Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
wow, you guys are aggro over this update. Some of you (read you yzedf) are just arguing for arguing sake. If you don't like it, don't buy a Mac. Not to offend anyone, but your complaints about underpowered machines are probably ridiculous. Very few of the people on these boards are true Pro Graphics professionals or video editors. Sure, we've got some, but half thepeople who complain that their Macs are underpowered are teenage hobbyists who pirated a bunch of software they don't really understand or have a need for. Not that I have a problem with that, but how many of you actually use a Mac to Make a living. I make part of my living on one, and its old as crap (as long as it runs BBEdit and Flash, I'm in business)

I don't mean to harp here, but this is getting ridiculous. One of the reasons that the Mhz myth was ad is a myth, is that most people don't need all of the speed and power of a Pro computer.

Just remember, no matter what you do, there was somebody doing it a ten times better than you, ten years ago, on a machine you would laugh at today. The computer just facilitates the work, if you can't hack it with the tools you have, you just can't hack it.
 
My First Post!

I am a PC user who just switched.

I have just ordered the new 17 imac as is. One thing that dissapoints me is that Apple is still treating RAM like Hen's teeth and the graphics card is also abit of a let down. The GF-4-MX64 is nothing more that a GF-2-32 that got a bit pumped up but is still the same tech. All that aside, I can live with the graphics card. What really made me switch is the software and the OS. I am tired of fighting with my three Microsoft machines. All I want is a computer that does what I want to do and not the other way around. Some times I feel like I am employed by microsoft because of all the hours I invest in them.

Here is to my new computing experience.
 
Why Mac?

I hear a lot of frustration in this thread, and I can truly empathize with it. Those of us who are longtime Mac users and are completely comfortable with the OS would love to have a state of the art CPU, bus, and other components to go along with our great user experience. Perhaps the IBM 970 will get us closer to that goal. But, first and foremost it's the OS that makes us Mac users.

Apple has made a lot of marketing mistakes over the years, but somehow managed to stay in business even so. It's a company that has to do everything itself, including the OS, the industrial design, working with CPU companies to build chips to support its OS, and now even writing some critical apps, just to stay in the game. That makes it incredibly difficult to compete with companies that do nothing more complicated than assemble components, throw them into a case, and perhaps copy the latest design fad du jour they can get away with without facing a lawsuit.

How does such a company turn a profit? It would be nice to have all the latest technology, but that means Apple has to cut some corners somewhere. It has to look at what's available, and select those components that provide the best collective overall experience for the general user. And that means that users who focus on single interest items will likely never be satisfied, since they're only one segment of the total customer pool.

I personally think Apple is making most of the right decisions. Would I like to have the industry's fastest, most powerful processor? Sure. Am I willing to switch to another OS to get access to that power? No. First, and last, it's the MacOS that I pay for. It's the integration of the complete user experience that I pay for. Can a computer geek put together his own PC running one of the Windows variants that's stable, fast, and provides a great experience for him? Sure. Can I do the same for myself? No.

I've built PC's, installed Windows, and produced a fully functioning computer that would meet the needs of most users. But what a dreary user experience. The interface options were garish. Whenever I wanted to uninstall software I was never quite sure that I had removed all the components (dlls, whatever) without accidentally removing something that something else shared and needed. When something went wrong, I was left with the option of starting from scratch, doing an enormous amount of research in some Microsoft database, or hoping to find some true Windows guru who could help out. If the computer worked, all was fine. It it didn't...

On the Mac side, uninstalling was dragging something into the trash. A misbehaving app could often be fixed by throwing away a corrupted preferences file, or simply replacing the app executable itself with a simple copy from the master CD...no requirement to run a wizard or installer app, answer a bunch of questions that may or may not be understandable to a non-tech, no reregistering with Microsoft because the computer configuration changed. In short, it was a user experience I could deal with following a short list of common fixes. For more obnoxious problems, I'd run Symantec's Disk Doctor, or some similar utility that I trusted to try to fix the problem. However, even in MacOS X I've hardly ever had to resort to starting from scratch. To put it another way, a logically thinking non-computer tech could learn to take care of his/her OS without incurring a $20k MCSE training experience.

