G5 iMac Specs?

[MacsRgr8]

Yep.

But, IMHO the biggest (maybe only) upset is the grfx card.... 😡

Let's true not to forget that these are only rumors.
That said, Apple ususally does a bad job at grfx cards in the iMac.

Edit:

Apple could find out if grfx cards are important to the average consumer:
Build 2 mid-range iMacs:
Both are"
17"
1.8 GHz
512 MB RAM
60 GB HD
8x SuperDrive
etc...

But one with the GeForce 5600
And ne with the Radeon 9600

Price difference is $ 50 more for the Radeon-equipped..

You think consumers will ask the salesman the difference? Will the salesman say that the Radeon is much faster, thus a better deal?

 

[sankara]

the reason this is so odd is cause no one doubted the fact that flat panel imacs were selling fine.

Selling fine?
Last quater only 60K iMac was sold(on the other hand 180K units eMac. You can check this from Apple Conference Call 2004 3Q).

Also Look at the below article.
http://news.com.com/Dimmer+fades+on+desk-lamp+iMac/2100-1041_3-5256014.html?tag=nl

 

[Bad Beaver]

Thinksecret got the spec for the iMac that was supposed to be released back in January 2004. There is a lot of misinformation going to be spread between now and 8/31. Expect some huge surprises soon.

Spot on, Stingerman, this also crept into my mind. If there was too much truth to the ThinkSecret specs they would be DOWN by now, but just go look, still there, no "article removed due to request from Apple legal". We can all chill.

 

[rdowns]

once again this group of people do not account for the typical user base. the typical user base does not post on a mac site about rumors.

the reason this is so odd is cause no one doubted the fact that flat panel imacs were selling fine. so well that they ran out before expected. but then apple takes this computer, adds a g5 processor, SATA drive, probably an 8x burner, at the same price point. for some reason people thing since apple made a computer much better and kept it at the same price point they are doomed. these points are flawed.

i bet the majority of the people on this forum who are angry with these new specs are the same people who were angry with the soon to be old imacs. these people won't budge until the specs are up to par with their needs, and this puts these people in the "minority," not the typical consumer install base.

iJon

Talk about spinning reality. The current iMacs were not selling fine. Look at Apple's numbers, sales were way off from a year ago. They did not run out because they were selling so well, they ran out because Apple stopped manufacturing them and did not have the replacement models ready to go.

 

[stuepfnick]

Crap!

But I would buy, if it at least had a built-to-order option for a Radeon 9600XT with 128 MB or a GeForce FX 5900 with 128 MB.

Everything below is a joke! The FX5200 hasn't even a higher fillrate than the 4MX (1.1 GPixels to 1.0 GPixel).
Yes it has Vertex and Pixel shaders, but is tooo slow.

I have an iMac G4/800 with 17", 512 MB RAM, 80 GB HD (+160 GB extern), 32 MB Video now.

80 GB HD and 256 MB RAM was in 2002, when I bought my iMac. Also the current form factor is MUCH better!

The processor is the only good thing of this. And the only thing, that got better over the last 2,5 years (and of course bus speed).

But HD I have an external 160er drive and RAM can be bought, but the graphics chip is fixed. I would buy, if gaphics would be of today or changable...

I don't have the money fpr Dual G5 + nice Display... if the iMac is really that crap, I'll get a G5 with CRT and go back that step.. and buy a TFT some month later...

 

[Detlev]

Spot on, Stingerman, this also crept into my mind. If there was too much truth to the ThinkSecret specs they would be DOWN by now, but just go look, still there, no "article removed due to request from Apple legal". We can all chill.

I hope you are right, Bad Beaver.

 

[gatorron]

Incontrovertible?

I've enjoyed reading the response to this rumor, both positive and negative. But let's examine the rumor a bit. Thinksecret stated:

"Highly reliable sources have provided Think Secret with incontrovertible evidence of the new iMac specifications."

This struck me in much the same way that the Bush Administration did when Cheney, Bush, Powell, et al claimed:

"We have direct evidence showing that Saddam Hussein has amassed stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and that he intends on using them to attack the United States."

