January iMacs? [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

AmbitiousLemon

Dec 12, 2001, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by kaneda
G4 imac will be announce at SFMW flat panel and will be 867mhz-1.2ghz

thats one ambitious prediction kaneda. and i thought i was the ambitiouslemon here. id love to see it happen but... seems like the lcd will cause a bump in cost and a g4 would cause another bump, if apple wants to keep the imac below $999 lcds AND g4s would probably be too ambitious a goal for january. i think there are two reasons we all want to see a g4 imac:
1) with the rumors regarding the apollo chip it seems new g4s in january are imminent, so unless g4s arent in powermacs (in an imac or cube instead) it means no g5s.
2) osx, itunes, quicktime, dvdr is unbearable to impossible on a g3. apple needs to get altivec in the consumer line if it wants osx to catch on. who wanst to rip mp3s at 2x in a g3 when any other computer (g4 or pc) can do it at 12x +?

if g4 lcdimacs and g5s debut in january apple will have pulled the greatest mw yet and may be poised to take some more marketshare (i know i said it but please dont let us get into a marketshare discussion)

igordi

Dec 12, 2001, 09:22 PM

No offense guys but I'm tired of hearing that the G3 is almost unusable for all these tasks. I have a G3 iMac with a CDRW and 400mb of ram at home. My office at work has a PowerMac G4 450 with around 500mb of ram. I use Quark, Illustrator and Photoshop all day long and I gotta tell you that I don't see enough of a difference between the 2 machines or processors to justify the difference in cost (for my personal machine). I don't have the tech expertise that a lot of you have but the bottom line for me is screen size and all my graphic designer colleagues agree. I think some of you forget that there are way more people like me out there than like you.

I hear so many of you guys saying that the altivec will boost the filtering speeds and stuff like that but it's not like you're filtering all day long are you? The fact that the G4 does everything faster is one thing but I can do absolutely every task I do on my G4 on my G3 iMac also.

p.s. I rip CD's at around 10-12x on my iMac.

menoinjun

Dec 12, 2001, 09:47 PM

Very true about the G3 v G4, especially in the laptops. I plan on getting an iBook now that they have the 100 mhz bus. If you compare a new G4 (133/ATA-100), to a new iMac (100/ATA-66) though, there should be more of a visual difference.

By the way, DVD-R IS impossible on a G3. The chip itself just can't handle the encoding. Other than that...you're right.

-Pete

AmbitiousLemon

Dec 12, 2001, 10:15 PM

ive got a g3 333mhz with 256 mb ram and a 32gb 5400 rpm hard drive powerbook and i notice a HUGE difference. try looking at application launch speeds on a g3 versus a g4. lauch speeds for many apps are nearly instant on a g4 whereas a g3 i often launch an app and then get up and do something while it launches because it take so long. mp3 ripping is another thing that is completely unacceptable on a g3. a g4 will rip a whole cd in like 2-3 minutes whereas a g3 take 2-3 minutes per song. and thats only if you keep itunes in front while ripping and dont touch your mac for the 20-30minutes it takes to rip the cd. if i try ripping in the background it slows down yto less than 1 speed. quicktime in osx is unusable on a g3, even at full screen (which is only available in the quicktime pro application) the glitches occur so often that the audio will often be out of synch. and anything less than full screen is so fully of twiches you cant watch anything. window resizing in osx with a g3 is still terribly slow. i often use photoshop and bryce on my powerbook and will often have to get up and do something else for 20 minutes to and hour while a filter is rendering. and as far as processing large amounts of data my g3 will often take as long as a month on a data set that a g4 will complete in a week. i still love my lil powerbook but im not going to pretend its comparable in anyway to a g4. a g3 has a lot of uses but what i was saying is that there is a trend in apple software to take advantage of the altivec technology in lines of software that are aimed at all levels (consumer and professional). we often see posts here about people wanting to speed up their itunes visualizations or quicktime performance and we all know about performace problems in osx. i dont think any of us intend to "get down" on the g3, many of us use g3s, but we are realistic about the limitations of our computers and are just noting that if this trend in apple software continues these performance issues are only likely to become greater.

AlphaTech

Dec 12, 2001, 10:21 PM

igordi, how did you manage to get 400MB of ram into an iMac??? It is impossible.