So, what about today's updates? I paid $2400 for my first generation 233MHz iMac, with 32MB RAM and a 4GB HD. I'm running MacOS 10.2.3 on that same box today with 96MB RAM, and while not peppy by any stretch of the imagination, it's fine for basic web surfing and email. I recently upgraded my old Sawtooth G4 450MHz Tower with a Sonnet 1GHz G4 card, and it works great...and it's EXTREMELY peppy. I'm typing this note on my 600MHz iBook, and even with its old Rage Mobility video chip, works just fine. I even watch movies in bed with headphones on this laptop with NO jerkiness. I think Apple's done a great job with its OS updates, and all my Macs work without a hitch. I run Disk Doctor and Speed Disk once a month or so, back up my HD's with Retrospect Express over Firewire to a bootable external Que HD, and...that's it. If something truly awful goes wrong, I can boot up my tower or my laptop with the Que Firewire HD and fix it immediately. In the worse case, I can simply erase the bad volume and copy the backed up volume from the Que and be fully operational in an hour.

So, $1800 for a 1GHz iMac sounds quite good to me. And under $1000 for an eMac sounds outrageous for a Mac that's four times faster, at least, than the iMac sitting in my kitchen that I'd like to replace. And, by the way, that video problem with the eMac was a bad video cable...Apple found that they were repairing the same Macs over and over again, even after they replaced all the electronics, which left only the wiring.

As with most of you, I wait yearningly for the 970 Macs. But, in the meantime, I'm not suffering by any means. I'm not much of a gamer, but the adventure games I do play occasionally work just fine. It's only in the intensive shoot-em ups that I'm left in the dusk. So, for fence sitters, and potential switchers, I'd suggest you take a moment and think just why you're even considering a Mac. If it's system reliability, OS stability and user experience, ease of user OS maintenance, and just having a computer that you're happy to not hide under your desk, why not stop by an Apple store, or CompUSA, and spend a few moments hands-on with a Mac?

Macs aren't the fastest, and don't have the latest state of the art hardware, but they do provide the best, overall integrated user experience...at least for me. And Apple continues to do what few in the industry seem willing to do...innovate. USB was Intel's baby, but no one used it until Apple made it a standard. Firewire is Apple's technology, and has become a standard in its own right. When third party vendors failed to produce a browser better than Microsoft's IE, and Microsoft failed to update it, Apple took up the mantle to create its own. And, with the iApps, Apple is taking the out-of-the-box user experience to the next level by actually creating a digital hub, not just talking about it.

Now, back to the disappointed Mac users... (This, of course, includes me, but I at least accept that a bankrupt Apple will never give me the toys I desire.):D
 
Drastik,

How nice of someone to finally call me on it. ;)

I am a Mac liker... if that makes sense. I like them, I use my friends machines on occassion (new ibook and pismo) and have been impressed with OS X since the original beta. It is just that the policies of the company regarding their hardware, and the vendors they choose to buy from (frickin' Motorola!!!), irks me.

OS X was supposed to be the Windows Killer(tm). It could be that it is. But with this sorry state of the hardware, it will never happen. About the time Apple figures it out we will have seen 2 newer Windows OS' since then.

iLife is cute... but it won't convince more than a few people to buy a Mac instead of a PC.

Price would bring them over in droves.

So would comparable hardware specs. Most everyone wants newer, better, and faster.

That is the market. Apple needs to figure this out and respond accordingly.

That is why I keep saying:

COMPETE OR DIE

Look at the sales of the iPod. Great hardware, great software, and reasonable price. The push was so big, tht Apple actually sold a Windows version! That is what competition is all about.

This niggling over Consumer vs Professional desktops is pointless. What is this... Macintosh vs Apple ][ again or what???
 
I just realized something...

If the iMac costed $599 and included a 3.06 Ghz processor what would we even discuss on these message boards? Funny but true. I am getting a better feeling about this new iMac and after looking at Apple's site it looks like a solid update.
 
Re: Re: Re: iLife + more

Originally posted by flyfish29


So how does this really affect me running some older software. Much of the software will be for my kids...things like Math Munchers, etc. that never took too much computing power anyway (will these run in classic?) I do have an old version of Quark (3.2 I believe) that I would like to run but only a few times a year to modify things I have already created in it and don't have a major use for a new version of Quark. Would it run on Classic?