It turns out Saddam was writing romance novels, and his weapons program was equally fictional.

Now, if Think Secret has "incontrovertible evidence" then lay it on the table. A photo would be "incontrovertible." An engineering drawing would be "incontrovertible."

If Think Secret has "high reliable sources," name them. Let us judge their reliability.

Some of the specs, as others have noted, do not have the ring of truth, e.g. why say there are two 20-inch models when the difference is HD capacity? This is an option, not a model line.

It is possible that TS has simply yanked our chains. If so, it was fun.

 

[Bad Beaver]

Now, if Think Secret has "incontrovertible evidence" then lay it on the table. A photo would be "incontrovertible." An engineering drawing would be "incontrovertible."

If Think Secret has "high reliable sources," name them. Let us judge their reliability.

Ah, well, TS would rather not name their sources... shuriken and stuff, you know... but picture evidence would have been nice of course. If they had it they would have shown it. But there is none.

 

[gatorron]

Incontrovertible?

Thinksecret said:

"Sources would not confirm specific pricing, but did acknowledge that MSRP will probably fall in the same range as current iMac models -- between US$1,300 and $2,200 -- but could venture slightly higher."

Well, that's quite a range. Apparently this "highly reliable source" is not that close to the inside scoop.

Hell, my dog -- who's pretty smart btw -- knew what the price range was going to be.

This isn't even new information.

 

[NOV]

I hope the new iMac looks something like this:

(sorry, just hand drawn) in a few minutes 😀

i think it would be a bit unhandy to have FW/ USB and other connectors in the back of the monitor, so maybe they would solve that by creating a thicker and stiffer stand.

The motherboard, processor, memory, hd etc. could go in the back of the monitor.

If Apple delivers it with a bluetooth mouse and keyboard I think they have a killer machine on their hands..In the office and in schools it would be a real space saver.

 

[stuepfnick]

These specs are simply pathetic!!

The dual processor towers are way overpriced for their P4 3Ghz performance....because that is all they do!!! A P4 box with minumum RAM, HD and Graphics, NO bluetooth, NO wireless, No screen.....AU$4,500!!! Get real APPLE....

Crying in my beer.....

That's big crap! The Dual 2.0 GHZ G5 has about the Performance of a DUAL 3.06 Ghz Xeon Workstation... and that for a cheaper price...

Also the Dual 2.5 Ghz has about the performance of a Dual 3.6 Ghz Xeon machine... and again it's cheaper...

In some points performance is even a lot better, in some cases a little slower. But Mac software is now just optimized for G4s... until it's G5 optimized it will take some time again... and then this machines will leave the Xeon workstation even more far behind.

But for craphics cards you are right... they are crap in the G5 (for that price!), but there's BTO and the possibility to change them (gladly)

But the iMac really needs AT LEAST a Radeon 9600XT with 128 MB in the mid range-high end models, or BTO or a changeable card.
I guess these iMacs will be about the 3 Ghz P4 performance... and you get it with big and expensive screen.... but it absolutely needs a better GFX card!!!!

 

[el greenerino]

I'm worried that the G5 iMac won't be as distinctive as the past iMacs. Apple's designs are losing their wow factor.

Not to mention the specs are lame for a $1300 computer.

 

[mikelr]

low end imac

apple will not trash the emac yet. because the emac is very cheap but can still do most tasks consumers want to do. (and is has a combo or super drive)

 

[Mord]

i hope for the sake of my apple loving personality that apple makes an imac wih a batter card than a 5200 and gets rid of that card on the powermac line makeing the 9600xt standard and the 9800xt standard on the dual 2.5GHz g5

 

[iJon]

Talk about spinning reality. The current iMacs were not selling fine. Look at Apple's numbers, sales were way off from a year ago. They did not run out because they were selling so well, they ran out because Apple stopped manufacturing them and did not have the replacement models ready to go.

alright, i'll admit i'm wrong on that. i forgot about the sales numbers. but my statements still stand on how they sell. i think the imac was just up and needed a nice new revision. and i think the imacs will follow a similar pattern where they will sell well but dwindle as time goes by. i feel this will also be good considering these new imacs will be closer in speed with the pentium 4's.

iJon

 

[relimw]

I'd highly doubt that the even the lowest model would not at the very least have a nVidia GeForce FX 5200 or a ATI 9600. Remember, Apple wants everybody to be able to use CoreImage|Video even for education 'lite' versions of their software. We're not talking a huge cost for Apple to have decent base video cards in the iMac line, they could even go with the mobility chipsets if they're concerned about power/heat problems.

