Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
G5 iMac Specs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
edesignuk said:
Excuse me? By average joe I am talking about most computer users. While people might want to have games for their kids or whatever most users themselves don't play graphics-intensive games. It's hardly that big of a deal.
Windowlicker
macrumors 6502a
psxndc said:
have you heard of ethernet? you can install over it. that would be, having an xserve or a powermac for the teacher/admin which has the images and the images are just loaded on the imacs. it's definitely not a problem.
also, if dvd-burning is really needed, there can always be FW DVD-R's around or the projects can be burnt through the server. It wouldn't be as handy as having a drive for every computer, but it would also be much cheaper.
Anonymous Freak
macrumors 603
Parallal and Serial ATA?
The only goofy thing I see is the disparity in hard drive types. If it's the same motherboard, they should either all be Parallel ATA, or all Serial ATA. Why design the extra port, and figure out how to route the cable when you can just use the same design? And I imagine that at Apple's volume, it would be cheaper to just buy all Serial ATA, instead of a few parallels. (Although I guess with the eMac still using parallel ATA, they have to buy some of them anyway.)
And they can't upgrade the keyboard's USB hub chip to support USB 2.0? (Not to mention the silly inference that the keyboard's ports are 'extra', when they use up one of the onboard ports in the first place.)
The only goofy thing I see is the disparity in hard drive types. If it's the same motherboard, they should either all be Parallel ATA, or all Serial ATA. Why design the extra port, and figure out how to route the cable when you can just use the same design? And I imagine that at Apple's volume, it would be cheaper to just buy all Serial ATA, instead of a few parallels. (Although I guess with the eMac still using parallel ATA, they have to buy some of them anyway.)
And they can't upgrade the keyboard's USB hub chip to support USB 2.0? (Not to mention the silly inference that the keyboard's ports are 'extra', when they use up one of the onboard ports in the first place.)
i read the announcement as TWO 17 and TWO 20 inchers.
however the specs for just ONE 20 incher are mentioned.
am i missing something ?
however the specs for just ONE 20 incher are mentioned.
am i missing something ?
CmdrLaForge
macrumors 601
nagromme said:
Are you kidding ? With Tiger they release Core Video ! And think about the motion requirements ! You don't need to talk about gaming - the OS needs more and more really good graphic cards ! I am not even sure if you can run motion with these new iMacs.
If these Specs are true - big disappointment !
stevehaslip
macrumors 6502a
CmdrLaForge said:
Yes a better graphics card is needed but these cards will meet tigers core image requirements. Apple wouldn't make something that wouldn't run the next os properly. Some people don't need to play games etc so it will be fine for 50% of the market, maybe more. The rest will have to sulk for a while 🙁 Sorry but apple have proved that they can shift powermacs with dodgy graphics cards so why can't they pull the same trick here?
alot of people i know didn't even think of upgrading the card in their G5, they still use the 5200! so alot of people won't want or think about needing a better card in the iMac.
But seriously you can't go from an anglepoise iMac to one that doesn't move at all with a static base.(if thats what happens) thats not progress at all! maybe it will have a base that fixes to the wall or something like the new cinema displays?
Many Mac zealots simply do not understand that there are people out there who want to play games on a, lets say, $1800-computer (including display). Thats what you do with a home computer: Play Games, iLife, Web&Mail.
I think that these specs are simply completely arbitrary. At least the HD capacity is so Anti-iLife. iMovie (or FCE), GarageBand or even iPhoto (if you are really into photography and have a >5MP camera) use up so much. I mean cmon. I am not in the market for desktops anymore anyway. i/PowerBook for work. Crappy cheap PC for games with a OS I will trust my save games but nor my working files 😉
I think that these specs are simply completely arbitrary. At least the HD capacity is so Anti-iLife. iMovie (or FCE), GarageBand or even iPhoto (if you are really into photography and have a >5MP camera) use up so much. I mean cmon. I am not in the market for desktops anymore anyway. i/PowerBook for work. Crappy cheap PC for games with a OS I will trust my save games but nor my working files 😉
msilsby said:
Umm, no. PowerMac is marketed towards professionals who make money using their computers. They shouldn't be wasting too much time playing games.
Games are marketed to consumers, not professionals. The iMac is Apples consumer box, therefore the latest iMacs should be able to support the latest games with ease.
It can also be argued that the high end iMac and low end G5 towers are Prosumer computers. These people what performance often want to run pro level software such as Motion. Apple should have the required hardware in these machines for that level of software to run. Hell, they have known for some time what Motion will need.
