G5 iMac Specs?

[MacRumors]

Sources close to Think Secret (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/imacg5specs.html) have provided a look at the upcoming iMac G5 (previously rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/07/20040701175119.shtml)) in both 17" and 20" configurations.
The soon-to-be-announced, re-designed iMac will be available in two 17-inch models with a 1.6GHz G5 processor and two 20-inch models with a 1.8GHz G5 processor, reliable sources have told Think Secret. In addition, the new models will be housed in an all-in-one body with the motherboard and components attached to the back of the display.
Pricing is expected to be in the $1300 - $2200 range, but higher prices haven't been ruled out.

Starting with an education-aimed model lacking any optical drives presumably to replace the current eMac, the low end machine should sport:
- Single 1.6 Ghz G5 Processor
- 17" widescreen display
- 40GB Ultra ATA hard drive
- 256MB of DDR SDRAM
- 512K L2 cache
- NVIDIA GeForce4 MX graphics processor with 32MB of DDR video memory
- VGA video output, S-video and composite video output
- 10/100BASE-T Ethernet
- two FireWire 400 ports
- three USB 2.0 ports
- two USB 1.1 ports on the keyboard.

The first consumer-level iMac should have the following additions to the base education model:
- Single 1.6 Ghz G5 Processor
- 17" widescreen display
- slot-loading Combo drive
- 80GB Serial ATA hard drive
- NVIDIA GeForce MX 5200 Ultra graphics processor with 64MB of DDR video memory
- 56K internal modem

As a step up, the high-end consumer-level iMac should be equipped with:
- Single 1.8GHz G5 processor
- 20" widescreen TFT display
- slot-loading SuperDrive
- 80GB Serial ATA hard drive
- optional 160GB Serial ATA hard drive
- NVIDIA GeForce MX 5200 Ultra graphics processor with 64MB of DDR video memory
- 256MB of DDR SDRAM.
- All other features will be the same as the 17-inch models.

All models should include stereo speakers in the enclosure, and should support up to 2 GB DDR memory, airport extreme, standard Apple software package, and a wired mouse and keyboard. Additionally, all models should have optical audio-out like the G5 Power Macs.

The new models are expected (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/07/20040709065529.shtml) to be introduced August 31st during the keynote address at Apple Expo Paris.

[windowsblowsass]

hopefully it lokks a whole lot better than that sony.

theese seem like the right specs though although i would have hoped for a better graphics card on the top end

[Chaszmyr]

I hope the video card is upgradable, atleast in the high end model, because that video card is a real shortcoming for a machine like that. (It's the same video card the G4 iMac used...)

[Whotheheck]

YEAH!!! I WANT I WANT!!!!! Well... how about a picture?? :cool:

Only complaint is the video card. I hope we have the option to upgrade the damn thing. :rolleyes:

[Chaszmyr]

I don't see how that Sony machine can be very comparable. I don't imagine Apple will have a bulky rear-end like that, and they almost definitely won't have an attached keyboard like that.

[tex210]

Mounted on the back? No burner? I was hoping Superdrive would become the standard... but I hope for a lot of things like world peace. :rolleyes:

[aethier]

wow the highend specs are pretty crappy for being only 200 dollars cheaper then a dual 2ghz g5.. and why can't they put at least a 9600 instead of the crapola 5200

aethier

EDIT: well i guess when you factor in the 20 inch screen... but still

[AndrewMT]

Umm, no optical drives on the low-end model? I mean, I understood why Apple stopped installing floppy drives in their machines, but I think it's a little to early to call optical drives obsolete.

I for one hope these rumors are untrue. Besides the processor and sata drives, these new iMacs would not be much of an improvement over the previous models.

[Sun Baked]

DVI output on the iMacs?

And the memory, are they doing only 2 DIMM slots?

Really looks a conservative approach to converting the new DP 1.8 PM into a iMac using the new U3-Lite memory controller.

Until I see the developer note, I don't know how close my SP 1.8 iMac (block diagram) guess (http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15115) was.

[comictimes]

wait.. mounted on the back.. isn't that the same as the original imacs?
and weren't those annoying because they took up a lot of desk space....?
and I should think that even schools with their limited needs would want an optical drive... I mean will the mac OSX install discs be on USB drives?

some parts of this seem very odd...

[pdpfilms]

Sounds good! can't wait to see some pictures. I'm sure they'll dazzle over those sony's. blech.

[macridah]

I would like a 2GHz high end model ... but we'll see. If it really is an all-in-one model, with the computer behind the lcd, then I'll probably buy one. Crossing fingers that there will be a 2GHz model!

[windowsblowsass]

wait.. mounted on the back.. isn't that the same as the original imacs?
and weren't those annoying because they took up a lot of desk space....?
no not at all really the original imacs didnt have imcs so much behind as underneath the crt and with a lcd t would not take up much space.

also it couldnt have been that annoying because it was the best selling pc ever

[beatle888]

its not going to look like that. thats a step or maybe a hundred backwards. apple wont that! atleast i hope not. when are they going to use that cool plastic they patened? its suppose to allow for light patterns to pulse and glow through it. or something like that.

[virividox]

im interested in the mid range model i feel that money spent for a high end model would be put to better use invested into a powermac system

[tex210]

comictimes... the originals were crt, so they were deep... this will be pretty flat. Think Powerbook with the lid inverted, no keyboard or hinge.

edit: If they did this, maybe the burner is on the top like the cube. Please say they didn't design it flat.

[comictimes]

comictimes... the originals were crt, so they were deep... this will be pretty flat. Think Powerbook with the lid inverted, no keyboard or hinge.

ah. that makes sense. In that case it sounds cool. I still have an issue with the lack of an optical drive though...

[job]

I know it's got a G5, but what other redeeming features does the entry-level iMac have over the current eMac?

Is it really worth the nearly $600 price difference?

[psxndc]

No optical drives on the low end? How do I load Tiger when it comes out? I dunno about the rest of it, but they will have at least a CDR drive. At least. Seriously, how would you install anything?? And a CDR is like $10 more than a CD-ROM these days. At least a CDR.

-p-

[Mudbug]

apparently the exclusion of the optical drive was a request of educators to make their systems more secure in the education environment. There doesn't seem to be too much difference between the edu model and the consumer base model other than bigger drive/ram. I'd even bet they'd offer the edu model with a bto optical drive as well.

[iJon]

Umm, no optical drives on the low-end model? I mean, I understood why Apple stopped installing floppy drives in their machines, but I think it's a little to early to call optical drives obsolete.

I for one hope these rumors are untrue. Besides the processor and sata drives, these new iMacs would not be much of an improvement over the previous models.
come one now, you should read the whole article before comments like that. think secret specifically explained why there is no optical drive on the low end. it is to accommodate schools who wish to eliminate the security riskk, plus with high speed networks schools are on, not every computer needs an optical drive.

iJon

[Chaszmyr]

I can't see how they could possibly have no optical drive. MAYBE they mean no optical burner? but even the low-end eMac includes a combo drive

[windowsblowsass]

apparently the exclusion of the optical drive was a request of educators to make their systems more secure in the education environment. There doesn't seem to be too much difference between the edu model and the consumer base model other than bigger drive/ram. I'd even bet they'd offer the edu model with a bto optical drive as well.

this seems to mark the dath of the emac no?

[angelneo]

comictimes... the originals were crt, so they were deep... this will be pretty flat. Think Powerbook with the lid inverted, no keyboard or hinge.


This sounds very much like what they would do. But if this were to be the case, a G5 powerbook wouldn't be too far away. Perhaps, this new imac will give us a clue as to how small can they squeeze the G5 processor in.

[tex210]

I know it's got a G5, but what other redeeming features does the entry-level iMac have over the current eMac?

Is it really worth the nearly $600 price difference?

The G5 (64) is the future. 600 is worth it for that reason alone. Or just wait 'til you MUST upgrade. The prices will slowly creep or capabilities will increase.

psx, I guess sans optical makes sense in some situations. The installation could be through firewire or ethernet I believe. Updates as well. Usb thumbs for office files and ipod for the big stuff. Omygosh... the ipod will render optical obsolete! For those who don't ipod, there are plain portable drives. Wow, I get it now.

[Doctor Q]

Where do I click to place my order? The high-end iMac is exactly what I'm looking for.

[SeaFox]

ah. that makes sense. In that case it sounds cool. I still have an issue with the lack of an optical drive though...

That's only for the low-end eduactional target version (like we're-building-a-computer-lab version). Unless you're a school employee or a student, you don't even have the option of buying it. So why do you care? :rolleyes:

I don't know why they are making it optical-delete though. You'd think they would carry on the tradition of CD-ROM only like the edu verion of the eMac. I mean, if the machine gets hosed in the lab, how are they going to reinstall the OS? (ooooo, wait! Network-install like a linux distro!).

The graphics cards are crap, though. I mean I guess if you're doing a web and word processing lab then a GeForce 4MX is fine. But the consumer machines should allow upgrading if that's all Apple is offering from the factory. There's no real limit on what graphics card you can put in even a low end basic PC. Locking Consumer Mac machines to outdated graphics technology will only reinforce the idea the Mac is not the platform to choose if you like games at all.

Overall the specs are what I expected. I'm more interested in what the machine will look like.

[Jackal05]

I have a feeling this is gonna be big.

[stylewriter]

I'm hoping for some versions with smaller monitors and lower price tags. I don't want a 17" LCD when a 14" would do, plus, I'd love to have a smaller iMac.

[job]

The G5 (64) is the future. 600 is worth it for that reason alone. Or just wait 'til you MUST upgrade. The prices will slowly creep or capabilities will increase.

I wish I could wait.

I just ****ed my old Wallstreet Powerbook and with only a few days before I leave for college, so I'm forced into buying a combo-drive eMac.

I wish I could wait for the new iMacs, but I just can't.

[edesignuk]

$2200 and they give you a FX5200. FFS, get it together.

I hope these specs are wrong, but sadly they're probably right :rolleyes:

[Sun Baked]

$2200 and they give you a FX5200. FFS, get it together.

I hope these specs are wrong, but sadly they're probably right :rolleyes:The chipset has the capability for both (or either) a PCI slot and a AGP slot.

Though most would probably want the AGP slot, it's doubtful we'll get one.

[h00ligan]

if the imac comes out i can't see a powerbook lagging past the first expo of next year.

[Mattski]

I think not including FW800 in the high end can be a little off-putting or indicate that the specs are wrong.

And another thing....
Why not remove the hard drive in the Education model (or make it optional). NetBoot machines would be fantastic in the Edu market. No maintenance what so ever and only a couple of moving parts.

[bertagert]

If these are the same price and still have a screen attached, I truly can't see why they would sell better then the old imac. Yes, a speed increase is nice but Apple really does need to make a low end machine without a monitor.

Example: Grandfather, a Apple user 15+ years, just bought a Dell because of price. For those who say "its not an Apple", "he'll be the sorry one", etc., it doesn't matter. Apple lost the sale period.

Having the flat panel monitor included keeps the price high. Apple, bring out a mini tower at a lower price. Put 128mb of ram in it just like Dell does. Yes, the computer, Dells as well, barely run on that, but ya know what? You will have made the sale.

Businesses would also buy more if they could dictate which monitor they could buy.

Argh!!!!

[SeaFox]

if the imac comes out i can't see a powerbook lagging past the first expo of next year.

Hey! Good point! (but off topic since this is a discussion of the new iMacs)

I was going to get a Powerbook this fall, but since the release of Tiger has been delayed until next year so has my new laptop order. I may get a Powerbook with a G5 in it now! Although I really don't care, I was thinking it would be a 1.5Ghz G4 12" (expecting an update in the fall). Not having to pay for Tiger was more important to me than whether it was a G4 or G5, both are very usable right now.

[MacinDoc]

I'm not sure that I believe the video, HD and RAM specs, since they are exactly the same as the old specs. Why introduce a completely new machine and saddle it with last year's technology?

I especially hope that the graphics cards will be better than this suggests, since I doubt they will be upgradeable. When the FX 5200 Ultra was introduced MONTHS ago for the Power Mac, everyone was trashing it. Surely, for the extra $50, they could at least add the Radeon 9600 to the 20" model:rolleyes:. Better yet, how about using the 64 and 128 MB versions of the Radeon 9700 - if they're small and fast enough for a Powerbook, they're small and fast enough for an iMac.

Similarly, the HD configurations seem a bit lame. After all, even the current eMacs sport 40-80 GB HDs (I know, the low end model is supposed to replace the eMacs, but would you replace an old machine with a new one whose specs were no better? For that matter, when the 60 GB iPod comes out, how would it look to be selling a desktop than had a smaller HD than an iPod?). And why not go with SATA across the board? It's not that much more expensive than ultra ATA, and using one standard on the MBs should reduce costs.

And still only 256 MB base RAM for the top model? Once again, no better than the previous models. I sure hope not! 256 MB doesn't exactly showcase OS X...

Oh, one more thing...

Apple will NOT discontinue the $799 eMac and replace it with a $1299 low-end model. That would be corporate suicide...

[tex210]

I'm hoping for some versions with smaller monitors and lower price tags. I don't want a 17" LCD when a 14" would do, plus, I'd love to have a smaller iMac.

I like small. Just give me vga or tv out tho. May i suggest a 'book?

Job... by Must upgrade I mean when the software will no longer support G4. You will be good for a while with an eMac. When there is the "Next Killer App" I'm sure we will all want to upgrade anyway.

[mac15]

Lets hope my credit card application goes through cause I'd love to make a big dent in it with one of these :)

[biaachmonkie]

How could any company release a "high end" comsumer system that is too pathetic to play current games descently? If this comes to pass, then its clear to me that Apple has no intention of ever increasing marketshare and gaining new customers.

Where is the Macintosh for the average person? You know the single processer 2-2.5Ghz mid-tower, with a mid-range to highend graphics card, and 512MB of ram, in the $1000-1500 price range. Something that can show off OS X, play modern games, and not leave you broke. Something to actually stand up against the PC competition, to increase marketshare and keep developer interest alive?

[ZildjianKX]

Wow, the videocard is a real crippler.

Just make a less expensive iMac without an LCD or CRT attached (aka cube) and I think a lot of people would be more happy...

[Mattski]

Not sure if you guys are aware, but in Australia the eMac is available without an optical drive.

Obviously this is only for Education, but it is a measly AUS$889 (which equates to US$600 approx.).

[LaMerVipere]

am I the only one who is definitely not thrilled by these possible specs? GAH, it's definitely not a great value, couldn't they have at least thrown in more ram, bigger HD, better graphics standard??? :confused:

[billystlyes]

I mean I'm sure Apple will do a better job than Sony but I really thought this was the time to dump the all in one idea. An Apple tower for the masses, at least one more people can afford is where Apple should be heading. After all this may be the most important desktop Apple has ever introduced to solidify the success of iTunes. Why?? Because they need to capitalize on the giant success of iTunes and iPod and give those PC users impressed with those products a reason to move over the OSX platform.

I cannot wait to see them and whatever it they look it. And it would be even a bigger joy to see Steve in good health at the announcement!

Bill

[swissmann]

$1,300 for the cheapest Mac available (ouch). I know that the screen adds a lot of cost. If you are going to compare the iMac to a PowerMac price wise you need to throw in the cost of an apple display of the same dimensions for a good comparison I think. The low end eMac is so cheap right now $749 edu price and that includes a combodrive. I also think Apple needs a cheap headless mac. How many $500 headless G4 macs with relatively low specs across the board could apple sell to education markets? Sorry but you don't need a G5 to learn ABC's on.

[joeswinehart]

No optical drives on the low end? How do I load Tiger when it comes out? I dunno about the rest of it, but they will have at least a CDR drive. At least. Seriously, how would you install anything?? And a CDR is like $10 more than a CD-ROM these days. At least a CDR.

-p-

These "low-end" Macs don't need any optical drive. Apple assumes in the educational setting that you will shell out the $300 to buy Apple Remote Desktop, you can install packages directly, so no optical drive is really not an issue. Kids save all the work to the server, it keeps things secure and kids can't cut bootleg CDs at school, or play games, etc...

