Think Secret Says iMac Updates Are Coming

[Freg3000]

Think Secret (http://thinksecret.com/news/augustimacs.html) has confirmed that updated iMacs are coming. Although they are ready to go, TS says they might not be released until the Apple Expo in Paris in mid September. These are the reported specs:

1GHz PowerPC G4
15-inch LCD display
Combo drive
256K L2 Cache @ 1GHz
256MB DDR SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA drive
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX
32MB DDR video memory
FireWire 400 and USB 2.0
VGA/S-video/composite outputs
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
Built-in 56K V.92 modem
AirPort Extreme Ready

1.25GHz PowerPC G4
17-inch LCD display
SuperDrive
256K L2 Cache @ 1.25GHz
256MB DDR SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA Drive
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200
64MB DDR video memory
FireWire 400 and USB 2.0
VGA/S-video/composite outputs
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
Built-in 56K V.92 modem
AirPort Extreme Ready

[Lanbrown]

If this is true, it really is disappointing not to see the 7457 in their lineup.

Apple has to have more planned then this. There are no changes to their systems other then the addition of the 1.25Ghz 7455 processor and the video. That is too small of a change to take this long. This is a processor swap and nothing more other then a video upgrade and USB 2.0, but rumors have stated that they have had the USB 2.0 chipset for sometime now. So really only two changes, simple ones at that.

[cubist]

Maybe the 1.25 is a 7457. I think it's odd that the two versions have different video chipsets. Maybe the 1G version is older parts stock.

Lanbrown is right, this is an odd update if it's true.

Now that the PowerMac is a G5, sales of iMacs will likely go into the toilet anyway.

[Powerbook G5]

These updates do sound pretty pathetic...but with the G5 and iMacs both with nVidia FX5x00 cards, it seems likely that the PowerBooks will at least have an FX chip as well, which is at least better news than if they came with the miserable 4x0 Go chips. Also, how do you know it's a not a 7457 in the iMacs? I guess it could be because of the amount of L2 cache, but still, I dunno, it seems odd it's taken this long for Apple to release any updates if it's still the same lame processor.

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by cubist
Maybe the 1.25 is a 7457. I think it's odd that the two versions have different video chipsets. Maybe the 1G version is older parts stock.

Lanbrown is right, this is an odd update if it's true.

Now that the PowerMac is a G5, sales of iMacs will likely go into the toilet anyway.

No, the 7457 has 512k of cache onboard while the 7455 has 256k. Unless Motorola would specifically design a 7457 with half the cache for Apple, I would highly doubt it. Why would Apple want a chip with less cache? The associated costs would also be higher. 1.25 was one of the speeds the 7455 comes in, look at the PM G4.

The 1Ghz is the current iMac but with the 15" screen instead of the 17". So the current top of the line becomes the base with a 15" screen and a new top model is introduced. One rumor said the iMac had a USB 2.0 chipset but was throttled back to 1.1 speeds. So their new bottom offering is the same as the current top with only a screen size change and graphic memory reduction. They really do need the 7457 and other tweaks. A faster 7455 and graphic chipset just won't cut it. The 7457 at 1.3GHz+ is what is required at a minimum.

Here is the current 1GHz iMac:

17-inch widescreen LCD
1GHz PowerPC G4
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX
64MB DDR video memory
256MB DDR266 SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
56K V.92 internal modem
Apple Pro Speakers
AirPort Extreme Ready
Bluetooth Ready

Here is the proposed new 1GHz iMac:
1GHz PowerPC G4
15-inch LCD display
Combo drive
256K L2 Cache @ 1GHz
256MB DDR SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA drive
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX
32MB DDR video memory
FireWire 400 and USB 2.0
VGA/S-video/composite outputs
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
Built-in 56K V.92 modem
AirPort Extreme Ready


The changes that are proposed would take no more then a month. It's the current G4 chip just faster, and a new GPU in the top of the line.

From the sounds of it, the PB and iBook lines will get the same treatment. All of the updates are taking too long for such trivial changes. Where is the FW800 support in the updates models? Another reason why I think there is much more then just these small changes.

[whawho]

Now that there are G5's, why doesn't Apple put L3 caches in all of their consumer machines. It would make the machines a bit "faster" and make iMacs/Emacs a better deal IMO.

My 2 cents.

[Lanbrown]

Simple, cache is expensive.

[bennetsaysargh]

i see the iMac as prosumer, and i think it should go G5. aren't there going to be 90mm chips at the fishkill plant? that should go in them ASAP. i don't want the iMac to be G4 anymore.

[whawho]

Originally posted by Lanbrown
Simple, cache is expensive.

