iMac Review, iMac Software Update 1.0

[Madame Defarge]

"The horror, the horror"

SO... I'm all excited and I bring my new 24" home and I unbox the wonder of aluminum and glossy glass... power it up and I get 8 (yes eight) startup chimes before it finally starts up. I make my way through the account set-up screens and as I'm beginning to play around with the machine... I notice it's REALLY SLOW - then I get the Software Update message that I need to update the software - no problem... I go through that OK... still, the machine is REALLY SLOW - so I power it down for the night. This morning - power on and I hear a short burst of fan noise...then nothing... it tries to start again... a little fan and nothing... lather, rinse, repeat....

I have an appointment at the Genius Bar tomorrow (couldn't get in today at a time that would fit my schedule).

(sigh)

What a bummer.

I have an older, pre Intel iMac that needed to be replaced, so that I could upgrade to the new Adobe CS. I had my eye on a refurbished iMac G5 but I wanted to wait until the new iMac came out, before I bought it, in case it turned out to be a really fantastic machine.

The savings on the refurb were good and because of the many iPhone bugs, it seemed possible that Apple might be having quality control problems across the board.

When I saw the latest model, my jaw nearly hit the keyboard. One of the reasons I was attracted to Mac in the first place was the beautiful, forward looking modern design. To my eyes, the G6 looks like a cheap electronic gadget from the 70's. It was so retro, that I wondered if Steve Jobs had suddenly gone ironic on us.

That, plus the the down-sized keyboard and glossy screen which Mac does not recommend for graphics pros who are buying a MacBook Pro.

Within 30 minutes of seeing the newbie, I bought the refurbished model.

The new look combined with the software bugs and this report of a dead iMac is a thoroughly depressing development. And when you consider all of the issues that the iPhone has....

Where have you gone Steve Jobs? (Woo, woo, woo.....woo, woo, woo?)

 

[Lesser Evets]

BINGO!

Everyone on the iMac hate brigade are caught up in one gigantic, ridiculous misapprehension: it is a gaming machine. Where does anyone get that idea? I think they want a clutter free, fun, simple, stylish machine to game on.

Jobs is smart: he isn't selling to the existing computer market as much as he is selling to the computer semi-literate who wish to use computers. If you look at the function of the iMac he sells you notice it is about 'home movies'. That's a brilliant move. What PC sells to the familial priority for preservation and dissemination of memories in a complex computer platform as simplicity? A: None.

The iMac is a basic business machine, a communication machine, a photobook-video database and viewer. Not a gaming machine.

If Jobs was looking to claw at existing market only when there is a huuugggee market of computer illiterates making good incomes he would be looking to be another tree in the forest. Instead he is trying to connect the computers he makes to a fresh market.

 

[sbarton]

BINGO!

Everyone on the iMac hate brigade are caught up in one gigantic, ridiculous misapprehension: it is a gaming machine. Where does anyone get that idea? I think they want a clutter free, fun, simple, stylish machine to game on.

Jobs is smart: he isn't selling to the existing computer market as much as he is selling to the computer semi-literate who wish to use computers.

A home computer that also plays games....yeah...where did we ever get that idea???

BTW, who defines "semi-literate" in your club? Do the just "literate" get to play too?

 

[BayAreaMacFan]

Madame Derfarge, what are you talking about? I have no problem with the first reasons you gave about you not liking the looks, the glossy screen, etc., but for the rest I just have no clue. All the iPhone problems? The iPhone might just have been the most stable 1.0 product ever. And 1 story of an iMac fail is so far from the iMac being deathly unstable; also, there was a software update to fix all of the latest bugs.

 

[Doctor Q]

arstechnica's bottom line advice about the mandatory glossy screen:

[It] takes some getting used to, but the adjustment period was brief—at least for me—and after a while the change didn't really register with me. If I had my druthers, I'd still go with a matte LCD, but Apple doesn't offer that option with the iMac. If you really hate glossy screens, pass on the new iMacs. If you merely think you don't like them, but are open to having your mind changed, give it a shot... it's not as bad as I thought it would be.​

 

[tusker]

I got a 24" on Tuesday evening and I love it. Had one little hitch with a freeze up during the initial setup, but it seemed to be from a loose connection with the cable and since then everything has been great.

