G5 iMac Specs?

[subterfuge]

What about great design?

I've been a Windows/Linux/BSD user forever, but have been drawn to Macs since OS X came out. I just ordered my new 2.5GHz G5 and am so excited that I've been watching old Mac promo movies just to get a glimpse of OS X and some of its uses.
I stumbled across the iMac promo movie (http://www.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/graphics/movies/new_imac_m480.mov) and having seen them in stores, I have to agree with what Ive says about it. He mentions that it is the simplest solution to making an efficient and inviting interface for the user, but that it has been the most elusive. Hearing him say that the monitor appears to be "floating" really makes this clear. Apart from the fact that there are no ports on the front of the machine, I can't think of much to criticize.
I think that while the new specs might not satisfy some users, especially with regards to video card, they easily satisfy the requirements of the iApps, which Apple show as one of the main selling points of the iMac. If not more important that the specs is the design. The all in one design works beautifully in the current model in terms of user-friendliness. Therefore, more than upgraded specs, I would like to see bluetooth as standard so as to have wireless peripherals and less clutter, as an example.
For those who want better specs for games or apps requiring better video performance, a more fitting solution would be for Apple to introduce a lower-end Powermac (1.8 single processor maybe) which could then be upgraded in any way.
I don't know about everyone else, but I will surely miss the current iMac if the nnewer version takes a step backwards design-wise.

 

[TWinbrook46636]

Don't like the graphics card? Look at the options under BTOs.

What BTO options? This is an iMac, not a PowerMac. The graphics are NOT upgradable.

 

[Phobophobia]

It's the "average joes" Mac, isn't that exactly what it's supposed to be?

The "average joe" doesn't play graphics-intensive or use graphics-intensive programs, for that matter. The average joe writes documents, composes email, plays light online games, visits websites, chats etc.

This new iMac--if the design is as good as it sounds--is exactly what Apple needs. (No, Apple doesn't need a headless iMac. It doesn't make sense business-wise, or in any other way.)

 

[nagromme]

If this is true, there will still be no Mac without monitor and with upgradable graphics card that isn't totally overdimensioned.

Why do you say that? The iMac is an all-in-one, always has been, always will be. That tells us nothing about Apple one day adding a new low-end headless machine to the lineup or not. They should definitely do so, but that's not the iMac.

 

[weezer160]

judging from this rumor alone:

pros: a sub $2,000 g5 😎

cons: still not upgradable 😕 (guess that comes with the territory of woning an imac - it's proprietory)

 

[xStep]

$1,300 for the cheapest Mac available (ouch).

Until I see the real announcement, I'm not going to believe Apple will kill the eMac line for these expensive options.

Sorry but you don't need a G5 to learn ABC's on.

You dont' need a computer to learn your ABC's.

 

[edesignuk]

The "average joe" doesn't play graphics-intensive or use graphics-intensive programs, for that matter. The average joe writes documents, composes email, plays light online games, visits websites, chats etc.

This new iMac--if the design is as good as it sounds--is exactly what Apple needs. (No, Apple doesn't need a headless iMac. It doesn't make sense business-wise, or in any other way.)

No, the average joe wants to be able to everything you said, and they're kids want to game (properly) without the need to buy a seperate computer specially for it, and they want to have plently of disk space for photos/video/music. Broadband means people are downloading more than ever (even my dad does!), 80GBwill be gone in no time.

 

[dongmin]

Images leaked!!!

 

[bystem]

I don't know about the prices ... Apple has spoken a lot about the consumer's sweet spot being around USD 999. I think they would be aiming for that price point for the entry level consumer machine.

The graphics cards are pretty lousy considering what the average joe can get a decent card for.

I can't really see how mounting the optical drive on the back is user friendly. It seems awkward to me.

 

[BakedBeans]

if this is is what they are going to be..the can stick it....

i would have thought they would at least had something like this

mid

1.8g5
160gb
512mbram
nvidia 9600 pro

high would be the same but 2ghz g5

not impressed

the disgn sounds really awful but i cant judge untill its out...

 

[JRM]

Not Sufficient, Not True

Can't be true. No way near enough power. Only 256mb standard in a $2200 machine? Only a FX5200 in a $2200 machine? Doubt it. And anyway what's with the retro Geforce 4MX?

A machine worth over $2K would atleast have to have 512mb, 9600 or 9700 graphics and Firewire 800.