I don't really know how much more expensive it would be ... but it would be cool if it was an option. It'll probably never happen ... but it would be cool for consumers and make the machines a little faster and a better deal IMO.

[whawho]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
i see the iMac as prosumer, and i think it should go G5. aren't there going to be 90mm chips at the fishkill plant? that should go in them ASAP. i don't want the iMac to be G4 anymore.

I completely agree with this. A G5 iMac/eMac would be sweet. But until that day (if it ever happens) they should make the iMac as fast as it can be... that's why I though L3 cache would be cool.

[Rezet]

Originally posted by whawho
I completely agree with this. A G5 iMac/eMac would be sweet.

What? Why make everything G5 and jack up the price on all?
You may think imac should go G5, but why would you want to put a G5 in emac? That low costing machine is for people who don't need a whole lot power and for $799 it's a heck of a computer.
Imac will probably get G5 in about a year, maybe a little over a year.... I'd expect it to get there after POWERBOOK does....

[Powerbook G5]

You can think of it as Apple buying more G5s to supply all these computers, thus, driving down the costs since they'd be buying them in a larger quantity, which would possibly drive down overall costs, not to mention lower R&D costs that having to design motherboards for multiple different processors.

[Rezet]

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
You can think of it as Apple buying more G5s to supply all these computers, thus, driving down the costs since they'd be buying them in a larger quantity, which would possibly drive down overall costs, not to mention lower R&D costs that having to design motherboards for multiple different processors.

Well, that may sound good, but i don't think apple is really interested in upgrading EMAC too much at all. Most of the components they would be using will probably remain the same.
Even now, you'd expect them (when even crappiest PCs) use DDR memory.... BUt they are still on SDRAM 133.
G4 isn't that well designed for DDR, so they neglect that tech...

I don't think emac will get higher speeds than 1.25 - 1.33 Ghz G4 in a year from now... We'll see

[Powerbook G5]

I doubt anyone cares about the eMac beyond the cheapest possible box, I was just refering to the gems that Apple has such as the iMac, which would make one kick ass Prosumer model with a low-mid level G5.

[whawho]

Originally posted by Rezet
What? Why make everything G5 and jack up the price on all?
You may think imac should go G5, but why would you want to put a G5 in emac? That low costing machine is for people who don't need a whole lot power and for $799 it's a heck of a computer.
Imac will probably get G5 in about a year, maybe a little over a year.... I'd expect it to get there after POWERBOOK does....

I'd want to put the G5 in an eMac because it's a better processor. I wouldn't want them put in the machines if it was to jack up the price. I think a good solution might be in about 6-12 months put like the 1.6 ghz G5 in the eMac and iMac by then the the powermac would be 2.5-3 ghz or something.

Originally posted by Rezet

That low costing machine is for people who don't need a whole lot power and for $799 it's a heck of a computer.


I don't know, some people that work for non-profits and are in the graphics dept. (er, like me :)) and have the choice for either an eMac or Dell might choose an eMac. I also feel that newbies to Mac or switchers would be bummed to find that when they bought their new eMac that it can't really do anything unless you buy more ram. I think the eEmac IS a good deal, but not the $799 model. It definitely should have more RAM.

[evolu]

chip price is not the major factor in cost: it's all the support for the chip...

A G5 iMac will not be released before a revB Powermac is. After the bugs have been debugged - then you put G5s in an iMac.

I don't think the G5 will go into the iMac in the current design. There's probably a couple more small revisions in store before an upgraded chip and redesign will arrive.

All speculation though.

[whawho]

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I doubt anyone cares about the eMac beyond the cheapest possible box, I was just refering to the gems that Apple has such as the iMac, which would make one kick ass Prosumer model with a low-mid level G5.

Why not make all the machines fast? I don't know, the eMacs were designed originally for schools why sell them crap? I agree with you about the iMac being a gem but why not make all the models gems and good deals to increase sales.

[Lanbrown]

At onetime, it's hard to tell now, but the cache was more then the processor itself, much more.

Powerbook G5,

They 7457 allows them to reuse existing designs, compared to the G5 would need a new design. So to save money, they can use the 7457 and drive down costs by using existing technology. Also, the Fishkill plant is not operational right now, but will be back online soon. The 970 is probably in short supply right now. I expect Apple to put the 970 or it's successor in everything down the road. The PB, iBook and iMac will probably see it all about the same time. The 7457 also runs cooler then the 970, so they save that (cooling) expense as well.

[Rezet]

Originally posted by whawho
Why not make all the machines fast? I don't know, the eMacs were designed originally for schools why sell them crap? I agree with you about the iMac being a gem but why not make all the models gems and good deals to increase sales.