The look of it wasn't exactly what I was hoping for, but it does look pretty darn nice--especially in person. The pics online really don't do it justice.

Keyboard is fine, it may take a bit of adjusting, but no more than when I started typing on this stupid ergonomic kb I have at work.

I was worried about the glossy screen as well, but its been pretty easy to get used to as well, though given the choice I would still take matte.

 

[Maccus Aurelius]

lol i laugh at those who diss the new imac and have not yet used it or seen it in real life. im using my new 2.4 20" right now, and i can say there is not one think i would change about it. its ace!

Except for the rabid monkey that pops out of the back and mauls you.

BINGO!

Everyone on the iMac hate brigade are caught up in one gigantic, ridiculous misapprehension: it is a gaming machine. Where does anyone get that idea? I think they want a clutter free, fun, simple, stylish machine to game on.

Jobs is smart: he isn't selling to the existing computer market as much as he is selling to the computer semi-literate who wish to use computers. If you look at the function of the iMac he sells you notice it is about 'home movies'. That's a brilliant move. What PC sells to the familial priority for preservation and dissemination of memories in a complex computer platform as simplicity? A: None.

The iMac is a basic business machine, a communication machine, a photobook-video database and viewer. Not a gaming machine.

If Jobs was looking to claw at existing market only when there is a huuugggee market of computer illiterates making good incomes he would be looking to be another tree in the forest. Instead he is trying to connect the computers he makes to a fresh market.

Actually, this seems more like justification of Apple's unwillingness to supply better graphics cards to their machines. The iMac is not a basic machine, as it doesn't ask for a basic price. It comes with a pretty decent set of hardware elsewhere in the case, but the tight confining form factor limit them when it comes to GPU's. Apple has been able to get away with their lack of focus on quick response displays and top-shelf GPU's, but their last developers' conference completely removes the roof from this little shelter. Apple has officially outed themselves as interested in gaming content. With that said, they must now follow through and run with it and supply better graphics hardware in their devices. If this means that they'll have to add a few more perforations here and there, perhaps widen the case a little (gasp!) and add another fan or two to provide adequate cooling for *adequate* hardware, then that's just something they'll have to live with. I love Apple computers and all, but with their new direction, they need to suit up and start playing hardball with comparable systems now that they've directly confronted a segment that has been severely neglected for far too long.

Of course, Apple isn't fervently pushing the image of gaming device like Dell, Alienware or the rest do, but just the same, they're no longer allowed to let that facet of their hardware starve.

I for one love the new iMac, and have absolutely no issues with its hardware as I am a console gamer, but I believe that your claim that people's hopes and presumptions about the iMac's competency as a gaming device being a misconception is erroneous. Macs may not be well known for gaming (because they're not good for gaming), but with the latest developments, and Apple's push to boot Windows natively, they must now provide the ability to fully exploit these new features. If you cannot play decent games on Windows in a Mac, then people who wanted to have a single machine to cover all grounds of their desktop computing functions (including games) will be hard pressed to be convinced that an iMac, or even a Mac Pro, are good choices for them. Until Apple gets with the program and sees to it that their systems are capable of running 3-dimensional graphics at decent speeds, they will essentially break their promise to combine the full experience of the best of both worlds in a single device.

Now that I'm done ranting, you can all wake up and carry about your business.

 

[twoodcc]

either the macbook pro is one fast laptop, or the new iMac isn't that fast. (based on those benchmarks)

i hope someone does a review on the 2.8 extreme 24" iMac

 

[MacsRgr8]

Here we go:
- The Radeon 2600 Pro is a bad gaming card (not even going to mention the 2400 XT... ugh)
- The iMac is a CONSUMER Mac. Consumers play games. You don't have to be a hardcore gamer to want a DECENT grfx card for some fun new games many consumers like to play once in a while. We are not aiming for the Radeon 2900 XT or GeForce 8800 GTX, just the decent Radeon 2600 XT.
- We assume Apple didn't put the 2600 XT inside due to heat reasons.

