August 7th Updates: iMacs, iLife '08, iWork '08, Mac Mini and More...

[Padriac]

Minitower with 1 PCI-E slot, upgradable GPU, 4GB RAM max, 2 3.5 drive bays, 1 5.25 drive bay, firewire 800, desktop Intel x64 chipset (not xeon).

Let me offer you what I think Apple's response to your requests is (in relation to the iMac). This mirrors the average computer buying public as well. Essentially, you're asking for *slots* but Apple is concerned with *functions*.

1) PCI-E slot: For what? What do you want to do with it?
2) upgradable GPU: No *mac* games require a graphics card beyond what we already give you.
3) 4 GB RAM max: iMac has this
4) 2 3.5 drive bays: For what? Why can't you accomplish with USB 2.0, firewire 400/800?
5) 1 5.25 drive bay: see above... if you need some extra peripheral, just plug it in. You already said you aren't really concerned about looks, so that can't be the problem.
6) firewire 800: iMac has got it
7) "Desktop" Intel Chipset: 2.8 C2D isn't enough?

I'd say the iMac is capable of meeting most of your needs (depending on what you want those drive bays for). When you break it down, you basically aren't getting an iMac because the GPU isn't that great for new *WINDOWS* games. (The CPU thing I'd put as "minor" as performance gains in real-word applications will be fairly small).

Again, not telling you what you should like, but highlighting that from Apple's vantage they probably feel like all your requests ARE covered by the iMac and the external peripheral world we live in.

 

[nbhms]

Gaming

2) upgradable GPU: No *mac* games require a graphics card beyond what we already give you.

Of course this is true. However, a year or so from now, there will be games that at best will run on these with all settings set to minimum. Currently there is a resurgence of game developers coming back to the Mac platform (and some who never left), and many of them (Epic, id, etc) are bringing some very intensive 3D engines. Go to www.imgmagazine.com or other gaming news site and look back through the archives. Over the last few months there have been some impressive announcements in regards to Macs and gaming, and some of the more popular current and upcoming titles of what you labeled *windows* games will become *mac* games. That is why the lineup in this announcement surprised / worries me. At a *minimum* I expected they would introduce upgradeable GPU memory.

It worries me that this is something that could go bad very quickly if a year or so from now games built with these engines start being released and consumers/switchers find they don't run well on their recently purchased iMac/Mini . . . and unlike the PC they had before, their only upgrade option (for GPU) is a new machine (the vast majority of PCs that use the GPU in the Mac Mini have a slot or two that can be used to add better video at a later date). And Apple ends up with bitter customers and developers that leave the Mac (again) due to low sales. Hopefully I'm wrong.

The same goes for the PCI slot. I don't want anything in it right now, but it gives some future proof to the computer. I have a PowerMac 7600 I bought in 1995 that is still a perfectly viable machine for cruising the Internet, doing word processing, and (very) light gaming. Why? Because there are 3 PCI slots in there that, when I bought it, I didn't have anything in mind for. But now I have OSX running on the machine because the CPU was upgradeable and the 3 PCI slots gave me an ATA controller, a USB card, and an ATI Mac RADEON card. All technologies that either weren't available when the machine was sold or "weren't needed". And before you say it, yes I know Apple makes more money if I can't stretch a computer's life out 10+ years.

And the desktop chipset - only reason there is I don't care to pay a laptop premium for a desktop machine.

For the 5.25 bay, I wasn't clear, sorry. I meant the bay the Superdrive would be in, done in such a way as to be easily upgradable as well. i.e. future blu-ray or HD-DVD player/burner. But as you say one can always be added with firewire.

And you are right, the iMac gives me most of what I want and I will probably compromise on the iMac. I'm just waiting to see one in person and see how the glossy screen works or doesn't work. Reflections on TV screens really annoy me (and can even cause headaches), hopefully as others have stated in this thread it isn't an issue when looking directly at the screen.

And all those others who want mini-towers too can thank me when I purchase a new iMac and Apple releases a mini-tower a month later

Let me offer you what I think Apple's response to your requests is (in relation to the iMac). This mirrors the average computer buying public as well. Essentially, you're asking for *slots* but Apple is concerned with *functions*.