[MacinDoc]

am I the only one who is definitely not thrilled by these possible specs? GAH, it's definitely not a great value, couldn't they have at least thrown in more ram, bigger HD, better graphics standard??? :confused:
I share your pain... :(

[Whotheheck]

One point about the video card: according to the specs for the recently released Motion, some of the new iMacs will not meet the minimum reqs. Wouldn't it suck if you just bought a shiny new computer only to find out there is software already out there that requires something more powerful than what you just bought? :confused:

[edesignuk]

am I the only one who is definitely not thrilled by these possible specs? GAH, it's definitely not a great value, couldn't they have at least thrown in more ram, bigger HD, better graphics standard??? :confused:Yes they could have, and no they probably won't.

But, lets give them the benifit of the doubt for now, remember, these are still rumored specs, not final...though I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was what they released :rolleyes:

[ThomasW]

If this is true, there will still be no Mac without monitor and with upgradable graphics card that isn't totally overdimensioned. That's really sad. I have a really beautiful 17" TFT display and would love to buy a G5 for about $1000 (without dual processors, 1,6GHz would be enough). You can buy a really great PC for $800, but you cannot buy a comparable Mac for $1000. That's so stupid... :mad:

[wPod]

arent macs supposed to be cutting edge and revolutionary? ive seen so many monitors with a computer stuck to the back that it is boring now. aside from the sony mentioned in the article i can also think of a similar computer that gateway makes.

but. . . if they come out with the said 17" imac. . . wouldnt that imply there should be a similar 17" monitor? that could be cool, a 17" monitor styled like the new monitors (and hopefully priced a little better)

[GigaWire]

Finally, hardware rumors again!

But i sure hope they're not right in this case. I really like this concept:

image not linkable

[JoeG4]

The New imac.

G5 1.6-1.8ghz
Geforce 4mx to Geforce FX5200
256-512mb ram
$1300-$2200.

A TWENTY TWO HUNDRED DOLLAR computer that comes with a geforce FX5200?
....

Hahahahhaahhaahahahahahahhaahahhahahhaahahahha.

Apple can't possbly be that delirious. ESPECIALLY in a machine that can't be upgraded. Point in hand, the current ibook comes with a radeon 9200, which pretty much whoops a 5200FX hands down.

If apple does something that stupid, ... sheesh.

At $2200? What the hell is wrong with them?

No that can't possibly be.

What would make sense would be:

G5 1.6ghz [Awesome]
Radeon 9600
512mb ram
80gb hard drive
$799 (No monitor)

G5 1.8ghz [better]
Radeon X600
512mb ram
120gb hard drive
$999

G5 2.0ghz [Best]
Radeon X800
512mb ram
120gb hard drive
$1399

G5 2.2ghz [Ultimate]
Radeon X800
512mb ram
160gb hard drive
$1599

All models include 16x superdrive, USB2, firewire, regular keyboard/mice, etc. Then make an apple gaming package that can be sold with the 2 upper end models, free when purchased with a cinema display and available for $300 more otherwise.

Such a bundle could include:
5.1 optical speakers (klipsch or logitech)
Logitech MX700 mouse
Doom3 and maybe 2 other popular games

At $1299 for a 20" cinema display, this would make the bottom end just under $2700, but with klipsch 5.1 speakers and doom3, not to mention a kickass mouse.. hey THAT outruns alienware's offerings!

Show me a $2700 alienware machine that comes with a 20" monitor ;)

Basically, the gaming bundle could just be sold in a seperate box, and apple could have promotions everywhere for said bundle. Damn that'd make a killing.

[inkswamp]

I was wowwed by the original iMac and the colored follow-ups.

I was wowwed by the G4 iMac. In fact, I bought one and love it.

I'm sort of hoping that the info from ThinkSecret is either incomplete or slightly incorrect because I'm feeling a distinct lack of "wow" at what I'm reading. I agree with other comments that the video card seems a little dated and that it's probably time for Apple to bail out of the all-in-one concept. Also, an increase in price?

I dunno... maybe a real demonstration will change my opinion but at the moment, I'm not feeling it. :(

[Windowlicker]

the edu imac seems cool. I don't think the lack of the optical drive would be a problem. I don't really remember when using cds or dvds at school. though I did my school a couple of years ago and we had sucky PCs that we weren't allowed to use for anything creative -- unless exel, word & ie are creative. oh yeah I actually remember using NOTE PAD once!!! WOOOT!

anyway, this news brings the artist rendition to my mind.. I think it was at think secret or something....last winter maybe? it looked so sweet! I think it will be a bit different though. apple somehow always manages to surprise us ----- which is nice.

[JoeG4]

I might as well toss on my idea was simply an example of what they could do. For $2200 apple would have a bitch to sell a 20" imac setup.

For $500 more, they add in $300 worth of hardware and suddenly it's right up alienware's alley, especially if they keep the tower seperate from the monitor.

Heck they could even do different types of bundles! Bundling cameras, inexpensive (but custom badged) CRT monitors, or something like that, would grab a LOT of attention, especially when people think they're getting something for nothing (in my case, the gaming bundle).

And such a thing would NEVER bite into powermac sales (provided they might bump their video card stats up). These imacs would be single processor, if anything ONLY have an agp slot, and lack of FW800 or dual DVI outputs.. For $1999, the dual 1.8ghz would still look nice alongside the Single 2.2ghz imac @ $1599.

If anything, to get the ultra low end crowd I'd take the emac, beef it up a little and make it available in both (totally unexpandable) cube and current emac form. A headless G4 emac could sell for as little as $599 and still bring in a profit.

[broken_keyboard]

It's seems quite good except for the only 256MB of RAM. Also it seems like it is going to replace the iMac and the eMac. Finally the end of the CRTs?

[Lewisham]

These specs are really bad. Really.

Really.

Bad.

I sold my Powerbook as I'm coming to live in the US for a year (where I'd pay about £600, or $1000 less than I would do here). As a computer scientist, the PowerMac made the most sense. I could Photoshop and Maya at the same time and such.

Until Apple priced me out with the ridiculous display pricing decision to simply demolish the 17" and keep the now entry-level 20" at the same price.

So I dropped my expectations down to a top-level iMac. And, if true (and to be honest, judging Apple's past record on graphics cards and such, I'm inclined to believe these specs), Apple has once again got the pricing completely wrong. The graphics card is terrible. Terrible. 256MBs of RAM? Terrible. 1.8 Ghz rather than 2? Terrible. BUILT-IN SPEAKERS?! Jeez.

This is not a high-end iMac. It's a mid-range iMac with more room to go so Apple can trumpet a second edition with the specs this one should have had.

It's a real screw job. :mad:

Chris

EDIT: The top range has 160GB not 80. That's one off the checklist anyway ;)

[taco]

geez... a lot of complaining here, ALWAYS, yet we all come back. chill out and consider the following:

1) you're buying an apple, not a pc (doesn't matter what make, a pc is a pc.) you can't compare a low cost dell to a low cost mac- there will never be a price competitive macintosh; that would be like asking for a bmw that has a price competitive with a ford. it's not going to happen.

2) not a significant upgrade from the "current" imac line? are you joking? first, going from the g4 to the g5 alone is enough of an upgrade. then clock speed; current imac king is 1.25 and bottom of the new lineup is 1.6- that's almost a 30% processor speed increase while the 1.8 would be just under 50%!!! what did you expect? next, consider the rumored hd details; while the "current" models use ultra-ata/100, the new mid/high end models are said to use serial ata- that's another huge upgrade. lastly, the line moves to slot-loading from tray opticals. i just spent $4k on a power mac/display and i don't have a slot loading superdrive.

3) video card. i just don't get this one. the mac is not a gaming platform- how is this not obvious? hint: all of the latest/greatest games never even make it to the mac, or are released several months (or even years) after the pc version hits. save a few bucks and by a dell for this. i think whatever card they throw in the imac will be suitable for 99% of consumer mac users.

then again, i could be wrong.

[dongmin]

Well, aside from all the criticism regarding the graphics, ram, etc., I'm bothered by theis statement in the Thinksecret article: "The new unit will not have a display with adjustable neck as found on the current iMacs..." I hope this doesn't mean that the viewing angle is not adjustable. THAT would be a huge step backwards.

I'm sure that it'll look sleek and all, but the reported design seems utterly uninspired. Ther are 5 other manufacturers that use essentially the same design (Sony, Gateway, etc.). So apple is resorting to rehashing old ideas?

[edesignuk]

2) not a significant upgrade from the "current" imac line? are you joking? first, going from the g4 to the g5 alone is enough of an upgrade. then clock speed; current imac king is 1.25 and bottom the new lineup is 1.6- that's almost a 30% processor speed increase while the 1.8 would be just under 50%!!!The fact that the old iMac is SO slow doesn't help make the new one faster. Yes the G5 is a big step, but clock speeds aren't all that.

[Wuddel]

I don't believe that. Obviously the hefty price tag is due to the 20"-Display. But do you really want to couple your super-Display with a crappy GPU and a ridiculous 80 GB harddrive. No deal for me.

Steve Jobs is a too good strategist to not put the emphasis on market-share at the moment. After the high-end market is "taken back" with the PowerMac G5 and the new Pro-Apps its time to strengten the base.

I believe Apple will sell a non-CRT (TFT or no monitor) iMac for less than $1299.

[dongmin]

I sold my Powerbook as I'm coming to live in the US for a year (where I'd pay about £600, or $1000 less than I would do here). As a computer scientist, the PowerMac made the most sense. I could Photoshop and Maya at the same time and such.

Until Apple priced me out with the ridiculous display pricing decision to simply demolish the 17" and keep the now entry-level 20" at the same price.Dude, just get a cheap Samsung LCD to match the PowerMac. No need to drop down to an iMac simply to get a matching display. BTW, what does Maya have to do with computer science?

[nagromme]

So many negative votes because educators ASKED for a no-optical OPTION and Apple gave it to them? So don't buy the edu model, it's not meant for you :)

Sounds like the right system to me--nothing like the Sony though. (A headless low-end Mac would be great, but it wouldn't be called an iMac.)

And no, this is NOT the death of the eMac.... the eMac is $500 cheaper and that gives it a long life!

As for 1.8 GHz being "terrible" compared to 2.0... I think people may be caught up on the sound of the numbers or something. It's only 10%. A 1.8 Ghz G5 is no slouch for consumer computing.

I'm betting Apple has done all-in-ones right yet again.

[Lewisham]

3) video card. i just don't get this one. the mac is not a gaming platform- how is this not obvious?

I'll buy the rest and use it to console me at night :) But this point is a bit off. It's not that the Mac is or isn't a gaming platform. It is, however, supposed to be a creative development platform.

Example 1: The iMac provides the hardware that allows bedroom Blender modellers or whatever the leg up they need to provide demos and such, so they can get a job where they have Maya and a PowerMac to do the job properly.

It's the first example I can think of. The graphics cards are so cheap anyway, it just feels that Apple is penny-pinching. And when you're penny-pinching on the bits of the specs you are publishing, what's missing on the bits that you aren't? Reminds me of an old PC vendor trick. Don't tell them how much RAM it has, then they can't complain it's 64MBs ;)

Chris

[Phobophobia]

One point about the video card: according to the specs for the recently released Motion, some of the new iMacs will not meet the minimum reqs. Wouldn't it suck if you just bought a shiny new computer only to find out there is software already out there that requires something more powerful than what you just bought? :confused:

How irrelevant! People who complain suck. :)

[Trimix]

Where do I click to place my order? The high-end iMac is exactly what I'm looking for.

same here - will try to beat you to it :D

[dragonslive]

These specs are simply pathetic!!

I love the OS since switching 3 years ago. The hardware is still in slow motion and getting further behind G5 or not. Nothing, I repeat nothing uses the 64 power so the G5 is irrelevant to real world use. What we need from apple is better graphics cards, more RAM and a much much cheaper price.

I have been waiting over 12 months for the G5 imac to come out. Now that it almost has..........I will either have to wait another 12 months or switch back to PC (Yes, I feel nauseous...but reality is reality).

The dual processor towers are way overpriced for their P4 3Ghz performance....because that is all they do!!! A P4 box with minumum RAM, HD and Graphics, NO bluetooth, NO wireless, No screen.....AU$4,500!!! Get real APPLE....

In my opinion the top iMac at these prices MUST have:

2Ghz G5
9600XT 128MB (minimum)
160GB HD
512MB DDR 400 (pairs are need for G5 no? so we get 2 X 128MB crap?)
Bluetooth
Airport Extreme
USB 2
Firewire 800
Excellent speakers
Optical audio

All high-end consumer machines must be able to play ALL modern games at resonable rates, must have wireless included and 512MB RAM at minimum.

Apple will lose me unless I get these specs.

Crying in my beer.....

[nagromme]

But do you really want to couple your super-Display with a crappy GPU and a ridiculous 80 GB harddrive.

I think a LOT of people have little use for a top-end GPU, and no need for more than 40 GB HD. But they'd love a better screen. In fact, that covers all three iMac owners in my family.

I don't think Apple putting cost into an amazing display vs. "bragging-rights" specs is accidental at all.

The iMac is not meant to be all things to all people.

[edesignuk]

The iMac is not meant to be all things to all people.It's the "average joes" Mac, isn't that exactly what it's supposed to be?

[Phobophobia]

arent macs supposed to be cutting edge and revolutionary? ive seen so many monitors with a computer stuck to the back that it is boring now. aside from the sony mentioned in the article i can also think of a similar computer that gateway makes.

but. . . if they come out with the said 17" imac. . . wouldnt that imply there should be a similar 17" monitor? that could be cool, a 17" monitor styled like the new monitors (and hopefully priced a little better)

The iMac was never meant to be revolutionary spec-wise. It's a computer for the masses; the catalyst for the overthrow of M$.

(And by the way, will people PLEASE stop complaining about games? Macs will get games, okay? Increased market share is coming soon. Also, M$ is in deep trouble as a company. If their software license sales slow down, they are ****ed. Period. It is a good time to be a mac user.)

[TWinbrook46636]

3) video card. i just don't get this one. the mac is not a gaming platform- how is this not obvious? hint: all of the latest/greatest games never even make it to the mac, or are released several months (or even years) after the pc version hits. save a few bucks and by a dell for this. i think whatever card they throw in the imac will be suitable for 99% of consumer mac users.

A graphics card handles graphics. Period. It is not used soley for games. With Tiger's Core Video using even more of a graphics card's capabilities, these new iMacs are pretty damn bad. Spend $2200 for an MX5200 Ultra? Craptacular!

[iMeowbot]

I can't see how they could possibly have no optical drive. MAYBE they mean no optical burner? but even the low-end eMac includes a combo drive
In a netboot environment, no optical drive is needed (or desired).

[kenaustus]

The education line would also be very good in large businesses that never order any CD drives for computers for general use. They want to control what goes into the computer and they do not want employes loading up their software.

Don't like the graphics card? Look at the options under BTOs.



While I have to see the floating display go I am excited to see some initial specs. I'm one of those that are going to go for the top of the line under a BTO. Memory will come from 3rd parties, but otherwise I will max it out. Been waiting too long to replace an old 450 Dull and I'm not going with the bottom of the range - it has to last me too long.

[edesignuk]

The no optical drive option is a great move. The vast majority of schools businesses do not want them in their systems.

These will be used in managed enviroments where if it ain't approved and on the network, they don't want it being used.

[subterfuge]

I've been a Windows/Linux/BSD user forever, but have been drawn to Macs since OS X came out. I just ordered my new 2.5GHz G5 and am so excited that I've been watching old Mac promo movies just to get a glimpse of OS X and some of its uses.
I stumbled across the iMac promo movie (http://www.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/graphics/movies/new_imac_m480.mov) and having seen them in stores, I have to agree with what Ive says about it. He mentions that it is the simplest solution to making an efficient and inviting interface for the user, but that it has been the most elusive. Hearing him say that the monitor appears to be "floating" really makes this clear. Apart from the fact that there are no ports on the front of the machine, I can't think of much to criticize.
I think that while the new specs might not satisfy some users, especially with regards to video card, they easily satisfy the requirements of the iApps, which Apple show as one of the main selling points of the iMac. If not more important that the specs is the design. The all in one design works beautifully in the current model in terms of user-friendliness. Therefore, more than upgraded specs, I would like to see bluetooth as standard so as to have wireless peripherals and less clutter, as an example.
For those who want better specs for games or apps requiring better video performance, a more fitting solution would be for Apple to introduce a lower-end Powermac (1.8 single processor maybe) which could then be upgraded in any way.
I don't know about everyone else, but I will surely miss the current iMac if the nnewer version takes a step backwards design-wise.

