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

Apple Releases Intel iMac

intel iMac vs. Dual core Powermac

Abercrombieboy said:
They now have an iMac that will outpower most PowerMac G5 Duals! Awesome! But sad for me and others that have an old tech PPC iMac, they won't be worth much anymore.
Click to expand...

That's the first thing I thought of when I saw 2-3X the speed of a iMac G5.

The 2.1 G5 was already a close runner up to its Powermac counterpart. Now it should blow it out of the water. With a 20" screen to boot. I leaning towards changing my mind about the All-In Ones.

The MacBook Pro has my attention though.


I.
 
hoping for something new on the iMac line

I wish a 30" iMac was released.

Maybe in the future they will, once they add a HD tv tuner.. itd be a nice media set.

probably release it with the "video airport express" (rumoured).

*sigh*

*snapping out of it*

The update to iMac was a welcomed surprise though. Would order the 20" iMac soon and play with the iLife 06 to my heart's content.
 
The PowerMac does look less tempting now... no help for that, but let's hurry up with Conroe quad towers :)
 
iMac G5 Revolt!?

chicagdan said:
And I should add that by Jobs' own words, I'd be a fool not to pack up the computer and return it tomorrow. By Apple policy, I'm entitled to a full refund minus a 10 percent restocking fee. So for $200 (including sales tax -- Chicago tax is insane), I can walk out with this three times faster computer. If every iMac buyer over the past two weeks did that, wouldn't Apple have a big problem on its hands?

(EDIT: Of course, I don't believe's Jobs' claim and like the fact that the computer I have now runs every piece of software in the Mac universe including Virtual PC, which I trust much more than dual boot, and Mac Classic software. So I won't be returning anything. But as a professional speechwriter, I think words matter and Jobs' gave an unnecessary slap in the face to a lot of his users today. I don't appreciate it.)
Click to expand...

Man, I hate to be a whiner. That's why I'm seriously considering the ship it back option for the now maybe obsolete iMac G5 I bought 10 days ago. In fact, I've already got the return number to send it back. I have 20 days to make up my mind. I'd only be taking about a $200 loss. Now, what I'd like to hear is some pro and con from those of you who really know this ****. Is the Intel iMac worth switching for (considering the loss I'll take)? Might it be wiser to wait for the next model down the line? Could the new platform have stability issues? Is there really that much of a difference? Are we just being speed queens? Revolution now? Or tempest in a teapot? Your thoughts, please, except quit reminding me how stupid I was for buying something so close to the expo.
 
Here we go!

I have a 867mhz PowerBook and it's been great. I've been waiting for a new Mac for a long time, I knew that there would be intel machines, not this soon though, I'm just glad I waited. It took a lot of nerve to pass up some good Mac deals I've seen but, I knew if I waited it would have been well worth it. I'm happy I waited and I can't wait to get my hands on my iMac 20", this machine will be everything I wanted and more. I'll put Windows XP on it (or try to at least) to see if I can run some games, if it does run, and runs well, I'll sell my PC :D

Now I'll actually be able to transfer stuff to my iPod video via USB 2.0, no more USB 1.1 haha! This is a dream, I'm so excited. I can't wait, somebody pinch me! :p...I'm almost as happy as Mac in my avatar ;)
 
Windows XP

Using now Intel processors, how likely will it be that Windows XP can be installed. I 90% of the time use OS X, but for some things I would need a PC. Anyone a clue where I can find information on that?
 
The new iMac looks good, but im dying to find out exactly is under the hood, so it uses EFI for a bios, but how will apple keep OS X from running on a dell? I doubt that the graphic cards are the same as true PC versions, if that were the case apple is going have to write drivers for something new every few months or get some heat for not doing so. Think its going to be interesting to see how fast companies release duel binaries now that they actually have a reason to do so!
 
gilleszeimet said:
Using now Intel processors, how likely will it be that Windows XP can be installed. I 90% of the time use OS X, but for some things I would need a PC. Anyone a clue where I can find information on that?
Click to expand...