It's also silly to think that Apple wouldn't have at least some type of cd/dvd drive. You can buy plain cd drives for next to nothing ($20 or so), so why not have it. Everything else seems reasonable for a cut-rate system.

 

[isgoed]

Who is apple kidding?

Apple should stop treating their custommers as dumb followers. This machine is not an upgrade and people will see that. Consumers want to play the latest game, edit their video's in the fastest way. These machines are hardly worth the upgrade. Apple should put in at least a whole lot "buy to order options", like the videocard, ram and hard disk. The large upgrades remain at the windows PC's. They even have the latest version of MS office all the time. And you can upgrade any part of a PC anytime it becomes too slow for the latest applications, which much better suits the spending pattern of the average consumer.

And the line-up is so weird. Not many consumers will want to pay €500 extra for 3 inches more screen. You can buy a second screen for that money. Most would rather spend those things on a 2Ghz G5, geforce 6800 or 2GB ram. Apple should be giving consumers much more customizing instead of delivering unpersonalized computers.

And good that apple is going G5, but why still so conservative? Just drop that 1.6Ghz. Yeah it is a 350mhz (or 28%) upgrade for the eMac, but fact of the matter is that when you upgrade your line up as infrequently as apple does, it just seems not much. the iMac should have been at 2Ghz a year ago. The G5 is fast, but in all fairness, a single 3.2Ghz pentium (which is a mainstream processor) beats the 2.5Ghz G5. So Apple should be putting 2.2Ghz G5 in the iMac to have a worthy upgrade.

And I keep seeing people on this forum say things as:

"apple is a bmw and not a ford" It might be a bmw on the outside, but the ford is faster and cars are all about getting you from A to B

"a consumer does not need a fast computer" So apple will sell no computers

"the pro line needs to be better than the consumer line" No, they both need to be good. Its stupid to cripple one production line for the sake of a principle

OK. I just want to make this thread longer so apple will hear his customers. I really wanted to buy an iMac, but now I don't know. Hopefully someone from apple will read this.

 

[aldo]

2400 comes with 128mb RAM standard, which is IMPOSSIBLE to do anything with in Windows XP.....install a couple programs, and you're paging just sitting at the desktop.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

I used a XP box with 128MB RAM. It is NOT as bad as you make out - infact by adding another 256MB there was only very slight changes in games and multiple apps.

XP is _very_ good with managing the pagefile. Far, far better than 98 or ME.

 

[aldo]

Everytime Apple brings out specs for new machines (or some rumour site gets quoted) so many people come out of the wood work to complain. I've been watching it for a year and I have to say it's pretty boring. Example all the complaints about the "cut down" Dual G5 1.8 GHz, well I have a Rev B Dual 1.8 GHz and when I can play games like Call of Duty, with every setting on full, at 1680x1050 32 bpp on my AL 20" monitor I have to say I'm completely happy. My Dual G5 does everything I want, and the iMac will do everything it needs to, the only valid complaint here is with the video card, and even that isn't very valid since it is the default card in 2 of the Power Macs. The people who complain constantly about all of the Apple hardware, have you actually considered using it? Or is it your full time job to do nothing but complain?

I can run Call Of Duty on a 4 year old PC with a Geforce 2 MX, at 800x600 medium. On my 2 year old PC with a Ti4200 and 1800XP, 768MB DDR, I can run it at 1280x1024 with few slowdowns. The difference is that I paid £500 for my PC 2 years ago, and I'd have to pay £1,500 or more _now_ for a mac of the same caliber.

