggest you just buy Vista. Or if you like spending a LOT of time maintaining and building a computer, just get Linux as that will be much less difficult than maintaining a hackint0sh.

jeffbax
Aug 14, 2007, 10:36 AM
While you can build one that will be darn workable and close. Realize you will not have the Mac experience. Any upgrade/patch that comes out you will have to investigate to see if it breaks your hackintosh. They require significant effort to maintain even if you buy 95% supported hardware. Honestly, I think it not worth the risk and time and suggest you just buy Vista. Or if you like spending a LOT of time maintaining and building a computer, just get Linux as that will be much less difficult than maintaining a hackint0sh.

Yeah, I know the headache of buliding one, I just need a dual core machine with 2-4 GB ram and a 8600 GT or so video, and Apple is just nowhere in sight right now.
Ok keep whining. You should go complain to BMW that there cars are too expensive and you want Honda prices. Or complain to Tiffany's that thei jewelry is twice the cost as other jewelry even though it is made out of the same thing. You want to play, you have to pay. If you can't afford it, get a better job. See when a company releases something I either accept it or I don't buy it. This is my first Apple. They released it, I was fine with the specs, I bought it. If I wanted to play games and that was my goal then I would have bought a computer that I was able to do so on. If you spent as much tim trying to make more money instead of whining you might be able to get that Mac Pro. IF you say you can afford it then go get one. Apple is a premium computer, you pay a premium price. There are people who complain and find excuses their whole life and there are others who accept the un-important things in life and move on.Yeah, ok. Apple's lineup is perfect. No gap, or room for improvement. Its good that they are ignoring a huge segment of the market who wants to buy their product. Yeah, you know exactly what Apple should do and that they are perfect.

:rolleyes:

mikef07
Aug 14, 2007, 10:42 AM
Yeah, I know the headache of buliding one, I just need a dual core machine with 2-4 GB ram and a 8600 GT or so video, and Apple is just nowhere in sight right now.
Yeah, ok. Apple's lineup is perfect. No gap, or room for improvement. Its good that they are ignoring a huge segment of the market who wants to buy their product. Yeah, you know exactly what Apple should do and that they are perfect.

:rolleyes:

Everything has room for improvement you moron. There are also costs associated with it. Honda can put a 500Hp engine in their car but THEY DONT WANT TO. If I had a tissue I would send you one so you would stop your crying. Perhaps you can go to www.midol.com and get some medicine.

brian0526
Aug 14, 2007, 11:05 AM
Yeah, I know the headache of buliding one, I just need a dual core machine with 2-4 GB ram and a 8600 GT or so video, and Apple is just nowhere in sight right now.
Yeah, ok. Apple's lineup is perfect. No gap, or room for improvement. Its good that they are ignoring a huge segment of the market who wants to buy their product. Yeah, you know exactly what Apple should do and that they are perfect.

:rolleyes:

Man, you guys need to chill. Yes, there is a hole in Apple's line-up. Yes, there is a gap that I wish they'd fill. Frankly, I'd probably buy a machine in that gap, given the option. I'd probably have upgraded my G4 iMac a couple of times, if I had had the option. But, as it was, it lasted me over 4 years. In computer years that's pretty darn good. I replaced my last PC after just over 3 years because the hard drive died on me and I didn't have time to wait to pull the data off of it and swap it out. PCs are so cheap I just decided to get a new one. $350 later I had me a new PC. But, the point is my PC actually lasted less time than my iMac.

But, this is an iMac thread and the iMac is NOT the machine to fill that gap. It meets its design criteria and it's a beautiful, functional machine that does what it's designed to do. It's not a hard-core gaming computer. For those of us who want to occasionally play Halo (I played the demo), it's fine. For Apple to make the iMac try to fill that hole would jeopardize the part of the market they're targeting with the iMac. People who want elegant simplicity.

Peace,
Brian

WannaGoMac
Aug 14, 2007, 11:12 AM
Yeah, I know the headache of buliding one, I just need a dual core machine with 2-4 GB ram and a 8600 GT or so video, and Apple is just nowhere in sight right now.
Me too! Believe me, I keep going back and forth on the hacktint0sh thing. In the end, when I think about all the planning i have to do just to build it, and then extrapolate the time I would use to maintain it -- ugh, i just can't do it.

Everything has room for improvement you moron.

