17inch iMacs and no PowerMacs

[mcrain]

You know what would be nice... other than you guys giving us a break and taking a chill pill...

it would be soooo nice if Apple came out with a chip so damn fast that it ran virtual pc faster than the fasted Intel or AMD chip.

That would be great...

Ok, time to wake up...

 

[wsteineker]

Consider it taken, mcrain. Thanks for the advice. Sometimes I let things get a little out of hand.

 

[job]

Originally posted by ddtlm
On a similar subject, I wish Apple would bite the bullet and eat the cost of getting good graphics into all the desktops, including eMac and iMac (not the 15" one). They should take action to help the Mac gaming scene, I think shipping no G4-based desktop with less than a 64mb GF4MX would be a good place to start (well, actually a GF2MX was a good start, but we need more).

Wouldn't a GeForce 3Ti be a lot better than the GeForce 4MX?

 

[sehix]

Re: Blacklisted

Originally posted by adamschneids
Rumors huh? I guess this means CNet will be denied Expo press access, huh?

Highly unlikely.

Double standard???

How much NDA'd material (screenshots, etc.) has c|net published?

Think about it.

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by wsteineker


Heh. Glad you posted that. It's always good to have cooler heads around when things get tense.

I try to keep it light and certainly don't like to offend anyone, but sometimes I do (unintentionally). Of course unless they're a real jackass like me.

 

[wsteineker]

Originally posted by hitman
Wouldn't a GeForce 3Ti be a lot better than the GeForce 4MX?

A stock GeForce3 (original model) beats the 4 MX at XLR8YourMac. So yeah, I'd say so. Good call, hitman.

 

[ddtlm]

hitman, wsteineker:

"Wouldn't a GeForce 3Ti be a lot better than the GeForce 4MX?"

"A stock GeForce3 (original model) beats the 4 MX at XLR8YourMac. So yeah, I'd say so. Good call, hitman."

Yeah whatever. The GF3 is also much more expensive to manufacture. I was trying to make a reasonable statement about something Apple could do without much more cost than they currently have.

 

[wake up Jobs!!!]

This is my 30th post! I am finally a member! YESSSSSS

 

[wsteineker]

Originally posted by ddtlm
hitman, wsteineker:

"Wouldn't a GeForce 3Ti be a lot better than the GeForce 4MX?"

"A stock GeForce3 (original model) beats the 4 MX at XLR8YourMac. So yeah, I'd say so. Good call, hitman."

Yeah whatever. The GF3 is also much more expensive to manufacture. I was trying to make a reasonable statement about something Apple could do without much more cost than they currently have.

Oh you're definitely right about that, man. It's absolutely more cost beneficial for Apple to stick with the 4MX. I was just saying that the 3 is a better card. That's all.

 

[Jack Tenric]

Originally posted by wsteineker


You said:

"The G4 733 w/ Radeon 8500 runs games like crap. I need a machine with REAL speed. You obviously base your speed comparisions on a Mac vs Mac basis. Compared to the current batch of PCs, my 733 just doesn't cut it and neither does the DP 1GHz. The video drivers for the Mac Radeon 8500 need work. Games run slower than they did on my old GF2 MX. The new DDR Macs and 10.2 are what will help bring Apple back into the running again."

Nowhere in this post did I detect even a HINT of blame placed on anything but the system. Yes, you payed lip service to the drivers, but you proceeded to bash Apple and NOT ATI for the problem. That's where I took issue with all of this.

In your second post, you started to cough up ATI as the source of the problem, but continued to heap blame on Apple for the general state of Mac gaming. No blame at all on the software developers who ship Mac games 6 months behind Windows versions, if ever. I just want you to be fair. Apple takes enough heat from Wall Street. They don't need it from you. Not over this.