And what's gonan be the difference between them then (outside of a name)? It's obvious that some computers must be faster, other's slower...
eMac is designed for people who don't need power at all. Say what you want but emac is probably is slower than current 15" powerbook.
Emac is for people like my dad, who just use internet, trade stocks etc. He uses 900Mhz Duron with 384Mbs of ram and is very happy with it. He just doesn't need more...

And cmon man, ram costs like 30 bucks for 256 mbs of sdram now.... it's not a big deal...

And as for graphic department... Well, you can't get a supercomputer for like 799... If you need a good computer, you are gonn ahave to cash out a bit more money and get imac. atleast...
It's like me complaining that my major is Digital Arts, but 799 emac isn't powerful enough, and blaing it on apple...

[Powerbook G5]

Well I'd love for all of Apple's products to be speed demons, but the arguement was about the cost being raised, and if you put a G5 into the eMac, it may cause it to lose the one real thing that the eMac has going for it, which is the low price. I'd love to see a time when the G5 is considered the "low end" chip and even on Apple's cheapest products a G5 would be the standard, but until then, we have to deal with G3s and G4s still being the norm and G5s being the premium.

[Rezet]

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
Well I'd love for all of Apple's products to be speed demons, but the arguement was about the cost being raised, and if you put a G5 into the eMac, it may cause it to lose the one real thing that the eMac has going for it, which is the low price. I'd love to see a time when the G5 is considered the "low end" chip and even on Apple's cheapest products a G5 would be the standard, but until then, we have to deal with G3s and G4s still being the norm and G5s being the premium.

Heh... Yeah would be nice to have a PALM running on cool G5 hehe

[bennetsaysargh]

the iMacs will go G5 and the eMacs will stay G4. that's the way it will be. maybe IBM will start making G4s and drop the G3 once the powerbooks go G5 and the imacs go G5.n in about 2 years, here is what i see.


Consumer
G4 iBook
G4 eMac

Prosumer
iMac

Pro
PowerMac
Powerbook

maybe a prosumer laptop too. maybe the iBooks will be moved to prosumer and then there will be an eBook.
why not? have a desktop and a laptop for each division.
the e could stand for economic too

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
Well I'd love for all of Apple's products to be speed demons, but the arguement was about the cost being raised, and if you put a G5 into the eMac, it may cause it to lose the one real thing that the eMac has going for it, which is the low price. I'd love to see a time when the G5 is considered the "low end" chip and even on Apple's cheapest products a G5 would be the standard, but until then, we have to deal with G3s and G4s still being the norm and G5s being the premium.

We are also on the first version of the G5, when we get to V2 or V3, I would expect to see it in everything.

[whawho]

Originally posted by Rezet
And what's gonan be the difference between them then (outside of a name)? It's obvious that some computers must be faster, other's slower...
eMac is designed for people who don't need power at all. Say what you want but emac is probably is slower than current 15" powerbook.
Emac is for people like my dad, who just use internet, trade stocks etc. He uses 900Mhz Duron with 384Mbs of ram and is very happy with it. He just doesn't need more...

And cmon man, ram costs like 30 bucks for 256 mbs of sdram now.... it's not a big deal...

And as for graphic department... Well, you can't get a supercomputer for like 799... If you need a good computer, you are gonn ahave to cash out a bit more money and get imac. atleast...
It's like me complaining that my major is Digital Arts, but 799 emac isn't powerful enough, and blaing it on apple...

Outside the name, one difference would be speed. If you have a eMac at 1.6ghz and and Dual Processer 3 Ghz Power Mac... Then you would understand why the eMac was less money and the Power Mac was more but both would be great computers.

I'm totally cool with the eMacs staying with a G4 chip and the iMac staying with the G4 I just wish they could be the best G4... meaning add L3 cache.

I not blaming Apple for anything not trying to anyways. I researched it and at the time the iMac only had a 15" screen with 1024 X 768 resolution (this was before Apple introduced the 17" imac) and the eMac had a 17" screen with 1280 X 960 resolution.. that's why I went with the eMac... If it was today I'd would have bought an iMac... but if you do DTP every pixel of screen more you can get is better. I loaded the eMac up with ram (a gigs worth) so this eMac is a champ... Just because you use an eMac doesn't mean you can't be a Pro ;)

As for Ram costs...if it's only 38 bucks to add 256 then why doesn't Apple do it? OS X needs more ram than 128 to run good... Why not make it run good out of the box.

[sacrilicious]

I don't believe in TS anymore.

