New iMac G5 Announced

[nate]

I think that the new G5 iMac looks great. Wonderful, in fact.

I want to get one, but I can't now. I still got my G4 powerbook, so that'l do for now. I also have my school laptop, it's a Windows computer. It's ok, but not as good as a mac. I like my mac because it seems to be more functional and effient that Windows-based PCs.

I can't wait until Tiger comes out. Maybe, if I get rich some how (a rich student? ha!) I'll get the G5 with Tiger next year.

--nate

 

[Lancetx]

....For those who are complaining about the iMac pricing.

I went to dell and priced out their base model dimension 2400 w/ the following specs.

2.4Ghz @ 533 FSB
17" Ultrasharp LCD
80 GB HDD
256MB of RAM
DVD Burner
Wireless Keyboard/Mouse
Win XP Professional

The price came out to $1277. Yes, you can get the base model for $499, w/ 128MB of RAM, a CD-ROM, a 40GB HDD, and a 15" CRT monitor. The P4/2.4 is roughly comparable to a 1.6 G5. The 2400 also offers NO AGP SLOT, and comes with the horrible intel extreme graphics 2 video chipset, which is 100% worse than the 'crappy 5200' everyone is whining about.

Pricing out the next step up (dimension 4600) with identical specs, except for the addition of a Geforce 5200FX and a 2.8Ghz processor brought the total up to $1397.

So, the same mac, with an all-integrated system, is in the same price range as a 'usable' PC.

Now, why is everyone whining over the price? Feature for feature, the mac is priced quite nicely.

Exactly the point I've been making. If you get a Dell display even close to the class of the iMac's and try to stay at or below $1,299 you end up with one of those low end Dell Dimensions with (even lousier) integrated graphics. Not to mention no FireWire ports, etc.

 

[t300]

I don't understand why a lot of you keep comparing Dells and Gateways for price and features...MAC is MAC. None of Apple's computers can be compared to any PC, they are in a class of their own. No matter the price, no matter the specs. Simply put : Apple KNOWS what they are doing.

 

[The Red Wolf]

I never buy applecare and haven't regretted it yet. And the imac is NOT a "baseline" device; that would be the emac, coming in at $800.

Bondi iMac Processor: $735 to Replace
G5 iMac Processor with an AppleCare: Priceless

An AppleCare plan can be bought up to the last day of the 1 year hardware warranty of any Mac. It doesn't have to be factored into the initial cost of the machine.

A single faulty capacitor cost $1027.00 to repair the damage to my motherboard and DC/DC board. Turn around with a new motherboard and new DC/DC board in 4 business days. I watched smoke rise from a burning DC/DC board. Dead in the water machine. Put in in Monday, got it back Thursday. No cost to me because I had AppleCare. Even with my Modded components. Do you also drive without insurance?

 

[emw]

Will the new Imacs be able to run Adobe CS Suite ok??

I run it on a 1GHz G4 Powerbook without any problems. I think the 1.6 - 1.8 GHz G5 will probably handle it.

 

[Wash!!]

I still want my neuronet, A.I. DUAL CORE, VR interface with 128 bit CPU on a 0.5" form factor imac pipe dream that can read my mind and make julian fries.... not this crappy imac G5 come on Apple get together....

Disclaimer: I just imitating some of the trigger happy must have more FPS nut jobs lurking on this forums....

 

[jsw]

remeber the 2nd computer you price out has a upgradble graphic card. As you point out the integrate card like that pretty much shows that it on par with bottom of hte line computer from dell that been upgraded.

Go up a modle and yeah hardware wise it the same and price wise it about the same but you can put good graphic card in it. ALso dell has a wider range of computer going for very low end to high end with out a huge gaps in it

So buy a Dell. I'd hate for you to not like any computer you buy. Meanwhile, vast numbers of buyers will be quite happy with the new iMacs, regardless of your opinions. Your priorities are not in line with those of the intended iMac consumer base.

 

[clr900]

Where does it say this?

A tablet computer this big and heavy?!?!?! Give me a break!

