New iMac G5 Announced

[slughead]

i think you're right about the user experience...osx mated with the hardware and all the ilife stuff...very good stuff indeed. i'm willing to pay a bit more for a better user experience given comparable specs on the other stuff.

This whole PC specs vs Mac specs misses the point. The benefit of the Mac is the software-hardware union. Windows + Dell, doesn't compare to the experience of OSX + Mac. Specs aren't the only things that indicate how quickly a given task can be completed.

I don't see how mac hardware has anything to do with the iLife stuff. Think about it: iPhoto doesn't use mac hardware, iTunes was ported to PC and works fine with PC hardware, iMovie doesn't work with Mac hardware, nor does iSync or anything else.

To say you NEED Mac Hardware to do something like iLife is just plain silly. They've shown the most questionable part (CD burning) to be done just fine, the rest was meant to operate with standards preset by the camera industries.

OS X is cool, but don't think for a minute that Apple hardware makes it possible. The only reason it's designed for Apple hardware is so they can SELL Apple hardware.

Don't believe me? sit down with iTunes on a PC. Flawless performance--does everything masterfully. Apple has even ported OS X to x86, they just know that they don't want to do that right now.

People talk about stability problems with "3rd party hardware", but Apple's hardware is substantially 3rd party already! Apple doesn't design hardware, they design enclosures for parts, and they're damn good at it.

The only difference between mac hardware and PC hardware is that Apple writes all most of the drivers for their hardware themselves.

Meanwhile, in the PC world, Windows XP offers equal stability with almost NO drivers written by MS. It's the era of standards and compliances, the time for conflicting IRQs and things of that nature are over.

According to the Apple apologists, this is impossible. How, they ask, can you possibly have a stable OS when the drivers are coming from 5-10 different companies for each machine? In fact, Apple often uses the low-end and/or low-quality parts such as the Quantum drives in the first G3s (including Rev A imac '98) and the Maxtor drives in the first G5s. People say "oh they never tested it", and then rev B comes along and they end up using Seagates and IBMs.

So to sum up: no, Apple's hardware is not physically necessary to run the iLife apps or OS X. However, it is structurally necessary for Apple to make money on hardware, not software. I don't blame them, it's just a difference in structure.

[edit: in my previous post, I was merely pointing out that people were comparing Apple's to Oranges (yukk yukk yukk), but not using the sweetest orange to compare to the freshest Apple. They compared a dell desktop with display to the iMac while ignoring the options you open up if you're going to judge machines on specs only.]

[zim]

zim, there is a base education model for $1099 only viewable if you log in as a purchaser for your school. it doesn't have an optical drive.

I see, thanks ;) rare that I venture into that area.

[kugino]

I don't see how mac hardware has anything to do with the iLife stuff. Think about it: iPhoto doesn't use mac hardware, iTunes was ported to PC and works fine with PC hardware, iMovie doesn't work with Mac hardware, nor does iSync or anything else.

To say you NEED Mac Hardware to do something like iLife is just plain silly. They've shown the most questionable part (CD burning) to be done just fine, the rest was meant to operate with standards preset by the camera industries.

OS X is cool, but don't think for a minute that Apple hardware makes it possible. The only reason it's designed for Apple hardware is so they can SELL Apple hardware.

Don't believe me? sit down with iTunes on a PC. Flawless performance--does everything masterfully. Apple has even ported OS X to x86, they just know that they don't want to do that right now.

People talk about stability problems with "3rd party hardware", but Apple's hardware is substantially 3rd party already! Apple doesn't design hardware, they design enclosures for parts, and they're damn good at it.

The only difference between mac hardware and PC hardware is that Apple writes all most of the drivers for their hardware themselves.

Meanwhile, in the PC world, Windows XP offers equal stability with almost NO drivers written by MS. It's the era of standards and compliances, the time for conflicting IRQs and things of that nature are over.

According to the Apple apologists, this is impossible. How, they ask, can you possibly have a stable OS when the drivers are coming from 5-10 different companies for each machine?

So to sum up: no, Apple's hardware is not physically necessary to run the iLife apps or OS X. However, it is structurally necessary for Apple to make money on hardware, not software. I don't blame them, it's just a difference in structure.

slughead, you gotta chill out... ;) nowhere do i say that hardware is NECESSARY for the software...it's just that right now, apple hardware is the only way to run the life stuff and osx, excluding itunes. sure, apple could rewrite all the other stuff to run on windows, but they haven't...what you get with the beauty of the apple hardware and the functionality of osx and ilife is a nice user experience. you don't need to start ranting about how hardware has nothing to do with the software, etc...sure, that may be right...but the combination of apple's hardware along with their software and os makes for a very nice user experience...'sall i'm sayin'

[slughead]

slughead, you gotta chill out... ;) nowhere do i say that hardware is NECESSARY for the software...it's just that right now, apple hardware is the only way to run the life stuff and osx, excluding itunes. sure, apple could rewrite all the other stuff to run on windows, but they haven't...what you get with the beauty of the apple hardware and the functionality of osx and ilife is a nice user experience. you don't need to start ranting about how hardware has nothing to do with the software, etc...sure, that may be right...but the combination of apple's hardware along with their software and os makes for a very nice user experience...'sall i'm sayin'

Pardon me, I thought you were implying that Apple's hardware had something to do with the goodness that are the iLife Apps. Certainly the other guy was implying that.

And by the way, Apple wouldn't have to re-write anything to run OS X on x86, as they have already ported the OS to x86 (and are keeping it current, FYI). All they'd have to do is recompile the iLife Apps on OSX for x86 and be done with it.

They could probably have OS X 10.3.5 for x86 on shelves in under a month if they wanted to (and if the hardware companies would write drivers for it). Actually they could add an "Apple" touch to it and rent out space for drivers on software update on Apple's servers, totally surpassing the MS experience.

You think the G5 is neat? Imagine a quad processor opteron running OS X with 16GB of RAM.. that'd be freakin cool. 100% custom machine right down to the ultra-modular OS X.

But, it's never going to happen and I don't have any hard feelings about it.

[kugino]

Pardon me, I thought you were implying that Apple's hardware had something to do with the goodness that are the iLife Apps. Certainly the other guy was implying that.

And by the way, Apple wouldn't have to re-write anything to run OS X on x86, as they have already ported the OS to x86 (and are keeping it current, FYI). All they'd have to do is recompile the iLife Apps on OSX for x86 and be done with it.

They could probably have OS X 10.3.5 for x86 on shelves in under a month if they wanted to (and if the hardware companies would write drivers for it). Actually they could add an "Apple" touch to it and rent out space for drivers on software update on Apple's servers, totally surpassing the MS experience.

You think the G5 is neat? Imagine a quad processor opteron running OS X with 16GB of RAM.. that'd be freakin cool. 100% custom machine right down to the ultra-modular OS X.

But, it's never going to happen and I don't have any hard feelings about it.

not a problem, slughead.

it is amazing to imagine what the G5 processor is capable of...and who knows, sheer performance could win me over to running it on a pc...but i still like the user experience and the aesthetics of working on apple hardware...it just makes me feel better. :D

[daveg5]

The second best selling Mac the iBook. It has an ATI Mobility Radeon 9200 with 32MB DDR video memory. Sales are booming. Most consumers love the iBook. The iMac is aimed at the same market. There is obviously a huge base of users (like me) who don't need a fast graphic card...
I disagree, the emac is aimed at that market, the market being education/school and first time buyers. the imac is made 1 level up from newbie, and one level down from pro.
emac, ibook= beginner
imac powerbook 12"= intermediate
powermac and powerbook+ pro and pccard/pci/firewire 800, upgradeable graphics. independant dual displays.

[daveg5]

yea but isnt the emac, the best selling desktop mac for almost two years running, i dont think he will drop it quite yet

[QUOTE=daveg5]well the powerbooks excellent 15.2" screen is more than sufficient for most and cheaper than a 17". the emac could get an LCD top model.
base 1.5 combo $599, super drive $799, superdrive plus 15.2 wide screen similar to imac at 1.6 $999.
QUOTE]

Well thats sort of what I am thinking, because Steve has always wanted to dump the crt and shipping must cost a bomb for 20kg units.

Maybe 2005 they might phase it out in favour of an lcd or at least introduce a new emac, although I wonder if they will resist because it would canabalise iMac sales...

[daveg5]

I couldn't agree more. In 12 months time the iMac G5 wil either have improved in it's tech specs or the price will have come down, and either way the eMac will look out of sync in the consumer line. I just think that the more they plough the higher the bottom line contribution will need to be. If they slap on the LCD, which makes perfect market and physical sense, they'll have to make cutbacks elsewhere in the product just the make the line viable, which the bulk-buying Dell has in spades.

Time will tell, but I certainly think you are right.
unless they add a screen protector and are willing to cut margins, i think crt emac will servive, maybe with am improve screen. 1280x1024 @85hz would be nice, no dead pixels, excellent response, no dead pixels, 180 degree viewing angle and easy on the eyes, a low bottom lcd just cant match the quality price and durability of that.

[daveg5]

xbox supports 1080i resolution. 1920x1080. DD5.1. But its interlaced compared to computer monitors which are all progresive scan. Without getting technical, progressive scan effectively doubles the resolution vs an interlaced signal.

gamecube supports 480p. DPLII

ps2 supports 480p. DPL

480p is progressive scan dvd quality. If you have a HD set, 480p is greater than 640x480. Something like 768x480(I forget what it is in widescreen). Old tube tv's are generally inferior to computer crt's(since tv is typically built for an interlaced signal and 320x240).

But just because the consoles support these higher standards, doesn't mean the games do. Only a small percentage of the games support these higher resolutions. Mostly because the majority of consoles are hooked up to tv's that can't take advantage of the greater resolution. If you hook up any console to a tv via rca or s-video, your pretty much just going to get 320x240 interlaced. Possibly 480i. I'm pretty sure progressive scan or better requires at least a component connection.
xbox , correct me if I am wrong, supports many resolutions, of hd including 420-480-720 Progressive, or interlaced, A lot depends on what monitor you have it connected to and what vga/dvi adapter you are using.

[daveg5]

Some of you guys are saying this is comparable to a PC in features/price.

I think the iMac is fairly priced for what it's competing with and the size as an important feature. Otherwise, I think you're mainly paying for form, not function, if you compare it to a www.pricewatch.com computer:

Since the 17" iMac has sales tax in 49 states (??), at 8% $1,299 is $1,402.92, so keep that in mind. Also keep in mind that both of these configurations carry a monitor with more pixels and a higher contrast ratio, measuring 20". The 20" iMac is $1,899 ($2,050.92 with 8% sales tax), so keep that in mind as well. Also note that all of these parts may be purchased without sales tax in 48-49 states.

$50 - GeForceFX U 5200 128MB
$27 - 256MB DDR 3200 RAM
$268 - P4 3.2Ghz with Mobo + 8X AGP 800MHZ FSB
$49 - soundcard with Optical I/O
$62 - SATA 80GB HD
$588 - 20" LCD, 1600x1200, 600:1 Contrast, with speakers and microphone. Aluminum enclosure.
$65.50 - NEC 8X DUAL/DOUBLE LAYER DVD BURNER DVD±R
$64 - Antec case w/350watt PSU (also antec)
======
$1,173.50

~$1,400 system:
$208 - Radeon 9800 128MB
$110 - 1,024MB DDR 3200 RAM
$268 - P4 3.2Ghz with Mobo + 8X AGP 800MHZ FSB
$49 - soundcard with Optical I/O
$62 - SATA 80GB HD
$588 - 20" LCD, 1600x1200, 600:1 Contrast, with speakers and microphone. Aluminum enclosure.
$65.50 - NEC 8X DUAL/DOUBLE LAYER DVD BURNER DVD±R
$64 - Antec case w/350watt PSU (also antec)
======
$1,414.50

The emboldened text means it is better than what's in the iMac by any measure. The display was not emboldened because some people might value a 16:9 display over the 4:3 compared here, instead of the better contrast ratio/more pixels.

[edit: I should also point out that ALL the shipping rates were included in the parts' prices (as is the case with all pricewatch numbers). In addition, you can buy the new iMac from somewhere other than the Apple Store and not have to pay sales tax.]
Do you have to build those yourself, how much per hour and how is the warranty/service used.

[daveg5]

I wanna iMac, but my only "wish" is a replaceable GPU... :(
If the video card blows do you need a whole new motherboard, that would be costly to apple wouldnt it?

[slughead]

Do you have to build those yourself, how much per hour and how is the warranty/service used.

All of those parts have at least a 2 year warranty, some have a lifetime warranty (the RAM, PSU, and CPU will, for instance). But if one of the chips dies, for instance, you can just send it to the company and they'll figure it out, instead of leaving your whole computer at a store over the weekend or shipping it somewhere.

It'd take about 2 hours to put together, but my time isn't worth $300/hour. I can put together a computer in a case like that in about 30 minutes. It's usually taking the parts out that takes a while.

[daveg5]

All of those parts have at least a 2 year warranty, some have a lifetime warranty (the RAM, PSU, and CPU will, for instance). But if one of the chips dies, for instance, you can just send it to the company and they'll figure it out, instead of leaving your whole computer at a store over the weekend or shipping it somewhere.

It'd take about 2 hours to put together, but my time isn't worth $300/hour. I can put together a computer in a case like that in about 30 minutes. It's usually taking the parts out that takes a while.
well add 90day phone support, and 2 hour builder cost. and a $100 name brand fee. your name on it so we can trust it. and what do you have?

[oingoboingo]

Finally something we can all agree on.

However, I think it's at least 640x480, but you're right: the only reason Xbox gets good framerates is the low resolution.

The thing is running a GeForce2 MX for God's sake.

No, it's part of a custom nVidia chipset, with features and performance placing it somewhere around GeForce 3 levels of performance with some extra GeForce 4-type features added.

This information is easily available anywhere on the net. Where did you pull the "GeForce 2 MX" from?!?!

From Anandtech's Xbox overview:


The chipset behind the Xbox does veer slightly from the nForce 420-D design for the PC.* The Integrated Graphics Processor (IGP) still functions as the effective North Bridge for the platform however it features a much more powerful graphics core than the PC's nForce IGP.* Whereas the nForce IGP on the PC features a GeForce2 MX (NV11) core, the Xbox IGP features a custom designed core internally known as the NV2A.* You can take the codename to mean that the integrated graphics offers performance and features somewhere in-between the currently available NV20 (GeForce3) core and the upcoming NV25 core.


The NV2A features the same 4 pixel pipelines of the GeForce3 core and operates at 233MHz.* This puts the fill rate of the NV2A in between that of the GeForce3 and the GeForce3 Ti 500.* Naturally the NV2A features the same DirectX 8.1 pixel and vertex shader support that was introduced with the GeForce3 with one major modification – the NV2A has two vertex shaders.* The addition of a second vertex shader is a huge performance gain for games the reason being that most instructions that will be sent to the vertex shader require at least two instructions to execute.* Providing the GPU with dual vertex shaders will tremendously increase the throughput of these vertex programs allowing some operations to be completed in a single clock cycle.* Considering that a very impressive feature of the vertex shader is the ability to do the setup for DOT3 bump-mapping, the dual vertex shaders will definitely help performance tremendously in titles that make extensive use of per-pixel DOT3 bump-mapping.*


The core also supports the same multisampling AA formats as the GeForce3 including Quincunx.* This is actually a very important feature since most games are rendered and displayed at 640 x 480 where aliasing is especially bad.

[slughead]

well add 90day phone support

Done: if you have trouble with your hardware, you can e-mail the manufacturer for years afterwards. I chose good quality components.

2 hour builder cost.

You're right, it costs you, the builder, 2 hours. Don't know how to assemble a computer? It comes with manuals (which are how I learned). That's why I said 2 hours instead of 30 minutes, it's a fair amount of time, it might take you longer if you've never even replaced a stick of RAM before (I nearly broke my thumbs and my PC100 RAM back in the day trying to install it backwards).