I can't wait to see what Apple really annouces. Then watch the fireworks of kudos and complaints. 🙂
lostngone
macrumors 65816
Well, I don't know?(Wants and Woe's)
Let me start off with Think Secret's record, it isn't that bad for this kind of stuff...... however....
I really hope they got this one wrong, I understand the imac isn't supposed to be a super-duper high end, do everything system. but.....
1. I can't see a reason to not add gigabit ethernet, I didn't think the newer chipsets cost any more then the 10/100's, but who knows maybe it would be more. (Not a show stopper)
2. I would like to see a FireWire 800 port, but it wouldn't be a downgrade to only have two 400's.
3. The video card is underpowered on the low end model, but not out of the realm of possibility. I would like to see a little better card on the high end system.
(P.S. to the guy who said they should put a X800 in them, you can put the crack pipe down, for god sakes the dual 2.5 doesn't even come with that option!!!)
4. I'm not complaining about the price because I know the Apple 17 inch LCD costs money, and the G5 chip isn't cheap even at the 1.6GHz speed.
I would still like to see a unit without a monitor. If Apple dropped the 17 inch LCD. It could cut the price by around 300 dollars and then you would a G5 around $999. (This unit could even sit into some sort of low end workgroup server market.)
Let me start off with Think Secret's record, it isn't that bad for this kind of stuff...... however....
I really hope they got this one wrong, I understand the imac isn't supposed to be a super-duper high end, do everything system. but.....
1. I can't see a reason to not add gigabit ethernet, I didn't think the newer chipsets cost any more then the 10/100's, but who knows maybe it would be more. (Not a show stopper)
2. I would like to see a FireWire 800 port, but it wouldn't be a downgrade to only have two 400's.
3. The video card is underpowered on the low end model, but not out of the realm of possibility. I would like to see a little better card on the high end system.
(P.S. to the guy who said they should put a X800 in them, you can put the crack pipe down, for god sakes the dual 2.5 doesn't even come with that option!!!)
4. I'm not complaining about the price because I know the Apple 17 inch LCD costs money, and the G5 chip isn't cheap even at the 1.6GHz speed.
I would still like to see a unit without a monitor. If Apple dropped the 17 inch LCD. It could cut the price by around 300 dollars and then you would a G5 around $999. (This unit could even sit into some sort of low end workgroup server market.)
CmdrLaForge
macrumors 601
Phobophobia said:
WRONG - the average user is a teenager about 14 - 24 years old. He loves to play games, do homework, surf the web, edit his videos and view his pictures from his digital camera. He/She is very well informed about state of the art technology and will therefore not buy an iMac.
Why? 🙁
The GF suck big time. And for 30$ you could get a 9600Pro. I don`t get why the GF have to be so low end. I would never buy a Mac with anything under 9600Pro 128MB. I hope that the spec is not right but I think they are.
The GF suck big time. And for 30$ you could get a 9600Pro. I don`t get why the GF have to be so low end. I would never buy a Mac with anything under 9600Pro 128MB. I hope that the spec is not right but I think they are.
CmdrLaForge
macrumors 601
stevehaslip said:
Today. But how about tomorrow ? A lot of people are using their machines 4 years or more. If you already buy today old and outdated technology then it will be even more outdated and unusable for future OS and Apps requirements.
MacsRgr8
macrumors G3
Grfx card sux. Simple as that.
Sure, some buyers are not interesed in grfx performance, but alot of potential customers who have waited some time now for an affordable G5 are getting pretty frustrated about a crappy old grfx card.
If the "average joe" doesn't do anything on his Mac besides mail, internet browsing, word docs etc. then there is no reason at all to get a G5. Apple might as well sell a (very) low-end iMac G4 1.5 GHz with GeForce 5200, 17" TFT, 256 MB RAM, 40 GB HD for 999,-
Maybe one G5 iMac with 5200, but a mid-range and CERTAINLY high-end iMac G5 should be equipped with the 9600, or better still the 9800 (which still is last year's technology).
An iMac is a family computer: mail, word, internet, gaming , movie editing, DVD burning.... etc. All of 'em.
Please, Apple: < sits on his knees and begs >
Let these specs be partially true...
Let the high-end iMac be 2 GHz G5, 160 GB HD, Radeon 9800, 512 MB RAM...
(too much to ask?)
Sure, some buyers are not interesed in grfx performance, but alot of potential customers who have waited some time now for an affordable G5 are getting pretty frustrated about a crappy old grfx card.