Superdrives will be standard on all consumer models

Apple will most definitely not use the GeForce MX, edu model or not.


If these specs are the truth i will be monumentally disappointed.

Carn Apple i know you can do better than this

 

[CoreForce]

The revenge of the 20th anniversary Mac

Pictures of All-in-One Mac with board inside the display body.
http://tam.axon.net/spartimage.htm

I hope the new "new iMac" display is somehow raised from the desk
like the one with Spartacus, otherwise I can't buy it because of potential neck problems...

 

[CoreForce]

Spartacus

images leaked...

I had exactly the same idea ;-)

 

[BWhaler]

One point about the video card: according to the specs for the recently released Motion, some of the new iMacs will not meet the minimum reqs. Wouldn't it suck if you just bought a shiny new computer only to find out there is software already out there that requires something more powerful than what you just bought? 😕

Motion is a pro app. Highly unlikely to be running on many iMacs.

 

[Biophoton]

Why, Apple, oh why?

Costco runs a special this week:

HP with Athlon (64 bit CPU), 2GHz
512 MB
200GB HD
9-in-1 card reader
plenty of USB 2 and Firewire connectors
plus 17" LCD
all for $1099

compared to that Apple sucks. I'm sorry to say that, writing my thread on
a 1.5 GHz Powerbook, but I really think I'll replace my old iMac with a PC.
That will at least keep the kids happy as they get a decent gaming machine
and I can still do all the video editing and music stuff as I would on the iMac.... 😕

 

[Abstract]

The "average joe" doesn't play graphics-intensive or use graphics-intensive programs, for that matter. The average joe writes documents, composes email, plays light online games, visits websites, chats etc.

If the "Average Joe" only does such tasks, are you saying it's right for Apple to sell a brand new iMac G4 800MHz with 128MB of RAM and a 16MB video card? 😉

Sure, its usable, but most consumers would rather get their money's worth. Too much computer is better than too little, and for the price they're paying for a *cough*"modern"*cough* computer, it should be.

May as well buy a 17" Powerbook. For the cost you're already paying, I think the specs are better.

 

[xStep]

I sold my Powerbook as I'm coming to live in the US for a year (where I'd pay about £600, or $1000 less than I would do here). As a computer scientist, the PowerMac made the most sense. I could Photoshop and Maya at the same time and such.

Until Apple priced me out with the ridiculous display pricing decision to simply demolish the 17" and keep the now entry-level 20" at the same price.

So I dropped my expectations down to a top-level iMac.

Oh please, stop whining that you can't afford everything Apple. If you really need or want the power of a tower, then keep your options open. For instance, consider buying a third party 17 or 19 inch monitor when you purchase. Your monitor options in the US of A are vast. They do still sell CRTs you know.
😉

 

[Arnel]

There's one thing that really doesn't make any sense to me. Why two configurations of the 20" machine where the only difference is the HD size? Looking at the Apple Store now, upgrading an 80Gb HD to a 160Gb HD is only $100 (a BTO option on the PowerMac) - why on earth would they want to go to the trouble of building two versions of the machine, with all of the stock and supply issues it will cause, for such a minor difference?

Very odd... I'd guess these specs aren't quite right in some of the details, if they're right at all.

Neil.
a.k.a. Arnel

 

[JW Pepper]

The iMac is aimed at the average Joe, but there is a significent number of users who want to play games. Clearly there are going to be issues with running temperatures which will affect the choice of video card. However it seems to me tat a 9600 would have been a more popular choice.

I also think that HD space is a reall killer on iMacs. Anyone who buys a 60GB iPod isn't going to have any room left to anything least of all iMovie and iDVD unless he buys the top end model. Frankly 160gb should be the base HDD size with 250gb as a BTO.

Memory is not an issue, 2gb is plenty, anyone who need more requires would buy a DP PowerMac anyway.

