PDA

View Full Version : 20 inch iMac Released


Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Nov 18, 2003, 07:39 AM
Apple released the 20" iMac today (http://www.apple.com/imac).

The new high end iMac offers a 20" widescreen LCD screen, 1.25GHz G4, 256 DDR333 SDRAM, and NVidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra for $2199.00

iMac Line:

15" 1GHz, $1299
17" 1.25GHz, $1799
20" 1.25GHz, $2199

A couple of tidbits have filtered in on this new surprising configuration over the past month... with two reports (1 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031117144323.shtml), 2 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031117160727.shtml)) finally being posted just yesterday predicting today's release. Rumors of a larger (19") iMac date back to May 2002 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/05/20020531185518.shtml) -- could the Chinese newspapers have been onto something? (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/09/20020927205304.shtml)

Ambrose Chapel
Nov 18, 2003, 07:41 AM
a little disappointing that the specs weren't beefed up at all. still i can't wait to see that in person. maybe i'll take a trip to cambridgeside at lunch...


edit: spelling

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 07:42 AM
where do you see 20" all i saw was 17.

Ambrose Chapel
Nov 18, 2003, 07:43 AM
the store has it; hardware and home pages aren't updated yet.

Squire
Nov 18, 2003, 07:43 AM
Maybe this is a dumb question but...

If a fella had an iBook or PowerBook, could he hook it up to the monitor on that beast?

Squire

eightball
Nov 18, 2003, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
where do you see 20" all i saw was 17.

It's on the Apple Store (http://store.apple.com) site right now; they'll probably update the main site later.

eyelikeart
Nov 18, 2003, 07:44 AM
They aren't showing the 20" unless u actually go to the iMac page.

20" iMac (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/70307/wo/fx9AaVlv5OWL2HGurgp1ihBaqG6/0.0.7.1.0.5.21.1.2.1.1.0.0.1.0)

robbieduncan
Nov 18, 2003, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
where do you see 20" all i saw was 17.

US webstore has them. UK store still down.

Stike
Nov 18, 2003, 07:44 AM
WTH is going on - there is no 20" iMac on Apple. Did you read something wrong, Arn?

Postal
Nov 18, 2003, 07:44 AM
I agree with Ambrose, you'd think that there would be more beyond just the larger screen size, such as 512 MB of memory standard or the 160 GB hard drive.

On the plus side, this does give Apple something you can't find with any other all-in-one (a number of them have 1440x900 or 1280x1024 displays).

dricci
Nov 18, 2003, 07:45 AM
They should have at least bumped up the video hardware, and for what you're paying they could have at least used a 1.33 GHz processor. Bleh, I wish Apple would try harder with their low end stuff :rolleyes:

TorbX
Nov 18, 2003, 07:46 AM
After 3 years, i'd rip off the screen and fins a way to use it with another new machine...

mj_1903
Nov 18, 2003, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Stike
WTH is going on - there is no 20" iMac on Apple. Did you read something wrong, Arn?

There is, the main site is just not updated. Check the store, its quite visible.

Ambrose Chapel
Nov 18, 2003, 07:47 AM
so i wonder what this does to the chances of a G5 or radically redesigned iMac appearing anytime soon. maybe the 20" was the redesign that had been rumored?

Awimoway
Nov 18, 2003, 07:47 AM
http://homepage.mac.com/mcdurkee/iMac.jpg

The pod is really dwarfed under that 20" display.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by eightball
It's on the Apple Store (http://store.apple.com) site right now; they'll probably update the main site later. thank you, very nice but it still needs a g5 before ill plop down any cash and a better video chip.

Ambrose Chapel
Nov 18, 2003, 07:51 AM
ok it's there now:

http://www.apple.com/imac/

pkradd
Nov 18, 2003, 07:53 AM
In reality, there was never any real chance that a G5 would appear in an iMac so soon after the Powerbook G5s were introduced. Rumors about it were obviously wishful thinking. BUT a new form iMac will eventually come sometime next year without a doubt. When it does it will have a G5 chip but not the current version as it runs too hot. Reality is also more accurate then lack of common sense.

Golem
Nov 18, 2003, 07:53 AM
Hmmm Difference between 17'' imac and 20'' imac $700 Australian, Difference between 17'' monitor and 20'' monitor is $1100 Australian.

But I am not the market for this machine anyway. Now if it was a G5 headless imac/cube + bundled 20'' monitor for say $500 more Australian now their would be something to be excited about.

Potus
Nov 18, 2003, 07:57 AM
Very cool! I want one. To be the father that my 15" never had...


I still don't get the separate monitor jones. Why not just get a g5 and a studio display?

jayscheuerle
Nov 18, 2003, 08:01 AM
"Apple will never release another G4 machine. It's all G5 from here on out!"

Thank GOD we can put that to rest finally. Reality is still pretty sweet.

Lancetx
Nov 18, 2003, 08:01 AM
I still don't see how this will help improve the slow iMac sales one bit. Had the 20" come in at $1,999 along with a $200 price cut on both the 17" and 15" models this would have been good news, but if $1,799 17" iMacs weren't selling well, then $2,199 20" models certainly won't. Especially considering they didn't bump up the RAM, hard drive, graphics or anything else over the existing 17" model. I must say I'm rather disappointed.

Awimoway
Nov 18, 2003, 08:02 AM
The main Apple page has finally been updated. Surprisingly enough, the refined PowerMac lineup gets top billing, and the iMac takes the first square on the bottom row. I would have thought the iMac update was the bigger story.

Edit: Now the iMac is taking the lead spot. Reloading the page sometimes changes it back to the PowerMac.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 08:02 AM
golem is so right all they did was jam a larger screen on the still yawn!:o 1.25 g4 with no l3. still lame fx5200 and apple will be saying again what did we do wrong? i dont predict big sales when you have a nice screen connected to an obsolete cpu, so this means you are stuck when all that sweet stuff comes out next year and you are struggling to get through with a lackluster motorola g4.:rolleyes: they could have at least put a 1.5 g4 on that oh yeah motostagnation.

jayscheuerle
Nov 18, 2003, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by Potus
Very cool! I want one. To be the father that my 15" never had...


I still don't get the separate monitor jones. Why not just get a g5 and a studio display?

Some people don't need $1700 worth of computer or even $700 worth of monitor.

zyuzin4
Nov 18, 2003, 08:03 AM
20 incher weighs 40.1 pounds!

and the home page must be rotating between iMac and G5

irmongoose
Nov 18, 2003, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by pkradd
In reality, there was never any real chance that a G5 would appear in an iMac so soon after the Powerbook G5s were introduced.

You mean PowerMac, dude.

Well, like most others, all I can say is WOW! and I want to see it in person as soon as possible, but Apple could have updated some other things along the way.

Makes my 15" iMac feel really old now...



irmongoose

Grimace
Nov 18, 2003, 08:12 AM
Why don't they have Built to Order iMacs? If it is a consumer-grade product, some people might not want the SuperDrive - just the ComboDrive.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 08:14 AM
i guess it will be the same game as Apple has been playing for the past few years,force people to buy powermacs because the consumer line is so inept? whats a x-bench on a 1.25 g4 imac? no wonder so little fan fare from apple. i predict sales to plummet for imacs simply due to cpu and video chip lack of performance,after all this is a 2 thousand dollar machine.

kangaroo
Nov 18, 2003, 08:18 AM
It's not just a larger display...the specs are better than the 17"/15". Check it out on the spec page.

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 08:19 AM
This is good. Yester day the 17" was at 2,400 bucks. Today the 20" is "only" 2199, this is a good deal!

Trimix
Nov 18, 2003, 08:19 AM
i am sitting here with my 800 15' i-mac and use it for the office.

for me now 1 1/2 years with the i-mac, this is the perfect replacement.

thank you apple
now how do i get it past my acountants ?

MikeAtari
Nov 18, 2003, 08:20 AM
Wow! Apple sure is putting out the good stuff. I like that g5 dual at 1.8. Great to get so much computer power for such a little price.

That 20" IMac should sell really well.
I'm always looking for more screen real estate with AppleWorks, Safari, IPhoto, ....
Apple has finally learned, you can't worry about canablizing sales of your other systems, with packages like this.


If Apple doesn't do it someone else will.

Lancetx
Nov 18, 2003, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by 1macker1
This is good. Yester day the 17" was at 2,400 bucks. Today the 20" is "only" 2199, this is a good deal!

The 17" was $1,799 yesterday and remains unchanged today. You're probably thinking of the maxed out build to order model which still costs the same too, it's just not on the store page, you have to actually go in and configure it now to add the extra RAM and larger hard drive, etc.

Ambrose Chapel
Nov 18, 2003, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by kangaroo
It's not just a larger display...the specs are better than the 17"/15". Check it out on the spec page.

other than screen and resolution, it seems identical to the 17". am i missing something?

Lancetx
Nov 18, 2003, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by kangaroo
It's not just a larger display...the specs are better than the 17"/15". Check it out on the spec page.

No, the specs on the new 20" are identical to the 17" except for the display of course.

maxtrax
Nov 18, 2003, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by kangaroo
It's not just a larger display...the specs are better than the 17"/15". Check it out on the spec page.
Not sure what specs you are looking at, but everything except the display is identical to the 17" as far as I can tell. You don't even get an Airport Card or Bluetooth module.

I think the 20" monitor is awesome, but it needs more for that price point.

CmdrLaForge
Nov 18, 2003, 08:27 AM
Out of the blue - again.

But I doubt that this 20" will be a big success. You pay such a lot of money for a LCD you can only use with a Mac thats after a few years out of date

QuiteSure
Nov 18, 2003, 08:31 AM
I hate to say it, but I think the 20" iMac makes no sense. Who will buy it? What consumer wants to spend several hundred dollars more for a 20" screen? Would someone please attempt to rationalize Apple's "bigger is better" philosophy on this one?

MikeAtari
Nov 18, 2003, 08:32 AM
Re-sale value of Apples is very good on EBay. You won't be taking a bath to upgrade.

iJed
Nov 18, 2003, 08:34 AM
The price of the LCD iMac is simply too high for many people. If Apple really want PC users to switch then they need to start making a cheap, powerful, affordable and headless box that will make the system truly mass market.

There is simply no way that I'd buy the 20" iMac since its massive screen would become totally useless when the machine became obsolete!

biscuit
Nov 18, 2003, 08:35 AM
It is a shame they didn't put a faster proc in there, since that would protect one's investment for longer. But it would've still been a G4, so it's academic really. The G5 is going to take some work to get into an iMac-like form factor so don't expect it anytime soon. The G5 PowerBook will probably come first anyway, to keep the Pro line at the cutting edge.

It's nice that they've been able to upgrade the screen though; a good aspect of the 'sunflower' design. The original iMac never had it's screen updated.

biscuit

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Lancetx
The 17" was $1,799 yesterday and remains unchanged today. You're probably thinking of the maxed out build to order model which still costs the same too, it's just not on the store page, you have to actually go in and configure it now to add the extra RAM and larger hard drive, etc.

my guess is that he was talking about canadian version?

every time iMac gets a speed bump/revision, the headless/G5 idea comes up, as if it's never been discussed or something sorely missing from apple... let's face it, iMac is intended to be a consumer machine and it is unlikely apple will eat their margin to offer a headless configuration nor put in the top of the line processor (no matter how lower clocked) only a few months after release. (i don't think WWDC announcement counts because G5s were hardly available then.)

you are supposed to get a PM if you know enough to want an alternative display or top of the line processor. to paraphrase, it's not the headless iMac nor G5 iMac that you really want... it's just cheaper Macs with better specs you want. well, that's nothing new... :rolleyes:

drizahy4
Nov 18, 2003, 08:36 AM
Jesus we might as well slap the 23" on there next. Or just for *****s and giggles lets get a 20" powerbook. I love apple to death but thats a little outragous. Anyway it sounds kool. Lets see if it sells.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 08:36 AM
hate to say this but a 1.25 g4 gets its butt beat bad by machines at half the price, i would say this is apples worst value of all computers they make. i cant imagine having such a great display only to be saddled down to a obsolete g4 and worst performing video card/chipset on the market. i see it now iam a new owner of a imac 20" and cant play doom3,barely run ut2k3 and struggles through halo if they are lucky, then when some really great stuff is out for next year what are you going to do with that monitor??i guess apple feels consumers dont play games.

MikeAtari
Nov 18, 2003, 08:36 AM
What kind of computer user are you!
You Don't Need more screen space.
Do you work in only one application at a time? I've got 3-10 apps open at all times.

Haven't you heard of DSL, Email, ITunes, wordprocessing, Safari and then the Work Apps...

TorbX
Nov 18, 2003, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by QuiteSure
I hate to say it, but I think the 20" iMac makes no sense. Who will buy it? What consumer wants to spend several hundred dollars more for a 20" screen? Would someone please attempt to rationalize Apple's "bigger is better" philosophy on this one?

Well, I actually guess my father would. He has seen my PB 12" and he liked the iPhoto-stuff. The guitar-pluncking and all was "grrreat!", but he did not like the size of the screen. Photography is the only thing he uses his 800 mhz pentium machine for. I think this could be a nice computer for him. For photography, he would use it for YEARS and years...

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by iJed
The price of the LCD iMac is simply too high for many people. If Apple really want PC users to switch then they need to start making a cheap, powerful, affordable and headless box that will make the system truly mass market.

um, get an eMac. $800 + $100 for RAM. fully equipped with Combo Drive, latest OS, keyboard and optical mouse. how much *cheaper* do you exactly want?? dell cheapest desktop is $500 (after rebate) with shared RAM, CD-ROM, XP Home and also with a CRT monitor. upgrade to a non-RAM shared video card with a combo drive and you aren't looking at anything much cheaper.

apple wants PC users to switch to using Apples, not changing themselves into more like PCs.

MikeAtari
Nov 18, 2003, 08:40 AM
I think we have got some Dell Trolls worried about keeping their Jobs.

Look, Apple will be expanding stores in your area soon, you can then get employed there.

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
hate to say this but a 1.25 g4 gets its butt beat bad by machines at half the price, i would say this is apples worst value of all computers they make. i cant imagine having such a great display only to be saddled down to a obsolete g4 and worst performing video card/chipset on the market. i see it now iam a new owner of a imac 20" and cant play doom3,barely run ut2k3 and struggles through halo if they are lucky, then when some really great stuff is out for next year what are you going to do with that monitor??i guess apple feels consumers dont play games.

most consumers apple's targeting won't care if their games run at 60 fps as opposed to 250 fps.

if you want to play games, build a gaming PC or buy a console. apple will not spec its machines just to cater to gamers when there are few games for Macs to begin with.

funkywhat2
Nov 18, 2003, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Awimoway
The pod is really dwarfed under that 20" display.

that's what everyone said about the 17", but look at how nice it is, and how well it sells...

this is a nice update. while the specs are nothing better, and the price is kind of high, people wil pay for the much larger screen, and apple knows it.

hopefully, they'll suprise us like they did last january and update everything.

chazmox
Nov 18, 2003, 08:49 AM
I like the 20 inch screen... but it makes me wonder if we'll see the G5 in the iMac anytime soon...

I doubt the heat is too much of a factor... you could simply enlarge the slots in the base. And the use of an aluminum case would help with heat conduction...

But if there are going to be delays and problems with getting the G5 in the Powerbook ( we'e hearing into 2005 maybe ) then Apple may be loathe to put it in the iMac until their professional laptop can use it. Which means that the iMac will lag power wise for a while... Too bad - 2.0 GHz G5, a 20 inch monitor, a nice graphics card, AND a non-handicapped bus would open my wallet wide!

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 08:51 AM
Yeah i'm talkin about the top of the line model.
Originally posted by Lancetx
The 17" was $1,799 yesterday and remains unchanged today. You're probably thinking of the maxed out build to order model which still costs the same too, it's just not on the store page, you have to actually go in and configure it now to add the extra RAM and larger hard drive, etc.

jocknerd
Nov 18, 2003, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Lancetx
I still don't see how this will help improve the slow iMac sales one bit. Had the 20" come in at $1,999 along with a $200 price cut on both the 17" and 15" models this would have been good news, but if $1,799 17" iMacs weren't selling well, then $2,199 20" models certainly won't. Especially considering they didn't bump up the RAM, hard drive, graphics or anything else over the existing 17" model. I must say I'm rather disappointed.

The iMac's sales were pitiful. Doesn't Apple realize it was the cost of the machine not the screen size. Consumers weren't going to spend $1799 on a machine that had an attached monitor. They sure as hell aren't going to spend $2199 now. What good is that beautiful 20" monitor going to do you in two years when this computer is useless.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 08:51 AM
they wont expand nothing if they dont get with it on the imac and stop using the old and slow g4 and the slowest graphics chip on the market. i would advise no one to get this machine except grandma's and grandpa's who want to view photo's or movies. you want to crunch numbers or run games you will be sorry. iam not a troll just telling it like it is. the 1.25 g4 is allready way behind this year let alone next.

punter
Nov 18, 2003, 08:51 AM
Lots of people are saying this machine won't sell well. To that I reply:

1. some people don't care about top speed anymore. It's fast enough for all office applications. In fact it's fast enough for everything except pro animation and gaming.

2. some people want to show off their machines.