So why couldn't the new iMac be 1/4 of an inch thicker? Steve loved to boast about the fact that the new iMac "was even thinner!".... Nice one, Steve. No-one reacted to that in the audience... <audience mumbling.. "who cares">. Nobody cares that much about the ultra thiness of a desktop consumer Mac...

IMHO Apple could have inserted the 2600 XT card, but make the iMac 1/4 of an inch thicker.
But Steve wanted it to be thinner.... so, there goes some performance.

Besides, other apps benefit from good 3D hardware too. It's just that these apps are called Pro apps. So that justifies the fact that an iMac shouldn't be ale to run Pro apps perfectly.

 

[Artropolis]

It's true...

Some people pointed out that since my first and only post on this forum was a negative post that it might not be true. It is true and I wasn't trying to be negative - I was simply pointing out that my new iMac 24" failed out of the box....and, as I said, I have an appointment tomorrow to figure out what the deal is. I will ABSOLUTELY report what we find out.

I am a big Apple and Mac fan (I've owned everything from a IIsi to the new iMac and just about every model - desktop and laptop - in between) and I've never had any problems until now.

Stay tuned for the report.

 

[MacsRgr8]

I believe you, Artropolis.

Good thing you posted this reply, and that you don't feel too hard done by those posts.

Hope your iMac will get fixed very soon! As others have pointed out, it could be the motherboard which needs replacing.

Good luck!

 

[mongoos150]

BINGO!

Everyone on the iMac hate brigade are caught up in one gigantic, ridiculous misapprehension: it is a gaming machine. Where does anyone get that idea? I think they want a clutter free, fun, simple, stylish machine to game on.

Jobs is smart: he isn't selling to the existing computer market as much as he is selling to the computer semi-literate who wish to use computers. If you look at the function of the iMac he sells you notice it is about 'home movies'. That's a brilliant move. What PC sells to the familial priority for preservation and dissemination of memories in a complex computer platform as simplicity? A: None.

The iMac is a basic business machine, a communication machine, a photobook-video database and viewer. Not a gaming machine.

If Jobs was looking to claw at existing market only when there is a huuugggee market of computer illiterates making good incomes he would be looking to be another tree in the forest. Instead he is trying to connect the computers he makes to a fresh market.

I believe you're seriously underselling this machine. It's not a pro machine by any means, but it's certainly not a computer just for moms and grandparents, to "check email, make a home movie and surf the web." It's put to use in plenty of semi-pro applications (labs, photoshop/FCP, etc...). It's absolutely capable of providing a stylish, compact Final Cut solution or Adobe CS3 solution - sure, it's not as fast as a Mac Pro, but it's definitely doable. Especially for college students and offices with limited space. I personally know that many advertising agencies use iMac workstations for CS3, print ads, that type of thing. Please don't pass the machine off as something short of what it is.

 

[Schtumple]

either the macbook pro is one fast laptop, or the new iMac isn't that fast. (based on those benchmarks)

i hope someone does a review on the 2.8 extreme 24" iMac

But hasn't it been said before they both share alot of the same kit on the inside?

I kinda guessed they would be on par with the macbook pros, if not slower, they are running the same processor (apart from the 2.8 i know)

 

[Padriac]

...
Besides, other apps benefit from good 3D hardware too. It's just that these apps are called Pro apps. So that justifies the fact that an iMac shouldn't be ale to run Pro apps perfectly.

Bottom line is that these cards only benefit those playing *new, cutting edge FPS games*. Average consumer playing casual games would never come into a limitation due to graphics card. Photography buff would never come into a limitation due to graphic card. Video editor would never come into a limitation due to graphics card. Basically, only cutting-edge gamers and those doing 3D rendering are going to be affected by the "subpar" video card.

Figure out what percentage of potential iMac buyers are cutting edge gamers and/or 3D designers and you can see how Apple can easily make the choice that less heat from the graphics card is better than having a higher-end card.