[IDTheft]

Let us all pin our hopes on the great G5. Yes, the update to the iMacs are rather anemic for now. If the G5 is successful and IBM can ramp up speed quickly, we could perhaps see the power of the IBM chips flow down Apple's line up. So, Mac heads, lift your chin up and hope for a bright future in 2004!
(Chant: crush Micro$oft, annihilate Intel, crush Micro$oft, annihilate Intel.....):D

[Powerbook G5]

I seem to remember IBM stating for the record that they want to crush Intel...was I dreaming that or did they actually say that? At any rate, I like the sound of that kind of dedication! :)

[Freg3000]

New models are reported to receive larger hard drives, graphics card updates, FW800 and USB 2.0.

Actually this is not true.

TS: None of the new models will ship with a high-speed FireWire 800 port, but the three built-in USB ports on both models will be upgraded to USB 2.0.

FW800 isn't going to be in the next iMacs (according to TS at least).

[GregGomer]

Originally posted by sacrilicious
I don't believe in TS anymore.

Good idea, since Think Secret is usually the most accurate and consistent of the rumor sites. Last time they really missed something I think was when they guessed that we might seem something extra, they guessed it'd be a Tablet. Other then that one mark, they're pretty right on.

One correction Arn...

ThinkSecret States...
None of the new models will ship with a high-speed FireWire 800 port, but the three built-in USB ports on both models will be upgraded to USB 2.0.

Were MacRumors quoted them as...
FW800 and USB 2.0.

So I hope MacRumors is right, but ThinkSecrets site says no go on the FW 800, we'll only be seeing USB 2.0.

Greg

[hexor]

And the cow jumped over the moon with a 15" powerbook strapped to its back.
:)

[Powerbook G5]

I find it ironic that people are debating that one rumor site is wrong because another rumor site says something else...heh...who knows what we'll see until it actually becomes an announced product.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I seem to remember IBM stating for the record that they want to crush Intel...was I dreaming that or did they actually say that? At any rate, I like the sound of that kind of dedication! :)

You might be thinking of an IBM higher-up saying (Jan/Feb maybe?) that in two years you will see only Intel and IBM making high-end chips with Sun maybe retaining a niche (most notably dissing AMD).

I think that it is a given that IBM's processor division would like to crush Intel. Realistic goal? It's a lot closer than it looked, say, a year and a half ago, but there's a long road ahead of IBM ...

[MattG]

Whatever, I just hope they're not announced before the iMac I've got up on eBay sells! I want to get as much for it as I can...

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I find it ironic that people are debating that one rumor site is wrong because another rumor site says something else...heh...who knows what we'll see until it actually becomes an announced product.
Isnt that why we are here? ;)

[Lancetx]

I would consider a new 17" G4 iMac at 1.25GHz, but only if it has a L3 Cache. Without a L3 cache on the G4, I'll just wait for the next revision in 6 months or so to see what they do, or otherwise I'll get a lower end G5 PowerMac if I need something new bad enough in the meantime. I was hoping that this next revision coming up would basically have the same specs as the current G4 1.25 PowerMac, but I guess it's not looking quite like it will.

[fred]

If true the specs are awfully disappointing....buy yesterday's computer for tomorrow's prices....no thanks I'll wait for the G5 rev2 (980 ? with SIMULTANEOUS hyperthreading...yeah that should be sweet)

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by IDTheft
Let us all pin our hopes on the great G5. Yes, the update to the iMacs are rather anemic for now. If the G5 is successful and IBM can ramp up speed quickly, we could perhaps see the power of the IBM chips flow down Apple's line up. So, Mac heads, lift your chin up and hope for a bright future in 2004!
(Chant: crush Micro$oft, annihilate Intel, crush Micro$oft, annihilate Intel.....):D anemic? a 1.25 with fx5200 will do better in every test vs a 1 gig and 4mx card. This is not a bad imac boost, and if they can get 7457 with 200 fsb in there then all the better. I wish apple would get a better video chipset in the imac since it can not be upgraded, to keep forcing cheap video cards on new imac users sucks Steve. They should have a gamers imac that can kick pc a--! but even the single g5's come with that lame fx5200 garbage.

[copperpipe]

I thought that the iMac was for people to surf the internet, do all the iApps, and be able to word process well. If that's the case, a 1.25 G4 kicks major butt. It's more than is necessary. Just my .02

[uberska]

look at the specs again. those sound like the specs we're expecting for the 15 and 17 inch powerbooks! hmmmm...makes you think.

[Powerbook G5]

Well, these are still rumors, so who knows what will really be coming out. I seem to recall that all the rumor sites insisted the top end G5 would be a 1.8 GHz...but we ended up with a sweet 2.0 GHz :)

[Ambrose Chapel]

these updates don't do a whole lot to distance the iMac from the eMac...as others have said I think L3 cache should have been included. we'll have to see about the FSB..hopefully they'll push it to 167. i still think these iMacs will be great for the consumer user, but i'd still like to see more. everyone i know who has one is a pretty basic user though, so maybe these will be fine.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by whawho
OS X needs more ram than 128 to run good... Why not make it run good out of the box.