3. it's not a new machine, just an alteration to an existing machine. The cost of producing this product must have been extremely low.

4. imacs are no longer the cheap computer from apple. the emac is. They aren't the fastest, see the G5 for that. They are just the nicest.

My boss comes to mind. He bought the 17" imac when it came out, then a 12"PB when that came out, and no doubt he'll get this machine as well. I don't think he's done ANYTHING with them except email.

He's got the cash, the machine offers an unbeatable user experience, so he'll get it. I'm so jealous. Maybe I'll get to borrow it :D It's surely the nicest computer to use in the world right now, modest performance permitting.

jocknerd
Nov 18, 2003, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by funkywhat2
that's what everyone said about the 17", but look at how nice it is, and how well it sells...

this is a nice update. while the specs are nothing better, and the price is kind of high, people wil pay for the much larger screen, and apple knows it.

hopefully, they'll suprise us like they did last january and update everything.

Don't know where you got the idea that it is selling well. Sales are very low. Its an overpriced consumer machine that gets killed in performance and cost from the low end PC's. And it can't get cheaper because it costs Apple too much to manufacture.

bizarro
Nov 18, 2003, 08:53 AM
For those who are grumbling about how mediocre this update is (i.e. only a display) and about the price, well, bear in mind the following:

1) 20" cinema display costs 1299 USD
2) 20" imac costs 2199

So, the innards come in at 900USD which isn't that bad, really.
(Compare with 17" model - 1799USD for the machine, and 699USD for the 17" Normal Aspect Ratio display.)

Based on the 20", I'd suspect we are in for a revision in the pricing of the cinema displays... (And probably a revision of the models as well.)

synp
Nov 18, 2003, 08:54 AM
Last year I would have bought something like that. The only thing missing for me on an iMac or eMac was the resolution.

I ended up buying the low-end tower of the time (MDD 2x866) and connecting it to my old 19" CRT. Now I'll wait at least another year.

My next computer is a 20" 3GHz G5 iMac. I can wait for it to arrive.

the_mole1314
Nov 18, 2003, 08:57 AM
I'm going to go up the Apple Store today to go check this out! :D

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 09:09 AM
I'm sticking with my 17" imac. I dont see me needing a 20" screen. I'm just waiting for the cheaper iPod and a new 12" powerbook in the next few months.

el_aarono
Nov 18, 2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by iJed
The price of the LCD iMac is simply too high for many people. If Apple really want PC users to switch then they need to start making a cheap, powerful, affordable and headless box that will make the system truly mass market.

There is simply no way that I'd buy the 20" iMac since its massive screen would become totally useless when the machine became obsolete!


Sadly, I have to agree. I don't see a market for a 20" iMac. Apple already knows the 17" isn't selling well, but it's not because the screen is too small!

A headless, powerful Mac with whichPC users can use their own displays would intice many more users to switch in my opinion. Many PC users have displays that work just fine for them and don't plan on buying a new one when they need to upgrade to a new machine. But with Apple's low end machines you are forced to buy the display. Or you have to pay almost $2000 to get a "headless" G5.

Maybe Apple stopped the "Switch" campaign because they knew they would look like fools asking PC users to buy their Super-Sized LCD iMac.

I hope Apple's vision is greater than mine.....

FlamDrag
Nov 18, 2003, 09:15 AM
I would sure like someone who mentions the sales of iMacs - good or bad - to quote some actual sources. We can all sit around and say "the iMac has been a great seller" if we just like the way the machine looks. Just because you or someone you know owns an iMac does not make it a great selling computer. The converse is true as well - if you don't know a single person who owns an iMac it doesn't mean that nobody is buying them.

While my personal opinion is that these will not sell like hotcakes, they do fill a small niche - which Apple likes to do from time to time. My guess is that the bases are identical for the 17 and 20 - heck maybe even the 15 and they just stick whatever monitor is ordered on there. In short, they probably don't need a 20" iMac in every home to make back their R&D + manufacturing costs and turn a small profit. A small profit is better than no profit.

I am quite happy to see the Dual 1.8's and if I were in the market, it would be my drug of choice.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by jxyama
most consumers apple's targeting won't care if their games run at 60 fps as opposed to 250 fps.

if you want to play games, build a gaming PC or buy a console. apple will not spec its machines just to cater to gamers when there are few games for Macs to begin with. the only game that will get 60 fps on that imac is maybe quake 3,ut2k3 wont,halo wont,doom3 will make anyowner of that machine cry i promise. this machine has i repeat the cheapist slowest videochip being made currently FX5200 is garbage, we had dual 1.42 powermacs a year ago and still the best we get is a single 1.25 g4? this machine is very underpowered and over priced. who knows maybe the had a xtra million of those g4 bases they needed to get rid of and slapping a bigger monitor was the way to do it?

hughdogg
Nov 18, 2003, 09:16 AM
If they would throw a cable TV tuner in it, this could be a useful device in a living room or family room as a computer/Small TV/DVD player. Even with an EyeTV, it might be nice. Either way it could make a lot more sense than buying a 17 Flat Panel TV (Dell $829) and a seperate computer. "A complete Home Entertainment/Digital Hub" View TV, DVD's, listen to you iTunes music collection, and oh yeah, surf the web, get your e-mail, create your own DVD's, work on Keynote presentation, have your kids play educational games, and etc..

Wild speculation - but maybe that is the path they are taking with this somewhat puzzling upgrade.

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by jocknerd
The iMac's sales were pitiful. Doesn't Apple realize it was the cost of the machine not the screen size. Consumers weren't going to spend $1799 on a machine that had an attached monitor. They sure as hell aren't going to spend $2199 now. What good is that beautiful 20" monitor going to do you in two years when this computer is useless.

while i agree with your point that most consumers won't spend $2199 on a computer, it's not because it has a monitor attached. in fact, no consumer would spend that much unless it included a flat panel. most consumers are cheap, that's all, it has nothing to do with monitor being attached or not.

and for most people buying these iMacs, it won't become obsolete in two years. i got my parents the bare-min. eMac (1 GHz G4) i fully expect them to use it comfortably for 5 years or more - until the machine breaks. they are going to use it for email, internet, word and iphoto. tell me how that will go obsolete in two years? and believe me, there are a lot of people out there who'll use their computer only for those tasks.

i've know at a least a few people who saw dell's ads for $500 desktop/$700 laptop, got enticed, called dell and was given the whole sales spiel about how the basic config. is not good enough and ended up spending $1500+. talk about being baited...

for the most part, macs don't do that. the only thing you need to upgrade is the RAM. otherwise, most of them come competently equipped.

chazmox
Nov 18, 2003, 09:17 AM
It would be neat if in a year or two you see hacks to let an external tower use the 20 inch screen of the iMac and basically use the the computer part of the setup as the "base" for your 20 inch monitor...

Java
Nov 18, 2003, 09:19 AM
Have to admit. That is one sweet looking iMac. I wonder if it is just a bit top heavy.

iEric
Nov 18, 2003, 09:19 AM
I wish Apple at least placed a G5 1.5 Ghz chip in it to please us... :( now I won't be able to buy one cause I made a promise to myself I wouldn't until they come with a G5 Processor :(

ThomasJefferson
Nov 18, 2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
hate to say this but a 1.25 g4 gets its butt beat bad by machines at half the price, i would say this is apples worst value of all computers they make. i cant imagine having such a great display only to be saddled down to a obsolete g4 and worst performing video card/chipset on the market. i see it now iam a new owner of a imac 20" and cant play doom3,barely run ut2k3 and struggles through halo if they are lucky, then when some really great stuff is out for next year what are you going to do with that monitor??i guess apple feels consumers dont play games.

I would not touch this 20" iMac with a barge pole. Value/cost is pathetic.

One might hope for a G5 in this thing by early '04. But, the form factor would have to change a bit for cooling. I would have prefered the move to the 20in then.

Not sure this thing is gunna sell. Not sure why this would sell? Hello? Steve? Are you on vacation dude?

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 09:23 AM
thats a good promise, and very wise in my opinion, the g4 is just way way behind. apple didnt beat there chest much on this one, i would say this was a half step till the real deal comes out next march.

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the only game that will get 60 fps on that imac is maybe quake 3,ut2k3 wont,halo wont,doom3 will make anyowner of that machine cry i promise. this machine has i repeat the cheapist slowest videochip being made currently FX5200 is garbage, we had dual 1.42 powermacs a year ago and still the best we get is a single 1.25 g4? this machine is very underpowered and over priced. who knows maybe the had a xtra million of those g4 bases they needed to get rid of and slapping a bigger monitor was the way to do it?

you just missed the whole point of my post. my point was that no "consumer" will quote those game related specs you just pulled out. i just pulled 60/250 fps numbers out of thin air because it was completely irrelevant. not many will buy an iMac to play video games. i'm not *at all* interested whether halo can pull 60 fps on the new iMac.

you can take digital still images with digital camcorders, but they will be of lower resolution and the camcorder will be much bigger than compact digital cameras. are you going to criticise the priciness of digital camcorders based on their usability as a digital camera? :rolleyes:

btw, i think 20" iMac is an overkill. i don't think it will do very well, but i assume it didn't cost apple much to develop.

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 09:28 AM
No matter what is released, some people just are not satisfied. I use Maple on my 17" iMac, and the screen space in needed for all the graphs and charts, and more screen space is welcomed.

**i just can't afford to by another iMac right now:)**

singletrack
Nov 18, 2003, 09:34 AM
Come on, the GeForce FX5200 Ultra in the iMac isn't that bad a graphics chip. People are making it sound like the bastard cousin of a Rage128 PCI card.

Unless you're some radical gamer type, who would have bought a PC anyway with a $500 graphics card, it's a fine graphics chip for a consumer computer. It's not like the Mac is a top games platform.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 09:34 AM
the point is consumers are gamers sorry to point this out and i know the mac community has a problem with this, it looks like apple does to because they have a crappy cpu mated with a crappy videochip mated to a wonderful display and then want the old arm & leg. go to inside mac games or macgamer or... tell me consumers are not gamers and also tell me why a brandnew 2 thousand dollar machine struggles with UT2K3?this means newer stuff will only get worse? face it apple is pawning off old & slow technology to the unknowing and imac sales show that perhaps the consumer is smarter then they give them credit for. the fx5200 is the worst go to any benchmark page on that,toms hardware,barefeets whatever. anyways this is a dog my advice is to stay clear get a emac or protower or wait and perhaps they will get it right next year.

choogheem
Nov 18, 2003, 09:36 AM
<I agree with Ambrose, you'd think that there would be more beyond just the larger screen size, such as 512 MB of memory standard or the 160 GB hard drive.

On the plus side, this does give Apple something you can't find with any other all-in-one (a number of them have 1440x900 or 1280x1024 displays).>

I agree, but why would apple want to do this. With 256 MB standard, they almost force you to go to apple tech support to install apple memory to get to 1GB. Or of course blow your warranty and do it yourself (which by the way is not too hard to do). I like my 17" iMac, but I think I'll have to go to the Mall of America store and salivate a bit.

iMeowbot
Nov 18, 2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by jocknerd
The iMac's sales were pitiful.

For the last quarter, Apple sold 253000 iMac/eMac units. That's one machine out the door every 31 seconds or so. What's so pitiful about that?

Potus
Nov 18, 2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Some people don't need $1700 worth of computer or even $700 worth of monitor.

The point of the iMacs is an all-in-one consumer model that saves desk real estate.
My iMac is great. My desk is a lean clean machine. And there's still an awe! factor when people see it:
My imac
The speakers, two cds
a book
a pen

keyboard and mouse in out-of-sight keyboard tray

As compared to my other desk: beige G3 on computer cart (too large to fit inside), external hard drive inside computer cart, bulky Sony CRT monitor on desk, along w/ printer, iBook, lamp, extra keyboard, pda dock.

Use both sites but the iMac desk is a thing of beauty. it's definitely more zen.
Besides we've all been there with the pizza boxes: not a pretty sight.

Although the cube is/was definitely awesome.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by iMeowbot
For the last quarter, Apple sold 253000 iMac/eMac units. That's one machine out the door every 31 seconds or so. What's so pitiful about that? where are those numbers? from what i understand is sales had drop big time on imacs.

iMeowbot
Nov 18, 2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
where are those numbers? from what i understand is sales had drop big time on imacs.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=7091

The sales were higher before the push on portables, but they're still quite respectable.

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 09:45 AM
I'm not much of a gamer, but I play UT2k3 on my 800Mhz iMac all the time with no problem. I also play RTCW with no problems. It has an Nvidia *sp* G-Force 4 MX.

And people will pay 2000 + for this machine, I did.

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 09:50 AM
consumers in apple's market are not gamers. please, get over this.

macs have higher entry price. people who can afford them are NOT teenagers and college students playing video games. gamers who are no longer students but with a decent job to afford a Mac will know enough to not get a Mac for games already. only time iMac/eMac line will be subjected to high performance gaming (and disappoint the user in comparison to similarly priced PCs - this part i won't argue) is if a 15 year old johnny wants to play doom on his dad's iMac. then dad will go out and buys a $150 game console and johnny will be happy.

just an example, but i think it's a fairly accurate one.

apple cannot target its products to gamers. their video cards aren't good, CPU is slow, blah blah. (oh, doesn't intel still sell those celerons? what's that?) geez, they know this, you know this. so stop complaining that they aren't making good gaming machines - they are not a gaming machine, period. that doesn't mean these machines are useless - there's more to computers than just games, you know. :rolleyes:

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by 1macker1
I'm not much of a gamer, but I play UT2k3 on my 800Mhz iMac all the time with no problem. I also play RTCW with no problems. It has an Nvidia *sp* G-Force 4 MX.

And people will pay 2000 + for this machine, I did. im not trying to start a war but i know ut2k3 has to look like crap and those outdoor levels must be a big struggle, i use a 1.33 g4 and geforce3 and a gig and still isnt fluid. take box requirements and double them then you have what you need. the fact is the g4 is way way behind this is not even up to debate merely simple fact as go with the fx5200. a rebranded mx card is all trash. and even the g5 they have to use 2 cpu's vs 1 intel so apples cpu's in the g4consumer line arent even close to 2.4 or 2.6 intels. bottom line is apple acts like the g4 is still something and it aint crap.

TorbX
Nov 18, 2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by jxyama
they are going to use it for email, internet, word and iphoto. tell me how that will go obsolete in two years? and believe me, there are a lot of people out there who'll use their computer only for those tasks.

I'm one of those people - and I'm not even a grandparent :p

DGFan
Nov 18, 2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by jocknerd
The iMac's sales were pitiful. Doesn't Apple realize it was the cost of the machine not the screen size. Consumers weren't going to spend $1799 on a machine that had an attached monitor. They sure as hell aren't going to spend $2199 now. What good is that beautiful 20" monitor going to do you in two years when this computer is useless.

Really?

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031015/sfw126_1.html

Q3-03 sales:

iMac: 253k
iBook: 137k
PowerMac: 221k
PowerBook: 176k

Seems to me that iMacs outsold PowerMacs (G5's mind you). iMac sales are down but just because you don't like them doesn't mean people aren't buying them.

Steve M
Nov 18, 2003, 10:13 AM
Apple should sell versions of the iMac without an attached monitor. They'd need to add DVI support to the video out and close up the hole on top. Sell a combo drive version of the iBump for $599, and a superdrive model for $799. I think they'd sell like crazy.

~Shard~
Nov 18, 2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by jxyama
consumers in apple's market are not gamers. please, get over this.

macs have higher entry price. people who can afford them are NOT teenagers and college students playing video games. gamers who are no longer students but with a decent job to afford a Mac will know enough to not get a Mac for games already. only time iMac/eMac line will be subjected to high performance gaming (and disappoint the user in comparison to similarly priced PCs - this part i won't argue) is if a 15 year old johnny wants to play doom on his dad's iMac. then dad will go out and buys a $150 game console and johnny will be happy.

just an example, but i think it's a fairly accurate one.

apple cannot target its products to gamers. their video cards aren't good, CPU is slow, blah blah. (oh, doesn't intel still sell those celerons? what's that?) geez, they know this, you know this. so stop complaining that they aren't making good gaming machines - they are not a gaming machine, period. that doesn't mean these machines are useless - there's more to computers than just games, you know. :rolleyes:

I agree with jxyama. Although I personally don’t see a lot of people purchasing this new 20” iMac, I think some people in this forum are being a bit harsh. When people make comments like “it’s a crap processor and a crap video card”, I think it all depends what you are using it for.

I don’t play video games, so what do I need an amazing graphics card for? I have a GeForce2 with 32 MB RAM running in my current PC and it works fine. For me, a 5200 is probably overkill! Am I using FCP, etc.? No, if I were, I’d be looking at buying a PowerMac, not an iMac. And as for the processor, what is wrong with a 1.25 GHz G4? My friend uses a 450 MHz G4 15” PowerBook and it’s not slow for him at all. He uses iTunes, iPhoto, and even makes movies in iMovie and uses iDVD to burn them. Other than that, he uses e-mail, Internet, Office... Hmm, that’s about it! So you’re saying a machine almost 3x as fast is crappy? I don’t think so. And with Panther to speed things up too? Good luck.