Again you put words into my mouth. Amoung many things aimed towards Apple I also listed one complaint towards ATI. I did not mention specificly that that one compaint was towards ATI because I thought everybody knew that they made the card and the drivers. You then mention that ATI makes the drivers like I didn't know that and state that I should blame them and not Apple. I did not blame Apple for this problem, I merely listed an ATI issue amounst the Apple ones. Please do not jump to conclusions and try to guess what is most likely, not what is most possibly wrong. I mentioned ATI as being a separate problem that was mixed into the mess in my second post because you said Apple does not make the drivers, ATI does. Well of course ATI does... What web site do you think I get my drivers from? *sigh*

"but you proceeded to bash Apple and NOT ATI for the problem."

No I blamed Apple AND ATI. I just didn't mention the name ATI for the drivers. I assumed that everyone would know that they make them. Plus any other factor that is not up to snuff on Mac, yet is on PC. There is nothing wrong with wanting the Mac situation to equal and exceed the PC situation in all areas. It's unlikely that things will change greatly in this area any time soon but suggesting things does not hurt.

The software developers are at fault but shipping games behind schedule does not hurt their speed/performance on system. In fact, one would think that the extra time might allow them to get more performance through tweaks.

In any case, I am truely sorry for the mixup. We can't always remember to elaborate on every single thing that we write. Things happen. I hope that you have a good day and that this hasn't put a damper on anything.

 

[wsteineker]

Jack Tenric

This argument is getting terribly redundant, and the fun's gone out of it. Neither one of us is going to sa anyting new, so why drag it out? It's over, man. I'm going to work now. I officially surrender this hijacked thread back to the good people of the MacRumors community. Have a nice day guys.

 

[Jack Tenric]

There was never any fun it in at all. Just a person posting some suggestions/experiences and someone who read into the message the wrong way and got angry. No hard feelings, I just don't like it when people misunderstand what I am saying, get angry and bash me. (Or anyone else for that matter.)

Just about every other Mac forum that I've been to has been a far more pleasant experience than you have made this for me. This will likely be my last post here. To everyone else, thanks for the kind words. So long and have an excellent day.

 

[pgwalsh]

Jack be nimble Jack be quick, Jack just gave macrumors the middle finger. Come back Jack! We love you man!

 

[Jack Tenric]

Don't worry, I'll probably be staying on. Just very discouraged about things after that.

Do you guys think that the 17" iMac would sell? What if it were available for the same price as the 15" model? I would think that the 17" model would be a might too pricey for some people but then again, there's still the eMac.

 

[agoldweber]

Originally posted by Jack Tenric
Do you guys think that the 17" iMac would sell? What if it were available for the same price as the 15" model? I would think that the 17" model would be a might too pricey for some people but then again, there's still the eMac.

the problem I can see with a 17" iMac is making the water too murky. it would compete directly with the low-end PM w/Studio Display.

it seems the price structure already established works well. for those in the lower end that want the size, they go for the eMac. for those looking for simplicity and cool design there's the iMac. and for those that are more serious (or have cash to burn) for the various PM offerings.

makes sense to me. keeps production simpler too which is a good idea with so many vendors to rely on.

 

[beatle888]

wsteineker and Jack Tenrick

oh that was fun.


I usually get upset when people put each other
down on these sites. But today I laughed all
the way through. Possibly because I could
relate to both of these compassionate souls.
You have to be more careful than the politicians
on this board.

Hehe.

Only Apple really knows whats gonna happen...
oops oh ya and to cover my ass, God certanly
knows too....hehe.....(beatle888 feels a fleeting
moment of cleverness).

note: the word feels above is in reference to
emotions. Feelings are subjective therefor you
may not agree with mine.

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by Jack Tenric
Don't worry, I'll probably be staying on. Just very discouraged about things after that.

Do you guys think that the 17" iMac would sell? What if it were available for the same price as the 15" model? I would think that the 17" model would be a might too pricey for some people but then again, there's still the eMac.

I think they will sell. The only issue I've heard is the monitor isn't transferable to another computer. However, this argument could be made for the original iMac and those sold quite well. When the market turns around you'll see more purchases. I think people are holding tight to their savings until the market turns around and the fear of losing your job has been decreased. However, this will hold true for most manufactures ect.