Sushi

The engineers put the iMac on a diet, helping it lose more than 4 pounds in its 17-inch incarnation, and a whopping 15 pounds on the 20-inch. So move it from the living room to the kitchen on a whim. Its two-inch thin enclosure and small footprint make the iMac G5 a delight to showcase anywhere.
http://www.apple.com/imac/design.html
edit: I have nothing against the iMac, I think it's a marvel of desktop computers, but there are more practical products for a desktop computer that will just stay in one place all of the time. The point being that I think that it is good that Apple is trying to market it this way and eliminate the clutter, they have made a desktop computer that people actually will be able to move from room to room without any hassle.

 

[appleface]

well said greenmonsterman

Can I get an AMEN!
[...]
In other words... the new iMac rocks.

see post #752. well said.

 

[paaltio]

Keynote viewing

Has anyone managed to download the keynote for offline viewing? Apple's server seems to be so busy it's impossible to get a reliable stream over here.

 

[iGary]

I run EVERYTHING on the machine below with a 64mb Radeon.

I get so tired of hearnig people belly ache about the video cards and RAM.

If you don't like it, don't buy it, or upgrade.

This is a fine machine, and despite the few marketing experts here, it will sell very well.

If I had the money and the need, I'd buy one.

 

[alexf]

Yes, the graphics card bitching is getting very old. If you are fortunate enough to have the means to buy a new iMac, then you are also fortunate enought to have the choice of NOT buying one.

I can understand why people complain about the 5200 being in the 1.8 and 2.0 PowerMacs, as these machines are supposed to have more up-to-date features and be on the cutting edge, but the iMac is a CONSUMER LEVEL MACHINE, meant for that market.

Did anybody REALLY think that Apple would put a better card in the iMac than in the base level PowerMacs? Perhaps you weren't paying attention.

I know that many of you wish the iMac were a pro-level machine, but it is not and will never be. If it were, then it wouldn't be an iMac.

Let's put this to rest! If anything, it's the (IMO) ugly design of the new iMac that is worthy of critique, not its brilliant engineering or stock features.

 

[vga4life]

John Carmack can shove his attitude up his $#^*@#.

He's never liked macs at all, don't listen to a word he says about them. He makes Rob Enderle look like a genius.

LOL...

John Carmack developed Doom and Quake on NEXTSTEP. (I still have a copy of NeXTdoom on my NeXTStation TurboColor.) He's not an idiot, he liked NEXTSTEP, likes OS X, and he's dead right about Apple's crappy hardware.

Apple might as well be shipping a dumb framebuffer. The 5200FX is not much more than an overclocked GeForce 2MX from 5 years ago with DX9-compatible firmware. Not to mention sub-2GHz G5's that get totally housed by bargain-basement 2.8 GHz P4's. And the G4? That was a great processor 5 years ago, too.

As great as Apple's software and interfaces are, the hardware blows goats. I've owned Apples since the IIe, NeXT hardware since the NeXTstation, and Mac hardware since the SE/30 and the performance gap has never been greater.

(Let's not even talk about price/performance, since you can't get a Mac that outperforms a $3k dual-Xeon at any price.)

I love Mac OS X, but Apple's pricing is bloody awful.

The reason the original imac was such a huge success was that it offered top-of-the-line (for the time, mac or PC) performance for $1300. Today's $1300 low-end imac gets you less performance than a $1300 pc laptop and it's not even portable. *PATHETIC*

-vga4life

 

[dili]

Nice try, but you're still "got" - and a word of advice, it's better for your image if you defend your comments yourself rather than letting other people do it for you and then just blindly agreeing with them.

If other people say what I think ...why not agree then.

In example.

...
First you're telling us that it's a consumer workstation so it doesn't need a middle-class GPU. Then if we need more than a crappy GPU we should shell out the cash for a pro-grade workstation? For GAMES? And since when does a consumer workstation needs a G5? And since when does a pro-workstation needs a gaming-class GPU?