You either have a very, very good iMac at home, or a severly hamstrung G4 at work to not notice the difference.

I have a G4 500 at home, with 1.5GB of RAM, and a G4 733 (not QuickSilver) and notice the difference between them. Granted, it is not a huge difference, but that is mainly because I have done a lot of work on my home system. Between the ton o RAM, additional hard drive, video card upgrade and such at home which has made a lot of difference.

I am selling it in Feb. to someone from work that it will be a serious upgrade for and getting a G5 (whenever they are released).

I can understand the arguement between single and dual processors. Personally, I will be going for the fastest single processor when I buy it, since I don't have enough applications that will benefit from the dual processor. I will be adding a Gig of Ram though, since that is something that I will need, and use. You know, games are memory hogs.

CHess

Dec 13, 2001, 04:47 AM

I respect the Mac knowledge floating around here, but after reading this thread, I had to join this forum and add my own thoughts.

Be careful about attributing speed only to G3 versus G4. 333mhz G3 powerbooks (Bronze keyboard model I assume?) only has a pokey 66mhz system bus. Of course this is going to look really slow when you compare it with a 133mhz bus equipped G4 computer or even one that has a 100mhz bus like the G4 cube or the early Titatium powerbooks.

I have an early 2001 model iMac, 600mhz machine with a 256K on-chip cache that runs at full processor speed and runs across a 100mhz system bus. When I compare this to my old 333mhz iMac with its 66mhz system bus I really notice the difference too!

True under OS X, a G4 is a faster than equivalent G3s. I ran my 600mhz iMac against my 400mhz Titanium PowerBook exporting a quicktime file out of iMovie and they were almost neck and neck.

Also for the person who says an iMac can't have 400megs of RAM, I've got 640megs, all recognized. I'd up it to a full gig if I could see the need.

So, this is one long time Mac user who really loves the "consumer" model Macs. This is one very cool computer with plenty of power to spare. Right now, it's also operating as a web server and personal FTP site.

Can't run iTunes or OS X on a G3??? Have to shoot down that opinion.

Naturally, I'd love a faster machine and if there were a G4 iMac I'd definitely consider the better processor. I agree it IS a better processor, I just don't like hearing people make claims that just aren't true.

CH

AlphaTech

Dec 13, 2001, 09:29 AM

The reason that I said you can't have 400MB of RAM, is because you cannot get that round of a number. With only 2 memory slots, the very most you will be able to fit into it (at least right now) is 1GB of RAM. In order to get 400MB you would have to have a combination of chips that simply doesn't exsist (256 + 144=400).

Currently there is almost a Mac for every kind of user. From the portable, to the cheap desktop, to the high end desktop. It all depends on what your needs are and how deep your pockets are.

The previous post with an iMac (no speed given) compared to a G4 (didn't post which revision or if it has a PCI video card or is one of the AGP models) leads me to suspect that there is something wrong with the G4. Either that, or utilities have never been run, and virtual memory is active. Those two things have been known to severly criple Mac's (of any generation). I have seen a G4 (any generation) go from ok speeds to blazing fast after turning off the virtual memory, and running our full set of utilities on it. The same can almost be said of any Mac that was made from the iMac forward.

eyelikeart

Dec 13, 2001, 10:01 AM

In lots of cases, one won't notice an incredible difference between the two processors. It's only with work that's processor intensive where one will see the difference (examples: Photoshop, iTunes, Final Cut Pro). There have been lots of comparison tests showing relatively small differences between two similar speed computers, one G3 & one G4, and not much difference unless with certan tasks.

rice_web

Dec 13, 2001, 11:40 AM

The older G4's (I believe that Sawtooth motherboards) were terrible! My iMac can waste my G4 at work, and they both run at the same clock speed (400MHz)! The configuration of the two is nearly identical, except for the fact that my iMac has LESS memory. The G4 I use at work is one of the first G4's released, I believe. Wasn't the 400MHz G4 one of the first?

jefhatfield

Dec 13, 2001, 11:58 AM

it was the second one up with the 350 being the low end and 450 being the high end if your are referring to the original introduction of the G4

the very first G4 to be shipped (350 mhz) was kind of like a souped up blue and white G3 but with a G4 processor in it and it only had pci graphics

it still was a better machine than the blue and white G3, but benched only slightly faster

the G4s now are much better now but getting "old" in design

we are ready for the G5 but the question is, "will apple be ready to announce it in just a few weeks?"

atlascott

Dec 13, 2001, 12:31 PM

Awright, I am confused.