 

[ltgator333]

256Mb of RAM sucks. I have more RAM in my beige G3. I have more RAM in both my pre G3 Macs, just to illustrate exactly how lame that is. Apple needs to get over it and realize OS X likes more than 256Mb of RAM.
Video cards... there is no way that you should be charging 2 grand for a machine with a nv 5200 chip in it. Even if it's not targeted at gamers, there should be some thought to give you a little bit of an overkill video card now, because in a couple years that card is totally outdated and there's no way to upgrade it. Apple needed to put at least in the high end machine a nv 5700 or 5900. I would've not been upset to see a 5700 with 64Mb of VRAM. Then there's that GeForce 4.. ok maybe in the educational model that's ok, just barely but nothing higher than that. The other thing Apple needs to think about when it comes to putting these basicly crippled machines into the hands of schools is they leave themselves wide open for leaving a bad first impression for someone who sits down and tries that 'really slow eMac' they had down at the lab.
And 40Gb of HD space sucks too. 80 Gb HD's cost like 70 bux to the consumer which means when Apple buys them they probably get them for nearly half that much a peice... I'd hate to think Apple's getting cheap on us in more ways that anemic 256Mb of RAM and a crippled video processor in a $2,000 computer.
I really hope those specs aren't for real, it's really sad because I think they're PowerMacs are looking really good right now.. and you can't complement a really good high end line with a crap consumer line, it just doesn't add up. I had hoped that we were gonna go back to the days where iMacs were a steal as long as you weren't worried about expandibility, the 1.6 and 1.8Ghz procs really aren't bad, but seriously give us some better stuff plugged into the board.

that's my two cents worth

 

[gooddog]

No way !!!!

I'm not sure that I believe the video, HD and RAM specs, since they are exactly the same as the old specs. Why introduce a completely new machine and saddle it with last year's technology?

*************************

This simply sucks.

Jobs specifically ridiculed the notion of a flat panel with junk saddled on it's back -- he projected a slide of a Rev/A with the butt hack-saw 'd away.

We lose the adjustable neck that I use quite a bit.

We lose any cool factor ( the Sony design made anorexic ?? ) or any claim to design inovation.

We get crappy RAM and other specs ...

We stay stagnant at 20 " instead of wow'ing us with a 23" ?

In fact, only the G5 chip is of any note -- and how much of its benefits will we actually notice ?????

(1) I don't believe any of this for a minute.

(2) If it is true, I am finished with the iMac
line entirely.

(3) Then, I will have to wait twice as long
between upgrades of my system ,
which will have to be the PowerMac
Dual G5 with additional cost of a
separate monitor --- I may even move
to a 3-year renew cycle to afford the
30-incher ..... or maybe just get a
PowerBook G5 and attach a 23"
monitor.

This had better be a trick to make the real
iMac G5 more of a WOW! experience.

After waiting all this time for the iMac ...

I AM PISSED ................

---gooddog


😡

 

[nagromme]

I really think I'll replace my old iMac with a PC.
That will at least keep the kids happy as they get a decent gaming machine
and I can still do all the video editing and music stuff as I would on the iMac.... 😕

If you think the video and music apps are as good on Windows, and the OS as well, then by all means, do make that experiment 😉

(And I play games just fine on a G4 PowerBook. They're great fun. If kids can't have fun without more, well...)

 

[Frump]

No optical drive! How will they run their hardware diagnostics disc, reinstall the OS and install any 3rd party software (I know you can download but do you want to spend money on a download that you cant store on a CD for safe keeping)?
It does not sound right to me. We will have to wait and see if this RUMOR pans out.

Frump.

 

[msilsby]

Its an iMac - not a PowerMac

If you want a high performance machine for "games", get a PowerMac, that is what they are for.

If you want a cheap mac, get an eMac, that is what they are for.

If you want something in between with a great display, sensational design, middle of the road performance and specs, get an iMac, this is what they are for.

Apple will never go the "dell" line on chasing lower price. They are a premium brand, making heaps of money. It is what they do. Greater market share would be great, it may lead to lower prices (as a result of scales of efficiency), but why change it when you are rolling in the cash and being imitated at every turn? Market share is not everything.

 

[nagromme]

If you want a high performance machine for "games", get a PowerMac, that is what they are for.

If you want a cheap mac, get an eMac, that is what they are for.

If you want something in between with a great display, sensational design, middle of the road performance and specs, get an iMac, this is what they are for.

Apple will never go the "dell" line on chasing lower price.

Well said.

And if they did go for Dell prices, you wouldn't see Apple quality. (Apple still, in the latest Consumer Reports mass survey just out, is THE top computer maker in reliability AND support. As they have been for ages. That's not to mention design and ergonomics. And most importantly, an OS that puts Macs in their own league.)

I'll add: If you want ultra-cheap, AND top gaming power (sorry, UT2004 doesn't even need that), AND a big wide LCD, AND a great OS and iLife-style package... well... that combination does not and will not exist from any manufacturer.