$100 name brand fee.

Already included: viewsonic monitor, NEC dvd burner, Western Digital HD, Intel CPU.

your name on it so we can trust it.

Put your own name on it, I trust myself more than I trust Chinese factory workers *cough*.

What do you have?

A [fun] learning experience that saved you hundreds of dollars at the cost of your time from breakfast to lunch on a Saturday morning, and the satisfaction of knowing your machine can have a logo of your own personal design on the front :).

Again, if you read my post I did make it clear that the iMac is not about these technical specs, it's about the low spacial requirements of the physical device, the design, and the OS. However, to restate AGAIN, as a disclaimer: This was only in response to those who compared Dell Systems to the iMac instead of the reality which is the customized windows world. If you ARE thinking of "getting a dell," consider this as an option.

[slughead]

No, it's part of a custom nVidia chipset, with features and performance placing it somewhere around GeForce 3 levels of performance with some extra GeForce 4-type features added.

This information is easily available anywhere on the net. Where did you pull the "GeForce 2 MX" from?!?!

It's actually a modified GeForce 3 Ti, as someone else pointed out. Thank you for, again, clearing that up.

The point was: the graphics card could not run Halo at 1024 even if any normal TVs actually supported it. In fact, I heard that Halo chunks on the system even AT the reduced resolution (which I'll leave up to debate, since I'm not clear about that either).

What I am interested in is the melting rate for the Xboxen. I heard that's why they're switching to PPC--to lower the heat.

[AidenShaw]

You think the G5 is neat? Imagine a quad processor opteron running OS X with 16GB of RAM.. that'd be freakin cool.

Yes, the nightmare of NUMA.

Think about it. Some memory is attached directly to the CPU. Some memory is attached to another CPU, but we can get there over a HyperTransport link. (But beware, all the cache coherency traffic is also on the link.)

Scared yet? A quarter of the RAM is local, 2 quarters is a high-latency HT link away. OMFG - what about the 4th quarter?

Don't be frightened, kids, but that's 2 HT links away. (Oh, and all that cache coherency traffic has been multiplied too.)

If you have a NUMA-aware OS *and* and NUMA-aware application - a quad Opteron can be interesting. If things aren't NUMA-aware, it can really suck. (BTW, the latest "unstable" build of the Linux 2.6 kernel is a lot better - as long as your app is NUMA-aware.)

The quad Opteron is mainly "hype" - you'll see big print advertising for a few edge conditions where it's great. But, don't bet your business on a quad Opteron running other apps at that speed.

[macidiot]

xbox , correct me if I am wrong, supports many resolutions, of hd including 420-480-720 Progressive, or interlaced, A lot depends on what monitor you have it connected to and what vga/dvi adapter you are using.

Your right, xbox supports all those resolutions as well. Well, not sure about 420...then again my friend supports 420, and he has an xbox...so that might count :D

I didn't mention it because 1080i is higher than all the others. I guess I figured that it was implied that the other resolutions you mentioned are also supported. For each platform I just mentioned the highest resolution supported...

[made4mac]

Some of you guys are saying this is comparable to a PC in features/price.

I think the iMac is fairly priced for what it's competing with and the size as an important feature. Otherwise, I think you're mainly paying for form, not function, if you compare it to a www.pricewatch.com computer:

Since the 17" iMac has sales tax in 49 states (??), at 8% $1,299 is $1,402.92, so keep that in mind. Also keep in mind that both of these configurations carry a monitor with more pixels and a higher contrast ratio, measuring 20". The 20" iMac is $1,899 ($2,050.92 with 8% sales tax), so keep that in mind as well. Also note that all of these parts may be purchased without sales tax in 48-49 states.

$50 - GeForceFX U 5200 128MB
$27 - 256MB DDR 3200 RAM
$268 - P4 3.2Ghz with Mobo + 8X AGP 800MHZ FSB
$49 - soundcard with Optical I/O
$62 - SATA 80GB HD
$588 - 20" LCD, 1600x1200, 600:1 Contrast, with speakers and microphone. Aluminum enclosure.
$65.50 - NEC 8X DUAL/DOUBLE LAYER DVD BURNER DVD±R
$64 - Antec case w/350watt PSU (also antec)
======
$1,173.50

~$1,400 system:
$208 - Radeon 9800 128MB
$110 - 1,024MB DDR 3200 RAM
$268 - P4 3.2Ghz with Mobo + 8X AGP 800MHZ FSB
$49 - soundcard with Optical I/O
$62 - SATA 80GB HD
$588 - 20" LCD, 1600x1200, 600:1 Contrast, with speakers and microphone. Aluminum enclosure.
$65.50 - NEC 8X DUAL/DOUBLE LAYER DVD BURNER DVD±R
$64 - Antec case w/350watt PSU (also antec)
======
$1,414.50

The emboldened text means it is better than what's in the iMac by any measure. The display was not emboldened because some people might value a 16:9 display over the 4:3 compared here, instead of the better contrast ratio/more pixels.

[edit: I should also point out that ALL the shipping rates were included in the parts' prices (as is the case with all pricewatch numbers). In addition, you can buy the new iMac from somewhere other than the Apple Store and not have to pay sales tax.]


Nice numbers, it's good to see you've done your homework. But I think you forgot something (an OS and software). I'm going to guess that this will more than make up for the money saved on hardware, with or without sales tax.

[slughead]

Nice numbers, it's good to see you've done your homework. But I think you forgot something (an OS and software). I'm going to guess that this will more than make up for the money saved on hardware, with or without sales tax.

Someone mentioned Dell and unfairly compared PC specs/price to apple's (purposefully ignoring the software/OS for the sake of argument) and I tried to straighten it out. I mentioned this at the beginning of the post, perhaps the disclaimer was not long enough.

People were trying to get away thinking that ignoring software, design, and physical space, they were still getting a "steal." .. I beg to differ.

[Timelessblur]

remeber home build computer are general always cheaper than a apple equivilent. Heck once you leave the dirt cheap computer out there and up in class a little home build are almost always cheaper than the prebuilt ones ({and that is if you go legit on the soft.

General costum built computers are in a class of there own and it never fair to compare them to prebuilt computers because as a rule they general are cheaper and better than a equivlent computers.

[kugino]

remeber home build computer are general always cheaper than a apple equivilent. Heck once you leave the dirt cheap computer out there and up in class a little home build are almost always cheaper than the prebuilt ones ({and that is if you go legit on the soft.

General costum built computers are in a class of there own and it never fair to compare them to prebuilt computers because as a rule they general are cheaper and better than a equivlent computers.

that's true, but it's just not an option for apple...we only have pre-built computers...all we can do is comparison shop, time our purchases and hope for no new announcements, etc.

[friarbayliff]

Yeah, there's no way to accurately compare a custom built machine to a prebuilt mac, like the iMac. I have a custom-built AMD desktop and a 12" powerbook. I don't see any real way to compare the two, even though my desktop technically has more power for less money.

[Passante]

remeber home build computer are general always cheaper than a apple equivilent. Heck once you leave the dirt cheap computer out there and up in class a little home build are almost always cheaper than the prebuilt ones ({and that is if you go legit on the soft.

General custom built computers are in a class of there own and it never fair to compare them to prebuilt computers because as a rule they general are cheaper and better than a equivlent computers.

I agree. Comparisons with home built computers while interesting is not what Apple is trying to compete with. Most home buyers compair on price, a few easy to compare specs (monitor size hard drive and ram) and are heavily influenced by family and friends (thats how I switched my father-in-law :D :D).

To illustrate my point I was in the Apple store last week waiting :mad: , as always, for the check out line to get shorter and started listening to a guy talking to the Apple sales rep about the 12 in powerbook. It was clear he was torn about what to do and wasn't going to buy so i asked the Apple guy if would check the stockroom for a powerbook caring case that was not on the shelf. While he was gone I told the customer that I had the 12 inch powerbook and that I loved it and asked if he had any questions. First he asked about viruses. He said he "lost his hard drive" to viruses on his compact 3 times. I told him I had only Mac one virus since 1986. It was a Word Macro virus. Then he asks about the superdrive. Apparently his price point was around $1500 and the superdrive put the cost of the computer out of his range and there was a "silver pc compatible computer" the he could get for around a thousand. I told him that I didn't get the superdrive and while it has some benefits depending on what you need to do he may not needed it. Then he said that he like to watch movies on his laptop and thats why he needed the superdrive. :eek:

So here's a guy looking at an Apple who is driven by price, a pretty face (he likes the silver color) and doesn't know what hardware he needs to watch movies.

I hope I set him right and that he purchased the powerbook but at that point the store finally had two cashiers so I got in line to check out.

Looking a the Dell desktop ad that comes with every Sunday paper I see only 3 desktops in the $1500 range, two are P4 2.8 Ghz one has a 15 in lcd, 512 ram 80 gig drive wireless keyboard and INTIGRATED GRAPHICS, the second is the same except it has a 17 inch screen, ATI 9000 with **64 meg v ram** AND DVD ROM drive (no burner), the third has a 3.2 P4, 160 Gb drive, cd burner,Radeon X 300 Se AND A 19inch CRT.

By my standards the new iMacs stack up fairly well. Time willtell

Sorry for the long post. After reading 1300 posts a finally had to say something.

[kirk26]

I wanna iMac, but my only "wish" is a replaceable GPU... :(


With an updated Nvidia card. ATI.....Never!!!

[slughead]

I agree. Comparisons with home built computers while interesting is not what Apple is trying to compete with. Most home buyers compair on price, a few easy to compare specs (monitor size hard drive and ram) and are heavily influenced by family and friends (thats how I switched my father-in-law :D :D).

What?? you can't compare two computers because one's made by you and other is made by someone else?

Apple IS competing with home built PCs. So is Dell and everyone else!

The difference is, Apple, Dell, and friends offer other things that people find more important than price and specs: security and trust that people don't find in themselves when constructing a PC.

Apple also offers the OS, which is why I own a mac. I don't own a mac for the specs, the "trust" in Apple hardware (I trust MY choices in parts more than theirs), or the security and simplicity of troubleshooting through a single vendor.

Not competing? These are ALL competing, maybe not directly but they are.

[ffactory]

Aside from the fact that the 17" is nearly 19lbs, what's to keep you from plunking this guy into your knapsack & hauling it down to the local cafe? As I see it, the size is no less portable than the 17" powerbook. I can't wait for the first sighting at Diesel Cafe, Somerville, vanguard of the my-laptop-is-cooler-than-yours crowd....

[egor]

Aside from the fact that the 17" is nearly 19lbs, what's to keep you from plunking this guy into your knapsack & hauling it down to the local cafe? As I see it, the size is no less portable than the 17" powerbook. I can't wait for the first sighting at Diesel Cafe, Somerville, vanguard of the my-laptop-is-cooler-than-yours crowd....

Where would you plug it in?!?

[egor]

The difference is, Apple, Dell, and friends offer other things that people find more important than price and specs: security and trust that people don't find in themselves when constructing a PC.

Its a bit odd for people to trust large corporations more than themselves when building a pc. For instance, if I buy a dell, or an apple, and its ****ed, completely bollocked, I'm going to have to send it back, wait for them to figure out whats wrong, then they decide whether its my fault or not, and I'll get it, what, back a month later at best? (this is going with what I've heard of dell, I don't know what its like with apple...) As opposed to me quickly finding the component at fault, and returning it for a new one... which should take a few days at most...

POINT IS... oh, I forget, I don't think my post really has much relevence here... :D

[welborn]

Aside from the fact that the 17" is nearly 19lbs, what's to keep you from plunking this guy into your knapsack & hauling it down to the local cafe? As I see it, the size is no less portable than the 17" powerbook. I can't wait for the first sighting at Diesel Cafe, Somerville, vanguard of the my-laptop-is-cooler-than-yours crowd....

The Diesel is also a great place to watch the cute lesbians cavort.

Ah, Summer in Boston...

[thatwendigo]

What?? you can't compare two computers because one's made by you and other is made by someone else?

In a word, yes.

Apple IS competing with home built PCs. So is Dell and everyone else!

Until grandma is comfortable going out and buying the parts to put together a machine, manufacturers that sell systems are not competing in the same space. I've seen this attitude before, and it's always from someone who knows at least something about computers but has forgotten that other people are about as stymied as a foreigner without a translation book. Computers are a mystical box that does things, sometimes ones that you don't want, for the vast majority of people. How else do you explain all the service departments, 'for dummies' style books, and other rigamarole that are the hallmarks of the everyday computer user?

My mother is not a stupid woman, as she's a highly successful physician and a former president of her professional association. She also doesn't really understand the difference between RAM and a hard drive, which is why she asks me for help. She couldn't build a computer to save her life, except perhaps by chance, so the homebuilt and enthusiasst side is a non-issue.

Imagine what it must be like for people who aren't as bright as she is.

[milzay]

Originally Posted by slughead

And by the way, Apple wouldn't have to re-write anything to run OS X on x86, as they have already ported the OS to x86 (and are keeping it current, FYI). All they'd have to do is recompile the iLife Apps on OSX for x86 and be done with it.

They could probably have OS X 10.3.5 for x86 on shelves in under a month if they wanted to (and if the hardware companies would write drivers for it). Actually they could add an "Apple" touch to it and rent out space for drivers on software update on Apple's servers, totally surpassing the MS experience.


Are you sure about tht?
Last i heard a company who did try to port MAc OSX, managed to do it (sort of), but it ran REALLY REALLY slow, like almost unusably slow. I really am doubting that Apple could or ever would try to port to x86.

[slughead]

Are you sure about tht?
Last i heard a company who did try to port MAc OSX, managed to do it (sort of), but it ran REALLY REALLY slow, like almost unusably slow. I really am doubting that Apple could or ever would try to port to x86.

-->Apple<-- has ported Mac OS X to x86. Jobs made reference to it in an interview, even said that they were keeping it up, other rumors substantiated it.

Until grandma is comfortable going out and buying the parts to put together a machine, manufacturers that sell systems are not competing in the same space.

oh, so basically a power user shouldn't build their own system because grandma can't build it? Because if grandmother can't build it, how in the world can you build a "comparable" system to Dell? See because grandma has waved her magic wand and turned Homebuilts into apples and Package deals into oranges.

I can see not comparing them in the context of grandma's computer.. but can we not compare 2 computers because of the low probability one will be bought by a grandmother more than another?

So I guess, since kids shouldn't be using ovens, d'giorno pizzas can't be compared to dominoes.

What arbitrary line am I blind to?

[cyberddot]

...Both premade pizzas, only one has to wait to bake a DiGiorno before one can eat it, even though all of the parts are there...it's not a pizza until you put some work into it (and even then it's still not a pizza). Where one can eat the Dominoes pizza as soon as it's delivered to your front door, or you can even pick it up and eat it on the way home!! Kids shouldn't use ovens?

I think thatwendigo did a little better than you're giving him credit for, and made a bit more sense. I'm not sure where the hell you're going with the pizza analogy. :D

[slughead]

...Both premade pizzas, only one has to wait to bake a DiGiorno before one can eat it, even though all of the parts are there...it's not a pizza until you put some work into it (and even then it's still not a pizza). Where one can eat the Dominoes pizza as soon as it's delivered to your front door, or you can even pick it up and eat it on the way home!! Kids shouldn't use ovens?

I think thatwendigo did a little better than you're giving him credit for, and made a bit more sense. I'm not sure where the hell you're going with the pizza analogy. :D

Look! you compared dominoes and Digorno! Congrats, you've done the impossible. See because digorno and dominoes apply to different markets, they OBVIOUSLY can't be compared.

You the man, cyberddot.

[thatwendigo]

-->Apple<-- has ported Mac OS X to x86. Jobs made reference to it in an interview, even said that they were keeping it up, other rumors substantiated it.