It all comes down to what you use your computer for, so if you are a hardcore gamer, then buy your Alienware system designed for gaming. If you are a graphics and video guru, buy a PowerMac. Don’t rip into the iMacs just because they don’t suit your needs. There's more to computers (and life) than gaming. (Boy, am I going to get ripped to shreds for that comment..) ;)

As I said, I still don’t think this 20” iMac will go over to well, so don’t get me wrong, but I just think some people in this forum are being very unreasonable.

macnews
Nov 18, 2003, 10:19 AM
Give me a break!

If you wanted to game, you wouldn't buy an iMac. And yes, the G4 processor is slow for games, animation, gaphic programs, etc. That was the complaint about the pro line until the G5 was released. This is the consumor model.

All you gamers would laugh at ANY Dell, HP, etc machine that came configured for under $1000. You would have to because you would want a good graphics card that by itself would cost $200-$400 more. I would imagine, and from what I see in most computer mags, the avg. gaming machine runs $1500 - $3000. Hmmm, close to the G5 lineup.

So please, stop comparing this Apple to oranges. And as already pointed out Dell trys to sell a $500 PC that when decently configured runs $1000-$1500 - sans an LCD monitor.

Now, I am wondering if Apple is taking a different step with product announcements and introductions. Steve said he would move away from announcements at major events - and seems to have kept true to that. Perhaps what we will see are more product updates at more frequent intervals than twice a year. Granted, a product update might be something as simple as slapping a 20" LCD monitor on it. But what if in January you see better cpus and gpus in the same model? Under the "old way" of announcing, you could plan on the current config of this new 20" iMac to be around until at least July 2004. Maybe we could see a 1.33 G4 and better graphics in January under this "new way" of announcing products.

dizastor
Nov 18, 2003, 10:22 AM
I think the 20" imac is a cool idea, and If money were no object I might get one. If you didn't do anything processor intensive it would be fine. (Like in an office setting)

Here's my thought... since Apple is the home of innovation, why don't they just make the end of the monitor arm an ADC plug that locks into the base? That way in 3 years when the g5 makes it to the consumer line you can just unplug your sweet 20" lcd and plug it into the new iMac base. I also realize this coincides with everyone else's idea to have a headless iMac, but it's still slightly different.

Ah crap I already can see the arguments against this and the "why not just use an apple display?" reply. Fook it. Nevermind.

choogheem
Nov 18, 2003, 10:24 AM
I'm not much of a gamer, but I play UT2k3 on my 800Mhz iMac all the time with no problem. I also play RTCW with no problems. It has an Nvidia *sp* G-Force 4 MX.

I play UT2K3 on my 1GHz iMac with 1GB Ram. I also have a G-Force 4MX with 64 MB. I have not noticed any appreciable slow down even on the outside levels. Now, I'm not saying it is as fluid as I would like, but I can't say that I've been running around and been killed while looking at a locked or choppy screen. Now, I'm also not a major gamer, but the games that I do run work well enough for me. (Warcraft III, Baldur's Gate II, Icewind Dale, America's Army, Medal of Honor, etc.)

jocknerd
Nov 18, 2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by DGFan
Really?

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031015/sfw126_1.html

Q3-03 sales:

iMac: 253k
iBook: 137k
PowerMac: 221k
PowerBook: 176k

Seems to me that iMacs outsold PowerMacs (G5's mind you). iMac sales are down but just because you don't like them doesn't mean people aren't buying them.

Hey, I talked my mom into getting one last March. But sales are down compared to previous years. http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/10/15/units/. I quote them:
"With so much emphasis on Apple's professional products, iBooks and iMacs both suffered for the quarter, both sequentially and year over year. Apple moved 253,000 iMacs and 137,000 iBooks for the quarter -- down 12 percent and 28 percent respectively compared to the previous quarter, and down 20 and 25 percent respectively for the same quarter a year ago. iMac sales total $279 million in quarterly revenue; iBooks came in with about $154 million added to Apple's coffers."

dieselg4
Nov 18, 2003, 10:27 AM
A very odd release, given that they processors kinda went nowhere and there wasn't a price drop either. WOulda beens well to see at $100-$200 drop on the ohter machines.
Maybe even 15" 1099 17" 1499 20" 1899 for combos
and 15" 1299 17" 1699 20" 2099 for Supers.

And if not a G5, then G4 1.33's and 1.42's . .

jayscheuerle
Nov 18, 2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by bizarro
For those who are grumbling about how mediocre this update is (i.e. only a display) and about the price, well, bear in mind the following:

1) 20" cinema display costs 1299 USD
2) 20" imac costs 2199

So, the innards come in at 900USD which isn't that bad, really.
(Compare with 17" model - 1799USD for the machine, and 699USD for the 17" Normal Aspect Ratio display.)

Based on the 20", I'd suspect we are in for a revision in the pricing of the cinema displays... (And probably a revision of the models as well.)

Just sell me the innards then!

simply258
Nov 18, 2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by jocknerd
Consumers weren't going to spend $1799 on a machine that had an attached monitor.
Do laptops have detached monitors ? :rolleyes:

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Steve M
Apple should sell versions of the iMac without an attached monitor. They'd need to add DVI support to the video out and close up the hole on top. Sell a combo drive version of the iBump for $599, and a superdrive model for $799. I think they'd sell like crazy.

always comes up and it's not anything new.

standard replies:

1) apple's not interested in selling the most number of units. they are interested in margins.

2) a headless iMac doesn't seem to have a place in their current marketing/business model. tell me how such a machine won't cannibalize sales from elsewhere?

just because you'd want and buy a cheap(er) Mac doesn't make it a good product or an idea...

simply258
Nov 18, 2003, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
where are those numbers?
in Apple's financials ..

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by dieselg4
A very odd release, given that they processors kinda went nowhere and there wasn't a price drop either. WOulda beens well to see at $100-$200 drop on the ohter machines.
Maybe even 15" 1099 17" 1499 20" 1899 for combos
and 15" 1299 17" 1699 20" 2099 for Supers.

And if not a G5, then G4 1.33's and 1.42's . .

they can't do this because it would get the 15" too close to eMac... they want eMacs to be "cheap" and iMacs to be "cool."

it would be nice to get a 15" for $1100, for sure...

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by choogheem
I play UT2K3 on my 1GHz iMac with 1GB Ram. I also have a G-Force 4MX with 64 MB. I have not noticed any appreciable slow down even on the outside levels. Now, I'm not saying it is as fluid as I would like, but I can't say that I've been running around and been killed while looking at a locked or choppy screen. Now, I'm also not a major gamer, but the games that I do run work well enough for me. (Warcraft III, Baldur's Gate II, Icewind Dale, America's Army, Medal of Honor, etc.) i guess you are running at 640 x 480 with everything off,also take another look at the d-day beach landing! the sad fact is for over 2 grand it has 1 single stagnated 1.25 g4 and the slowest cheapest video chip. they dont currently make a cheaper chip the fx5200? to have such a nice display it ashame. it makes the protowers look so much better but a lot of people dont want a gigantic metal beast! Apple says you cant have it your way( as in the pc world) you must buy protower we will not give you a powerful consumermachine. and we will force the monitor on you. our way or the highway so what do millions do? they go out and get a pc!

whatever
Nov 18, 2003, 10:40 AM
For starters, the people in this forum are no longer Apple's target market for the iMac. Apple is looking for new users who are looking for an alternative to the boring PC. Most people here are hardcore Apple fans who are mostly interested in the latest greatest (but sadly enough won't buy anything, because they're alway waiting for the latest greatest vaporware).
These are sweat machines. They look better than anything out there and they are selling.
As far as the cost of the machines. Apple saves a lot of money by not updating their machines everyweek (day) like Dell does. Just think of the money Apple saves on marketing alone and then add in the costs of constantly changing your computer line and then there is the support issue.
Whatever

MhzDoesMatter
Nov 18, 2003, 10:40 AM
What kind of business or common sense does it make for them to have switcher machines independent of a monitor? Most people don't see the CPU case unless the attached monitor requires it sit on the desk. Since Apple probably wants its logo and hardware to be seen, it will most likely keep both of them firmly on the desktop, as opposed to something headless where users could bring over their previous displays. Because having a dell monitor with an OS X desktop is just great marketing for AAPL.

-Hertz

..."consumers are gamers"......kids.....

jayscheuerle
Nov 18, 2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Potus
The point of the iMacs is an all-in-one consumer model that saves desk real estate.
My iMac is great. My desk is a lean clean machine. And there's still an awe! factor when people see it:
My imac
The speakers, two cds
a book
a pen

keyboard and mouse in out-of-sight keyboard tray

As compared to my other desk: beige G3 on computer cart (too large to fit inside), external hard drive inside computer cart, bulky Sony CRT monitor on desk, along w/ printer, iBook, lamp, extra keyboard, pda dock.

Use both sites but the iMac desk is a thing of beauty. it's definitely more zen.
Besides we've all been there with the pizza boxes: not a pretty sight.

Although the cube is/was definitely awesome.

iZen?

I've got a beige box in the coat closet with wires running through the wall to a black Sony flatscreen sitting in the corner of my bar. The keyboard tucks away on a custom drawer and cordless mouse sits on the bar. That's it, except for the PowerMate knob that controls the volume out to the stereo where the computer's connected (RCA out ports in the beige still work!) 19.7 days straight of mp3s. An iMac would only make my surface more cluttered.

A great idea would be to make a paintable computer that would install in a wall between standard 16" spaced studs. REALLY get them out of site.

nagromme
Nov 18, 2003, 10:46 AM
I WOULD buy a Mac for gaming.

* More games out than I could ever buy or play anyway.

* Macs get the fixed version, not the buggy first release.

* A more usable, trouble-free system benefits ANY user.

There is certainly a reason for hard-core gamers to buy PCs and tinker and patch, and get more games sooner. I'm not arguing otherwise. But don't discount the Mac as a valid choice of game machine. Gaming is not one of Mac's key niches, but speaking as a gamer, I'd never buy a PC.

(Consoles have their place--but they have serious disadvantages over a computer too: my Mac gives me downloadable mods, mouse control, free demos, higher resolution, etc.)

And I don't see Macs as a whole being more expensive, although people like to parrot that. Compare ALL the specs and you'll find it hard to price out a better deal on a Wintel machine than most Mac models. I just paid under $2600 shipped, for a widescreen 15.2" 1.25Ghz PowerBook WITH a full 1 GB RAM pre-installed, 80 HD, SuperDrive/DVD-RW, three kinds of wireless pre-installed (b/g/BT), lighted keys, three speakers, Firewire and FW800, gigabit Ethernet (auto-converts between crossover and patch cables!), DVI/VGA/S-Video/Composite video out with spanning, Cardbus, 64 MB Radeon 9600 Mobility, V.92 faxmodem, a great software bundle with unmatched iApps, Panther, AND a color printer/scanner/copier, laptop briefcase, and laptop cable lock. (MacConnection.) I can find a Wintel laptop with one or two specs higher for the same price... and a LOT of other features lacking. There are similar great deals on the eMac, G5, iBook, etc.

(Yes you can buy a cheap PC stripped down further than a Mac in some areas, while maintain high specs in other areas. Or build your own. Apple offers nothing at the extreme low-end, I realize--and something headless there WOULD be smart.)

All of which leads me to one conclusion: if people want the 20" iMac, that's great--it's a cool machine with plenty power for a lot of uses. But to make this a good choice for more buyers, Apple really SHOULD have updated some other specs--especially the video board and RAM. Speed, and GPU in particular, are the first things that make a closed all-in-one obsolete. A $2000+ machine with 20" LCD ought to run next year's games well. And using the new G4 with boosted L2 cache--like the PowerBooks--would have been nice if higher Mhz was not available.

Meanwhile, a college student who is into movie-watching or videography more than games would love one! That IS an awesome display, and the iMac physical design remains spectacular.

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
it makes the protowers look so much better but a lot of people dont want a gigantic metal beast! Apple says you cant have it your way( as in the pc world) you must buy protower we will not give you a powerful consumermachine. and we will force the monitor on you. our way or the highway so what do millions do? they go out and get a pc!

like alienware towers aren't gigantic?

apple gives you a powerful consumer machine for consumer use. what apple doesn't give you is a powerful "consumer priced" machine for gaming use.

please do not equate "consumer use" with "gaming" just because you happen to be a hardcore gamer and not a "pro" user. IF "consumer use" was really the same as "gaming" then, apple would have put more thought into offering a gaming machine. but apparently, apple's selling fine without specially catering to such a market.

would you be upset at alienware if you tried to use their machines for critical server applications and didn't give you the best performance for the buck?

yes, they go and get a PC. and it's apple's way or the highway. but apple's doing fine, catering to the most of the market.

the_mole1314
Nov 18, 2003, 10:47 AM
Yeah, but for access you have to go into the coat closet to change CDs.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by dieselg4
A very odd release, given that they processors kinda went nowhere and there wasn't a price drop either. WOulda beens well to see at $100-$200 drop on the ohter machines.
Maybe even 15" 1099 17" 1499 20" 1899 for combos
and 15" 1299 17" 1699 20" 2099 for Supers.

And if not a G5, then G4 1.33's and 1.42's . . well its motorola, we have been going nowhere for years so i guess apple thinks we are just use to it! i can see it now next summer apple releases a faster imac the all new 1.3 g4!!! meanwhile the protowers are at dual 3 gig.

cornboy
Nov 18, 2003, 10:51 AM
Chaps,
Step back a little. what time of year is this? This is about driving traffic, shifting imac bases and spreading the word, so that Apple doesn't have an inventory 'mare come February. Giving Apple something new to talk about. More traffic = more iPod sales, more Panther converts, more familiarity. And because only 8 people are going to buy this machine it will drive loads to looking at the 'middle of the range' 17" and realising what a cool thing it would be to have that in the lounge come Christmas. 7/10 infrequent restaurant goers order the second cheapest bottle of wine.....
2 weeks before Christmas there will be some price drop or 'bundle' deal on the 17 & 15 inchers, or I'll eat my mistletoe.

choogheem
Nov 18, 2003, 10:51 AM
i guess you are running at 640 x 480 with everything off

I'm running at 1440 x 900. Again, like I said, many things are not that fluid, but I don't believe that the iMac is a major gaming platform. I know the apple website touts the iMac (heck even the eMac is touted as a killer graphics platform Blistering 3D effects) as being a good graphics platform Spectacular 3D Effects). I bought my iMac for school and science applications, the gaming is a nice aside. I don't think we should view the iMac as a major gaming platform.

Trimix
Nov 18, 2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by TorbX
I'm one of those people - and I'm not even a grandparent :p

So am I and I love it. Will get the 20' asap.
Happen to run huge spreadsheets on it and my entire company is on it too ($6.5mio turnover in 03 - on one 800 15' imac :p )
Never let me down one minute, running 16 hours a day
go go go apple

choogheem
Nov 18, 2003, 10:56 AM
* Macs get the fixed version, not the buggy first release.

Umm, I'm not too sure about that. Several games that were ported to OS X have some issues with them from personal experience. I can say that some companies are nice enough to send free copies of other games though for the inconvience.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 11:00 AM
im sorry but if you expect me to think you are running your games at 1440 x 900 and they are even remotely smooth on a 4mx then you must think iam a newbie. i think you mean your screen is 1440 x 900 also you cant turn on some things with a 4mx anyways go ahead and pay top dollar for the worst videochip(not card fx5200 and top dollar for a stuck in the same old mud G41.25. then when the machine is obsolete you have to get rid of the monitor. this is a stop gap measure thats why no hoopla. the real machine comes out next year lets just hope they get off the g4 and get off the mx series of cards which by the way the fx5200 is a rebranded mx. so this year imac went from 1 gig to 1.25 gig! WOW!

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 11:14 AM
Don't Hurt Me-

your points are made already - iMac for $2k+ doesn't have good CPU/videocard for gaming.

do you have anything more constructive to say?

~Shard~
Nov 18, 2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by cornboy
2 weeks before Christmas there will be some price drop or 'bundle' deal on the 17 & 15 inchers, or I'll eat my mistletoe.

Hmm, now there's an interesting prediction - anyone care to start speculating on this possibility? :) I think that would be a pretty good idea...

Lancetx
Nov 18, 2003, 11:23 AM
Well, whether you like the iMac or not (and I do by the way), I really don't think they are going to move very many of them until they either have a major revision (i.e. G5) or a substantial price cut. Anyone in the market for a consumer machine right now will get infinitely more bang for their buck if they go for the eMac instead. There are some that will pay the premium for the style of the iMac, but let's face it, you get a lot more for your money from an eMac right now. That's why I'm baffled at their decision to put out an even more expensive iMac today while leaving the existing ones at the same price.

Those sales numbers from Apple's financial report are for iMac and eMac sales combined, I don't believe they break them down separately. I'd be willing to bet they sell as many eMacs as they do iMacs these days. IMO, the eMac is the real switcher machine, not the iMac, at least as it stands right now and the eMac is certainly a much better value.