Stop defending Apple on this one, we're getting tired. Apple blew it with the iMac G5 rev.A (for the GPU/VRAM), let's hope they wake up a bit for rev.B

etc.etc. ...

Also, stop saying the iMac is the entry-level Mac, the eMac fills that spot (it was for schools in the beginning only). Anyway if by your logic the iMac is the entry-level Mac and PowerMac is the pro Mac... what's in the middle? The iMac already has the middle class sticker price!

I agree the full way. ...if Shard doesn't mind that is. ...

 

[arnegp]

before the imac was announced i was really hoping it would
be possible to mount the baby to the wall.
i looks like you can do this now, but i have one question about this.

the speakers are designed to play the sound down in the desk/table/bathtub
or what ever and right up in your face.
but if you mount it to the wall... i just wonder how it will sound. flat?
will you get the same audio experience if you wall-mount it?
maybe you have to be an audio geek to tell the difference... who knows?

 

[dizastor]

Will the new Imacs be able to run Adobe CS Suite ok??

Absolutely. As always, the more RAM the better. The computer that I am using here at work is an old Quicksilver single proc. 933mhz g4 with 64 megs of VRAM (Gforce4 MX) and 768megs of ram, and I usually have InDesign, Photoshop, and Illustrator open at the same time(Along with Outlook-classic, Extensis Portfolio, and AdiumX) Works great. So it's safe to say that the new iMac will perform substantially better.

Sadly, this is my "upgrade" work computer. You don't wanna know what I was working on before.

 

[nagromme]

but the keyboard takes one of those USB 2.0 ports

Every PC maker lists ALL ports in the specs, whether a vital peripheral (mouse, display) uses them up or not. So Apple listing 5 USB ports is fair.

Will the new Imacs be able to run Adobe CS Suite ok??

Even a G4 will

It would be great to have a "quick release" on the VESA mount.

Lots of those exist for your VESA-standard iMac Such as:
http://www.2iq.co.uk/prodpage.asp?ProdID=7
http://ergonomics.comrac.co.uk/main.asp?pid=20

I bet you can get a small quick-release unit that fits BETWEEN the unit and any VESA mount, too. And I bet someone soon makes one to let you use the iMac's own foot the same way.

(You'll find the Apple iMac VESA bracket under Accessories.)

the speakers are designed to play the sound down in the desk/table/bathtub
or what ever and right up in your face.
but if you mount it to the wall... i just wonder how it will sound.

Different. Everything will affect sound--the stuff on your desk, what it's made of, or the choice to wall mount. If you want the best sound, you'll always want external speakers or a full stereo system. Even surround sound: the iMac outputs 5.1 digital optical audio.

 

[SteveMentzer]

iMac Pricing

remeber the 2nd computer you price out has a upgradble graphic card. As you point out the integrate card like that pretty much shows that it on par with bottom of hte line computer from dell that been upgraded.

Go up a modle and yeah hardware wise it the same and price wise it about the same but you can put good graphic card in it. ALso dell has a wider range of computer going for very low end to high end with out a huge gaps in it

True, you can replace the vidboard in the dell. But the 'extreme video' card in the bottom-of-the-line dell CANNOT be upgraded. So, it is on par with the low end iMac. Bumping up the dell to make it feature comparable to the iMac actually makes the dell MORE expensive.

My point is that the iMac is targetted at the midrange computer buyer. The iMac 1.6/17" is comparable to anything dell offers with the same features.

Fyi - Dell has gaps all over the place. As soon as you get a machine to a 'usable' configuration, the 'rock bottom price' being offered is an illusion. The truth of the matter is that you are looking to spend $1200-$2000 at dell.com to get a computer. If you want a duallie-g5 contender, you need to look at the high-end dimensions (like the XPS)

Btw -

I priced out the baseline dual dell workstation 2.8Ghz P4 w/ 1GB of RAM, and all the fixins for about $2700, in contrast to a dual G5 2.5 w/ the same features for about $3100.

I think everyone agrees that the duallie G5 is a much better machine for the $$$.

So, the only problem with apple is the 'ultra low' end of the spectrum. Apple cannot compete with dell there (unless you count the eMac). Midrange and High-end boxen are comparable.