My understanding is that the difference between the G4 and G3 is MINIMAL, other than the G4 having the VE. So at comparable clock speeds, in a non-VE enabled app. (that would be most of them...) you aren't going to see much of a difference. Real world experience seems to be split 50-50 between "there is a huge difference" and "there is no difference"

This I do know--my buddy has a 12x CD-R (external Firewire, of course!) and a 400 MHz G3. He routinely rips and burns CD's while playing tetris, and very quickly, to boot. It doesn't take 1 or 2 minutes PER SONG to rip a CD. If someone was having that experience, I would suggests that they take theior machine in for service, or upgrade their CD-R to a non-USB (try ScSCi or Firewire) because it doesnt sound like the bottleneck is the processor.

I agree with other people's observations that bus speed (66 v. 100 v 133) makes a monster difference, too. Unfortunately, I also agree witht guy who said that it is time for better hardware for the same money, because the G3 is a 3 year old chip. I can build a 1.5 Ghz. AMD PC for less than $1000--and the concensus seems to be that it will run rings around any G3 and probably most G4's too...

Once again, Macs need better video cards in their consumer models, if they want market shore--no one wants a laggy game experience, and lets face it, games sell consumer PC's...

igordi

Dec 13, 2001, 02:22 PM

I still don't get it. Someone earlier said that my 450 G4 at work must be screwed because it should be smoking the 500 iMac at home but it's not. In fact, you say it takes you 2 minutes to rip a song on your G3 but it takes my iMac about 20 seconds. Also, my apps launch faster on my iMac than my G4 (only slightly). Lastly, I think that EYELIKEART is one of the only ones who seems to get my other point, that being, I believe that the majority of professional mac users are graphic designers using Photoshop 5, Illustrator 8 and Quark 4. Seeing as Photoshop is the only app with Velocity enhancements and we maybe run about 10 really huge filters a day that means the total time saved is about 5 min. a day maybe.

AmbitiousLemon

Dec 13, 2001, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by igordi
I still don't get it. Someone earlier said that my 450 G4 at work must be screwed because it should be smoking the 500 iMac at home but it's not. In fact, you say it takes you 2 minutes to rip a song on your G3 but it takes my iMac about 20 seconds. Also, my apps launch faster on my iMac than my G4 (only slightly). Lastly, I think that EYELIKEART is one of the only ones who seems to get my other point, that being, I believe that the majority of professional mac users are graphic designers using Photoshop 5, Illustrator 8 and Quark 4. Seeing as Photoshop is the only app with Velocity enhancements and we maybe run about 10 really huge filters a day that means the total time saved is about 5 min. a day maybe.

sorry but you are VERY wrong here. i dont like being an ass, but you people seem to be throwing around a lot of bull here. check out apple's web site. check out the imac. it says can rip cds "several times faster than the time it actually takes to play the song itself." take a look at the computers you are comparing i was saying my 333mhz powerbook with its built in cd player rips songs at 2-3x (several times faster than it takes to play the song). maybe if you have a g3 with wtice as many mhz and a faster bus you get more out of your system, but it still doesnt compare to a g4. as far as photoshop being the only velocity engine app... are you on crack? everything (ok i exagerate) apple has made recently iss designed for velocity engine! heres apple's list
Apple http://www.apple.com/powermac/processor.html

notice every major apple app is in this list. itunes, osx, quicktime, imovie, fcp, webobjects, etc.

i didnt mean to insult anyones computer. we all love our computers thats the great thing about apple, apple users love their computers. and so if anyone felt like i was insulting the g3 then im very sorry i didnt mean to come off that way. all i was saying is apple keeps making all of its apps built around the g4. its amazing to me that they package basic apps like quicktime and itunes on a g3 but have these apps barely functional on that computer. im sure my use of teh phrase barely function will bother some people since we all use these apps on our g3s but this is what i mean: try watching a movie in full screen with quicktime in osx (and i dont mean in present mode thats the pro version feature). you cant do it on a g3. a g4 can handle this just fine. my biggest point is even the new os is built for g4 processors and its not fair to g3 users that we cant even run osx at acceptable speeds (ok its questionable whether g4s can run osx at acceptable speeds). this trend toward coding new apps for the g4 is severely limiting performance on the consumer line. sure us consumer users can still get by especially if we load our machines with heaps of ram (my machine came with 64, and that was fine back then!) and invest in firewire cd players and harddrives, but out of the box the consumer line should be able to use the apps that are shipped on it to their fullest extent.

oh and the video card thing in imacs, oh so true!