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 11:24 AM
I dont experience any slowdown and i'm running full screen. Somethime must be wrong with your mac, I only have 256M of RAM, and it's older iMac 800Mhz, but it could be that i'm not a big time gamer. But it looks better than the UT2k3 that i play on my XBOX.
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
i guess you are running at 640 x 480 with everything off,also take another look at the d-day beach landing! the sad fact is for over 2 grand it has 1 single stagnated 1.25 g4 and the slowest cheapest video chip. they dont currently make a cheaper chip the fx5200? to have such a nice display it ashame. it makes the protowers look so much better but a lot of people dont want a gigantic metal beast! Apple says you cant have it your way( as in the pc world) you must buy protower we will not give you a powerful consumermachine. and we will force the monitor on you. our way or the highway so what do millions do? they go out and get a pc!

mrsebastian
Nov 18, 2003, 11:25 AM
pretty sweet, but kinda expensive no?

Dahl
Nov 18, 2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by cornboy
Chaps,
Step back a little. what time of year is this? This is about driving traffic, shifting imac bases and spreading the word, so that Apple doesn't have an inventory 'mare come February. Giving Apple something new to talk about. More traffic = more iPod sales, more Panther converts, more familiarity. And because only 8 people are going to buy this machine it will drive loads to looking at the 'middle of the range' 17" and realising what a cool thing it would be to have that in the lounge come Christmas. 7/10 infrequent restaurant goers order the second cheapest bottle of wine.....
2 weeks before Christmas there will be some price drop or 'bundle' deal on the 17 & 15 inchers, or I'll eat my mistletoe.
Exactly.
These new products are not important enough to premiere at a big Apple event and Apple needs to drum up some attention for their productline for the holidays, so this it a good way for them to do so.
I'm not sure who needs a 20' iMac, we all want one, but do we need one ?

I'm still waiting for Apple to get serious about some new displays.
I have two old CRT's for my new G5 and I think new displays must be coming soon, if not new sizes, at least prices and design. Why are Apple dragging their feet ? Are they waiting for an big event ?

eyrii69
Nov 18, 2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the point is consumers are gamers sorry to point this out and i know the mac community has a problem with this, it looks like apple does to because they have a crappy cpu mated with a crappy videochip mated to a wonderful display and then want the old arm & leg. go to inside mac games or macgamer or... tell me consumers are not gamers and also tell me why a brandnew 2 thousand dollar machine struggles with UT2K3?this means newer stuff will only get worse? face it apple is pawning off old & slow technology to the unknowing and imac sales show that perhaps the consumer is smarter then they give them credit for. the fx5200 is the worst go to any benchmark page on that,toms hardware,barefeets whatever. anyways this is a dog my advice is to stay clear get a emac or protower or wait and perhaps they will get it right next year.

I am curious, what PC can you buy for gaming hwen you are supposed to have a 20 inch, flat widescreen display?

As far I know Apples 20" inch is the cheapest on the market, at least here in Norway. Let us have a look:
$2199 iMac 20"
-$1299 20" Apple cinema display
=$900 left for the PC, including superdrive.
Superdrive adds maybe $200 to a PC, this gives me $700 to buy the PC. Tell me what PC to have for this amount of money, and if it will be good for the games you mentioned. Oh, and do not forget Macusers usually are willing to pay some more, so the PC really should not cost more than $600. :-)

By the way, I think the hardcore gamer also will avoid "slow" LCD displays in favor for regular CRT-displays, which are known to be faster.

illumin8
Nov 18, 2003, 11:31 AM
I think it's a good deal to get a 20" Cinema display with a G4 attached for not much more than the cost of the display itself, but Apple has totally dropped the ball by putting the terrible Nvidia 5200 graphics chipset in this machine. Couldn't they have put a much more capable ATI Radeon 9600 in there? It just seems to be a joke that Apple continues to use these shoddy chipsets. Steve must be still holding a beef against ATI for leaking pre-release information years ago. It's just sad to see a personal beef against another company drag the quality of a lot of Apple products down.

I know I personally won't ever buy an Apple product that has an Nvidia chipset in it. I have nothing against Nvidia really, but everyone that follows the industry knows they have fallen behind ATI and their products now are slower, larger, and put out more heat than ATI's do.

pkkrusty
Nov 18, 2003, 11:31 AM
If you think about the cost of developing the 20" iMac, this move is a logical one. There was absolutely no R&D, since all you have to do is produce an already-designed plastic case for the 20" screen. Stick it on an iMac and you're done. This was a very low cost move for Apple with marginal rewards. They will sell x-thousand units of this thing before the new iMac comes out next year. That's all they're looking for. There's a small market out there for non-upgradeable 20 inch iMacs, and Apple is in it now.

This explains why there was so little fanfare. It wasn't a big deal, and Apple knew it.

The dual 1.8 signals to me that speeds are being bumped up and the dual 1.8s are being intriduced so that they become 'botoom of the line' at the next update. This will leave the entire G5 family dual.

chrisnturkey
Nov 18, 2003, 11:33 AM
Hi folks,

I don't presume to arbitrate between those who think this machine is cool and those find the same old specs disappointing. (if find them so myself). I wish they could have stuffed a modestly clocked G5 in there. (That's what I get for praying to God I don't really believe in!) Nonetheless, I have to cast another ballot for grandparent usage. I use my machine ALL the time for music and surfing mainly but also productivity/work and for photos. My G3-350 tower (bless it) is perfectly great for almost everything I do. I only play strategy games so I will gingerly side-step that issue ....

AND, not to be deprecating to our gaming friends, but the world is full of people who don't give a rats-ass what kind of graphics chips set is inside (our don't even know what that is, for that matter). The percentage of women in the world, I'm told, is approaching 50! ;)

As far as I'm concerned, two things might make it worth parting with a hefty dollop of my oh-so-hard-earned pittance: 1) The screen is probably just big enough for my to justify watching movies on ... and throwing away the TV. 2) Is there a cooler looking computer? (and what if when they finally put a G5 in it it doesn't match my ipod?!?)

My hope, and it is only that, is that there are still a few people left out there like me for whom the computer is a lifestyle toy and who want the coolest looking one around.

Oh and one question to those in the know: Are those bundled speakers worthless for high quality audio? Is buying a sub-woofer enough or would I have to go all out? Thanks!

:) cheers

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 11:34 AM
On tech tv they say most games dont even use the power that's in most of the new graphics cards. They use Nvidia graphics card all the time,and they say that they are pretty good cards. I dont see the problem.

vrapan
Nov 18, 2003, 11:36 AM
my opinion is that apple has several reasons not to bother with gamers.
the hardcore gamers wont bother with macs really. that is because they rarely are fast enough for the latest games, many games take several months if not years to be ported (BG2: Throne of Bhaal), several companies do not even bother to inform people if they are planning on a mac version of their games and generally there is too much lag and uncertainty for someone who plays games. iMacs therefore are not gaming machines. even if they came with a 1.5GHz proc and stuffed with FX5600 or Radeon 9600 they would still not be used as gaming machines. i am not so sure how well the 20" iMac will sell but it wouldn't sell to the gaming market anyway. someone that buys a mac needs to also know that he/she either has to restrict his gaming to few, oldish, low spec games or buy a console or a PC to accompany his/her Mac.

the only problem i see with that is that Macs are stripped out of one of the uses PCs tend to have and that is gaming. Consequently they lose some of their value since they can;t do something the "enemy" can.

i own just a 12" PB (first gen) and i really can't play many new games. i do not regret switching to the mac i love the platform but in first opportunity i wont be buying a new mac but i will be building a gaming PC....

choogheem
Nov 18, 2003, 11:38 AM
The dual 1.8 signals to me that speeds are being bumped up and the dual 1.8s are being intriduced so that they become 'botoom of the line' at the next update. This will leave the entire G5 family dual.

Very good speculation - and I hope you're right. And when they do, I'm sure to buy. :D (At least I hope, dream)

AirUncleP
Nov 18, 2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Lancetx
I still don't see how this will help improve the slow iMac sales one bit. Had the 20" come in at $1,999 along with a $200 price cut on both the 17" and 15" models this would have been good news, but if $1,799 17" iMacs weren't selling well, then $2,199 20" models certainly won't. Especially considering they didn't bump up the RAM, hard drive, graphics or anything else over the existing 17" model. I must say I'm rather disappointed.

A 17" iMac and a 20g iPod ($2198) vs. a 20" iMac ($2199). It's a no brainer.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 11:46 AM
tell you the truth the wide 17 is nice and 20 even more so, but the problem is the technology is obsolete, g5 has made g4 obsolete, ati 9800 is so far ahead of a fx5200, guess ill just keep waiting for that day say a imac 20 inch and 2.0 g5. anyways nice display:rolleyes:

whooleytoo
Nov 18, 2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by jxyama
consumers in apple's market are not gamers. please, get over this.

macs have higher entry price. people who can afford them are NOT teenagers and college students playing video games.


apple cannot target its products to gamers. their video cards aren't good, CPU is slow, blah blah.

So, Apple makes machines that are too expensive and too slow for gamers, and this is a good thing??

Apple can't afford to ignore the gaming market, it's a key driver in consumer sales. Plus, you won't find many gamers with 3+ year old machines, they need to buy new machines to play the latest and greatest games, hence valuable customers to have.

It's not as if the iMac is a stellar performer apart from games either.

jettredmont
Nov 18, 2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the point is consumers are gamers

Nope, sorry.

Gamers are a (small) subset of consumers. They are vocal, and tend to be overwhelmingly represented by the "the world owes me everything" crowd, but they are a distinct minority.

If you are a gamer in any "serious" capacity, Apple does NOT have a platform for you. That's okay. I think you can deal with it.

If you want to play games on occasion, then even this Mac is decent enough. People where I work get together for a Quake frag-fest a couple nights a week, and most of them are on two-year-old Macs. Not my thing, personally, but they sure seem to enjoy themselves despite having hardware a good generation or two behind the "crappy" current nVidia midline graphics card.

If you have to be getting 200fps out of a game to enjoy it, then Apple does not have a product for you. Sorry. Live with it!

That's Wintel is there for. That's what XBox is there for. That's what PlayStation is there for. Mac need not be all things for all people all the time.

Lancetx
Nov 18, 2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by AirUncleP
A 17" iMac and a 20g iPod ($2198) vs. a 20" iMac ($2199). It's a no brainer.

Better yet how's about a 17" CRT eMac w/SuperDrive and a 20GB iPod for $1,498 vs. a 17" iMac for $1,799 (muchless a 20" iMac for $2,199). Now that to me that's a real no brainer too.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 12:00 PM
so true whooleytoo, games are a big drive in the market and unlike that person who has photoshop a mac gamer will have many more programs therefore sustaining the mac market and supporting it. the simple fact is motostagnation is still with us, and since apples cpu's are so slow they can keep feeding us cheap videocards/chips. i refuse to think apple can not make a high performance machine for the prosumer. the window between a single g4 at 1.25 and the dual 2 gig G5 is a big one to say the least. the fact is apple's crippled consumer machines are very slow.

jocknerd
Nov 18, 2003, 12:02 PM
There have been a lot of imacs that went back for service because the arm got loose. My mom bought her 17" last April and it just went in for service last week because she couldn't keep the screen from dropping to the desk. Thats not very good quality for something just over 6 months old. So has Apple improved the arms on the 20"? If not, there are going to be a lot of unhappy users down the road. My mom's not the only 17" to have this problem. There have been a lot of discussion in the Apple forums.

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 12:08 PM
i never said it's a good thing. all i said is that to dismiss iMac solely based on its ability as a gaming machine is wrong.

at the moment, with game developers and videocard manufacturers slow to port to macs, gaming market is one area apple can overlook. afterall, what is apple to do? there's no top of the line videocard. there's no affordable g5. if you are just asking for prices to be lowered - then wait a bit because prices WILL come down if not catering to gamers is as important as you make it out to be and starts to hurt apple's bottom line. we'll see about that.

it will do far more damage to the apple's strength as "all in-one computing solution" if they started offering infinite customizability in iMacs. most basic consumers want simple solution. they look at their budget, buy a computer with the money and start using it. they are probably not very interested in how much RAM is in the videocard, etc.

the other sales model is dell's model. advertise a computer for $500 with a 3 year old processor (celeron) with a shared RAM and CD-ROM. if joe shmoe doesn't know any better and gets the thing as is, he will be either fine with it because he does nothing but a very basic tasks or find it fairly unusable. or if he knows anything about computers, try to get him to upgrade and the price goes up significantly.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 12:11 PM
imac needs to be rethinked and they need to ditch the arm monitor, build a headless pci slotted agp slotted single g5 computer that is less than half the size of the towers with wireless keyboard and mouse and wrap it in cool colors and or shape add a cool monitor option you can buy if you want to. they would sell millions. i know this has been said before. 1 more comment on those i hate mac games and refuse to use my mac as a gaming machine though it cost me a arm & leg. go to inside mac games for the latest ! Halo will be out on Mac dec3! better have a newer mac if you want to play.

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
so true whooleytoo, games are a big drive in the market and unlike that person who has photoshop a mac gamer will have many more programs therefore sustaining the mac market and supporting it. the simple fact is motostagnation is still with us, and since apples cpu's are so slow they can keep feeding us cheap videocards/chips. i refuse to think apple can not make a high performance machine for the prosumer. the window between a single g4 at 1.25 and the dual 2 gig G5 is a big one to say the least. the fact is apple's crippled consumer machines are very slow.

oh please, a copy of photoshop is worth how much more than games?

games may direct the technology but clearly, it doesn't get the same respect when it comes to $$$. if gamers drive the market by spending money as you seem to be implying, then just go get the dual G5. gamers aren't sustaining the mac market - video/music/art professionals dropping $3k on dual G5's and $1k on Adobe suites do.

apple will not cannibalize the sale of their PM or iMac buy introducing a prosumer machine targeting gamers. just because you want one doesn't mean apple should spend it's R&D/marketing money to make it. jobs created a very good 2x2 matrix of pro/consumer/desktop/laptop. i think it would be rather foolish to slip something in the middle, jeopardizing all sales, just to cater to minority (but vocal) gamers. can you justify, beyond "oh, it would be cool and i'd buy one" why a headless iMacs would do so well? what if the headless iMac with a margin of $200 sold half a million but ate 90% of the sales of iMacs and eMacs with margins of $300 to $400? still a viable product then?

again, your point has been made. do you have more useful things to add to this?

and, please, use complete sentences.

pgwalsh
Nov 18, 2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont
Nope, sorry.

Gamers are a (small) subset of consumers. Gaming is a multi-billion dollar market... It's no "small subset" of consumers.. It's a vast growing amount of consumers and many of them are young an impressionable. Apple should take advantage of this as much as possible if they want to garner more market share.. Get'em while they're young and hot... You can't do that with under performing expensive hardware.

Many gamers want to use the personal computer as their main gaming piece because it's too expensive to get a console and own a pc... So Apple should hit this market hard...

Apple actually caters to a subset of consumers right nowÉ They also cater to a subset of professional users. The graphics and pro audio market is a subset of the professional business marketÉ Look at the percentages of any company. ItÕs the graphics department with the Macs and the rest of the organization on pc.

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 12:26 PM
yes, gaming market is big. that doesn't mean apple has to "cater" to it. do you see IBM catering their machines to gaming? do you think apple should eat and kill their margins (and, thus far, profitable business model) so it can take something away from alienware, console makers, etc.?

portable phone market is huge. what did jobs say about apple entering that market?

just because the pie is big doesn't mean anyone can get in and grab a piece. if the market is 10 times bigger but 100 times more competitive, you'd better think twice before making drastic changes to your business plan to venture into such an area.

it's a market apple should keep an eye on. but with the slowness of game and videocard porting to macs, i don't think it's wise for macs to simply lower prices for the sake of catering to gamers. there are other non-gamers apple has been successfully catering to.

cr2sh
Nov 18, 2003, 12:27 PM
I am seriously going to start a '20" Powerbook' Chant here in about 5 minutes....

Its not a very practical addition.. the 17" iMac is fine for most consumers.. but I think it'll sell well for a while.. christ, why not?

A big screen is nice.. but how about higher density resolutions? its gotta be the better solution... just a little tighter? This 15" Latitude has a 1600x1200 native and its really nice... please?

Powermacs.. CHECK
Powerbooks.. CHECK
iMacs... CHECK
iBooks... CHECK
eMac... CHECK
xServe... nope...
Displays... nope...

Dreadnought
Nov 18, 2003, 12:27 PM
The proc is to slow for this machine, and it is tooooooooooooo expensive! You can have a g5 1.6 for that money with a good screen from a third party. Sorry Apple , first put a G5 in there and then a 20" screen. There is one pluspoint: It looks even cooler then before!!

jettredmont
Nov 18, 2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
im sorry but if you expect me to think you are running your games at 1440 x 900 and they are even remotely smooth on a 4mx then you must think iam a newbie. i think you mean your screen is 1440 x 900 also you cant turn on some things with a 4mx anyways go ahead and pay top dollar for the worst videochip(not card fx5200 and top dollar for a stuck in the same old mud G41.25. then when the machine is obsolete you have to get rid of the monitor. this is a stop gap measure thats why no hoopla. the real machine comes out next year lets just hope they get off the g4 and get off the mx series of cards which by the way the fx5200 is a rebranded mx. so this year imac went from 1 gig to 1.25 gig! WOW!

Concerning "obsolescence" ... Mac's have historically very high resale value. When your new 20" is obsolete, you will likely be able to sell it for 1000-1500.