[TWinbrook46636]

Don't like the graphics card? Look at the options under BTOs.



What BTO options? This is an iMac, not a PowerMac. The graphics are NOT upgradable.

[Phobophobia]

It's the "average joes" Mac, isn't that exactly what it's supposed to be?

The "average joe" doesn't play graphics-intensive or use graphics-intensive programs, for that matter. The average joe writes documents, composes email, plays light online games, visits websites, chats etc.

This new iMac--if the design is as good as it sounds--is exactly what Apple needs. (No, Apple doesn't need a headless iMac. It doesn't make sense business-wise, or in any other way.)

[nagromme]

If this is true, there will still be no Mac without monitor and with upgradable graphics card that isn't totally overdimensioned.

Why do you say that? The iMac is an all-in-one, always has been, always will be. That tells us nothing about Apple one day adding a new low-end headless machine to the lineup or not. They should definitely do so, but that's not the iMac.

[weezer160]

judging from this rumor alone:

pros: a sub $2,000 g5 :cool:

cons: still not upgradable :confused: (guess that comes with the territory of woning an imac - it's proprietory)

[xStep]

$1,300 for the cheapest Mac available (ouch).

Until I see the real announcement, I'm not going to believe Apple will kill the eMac line for these expensive options.


Sorry but you don't need a G5 to learn ABC's on.

You dont' need a computer to learn your ABC's.

[edesignuk]

The "average joe" doesn't play graphics-intensive or use graphics-intensive programs, for that matter. The average joe writes documents, composes email, plays light online games, visits websites, chats etc.

This new iMac--if the design is as good as it sounds--is exactly what Apple needs. (No, Apple doesn't need a headless iMac. It doesn't make sense business-wise, or in any other way.)No, the average joe wants to be able to everything you said, and they're kids want to game (properly) without the need to buy a seperate computer specially for it, and they want to have plently of disk space for photos/video/music. Broadband means people are downloading more than ever (even my dad does!), 80GBwill be gone in no time.

[dongmin]

[bystem]

I don't know about the prices ... Apple has spoken a lot about the consumer's sweet spot being around USD 999. I think they would be aiming for that price point for the entry level consumer machine.

The graphics cards are pretty lousy considering what the average joe can get a decent card for.

I can't really see how mounting the optical drive on the back is user friendly. It seems awkward to me.

[BakedBeans]

if this is is what they are going to be..the can stick it....

i would have thought they would at least had something like this

mid

1.8g5
160gb
512mbram
nvidia 9600 pro

high would be the same but 2ghz g5

not impressed

the disgn sounds really awful but i cant judge untill its out...

[JRM]

Can't be true. No way near enough power. Only 256mb standard in a $2200 machine? Only a FX5200 in a $2200 machine? Doubt it. And anyway what's with the retro Geforce 4MX?

A machine worth over $2K would atleast have to have 512mb, 9600 or 9700 graphics and Firewire 800.

Superdrives will be standard on all consumer models

Apple will most definitely not use the GeForce MX, edu model or not.


If these specs are the truth i will be monumentally disappointed.

Carn Apple i know you can do better than this

[CoreForce]

Pictures of All-in-One Mac with board inside the display body.
http://tam.axon.net/spartimage.htm

I hope the new "new iMac" display is somehow raised from the desk
like the one with Spartacus, otherwise I can't buy it because of potential neck problems...

[CoreForce]

images leaked...

I had exactly the same idea ;-)

[BWhaler]

One point about the video card: according to the specs for the recently released Motion, some of the new iMacs will not meet the minimum reqs. Wouldn't it suck if you just bought a shiny new computer only to find out there is software already out there that requires something more powerful than what you just bought? :confused:

Motion is a pro app. Highly unlikely to be running on many iMacs.

[Biophoton]

Costco runs a special this week:

HP with Athlon (64 bit CPU), 2GHz
512 MB
200GB HD
9-in-1 card reader
plenty of USB 2 and Firewire connectors
plus 17" LCD
all for $1099

compared to that Apple sucks. I'm sorry to say that, writing my thread on
a 1.5 GHz Powerbook, but I really think I'll replace my old iMac with a PC.
That will at least keep the kids happy as they get a decent gaming machine
and I can still do all the video editing and music stuff as I would on the iMac.... :confused:

[Abstract]

The "average joe" doesn't play graphics-intensive or use graphics-intensive programs, for that matter. The average joe writes documents, composes email, plays light online games, visits websites, chats etc.


If the "Average Joe" only does such tasks, are you saying it's right for Apple to sell a brand new iMac G4 800MHz with 128MB of RAM and a 16MB video card? ;)

Sure, its usable, but most consumers would rather get their money's worth. Too much computer is better than too little, and for the price they're paying for a *cough*"modern"*cough* computer, it should be.

May as well buy a 17" Powerbook. For the cost you're already paying, I think the specs are better.

[xStep]

I sold my Powerbook as I'm coming to live in the US for a year (where I'd pay about £600, or $1000 less than I would do here). As a computer scientist, the PowerMac made the most sense. I could Photoshop and Maya at the same time and such.

Until Apple priced me out with the ridiculous display pricing decision to simply demolish the 17" and keep the now entry-level 20" at the same price.

So I dropped my expectations down to a top-level iMac.

Oh please, stop whining that you can't afford everything Apple. If you really need or want the power of a tower, then keep your options open. For instance, consider buying a third party 17 or 19 inch monitor when you purchase. Your monitor options in the US of A are vast. They do still sell CRTs you know.
;)

[Arnel]

There's one thing that really doesn't make any sense to me. Why two configurations of the 20" machine where the only difference is the HD size? Looking at the Apple Store now, upgrading an 80Gb HD to a 160Gb HD is only $100 (a BTO option on the PowerMac) - why on earth would they want to go to the trouble of building two versions of the machine, with all of the stock and supply issues it will cause, for such a minor difference?

Very odd... I'd guess these specs aren't quite right in some of the details, if they're right at all.

Neil.
a.k.a. Arnel

[JW Pepper]

The iMac is aimed at the average Joe, but there is a significent number of users who want to play games. Clearly there are going to be issues with running temperatures which will affect the choice of video card. However it seems to me tat a 9600 would have been a more popular choice.

I also think that HD space is a reall killer on iMacs. Anyone who buys a 60GB iPod isn't going to have any room left to anything least of all iMovie and iDVD unless he buys the top end model. Frankly 160gb should be the base HDD size with 250gb as a BTO.

Memory is not an issue, 2gb is plenty, anyone who need more requires would buy a DP PowerMac anyway.

[ltgator333]

256Mb of RAM sucks. I have more RAM in my beige G3. I have more RAM in both my pre G3 Macs, just to illustrate exactly how lame that is. Apple needs to get over it and realize OS X likes more than 256Mb of RAM.
Video cards... there is no way that you should be charging 2 grand for a machine with a nv 5200 chip in it. Even if it's not targeted at gamers, there should be some thought to give you a little bit of an overkill video card now, because in a couple years that card is totally outdated and there's no way to upgrade it. Apple needed to put at least in the high end machine a nv 5700 or 5900. I would've not been upset to see a 5700 with 64Mb of VRAM. Then there's that GeForce 4.. ok maybe in the educational model that's ok, just barely but nothing higher than that. The other thing Apple needs to think about when it comes to putting these basicly crippled machines into the hands of schools is they leave themselves wide open for leaving a bad first impression for someone who sits down and tries that 'really slow eMac' they had down at the lab.
And 40Gb of HD space sucks too. 80 Gb HD's cost like 70 bux to the consumer which means when Apple buys them they probably get them for nearly half that much a peice... I'd hate to think Apple's getting cheap on us in more ways that anemic 256Mb of RAM and a crippled video processor in a $2,000 computer.
I really hope those specs aren't for real, it's really sad because I think they're PowerMacs are looking really good right now.. and you can't complement a really good high end line with a crap consumer line, it just doesn't add up. I had hoped that we were gonna go back to the days where iMacs were a steal as long as you weren't worried about expandibility, the 1.6 and 1.8Ghz procs really aren't bad, but seriously give us some better stuff plugged into the board.

that's my two cents worth

[gooddog]

[QUOTE=MacinDoc]I'm not sure that I believe the video, HD and RAM specs, since they are exactly the same as the old specs. Why introduce a completely new machine and saddle it with last year's technology?

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

This simply sucks.

Jobs specifically ridiculed the notion of a flat panel with junk saddled on it's back -- he projected a slide of a Rev/A with the butt hack-saw 'd away.

We lose the adjustable neck that I use quite a bit.

We lose any cool factor ( the Sony design made anorexic ?? ) or any claim to design inovation.

We get crappy RAM and other specs ...

We stay stagnant at 20 " instead of wow'ing us with a 23" ?

In fact, only the G5 chip is of any note -- and how much of its benefits will we actually notice ?????

(1) I don't believe any of this for a minute.

(2) If it is true, I am finished with the iMac
line entirely.

(3) Then, I will have to wait twice as long
between upgrades of my system ,
which will have to be the PowerMac
Dual G5 with additional cost of a
separate monitor --- I may even move
to a 3-year renew cycle to afford the
30-incher ..... or maybe just get a
PowerBook G5 and attach a 23"
monitor.

This had better be a trick to make the real
iMac G5 more of a WOW! experience.

After waiting all this time for the iMac ...

I AM PISSED ................

---gooddog


:mad:

[nagromme]

I really think I'll replace my old iMac with a PC.
That will at least keep the kids happy as they get a decent gaming machine
and I can still do all the video editing and music stuff as I would on the iMac.... :confused:

If you think the video and music apps are as good on Windows, and the OS as well, then by all means, do make that experiment ;)

(And I play games just fine on a G4 PowerBook. They're great fun. If kids can't have fun without more, well...)

[Frump]

No optical drive! How will they run their hardware diagnostics disc, reinstall the OS and install any 3rd party software (I know you can download but do you want to spend money on a download that you cant store on a CD for safe keeping)?
It does not sound right to me. We will have to wait and see if this RUMOR pans out.

Frump.

[msilsby]

If you want a high performance machine for "games", get a PowerMac, that is what they are for.

If you want a cheap mac, get an eMac, that is what they are for.

If you want something in between with a great display, sensational design, middle of the road performance and specs, get an iMac, this is what they are for.

Apple will never go the "dell" line on chasing lower price. They are a premium brand, making heaps of money. It is what they do. Greater market share would be great, it may lead to lower prices (as a result of scales of efficiency), but why change it when you are rolling in the cash and being imitated at every turn? Market share is not everything.

[nagromme]

If you want a high performance machine for "games", get a PowerMac, that is what they are for.

If you want a cheap mac, get an eMac, that is what they are for.

If you want something in between with a great display, sensational design, middle of the road performance and specs, get an iMac, this is what they are for.

Apple will never go the "dell" line on chasing lower price.

Well said.

And if they did go for Dell prices, you wouldn't see Apple quality. (Apple still, in the latest Consumer Reports mass survey just out, is THE top computer maker in reliability AND support. As they have been for ages. That's not to mention design and ergonomics. And most importantly, an OS that puts Macs in their own league.)

I'll add: If you want ultra-cheap, AND top gaming power (sorry, UT2004 doesn't even need that), AND a big wide LCD, AND a great OS and iLife-style package... well... that combination does not and will not exist from any manufacturer.

[BWhaler]

Well, I hate to be negative, but I agree these need better video cards and more memory for the price.

Like it or not, marketshare matters, and people buy in part on specs.

Apple should be offering more for the price they charge.

[wisswee]

what about fire wire 800? i hope that is part of the spec

[Phobophobia]

No, the average joe wants to be able to everything you said, and they're kids want to game (properly) without the need to buy a seperate computer specially for it, and they want to have plently of disk space for photos/video/music. Broadband means people are downloading more than ever (even my dad does!), 80GBwill be gone in no time.

Excuse me? By average joe I am talking about most computer users. While people might want to have games for their kids or whatever most users themselves don't play graphics-intensive games. It's hardly that big of a deal.

[dongmin]

If you want a high performance machine for "games", get a PowerMac, that is what they are for.

If you want a cheap mac, get an eMac, that is what they are for.

If you want something in between with a great display, sensational design, middle of the road performance and specs, get an iMac, this is what they are for.

Apple will never go the "dell" line on chasing lower price. They are a premium brand, making heaps of money. It is what they do. Greater market share would be great, it may lead to lower prices (as a result of scales of efficiency), but why change it when you are rolling in the cash and being imitated at every turn? Market share is not everything.Uhh, Apple making "heaps" of money? That's a good one. Apple hasn't had anything close to "heaps" in a really long time. Try Dell if you want heaps.

[Windowlicker]

No optical drives on the low end? How do I load Tiger when it comes out? I dunno about the rest of it, but they will have at least a CDR drive. At least. Seriously, how would you install anything?? And a CDR is like $10 more than a CD-ROM these days. At least a CDR.

-p-

have you heard of ethernet? you can install over it. that would be, having an xserve or a powermac for the teacher/admin which has the images and the images are just loaded on the imacs. it's definitely not a problem.

also, if dvd-burning is really needed, there can always be FW DVD-R's around or the projects can be burnt through the server. It wouldn't be as handy as having a drive for every computer, but it would also be much cheaper.

[Awimoway]

Where is the Macintosh for the average person?

People who use Macs are not "average." :p

[Anonymous Freak]

The only goofy thing I see is the disparity in hard drive types. If it's the same motherboard, they should either all be Parallel ATA, or all Serial ATA. Why design the extra port, and figure out how to route the cable when you can just use the same design? And I imagine that at Apple's volume, it would be cheaper to just buy all Serial ATA, instead of a few parallels. (Although I guess with the eMac still using parallel ATA, they have to buy some of them anyway.)

And they can't upgrade the keyboard's USB hub chip to support USB 2.0? (Not to mention the silly inference that the keyboard's ports are 'extra', when they use up one of the onboard ports in the first place.)

[Trimix]

i read the announcement as TWO 17 and TWO 20 inchers.
however the specs for just ONE 20 incher are mentioned.
am i missing something ?

[CmdrLaForge]

I think a LOT of people have little use for a top-end GPU,

Are you kidding ? With Tiger they release Core Video ! And think about the motion requirements ! You don't need to talk about gaming - the OS needs more and more really good graphic cards ! I am not even sure if you can run motion with these new iMacs.

If these Specs are true - big disappointment !

[stevehaslip]

Are you kidding ? With Tiger they release Core Video ! And think about the motion requirements ! You don't need to talk about gaming - the OS needs more and more really good graphic cards ! I am not even sure if you can run motion with these new iMacs.

If these Specs are true - big disappointment !

Yes a better graphics card is needed but these cards will meet tigers core image requirements. Apple wouldn't make something that wouldn't run the next os properly. Some people don't need to play games etc so it will be fine for 50% of the market, maybe more. The rest will have to sulk for a while :( Sorry but apple have proved that they can shift powermacs with dodgy graphics cards so why can't they pull the same trick here?

alot of people i know didn't even think of upgrading the card in their G5, they still use the 5200! so alot of people won't want or think about needing a better card in the iMac.

But seriously you can't go from an anglepoise iMac to one that doesn't move at all with a static base.(if thats what happens) thats not progress at all! maybe it will have a base that fixes to the wall or something like the new cinema displays?

[Wuddel]

Many Mac zealots simply do not understand that there are people out there who want to play games on a, lets say, $1800-computer (including display). Thats what you do with a home computer: Play Games, iLife, Web&Mail.