So what revision of Jaguar is not bootable in OS9? 10.2.?

On a side note: There have always been things Apple has done that have not been right, and there will always be things that Apple does that we don't think are right and they end up working. Just remember to give Apple feedback. Your voicing major negative concerns in public forums like this do in fact push people away. If you have a complaint then voice it, but be careful not to push people away.

I think that version of Quark uses a serial dongle, so you'll need an adapter. Check Quark's website for more info.
 
Re: Re: Re: tools

Originally posted by nickgold


You grow up, man. I can't afford a BMW. I bought an Echo. I don't make too much money, but I could save up for a Mac if I tried. Does Apple somehow owe it to you to price things inexpensively, even if it means losing money for them? They are a corporation that exists in a (semi)capitalist system. There are there to make money. They charge a specific price for a given thing, based on market pressures. Does the fact that you can't afford one, or do not think it is worth what they are charging, give you the right to beeyatch and moan?

Sure, you have the right, I guess. It's just sort of obnoxious, I suppose.

I don't think you understood my post. I just ordered an iMac today. My post was a reply to someone suggesting that anyone here complaining about the cost were windoze users or Microsoft marketing people.

That's silly. Most of them own Macs and can't afford to upgrade again. This is a negative aspect of Apple's business model and all-in-one's in general. And I agree with you, Apple can charge what it likes. And people who cannot afford one are out of luck, and those who want more price/performance are out of luck. Apple has, with this latest round of iMacs met my "minimal" price/performance ratio. With a small luxury tax (memory costs) tacked on to pay for having a "deluxe" model of Macintosh.
 
Re: I just realized something...

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
If the iMac costed $599 and included a 3.06 Ghz processor what would we even discuss on these message boards?

We would discuss the fact that the iPod needs to be able to generate playlists on the fly... :D
 
Re: Re: Poor graphics

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
From the reviews i have read the 900 pro(64 video ram) is about the same as geforce4mx(64 video ram) dont confuse geforce4mx(32) with the geforce4mx(64)! I would also guess that will get notched up again but remember you cant step all over the toes of the powermac line!

The 9000 Pro is superior to the GeForce 4MX in many ways. The 4MX (incredibly) lacks vertex shaders making it all but useless for DOOM III. The place where the 4MX does win over the Radeon is in raw polygon count, but this is not as important as it once was since modern games are using all sorts of special effects. I'm not even going to mention how obsolete the 2MX is.

As for the PowerMacs, they shouldn't even be using low end graphics cards. These machines are meant for professional graphics work so why can't Apple ship a professional graphics card like a nVidia Quadro or an ATI FIRE.

I'm really getting sick of Apple cripling the iMac graphics performance with ultra-cheap cards such as GeForce 2MX and 4MX. Put a GeForce 4 Titanium on a high-end model Apple.
 
Originally posted by MacBoyX


THEN GET A POWERMAC i mean come on guys. This is again what I am saying about wanting everything in all product lines. The iMac is a consumer market machine. If you want 1.25Ghz get a PM MDD. Why are we comparing iMacs to PowerMacs?

Next you're gonna start comparing Apples to Oranges...sorry for the pun.:p


No Apple should have set the high end iMac at 1.25GHZ. I agree with the other guy. The iMac isn't competing with the Powermac, it's competing with 2ghz PC's like the Gateway profile. Apple should have set the single processor 1.25ghz as high end, and 1 ghz for low end. The time has come to end the sale of mhz machines all together.
 
Re: Re: Poor graphics

Originally posted by yzedf


A few reasons:

cost

size

heat generated

noise generated

The iMac is using a mix of notebook and desktop components to minimize the size, heat, noise, and costs involved.

GF4 Pro and the Radeon 9000 series cards don't fit inside the iMac enclosure. If they did, people would just compain about the noise and heat anyway... ;)


You can get a GeForce 4 Ti in many PCs that cost a fraction of the price of an iMac. There are also mobile versions of the Radeon 9000 and the GeForce 4 Ti. Apple should have used the mobile Ti in the PowerBook G4 17"
 
Originally posted by yzedf


Your friend did not purchase a machine based on what he wanted to do with it. He bought it for the price.

