Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

20 inch iMac Released

Everyone who says that iMac isnt geared towards gamers... i must disagree with such a broad statement. I would refine it to say that the iMac isn't geared for a hardcore gamer. Almost any game that is out now will run fine on that iMac at full screen resolution with at least medium texture detail. Anyone who needs more would know better than to buy that machine. I think Apple's offerings are fine because Macs are NOT built for cheap gamers. They are built for people who want to get work done, and enjoy a casual game once in a while.
 
Another instance where Apple seems to be smarter than a lot of people who spend idle time on message boards.

For every Mac user (or Mac wannabe user) who is hung up on shaving the last penny from a product purchase, there are others who really just don't give a flip about a few hundred dollars when considering an about $2000 Mac purchase.

For instance, I was pretty pleased with today's iMac release. I need to buy a machine for our company's shipping manager, and had decided that a 20-inch Cinema Display was best for the large multi-window tasks he deals with all day. I had been resisting a purchase because a new Power Mac plus an ACD was more than I wanted to spend. Now, the new iMac fits the bill perfectly.

I placed my order a couple of hours ago.
 
whoa, a BIG iMac

I didn't expect THIS, not now...well I'll get the iBook G4 after New Year's and start saving up for this 20 inch iMac--i can't wait to see the monitor's quality in person!
 
Originally posted by pgwalsh
Shard... It is not just about games, it is about value for your money.. The 9600 is a consumer grade video card for use in consumer grade PC's, but it supports upcoming advanced games... You don't have to be gamer to benefit, but it adds the mid range gamer benefit.
Click to expand...

Aside from the obvious gaming aspects, precisely what would the benefits be of having an ATI 9600 instead of an nVidia FX5200? Both handle QE quite capably. 2D performance on both of them is standard (other cards have better 2D performance and fidelity than these). So, aside from gaming, what is the benefit?

OTOH, between the fx5200 and the Radeon 9600 you do get a pretty substantial gaming performance boost (20-30% typical from what I can tell) for something like $20 based on the cost of boards based on those chips ... which makes me wonder why Apple's still shipping fx5200's instead of 9600's unless it's a volume deal agreement or they're still just plain pissed at ATI for blabbing early a few years back ... Although I'm not sure about the heat differential between the two (the 9800 is one hot beasty ... not sure about the 9600!)
 
Wow, such opinions here on this poor 20 inch iMac. I can see it's poor huge head swinging back and forth like watching a tennis match, being called ugly and slow, lowering it's head in sadness.

Yes, they should have put a better video card in the (uh) little guy, no doubt, gamers pan the crap out of the 5200, but it'll be adequate for some. And the G5 camp needs to take a cold shower, it wasn't going to happen and anyone with a clue knows that. This is still a pretty cool machine, that monitor and it's resolution is HUGE! And it's speed is just fine for most of the production artist types in our agency and with that much real estate you can easily see a tabloid spread. I think it's a pretty nifty machine and don't care what some people think. Good enough is just that good enough. And like someone mentioned WAY upstream, a 20 inch Apple LCD would run you over a grand, so think of this as a $1000 (give or take) machine that comes with a $1000+ really nice monitor!
 
Originally posted by MacWhispers
For every Mac user (or Mac wannabe user) who is hung up on shaving the last penny from a product purchase, there are others who really just don't give a flip about a few hundred dollars when considering an about $2000 Mac purchase.
Click to expand...

I think PowerbookG5 said this in relation to the budget of a College/University student. "Pick a numer very close to zero, and subtract a few Hundred from it." When your poor evey dollar counts & $2000US is way to much to spend on a computer for the mass market.
 
Originally posted by crazzyeddie
Everyone who says that iMac isnt geared towards gamers... i must disagree with such a broad statement. I would refine it to say that the iMac isn't geared for a hardcore gamer. Almost any game that is out now will run fine on that iMac at full screen resolution with at least medium texture detail. Anyone who needs more would know better than to buy that machine. I think Apple's offerings are fine because Macs are NOT built for cheap gamers. They are built for people who want to get work done, and enjoy a casual game once in a while.
Click to expand...

Yep, I totally agree. There are many quality games out there for Mac, and average gamers have no problems running them on iMacs. It's those gamers who want to run UT2003 in 1440x900 at 2 million fps :p who have the issues, and they shouldn't be even looking at an iMac if that is the case.
 
Originally posted by ~Shard~
Yep, I totally agree. There are many quality games out there for Mac, and average gamers have no problems running them on iMacs. It's those gamers who want to run UT2003 in 1440x900 at 2 million fps :p who have the issues, and they shouldn't be even looking at an iMac if that is the case.
Click to expand...

