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

iMac Prices?

Re: Hey, about that color ipod...

Originally posted by cubist
... I just can't wait to watch "2001 A Space Odyssey" on a 2-inch diagonal screen!:p
Click to expand...

...and considering the battery life problems that seem inherent in iPods (sadly mine included) you could probably get through two hours of color video on your iPod with only ten or twelve recharges...
 
Originally posted by MacsRgr8


You could be right about that. But I personally feel that an 800 MHz G4 is really not fast enough. Mac OS X doesn't feel snappy running on this iMac. Just the cool looks of the FP iMac is not enough to sell it.
Click to expand...



Uh...I have a 450 G4 sawtooth....And for it being an "OLD" computer it still rocks...Now, about the OS not being "SNAPPY" enough, it run good on mine...Now, its not as SNAPPY as I would like it but, I would ASSUME it runs WAY faster on that 800 G4 iMac...I mean come on!
 
if true...

This is fantastic news, mainly because of the price. I would love a FPiMac, and sub $1000 sounds great. To me this would be a third computer for my house, so it need not do all the heavy duty stuff that my tower handles.

I think most swichers are in the same boat. The problem with the Mhz battle is addressing peoples needs realistically. Most people are not power users. For the real powerusers, you're talking baout something like the Alienware systems on the PC side anyway, and outfited like a PowerMac, they actually cost more.

A lot of people talk a lot of crap about being pro users, but the money is in the consumer market now. Apple needs to sell loew end machines for cheap, more people will switch. Intel and AMd have had people convinced for years that they need the top of the range machine for what is essentialy there web browsing and games. Its ridiculous. Those that play games that need fast processors are a small market segment, really a bunch of children. Your average adult has no use for quake, they need only Office apps and a decent web browser. iMovie is great for most peoples movie editing, things like Final Cut are meant for Pros, not kids with an extra grand sitting around.

Take a look at your average end user, what you will find is a person who needs to do wsimpe tasks and wants everything to work correctly the first time. This is the Essence of the Switch campaign.
 
Originally posted by chewbaccapits




Uh...I have a 450 G4 sawtooth....And for it being an "OLD" computer it still rocks...Now, about the OS not being "SNAPPY" enough, it run good on mine...Now, its not as SNAPPY as I would like it but, I would ASSUME it runs WAY faster on that 800 G4 iMac...I mean come on!
Click to expand...

I use a 400 MHz (sawtooth) at home, and at work we have many 800+ MHz Macs (both iMacs and dual G4s).
My G4 is OK, the iMacs are good, and the 1 GHz G4's are great!
I thougt (read: hope) that with so many 1 GHz G4 procs around (all the duals, TiBooks, upgrade procs), all iMacs would be 1 Ghz by now. Maybe a 15" 867 Mhz low-end....
 
If this is the update, then I can't wait for it, and every update
after that. This would be the second awesome update in a
row. It would be very good for apple to release these machines
at those prices :D.
 
Dammit I hope this is not true, I want 6 x 1ghz iMacs with just the CDRW, I have no use for either the combo or superdrive, but I do want the speed and neatness.

Pah
 
a waiting epidemic (iPod battery)

Originally posted by MacKenzie999


...and considering the battery life problems that seem inherent in iPods (sadly mine included) you could probably get through two hours of color video on your iPod with only ten or twelve recharges...
Click to expand...

Interesting point. I don't think anyone in here has ever address the battery wear on the iPod. If you listen to it a lot, you bound to wear it down within a year or two. Then what? Bring it back to Apple and have them charge you $100 to replace the battery? Keep doing this a couple of times, and the most expensive thing you'll ever buy from Apple is the iPod.:D

Cultural aside: I'm surprise Apple doesn't market the iPod as a portable storage solution. I'm sure a lot of people would want to get rid of their zip disks.
 