OS X needs more than 128MB of RAM to run period. It almost embarrasing how lousy it runs on 128, absolutely horrific on an eMac. It basically compares to PC's that first started running Windows when they transitioned from DOS, for anyone who remembers, that's how sluggish the system is. I don't think it's even fair to sell computers wihtout at least 256MB, given the low cost of RAM. I think it it really needs to maxed out to even run normally. I don't like to bash Apple but they produced a memory hungry operating system and they need to accommodate for it with their hardware. Especially new hardware that should run it smoothly out of the box.

As for the iMac, it will never be prosumer or at least, I don't think it ever should be. Prosumer is bottom of the line desktop, a headless system. The iMac is an everyone's computer and that is the niche I see Apple wanting for it for years to come.

[cubist]

But going back to the 7457 question... Why are they releasing an iMac update with a hot, expensive 1.25GHz 7455 in it, when we all have been thinking that cheaper, cooler, faster 7457s are the incremental upgrade (before the G5)?

Maybe Apple's not getting a boatload of 7457s after all! Maybe they ain't no 7457s out there!

On the Cube list, though, Robert Jagitsch of PowerLogix says that they have some 7457s ("about a foot away") and will be releasing CPU upgrades containing them someday.

[j_maddison]

Originally posted by copperpipe
I thought that the iMac was for people to surf the internet, do all the iApps, and be able to word process well. If that's the case, a 1.25 G4 kicks major butt. It's more than is necessary. Just my .02

As an imac user I dont know why Powermac users assume imac users want an underpowered, outdated chip. this imac update is junk, rubish, ridiculous. They should have thrown in 1.4 chips, or even made the line up dual processors.

i dont understand why you think a 1.25ghz processor kicks butt. Hell if i was someone who was considering switching over to the mac platform, i'd be looking and thinkin hmmm 1.25ghz or this shiney and cheaper 3ghz intel machine. no contest mate. im using a mac because i liek the os, in reality they are underpowered by some considerable margin. and before you start blabbering on about the mhz myth, rubish or we wouldnt all be getting so exited about the G5. The reality is that until the imac and emac start shipping with a decent spec apple will have limited success in winning over the wintel market. and bottom line is that the home consumer market (imac/emac) is a much bigger market than the powermac market.

sorry but anyone who thinks all imac consumers are happy with a 1.25ghz processor is smoking something

jay

[fred]

Well put jay....I'm glad you didn't mince your words or sell out to political correctness. Apple has serious problems if they can't recapture at least a sizable chunk of the consumer market and they will NOT do it with upgrades such as these. Recent studies suggest that Linux on the desktop may capture as much as 20% of the market by 2007.....with Apple asleep at the wheel I don't doubt for one minute that is where the switchers will head to

[j_maddison]

Originally posted by fred
Well put jay....I'm glad you didn't mince your words or sell out to political correctness. Apple has serious problems if they can't recapture at least a sizable chunk of the consumer market and they will NOT do it with upgrades such as these. Recent studies suggest that Linux on the desktop may capture as much as 20% of the market by 2007.....with Apple asleep at the wheel I don't doubt for one minute that is where the switchers will head to

the thing is i dont wish to flame all of the powermac users, i perfectly understand why they want to have a superior machine. after all they are paying a premium for their kit. the point im making is that it is wrong to assume that the consumer market is happy with low powered hardware, were not. reality is we want the most expeditious processors too. i find it amusing when i read posts from people who say thier litte imac is working just fine running osx and having a 500mhz procesor, i have one of those nd reality is its a dog. it was fine three years ago, but now its too slow. i dont like clicking aps and waiting twenty seconds for them to load. if everyone was happy with slower computers, we'd all buy second hand or never upgrade.

i think apple, and many mac users, tend to look inward and not at the computer market as a whole. we judge updates based on previous systems,and not on what the market is offering. Even though the G5 looks very appealing, apple should have just had a 1.8 and a 2g dual line up. I think apples margins are a bit high on their systems personally, but i doubt that will change. they've been to the brink with the G4 and the mac faithful have kept htem going, and we probably always will. so what do apple care, if they did we wouldnt be given spurious statements about this being the year of the laptop. hell if this is the year of the laptop i sure as hell hope we dont get a year of the imac, emac or powermac, that would be disasterous!!

jay

[rice_web]

It appears as though Apple is (1) giving consumers the shaft and hoping they'll be a high-profit-margin PowerMac or (2) unable to deliver a faster processor at the time.