They should save up, and in a few months (I hope) get a dual 3.0 Ghz G5 with 8GB of RAM and a 9800 video card.

:) :rolleyes: :D
 
Originally posted by jettredmont
Aside from the obvious gaming aspects, precisely what would the benefits be of having an ATI 9600 instead of an nVidia FX5200? Both handle QE quite capably. 2D performance on both of them is standard (other cards have better 2D performance and fidelity than these). So, aside from gaming, what is the benefit?
Click to expand...
Practically nothing. That's why Apple doesn't sweat those details. Gamers are nuts. (No offense.)

To be fair, I'm not a gamer, so have no idea what the benefits of a wicked fast GPU are for that purpose. I'd like to see sometime so I'd understand what is the big deal.
 
Don't you people get it THIS IS NOT A GAMING MACHINE u want a Gaming machine buy a PEECEE or G5 , or what u can do it Be Smart and Realize that u can Get a Freakin X-Box+PS2and GameCube for Less then your freakin $500 Top End ATI,NVIDIA WHATEVER CARD and have wayy more gaming options and not have 2 worry about OS Crashing or your Fancy Video Card Melting because u tweaked it Just 2 get 5 extra FPS in UT2003. The 20in iMac serves a Purpose to those with lil money 2 spend on a Fancy G5 but still need a Decent Video editing machine with lots of Screen Space, this Machine is a Godsend to College Kids and Amature Who need a Machine to Run FCP/FCE/Photoshop but don't have $3000+ to burn on a 1.6 G5 $1799+20in Cinema Display $1299=$3100 so you do the math? a difference of $900 that I could use to buy FCP+DVD Studio Pro 2 at a Student Discount. So try looking at the Big Picture B4 Booing the iMac.

Last Thing, as for the Next iMac I believe we will see it come with a G5 1.6-1.8mhz an ATI 9600(if Apple is Smart) , Pretty much a Smaller version of what the 1.6 G5 is now and i do expect a Cube iMac intergration of some Sort but maybe not exactly cube shaped my guess would be Cylinder Shaped base with current Arm Monitor Style or something like a Closed PowerBook but a few Inches high and not as wide, Slot Loading (aluminum case is also most likely for heat issues).

Well just food for thought , you do the dishes.
 
Using the monitor with a laptop

If you want to use that nice screen with your laptop, just put the latter into FW Targetdisk mode and start your iMac from it. It'll be a mite slower because FW isn't absolutely on par with IDE, but in terms of processor speed, the iMac is as good as or better than any Mac laptop (except for the 1.33 17'' PB).

And keep in mind, the 20'' display has a higher resolution than the original 22'' display two years ago. If you have the money to upgrade to a better computer in two years time, you might also have the money to upgrade to the better displays which should be available by then.
 
Originally posted by jxyama
i never said it's a good thing. all i said is that to dismiss iMac solely based on its ability as a gaming machine is wrong.

at the moment, with game developers and videocard manufacturers slow to port to macs, gaming market is one area apple can overlook.
Click to expand...

It's a chicken and egg scenario. Developers are going to be slow to port games and gaming equipment to the Mac when so little of it's current hardware lineup are up to playing the latest games. Apple could be taken seriously, if they took gaming seriously.

But gaming isn't Apple's only problem. I convinced my boss to switch recently for his music work, but against my advice he opted for an iMac, for about 3000 euro, thinking for that price it must be a decent performer. He's selling it again within just months; a big fan of OSX, not a fan of the iMac.


it will do far more damage to the apple's strength as "all in-one computing solution" if they started offering infinite customizability in iMacs. most basic consumers want simple solution. they look at their budget, buy a computer with the money and start using it. they are probably not very interested in how much RAM is in the videocard, etc.
Click to expand...

Infinite customizability is better than none at all! ;)

Personally, I'd settle for an upgradable graphics card, and a processor upgrade. Still, I think it's great Apple is still offering the PowerMac G4's: you shouldn't need to buy Apple's top of the lineup machines just to get a PCI slot. Or the ability to upgrade your graphics card. Or add a hard disk. The only problem is, PMG4's are a very old product now.

Apple's trying to entice everyone to buy their top of the range machines by hampering the rest (and still charging best-of-industry margins on those!), and I think that's why their market share is stagnating.
 
how anyone can think a 3-4 yr old g4 is great is beyond me 3yrs from 500 -1.25? thats 250 mhz per year, still stuck as it was years ago, these chips are good for ibook and emac but imac and powerbook are looking a lil slow these days. lets see imac has 1/4 -1/3 the cpu power of the top powermac. g4 at 1.25 is just not enough. this really drives home moto stagnation, i guess its going to take a year or two but its very hard to get knowledgable pc users out there to switch when the imac is at speeds the pc was 2 years ago. i would say a 1.25 g4 is about equal to a 2 or 2.2 p4 on a good day. but not twice the clock thank you. Apple needs this monkey off its back and years later moto is still holding up things.:mad:
 
Not Yet

Originally posted by jphoenix
Has anyone seen one of these iMacs out at CompUSA yet? My store is usually slow to get the new stuff out for display.
Click to expand...