FP iMac for under $1000? I like the idea, especially now that PC makers are selling machines with 15" LCDs for $699 (Gateway). Depending on the situation with the PPC 970, I may just buy an iMac at $999, especially if it has a 133Mhz bus. Regarding performance in Jaguar, the G4 700 iMac I use at work feels "snappy" except in IE, and it only has 256MB ram. Load an 800Mhz G4 iMac up at least 512MB ram and a good GPU and it would run Jag quite nicely. For graphics cards on the iMacs, I could see the GF4 MX 32MB at the low end, and the ATI Radeon 9000 64MB at the high end. Hard drives would probably be 60, 80, and 120GB. Pretty nice for a consumer machine.

As for the iPod, I could not see putting a color screen on it because of battery life problems. I also do not see a use for a color screen unless the iPod would be a different device meant for playing movies on the go, like a portable DVD player except with a hard drive and software to rip your DVDs to MPEG 4 format. This kind of thing would probably have a 6" or 7" widescreen and be like a laptop. Might sell for $599.

Just my 2 cents...
 
Originally posted by MacsRgr8


Ofcourse, everything is relative. But honestly, have you ever tried to resize an Explorer window running Jaguar? I use Chimera too, but IE is the default browser, and currently the ONLY browser shipped with the Mac.
A new iMac doesn't "feel" fast running Jaguar.
Don't get me wrong: I love OS X but my mom would compare the two computers in a store, and she would definitely spot the speed difference.
But, my mom would fall in love with the looks of the Flat Panel.... ;)
Click to expand...

I've noticed this as well, especially when more than one application is open. The windowing is not as slow as it was and is adequate... but is def. slower than my PC boxes. And many non-mac folks notice this and comment indicating that it is significant to them.
 
Originally posted by yosoyjay


I've noticed this as well, especially when more than one application is open. The windowing is not as slow as it was and is adequate... but is def. slower than my PC boxes. And many non-mac folks notice this and comment indicating that it is significant to them.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Well the prices are right, but the specs are lame. GF4 MX? 867 MHz? a less than 10% speed bump after a year is just stupid. The news would be better if they were going to a 133MHz bus and adding an L3 cache to all but the low end machine.

However, these specs are pretty consistent with Apple's strategy of minimal speed bumps and falling further and further behind the wintel world. In the past year, low end wintels have gained 1GHz and cost a couple hundred less. iMacs simply cannot compete and it's getting depressing.
 
Re: iMac Prices?

Originally posted by Macrumors
MacNews.tc.net claims to have prices/specs for an upcoming iMac bump at MWSF, which basically represent iMac speed bumps with a corresponding price drop:

15", 800MHz, $999
17", 867MHz, $1199
17", 867 MHz, $1499
17", 1GHz, $1699

MacNews.net.tc is a relatively new site with an unknown rumor record, and this simply may represent educated speculation. Previously, it is the only site to claim a color iPod II with MPEG-4 Video and Color Screen for MWSF.
Click to expand...

At these prices MS Media PC’s prices look sane. I like Apple, but as long as Jobs touts the Imac as a digital hub and MS offers a Media PC w/ PVR functionality and lords more features (I didn’t say good features!) I do not see apple making leaps w/ their market share.

I would buy an Imac before a Media PC, but normal consumers do not understand DRM and will not be frightened off. Apple needs to begin hammering on DRM.
 
Originally posted by drastik

Intel and AMd have had people convinced for years that they need the top of the range machine for what is essentialy there web browsing and games. Its ridiculous. Those that play games that need fast processors are a small market segment, really a bunch of children. Your average adult has no use for quake, they need only Office apps and a decent web browser. iMovie is great for most peoples movie editing, things like Final Cut are meant for Pros, not kids with an extra grand sitting around.
Click to expand...

What a load of hogwash...

"According to the Interactive Digital Software Association, about 145 million people in the U.S. play computer and video games, and the average age of a game player is 28 years old. Video games have become one of the most popular forms of entertainment. In fact, market research firm NPD, reported that in 2001, total U.S. sales of games and game related hardware reached $9.4 billion, compared to total domestic box office receipts for Hollywood movies of $8.4 billion."