We must push forward and be the best, never rest. That way we can watch life pass us by from our cubicles. eghhhh....

 

[Cappy]

If this 17" iMac rumor is true(I have my doubts) it would not make sense unless Apple's market research has either fallen on hard times, has spotted a new market for it(Unix workstations?), or the iMac line is due for a price drop on some models with perhaps the dvd burner option on a model being replaced by the 17" version.


The cost of lcd's has been going up as well as some other component parts so I just can't see the price drop happening. Market research of Apple's is usually dead on(not perfect of course) so I don't figure that to be the issue. My guess, again if this rumor turns out to be true, is for a new market and I can't see that being a big deal at this show.

It even strikes me as odd that they waited until the week before to do the rebates which are making people believe for the moment that new powermacs won't be announced. They surely could see this earlier and could have just extended the rebate promotion that they had going. I hate to read alot into unverified rumors but this is all very odd. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[bretm]

Originally posted by Marianco

I will not buy the Dual 1GHz G4 model because it is only twice as fast as the ORIGINAL single 500 Mhz G4 which debuted in August 1999, fully 3 years ago. All you have to do is look at Apple's own specs using Final Cut Pro!!!

-snip-

The transition from the 132 MHz PowerPC to the 400 MHz G3 was a smaller but still great jump in speed, particularly as memory prices came down and you could outfit the PowerMac with 256 MB of RAM. For Photoshop, it was a noticeable, almost four-fold increase in speed.

The 500mhz wasn't announced until January 2000. The original G4 line was 350, 400, 450. It had been planned to be 400, 450, 500 but they couldn't make enough chips. FCP should take advantage of the dual processor making it near 4 times as fast. But I'll take your word for it. After Effects and Photoshop do I believe. I have a G4 350 that runs like a champ. I installed a superdrive in it and run iDVD. It works great. Final Cut Pro runs great too. Sure, it's a little slower to render, but hey... I charge by the hour.

What do you mean by the transition from the 132mhz ppc to the 400mhz G3? You're comparing the low-end from an earlier line of PPCs to the High end of the first line of G3s. When PPCs were discontinued the top of the line was the 366mhz (or 333?). The jump to the G3 400mhz was still pretty decent. The bottom at the time was probably a 225mhz ppc and a 233mhz G3.

 

[wsteineker]

The notion of a 17" iMac is one that I think the market will support fully. Think about it for a minute. The eMac, at what I think will be $999 with a combo drive at the low end after MWNY, takes the bargain basement position. No doubt that it's a steal for the price.

The new 17" iMac slips into the middle of the lineup at $1599 (combo drive) and $1899 (superdrive). No change in price point, bigger screen, and the low end model is gone so as not to conflict with eMac sales. As for processor speed increases, I'll wait and see. If I had to guess, I'd say 933 MHz across the board. It's not terribly important for the sake of this argument.

Assuming everything we hear is correct, the new PowerMac systems will ship at 1 GHz, DP 1.2 GHz, and DP 1.4 GHZ. It's probably also safe to say that it'll include DDR, which the iMac definitely won't. It'll also sport PCI slots, monitor of choice, and bigger HDs. All this is VERY IMPORTANT when considering which computer to purchase. The price point for these can stay the same for the sake of argument ($1599, $2299, $2999 respectively).

Let's think rationaly about this sort of a product matrix. Why couldn't this work? The eMac is the obviously capable sub $1000 machine that everyone's been clamoring for. The iMac is filling in nicely as a mid/high mid range machine with a ton of capability but an all in one design. It's distinct disadvantage is the lack of expandability and the slower bus, thus making it just as unattractive to power hungry pros as the Cube (one of which I'm proud to say I own). It doesn't conflict with the PM series because of these disadvantages, and it allows mid range consumers to have a truly powerful machine that will stand up to the mid range Dells in every single department. The PowerMacs, meanwhile, occupy the top end of the food chain, giving folks power, expandability, a choice of monitors, and a screaming bus. Everyone wins with this setup. Does anyone else see where I'm coming from here?