I think that these specs are simply completely arbitrary. At least the HD capacity is so Anti-iLife. iMovie (or FCE), GarageBand or even iPhoto (if you are really into photography and have a >5MP camera) use up so much. I mean cmon. I am not in the market for desktops anymore anyway. i/PowerBook for work. Crappy cheap PC for games with a OS I will trust my save games but nor my working files ;)

[xStep]

If you want a high performance machine for "games", get a PowerMac, that is what they are for.

Umm, no. PowerMac is marketed towards professionals who make money using their computers. They shouldn't be wasting too much time playing games.

Games are marketed to consumers, not professionals. The iMac is Apples consumer box, therefore the latest iMacs should be able to support the latest games with ease.

It can also be argued that the high end iMac and low end G5 towers are Prosumer computers. These people what performance often want to run pro level software such as Motion. Apple should have the required hardware in these machines for that level of software to run. Hell, they have known for some time what Motion will need.

I can't wait to see what Apple really annouces. Then watch the fireworks of kudos and complaints. :)

[lostngone]

Let me start off with Think Secret's record, it isn't that bad for this kind of stuff...... however....

I really hope they got this one wrong, I understand the imac isn't supposed to be a super-duper high end, do everything system. but.....


1. I can't see a reason to not add gigabit ethernet, I didn't think the newer chipsets cost any more then the 10/100's, but who knows maybe it would be more. (Not a show stopper)

2. I would like to see a FireWire 800 port, but it wouldn't be a downgrade to only have two 400's.

3. The video card is underpowered on the low end model, but not out of the realm of possibility. I would like to see a little better card on the high end system.
(P.S. to the guy who said they should put a X800 in them, you can put the crack pipe down, for god sakes the dual 2.5 doesn't even come with that option!!!)

4. I'm not complaining about the price because I know the Apple 17 inch LCD costs money, and the G5 chip isn't cheap even at the 1.6GHz speed.

I would still like to see a unit without a monitor. If Apple dropped the 17 inch LCD. It could cut the price by around 300 dollars and then you would a G5 around $999. (This unit could even sit into some sort of low end workgroup server market.)

[NickFalk]

...Nothing, I repeat nothing uses the 64 power so the G5 is irrelevant to real world use
Nothing, like:
Photoshop
After Effects
Final Cut Pro HD
DVD Studio Pro 3
Motion 1.0

Yup, all of these "real world"-applications take advantage of the 64-bits to some extent... :p

[iMeowbot]

The only goofy thing I see is the disparity in hard drive types. If it's the same motherboard, they should either all be Parallel ATA, or all Serial ATA. Why design the extra port, and figure out how to route the cable when you can just use the same design?
The main problem is that SATA optical drives are few and far between, so dual support will be the reality for a while yet.

[CmdrLaForge]

The "average joe" doesn't play graphics-intensive or use graphics-intensive programs, for that matter. The average joe writes documents, composes email, plays light online games, visits websites, chats etc.


WRONG - the average user is a teenager about 14 - 24 years old. He loves to play games, do homework, surf the web, edit his videos and view his pictures from his digital camera. He/She is very well informed about state of the art technology and will therefore not buy an iMac.

[PPC970FX]

The GF suck big time. And for 30$ you could get a 9600Pro. I don`t get why the GF have to be so low end. I would never buy a Mac with anything under 9600Pro 128MB. I hope that the spec is not right but I think they are.

[CmdrLaForge]

Yes a better graphics card is needed but these cards will meet tigers core image requirements. Apple wouldn't make something that wouldn't run the next os properly.

Today. But how about tomorrow ? A lot of people are using their machines 4 years or more. If you already buy today old and outdated technology then it will be even more outdated and unusable for future OS and Apps requirements.

[MacsRgr8]

Grfx card sux. Simple as that.
Sure, some buyers are not interesed in grfx performance, but alot of potential customers who have waited some time now for an affordable G5 are getting pretty frustrated about a crappy old grfx card.
If the "average joe" doesn't do anything on his Mac besides mail, internet browsing, word docs etc. then there is no reason at all to get a G5. Apple might as well sell a (very) low-end iMac G4 1.5 GHz with GeForce 5200, 17" TFT, 256 MB RAM, 40 GB HD for 999,-
Maybe one G5 iMac with 5200, but a mid-range and CERTAINLY high-end iMac G5 should be equipped with the 9600, or better still the 9800 (which still is last year's technology).
An iMac is a family computer: mail, word, internet, gaming , movie editing, DVD burning.... etc. All of 'em.

Please, Apple: < sits on his knees and begs >
Let these specs be partially true...
Let the high-end iMac be 2 GHz G5, 160 GB HD, Radeon 9800, 512 MB RAM...
(too much to ask?)

[Trimix]

WRONG - the average user is a teenager about 14 - 24 years old. He loves to play games, do homework, surf the web, edit his videos and view his pictures from his digital camera. He/She is very well informed about state of the art technology and will therefore not buy an iMac.

here is to every TEENager who is about 24. cheers
sorry i could not resist :D

[dragonslive]

Nothing, like:
Photoshop
After Effects
Final Cut Pro HD
DVD Studio Pro 3
Motion 1.0

Yup, all of these "real world"-applications take advantage of the 64-bits to some extent... :p

IC....and how would you explain the performance difference for 99% of real apps being just MHZ between G4 and G5?

64 bits simply isn't used yet to any real level.........be objective and look at the results not the theory/fantasy/marketing.

;)

[Trimix]

Today. But how about tomorrow ? A lot of people are using their machines 4 years or more. If you already buy today old and outdated technology then it will be even more outdated and unusable for future OS and Apps requirements.

allow me disagree. i have been sitting here with my first generation swivel i-mac, 15inch and so far it has served me well. if i do not know how fast i could really be, then i do not notice how slow i am in reality, right ? that said, i use the i-mac on the web, i have my spreadsheets on it, i run my business on it, i put photos on it and mail them around the world, listen to music whatever. you may get my drift. i use it as a tool. it is not something over which i drool every day trying to coax ever more from it like all the afficionados here. it is there, it looks cool, it never crashes and on august 31 i will get a new one now after like 30 months right ? and it will come out of the box, onto the desk and that is that. i like the hassle free approach, the works right out of the box thing and for me the imac is perfect. the power mac is wonderful but i do not need it. the e-mac is not lcd, so that settles it for me. and i will buy what works, not what is technically possible. i used to buy top of the range, nowadays i buy for my needs.

anyhow i keep learning a lot from you out there - thanks

[512ke]

The first consumer-level iMac should have the following additions to the base education model:
- Single 1.6 GHz G5 Processor
- 17" widescreen display
- slot-loading Combo drive
- 80GB Serial ATA hard drive
- NVIDIA GeForce MX 5200 Ultra graphics processor with 64MB of DDR video memory
- 56K internal modem

This is going to be the one that the "Average Joe" can afford. And yet this one CAN'T burn DVD's. No home video to DVD's.

At least it HAS a graphics card. But you can't use one of the basic programs of the iLife suite.

No computer that costs over $1200 should lack a DVD burner. :(

[cdburrows]

What's this with 17" and 20" flat-screens.

This month I read an article concerning the iMac G5 delays, and the inability to supply more G4 iMacs in the interim. This was mainly concentrating on the fact that 17" screens were being replaced in the industry by larger 18" screens. If this is true why is apple going for the smaller option that will cost more money in the long run?

This makes me question this rumor.... However Think Secret is never wrong, especially when I want them to be, I suppose MacFormat is just a magazine with limited sources inside apple

[vouder17]

I am sorry but why is everyone complaining, this is going to be a great comp , and the only thing that i see that is possibly slightly crippling would be the VRAM, but please, most people do fine with just that, I know i will, and i am a consumer. The lowest range Powermac is 1999, and that doesn't get you a screen, so i think that this new iMac is really good value.

Peace
DjVoTeZ

[iNetwork]

I would like a 2GHz high end model ... but we'll see. If it really is an all-in-one model, with the computer behind the lcd, then I'll probably buy one. Crossing fingers that there will be a 2GHz model!

A 1.6, come on Apple. According to a number of the Xbench benchmarks, the 1.6 isn't that much faster than a 1.25 ghz Imac... The memory on the 1.6 G5 powermac is faster but the cpu benches an average of 25 points slower! The powerbook G4 1.5 also benches at 60 points higher... And at those prices I'd be tempted with the 15" g4 1.5 powerbook over a hunk of a desktop machine...They better be cheap...

If the thing looks like the old imac crt G3's and has a LCD panel, how is that innovative? I mean you have this big hung of puter hanging out of the back. Let's be innovative like you did on the FP Imac. It still takes up a ton of disk space. Getting to your cd drive will also be a bitch as well. :( I hope apple amazes us because if it's anything CLOSE to the sony I won't buy it. If rumors are true than this is going to be a total POS. What and NO display adjustment. That's the whole reason I own a G4 FP Imac.... booo

[spinko]

I wished the new iMac had a separate CPU / monitor configuration. That would surely be less expensive to make than having a specific model for every monitor size ??

[Jyril]

am I the only one who is definitely not thrilled by these possible specs? GAH, it's definitely not a great value, couldn't they have at least thrown in more ram, bigger HD, better graphics standard??? :confused:

Nope, you aren't the only one. I'm not one bit impressed.

I'm also having some genuine trouble picturing the machine, since all we hear about with the G5 is heat issues. I'm assuming this is the 90nm G5 in use, which means it'll require some significant cooling, even at the 1.6 GHz speed.

I really hope these specs are dead wrong. Nothing here is impressive, given the price. I've been excited about the iMac G5 up to this point. These specs have killed it for me, sadly.

[edesignuk]

If you want a high performance machine for "games", get a PowerMac, that is what they are for.So a kid who wants a Mac and wants to play games has to get a professional workstation in your opinion, are you serious!?

[Zaty]

Those specs don't surprise me at all, they nicely fit into what Apple has offered for the last few years. Although we don't know if the specs are real or not, don't expect too much in terms of CPU and GPU performance.

[iMeowbot]

WRONG - the average user is a teenager about 14 - 24 years old. He loves to play games, do homework, surf the web, edit his videos and view his pictures from his digital camera. He/She is very well informed about state of the art technology and will therefore not buy an iMac.

Two thirds of home computer purchasing decisions are made by adult women, not children doing homework.

[billyboy]

Hallo, reality check. The iMac is a consumer level computer with a G5 processor inside!!!!! ie those complainers waxing negatively lyrical about the rumoured specs, should try and get their head around the teeny tiny fact that the iMac will be a total processing animal compared to the G4 Macs of any model that most of us are "lumbered" with.

iMacs are designed to work out the box and dont suffer from the hardware hassles of easily swappable critical components like processors and video cards. But like some one said, even with PowerMacs, the graphics cards arent or havent been brilliant, and even with the option to upgrade, not many bother, so isnt it fair to deduce that what your video card does out the box is good enough for most people - but obviously not all?

And concentrating on video cards and then inferring that "Macs arent upgradeable" is pushing it a bit. It doesnt really matter how big a hard drive you have installed, or how much RAM comes with a computer, some day soon or later, it will not be enough for some people. But Apple know there is a solution out there that caters for nearly every one, and the solutions are either very slick and/or cheap. (iPods are going to be the slick hard drives for music and later on for photos or home movies. And conventional external HD are so cheap now and cater to EVERY need from 128MB up to Terabyte and more.)

And for upgradability to suit the masses, it seems you will be able to put up to 2GB of RAM in an iMac, (hands up the complaining average Joes with more than a quarter of that in their current G4 Mac?)

The driveless iMac for education is also brilliant if true. Take off 10. 20, 1000 cdrw units off the bill and buy a $300 piece of software to do the same job and stop students interfering where they are not wanted.

Anyway, this thread is all a rumour, but if the iMac looks like th epictures from Sparticus, it will absolutely fly. Like a Sony? I dont think so? And you have to take all the apparently whizzy hardware specs of the Sony with a pinch of salt when you read the banner "Sony recommends Windows XP" The specs have to be high to compensate for the OS :p

[Windowlicker]

The New imac.

G5 1.6-1.8ghz
Geforce 4mx to Geforce FX5200
256-512mb ram
$1300-$2200.

A TWENTY TWO HUNDRED DOLLAR computer that comes with a geforce FX5200?
....

Hahahahhaahhaahahahahahahhaahahhahahhaahahahha.

Apple can't possbly be that delirious. ESPECIALLY in a machine that can't be upgraded. Point in hand, the current ibook comes with a radeon 9200, which pretty much whoops a 5200FX hands down.

If apple does something that stupid, ... sheesh.

At $2200? What the hell is wrong with them?

No that can't possibly be.

What would make sense would be:

G5 1.6ghz [Awesome]
Radeon 9600
512mb ram
80gb hard drive
$799 (No monitor)

G5 1.8ghz [better]
Radeon X600
512mb ram
120gb hard drive
$999

G5 2.0ghz [Best]
Radeon X800
512mb ram
120gb hard drive
$1399

G5 2.2ghz [Ultimate]
Radeon X800
512mb ram
160gb hard drive
$1599

All models include 16x superdrive, USB2, firewire, regular keyboard/mice, etc. Then make an apple gaming package that can be sold with the 2 upper end models, free when purchased with a cinema display and available for $300 more otherwise.

Such a bundle could include:
5.1 optical speakers (klipsch or logitech)
Logitech MX700 mouse
Doom3 and maybe 2 other popular games

At $1299 for a 20" cinema display, this would make the bottom end just under $2700, but with klipsch 5.1 speakers and doom3, not to mention a kickass mouse.. hey THAT outruns alienware's offerings!

Show me a $2700 alienware machine that comes with a 20" monitor ;)

Basically, the gaming bundle could just be sold in a seperate box, and apple could have promotions everywhere for said bundle. Damn that'd make a killing.

dream on... seems like you wanna buy a PC that runs OSX. Apple isn't the cheapest on the market, but you know… often getting the cheapest option isn't getting the best option.

what comes to the graphics, what else do you need more than 64mb of vram than games? nothing really. especially the eduimac...they don't play games at schools, they do video & photoshop. you don't need more than 32mb for that. though I think the minimum will be 64mb, because that's what tiger needs to work with core image & video. it would be cool if there would be an option of a 128mb card though. that would let the customer choose.

[munkle]

I've noticed all the negative comments but lets keep in mind folks that these are rumours before jumping on the 'Apple sucks' bandwagon, and yes I am aware that Thinksecret normally has a pretty good record on these things. In my opinion, graphics card aside, it seems a pretty good step up for the consumer market.

However, am I the only one disappointed by the news of an upcoming new form factor? I guess I was hoping for an evolution rather than a revolution of the iMac. The current design seems so simple and obvious to me, which only attests to the genius of Jonathan Ive. Here's hoping that Apple will wow me again! :)

[dragonslive]

[QUOTE=billyboy]Hallo, reality check. The iMac is a consumer level computer with a G5 processor inside!!!!! ie those complainers waxing negatively lyrical about the rumoured specs, should try and get their head around the teeny tiny fact that the iMac will be a total processing animal compared to the G4 Macs of any model that most of us are "lumbered" with.

:eek:
What planet have you been on? Apple promo planet? G5 is not much if any faster than a G4 per MHz......I really wish people would look at the reality and not regurgitate company marketing and mac freak fantasy.

No offence intended.....but visit a comparison site for the truth.....xbench, barefeats, macspeedzone etc.......there is your reality check!!

[crap freakboy]

So a kid who wants a Mac and wants to play games has to get a professional workstation in your opinion, are you serious!?

Exactly my thoughts.
I really can't get my head around what Apple think their target market is.
Replacing a relatively poorly selling iMac with another overpriced, low GPU installed, small HD etc etc...don't they look at what the competition are offering for that price? Of course I could buy an iMac for my day to day stuff, then buy a Dell (or whatever) for gaming but how much deskspace would that take?
I really do hope they can pull something good out of the hat but looking at the specs of the low end G5 it seems theyve painted themselves into a corner by giving too much choice on the professional models. Heres an idea, drop the dual 1.8, up the specs on the other 2 eg 2 HD as standard, 9800XT as standard, up the price and they may find that powerusers/professionals will go the PM way. That gives more flexibility on the iMacs for GPU etc. Bottom line is they need to clearly define their product lines.