Not defending them as I think they should at least give a BTO option for a better card, but what we have here is a simple case of cost + statistical insignificance (number of people who need/want the better card)

 

[Sesshi]

It's hilarious... like being at a Scientologist / Moonie convention.

 

[Padriac]

I believe you're seriously underselling this machine. It's not a pro machine by any means, but it's certainly not a computer just for moms and grandparents, to "check email, make a home movie and surf the web."

I completely agree. People get way crazy with this "pro/non-pro" distinction. The way I see it is that this years consumer products are usally equal if not better than last year's pro products. Somebody using one of these new iMacs would be better off in many ways than somebody using a year-old/low-end Mackbook Pro or Mac Pro.

I consider myself a "prosumer" in photography and video editing, and find the iMac to be a great machine for most my purposes. For thousands less than a Mac Pro + Monitor all I really lose is a minute or two in rendering and encoding times. Not bad.

 

[MacsRgr8]

Bottom line is that these cards only benefit those playing *new, cutting edge FPS games*. Average consumer playing casual games would never come into a limitation due to graphics card.

Cutting edge games like Quake 4?

An iMac is a consumer Mac. Consumers expect to be able to play games at decent settings.
Buy the new iMac NOW and "cutting egde" games from 12 months ago will struggle on it.
Consumers should expect that their brand new > $ 2000 Mac should be able to play games decently. Yep the games they buy now, and you can be assured that the games they buy in 2008 will play outrageously bad at low settings on it.
The Radeon 2600 Pro is DirectX10 compatible, but I can't imagine why? No DirectX10 game will play at any reasonable framerates on this POS.

Seriously, if it can't play Quake 4 at a reasonable setting now, what's the near future gonna be...

 

[Red-red]

Also, why is it that anyone that wants to play a game on one of these things is all of a sudden a "gamer"?? Is playing 3D games occasionally now outside the expectations of a "home" computer??

So true, I love the new imac's and if they had a quick GPU I would buy one in a heat beat, but it simply isn't a option. It is also very disapointing especially the way apple hyped up games on the mac with id, EA and then epic announcing UT3 for it I thought we could be getting something a bit speedier, obviously not I really don't see what the problem is, I would rather them make the imac half a inch thicker and have a quicker machine then have one thinner that isn't that much more powerful at all.

The fact is, if you pay £1500 for a computer you expect to get a pretty good machine capable of running games pretty well, this new imac doesn't even run old games pretty well. Lets put it into comparision, I could build my self a machine with more memory and quicker processor and a 8800GTS + all the bells and whistles if I wanted. I don't need that power all I was hoping for was something resonable but Apple go and put a graphics card you expect in a £500 pc was dell in it......Shocking.

 

[Padriac]

Cutting edge games like Quake 4?

You're still thinking like a high-end PC gamer. Quake 4 runs at about 40 fps. This is more than adequate for the average gamer. And by average I don't mean Grandma, I mean "most everybody". They are used to playing console games which usually run at 30 fps (or maybe 60) fps. PC gamers demanding framerates above 60 fps are a MINORITY.

If 40 fps is not acceptable for most people, then the consoles are doomed.

 

[I H8 UM]

Remote doesn't stick to the side anymore

I was a little bummed with my new Aluminum Imac. The remote doesn't stick to the side like it did on the white ones. Now I will probably lose it.

 

[WannaGoMac]

You're still thinking like a high-end PC gamer. Quake 4 runs at about 40 fps. This is more than adequate for the average gamer. And by average I don't mean Grandma, I mean "most everybody". They are used to playing console games which usually run at 30 fps (or maybe 60) fps. PC gamers demanding framerates above 60 fps are a MINORITY.

If 40 fps is not acceptable for most people, then the consoles are doomed.

You missed the point. Quake 4 is ANCIENT, OLD, GERIATRIC game for most GPUs nowadays. It was released in October 2005. Let me repeat, 2005!!! proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_4

It is PATHETIC that an Imac can only get ~40fps for a game almost 2 years old. How will it handle Crysis next year? it won't! lol

I think Mini is the only way to go mac...