Actually, Jobs said that it could be ported to other platforms with relative ease, but all he was talking about was the actual operating system. Most modern operating systems are at least somewhat portable - XP has the Hardware Abstraction Layer, OSX and other *NIXes their shared code - and so that's not surprising.

What you don't seem to understand is that the application APIs, hardware drivers, and other important parts would not be nearly as easy to move. Without them, having an OS is pointless for anyone that doesn't want to spend ridiculous amounts of time writing their own drivers. The problem with OS X on x86 hardware is that Apple would have another case of pissing off developers with a major shift (68k to Power, Power to OS X on Power, OS X on x86) in their programming.

Simply put, why would developers even bother writing for OS X once it's on x86? They could stop selling anything but Windows versions, since the hardware exists to run their other product.

oh, so basically a power user shouldn't build their own system because grandma can't build it?

No, you're branching off into a completely separate issue now.

Apple doesn't license their hardware, and with good reason. Unlike any other computer manufacturer in the world, they have a thriving business operating systems, hardware, and software, pushing an integrated solution that's intended to be easy to use. When they opened things up and let others make hardware, they were hemorrhaging money as the secondary companies used every corner-cutting trick they could to try to eat Apple's margin rather than growing the market.

The end result was that the Mac platform didn't gain marketshare, Apple lost money, and the user end experience on the clones was more annoying. I know, because I remember needing third party drivers to make some of the hardware in mine work.

Because if grandmother can't build it, how in the world can you build a "comparable" system to Dell?

Yes, you can't, because the home builder isn't subject to manufacturing, packaging, advertisment, distribution, and other fees and concerns that a major OEM has to deal with. It isn't at all comparable to take a mishmash of parts and then a complete box, because the responsibilities are spread out thinly on the former and not on the latter.

What I tell you three times is true:
It's not a fair comparison.
It's not a fair comparison.
It's not a fair comparison.


I can see not comparing them in the context of grandma's computer.. but can we not compare 2 computers because of the low probability one will be bought by a grandmother more than another?

There's no low probability about it. The average consumer buys a whole box from a retailer of some sort, whether the original company or someone like CompUSA, and that won't change unless the technology does. Computers are too complex for most people to understand the internal workings without a lot of experience, which is why many of the geekier people on boards like this one forget what the experience was like.

So I guess, since kids shouldn't be using ovens, d'giorno pizzas can't be compared to dominoes.

The rare child is capable of using an oven at a young age, just as the rare computer user can build their own. That doesn't mean you can compare the two directly, since the situations are different. To extend your metaphor, one could say that food that is available to the child who can cook is not an option for the one who can't, which means that the two are not able to be directly compared.

[dswoodley]

I disagree, the emac is aimed at that market, the market being education/school and first time buyers. the imac is made 1 level up from newbie, and one level down from pro.
emac, ibook= beginner
imac powerbook 12"= intermediate
powermac and powerbook+ pro and pccard/pci/firewire 800, upgradeable graphics. independant dual displays.

This is too simplisitic way off looking at. PEople buy the macs at the different price points for many reasons and Apple knows it. That's why they made the eMac in the first place (education users - including teachers, who know Macs quite well). Hell, I even bought ibook because it is way cooler to the touch than a Powerbook.

[Sped]

Apologies up front for not reading every post thus far, but has anyone considered the scalability of the new enclosure vs. the space requirements of the liquid cooling system? Presumably, the iMac will enventually get to the 2.5 gHz range or better. Does the 2.5 gHz G5 necessitate the liquid cooling system or will slower bus speeds keep cooling issues under control? I don't know if the liquid cooling system as is would fit in the new skinny iMac.

[gooddog]

In a word, yes.



Until grandma is comfortable going out and buying the parts to put together a machine, manufacturers that sell systems are not competing in the same space. I've seen this attitude before, and it's always from someone who knows at least something about computers but has forgotten that other people are about as stymied as a foreigner without a translation book. Computers are a mystical box that does things, sometimes ones that you don't want, for the vast majority of people. How else do you explain all the service departments, 'for dummies' style books, and other rigamarole that are the hallmarks of the everyday computer user?

My mother is not a stupid woman, as she's a highly successful physician and a former president of her professional association. She also doesn't really understand the difference between RAM and a hard drive, which is why she asks me for help. She couldn't build a computer to save her life, except perhaps by chance, so the homebuilt and enthusiasst side is a non-issue.

Imagine what it must be like for people who aren't as bright as she is.

-----------------

And many simply don't have the time/energy after a day's work to hunker down and build a tool kit, supply box, THEN their computer.

My very first project was to virtually rip appart a Rev/A Bondi iMac to upgrade the hard drive, RTC battery , RAM, VRAM, .... had to wait for my vacation and spent 18 paranoid hours at it ( yes, I bought an anti-static mat and wrist strap :) ...)

An experienced geek would do it in 25 minutes.

---gooddog

[gooddog]

unless they add a screen protector and are willing to cut margins, i think crt emac will servive, maybe with am improve screen. 1280x1024 @85hz would be nice, no dead pixels, excellent response, no dead pixels, 180 degree viewing angle and easy on the eyes, a low bottom lcd just cant match the quality price and durability of that.

__________

Screen protector yes -- the rest -- dunno...

I teach in LA,CA.

If Apple wants to make a student lab computer, advertise it agressively and price it the same way, with free OS X or option for free Linux as well as the economizing I suggest below, then here is what schools need:

A school computer, for student use, needs extraordinary features in two areas : anti-vandalism and anti-porno. Busted labs are seldom replaced within the decade, and lawsuits by parents of porno-injured angels are even more expensive: fear of lawyers reigns supreme.

The screen needs to be TOUGH and a replaceable tough shell would be grand.

The case needs to have baffles that channel soft drinks, gum, paper wads, used condoms, etc. away from electronics and can be easily unlocked for frequent cleaning. That pizza slit along the top back of the G5 iMac is a chump's trademark.

All ventilation ports need the above baffling.

All removable media drives need to be centralized at the supervisor's station.

Access to the net must be only to pre-selected sites rather than by using naive "rules" based S/W.

Lock-down to the bench must be robust and use special fasteners.

All serial numbers, etc. must be up-front and behind the screen protector for inventory.

Picture quality is of minor importance --- functional is good enough. Here is a great place for Apple to unload it's LCD's with a FEW bad pixels --- not in our home use , DVD watching machines. The schools get a price break for bad pixels/ we pay a little extra for 100% pixel guarantee -- all are happy.

Gaming abilities are also unimportant -- we don't play games with them : mostly math S/W and English practice WP etc.

Sound quality is also unimportant, but sanitary headphone capability does matter a lot: maybe careels with directed beam sound projectors ( transducer phased array type ) could achieve this with no student contact.

Virtual (projected) keyboards and
track pads that work from behind replaceable, clear, tough plastic would be a heaven sent if functional. Most kids are very slow hunt-and-peck typists.

Supporting furniture, like properly chevronned rows for total visibility of class from the teacher's elevated desk is needed sorely: and I mean SORELY : I still have eight scars on my shins from one year of scrambling through the forest of chair legs to answer questions.

The teacher's station needs remote access to each student screen and head-set : to answer questions.

Cases need attractive but graffitti-resistant finishes and coatings.

The kids need a swift kick to the a$$, but that is a whole other issue.

---gooddog :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

[gooddog]

On AppleIndider there is an article (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=638) explaining how highly replacable virtually all the parts are - even the CPU/GPU combo - which adds even more great value I think.

As to my earlier questions regarding noise levels and display response time, it seems that this new iMac will be very quit, at a 25 dB level. Seems very good. There is still no answer to what the response time of the display is, but indications seem to be that it is the 20" display from the 'old' iMac line, so not 16 ms. Little disappointing, but maybe not that bad?

1. Has anybody with an 'old' 20" iMac ever watched movies (DVD) on it? What is your experience? No ghosting or such, but rather enjoyable watching? (I hope....)

****************

I played a DVD (Apocalypse Now) on a 20" iMac at the shop.
It was fantastic ! No ghosting, picture break-up, picket fencing, etc. Just a fantastic picture. It was sooooo hard for me to resist buying--but I expected the G5 within weeks. I plan to use my 20" Rev B G5 with my Formac Studio TVR for all my TV watching. Even on my 15" FP Sunflower, this combination rocks --- and I plan to get the "tubesorround.com" 5.1 head set for sound -- or my sound sticks with jellyfish subwoofer.

---gooddog



2. Are there noticable differences between 'wired' keyboards and mice versus Bluetooth ones? I often play online chess, in which when in time trouble it is highly undesirable to have delays between mouse and mac.

Thanks again for your help. :)

[MikeTheC]

As a computer, I'm certain it's going to be wonderful, but I sure don't care for the appearance. When it comes to Apple and food, not only does it have to taste good, but presentation is everything.

It does look like a cross between one of Apple's new LCDs, the eMac, and a bit of the iPod thrown in for good measure.

I sure hope somebody likes it.

[slughead]

Apologies up front for not reading every post thus far, but has anyone considered the scalability of the new enclosure vs. the space requirements of the liquid cooling system? Presumably, the iMac will enventually get to the 2.5 gHz range or better. Does the 2.5 gHz G5 necessitate the liquid cooling system or will slower bus speeds keep cooling issues under control? I don't know if the liquid cooling system as is would fit in the new skinny iMac.

The point of the liquid cooling system was NOT for heat dissipation, it was for sound reduction.

They probably stuck two 2.5's in a G5 case and noticed the fans were running at a high RPM, and decided to silence it with a simple liquid cooling system.

If Apple were to use processor fans, the G5 would be much more space efficient, have fewer holes in the front and rear sides, cost less, and have more room for expansion such as hard and optical drives.

However, it'd be louder; and Apple seems to try to balance silence and specs.

I'd imagine the G5 iMac will get a dual core processor before it gets a 2.5Ghz, but by that time they'll probably call it a G6.

[Ton Palmans]

As to my earlier questions regarding noise levels and display response time, it seems that this new iMac will be very quit, at a 25 dB level. Seems very good. There is still no answer to what the response time of the display is, but indications seem to be that it is the 20" display from the 'old' iMac line, so not 16 ms. Little disappointing, but maybe not that bad?

1. Has anybody with an 'old' 20" iMac ever watched movies (DVD) on it? What is your experience? No ghosting or such, but rather enjoyable watching? (I hope....)
I played a DVD (Apocalypse Now) on a 20" iMac at the shop.
It was fantastic ! No ghosting, picture break-up, picket fencing, etc. Just a fantastic picture. It was sooooo hard for me to resist buying--but I expected the G5 within weeks. I plan to use my 20" Rev B G5 with my Formac Studio TVR for all my TV watching. Even on my 15" FP Sunflower, this combination rocks --- and I plan to get the "tubesorround.com" 5.1 head set for sound -- or my sound sticks with jellyfish subwoofer.



2. Are there noticable differences between 'wired' keyboards and mice versus Bluetooth ones? I often play online chess, in which when in time trouble it is highly undesirable to have delays between mouse and mac.

Thanks again for your help.
Thank you for your experiences with DVD playback, it is quite comforting to know that this would be OK on the new iMac. I guess I'm almost sold now... :)

Good luck with your TVR and 5.1 sound!

[spaceballl]

Does the 2.5 gHz G5 necessitate the liquid cooling system or will slower bus speeds keep cooling issues under control?
Slower bus speeds really don't dictate the overall heat of a CPU. A high bus speed will heat up the southbridge and northbridge motherboard chips a bit more, but the overall CPU heat is mostly determined by frequency and voltage. IBM is continually working on making new steppings and by the time 2.5 ghz is ready for this iMac, they will most likely have a newer stepping of the G5 which can run with the standard iMac air cooling... then again with the FSB of the iMacs having a 1/3 divider, by the math, we'll never see a 2.5 ghz chip in there... :) :) 3x800 would be 2.4 ghz and 3x900 would be 2.7.
The point of the liquid cooling system was NOT for heat dissipation, it was for sound reduction.Nope. the 90nm 2.5 ghz DEFINITELY get hot. At 2 ghz, they put out a bit less heat than 2 ghz 130nm chips. However, just a BIT less. At 2.5 ghz, they put out more heat than the 2 ghz chips. Not to mention that because of the die shrink, the area of the chip is smaller. Thus, the new G5 puts out far more watts/unit area than the older G5. This is not IBM's fault. AMD and Intel especially faced this problem with the move to 90nm technology. That's why there's no 3 ghz now. That's why Intel and AMD's clock's haven't scaled as well. Typically a processor die shrink is all Intel or AMD would need to make a couple improvements on a chip, lower its heat output, and scale its frequency way up. That's what IBM was counting on. That's what Steve Jobs was counting on when he said 3 ghz within a year. Anywho my electrical engineer self is going on a nerd rant again and i'll stop :). But back to liquid cooling... the specific heat capacity of water is far better than that of copper. By using a water pump, the heat that gets pumped into the water gets taken away quickly to a radiator so while cooling ability is furhter increased, we don't need fans with as high of an RPM to blow the heat off the radiators.

[nprallstar]

Some of you guys are saying this is comparable to a PC in features/price.

I think the iMac is fairly priced for what it's competing with and the size as an important feature. Otherwise, I think you're mainly paying for form, not function, if you compare it to a www.pricewatch.com computer:

Since the 17" iMac has sales tax in 49 states (??), at 8% $1,299 is $1,402.92, so keep that in mind. Also keep in mind that both of these configurations carry a monitor with more pixels and a higher contrast ratio, measuring 20". The 20" iMac is $1,899 ($2,050.92 with 8% sales tax), so keep that in mind as well. Also note that all of these parts may be purchased without sales tax in 48-49 states.

$50 - GeForceFX U 5200 128MB
$27 - 256MB DDR 3200 RAM
$268 - P4 3.2Ghz with Mobo + 8X AGP 800MHZ FSB
$49 - soundcard with Optical I/O
$62 - SATA 80GB HD
$588 - 20" LCD, 1600x1200, 600:1 Contrast, with speakers and microphone. Aluminum enclosure.
$65.50 - NEC 8X DUAL/DOUBLE LAYER DVD BURNER DVD±R
$64 - Antec case w/350watt PSU (also antec)
======
$1,173.50

~$1,400 system:
$208 - Radeon 9800 128MB
$110 - 1,024MB DDR 3200 RAM
$268 - P4 3.2Ghz with Mobo + 8X AGP 800MHZ FSB
$49 - soundcard with Optical I/O
$62 - SATA 80GB HD
$588 - 20" LCD, 1600x1200, 600:1 Contrast, with speakers and microphone. Aluminum enclosure.
$65.50 - NEC 8X DUAL/DOUBLE LAYER DVD BURNER DVD±R
$64 - Antec case w/350watt PSU (also antec)
======
$1,414.50

The emboldened text means it is better than what's in the iMac by any measure. The display was not emboldened because some people might value a 16:9 display over the 4:3 compared here, instead of the better contrast ratio/more pixels.

[edit: I should also point out that ALL the shipping rates were included in the parts' prices (as is the case with all pricewatch numbers). In addition, you can buy the new iMac from somewhere other than the Apple Store and not have to pay sales tax.]

The 20" lcd listed on pricewatch for $588 is 640x480 not 1600x1200. Check http://www.buyxtremegear.com/svavr20.html You may have confused viewable area with resolution(viewable area 16.1" by 12") Decent 20" lcds usually cost ~900

[egor]

There's no low probability about it. The average consumer buys a whole box from a retailer of some sort, whether the original company or someone like CompUSA, and that won't change unless the technology does. Computers are too complex for most people to understand the internal workings without a lot of experience, which is why many of the geekier people on boards like this one forget what the experience was like.

Now, assuming you're still arguing about apple competing with users who build their own pcs (cos I've been scanning whats been posted), I just want to disagree with this one point, forgetting about who apple is competing with.