[Bad Beaver]

Ah well, September comes slowly... and while I am working so hard in order to be able to afford a new Mac by then that I have already developed a n-n-nervous tw-tw-twitch, I lay my eyes on those specs...

I can't help it, they do not look as good as I would like them to. Screw the GPU, if I really wanted to play a lot I'd get me a GameCube, but it *would* be nice if a new iMac could play UT04 nicely and had a card in that is not already obsolete. IMHO worse is that even at the top end I would still have to shell out plenty of cash for a BTO 250Gig HD (need 150 just for iTunes) and the obligatory Gig o'RAM.

Nevertheless I will not jammer, and I'd love you guys not to jammer either, because Apple has again and again managed to surprise us all, including ThinkSecret (yes they have been wrong before, and that those specs are still up at this point is something that makes them smell fishy). We may jammer once the thing is released ;)
All I know for sure is that a new iMac *always* was an impressive machine, an improvement over the last one, and always very sufficient for the average user. Realisticly, even the entry level consumer model would run circles around what I have now.

[Jyril]

While I don't like the idea of no optical drive in the lowest end iMac, I can see options to get around not having one, such as Target mode, for example.

No one can presume that these machines will not be used for anything high end as well. They need to have the minimal capability available. The high school I graduated from had several eMacs loaded with everything from Shake to Maya and Final Cut Pro to DVD Studio Pro. The low-priced machines were great for having people learn the apps, and had just enough power to actually have work get done on them.

Something else to think about, Education-Level shouldn't exclusively mean "meant for schools", but also priced for students and teachers.

Apple shouldn't cripple these machines. They need to have sufficient power for almost any task thrown at them, which includes being able to run some of the Pro apps, since that may be one of the only ways people will get introduced to them, and thus provide incentive to buy a PM G5.

Did I mention that I really hope these specs are dead wrong? -_-

Added:
They need to introduce the new 16x Dual Layer DVD Burner from Pioneer (DVR-108) with these, that'll redeem them significantly if these specs don't improve that much.

[billyboy]

No offence intended.....but visit a comparison site for the truth.....xbench, barefeats, macspeedzone etc.......there is your reality check!!

No offence taken! I dont really understand the reality of numbers in benchmarks . I guess I was in a fantasy dream world though when I was playing with a 1.8 G5 that seemed to do things before I even touched the keyboard. :)

[iMeowbot]

However, am I the only one disappointed by the news of an upcoming new form factor?
ThinkSecret were wrong about the appearance of the new iPod models, so take those descriptions with a grain of salt.

Also, everybody seemed to be completely sure of what the G4 iMac would look like, and everybody was wrong.

[supermegatron]

I hope apple does something surprising like sell a mac I can afford lol... But honestly I doubt the specs are correct remember the info we got on the first iMac I thought it was going to look like a mac classic with a cd rom I have noticed the spec of this machine are close to the current iMac
17-inch widescreen LCD
1.25GHz PowerPC G4
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
256MB DDR333 SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
SuperDrive
Apple Pro Speakers
AirPort Extreme Ready
Bluetooth Option

Apple tends to make giant leaps not small steps I tend to think to think the iMac will have the following features 1.6-1.8 g5, 256 ram, 60 gig hard drive ,bluetooth keyboard and mouse,and a built in wireless card on the intro machine they will have a 15 inch lcd a 20 ich on the high end model the starting price will be 999.99 apple made a statement in one of the share holder meetings that iMacs were not selling well because they were above the 999.99 price point I am guessing apple spent alot of time trying to do things to get the cost of this machine down.

[kirk26]

Whew, at least no ATI card.

[vouder17]

ok i have reread the thinksecret post, and there are a few things i am not sure about, they say that there will be 4 new models of which the two 20inch models will be EXACTLY the same except for the HD, so i wonder perhaps that that model could perhaps have a 2GHz processor.
And
CmdrLaForge you are wrong, i am a teenager and the new iMac G5 sound perfect for me, I am Definetly buying one within the next year because i am going to university next year and with this iMac I will have the latest hardware(except Graphics) and i can do everything that i want to do on a computer right in the iMac.

[Edge100]

If these are the specs and prices, I guess I wont be making the jump to the new iMac.

Listen, no matter what you think of the specs (and I think they're pretty lame), the price is just too high.

The article says prices will start around $1300. That would mean that for $600-700 less than a DUAL 1.8GHz PowerMac, I would get no optical drive (let alone Superdrive), a slower single processor, and no expandability (same graphics card though! What does THAT say?)

Anyway, $1300 is WAAAY too much for the low-end. The current eMac is $799 or $999. If Apple wants to replace the eMac for education, they need a G5 at that price.

$1300 isnt too bad for a G4 iMac replacement, though. That was the price of the old low end. But if they want the edu market, they'll have to do better on price. Schools dont buy on features/price ratio. They buy on price first, features second. The eMac is the perfect school computer because of its price. The fact that its performance isnt too shabby is a great bonus.

Anyway, I hope Apple can do better than this. I'd like to see the low-end (if it is to replace the eMac) come in a $799 (esp. if it has no optical drive), followed by a $999 version with at least a combo.

And c'mon, Apple, sell me one WITHOUT a massive LCD. I'll figure it out myself.

[gekko513]

Two thirds of home computer purchasing decisions are made by adult women, not children doing homework.
They don't make the decision, they just have the right of veto. :p And an adult woman is sometimes less likely to excercise her right of veto if the looks of the computer at hand doesn't clash with her living room interior.

[Veldek]

And
CmdrLaForge you are wrong, i am a teenager and the new iMac G5 sound perfect for me, I am Definetly buying one within the next year because i am going to university next year and with this iMac I will have the latest hardware(except Graphics) and i can do everything that i want to do on a computer right in the iMac.

Sorry, although he might be wrong, you can't say he isn’t just because you don’t fit in his model. He talked about the average user, so perhaps you aren’t average. And as someone said before: Mac users aren’t average at all...

[Zaty]

ok i have reread the thinksecret post, and there are a few things i am not sure about, they say that there will be 4 new models of which the two 20inch models will be EXACTLY the same except for the HD, so i wonder perhaps that that model could perhaps have a 2GHz processor.
And
CmdrLaForge you are wrong, i am a teenager and the new iMac G5 sound perfect for me, I am Definetly buying one within the next year because i am going to university next year and with this iMac I will have the latest hardware(except Graphics) and i can do everything that i want to do on a computer right in the iMac.

Obviously, not everyone has the same needs. While I agree with you that there are many people who don't need the latest and greates hardware available, don't forget that iMacs are relativley expensive computers and for $2,200 I think you can expect a decent gpu and at least 512 MB of ram. I'm aware that comparing an iMac with a $ 2,200 PC is like comparing apples with oranges, but especially those fanatic Mac heads who blindly approve what ever Apple does should at least a have look beyond the world of the Mac to see what is going on technologically the whole wide world of computing. Don't forget, there are quite a few PCs out there which would be nice machines if they're were not running Windows. As for gamers, I think Apple really doesn't care about you, sadly but true.

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

geez... a lot of complaining here, ALWAYS, yet we all come back. chill out and consider the following:

1) you're buying an apple, not a pc... there will never be a price competitive macintosh; that would be like asking for a bmw that has a price competitive with a ford...

Umm, already has happened. BMW owns Mini, Mini sells the Mini Cooper and Cooper Type S (FWD) and both are priced as a slightly premium priced car against Ford, Honda, and GM competition but not ridiculously so, and the sales have come by virtue of Mini using the Apple mentality of "Thinking different" and providing more bang/style for the $. BMW is also working on their forthcoming 1 & 2 series coupe and hatch (RWD). In the U.S. we're likely to get the 2 series coupe which will pattern itself off of the much heralded BMW 2002 of years lore. It'll likely price in in non-M format around the Cobalt SS/SS Supercharged (replaces Cavalier) and other higher-line models from Ford and DC. It'll offer the usual BMW handling prowess and capabilities, the cachet, and do so by offering a blend of "Get what you pay for" premium vs "We charge more 'cause we can" mentality.

The answer is simple. Cut the cord. Apple *HAS* done this before as well. When the original AIO Macintosh had stand-offish sales in the mid 1980's, Apple created a computer called "LC" that was the strongest selling Mac in Apple history prior to the original iMac. It also spawned into the Apple Mac II series. Guess what? No monitor on either of them. It was a very simplistic, compact, and rudimentary computer with limited expandability in a desktop form factor. It was a logical lineup, it worked, and it suited the clamoring needs enough that Apple's computer sales blossomed and they became the largest percentage of marketshare in the consumer desktop market.

Apple simplified the lineup to cut costs at a time when many of their offerings weren't well executed, i.e. the abysmal Performa lineup which was poorly engineered and devised and provided very little bang for the $. Apple has returned to profitability people. There's no reason they can't expand the lineup. In fact... THEY ALREADY HAVE. When the iMac was already perceived to not hit the EDU market, they made the eMac to fill the void. Now that the last gen iMac was less than stellar in overall sales, I feel it's time to consolidate R&D costs into a modular architecture that can sustain all markets and their demands. Being stubborn to the customer, who is typically always right to their needs as the saying goes, isn't going to help them. That's just common sense.

I can guarantee that if Apple produced a lower cost non-fetish desktop like an LC or even a larger-sized and lower cost Cube, I'd be within 2-4 months of buying one. If not... I'll wait 'til I can afford a non AIO Mac. That can take another 8 months or longer if I buy the overkill G5 at the overkill G5 pricepoints and provided Apple doesn't cut costs between now and then. It's Apple's loss, not mine, I can hold out. If they were to make a mildly less upgradeable desktop/cube off of the iMac architecture that doesn't have to displace the AIO machines for people that like AIO's... it could cost them little to nothing in terms of R&D and just require an enclosure to put the iMac's motherboard, drives, and a video out connector into.

I don't want a computer that's the size of a Puff's box if it's going to cost me $1,899 to get it when the guts that make the majority of the computing experience worthwhile are comparable to what I should see for $999. THAT IS WHY THE CUBE FAILED.

2) not a significant upgrade from the "current" imac line? are you joking? first, going from the g4 to the g5 alone is enough of an upgrade. then clock speed; current imac king is 1.25 and bottom of the new lineup is 1.6- that's almost a 30% processor speed increase while the 1.8 would be just under 50%!!! what did you expect? ...

Agreed. Yet for the pricetags and for what it's going to supercede... what does Apple do? Force everyone that can't afford one of these into... well, okay the eMac is going away right? Or is it? Or is the eMac being replaced by something else that's suitable to the consumer market. Do not forget... the eMac sold to the education market until demand said that the consumers wanted it to. Killing the eMac will be suicide unless Apple has another Ace up their sleeves. My guess is... if the eMac is now a low-end AIO LCD iMac with no optical drive and modem... that Apple could well be announcing *SOMETHING ELSE* on the same day. I doubt the iBook is the answer to all people... as I know I don't like laptops and won't be buying one. I don't like AIO's either and won't buy one either.

3) video card. i just don't get this one. the mac is not a gaming platform- how is this not obvious?

Yeah... but if you're buying the BMW of computers, you expect it to be "The Ultimate" in every way right at that pricepoint? I just don't see it with this machine beyond the firepower of the G5; it's not exciting/revolutionary/thinking different. I'm going to go on a limb that the video specs are outdated/wrong. So the consumer machines will creep a little into the pro line, which leaves a surplus of 1.6 Ghz G5's that'd work reeeeeeeeeeeeal nice in a low cost single processor desktop with no monitor attached...

It wouldn't be bleeding edge (closer than the rumors though I feel), and I agree it shouldn't be. All too many want to be given the world for a song, or have a mind-alterring GPU in a machine that ships at a medium range in Apple's lineup. If you look at true gamer's PC's on the Windows side, Alienware's lowest offerings still break past $1,000 and aren't anywhere near bleeding edge. They are a "TRUE" gamers PC. Your little eMachines for $599-799 aren't anything close. Nor is a $799-999 Dell. Yes you can BTO it with a great video card, but you'll hamstring it on processor which you need for gaming too. The GPU doesn't do everything for the games, let's not forget that, the processor still comes into play. Apple has this covered. It's called... "Powermac G5". Many of Alienware's gaming PC's are right in this same pricepoint for Framerate junkies.

then again, i could be wrong.

In some ways... yes, nobody's perfect though. :) I will openly admit, there's a lot of questions still looming, and maybe Apple has more up their sleeves than the Rumormill is generating. A $999-1,299 machine *WILL NOT* suit the consumer as the lowest cost option anymore and that basically concedes both the barebones $399-599 PC market, but also the slightly higher $599-999 market almost. I don't feel Apple can afford to cannibalize both markets. They need to at least hit one. Apple has pushed eMac pricepoints down to a level that they need to retain with *SOMETHING*. If it doesn't have an optical drive in-box, it isn't going to sell to consumers... so you can't just push the education model to the masses again this time.

Yet there is a lot of clamor for lower cost machines with no monitor attached. I know, I know... but Apple isn't guaranteed to sell you the monitor! Wahhhh!! Are they guaranteed if I buy a G5 that they're going to get my money on an LCD? I'll give you a clue... word starts with n, ends with o, and has 2 letters...

Could they? Maybe... if they offer the best price/performance ratio. What made BMW's 3 Series so successful was that noone could remotely match the experience for the $. As the 3 has moved upmarket, BMW has lost a lot of that sales to it's competition and is realizing it needs to find a way back in. Hell the M3 came out originally with a 4 cylinder and is now rumored to head to a V8 in the next generation?!? So, BMW creates the 2 series, plays off the old 2002, and likely will have an M2 version that brings itself back into compete with cars like the Subaru Impreza WRX/WRX STi and the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo and the VW R3 (Golf GTI). The base 1/2 will compete with cars like the Chevy Cobalt SS, and other higher line versions of our American models. Yeah... it's not a Chevy Aveo or Kia Rio, but even the U.S. companies can't compete with that. That's why the Aveo is made by Daewoo of Korea.

Apple is farming their manufacturing outside of the U.S. just like most of the U.S. auto companies have. Apple needs to evolve the computer platform lineup again to meet demands. I've seen "TONS" of people pleading for non-AIO; the clamors were milder back pre-Cube and many thought our prayers were answered when Apple went in the completely wrong direction and despite accolades and a marvel of ingenuity... it BOMBED. They've grown resoundingly louder since that failure though just as eMac and iMac sales have stagnated. The truth lies somewhere in between all of this, and the fact is... Apple in it's SEC filing acknowledged that the iMac and eMac were both failing. Laptops, including Apple's own, were cannibalizing iMac sales. The eMac just doesn't have enough grunt and people are passing up a lack of choice in terms of monitor sizing, CPU, config. for PC's that offer these options.

Apple doesn't need a $399 computer, unless it can produce it and still make margins. Yet a $699-899 base cost desktop would slot right into a part of the market Dell sells well in, with/without monitor. Apple doesn't want to build CRT's anymore, fine. Don't. People will either buy one if they want one, or buy an LCD of whatever size they want, or use what they have 'til they can afford that 20-23-30" Cinema display they've had their eyes on. When they can afford it. That's the beauty of choice, and that's where Apple would make more sales.

[Mord]

I think a LOT of people have little use for a top-end GPU, and no need for more than 40 GB HD. But they'd love a better screen. In fact, that covers all three iMac owners in my family.

I don't think Apple putting cost into an amazing display vs. "bragging-rights" specs is accidental at all.

The iMac is not meant to be all things to all people.

it's just embarising when your g5 imac makes core image effects lag because of a crappy 5200 card, a 9600 would not cost that much more and in reality they should really be useing an x300 or idealy an x600

big notice to apple, these specs suck

i'd buy one if,

they had x300 or x600 gpu's

512MB ram standard and 160GB sata HD's

and for the sake of our sanity get over yourselfs and put in an agp slot

one of those with a 15" panel for $999 would kick ass

a 17"for $1300

a 20" for $1799

the reason that the original imac was sucsussful was that it did compete with low end pc's and win if they can do that agian they will be the consumer king, apple should be flaunting benchmarks across all there lines not just the powermac.

