New iMacG5 : first comments and analysis

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Oct 18, 2005.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1
  2. macrumors member

    seriypshick

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Location:
    Everywhere
    #2
    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    What's next shared VRAM?

    Edited: C'mon apple this is so DELL - like.
     
  3. macrumors 603

    aswitcher

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Canberra OZ
    #3
    This is deliberate move by Apple to keep the iMac from competing to heavily with its PMs. Imagine a 4 Gig iMac G5...
     
  4. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #4

    Just my opinion but I've always thought that the iMac has slowly become something entirely different instead of how it started off from the beginning -- i.e. the Mac for everyone.

    Ahead of its time, if it had kept to its core function then we wouldn't have the Mini. Instead, it has become too expensive for your average home computer user and rivals many machines still in production environments.

    That's not to say it's a fantastically great machine but it now sits in the upper price band of Apple's computer offerings instead of at the bottom which is where it was when first released.

    Many of my friends who bought G3 iMacs when they first were released-- some of them still in use -- would never be able to afford to replace them with a new iMac today. The Mini instead would be the natural replacement.
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #5
    Why not?

    The original iMac cost $1,299. If your friends could afford that, why can't they afford today's iMac, which is exactly the same price?

    You do have a point about the iMac's position in Apple's overall lineup being very different now.
     
  6. macrumors G4

    Applespider

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
    #6
    I'm not so bothered about the 512MB RAM that's soldered on. For most iMac buyers (not the geeks on the message boards and their families), they'll probably never think about buying more RAM. If someone does mention more RAM if they're editing video etc, then they'll probably buy a GB stick, ask someone else to install it and be even happier. Most users don't need 4GB of RAM (which is what the iMac would offer if it wasn't soldered on). If they do, they buy Powermacs.

    The typical iMac buyers are the consumers who tend to just buy a new computer when they need one with more power and relegate the old one to the playroom/grandparents. They're not interested in upgrading it. Heck, if they're switchers, they're probably used to their old PC being so slow after 3 years that they trash it.

    And it's not Microsoft-like, MS don't build hardware.
     
  7. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #7
    Because the iMac is more expensive in the UK especially compared to your average PC and while they probably could afford it, they couldn't justify spending that sort of money on something for email, kids homework etc. In some ways, their expectations of a computer have remained virtually static while technology has marched on.
     
  8. macrumors G4

    Applespider

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
    #8
    Just looked at a few of the non-Apple desktops that we sell, the HPs are between £600 & £850 without a monitor. The Fujitsus are around £550 to £700 without a monitor. The Sonys with integrated monitors (and admittedly a TV tuner) are £1400+. Compared to those which are a similar quality, rather than Dell specials, £899 isn't that bad a deal.
     
  9. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #9
    Yeah, but you know as well as I do that something like a Packard Bell for £499-599 from PCWorld with TFT monitor is about the price range for many families... Comparisons between specs falls on deaf ears for these sorts of consumers. £400-500 difference is a lot of pennies especially when they might get some low-end peripherals thrown in as well in a sale or something.
     
  10. macrumors 68040

    gwuMACaddict

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    washington dc
    #10
    eeew... back to 512 being soldered on? so you cant even order it with more to start with? yuck...
     
  11. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #11
    I love all the excuses, soldered on memory is as bad as soldered on video. They both suck and help you move into the next computer :rolleyes: The same old game of instead of just making the best product they end up in a fight with another of their products. Here comes all those you dont need it kind of comments. :rolleyes: Throw away the isight and give the thing a real video card & memory.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    rosalindavenue

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    #12
    I think the most interesting thing in the MacBidioulle piece is the part that says "DIY is gone" -- excerpt:

    Forget the "Do it Yourself", Apple has dramatically changed the architecture of the computer, and it does not really accommodate the DIY program. The inside compartment of the new iMacG5 resembles more the one of a PowerBook; the number of individual piece/components has been strongly reduced, as well as the number of screws required to assemble the computer. This model is probably much less expensive to produce than the previous revision.

    The do it yourself/ "call us and we'll send you a replacement part you can install" idea was interesting; in a retro kind of way. No big surprise that it failed, I suppose. Sounds like they're returned to the lamp imac/laptop ideal that you should never crack the case, except possibly for RAM upgrades.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    #13
    Microsoft doesn't make computers.. ;)
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #14
    The original iMac cost about £1,100 in the UK, so I still don't see your point. The original iMac was a success despite its price, not because of it.
     
  15. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #15
    My point is that the iMac 'brand' has evolved to a higher-end machine and is too much computer for some people -- hence the Mini. A couple of my friends replaced their G3 iMacs with eMacs...

    For many people, the iMac is not the entry-level Mac it once was. Surely this is obvious?

    It's not a criticism of the iMac. It's just a recognition of the way it's moved upwards within the portfolio of Apple's computing products.
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #16
    That kind sucks, but it won't stop me from getting one.

    I really don't plan on putting 2.5 gigs of ram in an iMac. Like others have said, if I wanted something terribly powerful, I'd just get a PowerMac instead.

    The things I do with an iMac I can enjoy doing with 1.5 gigs of ram just fine.

    But, it is interesting that as the iMac evolves and moves its way up the Apple lines, that it becomes more and more difficult to upgrade. Seems somewhat contradicting.
     