 

[vouder17]

Yes, the graphics card bitching is getting very old. If you are fortunate enough to have the means to buy a new iMac, then you are also fortunate enought to have the choice of NOT buying one.

I can understand why people complain about the 5200 being in the 1.8 and 2.0 PowerMacs, as these machines are supposed to have more up-to-date features and be on the cutting edge, but the iMac is a CONSUMER LEVEL MACHINE, meant for that market.

Did anybody REALLY think that Apple would put a better card in the iMac than in the base level PowerMacs? Perhaps you weren't paying attention.

I know that many of you wish the iMac were a pro-level machine, but it is not and will never be. If it were, then it wouldn't be an iMac.

Let's put this to rest! If anything, it's the (IMO) ugly design of the new iMac that is worthy of critique, not its brilliant engineering or stock features.

Thank you......this compter is aimed at people who want to e-mail and use word.Not play the latest games,buy a powermac for that and leave the iMac alone.

Peace
DjVoTeZ

 

[alexf]

The reason the original imac was such a huge success was that it offered top-of-the-line (for the time, mac or PC) performance for $1300. Today's $1300 low-end imac gets you less performance than a $1300 pc laptop and it's not even portable. *PATHETIC*

-vga4life

No, the original iMac did not offer "top of the line" performance. It was a consumer level machine, packaged nicely and great for everything the the average consumer would want to do (e.i. email, internet, a little digital imaging, etc.).

It was not a pro level machine, and I highly doubt there were many professionals out there using the iMac for high end video work, etc.

Please examine the facts before you make silly statements.

 

[dili]

I run EVERYTHING on the machine below with a 64mb Radeon.

I get so tired of hearnig people belly ache about the video cards and RAM.

If you don't like it, don't buy it, or upgrade.

This is a fine machine, and despite the few marketing experts here, it will sell very well.

If I had the money and the need, I'd buy one.

1.25 GHz G4 MDD Tower
200gb HDD, 2gb DDR RAM, Panther 10.3.4
20" Cinema Display, 3G 15gb iPod, Canon EOS 300D

You run everything on that machine? ...Come do what I do then for 8hours straight. ...then we'll talk. Really. Okay. It's a nice machine, but don't say it can hold the world. ...

 

[alexf]

Will the new Imacs be able to run Adobe CS Suite ok??

Absolutely! The new iMac is more than sufficient to run the Adobe CS suite. Just me sure to beef up the memory, as this is where you will see the real performance increase.

 

[alexf]

You run everything on that machine? ...Come do what I do then for 8hours straight. ...then we'll talk. Really. Okay. It's a nice machine, but don't say it can hold the world. ...

If the new iMac can't handle what you do for 8 hours straight, perhaps it is time to consider a PowerMac.

 

[takao]

I run EVERYTHING on the machine below with a 64mb Radeon.

well i haven't come to a game which doesn't run on my computer either... well excpect some old dos games who have problems with new hardware

I get so tired of hearnig people belly ache about the video cards and RAM.

that's easy to say when you have 2 GB of that RAM

If you don't like it, don't buy it, or upgrade.

This is a fine machine, and despite the few marketing experts here, it will sell very well.

If I had the money and the need, I'd buy one.

ditto on all your comments....
my 2002 pc (with hardware which never was brand new) in this 1999 ugly beige case still outperforms the apple desktops within my financial reach... and i'm happy with it even when i'm running windows...

 

[nagromme]

Not for hard-core gamers, but not half bad for gaming either

.this compter is aimed at people who want to e-mail and use word.Not play the latest games,buy a powermac for that and leave the iMac alone.

Good advice for some. But I for one DO play the latest games... on a 1.25 Ghz G4 laptop with the previous-gen GPU! And I'm happy. So I'd be DELIGHTED to play them on the new iMac G5. NEXT year's games are another story... but by no means is the iMac G5 limited to basic productivity. (For that matter, are all games 3D? I love 3D games but they're not all that's out there.)