 

[WannaGoMac]

I was a little bummed with my new Aluminum Imac. The remote doesn't stick to the side like it did on the white ones. Now I will probably lose it.

Well, you got it 1/4" thinner, something had to go!

 

[MacsRgr8]

You're still thinking like a high-end PC gamer. Quake 4 runs at about 40 fps. This is more than adequate for the average gamer. And by average I don't mean Grandma, I mean "most everybody". They are used to playing console games which usually run at 30 fps (or maybe 60) fps. PC gamers demanding framerates above 60 fps are a MINORITY.

If 40 fps is not acceptable for most people, then the consoles are doomed.

40 fps at what settings...?
We're talking about a game which is over a year old.

Now that Boot Camp is here, and the average consumer will keep his iMac for about 4 years, I can guarantee that all popular titles which will become availabe in the 4 years to come wil all run pretty crappy on this iMac.

It's nothing new. Almost all iMacs have had terrible 3d cards.
I remember when the iMac Rev A was introduced, and Steve was on stage bragging about the fact that the iMac used all the latest and greatest hardware. They also made a big fuss about all those games that were coming to the Mac....
Trouble was.... all those new games (Unreal, Quake 2) ran terribly on the iMac. People were complaining then, and the same happens now. But now with the extra burden of being able to Boot Camp, and play all those Windows games.
Even on the newly announced Power Mac G3 B&W Unreal ran like crap (ATi Rage 128). Same goes for Quake 3 which was praised so much by Apple themselves!
Only when the Voodoo 5 card was made available for the Mac, did the Power Mac G3 owners get a glimpse of how nice those game actually could loook. PC gamers had this chance for a year.

It is simple:

Don't ever play a modern game? Then the iMac is the best computer in the world.
Like playing games that are no more than 3 year sold (think about the future)? Tough luck. Or play at embarrassingly low settings.

 

[Padriac]

You missed the point. Quake 4 is ANCIENT, OLD, GERIATRIC game for most GPUs nowadays. It was released in October 2005. Let me repeat, 2005!!! proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_4

It is PATHETIC that an Imac can only get ~40fps for a game almost 2 years old. How will it handle Crysis next year? it won't! lol

I think Mini is the only way to go mac...

No, I get it. The fact that every new FPS released every 6 months needs a new graphics card has been slowly killing the PC gaming world for some time now. It's a twisted little world that I think Apple is just ignoring.

For a counter-example, HL2:E1, roughly 1 year old, runs exceptionally well on my 1.5 year-old iMac. I expect Episode 2 will also run great. World of Warcraft runs great. The Sims titles will run great. Maybe games like this are the exception and not the rule, but I'm just pointing out that it's not like all new games are unplayable on the iMac. You are NOT doing brand new FPS on an iMac (unless it's made by Valve, apparently), but other than that you're okay.

I would say that sometimes the iMacs graphics end up being better than others with each new revision: sometimes subpar compared to the competetion, sometimes fairly competent. This revision seems to be one of the "subpar" ones... I'd wager rev B will be better (allowing games like UT3 to at least be playable with decent settings).

 

[sbarton]

You're still thinking like a high-end PC gamer. Quake 4 runs at about 40 fps. This is more than adequate for the average gamer. And by average I don't mean Grandma, I mean "most everybody". They are used to playing console games which usually run at 30 fps (or maybe 60) fps. PC gamers demanding framerates above 60 fps are a MINORITY.

If 40 fps is not acceptable for most people, then the consoles are doomed.

I call BS....CNET got 39FPS and THAT WAS AT 1024x768 for a 2 year old game. So what does it look like when you stretch that 1024x768 image across a 1900x1200 pixel LCD?...rhetorical question..

From the review:

On our Quake 4 test, at a forgiving 1,024x768 resolution, the iMac turned in an only marginally acceptable 39 frames per second. We were surprised by that, since Quake 4 sits on the tail end of what we consider current 3D games