A year ago I didn't know anything about the internal workings of a computer, I mean, you don't really know how it WORKS to build one, but thats besides the point, I read a couple of websites, after that I went straight to choosing which components to buy through reviews and cost, and I built my first PC for under £200 in an extremely small amount of time with NO experience building one before, I didn't even need to read a step by step guide... because it is basically a logical process... I'd hazard I guess that most people are smarter than me too.

Point is, assuming you're talking about what I think you're talking about, I think you're exageratting the level of geekyness required to build a pc, heck, I don't really know how a computer works properly, I just have a very high-level view of it all (this sends this info to that, etc.)

[slughead]

The 20" lcd listed on pricewatch for $588 is 640x480 not 1600x1200. Check http://www.buyxtremegear.com/svavr20.html You may have confused viewable area with resolution(viewable area 16.1" by 12") Decent 20" lcds usually cost ~900

yes, they have changed the price.. must have been a misprint:

http://www.legendmicro.com/store/more_info.asp?product_ID=2956

$750 for the monitor I mentioned. That is still more that competitive spec wise with the iMac/dell/whatever.

[mrpod]

I've waited for almost 6 months for the replacement imac. I was going to get a 20 inch( as a investment in my health. I've been working off a tiny ibook for two years! and my neak hurts!ha!).and then then they start talking about a repalcement. And now all they offer us is ugly block on a stick and dont even offer the right screen size!) Lets face it there is NO reson (apart from design faiiure) to having that space with the emblem below the screen. It throws everything off. and also If theres going to be a wall mounting kit for the imac( as there web site says)Isn't that underneath speaker system just going to shoot it on the floor? I'm not realy impressed with the design. But can't leave it for much longer. I just wish they had got there act together...

[hacurio1]

Now, assuming you're still arguing about apple competing with users who build their own pcs (cos I've been scanning whats been posted), I just want to disagree with this one point, forgetting about who apple is competing with.

A year ago I didn't know anything about the internal workings of a computer, I mean, you don't really know how it WORKS to build one, but thats besides the point, I read a couple of websites, after that I went straight to choosing which components to buy through reviews and cost, and I built my first PC for under £200 in an extremely small amount of time with NO experience building one before, I didn't even need to read a step by step guide... because it is basically a logical process... I'd hazard I guess that most people are smarter than me too.

Point is, assuming you're talking about what I think you're talking about, I think you're exageratting the level of geekyness required to build a pc, heck, I don't really know how a computer works properly, I just have a very high-level view of it all (this sends this info to that, etc.)


Sorry, you are way off. I used to work for CompUsa, and even though building a computer these days doesn’t require technically advance individuals, the average Joe is simply no willing or able to do it. When you deal with customers and listen to their concerns you learn that they simply don’t have the time, the interest, or the knowledge to build their own PC’s (Even though one can learn to do it effortlessly). The Average Joe has many other things going on in their lives to worry about building their own computer. Computers are time saving tools, and normal people use them, not build them. Some hobbyists build their own cars (Saving thousands of dollars), but for the most par, people just buy cars. There is a marketing term called segmentation, which is used to describe segments of a market (Computer, in this case) to whom a company chooses to serve based on their product’s (or services) strengths and features. Each segment of the computer industry market is composed by people with different interests, education, age, industry, etc. So when Apple released the new iMac they positioned them selves to target one or several market segments to whom they believe they will be able to serve well. Seldom one will find a company attempting to serve all segments with a single product (hence the variety of configurations and products out there, they even sell parts for individuals interested in building their own computers) because most companies don’t have enough resources and/or products to effectively serve all the market. Sure you can build your own computer; therefore, you are in different segment because you have different interests. Personally, I could build my own PC, however I don’t have time to do it and I just chose not to therefore belonging to a different segment. This is the way it works.

[egor]

Sorry, you are way off. I used to work for CompUsa, and even though building a computer these days doesn’t require technically advance individuals, the average Joe is simply no willing or able to do it. When you deal with customers and listen to their concerns you learn that they simply don’t have the time, the interest, or the knowledge to build their own PC’s (Even though one can learn to do it effortlessly). The Average Joe has many other things going on in their lives to worry about building their own computer. Computers are time saving tools, and normal people use them, not build them. Some hobbyists build their own cars (Saving thousands of dollars), but for the most par, people just buy cars. There is a marketing term called segmentation, which is used to describe segments of a market (Computer, in this case) to whom a company chooses to serve based on their product’s (or services) strengths and features. Each segment of the computer industry market is composed by people with different interests, education, age, industry, etc. So when Apple released the new iMac they positioned them selves to target one or several market segments to whom they believe they will be able to serve well. Seldom one will find a company attempting to serve all segments with a single product (hence the variety of configurations and products out there, they even sell parts for individuals interested in building their own computers) because most companies don’t have enough resources and/or products to effectively serve all the market. Sure you can build your own computer; therefore, you are in different segment because you have different interests. Personally, I could build my own PC, however I don’t have time to do it and I just chose not to therefore belonging to a different segment. This is the way it works.

Thanks for the response but I think that was a bit irrelevent. I was just saying that it takes hardly any time at all to build a pc, nor that much knowledge or level of intelligence. In fact, you'd get a pc quicker by doing it that way than ordering a Dell custom-build, and at the time I was completely new to it all, it wasn't a hassle at all.

I wasn't talking about segmentation or whether you can compare so and so to so and so.

[hacurio1]

Thanks for the response but I think that was a bit irrelevent. I was just saying that it takes hardly any time at all to build a pc, nor that much knowledge or level of intelligence. In fact, you'd get a pc quicker by doing it that way than ordering a Dell custom-build, and at the time I was completely new to it all, it wasn't a hassle at all.

I wasn't talking about segmentation or whether you can compare so and so to so and so.


I didn’t disagree with the possibility that perhaps it could be easier or cheaper to build your own PC; however, I was trying to make it clear and correct point you to the fact that the great majority simple don’t want to do it (Far many and various reasons, it varies from individual to individual).

[gopher]

__________

Screen protector yes -- the rest -- dunno...

I teach in LA,CA.

If Apple wants to make a student lab computer, advertise it agressively and price it the same way, with free OS X or option for free Linux as well as the economizing I suggest below, then here is what schools need:

A school computer, for student use, needs extraordinary features in two areas : anti-vandalism and anti-porno. Busted labs are seldom replaced within the decade, and lawsuits by parents of porno-injured angels are even more expensive: fear of lawyers reigns supreme.

The screen needs to be TOUGH and a replaceable tough shell would be grand.

The case needs to have baffles that channel soft drinks, gum, paper wads, used condoms, etc. away from electronics and can be easily unlocked for frequent cleaning. That pizza slit along the top back of the G5 iMac is a chump's trademark.

All ventilation ports need the above baffling.

All removable media drives need to be centralized at the supervisor's station.

Access to the net must be only to pre-selected sites rather than by using naive "rules" based S/W.

Lock-down to the bench must be robust and use special fasteners.

All serial numbers, etc. must be up-front and behind the screen protector for inventory.

Picture quality is of minor importance --- functional is good enough. Here is a great place for Apple to unload it's LCD's with a FEW bad pixels --- not in our home use , DVD watching machines. The schools get a price break for bad pixels/ we pay a little extra for 100% pixel guarantee -- all are happy.

Gaming abilities are also unimportant -- we don't play games with them : mostly math S/W and English practice WP etc.

Sound quality is also unimportant, but sanitary headphone capability does matter a lot: maybe careels with directed beam sound projectors ( transducer phased array type ) could achieve this with no student contact.

Virtual (projected) keyboards and
track pads that work from behind replaceable, clear, tough plastic would be a heaven sent if functional. Most kids are very slow hunt-and-peck typists.

Supporting furniture, like properly chevronned rows for total visibility of class from the teacher's elevated desk is needed sorely: and I mean SORELY : I still have eight scars on my shins from one year of scrambling through the forest of chair legs to answer questions.

The teacher's station needs remote access to each student screen and head-set : to answer questions.

Cases need attractive but graffitti-resistant finishes and coatings.

The kids need a swift kick to the a$$, but that is a whole other issue.

---gooddog :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

A lot sound like good suggestions. I hope you posted them all to http://www.apple.com/feedback/

They need as much feedback through their official site as possible to improve their products. Posting them here on Macrumors, they won't know that people need certain things. But give Apple direct feedback, and they will listen if enough people want it.

[macidiot]

In a word, yes.



Until grandma is comfortable going out and buying the parts to put together a machine, manufacturers that sell systems are not competing in the same space. I've seen this attitude before, and it's always from someone who knows at least something about computers but has forgotten that other people are about as stymied as a foreigner without a translation book. Computers are a mystical box that does things, sometimes ones that you don't want, for the vast majority of people. How else do you explain all the service departments, 'for dummies' style books, and other rigamarole that are the hallmarks of the everyday computer user?

My mother is not a stupid woman, as she's a highly successful physician and a former president of her professional association. She also doesn't really understand the difference between RAM and a hard drive, which is why she asks me for help. She couldn't build a computer to save her life, except perhaps by chance, so the homebuilt and enthusiasst side is a non-issue.

Imagine what it must be like for people who aren't as bright as she is.


Actually, a recent study of PC marketshare surprised everyone when it discovered that Dell was not the market leader. In fact, whitebox pc's dominated. So I don't know about grandma, but the rest of the US seems pretty comfortable with whitebox pc's. BTW, whitebox pc's are not just homebuilt machines. They are also machines built by a local independent PC shop, essentially the same as home built. A lot of people trust these local shops for repair and maintenance. And they usually come with warranties. Lots of small businesses just buy whitebox pc's from the company that does the support for them. They get exactly what they want, with no unnecessary stuff, and at a better price than brand name. And they get the name of a guy that they can call directly if something blows up. Very handy.

[voicegy]

A lot sound like good suggestions. I hope you posted them all to http://www.apple.com/feedback/

They need as much feedback through their official site as possible to improve their products. Posting them here on Macrumors, they won't know that people need certain things. But give Apple direct feedback, and they will listen if enough people want it.

Not that posting on the feedback page isn't a good idea (it most certainly is) but, believe me, Apple hangs around here quite a bit. ;)

[AidenShaw]

Not that posting on the feedback page isn't a good idea (it most certainly is) but, believe me, Apple hangs around here quite a bit. ;)

Aren't the logs from your Apache 1.3.31 server fun to peruse !?! :D

Does Microsoft spend much time here?

[Mechcozmo]

[QUOTE=slughead]-->Apple<-- has ported Mac OS X to x86. Jobs made reference to it in an interview, even said that they were keeping it up, other rumors substantiated it./QUOTE]

Gotta love some people. "Other rumors substantiated it." Damn, I havn't laughed that hard since I was a little girl. (Dr. Evil!)

And the iMac, even if it is more expensive that a home-grown PC, will sell. Because although most people COULD they just don't want to spend the time learning and then assebling a PC. And if something goes wrong, they would most likely get worried, etc.

And the iMac isn't THAT bad. Yes, I do not like it a lot. But its design will be far easier to work with than that of the iMac G4s. And cmon, this post really has gone on long enough. :eek: 60+ pages!?!?!

[XboxEvolved]

I posted before but I will again.

I get a vibe from this forum that if its not in a big obnoxious case it can't do Photoshop, Flash, 3D programs, Halo etc.

The truth is these people probably bought the same thing in a big obnoxious case a year ago and are trying to jusify their purchases. The fact is Apple updates stuff all the freakin time, and you really can't catch up unless you make a whole hell of a lot of money to do so. Im getting this comp and sticking with it for at least 4 years. It has everything I need, and is great for anyone I would think.

[Sped]

The point of the liquid cooling system was NOT for heat dissipation, it was for sound reduction. ...
However, it'd be louder; and Apple seems to try to balance silence and specs.

I don't think you can separate the two. To say the liquid cooling system was not necessary for cooling and then to say only a few sentences later that Apple balances silence and specs is contradictory. You make the point brilliantly that the liquid system is for cooling AND noise.

And that's my point. Is the new enclosure potentially limiting if you can't get a liquid cooling system in it? I believe the same problems that could plague this enclosure are the ones making it difficult to produce a G5 powerbook.

[aswitcher]

I am pretty impressed that the user added features (wifi and ram) are specifically placed to be on the centre of gravity. Nice work.

[Sped]

then again with the FSB of the iMacs having a 1/3 divider, by the math, we'll never see a 2.5 ghz chip in there...

I don't know... It appears that with the G5, Apple has made the bus speed whatever the heck they want it to be. It isn't like the years and years of 66 mHz bus speeds that slowly eaked up to 133 mHz. In the one year of G5 processors, we have seen everything from 533-1000 mHz.

[JerseyMike73]

then again with the FSB of the iMacs having a 1/3 divider, by the math, we'll never see a 2.5 ghz chip in there... :) :) 3x800 would be 2.4 ghz and 3x900 would be 2.7

actually the FSB on the iMac 1.6 ghz is 533, so if Apple wants to use a 2.5 in a future iMac the FSB would be 833

[MegaSignal]

The point of the liquid cooling system was NOT for heat dissipation, it was for sound reduction.

They probably stuck two 2.5's in a G5 case and noticed the fans were running at a high RPM, and decided to silence it with a simple liquid cooling system.

Wasn't the whole point of liquid cooling that Apple was forced into it due to "heat density" of the newer, smaller chips? In fact, don't the 2.5 chips produce less heat (90nm) overall than the 2.0 with the 130nm build? I would think that in addition to the fans, that the additional pumps and peripherals would have the potential of more noise...help me out here.

[macidiot]

Now who's comprehension skills are lacking? My point was -once again, for the hard of comprehension- that the COMPUTER is fine. That's what this is all about. The card- an admittedly limiting factor of the computer- will not, I suspect, stand in the way of sales of the _computer_ to the great degree that you think it will.

Oh, and those who game on the Mac are somehow wiser than those of us whose professional use of the platform isn't held to ransom by the GPU?

When did I ever say anything about iMac sales? And when did you ever say anything about iMac sales? As far as I can tell, you seemed to go on some rampage when I stated that Logic is not a good product to use to demonstrate the graphics power of the iMac. Think what you will, but Logic does not tax a computer's graphics capabilities. Sorry to burst your bubble.

But since you brought it up, iMac sales have collapsed since the old colored iMacs were replaced. The last generation were a sales disappointment. Primarily because it was clearly outclassed in price and performance. The consensus was, neat design, not a great computer. Way too expensive. Apparently, plenty of people chose NOT to buy an iMac because of its poor performance and high price. One of the factors was the weak, non-upgradeable graphics. Sorry. IMO, this is a case of Apple slavishly committing to design and sacrificing functionality and performance.

My concern is that Apple failed to address many of the problems that people had with the prior iMac. Poor graphics cababilities. Needless cost of a display. Non-upgradeablity. They have come up with a replacement that caters to the same people that bought the prior iMac. Unfortunately that is a shrinking group. The only clear improvement is the G5 chip. But its crippled, again partly due to slavish commitment to form over function. Sony has done a number of aio designs. Usually with the same responses... neat design, mediocre hardware. I hope the iMac sells millions. But I have doubts. At least the prior iMac had a truly unique design. This new one is basically a better Gateway AIO.

Anyway, I'm tired of your unfounded ranting. Plenty of other people on here post and manage not to stoop to childish barbs. And actually understand the context of other postings. Later.

[Charko]

macidiot, I agree with your analysis of the shortcomings and relative poor sales of the last iMac.

If anyone is interested, they're going to cover the iMac presentation in Paris on 'Click Online', a programme on BBC World television, at 19:30 CET - that's 18:30 GMT, I think.