You can make a custom machine, with top notch hardware, for a comparable price.

AMD alone saves hundreds of bucks...

And AMD also causes many, many more headaches. They draw more current, run hotter, and still don't get along with everything out there.

I have built many a top-notch machine over the years and they seem to have problems too with the software. No matter how hard you try, after Windows has been loaded on a machine for a long time, you will almost always have issues. It's the nature of the beast. That's mainly because MS cheats as much as possible or takes easy ways out. DLLs, the registry, and other features will always drag down the OS. You must also remember that NT was built off of IBM's OS/2 originally and MS has not changed the structure completely. So you can compensate for the hardware, but not the software. A poorly done patch, a poor installer, or a poor program will all sink you - and MS doesn't keep very good tabs on these things.

Ever since switching, I've gained so much in functionality that it is not even funny. Things are easier on the Mac and, under X, it is more reliable - and my iBook 700 is actually plenty fast for what I do, and it was inexpensive. Laptops is where Apple really struts their stuff and that is where they are focusing, This is wise, because many, many people want an Apple for a portable. They are far more dependable and power efficient - and they are also lighter, smaller, and cooler. That's why the iMac may not have been the focus for as much attention, because Apple is attracting people to the laptops. Realise that the new 17" iMac is priced the same as the 12" PB. This is not coincindence.
 
When can I get one?

In spite of the fact that all you whiners have almost made me regret the decision to switch, I'm stiil going to go ahead and get an iMac :p

But, I called the Apple store (twice). The first time the guy who answered told me he had just seen the announcement (10:30AM Eastern time) and had no idea when they'd have the machine. He told me to call back tomorrow. The second time I called, the guy told me the 15" was in. But, he didn't know when they'd get the 17".

After waiting for two months for this update. I want a machine ASAP. Has anyone found the 17" at any of the Apple stores? I'm trying to get an idea of when I'll actually finally be able to get my hands on one.

Thanks,
Brian
 
This is for all the ram geniuses out there,the new imac has ddr at 266mhz WHY? has the architecture changed or are they just shoving that in for marketing? seems like they would not have needed the ddr unless it was being accessed by the system controler?we know they have a 133 bus so did they change the architecture to the same as the powermacs?
 
Re: Re: Re: iLife + more

Originally posted by flyfish29


So how does this really affect me running some older software. Much of the software will be for my kids...things like Math Munchers, etc. that never took too much computing power anyway (will these run in classic?) I do have an old version of Quark (3.2 I believe) that I would like to run but only a few times a year to modify things I have already created in it and don't have a major use for a new version of Quark. Would it run on Classic?


So what revision of Jaguar is not bootable in OS9? 10.2.?

On a side note: There have always been things Apple has done that have not been right, and there will always be things that Apple does that we don't think are right and they end up working. Just remember to give Apple feedback. Your voicing major negative concerns in public forums like this do in fact push people away. If you have a complaint then voice it, but be careful not to push people away.

Fly...

It's not Jaguar, it's the hardware. You can run all of your OS 9 apps in classic via OS X.

I agree with you about pushing people away. I really don't want new users to get discuouraged. I think it's great they are reading these groups. Remember a 800Mhz iMac will rock just abt everything u want.
 
Middle of the day reflections...

I've upgraded my response to the iMacs from disappointed to ambivalent.

The high end model is a very good deal for everything it includes. However, I still think there should be a 17" mid-level model with a 1GHz chip and a combo drive. I would probably buy that option if it existed because I have no use for a SuperDrive at this time. I still think the low-end model should be Bluetooth & Airport Extreme ready for it's price. Why not a low-end model with just a cd burner?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: not crap

Originally posted by nuckinfutz


Well I was overly harsh but I object to people saying FW800 is for Prosumers or fast Hard Drives. My Proof

http://www.barefeats.com/fire34.html

FW800 in addition to offering twice the theoretical speed of FW400 also offers.

It's bad enought that there's no L3 cache or Airport Extreme as well. These machines will be out in the cold in 2 years...sitting on ebay waiting for some sucker.