Computer games have been and will be one of the major driving forces in the development of personal computers. I'm pretty sure that the total computing time of home computers in this world consists of more than 50% gaming. Gaming has already become an integral part of the "digital lifestyle" in my generation (30+) and it will be as irreplacable as TV is now in the coming ones.

The good news for the "slow" Macs is that even most new games do not stretch the limits of what is possible with the current hardware anymore. Basically there is a limit to how far "special effects" of the graphics (which require massive computing time) can increase the interest of a game. Already content is taking over as the major fun factor. And content isn't produced in "real time"...
 
Originally posted by IngoB


What a load of hogwash...

"According to the Interactive Digital Software Association, about 145 million people in the U.S. play computer and video games, and the average age of a game player is 28 years old. Video games have become one of the most popular forms of entertainment. In fact, market research firm NPD, reported that in 2001, total U.S. sales of games and game related hardware reached $9.4 billion, compared to total domestic box office receipts for Hollywood movies of $8.4 billion."

Computer games have been and will be one of the major driving forces in the development of personal computers. I'm pretty sure that the total computing time of home computers in this world consists of more than 50% gaming. Gaming has already become an integral part of the "digital lifestyle" in my generation (30+) and it will be as irreplacable as TV is now in the coming ones.

The good news for the "slow" Macs is that even most new games do not stretch the limits of what is possible with the current hardware anymore. Basically there is a limit to how far "special effects" of the graphics (which require massive computing time) can increase the interest of a game. Already content is taking over as the major fun factor. And content isn't produced in "real time"...
Click to expand...

The PC game market is tiny compared to the console market. And though almost everyone in the U.S. knows about games like Quake and may have played them at one time, the percentage of people that actually make computer purchase decisions based on wether they can play the latest 3D games is a tiny fraction of the PC market. Among my friends and colleagues, many of whom are young software engineers, I can count maybe a half dozen that are serious gamers. And where would this put people like my mom, who I don't think has played a computer game on her PC other than Solitaire?

I would dispute your contention that the PC market is driven by gamers. Gamers are just a convenient early adopter market that helps computer makers sell new machines at premium prices until they can ramp up production enough to get economies of scale and bring prices down for the rest of the market. Intel's R&D development is driven by internal goals, not market goals. Intel engineers are told all the time they have to keep up with Moore's law, because after all, are they going to be the first engineers in 30 years to fail? So they develop the technology first and then try to find a market for it NOT the other way around.

I tend to agree with the previous poster - the WinTel axis has taken the average consumer for a ride up a largely needless upgrade spiral. Intel depends on Microsoft to come out with bloatware so that consumers feel that they have to upgrade their machines because they need to in order to run the latest Windows or Office.
 
here's my 4 cents

the things apple does good: OS, software, iApps, and design! :)

the things they do horrible: hardware, updating products, adopting new technology, and pricing!:mad:

I do use a PC, but I'm saving up for a new (expensive) low-end iMac. It seems strange to see MHz when i look at apple computers, I'm used to seeing GHz in the PC world. And I'm hearing it's not apple's fault, motorola makes the chip. And I think maybe Apple should switch chips, it happens in the PC world all the time.

Also it takes apple 6 months to update their product lines, what? That's a long time! I wish they would speed up their CD/DVD burning drives! Their CD-RW drive all by itself is 24-10-32, TDK makes one that's 52-24-48! And if you get a SuperDrive or Combo it's even slower. And Apple still hasn't adopted USB 2. I'd like to see bluetooth wireless keyboard/mouse also.

What I'm trying to say is that Apple is going to have to make major leaps in a short amount of time if they want to catch up to PCs anytime soon.

I also know about the "MHz myth" but honestly if they want to make a dent in the large foaming at the mouth monster that is the PC market, they'll have to step it up and get PC users face about them switching.

Apple also needs to stop worrying about pro and consumer seperation, and just make the best and I mean best computers they possibley can, with an affordable price tag.
 
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