[msilsby]

So a kid who wants a Mac and wants to play games has to get a professional workstation in your opinion, are you serious!?


Note: I said "If you want a high performance machine for "games", get a PowerMac, that is what they are for.". Not that if you want a machine to play games you need a professional workstation. I have a 1Ghz G4 powerbook that suits me fine for games. The point is that you do not need the latest and greatest for a games machine. In fact, you have hit the nail on the head with this title. "Professional workstation".

The iMac is not a professional workstation. If you want the specs of one, don't get an iMac.

[Stike]

I didn´t read the whole bunch here, but...

...has anyone noticed that this new *upcoming* iMac would not even be able to run "CoreImage" from Tiger? An OS feature that will not work on a future system? How lame can it get :(
I mean, current low systems, okay, but the next generation, too?

[vouder17]

But honestly I doubt the specs are correct remember the info we got on the first iMac I thought it was going to look like a mac classic with a cd rom I have noticed the spec of this machine are close to the current iMac
17-inch widescreen LCD
1.25GHz PowerPC G4
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
256MB DDR333 SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
SuperDrive
Apple Pro Speakers
AirPort Extreme Ready
Bluetooth Option

Apple tends to make giant leaps not small steps I tend to think to think the iMac will have the following features 1.6-1.8 g5, 256 ram, 60 gig hard drive ,bluetooth keyboard and mouse,and a built in wireless card on the intro machine they will have a 15 inch lcd a 20 ich on the high end model the starting price will be 999.99 apple made a statement in one of the share holder meetings that iMacs were not selling well because they were above the 999.99 price point I am guessing apple spent alot of time trying to do things to get the cost of this machine down.

Yeah i guess i could agree with you cos there isn't much difference in the two models apart from Processors..............i am starting to also doubt the validity of this rumour hmmm. very interesting could thinksecret be wrong???

[gekko513]

I also want a headless G5 alternative in the $999-$1299 range. However, this is just an iMac rumor, so there is still hope for a headless alternative with another name.

[eji]

I can only speak for myself, not for "Joe User" or the suburban housewife who supposedly makes 90% of household purchasing decisions or the tech-savvy teenager, and I think these specs are pretty poor.

I'm an intermediate Mac user -- when I say "intermediate," I mean that I use my Mac for CD/DVD ripping and burning, file-sharing, Web surfing, e-mail, Civilization III, word processing, photo editing and organization, daily iTunes use (sometimes individually, sometimes simultaneously) -- of nearly four years who had plans to upgrade to a desktop when then G5 appeared in the iMac. I wouldn't even contemplate buying a PC after falling in love with the Mac; but price and specs are nevertheless a major concern.

To think that the new iMac will arrive (based on these likely accurate rumored statistics) with little to no improvement on the G4 iMac, which already features a less-than-stellar video card and insufficient RAM, is a real disappointment. A new form factor, 20th anniversary iMac should do more than meet minimum requirements for all existing apps, especially Apple's own, whether they're intended for pro users or not. Who would feel comfortable about buying a new, out-of-the-box computer that is already behind the times in terms of hardware (FireWire 800) and software (Motion)? I want something that will stay useable for slightly longer than my G3/500 iBook has, and this proposed G5 iMac certainly won't.

I agree with the person who said he buys his computer for tomorrow, not just today. If prices were lower, that mentality might change; but there's even talk that these will be raised.

Last week I was really excited for the new iMac. That has since changed.

[Windowlicker]

Craptacular!

muahaha! this made me laugh my ass off! ;D nice one!

[Zaty]

it's just embarising when your g5 imac makes core image effects lag because of a crappy 5200 card, a 9600 would not cost that much more and in reality they should really be useing an x300 or idealy an x600



So true, but Apple would make less $$ if they used better GPU. I've said it before and I'm going to say it again: Wake up people, Apple is just acompany who like any other public company has only one main objective that is making as much money as possible.

[BornAgainMac]

Terrible specs. It sounds like it was designed by a PC user that hates Macs. While they are at it, it should have OS X lite. A crippled version that only allows 3 program to run at the same time, single account only, and only up to 800x600 resolution, and including MSN Messenger, Internet Explorer, and Microsoft Media Player.

The iMacs should at least have a build-to-order graphics card to include one from this year's model. I liked it when the iMac had a flat screen and not a flat screen with a backpack so that it looks more like a CRT. Also the eMac can't be replaced when it cost $799. It's a good value and it also means that a used eMac should fall within $500 ~ $600.

I understand that dropping the CD drive but also the price should drop to $799 with a flat screen even if it means having a G4 and a small 15 inch screen. Buy your own memory, hard disk, and video option.

[Zaty]

I didn´t read the whole bunch here, but...

...has anyone noticed that this new *upcoming* iMac would not even be able to run "CoreImage" from Tiger? An OS feature that will not work on a future system? How lame can it get :(
I mean, current low systems, okay, but the next generation, too?

Yes, it is, the 5200 does support core image. That's why it seems logical from Apple's corporate point of view to use that card because it's the cheapest one that supports core image.

[Mord]

So true, but Apple would make less $$ if they used better GPU. I've said it before and I'm going to say it again: Wake up people, Apple is just acompany who like any other public company has only one main objective that is making as much money as possible.

they would make more money as they would acctually sell well :rolleyes:

[bux]

Yes, it is, the 5200 does support core image. That's why it seems logical from Apple's corporate point of view to use that card because it's the cheapest one that supports core image.

Yeah, the 5200 does support it but... the low level of the new iMac has a geforce 4 mx, which isn't supported. So my guess is that these specs are false.

[Zaty]

they would make more money as they would acctually sell well :rolleyes:

If Apple built PCs, yes but since many Mac users buy what ever Apple offers, they make even more money by using cheap components and selling them for a premium. Macs are great machines but it seems to me that the new iMac is too expensive for what you get no matter how cool it looks. So, I hope that prices are wrong.

[Zaty]

Yeah, the 5200 does support it but... the low level of the new iMac has a geforce 4 mx, which isn't supported. So my guess is that these specs are false.

Yes, but that's an education only machine, students won't need core image for writing e-mails and papers.

[nagromme]

ThinkSecret could be wrong--they have been before, like any rumor site. Their record is good lately, though--as is MacRumors' judgment of what makes Page One. I think the specs have a good chance of being right.

Don't judge them too much on the edu model though: that's for a specific need and won't be available to most of us anyway. It's for basic no-frills computer labs. So the lack of a modem, optical drive--and maybe even Core Video support--could all make perfect sense as cost-saving measures.

[Mord]

If Apple built PCs, yes but since many Mac users buy what ever Apple offers, they make even more money by using cheap components and selling them for a premium. Macs are great machines but it seems to me that the new iMac is too expensive for what you get no matter how cool it looks. So, I hope that prices are wrong.

look at imac sales for the g4 imac compared to the g3 imac, the g3 imac sold 3 times as many, apple has go to stop useing budget nvidia cards and start either useing the better nvidia stuff like the 5600 or the 5900 or swithc to ati,

mac users wont buy what apple offers if what apple offers is crap they will stick with what they have got or get a pc, that excuse is crap if apple makes a kick ass imac like the g3 imacs were they will sell well, untill then they will not sell well.

[iMeowbot]

...has anyone noticed that this new *upcoming* iMac would not even be able to run "CoreImage" from Tiger? An OS feature that will not work on a future system? How lame can it get :(
Core Image isn't what a lot of people seem to think it is. It really amounts to object wrappers for common OpenGL tasks.

OpenGL will work with a graphics chipset that's dumb as rocks, it's just that the pretty stuff would be offloaded to the CPU instead of the GPU.

The "supported graphics cards" are the ones that natively support the latest OpenGL spec. That doesn't mean that the Core Image won't work with other cards, just that some of the work will be handled by the CPU by the device driver. Indeed many, maybe even most, real-world operations will still end up being accelerated -- remember, Quartz Extreme also relies on OpenGL (albeit a previous version), and that acceleration isn't going away.

[dragonslive]

Yes, but that's an education only machine, students won't need core image for writing e-mails and papers.

Why would they need a $1200 Mac for that at all? or a eMac for that matter? A PII at the market for $30 will do all that........talk about detached from reality.

[Mord]

ThinkSecret could be wrong--they have been before, like any rumor site. Their record is good lately, though--as is MacRumors' judgment of what makes Page One. I think the specs have a good chance of being right.

Don't judge them too much on the edu model though: that's for a specific need and won't be available to most of us anyway. It's for basic no-frills computer labs. So the lack of a modem, optical drive--and maybe even Core Video support--could all make perfect sense as cost-saving measures.

i agree with you on the edu model but a better gpu would be benificial as a 9200 would be better, a 5200 would be a major bottle neck in an imac g5, look at g5 benchmarks with a even with a 9600 a g5 is nearly twice as fast as the same cpu with a 5200 apple neads to leapfrog and go with x300 and x600 gpu's that would sell.

[Zaty]

mac users wont buy what apple offers if what apple offers is crap they will stick with what they have got or get a pc, that excuse is crap if apple makes a kick ass imac like the g3 imacs were they will sell well, untill then they will not sell well.

I hope you're right because that's the only way that would Apple force to reconsinder their plans.

[mvc]

Yes, but that's an education only machine, students won't need core image for writing e-mails and papers.

Hmm, but the point of coreimage is that most developers and software can and will use it easily. Apple's own apps will use it. Quicktime will use it. Preview will probably use it. There is no way a brand new Mac of any flavour, education or otherwise, will fail to support it.

Its called COREimage for a reason.

This rumour is seriously messed up, and probably terminal :rolleyes:

[JW Pepper]

I hope that Apple are reading these comments because it is abundantly clear that this product could go the way of the CUBE.

No one is really bothered about the processor speed, that will scale.


But...

There are two issues the percieved problem of a very low end GF card

and

The very real problem of very small HDD, 160gb has to be the minimium.

An iPod and the OS can take 80gb, video editing needs atleast a further 20-30 gb and that is just with one project on the go.

Fixing the GF is probably a small cost, the HDD must be a BTO option and for goodness sake make BT standard on all machines.

[Mord]

I hope you're right because that's the only way that would Apple force to reconsinder their plans.

the annoying thing is they will probably sell okish slightly better thsn the imac g4 for a bit and then slump back down

[Mord]

I hope that Apple are reading these comments because it is abundantly clear that this product could go the way of the CUBE.


at least the cube was a good mac just a little pricey, this imac g5 sucks and is expencive.

now that we want a cube apple is giveing us a crappy imac, :mad:

[Stella]

2200 for a high end model is way too expensive if the rumours are true.

Apple should be aiming for lower model < $1000...

[Penman]

ah. that makes sense. In that case it sounds cool. I still have an issue with the lack of an optical drive though...

I disagree - it'll look almost identical to an Apple LCD in my view. I think the whole line will look the same. Also - the depth of the unit will give an idea of the cooling needs of a G5. I'm sure that the iMacs are going to be a good indicator of how small you can make an existing G5 box. If they're big an full of fans it'll be a clear indication to me that the current G5 will never see a PowerBook.

[vouder17]

Isn't this the same rumor site that said that apple "laughed" at the iMac G5 rumours floating around.
Well i am slightly doubtful about these specs, i believe that there may be a educational model but perhaps something a bit cheaper and with a few less specs.
And i think that the high end model will be a bit more explosive..
Who knows lets wait and see....

[TorbX]

Sounds good! can't wait to see some pictures. I'm sure they'll dazzle over those sony's. blech.

what sony's?

[mosfet]

I just hope its got an agp slot or at least 9200 Ati graphics.
I've got a powerbook 12" and I am very sorely dissapointed in the 5200 graphics.

A lot of families may not want an uber machine, but if you just want to word process and check email, then you might as well get a $300 PC. :(

[dieselg4]

Umm, no optical drives on the low-end model? I mean, I understood why Apple stopped installing floppy drives in their machines, but I think it's a little to early to call optical drives obsolete.

I for one hope these rumors are untrue. Besides the processor and sata drives, these new iMacs would not be much of an improvement over the previous models.

I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't see how information sould be stolen using a plain CD ROM. In a univeristy setting, they'll either buy the next model up, or throw a bunch of ZIP drives (if people still use these - I was in college in the late 90's and thery were everywhere) on them.

[reyesmac]

After seeing what a 1.6 G5 can do I am already not impressed by this iMac. It should look sweet but it will need to be replaced too quickly, especially with that graphics card. I think the no optical drive model will only be sold thru the edu applestore. People shouldn't complain about it since its for schools and not for individuals or even students. Apple does not seem to have learned from past iMac mistakes. When/if it flops, I won't feel too bad about it. Its an average computer being sold for a higher than normal price with lower than normal amount of ram.

[Zaty]

Hmm, but the point of coreimage is that most developers and software can and will use it easily. Apple's own apps will use it. Quicktime will use it. Preview will probably use it. There is no way a brand new Mac of any flavour, education or otherwise, will fail to support it.

Its called COREimage for a reason.

This rumour is seriously messed up, and probably terminal :rolleyes:

That doesn't mean those apps won't run at all, just think about all those older Macs whose GPU doesn't support core image, either

[dieselg4]

Obviously, not everyone has the same needs. While I agree with you that there are many people who don't need the latest and greates hardware available, don't forget that iMacs are relativley expensive computers and for $2,200 I think you can expect a decent gpu and at least 512 MB of ram. I'm aware that comparing an iMac with a $ 2,200 PC is like comparing apples with oranges, but especially those fanatic Mac heads who blindly approve what ever Apple does should at least a have look beyond the world of the Mac to see what is going on technologically the whole wide world of computing. Don't forget, there are quite a few PCs out there which would be nice machines if they're were not running Windows. As for gamers, I think Apple really doesn't care about you, sadly but true.

For gamers, it prorbably safe to say that game manufactures don't care about you either. :-)

[MacSA]

"Pricing is expected to be in the $1300 - $2200 range, but higher prices haven't been ruled out.

Starting with an education-aimed model lacking any optical drives presumably to replace the current eMac"

Do they mean replace the current eMac completely? :eek: :eek: The eMac is currently available for £549 in the UK, the $1300 - $2200 price range of the new iMac is too high for me and many other people I would bet. If thats the cheapest Mac that Apple will offer in the future, NO WAY will I be switching.

[joeboy_45101]

If this is true then I'm kind of disappointed. Everything seems to be good except the graphics card and that they didn't make the superdrive the standard. I think most people won't be satisfied with the iMac G5, it's not going to be a surprise to anybody. We've had too much time to speculate about this thing.

[dieselg4]

2200 for a high end model is way too expensive if the rumours are true.

Apple should be aiming for lower model < $1000...

Agreed. The entry level iMac should be sub $1000, even if it is $999. This is even more important if they drop the CRT eMac. How much is a 17" panel these days? If they can bundle it in a P4 Dell for $799, I should be able to get a "slow" G5 iMac for $999.

[Mord]

"Pricing is expected to be in the $1300 - $2200 range, but higher prices haven't been ruled out.

Starting with an education-aimed model lacking any optical drives presumably to replace the current eMac"

Do they mean replace the current eMac completely? :eek: :eek: The eMac is currently available for £549 in the UK, the $1300 - $2200 price range of the new iMac is too high for me and many other people I would bet. If thats the cheapest Mac that Apple will offer in the future, NO WAY will I be switching.

there not going to replace the emac the imac you have to add the duty apple pays for getting the things to the uk and the magical stuff costs more in the uk tax and it will cost £799

[MacSA]

there not going to replace the emac the imac you have to add the duty apple pays for getting the things to the uk and the magical stuff costs more in the uk tax and it will cost £799


Sorry, none of that made sense.

A $1300 computer in the US would be about £1000 here in the UK. Thats twice the price of the eMac.

[Trimix]

probably it was the steve-master who 'leaked' some specs just to fall laughing out of his hospital bed, reading our frantic responses.
then aug 31 will come and we all will go woppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
amex is charged, visa is charged, ready to do battle :D

[mpopkin]

I think it is unaccurate, all models will probably have an optical drive even the education because emacs have optical drives(?what were the rumor people thinking?) I think the graphics cards will be higher up/more powerful because they are the same as used in the last gen imacs, but the processors are on cue i think

[Porchland]

Umm, no optical drives on the low-end model? I mean, I understood why Apple stopped installing floppy drives in their machines, but I think it's a little to early to call optical drives obsolete.