I understand. But we're not maxing out FW400 on anything yet. I believe FW800 devices will work with an adapter at FW400 speeds. I liken this to the fact that most PCs don't come with Ultra SCSI 160. I'd like to have much more power in the iMac, but with the processor family topping out at 1.4GHz, I can accept 1GHz in the iMac.

It would be nice if Apple offered Motherboard upgrades with L3 or with the next gen of G4. I'm sure many people would pay $500 in a year or two to upgrade to a 1.4GHz/FW800/L3 iMac motherboard.

Apple does need to be creative and offer longer "meaningful" life in its products. But we are talking about an all-in-one here. That's why they failed on the PC side. It says a lot that Apple is able to get people to buy into it. Like I said, it cost too much, but Apple has reached a price/performance ratio at which I'm willing to pay a little extra to get what I want. And I want to try Apple's digital lifestyle solution. I've been trying Microsoft's for a long time and I'm still unsatisfied with the Windows UI, so what do I have to lose? I'm willing to pay $500 just to use iTunes and iCal with my iPod... at the same time, I'm not interested in paying $200 for an extra 256MB DDR when I can get it off the shelf for $45.

Nothing is perfect.
 
17" iMac shipping...

Loaded 17" iMacs ship from the Apple online store in 5-7 days.

I'm not sure how anyone can be too upset with the specs. When the powermacs came out, it pretty much set the ceiling.

Price however... I don't have any qualms with what their charging, but it's hard to woo ignorant users (over 50%) who know the following:

2.4 Ghz is more than 1.0 Ghz
$599 is less than $1200

Yes yes yes yes they CAN buy a snow iMac, but that doesn't really Look like a computer to these people. Base + monitor = computer. new iMacs are what people see at on the "low end" of Mac products. There just isn't a Mac (no matter how crappy) that meets the price point and comparisons for the average dumb computer buyer. These people are the market share.

Heck, if they'd just put the CRT iMac in a different box it'd probably be OK.

Then again, maybe Apple doesn't really want to dominate. That's fine.
 
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy


Well this looks like it might perform a little better. I would like to order the new 1Ghz 17" iMac. Does anyone know what type of a difference I will see moving from a 400Mhz iMac DV? I have lost so much faith in Apple when I read the message boards, many times I am not sure if they are moving ahead or going backwards... ;o(

Is it a good buy or not for someone moving up from a 3 year old iMac???

Dude,,,,,it will be like night and day. I to have a iMacDV and when i got my PB 667(non-DVI) I stopped using the DV all together. Dear God man its G3 vs a G4, 8 megs of video vs 64 megs. Neither have an L3 cache,,,,,,so what are you waiting for? Any new comp will be faster than our DVs.
 
Originally posted by Shrek
Looks like I'll be buying a PowerMac soon enough, though that is NOT the machine that I want! :mad:

Just do what I'm doing......... I'm going to wait till the 12" Powerbook is 1ghz, and the iMac is 1.25 with maybe firewire800 .......... just wait till around June.......... it will happen eventually
 
Re: Re: Re: Poor graphics

Originally posted by iJed



You can get a GeForce 4 Ti in many PCs that cost a fraction of the price of an iMac. There are also mobile versions of the Radeon 9000 and the GeForce 4 Ti. Apple should have used the mobile Ti in the PowerBook G4 17"

I am not sure... but I think the specs for the mobile G4Ti had not been finalized when Apple was designing the new 17" PB.

Mainly, I am thinking of power consumption (don't want bad battery life or the users will complain) and size ("sure... it will fit..."). Both seem valid to me. You?

Again, I might be wrong.
 
Originally posted by 3777
just wait till around June..........

I've already waited since June of 2002. I'm not going to wait much longer. The only thing I need to do now is get a steady job (I already have a temp job) and start making some serious moolah! :D
 
I'm so depressed they didn't release radeon 9700s and dual G4 2GHz for < 600$, damn.




i was pretty impressed with this. apple has turned nearly its entire line inside out in the space of, hmm, a month. the only one that remains is the iBook, which is still in generally good shape. everywhere i turn on the page, i see GHz processors or better, wheee. 1800 for a desklamp with a G4 and a big, gorgeous screen is a great buy.

but i'm sure we've all heard that one, huh? the old Gigahertz trick, eh? they won't get your pocketbook with that one!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.