1) PCI-E slot: For what? What do you want to do with it?
2) upgradable GPU: No *mac* games require a graphics card beyond what we already give you.
3) 4 GB RAM max: iMac has this
4) 2 3.5 drive bays: For what? Why can't you accomplish with USB 2.0, firewire 400/800?
5) 1 5.25 drive bay: see above... if you need some extra peripheral, just plug it in. You already said you aren't really concerned about looks, so that can't be the problem.
6) firewire 800: iMac has got it
7) "Desktop" Intel Chipset: 2.8 C2D isn't enough?

I'd say the iMac is capable of meeting most of your needs (depending on what you want those drive bays for). When you break it down, you basically aren't getting an iMac because the GPU isn't that great for new *WINDOWS* games. (The CPU thing I'd put as "minor" as performance gains in real-word applications will be fairly small).

Again, not telling you what you should like, but highlighting that from Apple's vantage they probably feel like all your requests ARE covered by the iMac and the external peripheral world we live in.

 

[Avatar74]

Minitower with 1 PCI-E slot, upgradable GPU, 4GB RAM max, 2 3.5 drive bays, 1 5.25 drive bay, firewire 800, desktop Intel x64 chipset (not xeon).

Did I expect to see it? Not really, but I was hoping for movement in the Mini or iMac line that would have gotten closer to that. For example, make a high-end mini with the iMac components (which would give me most of my list above, minus the PCI and bays). Yes there would be heat from the GPU, but that could be solved. That would be a compromise I'd be happy with. I don't like forcing a monitor upgrade with a computer upgrade.

As you say, it's not as big a market, less likely Apple will cater to it. My personal opinion is that market is larger than people think, and would lead to more Windows switchers, but that is strictly my opinion and have no facts to back it up (other than anecdotal evidence gathered as an IT Professional).

They could save money on development by offering a single CPU Mac Pro or re-use the Mac Pro case and use the Core 2 Duo desktop chipset with less expensive memory. But as you say, Apple obviously doesn't see enough of a market market there to justify dev. Or they are worried about canabalizing iMac sales.

No, and I understand your point, but I don't think your analogy applies cleanly. My personal reason for buying Apple/Mac has NEVER been their "industrial design" or "status" or brand or to "say I own a Mac" (as a matter of fact most of my IT colleagues mock me for owning one). It has always been because I thought their OS was supperior and they used quality electronics. My computers have always been tools, not pieces of furniture or status symbols. If it's a quality OS with quality internals, I could care less if it sat in a flat grey or beige box under my desk. I care much more about the design and quality of the OS than the box it's in.

But I count the OS as part of the design factors. You can't tell me that the ergonomics and intuitiveness of the user interface have no impact on your opinion of the Macintosh. With the Ferrari example, the engine and body design are instrumental in the user experience.

Even the ergonomics of the case go a long way to the functionality of a Mac... Consider the slot drive, the side mounted ports on laptops, the verticaly-vented iMac case, the use of aluminum as a greater dissipator of heat, the clean and organized intervals of the mac pro, etc. These aren't merely aesthetic design requirements. The effect of form upon function is often dismissed, even by the tech savvy... Especially by the tech savvy, who are too quick to ignore the ways form affects function. This has always baffled me. Form is a huge determiner of usability... Who cares if you have 300 features if every one of them is too rudiculously clunky to be useful and efficient?[/QUOTE]

 

[Pagana]

Ok, so I got iLife '08 for my Mac Pro, upgraded from iLife '06, and now iDVD crashes, on both of my drives, one running Tiger 10.4.10 and the other Leopard 9A499. I deleted the PLIST files on both drives and got to the window for iDVD that let's me choose to create or open a new project, and then it crashes. I deleted the entire suite, all hidden files as well, restarted, reinstalled iLife '08, restarted, repaired permissions and still it crashes. I called Apple but they were of no help.

Any one else having a similar experience?

Hi there i get the same problem, also with Imovie and Idvd ...and also quick time don't export anymore..the file...
how did you resolve..this??

thanks
a

 

[Digital Skunk]

Sounds like typical Apple QC problems to me... the whole iLife 08 thing is just another example of how Apple is slowly turning into Dell. Minor design changes, minor processor upgrades; the only thing that is strictly Apple is the price.

Where has the Apple of the good old days gone? I want it back.