Ensign Paris

Dec 13, 2001, 03:11 PM

Quote:

"igordi, how did you manage to get 400MB of ram into an iMac??? It is impossible. "

Rubbish, you can get 400mb (well 384mb Same THING)

Doh!

Guy

igordi

Dec 13, 2001, 03:48 PM

I'm sorry Mr. Lemon but once again you aren't getting my point. All the apps you mentioned were Apple apps and I am talking about professional apps. I thought the original argument was something along the lines of "you can't use the G3 in a professional environment". This is the point that I'm arguing. Photoshop 5, Illustrator 8 and Quark 4.1. This is what the majority of designers use and they don't use OSX yet and they don't even have the latest versions of some of the apps either (Photoshop 6 or Illustartor 9). I can't argue with anything except my own experience but I can tell you these few things with certainty:

Photoshop 5 launch time:
iMac 500 (384mb ram) = about 4 sec.
PowerMac G4 (512 mb ram) = about 5 sec.

iTunes rip speed for 1 CD:
iMac = starts at about 4x ends around 15x
PowerMac = starts about 4x ends around 17x

Photoshop Gaussian Blur (40mb image):
iMac = around 14 sec.
PowerMac = around 8 sec.

Once again, these are only my computers and I won't get into all the other areas like Quark files and sending to print to local copiers. The only worthwhile improvement is in filtering and as you see I saved 6 sec. WOW! Multiply that by 20 large filters a day and I just saved 2 whole minutes! I'm not saying that I don't want a G4 tower or even one in my next iMac. I just don't NEED it for the inevitable huge price jump.

AlphaTech

Dec 13, 2001, 03:54 PM

It's not the same thing... If you are sloppy in one thing, it makes all the other statements suspect. It would be like rounding 512 MB to 550 or 600MB, or instead of the speed being 450MHz he might have rounded that as well from either 400 or 500.

Is it REALLY that hard to put in the correct/accurate number?? I can understand a processor maker rounding a few points, like calling a chip that clocks at 656MHz a 650MHz(which AMD has been known to do). Also, use the correct cap's when you are talking about things... mb would equate to mega BITS not Bytes... which is 1/8th the number.

I know I am being a stickler for accuracy, but is that so wrong??? At least I know that the Mac platform rules, even if 95% or so of the world doesn't.

AmbitiousLemon

Dec 13, 2001, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by igordi
I'm sorry Mr. Lemon but once again you aren't getting my point. All the apps you mentioned were Apple apps and I am talking about professional apps. I thought the original argument was something along the lines of "you can't use the G3 in a professional environment". This is the point that I'm arguing. Photoshop 5, Illustrator 8 and Quark 4.1. This is what the majority of designers use and they don't use OSX yet and they don't even have the latest versions of some of the apps either (Photoshop 6 or Illustartor 9). I can't argue with anything except my own experience but I can tell you these few things with certainty:

Photoshop 5 launch time:
iMac 500 (384mb ram) = about 4 sec.
PowerMac G4 (512 mb ram) = about 5 sec.

iTunes rip speed for 1 CD:
iMac = starts at about 4x ends around 15x
PowerMac = starts about 4x ends around 17x

Photoshop Gaussian Blur (40mb image):
iMac = around 14 sec.
PowerMac = around 8 sec.