Personally, my PC at home has a first-generation gForce256 in it (and an 800MHz P3 on a 100MHz FSB). I'm not a massive FPS shooter fan, but I played through Icewind Dale on it last year without any gameplay problems, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein a year or so before. Did it look as "nice" as it would have on a Radeon 9800? I'm sure it didn't. But it was an enjoyable game.

Please. Buy a PC and spend every dime of your inheritance on the highest-end graphics card every six months. It funds the development of hardware for the rest of us. Thanks!

pgwalsh
Nov 18, 2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by jxyama
do you see IBM catering their machines to gaming? do you think apple should eat and kill their margins (and, thus far, profitable business model) so it can take something away from alienware, console makers, etc.? IBM caters to corporations and not consumers... Dell and Gateway cater to consumers and they both have specialized gaming machines.

portable phone market is huge. what did jobs say about apple entering that market? That's a completely different market... Phone chips and pda/personal computer chips are totally different.

just because the pie is big doesn't mean anyone can get in and grab a piece. if the market is 10 times bigger but 100 times more competitive, you'd better think twice before making drastic changes to your business plan to venture into such an area. Anyone can get in, but it there's no guarantee of success... Micro$oft does it all the time.

it's a market apple should keep an eye on. but with the slowness of game and videocard porting to macs, i don't think it's wise for macs to simply lower prices for the sake of catering to gamers. there are other non-gamers apple has been successfully catering to. [/B] You're right, they should lower the prices of consumer machines to cater to consumers.

Flowbee
Nov 18, 2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
IBM caters to corporations and not consumers... Dell and Gateway cater to consumers and they both have specialized gaming machines.


Oh, that must be one of the keys to Gateway's success. :rolleyes:

sethypoo
Nov 18, 2003, 12:44 PM
:D

20" PowerBook, 20" PowerBook.....

ZildjianKX
Nov 18, 2003, 12:47 PM
What a waste of money...

If you want to upgrade from your iMac later, guess what? You can't use the 20" LCD that you just paid a grand for.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 12:49 PM
shame shame shame on all of us for even hinting a mac should be used for gaming? what were we thinking? macs should be slow, should have lousey video chips sets that cant be replaced, no pci slots and a slow cpu and we will put a shiney new display on it and consumers across the world will rejoice in our wisdom! really does a 20 incher even need to be on a arm when you can see it anywhere in the room? its time to can this turkey.

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 12:51 PM
:rolleyes:

i've wasted enough of today on this silly discussion, so this is my last post here. but geez, anyone can get in so apple should?

and why should apple lower the price when it's still selling ok? i'm sure they got their share of market analysts and concluded that:

current price(margin) x current number of units sold = current total revenue(profit)

is better than

lower price(margin) x increased number of units sold = projected total revenue (profit)

"lowering the price to cater to the consumer" is true if you are in a commodity market and apple isn't a commodity.

i hate analogies, but do you see porche making $10,000 cars to cater to the "consumers"? :confused:

scat999999
Nov 18, 2003, 12:52 PM
Apple isn't and never was about gaming. Want to game, buy a G5PM or a Dell XPS. Most people don't use their computers for gaming. I spoke to enough people when I worked at Dell's call center to know that.
Apple knows who their bread and butter market is... creative professionals and people that value esthetics and design.
All you have to do is look at the design elements of the current line to see that.

Introducing this 20" iMac is brilliant marketing. Most people will buy the middle model in a lineup. This is the best way to drive the sales of the 17" version. I even bought my 15" IMac partly because it was between the eMac and 17" one I really wanted. My brain (wallet) said to buy another eMac, but my heart said to buy the 17" iMac. So I "compromised" and bought the 15". This is a very shrewd move by Apple entering the holiday shopping season.

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
shame shame shame on all of us for even hinting a mac should be used for gaming? what were we thinking? macs should be slow, should have lousey video chips sets that cant be replaced, no pci slots and a slow cpu and we will put a shiney new display on it and consumers across the world will rejoice in our wisdom! really does a 20 incher even need to be on a arm when you can see it anywhere in the room? its time to can this turkey.

you didn't HINT that macs should be used for gaming. you dismissed the entire iMac line by saying it's useless because it can't be used for gaming. :rolleyes:

i'm done here.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 01:03 PM
hey if you want to pay protower price for emac performance thats fine. im sure there will be lot of people buying who dont know anymore the difference between a g4 and g5 then they do the fx5200 vs 9800. this machine is a performance dog and would say any pc for half the price would put it to shame. if you are looking for value it is not in the imac line. they couldnt put a mobile 9600 in it? bumped the g4 just a little even if its just for looks?how about more ram? or fatter bus or something?? i predict this will be the shortest lived imac of all time in its current form.

pgwalsh
Nov 18, 2003, 01:06 PM
This thread got really funny... We have one side that wants to use the iMac to play games and the other that doesn't.. They want if for something else however they don't want it for gaming... WTF is that.

There is no reason it shouldn't be used for games... You should try to make a product that appeals to multiple segments... That may be what they're trying to do, but they fall short in the gaming segment. I don't use the Mac for gaming... I'm not a gamer, but I see why so many gamers use PC's and I see that Apple could offer a little more and get some of those customers.. Is that bad? I hope not... Are we trying too hard to be elitists.. haha sounds like it to me...

That iMac is a really good computer, but it could be better and it could appeal to a broader market. To suggest someone go buy something else cause you don't think that this computer is geared towards gaming is silly.. I thought we wanted our Mac systems to be the best and best the PC world when they can. I could be alone in this....
:p

eyrii69
Nov 18, 2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
shame shame shame on all of us for even hinting a mac should be used for gaming? what were we thinking? macs should be slow, should have lousey video chips sets that cant be replaced, no pci slots and a slow cpu and we will put a shiney new display on it and consumers across the world will rejoice in our wisdom! really does a 20 incher even need to be on a arm when you can see it anywhere in the room? its time to can this turkey.

There are other Macs available, go for one of them if you want.
I suppose that is the point of having several models available, or is it not?

I think EVERYONE in this forum know YOU do not want a 20 inch iMac, but maybe some "weird, silly" people want one, and now they can buy one.

But I love the prospect of both an iMac G5 2Ghz with 20" display, a headless "new" Cube, or a headless iMac with an VGA port for those who currently have a display. Anyway, I do not want these before styling is good, and they do not suffer from bad reliability.

DillHarris
Nov 18, 2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by choogheem
With 256 MB standard, they almost force you to go to apple tech support to install apple memory to get to 1GB. Or of course blow your warranty and do it yourself (which by the way is not too hard to do).
Upgrading the RAM dosen't blow your warranty. Crucial sells high quality RAM for a good price, and you can find cheaper...

My parents still use a bondi blue iMac... The only thing that bites is the screen size. Other than that, it gets the job done. Yes, the 20 incher is not cheap, but it definately won't be unusable in 5 years.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 01:12 PM
pgwalsh is so true, we do want to be the best, the fact that they just slapped a bigger screen on the imac has to mean something is in the works or otherwise it would have been bumped. macs should be able to do everything better including gaming, right now they just do eveything better except gaming( the G5 will change this)

greenstork
Nov 18, 2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
i guess it will be the same game as Apple has been playing for the past few years,force people to buy powermacs because the consumer line is so inept? whats a x-bench on a 1.25 g4 imac? no wonder so little fan fare from apple. i predict sales to plummet for imacs simply due to cpu and video chip lack of performance,after all this is a 2 thousand dollar machine.

All I have to say is that if you're worried about an x-bench score, you shouldn't be buying an iMac, you are not the intended market. That $2000 gets you $1300 of monitor so stop you bitchin. If you want a power user machine, buy a 1.6 GHz Power Mac and get your own monitor.

uberman42
Nov 18, 2003, 01:13 PM
Seems to me this is the swan song of the current design. Not a bad way to end it. Specs pretty much the same as the 17", but the 20" looks lovely. I believe there is a new design iMac coming in the next six months. 1.8 Single G5 iMac should do the trick in a new body.

Some_Big_Spoon
Nov 18, 2003, 01:18 PM
Sitting directly outside the Menlo Park, NJ Apple Store and no sign of either the new 20" iMacs or 1.8 Duals..

Store employees say they have no idea when they'll show up as shipments, quote, "just arrive one day".

I'll check back with them later this week and maybe post some pics and benchmarks if folks want them.

chemicalmethods@mac.com

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 01:18 PM
Yeah i dont think people buy iMac's for gaming. LCDs are not screens for gaming. Most ultimate gaming machines (alienware) will run 2,500 dollars. Just get an G5 if you want to game.

oh yeah, they use NVidia graphics cards on alienware machines.

CmdrLaForge
Nov 18, 2003, 01:20 PM
G5
1.6GHz PowerPC G5
• 256MB DDR333 SDRAM (PC2700) - 2x128
• 80GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
• NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
• Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel)
• 56k V.92 internal modem
• SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
• Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
• Mac OS X - U.S. English
Subtotal $3,098.00


iMac 20"
• 256MB DDR333 SDRAM - 1 DIMM
• 80GB Ultra ATA drive
• Keyboard/Mac OS X - U.S. English
• 20-inch flat-panel LCD
• 1.25GHz PowerPC G4
• 4x SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
• NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
• Apple Keyboard
• Apple Mouse
• Apple Pro Speakers

Subtotal $2,199.00

sharky2313
Nov 18, 2003, 01:21 PM
They should call this imac: iprofit. The pricing point is ridiculous compared with the performance that you get.

Even if consumers do buy this machine, Apple should be ashamed of themselves for pushing this lug o crap. And no, the screen does not make up for it, since i doubt most consumers would appreciate or even really understand the benefits of a 20" screen

put a low g5 in there and get it over with. I pity the people that buy this computer for christmas as the g5 will show up in the imac this winter with a new chipset and a big speed boost.

pgwalsh
Nov 18, 2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
Yeah i dont think people buy iMac's for gaming. LCDs are not screens for gaming. Most ultimate gaming machines (alienware) will run 2,500 dollars. Just get an G5 if you want to game.

oh yeah, they use NVidia graphics cards on alienware machines. I agree that most probably don't because they would have poor performance... I wouldn't if I was a gamer.. However, if they had a G5 with a 9600 Pro or 9800 Pro and full DDR support.. I might. Not all gamers are hardcore, but new games require the above cards or something similar. So the current iMacs realy aren't acceptable and future games are going to require better hardware... If you're going to buy a computer for the family and you have a coupel teenagers that want to use the home cupter for gaming... better not buy an iMac.. that's too bad... it's a great family machine.

Ja Di ksw
Nov 18, 2003, 01:31 PM
I wonder what it would take in a product (and I'm talking about something Apple COULD do, including specs, price, etc) that no mac person would complain about. Windows people will always bi*** about the OS or something, but I'm talking about people who like macs already.

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 01:34 PM
Well I dont game much, but when I do, I dont have any problems. The G5 can be upgraded to the 9600 Pro.

sedarby
Nov 18, 2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Lancetx
I still don't see how this will help improve the slow iMac sales one bit. Had the 20" come in at $1,999 along with a $200 price cut on both the 17" and 15" models this would have been good news, but if $1,799 17" iMacs weren't selling well, then $2,199 20" models certainly won't. Especially considering they didn't bump up the RAM, hard drive, graphics or anything else over the existing 17" model. I must say I'm rather disappointed.

I agree. If you bump the memory to a respectable 512 MB on 1 DIMM then you are at $2399 with the dual 1.8 G5 for $2499 and especially if you have a spare monitor to use it makes for a tough decision.

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 01:36 PM
I think the dual 1.8's has pleased a lot of people. If I had the money, i'd spring for it.
Originally posted by Ja Di ksw
I wonder what it would take in a product (and I'm talking about something Apple COULD do, including specs, price, etc) that no mac person would complain about. Windows people will always bi*** about the OS or something, but I'm talking about people who like macs already.

~Shard~
Nov 18, 2003, 01:41 PM
Easy now, don’t bash the gamers too much. I realize they keep saying the same things over and over in these posts, and some of the posters come across as being 13 years old with their comments, intellect and grammar, but let’s not rip into them, okay? They simply want the Mac to be more of a gaming machine. This is something Apple does not cater to. Plain and simple. I would like Ferrari to cater to 90% of the car consumers as well, but unfortunately, they don’t produce $20,000 cars. Is this bad? No, this is simply the business model of the company. Gamers have to understand this.

I realize a lot of money is spent on gaming, but come on, compared to Pro users? I don’t think so. Let me throw some rough, general numbers out here for example. Pro users buy PowerMacs for ~$3000, or more with upgrades if you’re looking at movie or design studios. Tack onto that ~$1000 for Adobe products, a couple more thousand for FCP, Shake, etc., plus upgrades every year or so, and you’re looking at a pretty substantial market. I doubt a gamer will spend the same amount on gaming over a 2-3 year period, and if they do, they need to get a life. ;)

Also, I doubt the 1100 Virginia Tech PMs were bought for a massively multiplayer setup for UT2003. Although I have to admit that would be pretty sweet… ;)

If you want a high end gaming machine that is a Mac, go out and buy a nice new DP 1.8/2.0 GHz G5 with a 9800 and 2 GB of RAM or so. Better yet, wait until speed bumps come @ MWSF. Otherwise, pick up your equally expensive Alienware Gaming PC or buy a Console – they were made for gaming, Macs aren’t.

Hell, it would be great if Macs supported more games and all that, don’t get me wrong, but they don’t, and I appreciate that, respect that, and understand their business model.

And if you have troubles realizing that computers aren’t made just for games, then I feel very, very sorry for you.

Alright, let’s hear some constructive, intelligent replies... :cool:

Edot
Nov 18, 2003, 01:41 PM
1. There isn't a computer like it.
2. The pricing seems right for such a unique machine. Especially the education pricing.:D

kangaroo
Nov 18, 2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by kangaroo
It's not just a larger display...the specs are better than the 17"/15". Check it out on the spec page.
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
other than screen and resolution, it seems identical to the 17". am i missing something?

Originally posted by Lancetx
No, the specs on the new 20" are identical to the 17" except for the display of course.
I apologize for the ambiguous post. What I meant to convey is that the specs on the 20" display are better:

Display Specs:
...
Typical Viewing Angle:
120° horizontal, 90° vertical (15-inch and 17-inch models)
170° horizontal, 170° vertical (20-inch model)

Typical brightness:
200 cd/m2 (15-inch and 17-inch models)
230 cd/m2 (20-inch model)

Typical contrast ratio:
300:1 (15-inch and 17-inch models)
350:1 (20-inch model)

People tend to discriminate Apple's displays simply by 'size' but, keep in mind, the specs reveal that there are real differences 'under the hood'.

If this new 20-inch display had the same specs as the other two, I'd stay away from it with a 10-foot pole. But these spec changes make it worth a look.

Also, I think this 20-inch display portends the introduction of a new stand-alone displays (hopefully very soon).

~Shard~
Nov 18, 2003, 01:43 PM
... oh, and if you're making a big deal about the x-bench scores for an iMac, guess what, you shouldn't be buying an iMac. You're not the intended market and should be looking at buying a PowerMac instead.

jettredmont
Nov 18, 2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
This thread got really funny... We have one side that wants to use the iMac to play games and the other that doesn't.. They want if for something else however they don't want it for gaming... WTF is that.

There is no reason it shouldn't be used for games... You should try to make a product that appeals to multiple segments... That may be what they're trying to do, but they fall short in the gaming segment. I don't use the Mac for gaming... I'm not a gamer, but I see why so many gamers use PC's and I see that Apple could offer a little more and get some of those customers.. Is that bad? I hope not... Are we trying too hard to be elitists.. haha sounds like it to me...


If you need 200 fps on Unreal Tournament 2003 or whatever the 1337 gamerz tool is these days, you will not get it on an iMac, and you probably won't get it on any Mac because the software support isn't there (games tend to get ported to the Mac, not developed on the Mac). That's a fact of life.

I'd love for my Mac to toast my bagel in the morning, but I don't say the Mac is crap because it doesn't.

Gaming is a large industry, but look at the sales Dell sees to gamers: pitiful. Even with their new "XBS" line, I don't think they're going to get many gamers to buy their stuff. The gamer mentality is just not one which conforms well to pre-packaged solutions and stock models.

Who makes money off gamers? Video card makers make a huge chunk of money from PC gamers. Case manufacturers and direct motherboard sellers make a good amount of money from gamers. Game developers get a lot of revenue from gamers of course, although not many of them make a great profit from it. Dell doesn't make a ton of money from gamers. Gateway doesn't make a bunch of money from anybody. No gamer with an ounce of self-respect would tote around a Compaq Presario or somesuch.

Why should Apple spend the resources (hardware and software) to "win" the gaming audience? They are at a distinct disadvantage historically and from a fundamental customer-relationship standpoint. It's generally not a good idea to bet the company that you can win over some market segment when all your competitors have a distinct innate advantage in that segment.


That iMac is a really good computer, but it could be better and it could appeal to a broader market. To suggest someone go buy something else cause you don't think that this computer is geared towards gaming is silly.. I thought we wanted our Mac systems to be the best and best the PC world when they can. I could be alone in this....
:p

It's called picking battles. Apple can't, at this point, be the Ultimate Computing Company Behemoth. That's MS right now, and $4.5B in the bank is nice and all, but looks pretty pathetic in a pissing contest with a company sitting on over $50B.