As it stands, nearly all of the G5s must be going to the PowerMac, and to keep the thunder rolling for the PowerMac, it only makes sense to keep the G4 in the iMac. However, without a 7457, consumers can expect little or no performance gain in the jump from 1GHz to 1.25GHz, given the choked system bus (it isn't THAT choked, but this update would look much more impressive with the memory bandwidth of the 7457). As well, the move to the 5200 FX offers very little performance gain, and prevents the iMac from ever being a gaming machine.

Simply put, at these prices, we'd need at least the following specs. on the high-end to have me considering an iMac purchase:

- 1.3GHz 7457 G4
- 512K L2 Cache
- 333MHz System Bus
- PC2700 DDR RAM
- GeForce FX 5200
- 17" LCD Display
- SuperDrive
- 120GB HD
- $1799

[Powerbook G5]

Make that an FX 5600 and I'd be game for one.

[hayesk]

Originally posted by GregGomer
Good idea, since Think Secret is usually the most accurate and consistent of the rumor sites. Last time they really missed something I think was when they guessed that we might seem something extra, they guessed it'd be a Tablet. Other then that one mark, they're pretty right on.

Thinksecret stated with 100% certainty that 15" Powerbooks would never get a SuperDrive because they couldn't make them small enough to fit.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by MattG
Whatever, I just hope they're not announced before the iMac I've got up on eBay sells! I want to get as much for it as I can...

No kidding. I just got $1600 for mine and feel lucky. There are a lot of iMacs on the auction block.

I'd rate it as consumer, the 5200FX will help but not much.

[robotrenegade]

A better question is, why would you want to buy one of these things.

[Powerbook G5]

It's better than getting a Compaq!

[jocknerd]

Yes the PowerMac G5 is faster and less expensive than any of the PC Workstations out there. Apple rules here.

But in the consumer world, its hard to push Apple. These G4 machines are WAY underpowered and WAY overpriced. Apple needs to get rid of the G4's ASAP.

I talked my mom into getting a 1Ghz iMac back in April. It doesn't feel much faster than my iBook. I built my sister an AMD 1800+ system that cost less than half of my mom's iMac and pretty much runs circles around it.

Apple needs to get the G5's in the iMacs. Do they really think professionals will buy iMacs instead of PowerMacs if they both are running G5's? I doubt it. In the PC world, consumer level PC's pretty much have the same processors as the higher end systems. Its the other accessories that make the difference.

I hope its in their plans. Maybe at MacWorld in January we'll see G5's across the board except for maybe in the iBooks.

[Wonder Boy]

i dont think, and by "dont think" i mean hope, that apple is not stupid enough to neglect such a historic and consumer friendly system.
In my opinion this (potential) upgrade sucks.

[rice_web]

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
i dont think, and by "dont think" i mean hope, that apple is not stupid enough to neglect such a historic and consumer friendly system.
In my opinion this (potential) upgrade sucks.

But they've done that. The original iMac was a great success, but it was held back (Motorola is partially to blame here, but it has happened before). The iMac DV was hardly a value machine the second half of its life.

[Powerbook G5]

Well, perhaps this will soon change with IBMs rather quick road map.

[rdowns]

Originally posted by j_maddison
As an imac user I dont know why Powermac users assume imac users want an underpowered, outdated chip. this imac update is junk, rubish, ridiculous. They should have thrown in 1.4 chips, or even made the line up dual processors.

i dont understand why you think a 1.25ghz processor kicks butt. Hell if i was someone who was considering switching over to the mac platform, i'd be looking and thinkin hmmm 1.25ghz or this shiney and cheaper 3ghz intel machine. no contest mate. im using a mac because i liek the os, in reality they are underpowered by some considerable margin. and before you start blabbering on about the mhz myth, rubish or we wouldnt all be getting so exited about the G5. The reality is that until the imac and emac start shipping with a decent spec apple will have limited success in winning over the wintel market. and bottom line is that the home consumer market (imac/emac) is a much bigger market than the powermac market.

sorry but anyone who thinks all imac consumers are happy with a 1.25ghz processor is smoking something

jay

Can I get an amen?

I guess I'm a prosumer (been using macs since my SE and selling them from the SE days until the G3) and I want a G5 iMac. Cost is not my issue, I want a sexy powerhouse in a small package. Based on this rumor, looks like Apple is forcing me to buy a G5 PMac. In protest, I will buy a third party monitor.
Recommendations anyone?

[rdowns]

Originally posted by jocknerd

Apple needs to get the G5's in the iMacs. Do they really think professionals will buy iMacs instead of PowerMacs if they both are running G5's? I doubt it. In the PC world, consumer level PC's pretty much have the same processors as the higher end systems. Its the other accessories that make the difference.