[daveg5]

actually the FSB on the iMac 1.6 ghz is 533, so if Apple wants to use a 2.5 in a future iMac the FSB would be 833
I mentioned this before in my predictions before it was announced, that to keep it cool apple would have to either cut the L@ cache size, as they did before with powerbooks, or cut down the buss ratio.
I know that either one of these can affect heat and cooling from my overclocking days. the buss was the best bet as it shouldnt effect performance much, since the memory is single channel now and still at only 400MHZ.
What I was wondering was if Apple reduced the 1.25 buss in the 2.5 G5 to say a 1000 or 833, would that allow them to reach 3.0GHZ, or an enterprising G5 owner who is willing to risk his machine to find out. I have still not heard of one G5 that was overclocked. powerbook ibook emac imac, powermac G4,s but no G5

[the dairy giant]

Hello,

First post from looooong time lurker! I have a question, which is totally unrelated to anything about graphics card.

I bought my iMac DV 400 nearly 5 years ago. I still use it, using 10.3, and using mainly Logic Audio, using software instruments, recording audio with plug in effects etc (just hobby/obsession, not pro). It has had some more ram and a bigger/faster HD added, but it seems pretty good that it has been able to keep pace (with increasing struggles and workarounds of course) for this length of time.

I think, (correct me if wrong) that the G3's from this period were more powerful than most 'equivalent' PCs of the time, so for my money I got something pretty good. (I realise that power is not everything, but with audio stuff like this, its a lot)

So was my old iMac comparatively more powerful for its time than the new iMac is for today I wonder? 1.6 -- 1.8ghz g5 versus 2.4 -- 3ghz pentium thingys... (or whatever the PC numbers are this week)

Does anyone have a perspective on that?

If i was to get one of these new beasts (which I like a lot) I wonder if it would last me as long as my current one has.

[Montserrat]

Thought I didn't like the look of the iMac in all the pictures against that blue background. Just seen some "real life" shots and it does look very tasty. I don't need one/want one really, but then again I said that about my iPod. hmm ;)

By the way - with regards to previous post - Macs seem a lot better at aging than their PC counterparts. I have a 1 year old powerbook 867 and it hasn't lost any speed, whereas my Dad bought a 2Ghz desktop WinXP machine (against my advice ;) )at christmas and it's already showing signs of slowing down. One of the many reasons I have no intention of buying a PC! :D

[AidenShaw]

I think, (correct me if wrong) that the G3's from this period were more powerful than most 'equivalent' PCs of the time, so for my money I got something pretty good. (I realise that power is not everything, but with audio stuff like this, its a lot)

So was my old iMac comparatively more powerful for its time than the new iMac is for today I wonder?

Comparatively, your old DV was closer to the top PC of fall '99 than the iMac G5 is today.

You have 400MHz with a 100MHz bus with a 512 KiB 200MHz cache, the top Intel chip at the introduction of the iMac DV (October 1999) (http://www.apple-history.com/frames/?) was a PIII 733MHz on a 133MHz bus with a 256 KiB 733 MHz cache. The 1 GHz PIII came out in March 2000. (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quickreffam.htm#p4Desk)

Using the typical 1.5 to 1 MHz advantage for the G3, you had a 600 MHz equivalent - using the extreme 2 to 1 advantage, you had an 800 MHz equivalent.

Today's iMac at 1.6/1.8 GHz, 533/600MHz with 512 KiB full speed cache. Today's PCs is 2.8/3.6 GHz Hyper-Threaded, 800 MHz bus with 1 MiB full speed cache.

The iMac should do well on AltiVec applications, but lose seriously on non-AltiVec code.

Apple's published benchmarks concentrate on dual CPU aware AltiVec friendly code, so it's hard to find anything substantial there. Note that the dual 3.2 GHz Xeon beats the dual 2.0 GHz G5 on LightWave. The dual 3.06 GHz Xeon is only 4% slower than the dual 1.8 GHz on "rendering". (Some of the Apple benchmarks are very misleading - different applications are compared - Logic vs. CuBase, FCP vs. Avid,...)

[Samiam1]

Enough with the home built PC's already.

Yes, you can build it fast, cheaper and with all the latest and greatest do dads. But you're missing the entire point of apple's existence. You can't build a 2" all-in-one piece of design genius in your basement. You get the usual big, clunky, loud and gereric box PC when you build it in you basement. Apple pushes the envelope of design; balancing computing power and minimalist artistic form. That is why people buy apple. I laughed my a++ off when PC's started to look just like the original imac when it first came out.

To use a car metaphor (they seem to be popular here), porche makes a car that is a beautifully blended combination of power and design (sound familiar). My neighbor custom rebuilt an old chevy in his garage that can blow away any porche on a straight track. It has a big block 6, a massive spoiler, huge ugly blowers sticking out the front and a paint job like sombodies vision of hell, but damn is it fast.

So build your PC and enjoy it. Those of us that "get it" will enjoy our new imacs.

[Ari_0]

Im surprised to hear yet another 62 pages of whining with about a few compliments interwoven in between. One wonders if this is down to being inept, or just sheer ignorance.

Its clear that apple wouldn't out-perform the POWERmac with this computer. That would defeat the whole point of its Target audience. Look, its very simple, when it comes to desktops, you have your low range studenty eMacs, appauling components but perfect for a budget price (apple's idea of budget, mind you) to help those students save a large portion of their loans to spend on other things.

Then you have the mid-range computer, as i predicted ealier, it would have a few components nerfed/ non-existent, for two main reasons: 1- if you wanted G5, its only natural to shave the cost elsewhere. 2- MID range meaning, when you have more dosh later, you could always upgrade the rest of the compnents (presumabley). And even if thats not the case, a top of the range iMAC comes close to £2600. Which is MID range :mad:

If you want a top of the range, then go for the super equipped PowerMacs with its 8GB ram and other high performance components, but dont expect the other Apple products to out-perform the G5 PowerMac until the PowerMac itself is updated. Remember you're paying for style, rebelious and a fashion-statement. Not some cheap Micro$oft wh**e. Incidentally a top of the range G5 PowerMc exceeds £4600. Copare that to a top of the range iMac and you understand my Mid range statement.

Me, its a PowerBook for now. Once i have the money that is (£2000).
P.S. I agree with the last post. Chiilll !!!

[slughead]

So build your PC and enjoy it. Those of us that "get it" will enjoy our new imacs.

Oh I think we all "get it", we just aren't impressed. I personally wouldn't see a problem with an extra inch in depth on the case in exchange for a BTO 9800XT 128mb, firewire 800, 1000 base T, a pull-out handle at the top, a security harness, and plugs in the center of the enclosure (to conceal them behind the base, and to resist tipping when pulled on).

You have to realize that the 17" iMac G5 only weights 18Lbs. It's easy to steal, easy to tip, and easy to carry. These problems/exploits need to be countered or exploited.

[edit: plus the contrast ratio on the screens (350:1) is below the minimum acceptable (400:1, soon to be 600:1/800:1).]

Picked up from another forum:
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16885

[kugino]

Oh I think we all "get it", we just aren't impressed. I personally wouldn't see a problem with an extra inch in depth on the case in exchange for a BTO 9800XT 128mb, firewire 800, 1000 base T, a pull-out handle at the top, a security harness, and plugs in the center of the enclosure (to conceal them behind the base, and to resist tipping when pulled on).

You have to realize that the 17" iMac G5 only weights 18Lbs. It's easy to steal, easy to tip, and easy to carry. These problems/exploits need to be countered or exploited.

[edit: plus the contrast ratio on the screens (350:1) is below the minimum acceptable (400:1, soon to be 600:1/800:1).]

Picked up from another forum:
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16885

do you want fries with that?

you haven't even seen one or played with one and you're already complaining about how inconvenient it is? stop rehashing old stuff and get over it. the imac is not perfect...nor is any computer for that matter. yes, apple could have implemented all the stuff you've asked for...but at a much higher price. they had to do what they did to get in under some magic price point.

[cyberddot]

I like 'em, I ordered one. I can build my own PC, I'm not doing that, because it's not a Mac when I'm finished.

[salmon]

I like 'em, I ordered one. I can build my own PC, I'm not doing that, because it's not a Mac when I'm finished.

Well said. As long as Apple releases well designed HW that's not a rip-off, there's no WAY I'm going to deal with the crap and vendor lock-in pestering that Microsh$! throws at you. I'll happily pay a bit of a premium for a VASTLY superior OS.

I like the new iMac (I'm going to get one if I can talk the wife into it). I hear what people are saying about the graphics card, but I'm not much of a gamer, and the games I do like are RTS or FRP anyways, not first person shooters - so I don't think that wil be any type of issue.

After seeing it, I like it MUCH better than the sunflower iMac - that design never sat right with me. This one will look great in my home office.

The big thing I like about the iMac G5 is the fact that it was designed to be more easily user upgradable (again, aside from the vid card), which makes me feel better about the monitor part of the all-in-one investment. Combine that with a 64-bit processor that's not fully being utilized by the OS, and I feel pretty comfortable that it will be a good long-term purchase.

[AidenShaw]

Why isn't there an option for a charcoal grey version?

White is just too "in your face" for me....

I saw my first 23" aluminium display today at Fry's (not in the Apple SWIAS, but over in the gaming section !). Much too bright for my tastes.

The aluminium frame makes the frame look huge (compared to an identically-sized system with black or charcoal frames). Not only that, but the bright white end panels on the al display are really tacky. Why aren't the end panels alu or dark?

All in all, it makes me happy that I bought the Samsung black 243T a couple of weeks ago. The alu look isn't what I'd call elegant - and the new iMac looks to be again on the "tacky plastic" side of Apple's design goals.

Looking at the makeup-mirror iMacs at Fry's, with the dark smudgy fingerprints on the screen and near the CD drawer - I wondered why Apple doesn't learn about the difference between "MOMA Style" and "lifestyle style".

The recent iMacs have been "out of style" by the time they've shipped - the flat ones seemed destined for the same fate.

But, there will be a spike in sales when a few hundred thousand fan-bois get the latest from J'ives - then sales will tank again.....

[MegaSignal]

But, there will be a spike in sales when a few hundred thousand fan-bois get the latest from J'ives - then sales will tank again.....

Great all-around post. . .but. . .I feel that the "staying power" of the G5 iMac will make a difference in sales a year from now, as opposed to the iLamp's early sales slump - the iLamps were simply too hard to upgrade by the user, whereas these appear to be much easier.

Add to that storefront displays featuring the G5 iMac hung on walls (without the desk foot, perhaps with or without a VESA mounting) and suddenly practicality springs eternal, no?

[JOD8FY]

I think that Apple has pulled off an excellent product. The design is perfect and the power is unmatched for an all-in-one computer (let alone a 2" thin one :D). These will sell great - wait and see.

For all who are complaining about the GPU: close your mouth and wait for Revision B :D.

Cheers everyone, :)
JOD8FY

[toughboy]

I like 'em, I ordered one. I can build my own PC, I'm not doing that, because it's not a Mac when I'm finished.

This is the post I want to reply!.. this is the idea we all should have.. I attended a tech fair a week ago and presented the Macs.. I used all kinds of them and loved them all.. on the other hand, last night my cousin's Celeron PC crushed while I was just writing an email, because of a virus called spybot or something like that.. believe me, I won't/don't touch a PC if I dont have to..

I'm buying a iMac G5 as soon as its RevB.. and as soon as Tiger comes out..

[cyberddot]

...But, there will be a spike in sales when a few hundred thousand fan-bois get the latest from J'ives - then sales will tank again.....

As an Apple fan-Man, I've been waiting 5 years to make a purchase, so I guess we could add me and a few others to the "et al" group that get lumped in with those updating their prosthetic:eek: every year. No doubt plenty more are waiting for the right color combination, the next OS, the Rev.B> perfection, or for Apple to take their sound advice on business management before they dare to place an order. We wanted a new computer today (October actually, according to the latest time estimate), and this iMac fits our needs, not our fashion sense. I could give a rat's a$$ what color of plastic it is, wether some dolt could set it up in such a way that it could tip over, or if Apple will bend and add the GPU-du-joir - the graphics outside my window are AWEsome. I'm not a share holder, and I doubt this iMac spells the end for Apple, so I really don't care if sales tank as the masses rally for the next release either. A computer purchase is all about me and my needs and aren't dependent on whether I can justify the purchase to all of my ocean-floor mapping friends at the office next door. By the time I'm ready to trade the new one in I know I'll have my money's worth of service, as I have out of the crtMac that sits before me right now.

Edu' discount, a great OS and the software I like to use. What else matters? Maybe we non-gaming, biologists-types are just too blind to see the wisdom in the whining? :D

If only I understood more about (the) technical intricacies of making a computer purchase. I've deluded myself into thinking my HP 32S programmable calculator and Toshiba/Tecra P120 laptop are still cool. :cool:

(edit) - grammar police

[slughead]

Edu' discount, a great OS and the software I like to use. What else matters? Maybe we non-gaming, biologists-types are just too blind to see the wisdom in the whining? :D

I don't think any of us us "whiners" have said not to buy the thing. If you have read the points of view, have accepted the limitations and design flaws, and still think what is there outweighs what's not there, for God's sake, just buy the damn computer.

It's not a matter of "well it's nearly worthless for games, so don't buy it" or "positioning it precariously will ruin your day, so don't buy it", it's all about if it fits your needs... I tried to paint a non-deluded picture of what needs it could satiate, but maybe that wasn't such a good idea.

In fact, I don't know why I even pointed out and did research into how bad the video card is. I should've just let people buy the thing, and so Apple would have enough R&D money to make a product that I actually liked. Let people come on the boards days after they buy the machine and say, like they said with the original iMac, "WTF! UT2004 RUNS LIKE POOP!"

Then those people would be called whiners, or said to "just not get it" by the [to quote AidenShaw] fan-bois. "It's not for games!" they would say, having seen the benchmarks and realizing the full impotence of Apple's choice in video solution.

I've learned my lesson, I'll try not to criticize any Apple product where it might effect their sales ever again. Congrats fanbois! you've won! Your constant insults have convinced me that EVERYONE but me needs to buy an iMac, and actually 2 or 3 might work better. Meanwhile I'll only voice my positive opinions about Apple products.

[paulsecic]

I too wasn't overwhelmed by the look at first but the value sold me.
I've been waiting for a sensibly priced/speced Mac for some time.
I'm still running the Power PC 7600/132 I bought in 1997 with 80mb ram and System 8.6. It's never given me a day's trouble and I run it 6-8 hrs a day.
I've got a ViewSonic 17" crt so the whole setup is a sea of beige!
I'm looking forward to the white and chrome/aqua OSX world I've been missing for years! Delivery is by September 29, until further notice anyway!
Personally I miss the old finder where you clicked to switch programs. In 1994 I bought my first Mac, a Powermac 6100.

[gopher]

Personally I miss the old finder where you clicked to switch programs. In 1994 I bought my first Mac, a Powermac 6100.

Have you tried X-Assist?

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~pli/x-assist/

[slughead]

Have you tried X-Assist?

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~pli/x-assist/

Holy crap, I've been wanting this since 2001.

[cyberddot]

<snip>I've learned my lesson, I'll try not to criticize any Apple product where it might effect their sales ever again. Congrats fanbois! you've won! Your constant insults have convinced me that EVERYONE but me needs to buy an iMac, and actually 2 or 3 might work better. Meanwhile I'll only voice my positive opinions about Apple products.

I stand corrected. That doesn't sound whiney at all. What it has to do with the quote from my post about purchasing being a personal decision, I don't know.

As to Apple's video solution, I'll recant and admit that I would rather have the fastest everything for the best price possible, including a video card, I've said as much in former posts about an upgradeable Apple SFF. It's not happening soon enough and it isn't important enough for me or many other Mac users to delay an upgrade from a rapidly aging model.

As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, I did "just buy the damn computer".

Originally posted by cyberddot
I like 'em, I ordered one. I can build my own PC, I'm not doing that, because it's not a Mac when I'm finished.