Wow, nice response.

I have read these forums for a while now and I have come to a conclusion:

Many mac fans are like battered wives.

Constantly coming up with excuses for why Apple is really not being bad or is actually better.

Face facts, while the OS is clearly superior, the hardware is just not there for high demanding consumer. For Pro the Mac Pro is an incredible machine, and for normal email users the other Macs are fine. If you are in between, Apple Mac is not likely the best choice. Hmm, going to add that to my signature! :)

jeffbax
Aug 14, 2007, 11:13 AM
Man, you guys need to chill. Yes, there is a hole in Apple's line-up. Yes, there is a gap that I wish they'd fill. Frankly, I'd probably buy a machine in that gap, given the option. I'd probably have upgraded my G4 iMac a couple of times, if I had had the option. But, as it was, it lasted me over 4 years. In computer years that's pretty darn good. I replaced my last PC after just over 3 years because the hard drive died on me and I didn't have time to wait to pull the data off of it and swap it out. PCs are so cheap I just decided to get a new one. $350 later I had me a new PC. But, the point is my PC actually lasted less time than my iMac.

But, this is an iMac thread and the iMac is NOT the machine to fill that gap. It meets its design criteria and it's a beautiful, functional machine that does what it's designed to do. It's not a hard-core gaming computer. For those of us who want to occasionally play Halo (I played the demo), it's fine. For Apple to make the iMac try to fill that hole would jeopardize the part of the market they're targeting with the iMac. People who want elegant simplicity.

Peace,
Brian

Nobody is complaining its not a hard-core gamer machine, we are complaining that its not an any-gamer machine. Halo is from when 2004? Hardly a valid example of playing a game on the machine. Apple is parading EA and id Software but doesn't offer machines capable of playing them well. I imagine one of the reasons that EA's titles aren't out yet is because performance is awful. And there is nothing more "non-hardcore-gaming" than EA's titles like Harry Potter.

As for maintaining a PC, its not terribly difficult to have a PC last a long time, you just have to make sure you don't do anything stupid. But yeah, I want a Mac, I'm ready to pay the Apple tax... just give me a reasonable price and the ability to swap out a new video card :apple:

WannaGoMac
Aug 14, 2007, 11:23 AM
Nobody is complaining its not a hard-core gamer machine, we are complaining that its not an any-gamer machine. Halo is from when 2004? Hardly a valid example of playing a game on the machine. Apple is parading EA and id Software but doesn't offer machines capable of playing them well. I imagine one of the reasons that EA's titles aren't out yet is because performance is awful. And there is nothing more "non-hardcore-gaming" than EA's titles like Harry Potter.

As for maintaining a PC, its not terribly difficult to have a PC last a long time, you just have to make sure you don't do anything stupid. But yeah, I want a Mac, I'm ready to pay the Apple tax... just give me a reasonable price and the ability to swap out a new video card :apple:

I feel the exact same way. I have no prob with the Apple tax! I have a prob the way Apple hides the apple tax by selling older or slower equipment than what is current to hide the Apple tax.

seashellz2
Aug 14, 2007, 11:52 AM
My friend who works as an Apple Genius just completed their training in alMac screen removal - the glass plate is held on by magnets in the bezel, and requires a suction cup tool and special clean gloves to remove and handle.

Given the magnets, it seems like it wouldn't be too hard for a 3rd-party manufacturer to make a standard matte plastic screen of the same size with magnets in the same position as a replacement option for people who don't do glossy.

er...so if you take off the glass, what is behind it-the same soft LCD screen as in the previous models?

soosy
Aug 14, 2007, 12:16 PM
Time to give up defending Apple on this one guys... the gaming results are pretty bad:
http://www.barefeats.com/imacal.html

Hopefully they'll add a BTO option in the coming months.

gregorsamsa
Aug 14, 2007, 12:42 PM
I agree with you in principal, but in this case the monopoloy also equals control which equals - Mac hardware and software generally work well together.

I jumped to a Mac years ago out of frustration with trying to get things to work together on my Windows PC. Apps stomp all over each other, leak memory, new hardware installs cause all kinds of conflicts - I just wanted to be able to forget all about system interupts and port conflicts! So by limiting hardware variations and controlling OSX, the comuting environment on a Mac is much more predictable and makes me a happy customer. I'm willing to give up some amount of hardware and OS flexability for stability. The monopoly on OSX systems is not a bad thing in my mind.