Once again, these are only my computers and I won't get into all the other areas like Quark files and sending to print to local copiers. The only worthwhile improvement is in filtering and as you see I saved 6 sec. WOW! Multiply that by 20 large filters a day and I just saved 2 whole minutes! I'm not saying that I don't want a G4 tower or even one in my next iMac. I just don't NEED it for the inevitable huge price jump.

ok i see the confusion now. all this g3/g4 thing goes back to a post i made where i said people want to see a g4 in an imac for two reasons: 1) g4imac could mean g5 powermac (not relevevant to our confusion) and 2) people want to see g4 in imac because many basic functions and apps are much slower or impossible on a g3 and then i listed a bunch of stuff. basically im saying that one fo the reasons we all keep wanting a g4 imac is that osx quicktime and itunes all have big performance boosts on a g4 because of ve. and also some things like quicktime at large sizes and dvdr are impossible on a g3. i think thats how we got into this big hoopla.

anyway my point in all of it is if apple is going to optimize apps like osx quicktime and itune (apps aimed at consumer level users) then these apps should be optimized for the consumer level computers not optimized for the pro level. will the g4 ever replace the g3 in these markets hmm... no. apple needs to keep ibm in the picture so until ibm buys moto's semiconductor department it will mean g3s all around. but this isnt a bad thing, ibm is doing some amazing things with these chips.

i didnt mean to get everyone into a g3 vs g4 debate i was mostly speaking to explain why everyone keeps predicting g4 imacs and also questioning apple's optimized for ve strategy. (oh and if you follow that link there is a huge list that includes all major mac apps not just apple ones)

did this clear anything up?

NecrisRex

Dec 13, 2001, 11:39 PM

Folks,

When it comes to ripping CD's there is something else that is just as limiting as the processor. I have a 400 Mhz G3 iMac DV (with DVD Player) as one of the first such machines it has a 4xDVD player in it. This is also used as 4XCD most of the time. The best speed I ever get when ripping a CD is 4X. Guess why. I have an external (older) firewire CDR, it is 8X/4X/24X - I get faster times with it, not 24X, but faster. Guess Why.

There is more at work in comparing these machines than JUST processor speeds. Amount of RAM, Speed of RAM (CL2 vs CL3, PC133 in latest G4's vs PC66 in OLDEST iMacs vs PC100 in iMac DV and up) On top of VE performance. The RULE, and I do MEAN RULE in this is the newer the machine, the faster it is.

OSX is acceptable to me on my iMac DV, but on one built just a few months later (same CPU MHz, but a new revision) it is even faster. A LOT of things determine the speed, and you'll find that not only is MHz a small part of it, VE isn't as much of it as we would like either (although it doesn't hurt! :))

Just my $0.00002 and probably about all it is worth,
Necris

Dec 14, 2001, 04:32 AM

The only way that the argument about g3 vs g4 (g5) can be well and truly solved was if Apple produced two identical machines, but the only difference (and I mean ONLY difference) was to put a g3 chip in one and a g4 chip in the other and then see the speeds. Oh yes, do not only do this is a lab and post the results on the net or in the press, but let the buyer see for themselves, because people will still argue over the results if they came from a lab.
You could also say, Apple produce a mac with an Intel and AMD chip and do likewise and see what toasts what.

AlphaTech

Dec 14, 2001, 01:19 PM

A few years ago I did something similar. I upgraded my PowerMac clone from the 604e (210MHz) to a G3 chip (400 or 500MHz, I don't remember which). There was a huge difference in speed. Everything from startup to applications, even the internet seemed faster (exact same modem as before the upgrade).

The same could be done by installing a G4 upgrade into a G3 B&W system, of the same speed (such as a 400MHz or so). I can virtually guarantee (within 99%) you WILL see a difference in performance. Most likely, it will be anywhere from 50% to 2x faster (depends on what you do and how healthy your system is).

Some people comment about how bad their computer performs either at home or work, but when you ask when any maintenance was done to it you get the 1000 mile stare. Depending on what you are doing, or running for software, something should be run on it at least every month or two. Even if you only run Disk Doctor and Speed Disk on it (current version, not from years ago). Also, DON'T install it on your computer, that can cause any number of issues, some of which people are showing by the posts, even though they might not realize it. ALWAYS boot up off of the CD, run the utilities, and then restart off of your hard drive.

out

kaneda

Dec 14, 2001, 01:35 PM

If Apple is not releasing G5..or G4 imac I am switching to PC.

http://www.alienware.com
Awesome computer!! POWERR!!