Too many companies with a better angle on the gaming community are already spending too much money to "win" that segment. Apple could certainly try for it, but Apple could also certainly go bankrupt in the process. It's not as easy as saying "Oh, let's put a G5 in this little iMac enclosure and a 100W video card right next to it and sell it for $300! We'll rule the WORLD!!!"

On the other hand, if you are a "casual" gamer, one who's ego isn't hung by the thin threads of your millisecond response times and who can resist the urge to slit your wrists if a game hiccups for a half second before the big battle scene, Macs are fine for gaming. They certainly have enough power and the video cards are sufficient. Which, really, is about where 90% of the PCs sold today are as well.

They just aren't and will never be a better gaming machine than the tricked-out custom-built Wintel PC or game console.

cr2sh
Nov 18, 2003, 02:01 PM
I wish I could Unsubscribe from this thread TWICE. How could it go this wrong?

The iMac is a beautiful consumer PC.. consumer gaming, consumer web surfing, consumer movies and photos... there is nothing hardcore about it. Gaming or otherwise.

sjc1204
Nov 18, 2003, 02:03 PM
So, I guess everyone pretty much hates the new iMac. Let's see if the sales figures agree with everyone after the Christmas season is over.

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 02:04 PM
I agree.
Originally posted by cr2sh
I wish I could Unsubscribe from this thread TWICE. How could it go this wrong?

The iMac is a beautiful consumer PC.. consumer gaming, consumer web surfing, consumer movies and photos... there is nothing hardcore about it. Gaming or otherwise.

pgwalsh
Nov 18, 2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont
If you need 200 fps on Unreal Tournament 2003 or whatever the 1337 gamerz tool is these days, you will not get it on an iMac, and you probably won't get it on any Mac because the software support isn't there (games tend to get ported to the Mac, not developed on the Mac). That's a fact of life.

I'd love for my Mac to toast my bagel in the morning, but I don't say the Mac is crap because it doesn't.

Gaming is a large industry, but look at the sales Dell sees to gamers: pitiful. Even with their new "XBS" line, I don't think they're going to get many gamers to buy their stuff. The gamer mentality is just not one which conforms well to pre-packaged solutions and stock models.

Who makes money off gamers? Video card makers make a huge chunk of money from PC gamers. Case manufacturers and direct motherboard sellers make a good amount of money from gamers. Game developers get a lot of revenue from gamers of course, although not many of them make a great profit from it. Dell doesn't make a ton of money from gamers. Gateway doesn't make a bunch of money from anybody. No gamer with an ounce of self-respect would tote around a Compaq Presario or somesuch.

Why should Apple spend the resources (hardware and software) to "win" the gaming audience? They are at a distinct disadvantage historically and from a fundamental customer-relationship standpoint. It's generally not a good idea to bet the company that you can win over some market segment when all your competitors have a distinct innate advantage in that segment.. They are not fine for gaming and if that's what you think your misguided... However, my point, which a few of you have seem to completely missed, is that they could add some improvements and make the suitable for gaming, which I believe they are not. I agree that if you're really into hardcore gaming that the iMac is not for you, but it's really not good for today's new games.. So it could be improved.

A radeon 9600 would do well and so would a G5... Are you saying you don't want these components in an iMac?

~Shard~ < No need to get personal about grammar errors.. Typo's an spelling mistakes happen in forums...

DGFan
Nov 18, 2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
Gaming is a multi-billion dollar market... It's no "small subset" of consumers.. It's a vast growing amount of consumers and many of them are young an impressionable. Apple should take advantage of this as much as possible if they want to garner more market share.. Get'em while they're young and hot... You can't do that with under performing expensive hardware.

Many gamers want to use the personal computer as their main gaming piece because it's too expensive to get a console and own a pc... So Apple should hit this market hard...


Gaming is multi-billion dollar because of consoles, not PCs. Apple is never going to hit this market.

The real PC gaming market is not going to have serious inroads by Apple until they get games. They already have top notch systems. My friends are buying systems from Voodoo PC and Alienware (crazy, I agree, but they are). Apple has systems that are in the ballpark (and competitively priced to similar models).

And anyone who can't afford $3k for a computer just really isn't a serious gamer. Serious gamers buy 2-3 games every month and *do* spend that much on a computer.

Why is it so hard to believe that there are different markets for computers and Apple is trying to hit most of them? (I would say "all" but they still don't have a headless budget box)

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 02:05 PM
well i got a powermac! anyways apple just needs to give the people what they want? did i want a powermac ? no. why did i buy one? they cripple the imac so bad in performance & expansion. powermac is way more then i needed but what are you going to do? the imac is fantastic but they make sure they have one of its arms tied behind its back if you know what i mean, lackluster video or no l3 or whatever! stop crippling the dam thing apple! why not a full version of something in the imac?? how about a real video card? give the people what they want and stop acting like big brother from your 1984 add Apple!

daveL
Nov 18, 2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by FlamDrag
I would sure like someone who mentions the sales of iMacs - good or bad - to quote some actual sources. We can all sit around and say "the iMac has been a great seller" if we just like the way the machine looks. Just because you or someone you know owns an iMac does not make it a great selling computer. The converse is true as well - if you don't know a single person who owns an iMac it doesn't mean that nobody is buying them.
See: www.apple.com/pr/pdf/q403data_sum.pdf. Summary: iMac/eMac sales are down 25% year-over-year.

TorbX
Nov 18, 2003, 02:11 PM
Apple computers are not mainly gaming computers. They are a nice tool to do what most people mainly do with computers, and what we will not get tired of. Photo, email, movies, writing, etc.

Gaming is not Apple's marked. Everything else is just a much more pleasing experience, and I'm very happy with that.

So will my dad be, when I get home to my home town this christmas and demonstrate iPhoto for him. He'll throw away the crappy program that came with his Canon v3 and he'll buy the 20" iMac just for iPhoto and good space for pictures. :-)

Ja Di ksw
Nov 18, 2003, 02:16 PM
As other people have pointed out, it doesn't matter if Apple puts in some great video card or whatever for gamers, because the games are not there. Games are very rarely made just for the mac. Games are fairly rarely made for mac and windows at the same time. Games are usually made for windows, and then converted over to macs later. No hardcore gamer, which is the person who is going to care about the top-end hardware, is going to get a computer that has to wait months and months to MAYBE get a game their friend has had for a long time on their windows machine.

Ok, maybe not all hardcore gamers, but the number is certainly small enough that Apple shouldn't go into this, for financial reasons.

~Shard~
Nov 18, 2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
~Shard~ < No need to get personal about grammar errors.. Typo's an spelling mistakes happen in forums...

Fair enough, I apologize - was just letting off some steam there... I feel much better now! ;)

vrapan
Nov 18, 2003, 02:22 PM
As I said before I do not believe it is a matter of Apple devoting resources to create a gamers machine. A 1.6GHz G5 with a better graphics card and some extra RAM will be just fine as a gaming machine. Why should a gamer though devote a big sum of money on a platform with at best uncertain commitment from major game developing houses. As far as I know only Blizzard develops games simultaneously for both platforms. The rest develope them much later, do not develope them at all and rarely announce their intentions.

So the Mac is not a gamer's platform not so much because Apple does not have the hardware (although not having the hardware might be one of the reasons many developers abandoned the platform) but because of uncertainty from developers.

The problem I see with the consumer line of Apple is that it makes no effort to ensure playability of the current games. iMac is not and should not be geared towards gamers. What it should be though is a machine that can play most of the games that have been released prior to it. A better graphics card and a bit more memory in the basic configuration should see to that. And given that the technology is there it means that Apple has nothing more to do other than using a better GPU. No special attention to the gamer just a more capable machine especially at the 2200+tax price point...

eyrii69
Nov 18, 2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
well i got a powermac! anyways apple just needs to give the people what they want? did i want a powermac ? no. why did i buy one? they cripple the imac so bad in performance & expansion. powermac is way more then i needed but what are you going to do? the imac is fantastic but they make sure they have one of its arms tied behind its back if you know what i mean, lackluster video or no l3 or whatever! stop crippling the dam thing apple! why not a full version of something in the imac?? how about a real video card? give the people what they want and stop acting like big brother from your 1984 add Apple!

Let us hope Apple makes an iGame machine for you gamers, with 4x3GHz G5s, fluidchilled, decent graphics and a VGA port to the display so you can use your existing one. :-) Oh, and of course a couple of PCI-X slots, and USB2, Firewire800, espresso-output,

And maybe it will be possible to read email on it, browse the web here on MacRumors or do wordprocessing. :D

pgwalsh
Nov 18, 2003, 02:27 PM
Ok... my apologies to all you iMac fans... Clearly I'm misguided in thinking you would want more performance in an iMac... My bad...

As it is a consumer targeted machine I thought for the price it could contain some better components. However, for the suggested use in these forums I guess it would compare to a Dell at $500 to $799 Dell. Of course it looks way better and has OS X.

See y'all avoided the Radeon 9600 and G5 question... As you all secretly don't want it in an iMac.. or do you? That would be killer wouldn't it... oh wait no.. it wouldn't... Blah!

:rolleyes:

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 02:37 PM
if imac was a real consumer machine it would have those things consumers want and be able to do those things consumers like to do such as gaming. it doesnt have a pci slot, it forces a monitor on you, no video card only chip, not good for gaming, who the heck is it for ? oh yeah the artsy types that want to browse the iphoto collection? meanwhile how many millions of pc's are sold? i have said it before they cripple the heck out of imac, and want you to buy a 3 thousand dollar pro machine. and so 90% of the market runs out and buys a pc. Apple scratches it head and says we are happy we have gone from3.5 to 4% marketshare.

the_mole1314
Nov 18, 2003, 02:45 PM
By all means, the iMac isn't what switchers buy, they either buy a G5, iBook, or eMac.

DGFan
Nov 18, 2003, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
if imac was a real consumer machine it would have those things consumers want and be able to do those things consumers like to do such as gaming. it doesnt have a pci slot, it forces a monitor on you, no video card only chip, not good for gaming, who the heck is it for ? oh yeah the artsy types that want to browse the iphoto collection? meanwhile how many millions of pc's are sold? i have said it before they cripple the heck out of imac, and want you to buy a 3 thousand dollar pro machine. and so 90% of the market runs out and buys a pc. Apple scratches it head and says we are happy we have gone from3.5 to 4% marketshare.

Most consumers don't play games though. Less than 10% of the people I know who own computers play games on them.

They DO surf the web, read email, type up documents, store digital photos, etc....

(directed to the board in general and not just you)
I just don't understand why so many people do not know what the real world is like. Do you all get outside? Do you have real friends? Real friends who aren't "gamers"? Do you have a girlfriend?

kangaroo
Nov 18, 2003, 02:51 PM
What's all the heat about?

The iMac is an expensive consumer machine designed to <capably> cover the basics (email, surfing, word processing, digitial media, etc) AND appeal to people's sense of luxury. Obviously, there's a market for it and according to Apple's latest financial report, a bigger market than (most people here would have thought) and Apple's other computer offerings. Just because YOU (put the shoe on if it fits) wouldn't buy it or no one in your orbit would buy it doesn't mean there isn't a market for it. A person or family with disposable income, who could care less about a video card specification, or build-to-order options or modularity, who wants a simple, single component computing solution is going to be interested in a 'headed' iMac. It's a no brainer--and that's the point.

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 02:53 PM
i thought i wouldn't come back, but it's kind of tempting.

pgwalsh and DHM:

do you have any experience in business? marketing?

it's not as easy as "ok, here's g5 and the best videocard, we'll just charge the same price as before because we know that's what consumers want."

apple is a business, it's not a charity. they cannot just put in what "consumers want" (your claim, i don't believe it) and charge less for them. can they afford to put them in and charge less? probably, because apple has pretty a healthy margin. BUT WHY? to make gamers happy? to feel "good"? geez, if i were a shareholder in apple, i'd be mad at anyone who made that kind of a dumb headed decision BLINDLY.

if you eat into margins, you have to make it up elsewhere. unless you have solid analysis claiming that the decreased margins can be made up by increases in sales (from gamers, if what you say is right), then such a decision would be considered. otherwise, no. i'm sure apple considered it and decided against it.

you guys aren't really suggesting/asking for a better iMac. to me, it just sounds like you guys are complaining endlessly how useless it is and how expensive it is. it's not a very constructive argument to say, make it cheaper and make it better. OF COURSE it would be better if everything was better and cheaper. there's a reason it isn't.

tell me how iMacs can be made better (for gamers) without:
* eating into other Mac sales
* significantly decreasing the margins

then we'll talk. until then, all you are suggesting is apple blindly lower prices and raise specs.

Don't Hurt Me: "if imac was a real consumer machine it would have those things consumers want and be able to do those things consumers like to do such as gaming."

- you don't represent the consumers

and

-average consumer will not be obsessed about gaming performance to the same degree you are

by the way, those $500 to $800 dells you are talking about will have shared RAM, CD-ROM, CRT and/or celeron. those compare better with eMacs, not iMacs.

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 03:05 PM
If you cant afford it, then it's not for you.

Ensoniq
Nov 18, 2003, 03:06 PM
I'm sure it's all been said before, but Apple f'd up on the pricing. The specs, understandable when they have PowerBooks and G5s to sell. Pricing...way off.

Should have been:

15" - $999
17" - $1499
20" - $1999 (w/120 GB HD/512 MB RAM)

The 15" at $999 would have given potential eMac buyers an option for more class for a slightly higher price and slightly smaller screen. Good trade-off for some.

The 17" at $1499 would have only been $200 more than they are selling the 15" for right now. Excellent buy and price/performance combo.

The 20" at $1999 with more HD, more RAM, AND the awesome screen for only $200 more than the previous 17" sold for would have flown off the shelves, no questions asked.

I have no doubt that Apple will sell plenty of the 20" iMac as is. But if they had reworked the entire lineup as above, they could have seen their best holiday iMac sales ever.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 03:07 PM
im sorry i just keep forgetting you are not supposed to game on the mac, that consumers are not gamers, and if you want to game you should be on a pc. thats it my UT2K3, RTCW, Nascar,Medal of Honor and all those others are going out the window! and Halo coming out for mac next month! forget it! and doom3 next year no way! this is a mac after all i shouldnt be having fun on my computer let alone a consumer machine. i should take what apple feeds me and be happy:eek:

Nicky G
Nov 18, 2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
im sorry but if you expect me to think you are running your games at 1440 x 900 and they are even remotely smooth on a 4mx then you must think iam a newbie.

No... People think you're a newbie because you come off like a 16-year-old pimply-faced geek who does not understand marketing, business, margins, niches, or the tech industry as a whole. Remember that Apple is one of the 2 big PC makers actually MAKING money these days. Sheesh. As someone said... Kids!

pgwalsh
Nov 18, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by jxyama
i thought i wouldn't come back, but it's kind of tempting.

pgwalsh and DHM:

do you have any experience in business? marketing?
No marketing experience, but plenty of business experience... Interesting way to start your post, but irrelevant...

You didn't answer my question because you know I'm right... You want a G5 and a radeon 9600 in your iMac... you know you do... Everyone does.. If they don't they're FOS. Apple will do it eventually..
I'd just like to see it sooner than later. I do recall in many forums that the G5 is cheaper to produce then the G4.. However, I'm sure there's other hurdles to get that into the iMac... heat etc.

hughdogg
Nov 18, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Lancetx
IMO, the eMac is the real switcher machine, not the iMac, at least as it stands right now and the eMac is certainly a much better value.

That's the machine I'm trying to convince my mother-in-law to switch to...she is the classic consumer who wants e-mail, web, budget software on her computer, doesn't own a digital camera, yet, but is starting to think about it..and dosen't want to spend more the $700-800 dollars - hence the eMac..and she is the prototypical consumer that Apple should be targeting. Get them in with the eMac, get them used to the ease of use, the "I don't have to think about how I'm going to make it work, it just does" of the Mac ownership experience, and then sell them services, like .Mac, photo developing, and ITMS, etc. Itis a very real, very underserved market by the PC makers, and it could be a real cash cow that could help support all of the wonderful R&D that benefits the rest of us.

Cheers,
hughdogg

pgwalsh
Nov 18, 2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Nicky G
No... People think you're a newbie because you come off like a 16-year-old pimply-faced geek WTF that's inappropriate.. You don't have anything better to say so you make a personal attack..

If he and I are pressing your buttons laught it off, but the personal attacks are dumb.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 18, 2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
No marketing experience, but plenty of business experience... Interesting way to start your post, but irrelevant...