 

[Hattig]

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

I used a XP box with 128MB RAM. It is NOT as bad as you make out - infact by adding another 256MB there was only very slight changes in games and multiple apps.

XP is _very_ good with managing the pagefile. Far, far better than 98 or ME.

XP is crippled by 128MB, sorry. I've used it. 256MB however is fine. 128MB gets okay if you turn off all graphical effects, use the Win2k interface and so on, and run 1 application of the size of Word or Firefox or Thunderbird.

 

[aldo]

XP is crippled by 128MB, sorry. I've used it. 256MB however is fine. 128MB gets okay if you turn off all graphical effects, use the Win2k interface and so on, and run 1 application of the size of Word or Firefox or Thunderbird.

I don't understand. I have used it too and used multiple IE windows (no FireFox back then 😉), MSN messenger and a few other small apps running at the time and it was fine. Not blisteringly fast, but very acceptable.

BTW Guys, for all this spin that the 'imac is great' and 'all in ones are excellent', obviously hasn't checked the sales figures. THere is no way I am going to buy a machine with a built in TFT. Most people nowadays can plug a computer up and play on it.

Oh BTW - don't assume everyone who has a Dell/PC runs Windows. There is plenty of Linux users (Linux's desktop market share is above Apple's now) so stop doing that. Don't also assume that every PC is Dell. I build my own and build them for loads of people, they are dirt cheap and run very well.

I really hope whoever said that these are the Jan specs are right. Because theese specs are terrible. Infact I'm suprised they managed to source a GF4MX in sufficent quantites because they are falling off the market.

 

[HyperX]

Rumors are false, I will bet my left testicle! (not the right)

I declare this rumor FALSE

1) Price Range of 1300 - 2200... current range started at 1000$ How can an insider just forget there WAS a 15" and that is the starting point.

2) MX4 in education model. Total crap. Since it would be the ONLY COMPUTER IN APPLES LINEUP WITH THAT SHIPSET! Bulk purchasing. There would not be enough saving without bulk purchasing to NOT go with the SAME VIDEO CARD IN THE EDU MODEL! This is simple logic! Apple probably pays like 20$ a chipset for the 5200.. I dont think they would get any cheaper with the MX4. ALSO they would not put a better CARD in the Emac then they do the Imac. The Imac would not get LESS then a 9200! I am Sure they are getting 9600's with the high end seeing 9800 pro as a BTO option! <Sorry no 6800>

3) Harddrives. Apple would go with an 80 gig SATA at the SMALLEST in the Imac. It wouldn't make ANY sence to do it otherwise. Apple would save.. 2 or 3$? to go with 40 gig. They WONT do it! I doubt anyone makes enough 40 gigs to make it worth the bulk pricing.

4) The logic chipset WILL be the same as the 1.6, 1.8 SP in the Powermacs. Just shrunk down. Like PC's intel developes 1 or 2 chipsets. <865, 875>. Apple wouldn't spend alot of money to develop a whole new logic design. They would shrink what they currently have. Why take a step back? Expect it to be similar to the SP 1.6 in speed and performance. Bluetooth, Airport, ect..

5) Bluetooth WILL be at least an option. Apple is pushing syncing and bluetooth HARD! It's in EVERY other line <save emac>. I am 99.9% sure it will be standard in Imac <and its silly it costs 50$ on the powermacs>. Remember One of Tiger's big THINGS is no more Isync, as Syncing is BUILT into the OS!

6) Ram... I can believe 256 meg ram. But 2 gig max? I am pretty sure they will go 4 gig. Once again, the shipset thing. Apple could do 2 gig... it's not as sure as my other point's. Just doesn't make any sence to limit it when there is no need.

7) Last point. Why do you think apple went DP in the powermac line, so they can make a kickass imac and then not worry about it competing with the pro line. There is a need for a killer middle line! They need to wow people. They missed the back to school season. They know they need to come out with something that's good on the eye and has ball's.

The rumor from Thinksecret is totally off base. Beside's it's been a while since they have made a mistake. THEY ARE DUE! We all know it. I think this is thier mistake time!