Give it a few days, I'm sure something will turn up sooner rather than later... ;) :cool:
 
Virtualization?

~Shard~ said:
Give it a few days, I'm sure something will turn up sooner rather than later... ;) :cool:
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a big stink about virtualization in the CPU a while back? Is it in there now? Will there be VMWare or VPC or the equivalent that will let me boot OS X but have some other x86 OSes running in separate virtual machines using this CPU feature?

That would kick so much ass. Now if only I wasn't in so much debt and making so little money...

Also, where's the new Mini (PVR even)? I just bought a mini 10 days ago for my mom and stepdad, I'd love to know if a new one were to be released soon so we could return it.
 
Weak. I got off the phone to apple store and despite the fact the website says estimated ship time 5-7 days for the BTO options I want or 7-10 days for the stock model. The guy said it will be 10-12 working days (2.5 weeks) before the apple online store gets them in. Add 2-7 days for delivery and that's when mine comes :mad: This is the (pathetic) AU store btw. Checked the US ones and they ship out within 3 days.
By the time I get mine a new model will have come out :p
 
first Mactel a dud?

I'm having trouble understanding all the euphoria. At first glance, it looks like the first Mactels (today's x86 iMacs) are a huge dud.

Going by Apple's presumanbly optimistic benchmarks, they claim over all a 2x speed up from the iMac G5 to the iMac x86. But the iMac G5 is a single core chip and the iMac x86 is a two core chip. Double the number of CPU's = double the performance -- duh! To my uneducated eyes, that looks like the switch to Intel was a complete wash on performance with not one cent reduction in price. Presumably they could have gotten the same gain just by switching from the 970FX to the 970MP without all the hassle of switching architectures. That's not even taking into consideration the cache increase going from the 970FX to the 970MP. (Don't forget that the MP is last year's chip and the FX is two years old. Presumably IBM had better stuff coming.)

In fact, it looks even worse than that. With the Core Duo, the iMac reverts to being a 32 bit computer and goes back to the 2G RAM limit. The bus speed looks really low too - is that a function of the iMac's being lobotomized in general, or does the Core Duo chip really have a handicapped bus like the later G4's did?
Is the Core Duo just another junky low end Intel chip like the Celerons, or does this bode ill for the switch to Intel in general? Or am I missing something entirely? Admittedly this is a very off-the-cuff comparison.

I'm anxiously awaiting some decent benchmark comparisons, but at the moment it looks like the first progeny of Apple's latest marriage is a pretty sickly child. No Kool Aid induced emotional flames please, but if you've got the numbers that prove my first impressions wrong, I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing your analysis.

On a different topic, what the deuce is going on with the mini Mac non-upgrades and where in the blazes is the missing DVR for Front Row ??!! I was all set to be ordering one tonight. Very bummed.
 
nomacyet said:
I'm having trouble understanding all the euphoria. At first glance, it looks like the first Mactels (today's x86 iMacs) are a huge dud.

Going by Apple's presumanbly optimistic benchmarks, they claim over all a 2x speed up from the iMac G5 to the iMac x86. But the iMac G5 is a single core chip and the iMac x86 is a two core chip. Double the number of CPU's = double the performance -- duh! To my uneducated eyes, that looks like the switch to Intel was a complete wash on performance with not one cent reduction in price. Presumably they could have gotten the same gain just by switching from the 970FX to the 970MP without all the hassle of switching architectures. That's not even taking into consideration the cache increase going from the 970FX to the 970MP. (Don't forget that the MP is last year's chip and the FX is two years old. Presumably IBM had better stuff coming.)

In fact, it looks even worse than that. With the Core Duo, the iMac reverts to being a 32 bit computer and goes back to the 2G RAM limit. The bus speed looks really low too - is that a function of the iMac's being lobotomized in general, or does the Core Duo chip really have a handicapped bus like the later G4's did?
Is the Core Duo just another junky low end Intel chip like the Celerons, or does this bode ill for the switch to Intel in general? Or am I missing something entirely? Admittedly this is a very off-the-cuff comparison.