You didn't answer my question because you know I'm right... You want a G5 and a radeon 9600 in your iMac... you know you do... Everyone does.. If they don't they're FOS. Apple will do it eventually..
I'd just like to see it sooner than later. I do recall in many forums that the G5 is cheaper to produce then the G4.. However, I'm sure there's other hurdles to get that into the iMac... heat etc. nice post and when they do ill get rid of this old powermac

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 03:21 PM
I dont want a G5 or a 9600 pro card (unless it's in a powerbook), it's sorta like overkill for some people. But i could use the 20" screen.

pgwalsh
Nov 18, 2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
I dont want a G5 or a 9600 pro card (unless it's in a powerbook), it's sorta like overkill for some people. But i could use the 20" screen. Coming from the man/woman that just said "if you can't afford it then it's not for you". ha ha ha

We both know your FOS

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
You didn't answer my question because you know I'm right... You want a G5 and a radeon 9600 in your iMac... you know you do... Everyone does.. If they don't they're FOS. Apple will do it eventually..
I'd just like to see it sooner than later. I do recall in many forums that the G5 is cheaper to produce then the G4.. However, I'm sure there's other hurdles to get that into the iMac... heat etc.

apple will put g5 and 9600 when PM is sufficiently advanced beyond those. of course it will happen eventually. g5 being cheaper to produce is completely irrelevant. if you priced g5 lower than g4, then who would buy the g4? if you put in PM capabilities into iMac, who would buy the PM?

did i answer your questions? it's called product differentiation.

apple's marketing/business strategy, coupled with the technologies available, is at a point where if you want g5 and 9600, you buy a PM. done, simple.

DHM: grow up, please. i never said consumers aren't supposed to play games. i said they don't care about gaming specs to the degree you do.

jettredmont
Nov 18, 2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
See y'all avoided the Radeon 9600 and G5 question... As you all secretly don't want it in an iMac.. or do you? That would be killer wouldn't it... oh wait no.. it wouldn't... Blah!

:rolleyes:

Didn't avoid the question, just have a life and can't spend every minute monitorring these boards! :)

I'd love, absolutely love, a G5 in an iMac. I'd also love a Radeon 9800 in there, just so that when OS X 10.5-Snow Leopard changes the Finder to a first-person shooter with your files as the evil henchmen I'll be ready. I certainly wouldn't not buy an iMac with either of these features.

However, all wish-upon-a-star aside, reality is that those components cost money and generate heat, which costs even more money to design around/evacuate from the iMac housing. So, the question is not, "Do you want X and Y in your iMac?" but "Would you pay $Z*100 more to get X and Y in your iMac?"

Personally, as I'm a developer and need the PowerMac form factor for day-to-day work, I've got all that on my G5 and so, no, I wouldn't pay extra for it in an iMac. Moreover, I don't have more than an hour or so a month to spend on any computer games, so the high-end graphics chips are generally a waste (until a *lot* more is done with QE).

For my parents, my wife's parents, and my sister (all future iMac owners, if I have my way with them ...), the answer is mixed. My sister and parents would pay a few hundred more for a G5, but only if there was a noticable performance gain (32 vs 64 bits just doesn't come into play for them and likely won't be a factor in the memory capacity of iMacs for a year or two). My mother in law would be ecstatic with a 20" iMac as it stands today. My sister doesn't play games either, and wouldn't know what to do with a higher-end video card (her PC today has an old TNT card which she had bought second hand when the one before that fizzled on her I believe). My parents would definitely go for the perceived power of the G5, but would also not pay any extra for a higher-end video card.

So, for me and those I know, I think that the video card premium (chip + design issues) would have to be well under $100 and the G5 premium probably under around $200 for them to go for it.

TorbX
Nov 18, 2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
im sorry i just keep forgetting you are not supposed to game on the mac, that consumers are not gamers, and if you want to game you should be on a pc. thats it my UT2K3, RTCW, Nascar,Medal of Honor and all those others are going out the window! and Halo coming out for mac next month! forget it! and doom3 next year no way! this is a mac after all i shouldnt be having fun on my computer let alone a consumer machine. i should take what apple feeds me and be happy:eek:

At some degree I agree with this guy. To some degree, it'd me nice to be ABLE to run a game, you know...

pgwalsh
Nov 18, 2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by jxyama
apple will put g5 and 9600 when PM is sufficiently advanced beyond those. of course it will happen eventually. g5 being cheaper to produce is completely irrelevant. if you priced g5 lower than g4, then who would buy the g4? if you put in PM capabilities into iMac, who would buy the PM?

did i answer your questions? it's called product differentiation.
No you did not... however, you'd make a great politician.

The G5 being cheaper to produce is not irrelevant when you're concerned about the bottom line.. It's also not irrelevant when you take into consider marketing and consumer satisfaction...

aethier
Nov 18, 2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by biscuit
It is a shame they didn't put a faster proc in there, since that would protect one's investment for longer. biscuit

the thing you are all forgetting (well maybe someone wrote a comment about this before me, after reading this post i didn;t bother reading the rest before posting) that they cannot have the imac faster then the powerbook, given that the powerbook is part of the pro line up. the 17, and 20 inch imacs already match the clock speed of the 15 inch powerbooks.

aethier

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 03:33 PM
The latest versions of Matlab and Maple run just fine on a G4. Maybe you need a console.
Originally posted by pgwalsh
Coming from the man/woman that just said "if you can't afford it then it's not for you". ha ha ha

We both know your FOS

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 03:35 PM
ok, i'll answer the question:

yes, i do want a 9600, g5 in an iMac enclosure with 20" monitor for $2200 and expect apple to eat the difference in price from the current situation.

there you go, geez.

:rolleyes:

now can you answer my question?

in the apple's matrix of pro/consumer vs. desktop/laptop, where does the iMac with 9600/G5 fit in? apple currently classify G5 and high-end videocards as "pro" features. just because it's in an iMac doesn't make it consumer if it's loaded with PM features... remember cube? that was an iMac (no expansion) with PM features priced at PM prices. yeah, it was a cool machine but went nowhere...

Nicky G
Nov 18, 2003, 03:36 PM
The only other thing I am going to add to this thread, besides by "pimply-faced geek" comment, is that the only game that interests me on the Mac -- Tranquility -- runs perfectly fine on my G4 450 Sawtooth w/ GeForce 4MX, will run even better on the iBook G4 800 I have coming next week, and would run even BETTER on the 20" iMac -- not to mention, Tranquility would be just breathtaking on that display!

If you have not "played" Tranquility, I recommend it. But it's a game for non-gamers, so I don't think the rabid gamers in this thread would be interested.

Datazoid
Nov 18, 2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Nicky G
The only other thing I am going to add to this thread, besides by "pimply-faced geek" comment, is that the only game that interests me on the Mac -- Tranquility -- runs perfectly fine on my G4 450 Sawtooth w/ GeForce 4MX, will run even better on the iBook G4 800 I have coming next week, and would run even BETTER on the 20" iMac -- not to mention, Tranquility would be just breathtaking on that display!

If you have not "played" Tranquility, I recommend it. But it's a game for non-gamers, so I don't think the rabid gamers in this thread would be interested.

I agree, Tranquility is definitely an experience all of its own...

pgwalsh
Nov 18, 2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
The latest versions of Matlab and Maple run just fine on a G4. Maybe you need a console. ok.. you got me... But you know you could have saved yourself some money and bought an eMac.

if you do the home video or pictures or any other wonderful thing iApps allow you to do, faster processors are always welcom... Better video performance is always an eye catching marketing tool.. But alas you wont be upgradeing for a long long time. :cool:

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 03:42 PM
Yeah, there is no upgrading, but i'm not one for opening my computer anyway. I'll add more RAM, but that's about it.

Rower_CPU
Nov 18, 2003, 03:42 PM
Cool it down, folks.

jxyama
Nov 18, 2003, 03:48 PM
on Rower's note, i'm done here for the second time. have a nice day.

:)

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 03:58 PM
I wonder could there be a way to take the graphics card out of the newer iMacs and put it in a 17" 800Mhz iMac. I think i'll send techtv a e-mail.

manitoubalck
Nov 18, 2003, 03:58 PM
Oh dear god, what have they done, With a price tag of nearly$4000AUD, it's looking unlikley to sell great numbers in Australia.

Sorry apple but when you put a GeForce FX 5200 64mb, 256mb DDR333, and a 1.25GHz proc in a machine that is so expencive, I don't care how big the screen is people just don't want to spend that much on a machine with such lackluster specs.

ITR 81
Nov 18, 2003, 04:13 PM
I'm betting this is not the final form that by Jan. the whole line gets upgraded. This is just a push for the holiday season and thats all it is.

I'm looking for
1.25
1.33
1.42 line up coming in next few months.

applekid
Nov 18, 2003, 04:15 PM
Simply put: I feel like an idiot having some doubt in this. And it amazes me at the same time. :D

Well at least I got the part about no G5's in the iMac and no new enclosure :) *whew*

1macker1
Nov 18, 2003, 04:16 PM
Yeah I think it's just for the holiday push too. The 20" screen is just for the cool factor, even though i could use the extra 3 inches.

Can you mirror with the apple displays with the 20"imac? I hate the VGA only mirroring that's available with my 800Mhz iMac .:(

Rower_CPU
Nov 18, 2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
Yeah I think it's just for the holiday push too. The 20" screen is just for the cool factor, even though i could use the extra 3 inches.

Can you mirror with the apple displays with the 20"imac? I hate the VGA only mirroring that's available with my 800Mhz iMac .:(

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html

VGA video mirroring

~Shard~
Nov 18, 2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
Ok... my apologies to all you iMac fans... Clearly I'm misguided in thinking you would want more performance in an iMac... My bad...

As it is a consumer targeted machine I thought for the price it could contain some better components. However, for the suggested use in these forums I guess it would compare to a Dell at $500 to $799 Dell. Of course it looks way better and has OS X.

See y'all avoided the Radeon 9600 and G5 question... As you all secretly don't want it in an iMac.. or do you? That would be killer wouldn't it... oh wait no.. it wouldn't... Blah!

:rolleyes:

Um, of course people want more performance in an iMac. People also want more performance in the PowerMacs. Once the 3 GHz G5s come out, people will be wondering when the G6s will be out. And on and on. What’s your point?

Who’s avoiding any questions? A G5 and a Radeon 9600 in an iMac – sure, that would be great. So would a ATI FireGL X1 9700 VPU with 256MB DDR RAM, AGP PRO-50, HydraVision, and dual DVI in the next PowerMac – a $1000 video card. Again, what’s your point? Lots of things “would be nice”, but that’s not the way Apple’s business model and the timing aspect of things work. With the recent introduction of the G5 and the Radeon 9600s to the Apple line-up, and since they’ve just been released in the PowerMacs, it is not reasonable to expect to see them in the iMacs so soon. Otherwise, the difference between pro and consumer line would start to blur. It’s called product differentiation.

Perhaps this comes down to an issue of timing and instant gratification. Some people are fine with waiting and understanding business reasons behind decisions, others are impatient. Fair enough.

nek
Nov 18, 2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Ensoniq
I'm sure it's all been said before, but Apple f'd up on the pricing. The specs, understandable when they have PowerBooks and G5s to sell. Pricing...way off.

Should have been:

15" - $999
17" - $1499
20" - $1999 (w/120 GB HD/512 MB RAM)

I agree that the 15" and 17" could be priced a little lower, but when you consider the fact that Apple sells their 20" Cinema Display for $1299, its hard to expect the 20" iMac to be priced any lower. There is a $600 difference between 17" and 20" displays and only $400 price difference in iMac.

I'd like to see faster processors and better graphics in at least the 20" iMac, but I guess they don't want to get ahead of the PowerBooks like you said.

~Shard~
Nov 18, 2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by DGFan
Most consumers don't play games though. Less than 10% of the people I know who own computers play games on them.

They DO surf the web, read email, type up documents, store digital photos, etc....

(directed to the board in general and not just you)
I just don't understand why so many people do not know what the real world is like. Do you all get outside? Do you have real friends? Real friends who aren't "gamers"? Do you have a girlfriend?

Getting a bit personal there DGFan, but I still agree with your initial comments. I don’t think people have a good grasp of what the true “consumer market” is, and gamers are classified as consumers – they are power users if anything. After all, think about PCs – if you like games, you have to run out and buy a top-of-the-line PC to do what? Use Office, IE6, e-mail, etc.? Nope – to play games. And you better update your RAM, video card, etc. every year or two. Why? Because the latest and greatest game pushes you to require that technology. Is it your e-mail program that requires gamers to have a P4 with 1 GB of RAM and a top-of-the-line video card. Don’t think so...

~Shard~
Nov 18, 2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by jxyama
i thought i wouldn't come back, but it's kind of tempting.

pgwalsh and DHM:

do you have any experience in business? marketing?

it's not as easy as "ok, here's g5 and the best videocard, we'll just charge the same price as before because we know that's what consumers want."

apple is a business, it's not a charity. they cannot just put in what "consumers want" (your claim, i don't believe it) and charge less for them. can they afford to put them in and charge less? probably, because apple has pretty a healthy margin. BUT WHY? to make gamers happy? to feel "good"? geez, if i were a shareholder in apple, i'd be mad at anyone who made that kind of a dumb headed decision BLINDLY.

if you eat into margins, you have to make it up elsewhere. unless you have solid analysis claiming that the decreased margins can be made up by increases in sales (from gamers, if what you say is right), then such a decision would be considered. otherwise, no. i'm sure apple considered it and decided against it.

you guys aren't really suggesting/asking for a better iMac. to me, it just sounds like you guys are complaining endlessly how useless it is and how expensive it is. it's not a very constructive argument to say, make it cheaper and make it better. OF COURSE it would be better if everything was better and cheaper. there's a reason it isn't.

tell me how iMacs can be made better (for gamers) without:
* eating into other Mac sales
* significantly decreasing the margins

then we'll talk. until then, all you are suggesting is apple blindly lower prices and raise specs.

Don't Hurt Me: "if imac was a real consumer machine it would have those things consumers want and be able to do those things consumers like to do such as gaming."

- you don't represent the consumers

and

-average consumer will not be obsessed about gaming performance to the same degree you are

by the way, those $500 to $800 dells you are talking about will have shared RAM, CD-ROM, CRT and/or celeron. those compare better with eMacs, not iMacs.

jxyama - what can I say, we think a like and I like your style. :cool:

And just one more comment – in reference to the whole “wouldn’t you like a Radeon 9600 in the iMac, come on wouldn’t ya???” challenge, actually I’m indifferent, because I’m not a gamer. Right now I’m running a old PC with a GeForce2 32 MB card, and guess what? It runs fine for me. I can watch movies on my desktop, see all my applications fine, it displays my desktop very nicely... ;) In fact, if I buy an iMac a 5200 is probably overkill for what I need.

furthur
Nov 18, 2003, 04:27 PM
It was the price point of the 20" that surprised me. If Apple is going to charge almost $2200 for the G4 version of a large monitor iMac, what should we expect if/when it does go to G5?

If the future is a $3000 iMac, I should go ahead and buy my 17" now and load it up, no?

scat999999
Nov 18, 2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by the_mole1314
By all means, the iMac isn't what switchers buy, they either buy a G5, iBook, or eMac.

manitoubalck
Nov 18, 2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by jxyama
apple is a business, it's not a charity. they cannot just put in what "consumers want"

(by the way, those $500 to $800 dells you are talking about will have shared RAM, CD-ROM, CRT and/or celeron. those compare better with eMacs, not iMacs.

The consumer wants to choose what goes into their computer. Hence apple should offer bare bone systems, 1or2 procs, 1 motherboard and a case, and maybe not even the case.(for the power mac/tower.) I reckon that that would sell like hot cakes since in Australia people spend between $700-1500AUD on a computer and if you could offer them an expandable, bare bone mac for that, well I for one would buy one.

In Aus I can Buy a PC With AMD Athlon 2600+, R9600, 52xCD-R/RW and 512mb DDR400 for less than $1000AUD~$700USD.

scat999999
Nov 18, 2003, 04:48 PM
Real gamers don't use LCD displays. They use CRTs because of the faster refresh rate. That might be one reason Apple isn't "catering" to the gamer market with the iMac.



Originally posted by greenstork
All I have to say is that if you're worried about an x-bench score, you shouldn't be buying an iMac, you are not the intended market. That $2000 gets you $1300 of monitor so stop you bitchin. If you want a power user machine, buy a 1.6 GHz Power Mac and get your own monitor.

pgwalsh
Nov 18, 2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by ~Shard~
jxyama - what can I say, we think a like and I like your style. :cool:

And just one more comment – in reference to the whole “wouldn’t you like a Radeon 9600 in the iMac, come on wouldn’t ya???” challenge, actually I’m indifferent, because I’m not a gamer. Right now I’m running a old PC with a GeForce2 32 MB card, and guess what? It runs fine for me. I can watch movies on my desktop, see all my applications fine, it displays my desktop very nicely... ;) In fact, if I buy an iMac a 5200 is probably overkill for what I need. Shard... It is not just about games, it is about value for your money.. The 9600 is a consumer grade video card for use in consumer grade PC's, but it supports upcoming advanced games... You don't have to be gamer to benefit, but it adds the mid range gamer benefit. It's an appeal factor that might persuade someone to buy an iMac.. We're not talking pro game card here, but great performance for value.. Obviously there's a few people here besides me that see this obvious shortcoming in the iMac. I expect my mac to perform well for years to come and certainly with any software regardless of use for the next year or two. That's not too much to ask for, is it?