[slughead]

I stand corrected. That doesn't sound whiney at all. What it has to do with the quote from my post about purchasing being a personal decision, I don't know.

As to Apple's video solution, I'll recant and admit that I would rather have the fastest everything for the best price possible, including a video card, I've said as much in former posts about an upgradeable Apple SFF. It's not happening soon enough and it isn't important enough for me or many other Mac users to delay an upgrade from a rapidly aging model.

As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, I did "just buy the damn computer".

I was saying nobody was disagreeing with you, then I was pointing out that the minute an unkind word is spoken, nearly any posts about personal decisions on the machine included insults to those trying to clear the fog of fan-boi-ism.

I think we have prevented at least 1 case of buyer's remorse. Obviously you personally didn't need anyone's help as none of the complaints effect you.

I was also pointing out the general tendency in this case for people to call any and all problems pointed out "whining." Any argument contrary to what Apple (obviously) wants you to think is met with insults--literally. Predictively, the least subtle insults were given in response to statistics and articles--actual facts that were posted.

Even in your post, you imply yet even more insult.

I'm thick skinned, but obviously some arguments just aren't appreciated here.

It's just not worth it.

But it's all moot anyway, because there are no problems or design flaws with the iMac! Ignore my previous posts!

[whw5]

Here is my bit. The imac looks cool, and its a consumer computer. Not the GAMING MASTER. If you want to play games, buy a PC, or ever better a xbox. I say take the plunge and buy the imac. Don't wait around for it to get updated. If you have the chronic fear of something becoming outdated, the just dont ever buy anything tech related again. Or you could buy the imac and accept the fact that better faster computers will be out six months later. It doesn't matter but make you choice and stop complaining.


Accept its flaws and be happy.

Peace,

Will

[jaguar451]

Here is my bit. The imac looks cool, and its a consumer computer. Not the GAMING MASTER. If you want to play games, buy a PC, or ever better a xbox. I say take the plunge and buy the imac. Don't wait around for it to get updated. If you have the chronic fear of something becoming outdated, the just dont ever buy anything tech related again. Or you could buy the imac and accept the fact that better faster computers will be out six months later. It doesn't matter but make you choice and stop complaining.


Accept its flaws and be happy.

Dang, and here I thought it was a free country.... Can't we agree to disagree / agree that:

* Apple got a lot into the G5 iMac at a good (for Apple) price, and it meets the needs of many.

* The graphics chip does limit it's appeal to some users. Most here want Apple to be as succesful as possible (more users = more investment in the platform), and some see this as a big hole (tout the space savings of an all in one, and then saying get a second box/monitor for games - ???)

Of course, it's all part of Apple conspiracy to rule the world: can't get enough G5 chips to meet expected demand anyways, so limit the sales a bit in the short term, then a Rev B for the gamers, etc. (along with the headless iMac ;-)

Either that, or the G5 iMac was planed for release 6 months ago when the chip wasn't that old, but due to chip issues slipped. Or just couldn't hit the price point / heat requirements, or....

My bottom line: great machine for many, a step in the right direction (faster, more serviceable, ...), not the machine for everyone, and of course, room for improvement.

For the record, I'm in the camp hoping for more to build market share, such as a head..., er, Cube Jr, .... Which should really get the faithfull going....

[whw5]

I was trying to make a point that people should stop moaning about what the imac isn't and focus on what it is. Some people look at the weak graphics card as a flaw, when its just how the computers made. What can you do about it? You can get another computer if the imac just doesn't meet your ALL IMPORTANT needs.

[cyberddot]

<snip>My bottom line: great machine for many, a step in the right direction (faster, more serviceable, ...), not the machine for everyone, and of course, room for improvement.

For the record, I'm in the camp hoping for more to build market share, such as a head..., er, Cube Jr, .... Which should really get the faithfull going....

ooooOK...apologies to those ankles I nipped at, but I must admit that this last part is near and dear to my heart. We're a 2 mac household and we just replaced the oldest with the new iMac and Airport-Express, but we'll be milking the 2.1 eMac until all whiners, including me, have been heard. We took one for the team because we could.

Others that are suggesting that one thinks about the purchase before making it shouldn't be ignored. I'll also agree that writing off those ready to make the purchase for the right reasons as sheep should be (doled) out in small doses, as should the indiscrimant labeling of constructive and creative critics as "whiners", since it is indeed the MONEY from a variety of purchasing decisions that will fuel the fire for those future revisions.

Humble pie goes great with homebrewed porter <burp>

(edit) ale induced spelling/grammar error

[Chomolungma]

At least people can't complain about not having a headless iMac option anymore. :D

-Chomo

[OldTimey]

lets face it, apple is glad to build and sell computers, but with a 3% market share that is going nowhere (nor up nor down) the real money for apple remains in ipod sales and in itms. i for one am tired of all the calls for a "headless" imac. it goes against the principle of the imac entirely: an all in one solution for consumer computing needs with an attractive design, and a reasonable price. i find these new imacs to accomplish just that. if you want a headless mac with a better video card, there are plenty of single 1.6gig and dual 1.8 gig powermacs out there, and they can be tricked out with a 6800 (if they ever ship). Ill bet you can find the 1.6 for less than 1400$ these days.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB 12in Rev. A
2.5GX2 G5 Power Mac

[beatle888]

this happens EVERY time apple releases something. you get a bunch of people complaining about it and eventually the views turn around then all you hear is how great it is. I remember when people could only see the flaws of OSX and failed to see how great the OS was. What i think is really funny is none of you have even USED the new iMac...so prejudice. And if it doesnt match your needs as far as power then the iMac isnt meant for you so why complain about it? Your suppose to be checking out the higher end machine, its called a powermac. Its like saying the new Hondas dont have enough horse power and that Honda screwed up releasing such a car when you should of been at the Porsche dealer NOT the Honda dealer.

its been four days since ive been to this thread and STILL the same fuzzy perspective OVER and OVER again...

those of you who think the graphics card makes this computer worthless WE HEARD YOU. Dont buy it. Get a powermac. And design flaws... because you dont like something makes it a flaw?

i can absolutely respect the fact that the iMac doesnt match everyones needs but to go on belly aching about something that isnt even meant for your is just SILLY.


i personally cant wait to see it in person.

[jaguar451]

At least people can't complain about not having a headless iMac option anymore. :D

-Chomo

Sounds like a challenge.... ;-)

Granted, should call it the 'Faceless' iMac instead of 'Headless', but take the G5 iMac, put in some plastic in place of the user replaceable screen, and viola, the "Faceless iMac". Even put in the low-end graphics card / HD size from the EDU iMac, and have a box for switchers who want to keep their current monitor and spend under $1k for their next computer / folks wanting a second mac for the kids / Grandparents / .... And Apple keeps it's margins.

And could even invest is a bit of engineering to put the power button on the front (current side with the optical disc), ports on the back, a different stand, ..... Keep as many components the same as in the iMac for economy of scale / maybe a bit cheaper components as have a bit more space for heat dissapation.

The Slate

Given the shape, can't really call it a Cube (Cube was high end, this is "entry"), but then, I've never been good at naming.

And for Rev B, upgradeable graphics card (assuming also in iMac.)

FWIW, if I could afford a new computer, I'd get a G5 iMac

[rdowns]

lets face it, apple is glad to build and sell computers, but with a 3% market share that is going nowhere (nor up nor down) the real money for apple remains in ipod sales and in itms.

Hardly. The real money continues to be on their CPU sales. In the most recent quarter, Apple made $1.2 billion in revenue for all CPUs and $249 million for iPods and $73 million in other music related products which includes iPod accessories and the iTMS.

As a point of comparison, Apple sold $219 million in Apple accessories for the quarter (things like mice, KBs, iSight).

Now tell me where their money comes from.

[oldmovieguy]

Whatever Apple need to do to entice PC users over has worked in my case, the buttons have been pushed.
I was in Tokyo last week and found the Apple Store on the Ginza.
My daughter had dropped a few hints prior to the trip about getting an ipod. Upon checking prices I found a big price difference between Japan and the UK, to my advantage, and made the purchase.
Apart from the look on her face (priceless) when she unwrapped the package, it was a real treat watching how the ipod came out of the box. I love good design and this thing has it in spades.
It led me to take a closer look at Apple, something that I had not bothered with before. I use the the PC for music, pictures and video editing as well as the net, so I have just described i life.
Seeing the imac g5 just blew me away. I think I will wait for the spec to pick up in the next release and then I will wave a not so fond farewell to PC and hello to the brave new world of Apple.

[LEgregius]

I think I will wait for the spec to pick up in the next release and then I will wave a not so fond farewell to PC and hello to the brave new world of Apple.

Most likely you'll be waiting 6 months or more before they update the specs; they don't update the iMac very often. The specs are pretty good, so if you want one, now is probably the time to get it.

[oldmovieguy]

Most likely you'll be waiting 6 months or more before they update the specs; they don't update the iMac very often. The specs are pretty good, so if you want one, now is probably the time to get it.

Point taken, I have I'll have to wait at least six months though before she who must be obeyed will let me junk the PC !

[JGowan]

Most likely you'll be waiting 6 months or more before they update the specs; they don't update the iMac very often. The specs are pretty good, so if you want one, now is probably the time to get it.I agree: now is the time. Also, the "or more" part is more accurate, IMO,... the supposed "begin shipping in September" will most likely get pushed to the beginning in October. The rest of the Ramp Up will probably take a couple of more months before you can go into your trust Apple reseller store and KNOW you will find the new iMacs on their shelves. I'd image that we won't see ANY adjustments to the G5 iMac until June 2005.

Now is the time.

[thatwendigo]

Granted, should call it the 'Faceless' iMac instead of 'Headless', but take the G5 iMac, put in some plastic in place of the user replaceable screen, and viola, the "Faceless iMac". Even put in the low-end graphics card / HD size from the EDU iMac, and have a box for switchers who want to keep their current monitor and spend under $1k for their next computer / folks wanting a second mac for the kids / Grandparents / .... And Apple keeps it's margins.

What in the world makes you think it would at all let Apple keep their margins? The screens being used in the iMacs aren't the Apple HD panels, which means that even the lowend is going to cost more than the $600-700 price that people are bandying about so freely. You've also neglected to mention that both the case and the motherboard will need major adjusstments just to function as a standard unit. Where do the ports go? How are you going to get video out and where does that port go?

And could even invest is a bit of engineering to put the power button on the front (current side with the optical disc), ports on the back, a different stand, ..... Keep as many components the same as in the iMac for economy of scale / maybe a bit cheaper components as have a bit more space for heat dissapation.

So, in other words, you keep the specs the same but build an entirely different box with different internal layout and port-out configuration? How does that at all preserve anything, other than perhaps supply costs? It doesn't cut the R&D needed by much, though there would be some savings, and it certainly doesn't reduce fabrication costs to have to retool yet another production line.

And for Rev B, upgradeable graphics card (assuming also in iMac.)

Because adding things to the motherboard doesn't change costs at all! :rolleyes:

[Neodym]

I don't think you can separate the two. To say the liquid cooling system was not necessary for cooling and then to say only a few sentences later that Apple balances silence and specs is contradictory. You make the point brilliantly that the liquid system is for cooling AND noise.

German Computer magazine c't tested the 2.5GHz PowerMac in its latest issue. According to the review there it gives a good 25% performance increase, somteimes even more - thus scaling perfectly with 25% more clock frequency. But soundwise it is about TWICE as loud as the Dual 2.0 GHz Powermac (5.1 Sone vs. 2.5 Sone, with Sone scaling linear). They say that the noise itself is not that disturbing due to the frequencies, but still... i'm a little bit disappointed :(
So the watercooling unfortunately does NOT give noise reduction, but noise increase instead! However, if i recall that article correctly they said one of the main reason was that compared to the 2.0-Dualie the fans on the 2.5PM start earlier and run faster to shuffle out all that heat from the housing. So the watercooling system itself (like pumps etc.) is not to blame.

If anyone wants more information, let me know and i can look it up (the test was roughly 2 A4 pages in length).

Ciao
Neodym
(waiting for the next PM revision)

[paulsecic]

External Firewire hard drive is probably a better solution for you. Unless you have 20GB of unique video footage everyday, then the iMac is not what you want.

I think most will agree that the days of burning optical disk is almost over. I can't think of a reason to burn one now. I can see small business burning DVDs for sale or if you want to send you mom and dad videos. Faster internet will probably make both of these options obsolete.

Chomo

A Korean Co. just a PC like the new Imac. Not sold here. Its butt ugly. Go to news.com.

[Fukui]

A Korean Co. just a PC like the new Imac. Not sold here. Its butt ugly. Go to news.com.
Yea not as pretty, but I could, unfortunately see people getting this instead (PC Users) of the iMac... depending on the price. Though, its not like Apple has a giant presence in Korea anyways (which they probably in all likelihood could).

[Mike Teezie]

At first glance, I didn't like the new iMac.

But after I watched the video, and saw it in a real life setting, I think it's really cool looking. I still like the FP iMacs the best though!

[floatingspirit]

Hey all,

I got a couple questions if you have a second. My friend wants my computer and I kinda want the new iMac, but....

Is there any difference in screen quality between the 20" iMac and the previous generation 20" screens?

Would there a be much of a difference in responsiveness between the "old" 1.6 G5 tower (single processor) and the new iMac 1.8? I see the bus speeds are different...

Thanks

[munkle]

Didn't want to start a new thread so I thought I would just plonk this here.
Seems like Woz isn't such a big fan of the new iMac, link (http://www.g4techtv.com/screensavers/features/47943/A_Woz_QA.html).

I wasn't a big fan at first but it has grown on me...now at the stage where I want one!! :p

[segundo]

Didn't want to start a new thread so I thought I would just plonk this here.
Seems like Woz isn't such a big fan of the new iMac, link (http://www.g4techtv.com/screensavers/features/47943/A_Woz_QA.html).

I immediately went to the link to see what Woz had said and was dissappointed to see his comment that he basically doesn't "consider it especially attractive." Then I thought for a second . . . so what? I like Woz a lot (my first computer was an Apple II+) but I'm not sure I care what he thinks is attractive or not.


I wasn't a big fan at first but it has grown on me...now at the stage where I want one!! :p
I had been waiting for the G5 iMac to come out before buying a desktop Mac so you can bet I was looking forward to the Paris announcement. First impressions were mixed . . . but then I saw some pictures in context from the event. I liked it a lot. I don't believe the promotional pictures Apple has up on the site do it justice. Needless to say I went big and ordered a 20".

Furthermore, the more and more I read about the new iMac's the more I like them. Here's a thought that someone had before me but that I'd like to focus on since this thread has been 40% about the video card:

What if this really is the first upgradeable iMac?

With all the information that has been published by Apple about how to do parts replacments, why wouldn't it be possible to purchase a new logic board (with new G5 and graphics) two years from now? And SATA drives will likely get even bigger, those are simple to replace in the new iMac. And the slot loading optical drives, won't those become faster with more capabilities in the future (like dual layer dvd)? And won't there likely be new wireless cards available someday (like support for the upcoming N standard)? And, and, and . . . .

Just order one already! :)

[danviento]

With this design being so slim, I can see the G5 in a laptop in a year or so.
That would be great, but there's just one issue: $$$. I know I couldn't afford one. It's amazing that Apple has managed to make the new iMacG5 even less expensive than the G4. Would anyone see that happenning with a G5 powerbook? Current powerbook prices are too high for me, and I actually need one for classes in about a year, so do you think a G5 powerbook woulkd be less expensive than the G4, or would it drive the G4 prices down, or no change to G4 prices at all and G5 is even more expensive? I just want some educated guesses here if you could please.

[MacinDoc]

What if this really is the first upgradeable iMac?