AlphaTech

Dec 14, 2001, 02:49 PM

Well, kaneda, do what you must, but take it from someone that knows, DO NOT let them force winXP on you. If you must do it, go with 2000.

A cheaper option, would for you to build a system yourself. They give too few options for what you end up paying. I have a system (yes a pc along with my 2 Mac's) that is just as good, if not better then what they list and cost me much less. I have a 1.4GHz AMD Thunderbird processor, motherboard with an ATA100 RAID controller integrated running 2 40GB drives (striping/RAID 0), SoundBlaster Audigy gamer card, 768MB in PC2100 RAM. Also a 16x dvd-rom, NIC (network interface card will cost you extra), sweet Logitech keyboard (navigator I believe) and optical mouse. I also have a 20GB drive installed for now, until I remove it. I also went with an ATI Radeon 8500 video card (64MB DDR RAM) that has a dvd decoder built in. If you go with the video card they list, you have to spend extra $$ to get the hardware decoder. All said and done, I spent less then the $2200 or so that they want for a similar system.

It might not be a bad idea to add a pc to your network at home, but to toss Apple just because they do not announce or release what you want as soon as you want it is childish.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to get a G5 system next year, and I most likely will shortly after they hit the market. But I am not going to give up on Apple if they do not annouce them in January. I will patiently wait until they do come out, and then fight the crouds to get mine (climbing over people if I have to). I will be without a desktop Mac in a couple of short months, since I have a buyer already lined up for my current one. I will 'suffer' with my Ti 500 PowerBook and 'black ops' pc until then.

Thinks Different

Dec 18, 2001, 04:23 PM

http://www.om-ark.com/imacg4/imacg4.jpg

sound pretty much like the MacNN article to me!

DannyZR2

Dec 18, 2001, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by AlphaTech
The previous post with an iMac (no speed given) compared to a G4 (didn't post which revision or if it has a PCI video card or is one of the AGP models) leads me to suspect that there is something wrong with the G4. Either that, or utilities have never been run, and virtual memory is active. Those two things have been known to severly criple Mac's (of any generation). I have seen a G4 (any generation) go from ok speeds to blazing fast after turning off the virtual memory, and running our full set of utilities on it. The same can almost be said of any Mac that was made from the iMac forward.

Alright man,.. go read a while if you think you can turn of virtual memory in OS X..

what an idiot!

CHess

Dec 18, 2001, 04:59 PM

It is a very well done picture, but doesn't look right. The foot shown would make it too unstable. As soon as you go to add cables, they'd hang off the side and float in mid-air in front of your face. No, Apple would at minimum, put the connectors on the back side. Or possibly on the underside like they did with the cube (making them awkward to reach though). Also, the small foot would result in the iMac falling over every time you went to put the CD in the top, which you'd have to awkwardly reach up to insert or remove. You'd have to hold the machine to keep from tipping it over - not what I'd expect from Apple's industrial design group.

If Apple were to make a flat screen iMac, my guess is that it would sit lower on the desk, have a side CD/DVD slot. Maybe they would put the connectors on the side, allowing you to lay it flat for some purposes. Also, it probably wouldn't need to be as thick as the one shown, maybe the thickness of an iBook or a little thicker for ventination space and standard hard drive.

AlphaTech

Dec 18, 2001, 05:00 PM

hey butt munch... IF you read the posts, never was OS X mentioned as the operating system, at least not by me.

OS X 10.1.1 is much faster and more stable on just about any system that is listed as being able to run it. You have to make sure you meet the requirements though, or your performance and stability will suffer.

Use common sense (foreign concept to you I am sure) and maintain the health of your computer. People run for extended periods and never run any kind of utility on the computer and then bash Apple when it starts slowing down, or crashes more often. A little bit of care, and maintenance, goes a long way.

If you knew ANYTHING about computers, you would know that to be true.

DannyZR2

Dec 18, 2001, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
[QUOTE]Originally posted by igordi
[B] im sure my use of teh phrase barely function will bother some people since we all use these apps on our g3s but this is what i mean: try watching a movie in full screen with quicktime in osx (and i dont mean in present mode thats the pro version feature). you cant do it on a g3. a g4 can handle this just fine.

DUDE!!! what kind of G3 are you using!!!?? obviously you are not!