I'm anxiously awaiting some decent benchmark comparisons, but at the moment it looks like the first progeny of Apple's latest marriage is a pretty sickly child. No Kool Aid induced emotional flames please, but if you've got the numbers that prove my first impressions wrong, I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing your analysis.

On a different topic, what the deuce is going on with the mini Mac non-upgrades and where in the blazes is the missing DVR for Front Row ??!! I was all set to be ordering one tonight. Very bummed.
Click to expand...

What an earth are you talking about

EACH core/on die processor is faster than the g52.1 and there is TWO of them - how is this a dud? how is that 'washed out' performance? the core duo is the newest best chip out - not like a damn celeron!

come of it bud - that talk is just crazy
 
Like LimeiBook86 I had an older PowerBook and I have been wanting to change it for a while. I am well glad I waited, and whereas I was going to get a MacBook Pro, I'm now leaning to a 20" iMac instead and I'll wait and see what comes out in the non pro MacBook line.

I'll read the press this month and kill the next pay cheque. :D
 
I'd like to please ask people to take some time to contribute to the Guide pages on these new products.

[guide]MacBook Pro[/guide]
[guide]iWork '06[/guide]
[guide]iLife '06[/guide]
[guide]Intel iMac[/guide]

These pages are editable by anyone.
 
Rev. A

I'm getting a little tired of everyone calling this a Rev. A iMac. It's at least the 2nd incarnation of this form factor (which really hasn't changed all that significantly from the previous two revisions).

All of the previous bugs and kinks that come with Rev. A hardware have all but been worked out of this incarnation of the iMac. All thats changed is the processor and motherboard, two things that aren't the usual culprits in fist revisions (sans iBook logic board).

So, to all you peeps who are making yourselves feel better about the iMac you just bought Sunday by saying that you never buy Rev. A hardware - I say can it.

:-D
 
The ram difference between the two iMacs is another notable fact. 512MB + 2GB or 1GB + 1GB. Both DDR2. I think it's possible for in the future to have 4GB of ram in the new iMacs. I am probably wrong. I was just thinking back to my pismo, which according to apple has a max ram of 512MB (256+256), where I know it's max is now 1GB (512+512). I assume that was due to larger sizes becoming available later.
 
skymaXimus said:
I'm getting a little tired of everyone calling this a Rev. A iMac. It's at least the 2nd incarnation of this form factor (which really hasn't changed all that significantly from the previous two revisions).

All of the previous bugs and kinks that come with Rev. A hardware have all but been worked out of this incarnation of the iMac. All thats changed is the processor and motherboard, two things that aren't the usual culprits in fist revisions (sans iBook logic board).

So, to all you peeps who are making yourselves feel better about the iMac you just bought Sunday by saying that you never buy Rev. A hardware - I say can it.

:-D
Click to expand...

It's not the "rev.a" hardware, it's the operating system running on hardware that hasn't been market tested.
 
can ppl stop lamenting and bitching off and start talking more about the Intel iMac!!! :mad:

like this is the forum to start whispering, just like that Mac Book thread, of the capabilities, shortcomings and trivialities of it...

really, this is going to be such a different product that i would tell those who just bought their iMac G5, to be sure that they bought something worth to keep. i already said it, the G5 is a marvell, and those who are gonna buy an Intel, well pretty much do it at our own risk, because it;s a new architecture baby!

... while those guys from Apple have tons of years and experience compiling for the PowerPC, it really is a matter of time to see their x86 skills. that their processor is just half as fast the new ones, so what?, it was already half as fast as virtually any Pentium 4 @3.0GHz or Pentium D.

now thank you...
 
I'm suprised that Apple finally supports screen spanning on the iMac. A mini-DVI port is a nice touch, as is the X1600 GPU.

Probably uses the 945 Express chipset.

I would have expected Apple to use the 3945ABG for wireless, but we still have AE.
 
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