With all the information that has been published by Apple about how to do parts replacments, why wouldn't it be possible to purchase a new logic board (with new G5 and graphics) two years from now? And SATA drives will likely get even bigger, those are simple to replace in the new iMac. And the slot loading optical drives, won't those become faster with more capabilities in the future (like dual layer dvd)? And won't there likely be new wireless cards available someday (like support for the upcoming N standard)? And, and, and . . . .

Just order one already! :)
There actually is a precedent for this - Apple offered upgrades for the Mac II family logic boards, with a rebate for the return of the original board.

[zelmo]

With this design being so slim, I can see the G5 in a laptop in a year or so.
That would be great, but there's just one issue: $$$. I know I couldn't afford one. It's amazing that Apple has managed to make the new iMacG5 even less expensive than the G4. Would anyone see that happenning with a G5 powerbook? Current powerbook prices are too high for me, and I actually need one for classes in about a year, so do you think a G5 powerbook woulkd be less expensive than the G4, or would it drive the G4 prices down, or no change to G4 prices at all and G5 is even more expensive? I just want some educated guesses here if you could please.

My guess is that you will be able to hold a G5 PowerBook in your hands in the next 12 -18 months (WWDC'05 - MWSF'06), with a list price within $100 of current PB G4 pricing. I doubt Apple will sell a reduced price PB G4 - when the PB G5 is here, that will be the only PB available. You might see the very last iteration of the G4 iBook offering 1.5GHz or higher G4 for a better price, though. At least, until the iBook goes G5, too. :)

[zelmo]

There actually is a precedent for this - Apple offered upgrades for the Mac II family logic boards, with a rebate for the return of the original board.

And then Apple could put those returned (& refurbished) boards in low cost headless G5 systems! :D :D

[paulsecic]

Who cares about Apple's market share? As long as they stay in business and make products that *I* like at price points *I* can afford, then I am happy.

And since they've turned a profit for several years in a row, and have built up a substantial bank account, I would say that we're safe for a little while. Apple is on the right track to keep making cool products for ME.

If you don't like it, I couldn't care less. (I'm assuming you probably do, but are just playing devil's advocate.) The truth is if I woke up tomorrow and every single person in the US had bought an iMac, it would lose some appeal to me. I don't want what everybody else has, I want something better.

Just like a band that goes on MTV...if I've not heard them myself I assume they are probably crappy. The mass public (in the US for sure) likes crappy music, so if a band has found mainstream success that is a red flag for me.

I own the best computer, I bought the best video game system, and I own the best MP3 player. Call me a snob, but I'd rather have the best or nothing at all.

Ain't that the truth: crappy music, crappy TV.

[drastic]

Hey, what's going on out there? 1,500 posts outta 1,600 are about the graphics processor!!! :eek:
Well, I am a musician and I just don't give a "fps" about it: I gotta a PS2 for 3D Tetris and all you complaining 4D Pac-Man lovers should get one. :D

Now, is the new iMac a shure bet for music composers? I know Garage Band works 70% better with a G5 engine (more virtual instruments etc), but is there a HUGE difference with the dual 2.0 PowerMac G5? I'm planning to get a 20" iMac and fill it with 2GB of RAM (plus an external HD and an audio interface): is it a time-proof (3-4 years) setting for a home studio?

Please post your comments about the new iMac G5 and music...

Thank you!

Peace.

[paulsecic]

this is one reason I wanted a PCcard slot for that option, even my digital cable box still has the standard video adapters, that has only changed with HD cable, which is still in its infancy and overpriced. I believe we will see more low-cost video adapters in usb2 and firewire for this. I wish they had a dvi in so I could use the 20" with my current computer and just switch between the IMac, that could have also been used for HDtv HDDVD in all 720p-420p not the higher 1920X1080P, but It could have scaled that to fit in the 1680x1050 spot. and I could watch tv/play xbox/playstation in a window while computing, neat, we will see this in the future.but no dvi in was included yet. shucks!! :(
Hey go to http://www.dbstalk.com and tell them HDTVs are overpriced. They'll say you're nuts.

[cxny]

Anyone seen any great deals on the 20" 250GB w/ built in BT and wireless keyboard/mouse bundle?? I can take care of the RAM myself. Apple's base price for that is $2,098 but they add tax (NY!)


Thanx!!

[arealmacman]

:eek: I don't know what all the beef is about the graphics chip. Since it is part of the mid-plane assembly (upgradeable) along with the CPU, don't you think upgrade companies will come out with a plethora of CPU/GPU upgrades? :confused:

[gopher]

Hey all,

I got a couple questions if you have a second. My friend wants my computer and I kinda want the new iMac, but....

Is there any difference in screen quality between the 20" iMac and the previous generation 20" screens?

Would there a be much of a difference in responsiveness between the "old" 1.6 G5 tower (single processor) and the new iMac 1.8? I see the bus speeds are different...

Thanks

The truth is, nobody knows because nobody has the new iMac yet. It should be out sometime between the middle and the end of the month.

[Raveny]

I heard that the new iMac supports dual-channel ram. So my question is: should I buy 2x512 MB ram or 1x256 MB+ extra 1gig ram? which combination is more efficient?

[AidenShaw]

I heard that the new iMac supports dual-channel ram. So my question is: should I buy 2x512 MB ram or 1x256 MB+ extra 1gig ram? which combination is more efficient?

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86814

iMac G5 computers work with memory modules (DIMMs) that meet all of these criteria: PC3200, 2.5V, unbuffered, 8-byte, nonparity, 184-pin, 400Mhz DDR SDRAM.

There are two RAM slots. The maximum amount of RAM you can install is 2 GB. You can use RAM module sizes of 256 MB, 512 MB and 1 GB, in either slot.

DIMMs with any of the following features are not supported in the iMac G5 computer: registers or buffers, PLLs, ECC, parity, or EDO RAM.

Note that "dual channel DDR" (as in the Power Mac G5) means "a pair of single channel DDR modules". The Power Mac does not use "128-bit" DIMMs, it uses two "64-bit" DIMMs in parallel.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86414

(For the Power Mac G5):
DDR SDRAM DIMMs must be installed in matched pairs. "Matched" in this context means that the two DIMMs have the same capacity and speed. A valid pair would be two 512 MB PC2700 DIMMs, for example.

Go with the 1 GiB + 256 MiB. Not only you'll have 1280 MiB total (better than 1024 MiB from 2 512's), but you'll only have to throw away 256 when you upgrade to 2 GiB :) .

[awesomebase]

Some of you guys are saying this is comparable to a PC in features/price.

I think the iMac is fairly priced for what it's competing with and the size as an important feature. Otherwise, I think you're mainly paying for form, not function, if you compare it to a www.pricewatch.com computer:

Since the 17" iMac has sales tax in 49 states (??), at 8% $1,299 is $1,402.92, so keep that in mind. Also keep in mind that both of these configurations carry a monitor with more pixels and a higher contrast ratio, measuring 20". The 20" iMac is $1,899 ($2,050.92 with 8% sales tax), so keep that in mind as well. Also note that all of these parts may be purchased without sales tax in 48-49 states.

$50 - GeForceFX U 5200 128MB
$27 - 256MB DDR 3200 RAM
$268 - P4 3.2Ghz with Mobo + 8X AGP 800MHZ FSB
$49 - soundcard with Optical I/O
$62 - SATA 80GB HD
$588 - 20" LCD, 1600x1200, 600:1 Contrast, with speakers and microphone. Aluminum enclosure.
$65.50 - NEC 8X DUAL/DOUBLE LAYER DVD BURNER DVD±R
$64 - Antec case w/350watt PSU (also antec)
======
$1,173.50

~$1,400 system:
$208 - Radeon 9800 128MB
$110 - 1,024MB DDR 3200 RAM
$268 - P4 3.2Ghz with Mobo + 8X AGP 800MHZ FSB
$49 - soundcard with Optical I/O
$62 - SATA 80GB HD
$588 - 20" LCD, 1600x1200, 600:1 Contrast, with speakers and microphone. Aluminum enclosure.
$65.50 - NEC 8X DUAL/DOUBLE LAYER DVD BURNER DVD±R
$64 - Antec case w/350watt PSU (also antec)
======
$1,414.50

The emboldened text means it is better than what's in the iMac by any measure. The display was not emboldened because some people might value a 16:9 display over the 4:3 compared here, instead of the better contrast ratio/more pixels.

[edit: I should also point out that ALL the shipping rates were included in the parts' prices (as is the case with all pricewatch numbers). In addition, you can buy the new iMac from somewhere other than the Apple Store and not have to pay sales tax.]

Hey there, I like the comparison, but, I think that you're missing a couple of very crucial things in your estimates. First off, you do not include any OS. You can get an OEM OS cheaper, but it will only work with that particular machine (i.e. it can not be used with an additional portable system like a laptop). Otherwise XP Home/Pro easily will run you $100 to $300 depending on where you purchase it and whether it is OEM or not.
Second thing is that the 20" display on an apple is 1680 x 1050 for the 20" and 1440 x 900 for the 17". If you try to find separate LCD displays with these resolutions, they are at best 60% more than the regular 4:3 aspect ratio LCDs of similar size. I haven't even seen a 20" widescreen available and the argument that only SOME people may think it is worth paying more for it than the 4:3 aspect is about as accurate as saying that widescreen TVs should cost less than the 4:3 aspect ones... it doesn't hold in the market and the vast majority of people have already proved that they DO pay more for it. Just go to any COMPUSA, BestBUY, Fry's, etc. and have a good stroll down the TV/Flat Panel section and see if you can convince anybody in the store that they should pay more for 4:3 TV than the Widescreen. Then ask them if both are priced equally, who will by the 4:3 as opposed to the widescreen. Doubtful anybody would, let alone the majority.
Third thing you didn't consider is the actual ability to obtain free shipping on each and every one of those items. It is unlikely that the lowest price products are all coming from the same place. If they do, then there is the chance that you can get free shipping and you've made your case for free shipping successful. However, seeing as using PriceWatch myself, it is difficult to find even TWO things at their lowest price from the same place which means that a) you're either paying prices higher than what you quoted, or b) you are paying the lowest prices as quoted but you will be charged individual shipping costs on each of those items, which, very conveniently do not appear in your price quote.
Fourth thing that you are missing is the reliability aspect of dealing with those places. Not to say that those places are not reputable, but, can you say with 100% certainty that you will receive what you ordered? If I order from Apple directly, I not only get exactly what I ordered, I'm guaranteed to get all the U.S.-based warranties and support that come with it. You would need to show that this is possible with each of the low-priced vendors you quoted for each product.
The fifth thing missing, and I consider this to be a big one, you're assuming that the person building the system actually knows how to do it. Quite frankly, few people do, even though I feel that it is at least 10 times easier to do now than it was to do 15 years ago. Are you going to build in some price for the labor? What if the person builds it wrong and destroys a power supply or motherboard? Even if everything goes well and there is no cost involved in getting it together, what percentage of the population do you think is able to do this? My guess (and this is being VERY generous) is that no more than 5% of people can do this... a more likely number is somewhere between 1 to 2%.
Lastly, your assumption that most people ordering from Apple will pay sales tax. Not only will most people NOT pay sales tax, they also will not pay shipping. It is plain to see on their web-sites. Apple resellers will even match and beat these offers while offering free memory, printers, scanners and such. Even if I go into an Apple store here where I live, sales tax is 5%. Two of the states immediately beside mine have 0% sales tax and 5% sales tax. In fact, there isn't a single state with 8% sales tax. Most states are between 4% and 5%. Look here: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/sales.html
Even without that reference, most people that order online from Apple or a reseller will not pay sales tax at all. Orders of items over $300 have no shipping from Apple and most resellers don't charge for shipping or charges are very small.
Small correction in that the 20" model comes with a 160GB SATA drive, not 80 as with the 17".
In summary, I think you should weigh these two types of options together properly for a good comparison. You may still see that there is a premium for Apple products, but, not to the extent you make it out to be, and, in many cases you actually save a lot more getting an Apple. That is even before you factor in things like the form factor, ease of use, better OS, seamless integration of hardware and software, numerous included applications (that easily cost you $$$ on PCs) and a computer that actually looks good (hey, there's a concept!). My Athlon64 3000+ laptop is more frustrating to use and certainly slower when it comes to anything internet related than my 3-year old 550MHz G4 PowerBook. My wife easily prefers the PowerBook to it because it does everything she needs it to do quickly and easily. Take a look at most Apple users here and you will see that their machines easily last them 5 years and more before they upgrade. Just my $0.02. :)

[Rantipole]

The truth is, nobody knows because nobody has the new iMac yet. It should be out sometime between the middle and the end of the month.
Speaking of which, do you think I will get the new iMac quicker if I order it right now online, or if I wait for it to arrive in stores (either apple, or other official distributor)?

:confused:

[Daveway]

Definetly a distro, ther tend to get it first. My compusa guy said he was told he would get some around the 16th.

[-hh]

Actually, a recent study of PC marketshare surprised everyone when it discovered that Dell was not the market leader. In fact, whitebox pc's dominated. So I don't know about grandma, but the rest of the US seems pretty comfortable with whitebox pc's.

In simplest definition form, a "whiltebox" PC is merely an "assemble-it-yourself" PC that the consumer has paid a little extra for assembly service.

With "most" end item customers being willing to pay this little more for an assembled box, their deference away from brand names means that they essentially consider Windows PC's to be a simple commodity and not a brandname-recognition product market.


-hh

[Xtremehkr]

It didn't stop my purchase of the new iMac but I was wondering if anyone else had noticed that there is no more Apple credit payment calculator at the bottom of the store screen anymore. The student loan option for credit was scarey, the payments were dirt cheap but the you didn't pay anything but interest for the first two years. I wonder if they are going to bring that back or not, if it came down to it I would go ahead and do it I think. My G3 iMac was going to be replaced months ago but when I logged on they had stopped selling the G4 ones. I wonder if Apple is moving away from that or whether they predict that people are just going to buy this product.

[KeareB]

DDR SDRAM DIMMs must be installed in matched pairs. "Matched" in this context means that the two DIMMs have the same capacity and speed. A valid pair would be two 512 MB PC2700 DIMMs, for example.

Go with the 1 GiB + 256 MiB. Not only you'll have 1280 MiB total (better than 1024 MiB from 2 512's), but you'll only have to throw away 256 when you upgrade to 2 GiB :) .

1. "Matched = same capacity AND speed": I'm not sure it's confirmed that a CL-2 512KB stick plus a CL-3 512KB stick would not in fact run dual channel at the slower CL-3 speed.

2. I gotta think that 2x512KB will be faster. By how much we will know in a few weeks. If your RAM "sweet spot", given what you do, is near 1GB, the dual channel speed bump might favor 2x512.

3. If you use currently, or think you may in the future, many memory-hungry applications at once, or graphics / video, then I think the best path to the future is 1x256 + 1x1GB. Under this scenario, you have a bit more RAM initially (although slower - by how much we do not yet know), and it will obviously be easier to upgrade to 2GB in the future.

[AidenShaw]

1. "Matched = same capacity AND speed": I'm not sure it's confirmed that a CL-2 512KB stick plus a CL-3 512KB stick would not in fact run dual channel at the slower CL-3 speed.

True, it hasn't been confirmed - I only quoted what Apple is saying in its tech note on iMac G5 memory specs....

However, Apple never mentions "dual channel", do they?


2. I gotta think that 2x512KB will be faster. By how much we will know in a few weeks. If your RAM "sweet spot", given what you do, is near 1GB, the dual channel speed bump might favor 2x512.

It's not dual channel - it will run with 1 DIMM !

If matching memory DIMM sizes improved performance, wouldn't you expect the Apple tech note to say so?

Please correct me if I missed some statement that "the iMac G5 will switch to 128-bit dual-channel mode if identically spec'd DIMMs are in both slots, otherwise it runs in 64-bit single channel mode".