I do likewise for some of the same reasons, ie. the opposition stinks so it's far better to compromise on computer specs & get a Mac that's wonderfully integrated & not a pain to use. But, IMO, the monopoly aspect can never be entirely a good thing & usually means that the choice of products offered is quite limited. Bear in mind that the Mini might go after this latest update & there's no guarantee that Apple will replace it with a new headless Mac. Being a monopoly in supplying OS X, only Apple can get away with this type of behaviour in the entire computer industry without suffering the backlash of falling sales.

OTOH, if you look at the customer satisfaction and loyalty numbers Apple has I dare guess they'd blow any individual PC manufacturer away.

There are trade-offs with just about any decision in life. PCs are more prone to problems-one of the reasons is you can stick any card...into them. By tightly controlling their hardware, Apple eliminates a lot of potential problems. Many people are willing to pay more for this.

I don't think Apple limits choice because of arrogance or because they can get away with it. I think it's a strategic decision to limit potential problems.

I agree with most of that, but I seriously doubt Apple would blow away "any individual PC manufacturer" if that competition wasn't hindered with a bloated OS like Windows. Certainly not unless they offered customers greater choice in hardware. Fact is, despite the brilliance of OS X, PCs still far outsell Macs, even in the home.

gregorsamsa
Aug 14, 2007, 12:55 PM
Actually you ar wrong there as well. Investors come first, as in Investment capital, then usually products roll out, and a company may go public well before they achieve a profit. Investors invest on future potential. Potential comes first, investment comes second, customers come third, profits come 4th, and increased investment comes last. Once a profit is reached on a consistent basis then a company puts profit usually before customers because as a public company the pressure is on and usually the customer is moved to last, or close to it. You walk into a board meeting not one person in that meeting will say to Jobs "Why did you not give the option to get a better video card and take care of the customer?" They will be asking "What are you doing to increase profit and reduce expenses?" In fact they may be asking if they could have put a cheaper video card in and made more profit or if there could have been a higher price in the first place.

I still disagree &, without point-scoring, to some degree you undermine your own argument with your final sentence. I've never said shareholders aren't important, but I believe customer satisfaction is usually a priority in most cases in the computer industry.

All PC companies have shareholders, but that doesn't stop them from supplying their customers with generally better-specced computers at Mac-like prices. The reason why Apple gives us less RAM, weaker video cards, less choice, etc. has little to do with shareholders, but with Apple's unique position with OS X.

jeffbax
Aug 15, 2007, 09:53 AM
The results are in!

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

Last-gen 24" iMac with 7600 GT spanks the crap out of the new ones... it was a legit "mid-range" computer.

If only I could hunt one down today without...

brycepunk
Sep 19, 2007, 05:21 PM
I'm new here. Typing from my olde '99 iMac (333) that is still chugging along, though it can't do much with today's applications.

My question: Should I get this new iMac? I'm not into tweaking machines, don't have a clue what a GPU is and really don't care. I guess I may be part of the iMac target audience. I was when it came out and I bought this thing eight-plus years ago.
Do the people who have one reccomend it for a casual user who doesn't know ***** from ***** when it comes to computers?

Thanks.

Eidorian
Sep 19, 2007, 05:47 PM
I'm new here. Typing from my olde '99 iMac (333) that is still chugging along, though it can't do much with today's applications.

My question: Should I get this new iMac? I'm not into tweaking machines, don't have a clue what a GPU is and really don't care. I guess I may be part of the iMac target audience. I was when it came out and I bought this thing eight-plus years ago.
Do the people who have one reccomend it for a casual user who doesn't know ***** from ***** when it comes to computers?

Thanks.I recommend the 2.4 GHz 20" model as a good balance between price and power.

cdarlington1
Oct 3, 2007, 11:52 AM
just bought a new imac a couple of weeks ago and the firewire ports were not working. they took it back, sent me another and the firewire ports on that one were also not working. called apple and they said it was a known problem and a firmware update would be coming out soon to fix it. this firmware upadate wasn't even for my imac or at least it's not showing up in software update. anyone else have any issues with the firewire ports? can't seem to get a straight answer out of apple as to when this will be fixed. i'm an editor and without the firewire ports it's a pretty useless machine at the moment...