If the "average joe" doesn't do anything on his Mac besides mail, internet browsing, word docs etc. then there is no reason at all to get a G5. Apple might as well sell a (very) low-end iMac G4 1.5 GHz with GeForce 5200, 17" TFT, 256 MB RAM, 40 GB HD for 999,-
Maybe one G5 iMac with 5200, but a mid-range and CERTAINLY high-end iMac G5 should be equipped with the 9600, or better still the 9800 (which still is last year's technology).
An iMac is a family computer: mail, word, internet, gaming , movie editing, DVD burning.... etc. All of 'em.
Please, Apple: < sits on his knees and begs >
Let these specs be partially true...
Let the high-end iMac be 2 GHz G5, 160 GB HD, Radeon 9800, 512 MB RAM...
(too much to ask?)
NickFalk said:
IC....and how would you explain the performance difference for 99% of real apps being just MHZ between G4 and G5?
64 bits simply isn't used yet to any real level.........be objective and look at the results not the theory/fantasy/marketing.
😉
CmdrLaForge said:
allow me disagree. i have been sitting here with my first generation swivel i-mac, 15inch and so far it has served me well. if i do not know how fast i could really be, then i do not notice how slow i am in reality, right ? that said, i use the i-mac on the web, i have my spreadsheets on it, i run my business on it, i put photos on it and mail them around the world, listen to music whatever. you may get my drift. i use it as a tool. it is not something over which i drool every day trying to coax ever more from it like all the afficionados here. it is there, it looks cool, it never crashes and on august 31 i will get a new one now after like 30 months right ? and it will come out of the box, onto the desk and that is that. i like the hassle free approach, the works right out of the box thing and for me the imac is perfect. the power mac is wonderful but i do not need it. the e-mac is not lcd, so that settles it for me. and i will buy what works, not what is technically possible. i used to buy top of the range, nowadays i buy for my needs.
anyhow i keep learning a lot from you out there - thanks
512ke
macrumors 6502a
The first consumer-level iMac should have the following additions to the base education model:
- Single 1.6 GHz G5 Processor
- 17" widescreen display
- slot-loading Combo drive
- 80GB Serial ATA hard drive
- NVIDIA GeForce MX 5200 Ultra graphics processor with 64MB of DDR video memory
- 56K internal modem
This is going to be the one that the "Average Joe" can afford. And yet this one CAN'T burn DVD's. No home video to DVD's.
At least it HAS a graphics card. But you can't use one of the basic programs of the iLife suite.
No computer that costs over $1200 should lack a DVD burner. 🙁
- Single 1.6 GHz G5 Processor
- 17" widescreen display
- slot-loading Combo drive
- 80GB Serial ATA hard drive
- NVIDIA GeForce MX 5200 Ultra graphics processor with 64MB of DDR video memory
- 56K internal modem
This is going to be the one that the "Average Joe" can afford. And yet this one CAN'T burn DVD's. No home video to DVD's.
At least it HAS a graphics card. But you can't use one of the basic programs of the iLife suite.
No computer that costs over $1200 should lack a DVD burner. 🙁
What's this with 17" and 20" flat-screens.
This month I read an article concerning the iMac G5 delays, and the inability to supply more G4 iMacs in the interim. This was mainly concentrating on the fact that 17" screens were being replaced in the industry by larger 18" screens. If this is true why is apple going for the smaller option that will cost more money in the long run?
This makes me question this rumor.... However Think Secret is never wrong, especially when I want them to be, I suppose MacFormat is just a magazine with limited sources inside apple
This month I read an article concerning the iMac G5 delays, and the inability to supply more G4 iMacs in the interim. This was mainly concentrating on the fact that 17" screens were being replaced in the industry by larger 18" screens. If this is true why is apple going for the smaller option that will cost more money in the long run?
This makes me question this rumor.... However Think Secret is never wrong, especially when I want them to be, I suppose MacFormat is just a magazine with limited sources inside apple
vouder17
macrumors 6502a
STOP COMPLAINING!
I am sorry but why is everyone complaining, this is going to be a great comp , and the only thing that i see that is possibly slightly crippling would be the VRAM, but please, most people do fine with just that, I know i will, and i am a consumer. The lowest range Powermac is 1999, and that doesn't get you a screen, so i think that this new iMac is really good value.
Peace
DjVoTeZ
I am sorry but why is everyone complaining, this is going to be a great comp , and the only thing that i see that is possibly slightly crippling would be the VRAM, but please, most people do fine with just that, I know i will, and i am a consumer. The lowest range Powermac is 1999, and that doesn't get you a screen, so i think that this new iMac is really good value.
Peace
DjVoTeZ