[KeareB]

If matching memory DIMM sizes improved performance, wouldn't you expect the Apple tech note to say so?

Please correct me if I missed some statement that "the iMac G5 will switch to 128-bit dual-channel mode if identically spec'd DIMMs are in both slots, otherwise it runs in 64-bit single channel mode".

I'm no expert, but it definitely does say that matching memory DIMM sizes improves performance. Maybe those more in the know can help. Here's what it does say:

"Additional DIMMs can be installed. The combined memory of all of the DIMMs installed is configured as a contiguous array of memory. The throughput of the 400 MHz memory bus is dependent on the DIMMs installed. If only one DIMM is installed, the memory bus is 64-bit. If two non-identical DIMMs are installed, there are two 64–bit memory buses. If two identical DIMMs are installed, the memory bus is 128-bit. Identical DIMM pairs have the same size and composition and provide the fastest and most efficient throughput."

And I have no clue about the tables that follow, preceded by this:

"...The device configurations include three specifications: address range, word size, and number of banks...."

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/iMacG5/04_Expansion/chapter_5_section_1.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001433-CH208-BBCJADAF

[AidenShaw]

I'm no expert, but it definitely does say that matching memory DIMM sizes improves performance. Maybe those more in the know can help. Here's what it does say:

"Additional DIMMs can be installed. The combined memory of all of the DIMMs installed is configured as a contiguous array of memory. The throughput of the 400 MHz memory bus is dependent on the DIMMs installed. If only one DIMM is installed, the memory bus is 64-bit. If two non-identical DIMMs are installed, there are two 64–bit memory buses. If two identical DIMMs are installed, the memory bus is 128-bit. Identical DIMM pairs have the same size and composition and provide the fastest and most efficient throughput."

Thank you for finding that info.... I'm surprised that Apple doesn't make it more prominent (unless "more efficient" is really "slightly more efficient").

As another poster said, we'll have to wait for tests to show how significant the effect of matched memory actually is...

In particular, it will be interesting to find out if the advantage of matched 1 GiB (2x512MiB) is better than the advantage of more memory (1 GiB + 256 MiB)....

[egor]

The fifth thing missing, and I consider this to be a big one, you're assuming that the person building the system actually knows how to do it. Quite frankly, few people do, even though I feel that it is at least 10 times easier to do now than it was to do 15 years ago. Are you going to build in some price for the labor? What if the person builds it wrong and destroys a power supply or motherboard? Even if everything goes well and there is no cost involved in getting it together, what percentage of the population do you think is able to do this? My guess (and this is being VERY generous) is that no more than 5% of people can do this... a more likely number is somewhere between 1 to 2%.

I'd say most people know how to build a PC whether they know that they know it or not, its ridiculously easy, easier than putting up a shelf, how could they build it wrong and destroy the power supply or motherboard? Thats preposterous, I can't get my head around how anyone could physically manage to do that with a hammer being involved.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'd say most people know how to build a PC whether they know that they know it or not, its ridiculously easy, easier than putting up a shelf, how could they build it wrong and destroy the power supply or motherboard? Thats preposterous, I can't get my head around how anyone could physically manage to do that with a hammer being involved.

Static can be an issue for some. Forcing a CPU into a socket, which leads to damaged pins. Tightening down the motherboard screws. Any host of other stupid mistakes.

[Timelessblur]

well the truth is it is amazmaing easy to build your own computer. Most people are just afraid to do it because it seem so scarying putting in all those parts and knowing how much each part cost. I built my own. Before I did it I though it was pretty hard but after I got it done I found it was really easier to do. Plus it makes it a lot easier to figure out what is wrong and how to fix stuff.

I think the real count is around 5% of the desktops out home built
It also really nice not having to deal with any of the extra crap that gets installed when you buy a computer off the shelf (including Apples computers) I know exactly what has been installed.

As for the ram the poeple who home build know about it. You general always want to install ram in pairs and you always want to be same brand same type. Also you want to buy it in packs of 2 so there are the few diffences bettween the 2 since they are made from the same silicon plate and what not.

[egor]

Static can be an issue for some. Forcing a CPU into a socket, which leads to damaged pins. Tightening down the motherboard screws. Any host of other stupid mistakes.

Well, I don't recall ever having to force the cpu into its socket, it just drops in... and you'd have to be an idiot to tighten the screws too hard, as for static, thats just common sense, you ground the case and touch a metal part of it every now and again... sorry, but maybe some really really thick people could make a mistake, I can't see it happening to the majority tho...

[zelmo]

I think the new iMac is a "fair" value for the money, and that it is equipped adequately for the majority of the targeted market [as long as they don't want to play the latest top end games], but I have no real desire to purchase one. Our 800 MHz iLamp is still adequate for my wife and daughter, who mainly surf the 'net, use Office, and mess with iTunes. A basic PC would be just as functional, but wouldn't be as easy to maintain for me. My new PB is fine for the stuff I do.

Looking down the road a bit, I think we'll make the move to small screen laptops for ultimate portability, keeping a decent sized (23") LCD for when we need more screen real estate. I would likely add a PC laptop into the mix, or even build a desktop, although I've never done anything more challenging that replace the optical drive and hard drive in my old beige G3 desktop.
If I decided to build a PC and hook it up to that LCD, would it be possible (i.e. convenient) to use that same LCD with a Mac 'Book?

[AidenShaw]

You general always want to install ram in pairs....

Hmmm. This is mainly true because almost all the higher performance Pentium 4 chipsets are dual channel (128-bit), and have been. All the RDRAM chipsets were dual channel as well. Many of the high performance Pentium III chipsets were dual channel also.

So, unless someone decided to home-build a low end shared graphics Celeron, you'd need pairs of DIMMs just to make it work.

On single channel controllers, however, there shouldn't be any benefit of putting two DIMMs instead of one DIMM that's twice the size.

On a mixed controller like the iMac G5, you get a single channel controller when you have one DIMM, and a dual channel if you install a second.


...you always want to be same brand same type.

Also you want to buy it in packs of 2 so there are the few diffences bettween the 2 since they are made from the same silicon plate and what not.

Good advice, except that the "2 packs from the same silicon wafer" is not likely. A 2-pack should be more likely to be from manufacturing runs that are the same or close - but the memory companies don't guarantee that all 36 of the chips are from the same wafer. (Consider that often the chips are not made by the company that assembles the DIMMs....)

In theory, "same spec" DIMMs from different manufacturers should not be a problem. In practice, however, minor speed and timing deviations from the specs can cause problems. (I've even seen this with single channel controllers when mixing brands.)

Probably the best reason for selling 2-packs is that too many people wouldn't see the notice that you need to buy them in pairs. By creating a SKU with 2 DIMMs, it's easier to order, and the customer is happier (less confusion, won't be upset because he ordered 1 GiB and got a single 1 GiB DIMM that he can't install).

[zelmo]

Well, I don't recall ever having to force the cpu into its socket, it just drops in... and you'd have to be an idiot to tighten the screws too hard, as for static, thats just common sense, you ground the case and touch a metal part of it every now and again... sorry, but maybe some really really thick people could make a mistake, I can't see it happening to the majority tho...

All one need do is go to your local CompUSA to see that building a PC is no longer the realm of hobbyists. The first thing I see when I walk through the turnstile is a long shelf full of cases, fans, and power supplies. Clearly, there are a lot of folks doing this, either for fun, to save money, and/or to get exactly the config they want. This is still not a prospect that the vast majority would ever consider, however achievable it may be for them.
I manage a decent-sized prepress department (25 people). Virtually all of these folks have at least one computer at home. These are people who depend on computer technology for their livelihood, more so than the average office worker - they are surrounded by, and interact daily with, workstations, file servers, tape libraries, wide format plotters, and computer-to-plate systems. Our particular area of the printing industry is in a constant state of change and advancement, technologically speaking. While most of these people are quite comfortable with computer technology, I bet there are perhaps only a half dozen who have even upgraded or added memory to a box, and only 1 or 2 who would even consider building their own box. This is certainly not for a lack of technical ability to do it. They would just never think that way.
Most people want a cheap, fast, and hassle-free computing experience. Apple gives them 2/3 of what they want. So does Windows. Most people choose cheap over hassle-free, which is why Apple has a 3% market share.

[Phobophobia]

While building your own computer will pretty much always save you money if you are making a high-end tower, if you are going low-end it can be more cost-effective to buy from Dell or another company. Most people don't factor in the software, let alone the OS when they are considering costs. A disturbing percentage of people who build their own computers also pirate software for it. Software has value, too, people.

[turbojugend]

I'm sorry if this got posted already ... 66 pages is quite a lot. This document page from apple states what's upgradable, and what's not on the new iMac. But I still cant understand if you can upgrade the 5200 Nvida abomination ...

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86812

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'm sorry if this got posted already ... 66 pages is quite a lot. This document page from apple states what's upgradable, and what's not on the new iMac. But I still cant understand if you can upgrade the 5200 Nvida abomination ...

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86812

But it looks like it is part of a major board with other components:


Mid-plane assembly (contains the main logic board, the G5 processor, fans, NVIDIA graphics processor, and so forth)

[BigEvan23]

Well the rumors about shipping this week it turned out to be true after all, my iMac shipped today and should be here Tuesday or Wednesday. I couldn't be any more excited. Check out the order status!!!

-Evan

[NusuniAdmin]

cool, make sure you leave a review of it ;)

[paulsecic]

Given that products need to be revised every few months or so to keep them fresh and that CPU speeds are hitting brick walls and yield issues it becomes clear what apple have done here. They have launched a form factor that will appeal but specifications that the may leave mac / gaming addicts questioning the need to buy. This helps to keep demand down to a manageable level. In 6 months time, what gets revised. Maybe a small CPU speed bump (assuming that Power Macs get a bump). Definately a bigger GPU bump. Another 6 months, another GPU bump. As SJ said during the WWDC - the GPU is where the performance gains are to be made.

Apple won't upgrade the Imac for a year, at which time I'll buy a 20" model.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Apple won't upgrade the Imac for a year, at which time I'll buy a 20" model.

In my short time back with the Mac, it would be the first time I can think of there wasn't a refresh of a product within 6 to 9 months.

[rdowns]

Well the rumors about shipping this week it turned out to be true after all, my iMac shipped today and should be here Tuesday or Wednesday. I couldn't be any more excited. Check out the order status!!!

-Evan

Happy for you dude, not as happy as I would be if I were receiving my shipping confirmation. Sorry to call your other post BS.

Maybe we'll cross paths in the Roosevelt Field store sometime.

[salmon]

I just saw over at MOSR that GPU heating (http://www.macosrumors.com/91304A.php) (bottom of the page) is the reason the iMacs have that video card.

Interesting. I wonder if that is the reason, because I'm sure Apple knew people wouldn't be happy with it, and it makes more sense than simply to cut costs by $50 or so...

[BuckWright]

ok, this is a first post from a guy planning to buy a mac.

Everyone keeps insisting that the VC is too weak, but what does that mean for actual use (non-gaming) like:
-On a 20", will a DVD look clear, or will it be blurry, etc?
-will imovie work properly?
-will it slow down the transistion between users b/c of that whole animated switch thingy?

Another thing, I'm buying mainly for audio production. I don't need a whole lot, but I would like to know exactly how this puppy handles garageband. I've read complaints about the G4 being too weak for multiple tracks, but I've never seen any actual numbers. Will the new Imac slow down with 5 tracks? 10? 100? Does the recording sound accurate to real life? I've used programs in the past that distort my guitar and vocals. I'd hope that the iMac won't do that.

my last problem, is that there aren't really any places around where I can go check one of these things out. There's a compUSA about 100 miles away that I could drive to whenever the imacs are stocked. So having never used OSX (did play around with OS9 before in a computer lab), I don't know how the performance. Is it quicker than XP? Because XP is pretty zippy even with little RAM and processor. I'm just getting real sick of running adaware everyday. I'd like to have some great software like imovie and garageband and such. and, the Mac just looks cool.

[Daveway]

The VC mainly limits the fps in games and graphically intensive tasks. For instance if you are using a very graphicaly intensive program like Motion the cpu will direct the load to the VC which could pose some slow downs. For general use like movie editing, dvds, and your uses you will not notice the fact that it is a sub par VC compared to other computers.

OSX Panther & soon Tiger are far>>>> superior to XPwill ever be. Some would say that OSX is less "zippier" than XP but i have not noticed a visible slowness and each release of osx is faster. For more on this visit: www.xvsxp.com , it is very indepth on an OSX vs. XP basis.

[bb0ys]

The VC mainly limits the fps in games and graphically intensive tasks. For instance if you are using a very graphicaly intensive program like Motion the cpu will direct the load to the VC which could pose some slow downs. For general use like movie editing, dvds, and your uses you will not notice the fact that it is a sub par VC compared to other computers.

OSX Panther & soon Tiger are far>>>> superior to XPwill ever be. Some would say that OSX is less "zippier" than XP but i have not noticed a visible slowness and each release of osx is faster. For more on this visit: www.xvsxp.com , it is very indepth on an OSX vs. XP basis.

Another way of saying it:

The most complex 2-dimensional rendering at the highest video resolution can be done by some of the cheapest graphics cards on the market today; and they don't even flinch. 3-dimensional rendering is far from that. It takes a powerful processor and accompanying components (read RAM, bus, etc. on video card) to quickly render 3D material. Add high resolution to an already complex 3D rendering and you need some serious graphics card power.

[Fukui]

ok, this is a first post from a guy planning to buy a mac.

Everyone keeps insisting that the VC is too weak, but what does that mean for actual use (non-gaming) like:
-On a 20", will a DVD look clear, or will it be blurry, etc?
-will imovie work properly?
-will it slow down the transistion between users b/c of that whole animated switch thingy?

Another thing, I'm buying mainly for audio production. I don't need a whole lot, but I would like to know exactly how this puppy handles garageband. I've read complaints about the G4 being too weak for multiple tracks, but I've never seen any actual numbers. Will the new Imac slow down with 5 tracks? 10? 100? Does the recording sound accurate to real life? I've used programs in the past that distort my guitar and vocals. I'd hope that the iMac won't do that.

My G4 (cube) at 400Mhz can pull about 4~5 tracks in garage band before stuttering. I would think that a G5 with a vastly superior floating point (dual) unit, on-die L2 (mine is off chip!!) and a bus speed that is 6x to 8x faster than mine should at least have a linear performance boost by MHZ. So if the new iMac couldn't handle say at least 4x as many tracks as mine (20+) then there's something wrong...

Is it quicker than XP? Because XP is pretty zippy even with little RAM and processor. I'm just getting real sick of running adaware everyday. I'd like to have some great software like imovie and garageband and such. and, the Mac just looks cool.
Remember X is doing A LOT more than XP is (FSAA, Interpolation, PerPixel Transparency, etc etc) all on the CPU (except for window compositing), and it manages to be pretty close to the speed of XP. In the future, if Tiger offloads coregraphics to the GPU, expect that to be inversed. One thing you'll notice, is that OS X would handle multiple apps running and processing at the same time much better than XP would... at least in my experience.

[macridah]

imagine if this was available in the summer ... i'm sure these would of sold like hot cakes for the back to school sale.

If apple only had better third party partners (cough, IBM) or project management ... :rolleyes:

[edesignuk]

Now I've ordered mine I suppose it's my duty to post in this thread. Yay iMac! :D

[toti]

Now I've ordered mine I suppose it's my duty to post in this thread. Yay iMac! :D

Yup, and then there's an obligatory "I'm still waiting for my iMac" post at least once a week ;)

And btw, I'm still waiting for mine, but I heard that I might be getting it on friday or saturday... I can only hope :o

[Josh]

I "guess" you could say Im waiting for mine...

but Im only waiting because a)CompUSA dosnt have them in yet b)I havent bought it yet.

Hopefully, if they get them in and have some left next Thursday, I will buy one and bring it home that day.