I've got a Pismo 500 (G3), 640MB RAM, running latest v. OS X. I am able to watch all kinds of quicktime movies in full screen, and in 'present movie' mode... what is the deal..

Now, granted, on my rev. A iMac 233 i have some sticky GUI problems, but this is like the first CONSUMER G3 that EVER came out!!! it's gonna be slower!

I am extremely happy with my powerbook 500. It is as fast as I need it to be realistically.. I can do everything smooth and don't sit around and wait like you talk about.. remember.. Apple is still using the G3 because it is a great chip! It has brought them very far. We're probably gonna start seeing 1Ghz G3 chips soon (if the G4 iMac doesn't arrive) but this will be a VERY fast consumer machine!

get past your 333 and realize Apple has come a long way with Moto and the G3 since then\

Ensign Paris

Dec 18, 2001, 05:23 PM

Crap Processor (AMD and Alpha are the ONLY good windows processor)

Ugly (Well thats my opinion)

And worst, it runs WINDOWS! THE MOST SUCKY OS EVER!)

Guy

jefhatfield

Dec 19, 2001, 12:58 AM

i assume the large order of rumored lcds are for the new imac, but what else could they be for?

now i have seen more reports outside of the usual sources talking about the lcd order from apple

i usually hear stuff from here and the register and before i used to hear a lot of good and accurate rumors from appleinsider.com

jefhatfield

Dec 19, 2001, 01:08 AM

what gives with the sometimes big anouncements for apple products in january right after everybody has finished spending their money from the christmas season?

when i used to sell computers at office depot i noticed that the pc makers came out with their best stuff right after thanksgiving and people started buying equipment in droves through the christmas season

but after christmas, no sales, nada, zero

but we were still good for selling quicken and ledger notepads because that's all anybody bought in january

i remember telling people in a past discussion about how apple has a pretty bad reputation (where i live in northern california) as a financially sound business and i came up with often quoted examples from books, the press, and my own observations

but announcements after the big chirstmas season is also a dumb thing to add to the list of stupid financial blunders

AlphaTech

Dec 19, 2001, 09:30 AM

How about the businesses that have a budget refresh as of January 1? The company I work for does that, instead of mid-year.

Saying that announcing new products in January is a bad idea is like saying doing the same thing in July is a bad idea. After all, it is just a couple of weeks after July 4th, where people spend money on the celebrations.

I know many people that save up for months, if not longer, in order to buy a computer in either January or July, just after the new stuff is released.

I bet you would say that if Apple moved the anouncements to early to the middle of December that would also be 'bad'

jefhatfield

Dec 19, 2001, 11:26 AM

actually mid december would be better

in that context, almost anytime would be better than january

i like the fact that moscone center is just blocks from where i attented university and graduate business school but without trying to give you a business 101 lesson, go to goolge.com and do a search on fiscal year vs. calendar year

every time i open my mouth when it comes to business topics, i end up sounding like a hard core right wing fanatic but i am actually very liberal and i am a minority for god's sake and the local golf club where i live will not let anyone in who is not white (kind of sounds like that club where tiger holds the record) they would let my wife in because she is white but happens to be the wrong gender and if you are male, not only did you have to have an ancestor who came from the mayflower, but judging from the average age of the club, the members look like they actually came over from the mayflower

ok, i will shut up since my man al gore got sent home and da other guy won

and try find a computer that has been sold in january, then i will show you barry bond's 74th home run ball

oh, i forgot, you rich kids got christmas money ;-)

but baseball and harvard mba case studies and civil rights have absolutely nothing to do with this forum so i will get back to the topic we can all agree on

pending the rumored order of lcd panels and arn mentioning that there may not be 15 inch stand alone lcds (only a rumor i presume) does it look like the january imacs are a safe bet?

any ideas?

AmbitiousLemon

Dec 19, 2001, 02:32 PM

jef i like your style here. we are all beginning to assume the lcd imacs are coming out but i think it is a good idea to try to come up with other things that may be a result of a large order of lcds by apple. also couldnt the lcd imac end up coming out in march if they are just buying the lcds now?

as far as christmas sales go, i think jef has a point. im sure we can come up with a lot of reasons why someone would buy in january but lets face it there are a lot fo sales in december due to christmas and apple should try to cash in on it. especially with something like an lcd imac. the only thing i can think of is that "things" werent ready to be sold in mass by december. so here is another question how many big announcements has apple made in december? are big announcements pretty random as far as time of year which probably means apple releases things whenevr they are finished or do big things get announced get anounced more at certain macworlds (sf?). im sure most of you will be able to answer this.