Also THEY WILL NOT MAKE A HEADLESS IMAC! So stop asking. They know people who buy Imac's keep them for 3 years or more. <Most people not ALL people>. So they figure you will want a bigger and better monitor too. More money for them selves! This is a computer for the home user and college student. This is there market. They had a headless Imac, it's called the powermac. Get use to it! No more headless Imac rumors ok! I am willing to bet a kidney and 1/2 a liver... hell toss in a lung, THAT they will not in the NEAR future release a such a silly thing. If you want a 1000$ Headless Imac, get a G4 1.25 and stop crying!

LASTLEY, gaming is an important thing to MAC's. Apple wants a larger market share. Why shoot themselves in the foot. Especially with CORE coming out they know they need to put in better video cards. It's stupid to think the average JOE only wants to play GTA on they PS2. They will see PC games, hear there pc buddies and have buyers remorce. Besides what do you think college student so when not downloading porn, MP3's, and Telesync movies in the theaters? Apple will make <a half hearted> effort to ensure that machines can play at least modern <read not future> games. 5200 doesn't make sence and they know it. Since they are putting 64 megs in the Powerbook 12" and look at the 15.2 and 17" 128 meg 9700... It's obvious the direction they are heading! If apple TRUELY believed noone gamed and graphics were NOT important to the AVERAGE joe, you would see Imac, Emac, and Ibook with INTEGRATED graphics. That gives them the BIGGEST savings <no need for video ram>. They have not done it, they wont do it. So we know that graphics are important. Even if it's not JUST for games!

Ok I said my piece GOODNIGHT ;P

 

[Bad Beaver]

HyperX, you are not especially fond of your internal organs, are you? 😉

Some very good arguments though.

 

[HyperX]

Who is apple kidding?

And I keep seeing people on this forum say things as:

"apple is a bmw and not a ford" It might be a bmw on the outside, but the ford is faster and cars are all about getting you from A to B

"a consumer does not need a fast computer" So apple will sell no computers

"the pro line needs to be better than the consumer line" No, they both need to be good. Its stupid to cripple one production line for the sake of a principle

OK. I just want to make this thread longer so apple will hear his customers. I really wanted to buy an iMac, but now I don't know. Hopefully someone from apple will read this.

1) You know screw this car stuff. Here's what it comes down to.

Your mac is a Dodge Ram 2500 4x4 LB Cadcab with Cummins Diesel with a HV-5600 Tanny and Larime Package! Your PC is a SRT-10 <let's pretend the SRT-10 is about 20,000$ cheaper>. Sure the SRT-10 is AWSOME on the ROAD and FAST as hell in games. Then again the 2500 is going to take ya Day to day ANYWHERE ya wanna go, be HELLA faster and better as a WORKHORSE, and will last you 20 years vs. 5-7. THIS is how we should compair PC to MAC! Eat that ;P

2) I will give ya this one. Consumers need power, not as much as a pro user. I am sure most consumers would not be happy on a celeron 1.2 with 128 megs of ram. Thankfully apple isn't selling pure crap ;P Just a little less power but enought for most people for the next 3 years <if they bump the video, ram, and HD up in those specs. But since they specs are lie's it's all MOOT>

3) Apple does well with a pro line and a consumer line. EVERYONE does it. Tell me that Dell only makes 1 damn line. Don't be dumb! Why does dell have no video card in the consumer line. Hey tell me that? Please sit down.

If you want a mac.. buy a mac. Get a DP 1.8 refurb for like 1700$ when they come out. If you were willing to drop 1300 on an IMAC save your lunch money and get what YOU want. Obviously your a power user. Please buy from Column B instead of A... you want the Sweet and Sour Pork, not the Beef and Brocoli my friend ;P

 

[HyperX]

HyperX, you are not especially fond of your internal organs, are you? 😉

Some very good arguments though.

When Kidneybay.com opens... I am so getting me a Powermac 2.5 with 30" and 6800 Ultra. I am keeping my Eye's as a pair, I like stereoscopic vision too much!