You pay a premium for an Apple computers and I expect premium parts whether itÕs a PowerMac, iMac, or eMac. There are premium grade parts for each level and thatÕs what I was correlating. ItÕs not too much to ask for not at all.

itsbetteronamac
Nov 18, 2003, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by zyuzin4
20 incher weighs 40.1 pounds!

and the home page must be rotating between iMac and G5

OMG!!!! Why would would the 20" weigh 40.1 pounds. That it like twice as much as the 17", which is what I have. I think that mine is even on the heavy side. The bigger monitor couldn't add on all the extra weight. Apple must have put in somthing heavy to support the new monitor.

But still, 40.1 pounds, I think they might have to get ride of the sayign that you can pick is up by the steel arm.

scat999999
Nov 18, 2003, 05:08 PM
When you go to McDonalds do they ask you if you "want fries with that"? Apple didn't include a larger HD or more RAM because those are popular upgrades and are PROFIT centers for them.


Originally posted by Ensoniq
I'm sure it's all been said before, but Apple f'd up on the pricing. The specs, understandable when they have PowerBooks and G5s to sell. Pricing...way off.

Should have been:

15" - $999
17" - $1499
20" - $1999 (w/120 GB HD/512 MB RAM)

The 15" at $999 would have given potential eMac buyers an option for more class for a slightly higher price and slightly smaller screen. Good trade-off for some.

The 17" at $1499 would have only been $200 more than they are selling the 15" for right now. Excellent buy and price/performance combo.

The 20" at $1999 with more HD, more RAM, AND the awesome screen for only $200 more than the previous 17" sold for would have flown off the shelves, no questions asked.

I have no doubt that Apple will sell plenty of the 20" iMac as is. But if they had reworked the entire lineup as above, they could have seen their best holiday iMac sales ever.

Potus
Nov 18, 2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by manitoubalck
The consumer wants to choose what goes into their computer. Hence apple should offer bare bone systems, 1or2 procs, 1 motherboard and a case, and maybe not even the case.(for the power mac/tower.) I reckon that that would sell like hot cakes since in Australia people spend between $700-1500AUD on a computer and if you could offer them an expandable, bare bone mac for that, well I for one would buy one.

In Aus I can Buy a PC With AMD Athlon 2600+, R9600, 52xCD-R/RW and 512mb DDR400 for less than $1000AUD~$700USD.

Then buy the damn PC.

scat999999
Nov 18, 2003, 05:43 PM
The internal cards aren't exactly user replacable.


Originally posted by ~Shard~
And you better update your RAM, video card, etc. every year or two. Why? Because the latest and greatest game pushes you to require that technology.

sjk
Nov 18, 2003, 05:44 PM
Ensoniq
The 20" at $1999 with more HD, more RAM, AND the awesome screen for only $200 more than the previous 17" sold for would have flown off the shelves, no questions asked.The 20" iMac would have been much more enticing if the update offered something else (e.g. 512MB built-in RAM) beyond the larger display.1macker1
I dont want a G5 or a 9600 pro card (unless it's in a powerbook), it's sorta like overkill for some people. But i could use the 20" screen.A larger display and at least 1GB RAM are what I need most right now.furthur
It was the price point of the 20" that surprised me. If Apple is going to charge almost $2200 for the G4 version of a large monitor iMac, what should we expect if/when it does go to G5?

If the future is a $3000 iMac, I should go ahead and buy my 17" now and load it up, no?I'll be waiting another month or two to see if there's any iMac price drop or other "interesting" product announcements.

Power consumption is another issue why I'm considering an iMac over a G5. Anyone know the maximum continuous power of G5's in watts? The 17"/19" iMac are 160/190W. The G5 maximum current is 6.5/7.5 for low/high voltage range.

SuperChuck
Nov 18, 2003, 05:48 PM
Wow. Such a lively debate over what is clearly designed to boost the profit margin on a line that is sure to be under a lot of trees this year.

The gaming argument is absurd in and of itself. As much as I love Macs, if I were a hardcore "gamer," I wouldn't be buying them. Let's face it, Apple is not a major player in the gaming scene, and it has never shown a serious interest in courting that market. Why should it? Most games come out only for the PC, or ridiculously late for the Mac.

And as far as the spec debate, Apple is courting Mom and Dad. If they are buying an iMac for their kid at the Apple Store, they're looking at the breathtaking screen, not the spec sheet. The iMac line has always offered high style at the expense of performance and expandability. The eye-popping looks of the iMac are the secret to its success, especially in the consumer market. And that goes double during the holiday season - the time of year when most people who know nothing about computers rush out to buy one.

Most importantly, though, the iMac line is a little old. They have to make a dramatic change to the LOOK of the machine to make it into those all-important "hot gift" lists that clutter every publication this time of year. Bumping up the video card does not get a picture in the paper.

sjc1204
Nov 18, 2003, 05:51 PM
He's so right. Drop the gaming thing.


.....Wow. Such a lively debate over what is clearly designed to boost the profit margin on a line that is sure to be under a lot of trees this year........

manitoubalck
Nov 18, 2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Potus
Then buy the damn PC.

I did, but given the option I would have bought a mac

supertex
Nov 18, 2003, 06:11 PM
Here's the thing. Apple has created HUGE momentum in the younger market (college students and the like.) So many people I know at school either did like I did and Worked in High school to save to buy their first computer for college. I worked forty hours a week and bought an iBook (seems like so long ago, it's a 500MHZ G3 :( ) Most college students can't afford that. Apple needs to capitalize on the momentum they've created with iPod and iTunes for Windows, because it won't last forever, others will catch up. Almost everyone I know plans on buying a new computer upon graduation, so many students WANT macs, but can't afford even the bottom of the line iMac right out of college (and who really wants an eMac?) Not that the eMac is a bad machine, it's just not a desirable machine. The 20" iMac is a bad move because it's a move in the WRONG direction. Apple has go to find a way to bring a relatively fashionable macintosh to the masses. It doesn't have to run FCP4 or render HD video in seconds, but if they don't have an affordable, fashionable mac, folks are gonna have to settle for the PCs and then all they're gonna sell are iPods.

Gyroscope
Nov 18, 2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by manitoubalck
I did, but given the option I would have bought a mac

Totally agree. Why it should be such a problem to release cheaper headless box under 1k for rest of us(im in Aussie land too). I mean, we even have to pay more for Apple products than people pay in US. It is total rubbish because Apple doesn't even use prop. hardware like it once used to. AGP,PCI,GPU's are the same like in PC world. CPU is different but hey don't try to tell us that lingering G4 is worth it's price tag. It is obvious that this iMac release, and pretty much everything else in consumer segment is just showeling down unsold crappy Motorola G4 CPU's (that nobody really should want) at poor consumer expense. They could have at least droped iMac prices way down to sell those CPU's. Instead they decide to attach 20" screen worth thousand US$ to crappy CPU, and you can't even reuse it's screen once(soon) your expensive iMac is obsolete.

Cheers

MikeAtari
Nov 18, 2003, 06:17 PM
Lots of kiddies on the board today.

Since you guy's aren't running Panther, you don't know what you're talking about.
The G4, with Panther, is no longer a slow machine. Your criticism is old, showing, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm running on a 550 Powerbook, with 512 meg of ram. I don't need any more performance for anything, except games.
But, I don't have the time for games, nice to be a kid.

The iMac's at 1.25 Ghz will be at least twice as fast as my machine. So, I can't help but think these machines would be very fast.

pgwalsh
Nov 18, 2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by SuperChuck
Wow. Such a lively debate over what is clearly designed to boost the profit margin on a line that is sure to be under a lot of trees this year.

And as far as the spec debate, Apple is courting Mom and Dad. If they are buying an iMac for their kid at the Apple Store, they're looking at the breathtaking screen, not the spec sheet. The iMac line has always offered high style at the expense of performance and expandability. The eye-popping looks of the iMac are the secret to its success, especially in the consumer market. And that goes double during the holiday season - the time of year when most people who know nothing about computers rush out to buy one.

Most importantly, though, the iMac line is a little old. They have to make a dramatic change to the LOOK of the machine to make it into those all-important "hot gift" lists that clutter every publication this time of year. Bumping up the video card does not get a picture in the paper. You're right.. it's all about the bottom line. If I were a parent of someone under 12, I'd buy an eMac... Like my brother-in-law did for his 5 kids. If I were buying for someone over 12, I'd hold off and give them an IOU certificate for a Mac... They'll get over not having the surprise.

3.1416
Nov 18, 2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by SuperChuck
The gaming argument is absurd in and of itself.

I disagree. Yes, hardcore gamers aren't going to buy Macs ever. But their numbers are small compared to casual gamers. I mainly use my Macs for development, but occasionally fire up Jedi Knight II or Max Payne. It's not at all unreasonable to expect that modern games will run decently on high-end Macs. They don't have to match the performance of the water-cooled nuclear-powered Alienware rigs, but they should be usable. If not, a measurable number of customers *will* be lost. I would already have ordered a dual 1.8 G5, except that it's crippled by the GeforceFX. (Yes, you can upgrade at the Apple Store for $50, but if I order there I get hit with 8% sales tax on the whole thing).

Now, this may be irrelevant in the specific case of the 20" iMac. Probably its limiting factor for most games will be the CPU rather than the graphics chip. But it would be foolish for Apple to entirely ignore game performance.

Potus
Nov 18, 2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by manitoubalck
I did, but given the option I would have bought a mac

(yawn). so you're not even in the "game" and you're...like...saying...what? You regret your purchase? You don't regret your purchase?



And since it's a done deal, who actually cares?

itsbetteronamac
Nov 18, 2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by MikeAtari
Lots of kiddies on the board today.

Since you guy's aren't running Panther, you don't know what you're talking about.
The G4, with Panther, is no longer a slow machine. Your criticism is old, showing, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm running on a 550 Powerbook, with 512 meg of ram. I don't need any more performance for anything, except games.
But, I don't have the time for games, nice to be a kid.

The iMac's at 1.25 Ghz will be at least twice as fast as my machine. So, I can't help but think these machines would be very fast.

I would consider my self a kiddie, I'm in Junior High and have my own 17inch 800Mhz imac, while my parents use some old crap pc. Well anyway I had to work hard to get what I have, and I am happy with it. And to add to what you said about panther, it makes the G4 unbelievably faster. My boot time was cut in half and apps load like 3 times faster than they used to. The G4 is a great consumer machine, with panther, and I think is will stick around for a while.

I probably won't buy a new computer with a G4. Infact I probably won't buy a new computer until I graduate and then I'm gonna get some Kick a** G5 or possibly G6 powerbook!!1

DakotaGuy
Nov 18, 2003, 07:10 PM
I would have to agree with the people that say for the price they should have gave you more with the 20" iMac. An iMac is a computer I would be happy with and I plan to buy a new desktop and laptop the day I get home from Iraq and have a lot of $$$ saved up. I bigger 120GB HD should be standard at that price. 512MB of RAM should be too, I don't know a lot about video cards, but it should be a step up from the 17". Last, the G4 is fine for a computer like the iMac, but there is no reason why it should still be using the 7455@1.25Ghz, when the 7447/7457 w/ 512K L2 with .13 fab is available. Considering the iMac has better cooling capacity then a Powerbook, a 7447/7457 would be able to clock much better then the current old school G4.

I am not an expert at this, but for that price it should include all of that and at least a 1.42 Ghz G4. I know they might be saving what speed bumps are left for future models, but in a desktop combination the new G4 is not even close to maxed out. The 7455 maxes at 1.42 so I am guessing if cooling is decent, the new G4 could be running 1.8 to 2.0 Ghz.

manitoubalck
Nov 18, 2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Potus
(yawn). so you're not even in the "game" and you're...like...saying...what? You regret your purchase? You don't regret your purchase?
And since it's a done deal, who actually cares?

I don't regret anything I have ever done since that would keep me bogged down, always second guessing what I have done.

All I'm saying is that if I could have bought 2 G4's and a MoBo, and peicied the rest together my self I would have. I am very happy with the preformace of my Athlon based system that I bought in Feb 2001. I play nolf 1 until the graphics card overheats (GeForce 2 overclocked from 175Mhz-230Mhz, Edit video using Vegas and After FX, Encode Div-x, watch DVD's, and play dreamcast though a TV card I bought last december. I dumped an extra 512 stick of Ram in it at the same time I bought the TV card and it works a treat. Though I intend to upgrade before Christmas.

Dippo
Nov 18, 2003, 07:23 PM
Why can't they just make the iMac a PowerMac with an attached display.

If people wanted a cheap mac they are just going to buy an eMac.

manitoubalck
Nov 18, 2003, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Dippo
If people wanted a cheap mac they are just going to buy an eMac.

Because people want a flexable machines that are expandable, and one where they can keep the screen so they don't have to buy a new one when they buy a new computer.

Macco
Nov 18, 2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
imac needs to be rethinked and they need to ditch the arm monitor, build a headless pci slotted agp slotted single g5 computer that is less than half the size of the towers with wireless keyboard and mouse and wrap it in cool colors and or shape add a cool monitor option you can buy if you want to. they would sell millions.

Ooh yes, and make it pocket-sized, and powered by geothermal energy, and have it levitate a few inches above your desk, and the case changes color depending on what mood you're in, and 4... no wait, 8 processors! Oh, and sell it for $499. :D

~Shard~
Nov 18, 2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by scat999999
The internal cards aren't exactly user replacable.

Yes, you're correct - the iMac's cards aren't replaceable. As you say, this is another reason the iMac isn't geared to gamers, which is what I've been saying all along. Were you just trying to paraphrase my posts, or.....? ;)

manitoubalck
Nov 18, 2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Macco
Ooh yes, and make it pocket-sized, and powered by geothermal energy, and have it levitate a few inches above your desk, and the case changes color depending on what mood you're in, and 4... no wait, 8 processors! Oh, and sell it for $499. :D

'Don't hurt me' had a good point. I like his thinking.

~Shard~
Nov 18, 2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by MikeAtari
Lots of kiddies on the board today.

Since you guy's aren't running Panther, you don't know what you're talking about.
The G4, with Panther, is no longer a slow machine. Your criticism is old, showing, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm running on a 550 Powerbook, with 512 meg of ram. I don't need any more performance for anything, except games.
But, I don't have the time for games, nice to be a kid.

The iMac's at 1.25 Ghz will be at least twice as fast as my machine. So, I can't help but think these machines would be very fast.

Thank you MikeAtari, I couldn't agree with you more! I sometimes feel like I might as well be talking to the wall... ;)

Potus
Nov 18, 2003, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by manitoubalck
I don't regret anything I have ever done since that would keep me bogged down, always second guessing what I have done.

All I'm saying is that if I could have bought 2 G4's and a MoBo, and peicied the rest together my self I would have. I am very happy with the preformace of my Athlon based system that I bought in Feb 2001. I play nolf 1 until the graphics card overheats (GeForce 2 overclocked from 175Mhz-230Mhz, Edit video using Vegas and After FX, Encode Div-x, watch DVD's, and play dreamcast though a TV card I bought last december. I dumped an extra 512 stick of Ram in it at the same time I bought the TV card and it works a treat. Though I intend to upgrade before Christmas.

coulda. woulda. shoulda.

whatever.

applekid
Nov 18, 2003, 07:51 PM
To reiterate, iMacs are NOT geared toward gamers. Hell, computers weren't supposed to be game machines in the first place! It's personal preference what you do with your computer, and the iMac shows that it wasn't built to play the latest, most cutting edge games. You'll be able to play some current games, but that's where the road ends. Consumers still deserve a simple "all-in-one" for a lesser price then a PowerMac.

The question is, what is an iMac? It WAS the Internet Mac. It has a built in display. It has everything in one simple casing. That is what an iMac is. Don't give me crap about an " upgradable headless iMac." Call it a Cube or low-end PowerMac already!

I got my 17-inch FP iMac last summer to use OS X and get away from the horrors on my Bondi Blue iMac. Sure, I'm a pretty avid gamer and the iMac lasted me about six months gaming-wise, without any regrets. I would've gotten a PowerMac if my family had the cash, but what was I going to mainly do with my computer? Surf the web, do homework, and everything else not graphics intensive. A 800 MHz G4 is still plenty of power for day to day use.

Centris 650
Nov 18, 2003, 08:02 PM
Well, I'll jump into this....

I was disappointed that the 20" iMac was basicly a 17" iMac. Very strange.

The pricing is bad too. It's been some time (if ever) we've had a >$2000 iMac.

I agree with many that a low end Powermac/Headless iMac/New Cube/Whatever has a market. From what I've seen/heard the G4 Towers are selling decently. (Both new and refurbs/refresh) I think there's a market.

I really don't understand why Apple has NO consumer headless mac! It just seems strange.

hayesk
Nov 18, 2003, 08:11 PM
Wow, so many armchair CEOs. So many people here think Apple should make a cheap, headless box. That way we could buy a barebones box, find the cheapest RAM, find the cheapest disk, the cheapest video cards, etc., and sell it for under $1000.

And why do we want that? Because it's cheap! But consider from Apple's point of view: there's no money to be made in such a box. Why should Apple steer their customers to a box with razor thin margins, when they make a healthy margin off of the iMacs? Is that what we really want? Apple to start losing money again?

Apple cannot be all things to all people. They make well packaged computing solutions. They are not in the rock-bottom do-it-yourself market - there's no money in it when you have to develop the OS and promote and run sales channels by yourself..