  17. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #17
    Waiting for my order

    I orderd the 17" iMac Saturday, and I'm still waiting for an e-mail saying it was shipped. After reading this article, I am having second thoughts because I was contemplating between getting the 20" 2.0 Ghz refurbed model in the "save" section at the apple store and the new 17". I knew that there was only one available ram slot, but after reading the article, I'm thinking it would be cheaper to just get two 1 gig sticks than a 2 gig stick if I wanted to max out the iMac. The article said the difference in DDR and DDR2 is negligable. And the 20" screen is way nicer than the 17" screen. And since the article said that the "new" video card isn't that much better than the 9600 on the 20", maybe I should get the 20" now. Anyone have any opinions. It hasn't shipped yet so I can still cancel and get the 20". thanks.

    Note: I checked the status of it today, and it has already shipped. Oh well, I know I'll be happy.
     
  18. macrumors 68030

    CmdrLaForge

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Location:
    around the world
    #18
    Photo Booth and Front Row and iSight? What about them?

    If you don't care - get the 20"

    Cheers
     
  19. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #19

    I won an iSight at the Santa Monica Apple store opening 2 years ago, and I figure Photo Booth and Front Row should eventually be available for other computers. I have Salling Clicker so I use my cell phone as a remote, which is pretty nice. The new one has mighty mouse too. Any one else has an opinion? the 20" Rev. C vs. the 17" Rev. D?
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    Some_Big_Spoon

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #20
    Signalling that they may really have nothing to offer in the PM sector... The iMac was already a better buy, looks like they're very afraid of it being the same way.

    Oh well, how many years of gimmicks and deliberate cripplings till Intel macs?

     
  21. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #21
    No question. It has become the mid-range Mac, when it started out as the entry-level. (And interestingly, as you say, that doesn't mean a price shift--computers just got cheaper while the iMac got better.)

    It IS great to get an iSight for free--I never looked at it that way, in dollars, but that's a VERY nice savings. Or for other people, a nice luxury they wouldn't have bought otherwise.

    And the remote (despite being IR--for cost?) is too cool with the invisible magnet mount and the receiver hidden in the logo.


    "Its volume is much smaller than the original iSight, so the quality/performance must be different and it is reasonable to assume that it will not be as good as a true external iSight."

    I'll be interested to know the truth of that, but I do not think what they're saying makes sense here. How can they say the volume of the iSight in the iMac is smaller? Have they taken BOTH cams APART to look at the actual camera component? Because the iSight has airspace, microphone, lens cap, lens cap wheel mechanism, attachment for the cord, etc. It's not JUST optics in there. The iMac's massive case could easily fit what's needed--unless they're saying that the little hole means that the components inside can't possibly extend beyond the hole :eek: Again, I'd be interested to know the facts--but I see no reason to assume the worst. (Quality MUST be different?)


    "Apple Remote Control and FrontRow will turn the new iMacG5 into a media Center, and will please all users buying an iMacG5 for this purpose. But it might also show what could be in the future a true Apple Media Center that could be plugged to a TV or a Video projector."

    It's not meant to be a Media Center PC, and doesn't do the same things. And it can ALREADY be plugged into TV or projector.


    "it does not really accommodate the DIY program"
    That's too bad if true, I thought that self-diagnosis/self-repair was a great thing in the old iMac. Maybe it never caught on, or maybe a lot of people were carelessly doing damage?

    It's good that they've improved cooling vs. the original models.

    I wonder if this iMac can still use a VESA mount, and whether it needs a different VESA adapter from Apple? The back face is a different shape.


    If you think including "only" 512 on the iMac motherboard (it's tolerable, and adding 512 to make 1 GB is great for most people) then I suggest you don't look at OTHER computer companies ;) Have you seen the bait-and-switching and REAL intentional mind games they play at Dell for instance? At least 512 is just a cost vs. demand decision and not the kinds of games that many other PC makers play.
     
  22. Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #22
    To this day, the only reason my parents own a computer is because of the iMac (Summer 2000) priced at $799. Anything more expensive than that, and they wouldn't have bought. The iMac is in no way, shape, or form an entry-level machine now.
     
  23. macrumors 68000

    nospleen

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Location:
    Texas
    #23
    The new 17" imac screen is now as bright and has the same contrast ratio as the Rev B 20" imac. So, you will not see a difference there. However, the newest 20" is now even nicer. I am going with the new 17, the standard superdrive sealed the deal.
     
  24. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    #24

    Didn't Jobs say during the introduction that the built-in iSight was actually better than the stand alone version? I think he was referring to the resolution of the imager. Of course, other things determine picture quality as well, and they may be right that some compromises were made on that front in order to make the camera small enough to fit into the computer. I imagine that the lens might be smaller (greater distortion) and it might have limited autofocus abilities (does the regular isight have optical zoom?). Then again, it probably has less need for some of these features given its limited purpose. I'd bet they optimized it for good results when taking pictures/video from 1-2 feet in front of the screen which is what most people will use it for.
     
  25. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #25
    Lens size should be easy to compare in person and answer that question.

    But I do know that the actual lens of a standalone iSight is VERY small. It's not the whole black circle. Like any camera, it's a smaller component in the center. So I can see it fitting just fine in the hole on an iMac.
     

Share This Page