The sales person didn't even know about them. Then again he told me it was impossible to hook up a 23" monitor to powerbooks.
 
First we need to separate the discussion away from games, serious or casual. The iMac is a consumer product aimed at the broadest possible spectrum of the market, the home. Gamers are a part of that market but they are not Apple's real target group with the iMac.

The iMac is the anchor of Steve Jobs whole Digital Hub premise. If you are using iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD or final Cut Express the 20" iMac, especially with a 160 GB HD, is plenty of machine for you. If you are a professional video editor or content/creator the G5 is your solution.

If you are doing most types of print or web production this iMac also might be the machine for you. Someone already mentioned this (and it hit me right from the beginning) that a 20" LCD monitor is going to run you $1300. For $900 more you get a 1.25 GHz G4 computer which is well below the $999 price point most associate with an affordable home system. I realize a lot of PC's offer their computers with monitors but in the time honored tradition of "you get what you pay for" let them eat stale cake. I'll settle for the prime rib. <G> After all, isn't this kind of discriminating taste between the ordinary and the extraordinary the real difference between PC and Mac users? This machine will run 99% of the apps we have fast, sure and reliably.

Back to the 20" iMac. It's a stop gap machine. By summer I would imagine there will be a new form factor G5 iMac but till then this model boosts sales (which in the end is good for all Mac users) and it offers consumers now some real good options. I would have preferred it to be a bit cheaper or come standard with a faster chip and more RAM but it's also not prohibitively too expensive for me not to consider it, which I am.

One last "gamer" comment. I understand serious gamers want the faster graphic boards. Most of us are not all that serious and while there is an ocassional lag on my 1 GHz 17" iMac I find I can still enjoy Medal of Honor Allied Assault and Spearhead despite the iMac's limitations. I did get a chance to play MOHAA on a G5 and the difference was well past noticeable but then again I'm not in the market to spend $4-5000 just to play games better or faster. What I will enjoy with a 20" iMac is watching all the converted DVD movies I have and will have in the future. The 17" screen is great but the 20" should rock.
 
Originally posted by macpeople1
If you are doing most types of print or web production this iMac also might be the machine for you. Someone already mentioned this (and it hit me right from the beginning) that a 20" LCD monitor is going to run you $1300. For $900 more you get a 1.25 GHz G4 computer which is well below the $999 price point most associate with an affordable home system.

One last "gamer" comment. I understand serious gamers want the faster graphic boards. Most of us are not all that serious and while there is an ocassional lag on my 1 GHz 17" iMac I find I can still enjoy Medal of Honor Allied Assault and Spearhead despite the iMac's limitations.
Click to expand...

This topic couldn't be beaten more with a stick than it already has.

It's a great computer with a 20" LCD. However the LCD has a very low contrast ratio.. If your doing graphic design with an LCD, I'd be looking at monitors with a minimum of 500:1 with a nit of 300.

You're gaming comment is spot on... What's available now works fairly well. How well will it work with things released within a year or two is a different question. I say no, but others will obviously dispute that.

enough said.
 
I saw the machine at Apple HQ Tokyo (the MUG has its meetings there). The LCD is big, a little bigger than the full length of the Apple Keyboard. The LCD is much thicker than the 17" or 15", probably to give it a stronger support. The LCD moves around perfectly and stays in place (for now), and all I can say is "It's PERFECT for watching DVDs".

In person its not as big as it seems, but it still is a beauty. Oh, and did I mention it's HEAVY? And I mean HEAVY!

I think its well worth the money, but I don't see many people buying it.



irmongoose
 
Re: 20 inch iMac Released

Originally posted by Macrumors
Apple released the 20" iMac today.

The new high end iMac offers a 20" widescreen LCD screen, 1.25GHz G4, 256 DDR333 SDRAM, and NVidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra for $2199.00

iMac Line:

15" 1GHz, $1299
17" 1.25GHz, $1799
20" 1.25GHz, $2199

A couple of tidbits have filtered in on this new surprising configuration over the past month... with two reports (1, 2) finally being posted just yesterday predicting today's release. Rumors of a larger (19") iMac date back to May 2002 -- could the Chinese newspapers have been onto something?
Click to expand...
I think I'll forgo the 20-inch Imac and go directly to the dual 1.8 or 2 Ghz PowerMac, fits better with what I do (Flash, Photoshop etc.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back