CHess

Dec 19, 2001, 03:17 PM

Well, I don't know about anyone else here, but if Apple released new products in, say, November to cash in on December sales. I wouldn't buy any. I couldn't. There is no way with Christmas coming up, that I would be able to spend the money on a new computer. Of course, that's for someone like me who generally has to get himself a computer, as opposed to someone who gets one as a Christmas gift. I personally don't know of anyone, immediate friends and family, that ever got or bought a computer for someone for Christmas. Everyone I know who got one as a present got one as a birthday or graduation gift.

So, I personally have no problem with Apple's January announcements. I imagine that I'm not alone there either.

Also, Apple is good at building "hype" for a new product, and generally likes to have something to feed the masses at Macworld and such. It keeps the Mac fanatics anxiously awaiting Steve Job's keynote address. It makes the release of products more of an event rather than just another Christmas announcement. There is a strategy there and for Mac geeks like me (us?), it works VERY well.

I know what you mean when you ask about the wisdom of not cashing in on the December spending spree. Does everyone really think it would be so much better for Apple to release an end of the year product? How many people here buy new hardware at the end of the year?

mischief

Dec 19, 2001, 04:06 PM

1: The difference between G3 and G4 IS minimal, Apple has worked "limiters" into much of the OS and many programs to make the G4 look faster. I.E. programs are set up to querry for Altivec before setting their parsing and packeting.

2: The reason IDVD doesn't work on G3's is precisely that: Apple wants you working on a NEW machine for what they see as a "Pro" activity.

3: Speed differential is WAY more dependant on system bus speed and device I/O speed than anything else.

4: Apollo G4 makes G5 a myth for at least 6 months.

5: Given the above, How could you get people to buy the Pro models if the Consumer models had any balls?

jefhatfield

Dec 20, 2001, 03:33 AM

first i had my mac setup with all my scsi peripherals then when i switched to a usb only mac, the converters would not work so i had to buy usb peripherals and when i buy a firewire and usb mac, i am sure i will go for the firewire storage instead of the once state of the art usb storage solution and the ipod will only work with firewire so i can't use it with my revision a ibook

there seems to be no end to this built in obsolescence and the old stuff really was no that much slower on most tasks so i am not suprised what you say

constantly buying new gear makes this field go round and round and keeps me employed

DannyZR2

Dec 20, 2001, 05:58 AM

Anyone remember this thing Apple came out with.. it was close to the end of the year. it's being talked about still...

i think it was called the ipod??????

man people.. what is more likely to be bought for christmas, a whole computer system, or a cool toy to go with that computer system.. (yes, only a firewire mac)..

also, we just got news of the combo drive Ti2.. is this not an end of year announcement in time for christmas??? so now, you can buy a new toy, and a whole new pro system for christmas....

the reason for the first of the year announcements, i don't see why this hasn't been mentioned.. NEW MONEY!!! marketting ain't free people. marketting budgets allow and disallow announcment timings.. come january 1, apple has new money to spend on our cool new toys.. and since we all know it is coming.. (it happens every year) we should be saving now so we can drule only long enough for MR. UPS to get to our door!

jefhatfield

Dec 20, 2001, 11:26 AM

now when i first saw the ipod, i thought i would much rather have a computer than this stupid little thing which didn't even have a color screen

but as we as a group warmed up to it, the ipod seemed to be the perfect christmas gift and i will admit, i wanted one more than a computer since i already have three perfectly working models and two parts machines from clients i could get running if i only got off my butt and fixed them

i know almost 150 million people don't have a computer so the last thing i "need" is another computer but an ipod for christmas is the perfect gift

at the store where they sell macs near where i live, it is the most sold out item they have ever encountered in 20 years and they sold 10 sight unsold, presumably for christmas

the digital hub device started off to a great start and if apple hits more home runs like the ipod, then they may not need to expand computer share of market over five percent and could increase cash reserves and stock valuation just on digital devices alone...pda, cell phone, camera, ipod, etc