I for one hope these rumors are untrue. Besides the processor and sata drives, these new iMacs would not be much of an improvement over the previous models.

Apple must have some plan for how to install software. Whisper it into the microphone. Psst! 010101100100100101...

[joeboy_45101]

ThinkSecret could be wrong--they have been before, like any rumor site. Their record is good lately, though--as is MacRumors' judgment of what makes Page One. I think the specs have a good chance of being right.

Don't judge them too much on the edu model though: that's for a specific need and won't be available to most of us anyway. It's for basic no-frills computer labs. So the lack of a modem, optical drive--and maybe even Core Video support--could all make perfect sense as cost-saving measures.

Well, most of the specs sound believable to me. I wouldn't rule out being able to upgrade the graphics card with a built to order option. I'm not going to believe anything about an Apple product until I see it released. I remember about an month ago ThinkSecret was reporting that they definitely knew that the 4Gen iPod was going to come in colors. :rolleyes:

The only thing that boggles my mind is how Apple is going to allow this new iMac's screen to swivel. One of the things that I love about the iMac G4 is that you can share what you're working on with others by swinging the screen to the left or right.

[Mord]

Sorry, none of that made sense.

A $1300 computer in the US would be about £1000 here in the UK. Thats twice the price of the eMac.

actually looking into it a $1300 ibook is £899 here.

i miss read your post a thought that it was your opinion that the imac will replace the emac price wise.

(and btw 5200=9200 performance wise and 5200= geforce 3, 9200 = radeon 9000 the 9000 and the 9200 are the same cards just re-badged and with agp 8x support but the 5200 is just similar performance wise to the geforce 3)

[Mord]

Apple must have some plan for how to install software. Whisper it into the microphone. Psst! 010101100100100101...

you know you can install stuff over a network :rolleyes:

[Mord]

probably it was the steve-master who 'leaked' some specs just to fall laughing out of his hospital bed, reading our frantic responses.
then aug 31 will come and we all will go woppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
amex is charged, visa is charged, ready to do battle :D

i damn well hope so, but a rumor like this has to be confirmed by many people so maybe steve got some friends to help him :p

[whooleytoo]

I'd love to think these specs were leaked by Apple to test the waters (or lower expectations before the release).

And somewhere in Apple some bean counter is reading this and going "Eeeuuuh! Better not release THAT".

[Porchland]

Last week I was really excited for the new iMac. That has since changed.

R-U-M-O-R-S. Give it a couple of weeks.

[Stella]

@mvc

I think you are absolutely correct. These new iMacs not supporting core Graphics would be a farce. Apple would want new machines to support all OS functions. Imagine if Apple released new iMacs that weren't compatible with Quartz? No, it just wouldn't happen.

People know that Tiger will be out soon-ish, and I really don't think apple will be so shortsighted to release machines NOW that wouldn't take advantage of Tiger.

I hope not... Apple aren't that dumb... are they?

You don't need a high powered computer to support Core Graphics... Core Graphics isn't brand new technology - i.e., only takes advantage of technology in newly released Graphic Cards. you just need a mid-range graphics card.. And that isn't too much to ask.

[Sun Baked]

Well if we intend to see the machines on store shelves August 31st, it's most likley too late to cry about the specs now.

[stockscalper]

After waiting so long these are weak specs. How about a single 2GHZ processor in the high end model and a 1.8GHZ in the low end? By the time the imacs come out the standard G5's should be sporting faster cpu's. Besides they come in dual configs anyway. And the graphics cards on the imacs are very lame. At those prices one would do much better buying the low end regular G5.

[imaswitcheryeah]

I don't see any mention of Bluetooth in this news item (and i have to go to work, so i can't read the entire thread), but i'm sure it will have and optional module, or maybe standard on all models?? ;)

[izzle22]

I Wish everyone would get over the whole graphic card deal. It's just an iMac and the graphic card is fine for everyday use. If you want to play games buy a playstation for $200.00. I have the same card in my 2.0 G5 and I have no vid quality problems so get over it.

[flyfish29]

Umm, no optical drives on the low-end model? I mean, I understood why Apple stopped installing floppy drives in their machines, but I think it's a little to early to call optical drives obsolete.

I for one hope these rumors are untrue. Besides the processor and sata drives, these new iMacs would not be much of an improvement over the previous models.

They are stinkin consumer models! Look at them for what they are. I am so sick and tired of everyone crapping all over every new iMac. Has anyone ever been happy with the iMac on this message board besides me :rolleyes: :mad: Apple has made a decision *long ago* that they would make the consumer iMac a machine that does a good job for most consumer needs and they decide to spend quite a bit on form factor designing something that catches the eye, etc. and makes the company more visible. It does cost more to design and produce the iMac. Sure they could take away the nice form factors and put in a better video card, etc. but they chose differntly and probably always will. Get over it and buy what fits you best.

Sorry to pick your post to reply to cause it is not just yours, but it is a huge improvement over the previous. New form factor which is desperately needed (I personaly love the form factor of the current iMac. My only complaint with the current iMac is the drive is too low and bumps into the keyboard when I eject.

Lets remember who these computers are for. You can't have the best computer specs and the cheapest prices.

<-------stepping off soap box now!

[bwintx]

Oh, one more thing...

Apple will NOT discontinue the $799 eMac and replace it with a $1299 low-end model. That would be corporate suicide...

Hope you're right. While some on these forums seem to be able to amass a stock of Macs that would put Jay Leno's fleet of collectible autos to shame, some of us find anything over $1,000 a real pain to afford.

[csubear]

I expect that they will keep there current price points and config. So lets not freak out.

17" 1.6 (not edu) 1399
17" 1.8 1799
20" 1.8 2100?

My guess is that they are going to look something like the current displays (except white)

[Adam Young]

Wanna see a mockup of the new iMac G5?

http://homepage.mac.com/adamyoung/PhotoAlbum6.html

[Mord]

I Wish everyone would get over the whole graphic card deal. It's just an iMac and the graphic card is fine for everyday use. If you want to play games buy a playstation for $200.00. I have the same card in my 2.0 G5 and I have no vid quality problems so get over it.

the gpu dose not just effect games, your dual 2GHz g5 would be allot snappyer if you got a 9600xt it affects over all speed because a 5200 bottlenecks the speed.

it's fine for browsing but for video editing and photoshop it slices the speed in two

the price increase fo apple puting a 9600 in there is so small for such a huge proformence leap

[ShadowHunter]

You guys all need to get your panties out of a wad...

1. As far as no optical drive, it is EDUCATION computer. I've seen countless computer labs that NEVER used their external media drives. For any loading of software, just use the network. In those extremely rare, absolutely necessary cases, have you ever heard of an external CD drive? They're not expensive, and 1 could serve the needs of an entire school's labs.

2. What is wrong with the specs? People like us buy the PMs, for the raw power. The people purchasing these computers check their emails to grandma, type up essays, and a few even use iMovie.....these imacs will smoke the previous model.

3. What is this complaining about video card? You can't expect Apple to put dual G5 with 4 DIMM slots of RAM, and a Radeon 9800Pro in their low-end computer, good lord. Those video cards are perfectly adequate for everything, except the highest of gaming technology. If you want to buy a gaming computer, don't buy an imac....that's the way its been for years.

[Mord]

It does cost more to design and produce the iMac. Sure they could take away the nice form factors and put in a better video card, etc.

it would cost them like $25 more per imac to put a 9600 in there and it would not affect the form factor the 9600 has similar cooling requirements to the 5200 but it is a much better card

[Mord]

3. What is this complaining about video card? You can't expect Apple to put dual G5 with 4 DIMM slots of RAM, and a Radeon 9800Pro in their low-end computer, good lord. Those video cards are perfectly adequate for everything, except the highest of gaming technology. If you want to buy a gaming computer, don't buy an imac....that's the way its been for years.

none said put a 9800pro in (however nice that would be) see my previous posts the 5200 is a really bad card and will drag that g5 down and act as a bottle neck, it would only cost apple $25 more per imac and they would sell so much better

[ifjake]

i can see the processor speeds being what they are. in that compact type setting 2.0 Ghz would be too hot. hard drive's not to big a deal. nonoptical drive works for that network installation, though i did take stuff back and forth from school to home on disks. graphics cards do seem kinda lousy, but i guess if you want a gaming machine you'll have to get a powermac. the price is really bad though. the iMac shouldn't go above 2000 dollars unless you're customizing the heck out of it. i am starting to agree with people that the attached screen is starting to become the bane of the iMacs existance, forcing up the price. i saw a concept thing some german dude made of a headless G5 cube "iMac" that had the color schemes and look and feel of the iPod mini, and man it was the coolest looking thing i have seen in a while. yeah they have it on www.cubeowner.com (http://www.cubeowner.com) now. i hope apple takes notice.

[tsheley]

I think everyone is missing the point with the gaming here. Sure a better graphics card would be nice but if I want to play games I am going to spend $149 on a xBox or PS2. I can't wait for these to be released. I sold my G4 Cube and can't wait for the 17" Combo-Drive model. I may even shoot for the 20" depending on price.

Just an opinion.

[iMeowbot]

I Wish everyone would get over the whole graphic card deal. It's just an iMac and the graphic card is fine for everyday use. If you want to play games buy a playstation for $200.00. I have the same card in my 2.0 G5 and I have no vid quality problems so get over it.
Yep, it's a safe bet that hardware-accelerated posterizing isn't going to make Xcode run a lick faster.

Yeah yeah yeah, can't be running Xcode on an iMac, 'cause it's not a "professional" machine :rolleyes: Yeesh, some residents of this board have a weird, warped and narrow idea of what constitutes professional applications.

[stockscalper]

Check out the latest graphics cards tests on barefeats.com. The 5200 straight out sucks. It gets blown away very badly in every single test. For the money the 5200 costs you can buy a much more powerful Radeon card.

[MacCoaster]

WTF. No optical drives on the entry model? How the heck do you expect to restore the darn thing? Specs absolutely blow.

If those are indeed real, I guess I won't be buying a G5 iMac or even recommend it, unless someone really doesn't know how to connect a monitor to a computer.

I'd have felt better with 2.0 GHz G5, a better gfx card.

[Lewisham]

2. What is wrong with the specs? People like us buy the PMs, for the raw power. The people purchasing these computers check their emails to grandma, type up essays, and a few even use iMovie.....these imacs will smoke the previous model.

I'm going to call shenanigans on that one.

People like us *want* PowerMacs. We can't all afford them.

PowerMac = Professional Workstation. If I hear it described as a gamer's equivalent I will scream (not at you though :) ), it is far too expensive for that and hardcore gamers don't use Macs. That is true, but games are out there, and families are playing them. Families aren't buying PowerMacs for Mum to get recipes off the web, Dad typing emails and little Timmy playing Doom III.

iMac = Consumer. Which is pretty much everyone who can't afford the PowerMac.

eMac = Budget option, large business cheap-and-cheerful deployment.

As has been said over and over again, the iMac is for everyone. The PowerMac is priced too high for most. But the way you see the world, everyone should be using eMacs. eMacs do everything you said they would. Why have an iMac at all? The bigger screens make no use, the iMacs natural home is in a study or tucked away, people aren't watching DVDs on it.

So why are people buying iMacs at all? People are buying iMacs for more than typing letters. They're doing lots of other things. They'll be playing World of Warcraft, editing iMovies (as you rightly say), Photoshop Elements, a bit of Doom III, running loads of Office apps in one go. This sort of stuff. PowerMacs are for businesses who do real heavy duty Maya/Lightwave, Photoshop.

But mainly, they're buying security. Safe in the knowledge that their iMac will last. iMac buyers have a right to expect that it will be sweet running today's software, and pretty good for the next year whatever comes. That's not going to be the case. That's what consumer PCs do now, so why not the consumer Mac? PowerMacs are running everything now fantastically, and will perform well for years and years.

iMacs should be looking for a 3 year shelf-life, until the user decides that Quake 4 and Photoshop Elements 3 is running too slow for them. These specs don't go near enough :(

Chris

[Hattig]

For what the iMac is - a limited market product for an integrated, high cost, low performance machine, the specs seem reasonable.

I personally don't like having integrated computers - I don't see the purpose, especially when they cost so much. I'd rather get a Powerbook. Apple need to release a sexy powerful small form factor system without an integrated monitor.

This new imac, if the specs are correct: The processor speed is more than adequate. The RAM is okay, there will be BTO upgrade option, and it isn't the cruel 128MB that Dell and the like will happily sell you on their low end, and get the BTO upgrade whilst listing a low "base model" price. The hard drive is okay for most of the target audience, but again, there should be BTO options for 160GB, 300GB and so on.

The graphics are weak. They aren't upgradable because it is an iMac, and going with the FX5200 is a very bad decision. Maybe it will be enough for Tiger. Will it be enough for Tiger+1 though? If the graphics was on a daughter-board within the system that would be okay, someone could make a replacement with better graphics, or Apple could offer better graphics as a BTO option. But no, every iMac is stuck with the 5200. On the other hand, it beats integrated graphics on the low end PCs, but most of these also have an AGP slot for upgrades. The card is not enough for casual gaming, unless someone who has just paid $2000+ for a new computer wants to play Doom 3 at 640x480 and low frame rates ... and people will wonder why their new $2000 computer cannot do that and complain.

Hopefully people who buy these machines can get 5 years use out of them. I certainly don't expect any less from a monitor, and this will have the problem of being attached to a sub-par computer in just a couple of years. That's why I like separate components.

[MacsRgr8]

none said put a 9800pro in (however nice that would be) ...

I did (check a couple of hundred of posts back :p ) .

Well, at least I was suggesting the option for the "high-end" iMac. The Radeon 9800 Pro (not XT) is more than a year old, and by no means only for the highest of gaming performance.
I would love to see Apple giving the consumers options:
Multiple configs, or CTO. Like being able to choose between hard disks and/or grfx cards. Don't think Apple will do so though :rolleyes:

[bwintx]

Don't judge them too much on the edu model though: that's for a specific need and won't be available to most of us anyway. It's for basic no-frills computer labs. So the lack of a modem, optical drive--and maybe even Core Video support--could all make perfect sense as cost-saving measures.

In the real world, "basic no-frills computer labs" almost always have minimally acceptable (and often quite old) PeeCees, usually with aging CRTs unless the labs got a deal on a large quantity of LCDs. I don't mean just labs in inner-city schools, either; I mean also labs in substantial colleges and universities. Those who stock them are concerned with (a) price, (b) Micro$oft compatibility, and (c) price. Would that it weren't true, but it is. Those of you going to schools where they do have the sense to go with Macs are fortunate.

[eric_n_dfw]

the gpu dose not just effect games, your dual 2GHz g5 would be allot snappyer if you got a 9600xt it affects over all speed because a 5200 bottlenecks the speed.

it's fine for browsing but for video editing and photoshop it slices the speed in two

the price increase fo apple puting a 9600 in there is so small for such a huge proformence leapI agree with most everyone that the rumored graphics cards are less than spectacular. However, what current video editing app or Photoshop version even cares what video card you have? FCP HD sure doesn't. When CoreGraphics is available, though, hopefully you'll be right.

Motion does, but it's not video editing (and I'd have to guess that in order export anything you do in Motion to a .mov file, there's going to be rendering time - not sure if that can be offloaded to the GPU)

PS: The earlier coments someone made about the 64 bit-ness of the G5 not be a big deal are, somewhat, true except that the massive front-side bus speed difference makes the G4 just look silly.

[Mord]

I did (check a couple of hundred of posts back :p ) .

Well, at least I was suggesting the option for the "high-end" iMac. The Radeon 9800 Pro (not XT) is more than a year old, and by no means only for the highest of gaming performance.
I would love to see Apple giving the consumers options:
Multiple configs, or CTO. Like being able to choose between hard disks and/or grfx cards. Don't think Apple will do so though :rolleyes:

if only the world could understand how bad a 5200 is

[Mord]

I agree with most everyone that the rumored graphics cards are less than spectacular. However, what current video editing app or Photoshop version even cares what video card you have? FCP HD sure doesn't. When CoreGraphics is available, though, hopefully you'll be right.