I hope its in their plans. Maybe at MacWorld in January we'll see G5's across the board except for maybe in the iBooks.

If Apple is worried that a G5 iMac will cannibalize Powermac sales, I think they're wrong. iMacs are not expandable, will never support dual processors and don't need to support 4 or 8 GB of RAM.

I think a lot of people want what I want, a kick ass G5 iMac, 1GB RAM and a good video card. I'm not a gamer, just want an elegant, small, fast computer with a nice flat panel display.

Sadly, Apple will probably force me to buy a 1.8. I might wait until MacWorld to see what's on tap til then.

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
anemic? a 1.25 with fx5200 will do better in every test vs a 1 gig and 4mx card. This is not a bad imac boost, and if they can get 7457 with 200 fsb in there then all the better. I wish apple would get a better video chipset in the imac since it can not be upgraded, to keep forcing cheap video cards on new imac users sucks Steve. They should have a gamers imac that can kick pc a--! but even the single g5's come with that lame fx5200 garbage.

we need 256 meg graphics cards right now. that's one place macs have always lagged: the memory on the graphics cards. You can rest assured that the same model card on a mac will have half the mem it does on a PC. And certainly, the Mac cards vastly underperform the PC ones.

nVIDIA and ATI need to get on the ball. A lot of graphics intensive people use macs, and not all of them are going to shell out for a quadro (is there even a quadro for mac??). There should be a graphics card up to par with PCs, because after all, to a large portion of the Mac population, Macintosh=graphics.

[Powerbook G5]

I have a simple way to differ the iMacs from the PowerMacs that would please lots of people:

iMacs receive single G5 processors

PowerMacs receive dual processors across the line

There, let it be done...

[daveg5]

you are kidding still no L3 cache, geforce 4 mx 32MB come on apple
give em 1MB L3 at least and radeon 64mb and 128mb 9000 at least. let this be good game players since you cant upgrade the video or cpu later or at least put the price down 20-25% cpu speed increase after 9 mos is so so so

[rdowns]

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I have a simple way to differ the iMacs from the PowerMacs that would please lots of people:

iMacs receive single G5 processors

PowerMacs receive dual processors across the line

There, let it be done...

I'm chomping at the bit for a G5 iMac, just read this article on BusinessWeek and it seems to make sense.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2003/tc20030820_5175_tc056.htm

[Powerbook G5]

Well, time will tell...but I do see a very bright future for Apple... (brighter than the glowing Apple on the lid of my PowerBook, at least):D

[sacrilicious]

Originally posted by GregGomer
Good idea, since Think Secret is usually the most accurate and consistent of the rumor sites.

Sorry if it wasn't clear that I'm just upset over PowerBooks not being released right away.

[Powerbook G5]

Aren't we all!:(

[Sun Baked]

Everybody was expecting the 1.33GHz 7457 machines, but even the rumors keep saying the yield is way too low.

Then Motorola started updating info on the new 7455 r3.4(aka rev G).

The timing looked darned close to making the cut for the PowerBooks, iMacs, etc. and replacing the 7455 r3.3(aka rev F) in them.

---

Originally posted by Sun Baked
INTRODUCTION OF REV G 7455/7445 (http://e-www.motorola.com/files/shared/doc/pcn/PCN9027.htm)

Motorola is pleased to announce the new mask revision for the 7455 and 7445 product families. The new mask revision, 5L64M, is fabricated at MOS13, a Motorola fabrication facility in Austin, Texas. Production shipment using this new mask will begin in July, 2003.

The 5L64M mask revision (Revision G MC7455A/MC7445A, e.g. MC7455ARX1000LG) is designed to replace the 9L96C (Revision C, e.g. XPC7455RX1000LC and XPC7455RX800NC) mask revision. We will offer a Last Time Buy Date on the XPC7455/XPC7445 Revision C device, 9L96C. Last time buy date will be 07/15/2004 with a Last Time Ship Date of 07/15/2005. Heck even this rev G intro doc mentions the chip in the PowerBook (XC7455ARX867WF) is a device affected by the intro of this new mask.

You can even download the 7455 Qualification report (now with 7455 rev 3.4 included)

Or the MPC7450 Family Chip Errata for the MPC7455 and MPC7445 added the rev 3.4 to it's list.

[Centris 650]

Originally posted by daveg5
you are kidding still no L3 cache, geforce 4 mx 32MB come on apple
give em 1MB L3 at least and radeon 64mb and 128mb 9000 at least. let this be good game players since you cant upgrade the video or cpu later or at least put the price down 20-25% cpu speed increase after 9 mos is so so so

I don't understand why Apple doesn't do a L3 cache either now that the G5's are out. The G5 doesn't even have a L3 cache so it's not like it would be confussing for people.

A 1.3 with a L3 cache would be a nice bump to see.

[funkywhat2]

Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Isnt that why we are here? ;)

I am a consumer whore.

[agentmouthwash]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
here is what i see.

Consumer
G4 iBook
G4 eMac

Prosumer
iMac

Pro
PowerMac
Powerbook


Actually it should go like this:

EDUCATION:
G4 eMac - because kids poke LCD screeens in school - so Apple had to go back to CRT.

CONSUMER:
G4 iBook
G4 iMac

PRO:
G5 Powermac
G5 Powerbook.


well anyways... expect to see similar upgrades to the powerbooks later this week.... G4 1.25mhz... :(

[CmdrLaForge]

Really disappointing is the GeForce4MX in the 15" modell. I hope they have at least a BTO option for an FX card.
The iMac is really the consumer Mac and what do consumers want ? Playing games ! What do you need to do that ? Gooood graphics !

That update took them that long and what they present is frustrating.

[Plutoniq]

7457 yields are probably too low to be able to order enough for both Powerbook and Imac updates (If indeed it will be a 7455). Powerbooks need this critical 7457 update more so than the imac. The Imac is to the Powermac what the Ibook is to the Powerbook.....not really designed as a production machine. If 7457 chip yields are low, jam 'em in the flagship portable line, not the consumer desktop line.

Screw L3 cache, if IBM can afford to throw 1mb of full speed L2 cache in a consumer CPU (PowerPC 750GX), you'd think next generation G4's would as well. 256k L2 cache is pretty lame, Native sound Processing (Audio FX Plugins, Reaktor ect.) as well as emulation software (Virtual PC) really needs a healthy ammount of fast L2 cache.

p9

[Powerbook G5]

From various rumors I've read, it would seem the PowerBooks might be stuck with the 7455 again, too... :mad:

[kaneda]

G5 imac and emac will not be on the market til next summer.

You guys are crazy to expect they release it now!

Powerbook will be for awhile til Apple engineers figure out away to eliminate the 9 fans, and power usage.

Crazy people!

[mim]

Originally posted by themadchemist
we need 256 meg graphics cards right now. that's one place macs have always lagged: the memory on the graphics cards. .

Err, not really. Graphic card memory will only let you do a couple of things...run higher resolutions with more colours (not much point in this after 32 to 64 megs even including for 3d z-buffers, because you can't get monitors with those kinds of resolutions), or load up more and higher res textures.

Now textues are really a gaming thing, and even then I think you'll find that very few games will actually be using that huge amount of memory for textures until a few more years (I could be wrong...Doom3? - but ID have always made games for next year's system).

My point is that having THAT much more memory in the graphics card is like putting a P4 3.2Ghz in a 3 year old motherboard (or the G4 on our 133Mhz bus...:( ). It's not the memory in the card that's going to make the difference - it's the quality of the subsystemst hat matters, especially the ramdac (for picture quality...and what is one of Apple's main markets? That's right, graphic savvy people).

So I'd rather have a modest about of video ram and really great subsystems, than 128megs of additional video ram that will never get used.

[erik19]

Originally posted by mim
Err, not really. Graphic card memory will only let you do a couple of things...run higher resolutions with more colours (not much point in this after 32 to 64 megs even including for 3d z-buffers, because you can't get monitors with those kinds of resolutions), or load up more and higher res textures.

Now textues are really a gaming thing, and even then I think you'll find that very few games will actually be using that huge amount of memory for textures until a few more years (I could be wrong...Doom3? - but ID have always made games for next year's system).


Makes sense to me.... as long as a 64mb Nvidian FX runs Warcraft 3 a lo better than the mx I'll be happy. :)

(It should, right?)

[scotch_magic]

i dont think that the new imac will get a g5. because the g5 is to hot!

believe what you want. i´m very sure that they wont change the cpu type in the next imac update. wait 1 year. you will see the really new, groundbreaking, new designed imac with g5 cpu!:D

scotch

[CmdrLaForge]

Originally posted by scotch_magic
i dont think that the new imac will get a g5. because the g5 is to hot!

believe what you want. i´m very sure that they wont change the cpu type in the next imac update. wait 1 year. you will see the really new, groundbreaking, new designed imac with g5 cpu!:D

scotch

Maybe we see the dual core G4 :-)

[bennetsaysargh]

is it possible for a dual core G4? if so,, then why haven't they done that with dual processors. dual cores in dual processors would make it better, right?

is it possible for them to out dual G4s in the iMacs?