Motion does, but it's not video editing (and I'd have to guess that in order export anything you do in Motion to a .mov file, there's going to be rendering time - not sure if that can be offloaded to the GPU)

renders get a boost in speed and the general spped of the mac increases as the gpu takes the load from the cpu, the 5200 bottlenecks it as it cant deal with the info being sent from a g5 cpu. check out benchmarks that have many apps testing the 5200 vs a 9600 or a better nvidia card a like a 5600.

[crap freakboy]

I would love to see Apple giving the consumers options:
Multiple configs, or CTO. Like being able to choose between hard disks and/or grfx cards. Don't think Apple will do so though :rolleyes:


that'd be nice, or a gpu that can be changed would be more than nice. Least that way I could upgrade when I needed to. Bottom line is for me I'd rather save for a Dual G5 PM with a CRT. Thats me though isn't it? :)
Must admit I need something sooner than later, this G4 sawtooth is really showing its age...be sad to see it go.

[applekid]

My breakdown:

- The Education Machine: Fair game. Seems alright.
As far as our consumer machines go:
- The CPU: quite alright. Just as expected. I was hoping for 2.0 GHz at the high-end, but 1.8 GHz will do fine.
- Optical Drives: We should get to SuperDrives. And maybe dual-layer...
- HD: plenty. I've yet to fill my 80 GB on my G4 iMac.
- RAM: Uh-oh! We need 512 MB. I can only hope both slots are accessible unlike the current iMac line. I doubt a BTO iMac with at least one 1 GB stick is cheap.
- Graphics card: Alright, it's just crap. And I never heard of a GeForce MX 5200 Ultra. Search Google, you'll find typos and some weird looking foreign stuff, but not the real card. Either it's new, or it's really the FX. But, let me just say an MX is not reassuring at all. However, let's not rule out upgradability. ThinkSecret hasn't ruled or ruled out upgradability of the graphics card and other parts. It probably won't be upgradable, but we've still got a couple of weeks for things to show up.

[blakespot]

No optical drives on the low end? How do I load Tiger when it comes out? I dunno about the rest of it, but they will have at least a CDR drive. At least. Seriously, how would you install anything?? And a CDR is like $10 more than a CD-ROM these days. At least a CDR.

-p-

Across the network.



blakespot

[phasornc]

In many school lab situations an optical drive is just a security hazard. Another way for people to install their own OS and install trojans/worms or spam servers. The lack of optical drive makes sense when you have students that have network space or (in Apples dreams) iPods.

Having said that, the prices are a joke. Apple needs to stop living with 1998 prices. Computer are cheap now. I for one won't buy one, 80gb HD? Do they even still sell drives that small? 80gb is a joke for the consumer market if you are pushing people to digitize there music and make imovies. At 20gb per hour DV takes up a lot of space.

phasor

wait.. mounted on the back.. isn't that the same as the original imacs?
and weren't those annoying because they took up a lot of desk space....?
and I should think that even schools with their limited needs would want an optical drive... I mean will the mac OSX install discs be on USB drives?

some parts of this seem very odd...

[NusuniAdmin]

only 2 gigs of ddr memory...yuck.

Crappy video card.

[gekko513]

I think the biggest problem with this article is that the edu-model is presented first. The edu-model looks like crap from a consumer perspective. It looks, however, like it's brilliant for computer labs. All the components in the edu-model seem to be chosen as to reduce cost, so I expect, if this rumor is true, that the edu-model will go for less than $1200.

The $1300-$2200 range is probably for the consumer models. The consumer models aren't so bad if they are to compete against consumer PCs who for the low end usually have integrated GPUs with shared memory, and in the mid-range also often use the Geforce 5200 GPU.

I know someone who bought a Dell setup with 19" display and Geforce 5200 a couple of months ago for $2100, so this doesn't seem so bad.

I really hope the $1300-$2200 range doesn't include the edu-model!!

[wwooden]

Steve Said with the debut of the last iMac model that mounting an optical drive vertically is very unefficient. There are limits to how fast a drive can operate when in the vertical postion.

This same thing happened last time the iMac was changed. Before this last iMac design came out, people thought it would be an all-in-one design with the computer and optical drive behind the screen, like that Sony. I really don't think this is what is going to happen, Apple likes to create new designs and this wouldn't be something we hadn't seen before.

BUT.... if they did it, I sure they figured out a way to make it look cool. :)

[Converted2Truth]

A $2200 dollar computer with nearly ZERO upgradability and a crappy $50 video card... sounds like the crappiest iMac they've ever put togather! People would be better off buying a dual 1.8 and a nice CRT! Damn Apple! Why don't you support mac gaming?!

[jiggie2g]

I see why Jobs didn't introduce this at the WWDC , americans would have let him have it after seeing those crappy specs, maybe the French will be a little more merciful to him.

i'm sorry i can't look at this and say i'm excited because i'm not at all. this is way below my expectations especially when compared to the Dell Opti-plex which is state of the art compared to this mess. here are some points.

New G5 iMac

G5 CPU 1.6-1.8 whle i realize that apple has to keep the chips slower to protect sales of Power macs would asking for a single 2.0ghz chip on the top end really have affected sales much? It's still just one chip compared to 2 for the lowend power mac. Dual 1.8's will still kick the crap out of a single 2.0ghz so what's the deal apple.

Video cards GF 4MX/GF FX 5200

now this is where i really have a problem. I know the imac is for consumers only but does that mean we can't play any games at all. why should we need to spend $2-3K on a power mac for the privlage of playing Halo when i can do so on $700 PC. does any one realize that the GF 4MX came out in 2002 , the same year the last gen iMac was released. the GF FX5200 is almost as old (2003)
would it really have been unreasonable apple to include a Radeon 9600XT I mean they are kinda old now they should be cheap. although the new Readon X600 would have been perffered. (64mb video cards u gotta be kidding).

80-160GB Serial ATA hard drives

well the SATA part is good but the capacity is a realy bummer. is this not mid-2004 cuz i can't remember with these spec's 120GB drives should be standard no if's and but's about it just like 60GB was back in 2002. I hate the fact that apple always has to seriously cripple thier Consumer lines because they are to paranoid about messing with PM sales.

256MB DDR ram

now when i brought my iMac it came with 256MB ram , the problem is that was back in Feb 2002. rev1 2nd gen 15in iMac 800mhz 2x super drive. that was state of the art for a consumer machine this is not. Did Apple miss the memo saying the whole comp industry has moved on to 512 being standard ...even on cheap'o $800 PC's

Slot loading drive

now i really don't like this eyecandy crap, not only are slot drives much more likely to screw up but now i can't even change the optical drive when i want to upgrade to a faster burner. atleast i could have done this with my old iMac. one less thing that is now upgradable, u would have appreciated it more if apple didn't spend so much money on fancy BS like this and could have put that money into the Video card , Ram or bigger HD. a OEM 16X DVD +/-RW burner would have made much more sense since new egg has them. Pioneer has the DVR-108 out now for about $100.

I don't have any beef with the monitors they are beautiful.


other stuff i would have liked

Giga bit Ethernet 10/100/1000
now some will say that this is no needed in a consumer machine but ,i beg to differ in 2yrs 30Mb/5Mb broadband will be out once Fiber Fios takes over DSL. the extra bandwidth would help. besides gigabit ethernet is no longer a pro feature as it somes standard in cheap $75 Asus & Abit mother boards.

Optical Audio in/out
this is also in standard those cheap'o Mother boards i just mentioned. so this was expected.

PCI Express
for the Love of GOD Apple why not include this. as u will need it in the long run. even Dells OptiPlex has this standard w/ open/free slots.

as it stands Dell has really dealt the new iMac a kick in the ass . not that i would buy a freaken Dell but from a technical stand point the OptiPlex has been out for over a month and is already superior to Apples as yet to be Released iMac .

maybe i was expecting a lil too much , but Apple is supposed to be the leader in Innovation. this is not an innovation this was simply the logical next step as G4s are obsolete. all they did wasplay it safe and take the next step rather than blow our socks off. I am very Disappointed in Apples lack of Effort here. this is basically last years mid-low end half ass crippled
power mac G5s squeezed into a pizza box.

Apple I expect better. i was hoping for something more impressive because i need a new comp and dont have $3k for a power mac /monitor combo, but having seen this i will just put together a kick ass AMD Athlon 64 machine that will Murder this imac at 1/2 the price , prob make it dual boot
XP Pro/ Mandrake Linux 10

[webman2k]

I have no problem with the reported specs, with a STRONG exception for the graphics card. That level graphics card is completely unacceptable. Games coming out now barely run smoothly with 64mb - in a year, those who bought these machines wouldn't be able to play ANYTHING new, except for some shareware games and the likes (not that those are bad :)

I would upgrade my flat screen for a 128mb card, but not just 32 more megs of VRAM.

[Ensoniq]

The Think Secret article all seems to make sense, EXCEPT the video card.

They clearly state "GeForce MX 5200". However, I cannot find that card existing anywhere.

There is a "GeForce FX 5200", which is in the current iMacs.

There is a "GeForce MX 5600", which is a newer chip.

But again, I could not find a link via Google to a "GeForce MX 5200". So if we're lucky, TS's snitch just got it wrong, and it will actually be the MX 5600 OR the FX 5600 graphics chip. Both are superior to the 5200, and offer DX9 /CoreImage/CoreVideo support.

I can't believe Apple would release a new iMac that doesn't properly support CoreImage. *crossing fingers*

[sigamy]

1) you're buying an apple, not a pc (doesn't matter what make, a pc is a pc.) you can't compare a low cost dell to a low cost mac- there will never be a price competitive macintosh; that would be like asking for a bmw that has a price competitive with a ford. it's not going to happen.

Wait until next year when the 2005 BMW 1 Series hits the market. It will start in the low 20s. Saab has the 9-2x and Volvo has the S40. The luxury car makers are realizing that there are other markets out there. Apple should do the same....

[craigiest]

No optical drives on the low end? How do I load Tiger when it comes out? I dunno about the rest of it, but they will have at least a CDR drive. At least. Seriously, how would you install anything?? And a CDR is like $10 more than a CD-ROM these days. At least a CDR.

-p-

How will you install anything?? YOU won't. It's for schools. All sorts of maintainance can be done over the network. Why would you want to go from machine to machine inserting CDs when you can click a couple buttons on the admin machine and copy a HD image to 25 machines at once? In an emergency, you can plug in an external drive. Optical drives in schools are bad news. Kids stick crap in them and they quit working anyway.

[iProbot]

allow me disagree. i have been sitting here with my first generation swivel i-mac, 15inch and so far it has served me well.

anyhow i keep learning a lot from you out there - thanks

Cool! If there would not be a site like MacRumors, with a lot of people telling us what kinda Macs they use at home, we would still be just satisfied with an iMac like yours, just because it's good enough!

:D

[NusuniAdmin]

GET OVER IT PEOPLE THIS IS A RUMOR OK? NEVER EVER EVER GO ON AND ON AND ON OVER A STUPID RUMOR OK? jeese. DOnt you people have hobbies except for complaning about everything?

[g.money]

I would buy this iMac if-AND ONLY IF-the display can be used as an external second display (mirror like the powerbook). That way, when the specs become old and I grab a powerbook G6 in a few years, I can get the 12" one and plug it in to my 4-year old iMac 20" widescreen display. :D

What do you think the chances are that the screen could be used separately from the pc? It would definitely help silence all those that want a separate display for the iMac (I assume for $/value purposes) and at the same time keep the design all in one!

[LimeiBook86]

Don't you all see what's happening here? Steve Jobs is in his hospital bed right now laughing at us because of all this G5 iMac talk. He probably submitted this story, lol. :D

I don't think these specs are real, :rolleyes: the processor sounds about right, but a G5 computer should have more power in the Graphics Card and Hard Drive sections. I mean it's a G5 we're talking about, not some low-end G4!

When the eMacs beat the iMacs, that will be a sad day... ;)

[1macker1]

Your exactly right. The market for the so called elite group of people isn't as profitable as the market for us common folks.
Wait until next year when the 2005 BMW 1 Series hits the market. It will start in the low 20s. Saab has the 9-2x and Volvo has the S40. The luxury car makers are realizing that there are other markets out there. Apple should do the same....

I don't know squat about graphics cards, but I do know that my 800 Mhz G4 iMac has a GF4 MX in it. And it was purchased Jan. 2003. So why are they still putting these card into a newer G5 iMac. sheeesh.

[ibook_g4_user]

I found this swedish apple keynote parody :)

teddybear keynote :) (http://gam.csbnet.se/~cbswe/forelasning.html)

[OziMac]

Will be interesting to see what the iMac G5s end up looking like.

As far as stripping down the education model goes, I have one problem -

If education users / student computer labs have needs so conservative that they don't even require optical drives, they why in god's name do they need a G5 processor right now? Just pump up the eMac or make a cost-efficient LCD G4 Mac that would cost half as much as this G5 monster, and give 'consumers' what they really need/want for a computer that should last a few more years at least...

[LimeiBook86]

GET OVER IT PEOPLE THIS IS A RUMOR OK? NEVER EVER EVER GO ON AND ON AND ON OVER A STUPID RUMOR OK? jeese. DOnt you people have hobbies except for complaning about everything?

I like to draw. :D


Seriously though I do agree with you.
"Don't bite the hand that feeds you."
"Take what you can get."
"Use the force Luke!"

[iomar]

This is really sad. I was expacting a lot more from Apple. I would say at lest a 2GH iMac would have been good. I do n't know why we still see the 1.6GH chips, specially when it is single processer. I think Apple can do better and I hope to find out that this is not true.

[Object-X]

comictimes... the originals were crt, so they were deep... this will be pretty flat. Think Powerbook with the lid inverted, no keyboard or hinge.


You meant G5 Powerbook right? ;) Sorry, it just wouldn't be a proper rumor without a PB plug.

Edit: Oh, been mentioned already, see what happens when you fall asleep.

[fabsgwu]

Umm, no optical drives on the low-end model? I mean, I understood why Apple stopped installing floppy drives in their machines, but I think it's a little to early to call optical drives obsolete.

I for one hope these rumors are untrue. Besides the processor and sata drives, these new iMacs would not be much of an improvement over the previous models.

that is the low end for the education market. Besides, there are plenty of good firewire drives out there if you want to add a burner etc.

[fabsgwu]

You meant G5 Powerbook right? ;) Sorry, it just wouldn't be a proper rumor without a PB plug.

This is clearly a big step towards getting the G5 in a powerbook :)

[Object-X]

This is clearly a big step towards getting the G5 in a powerbook :)

Yup, I get the feeling we will be seeing one come January.

[grabberslasher]

I don't know if anybody else noticed (I could only bear to read the first two pages of comments) but these iMacs lack bluetooth. They work with a wired keyboard/mouse only.

That IMO is ******** up. Anyway, I won't be buying one - I receive my 17inch Powerbook 1.5Ghz (with the 128Mb gfx card) on Wednesday.

Hehe, I couldn't wait for a G5, but so long as Doom3 plays on the new machine then I'll be happy.

:D

[rickag]

:(
If these spec's are accurate or even close, Apple will not achieve their stated goal of increasing market share.

[Wash!!]

Most of you are complaining on the specs of a rumor from a RUMOR SITE and taking it like it was gospel and true...please get a life :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:[B]

[Object-X]

What if the iMac's monitor could be detached? As I was thinking about why they would not sell a standalone 17" cinema, it occurred to me that the new monitor line can be mounted on a wall...like a TV. Could this new design allow for essentially the same thing? The monitor comes off and the pizza box case can be discretely placed out of the way. Perhaps they will finally come out with a headless mac. I can't believe that Apple would replace the eMac at $800 with an iMac at $1,300; the only advantage of that would be the ability to purchase the iMac without the monitor at $800. I know it's a longshot but I just woke up and it came to me in a dream. :rolleyes: