New iMac G5 Announced

[dizastor]

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. ...

Ok, so let us in on what you do? If it's video or 3d related you shouldn't be looking at an iMac or any computer with a 64 meg video card in the first place.

I'm not flaming... just curious.

 

[iMeowbot]

Someone said earlier that the iMac cannot handle motion, from the Specs that is just not true.

Well, sure. That 5200 is really much better than one would think by reading comments here -- especially when power and heat are taken into account. Likewise, the optical drive used is a really nice balance.

 

[Mord]

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

my g4 cube can rum cs suite, it will be fine

 

[patrick808]

Power switch, where is it?

I am a long time reader, but new poster. I did a thread search and got through the first 10 pages of posts... but, I haven't seen any mention of the power switch, or lack thereof.

I'm sure we all hope that the BT keyboard will be able to turn on this new iMac G5, but I'm just as sure no one is holding their breath.

 

[iMeowbot]

(For that matter, are all games 3D? I love 3D games but they're not all that's out there.)

Rumblings from game producers strongly suggest that they will be backing away a bit from some of the recent excesses anyway. The extended development times have been getting in the way of other details like having a product to sell and make money.

 

[VicMacs]

i'll sell my macs now and wait for the pbg5

 

[Timelessblur]

I am a long time reader, but new poster. I did a thread search and got through the first 10 pages of posts... but, I haven't seen any mention of the power switch, or lack thereof.

I'm sure we all hope that the BT keyboard will be able to turn on this new iMac G5, but I'm just as sure no one is holding their breath.

someone did. its on the back of the computer

 

[takao]

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.)

sadly 3d is taking over into nearly every genre ... no matter if it's really time strategy or some ordinary little shareware game...
there are still some really good 2d ones out there (like europa universalis series games) but they will becom more and more unimportant with today's standardized (sp?) graphic engines etc.

 

[JoePike]

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.)

Yeah, that'd be nice. Suspend the computer above the desk from the wall, then unhook it and bring it into the bedroom to hang on the wall to watch a DVD before bed, and in the morning bring it back. Exciting stuff.

-Joe

 

[macidiot]

youve been using apples since '87 but you dont know about the powermac? i dont get the big deal. yes it would be cool if the iMac came with a better graphics card, but for the market it is targeting, its absolutely fine. if your gonna do advanced work or gaming or are worried about upgrading, get the powermac.

I think the big deal is that a person shouldn't have to spend 2k just to get the ability to put in a good graphics card. The imac is priced pretty competitively for what it is, but for a $1600 pc system(including monitor), your pretty much getting a video card 2-4 grades better, typically along the lines of a 9600 or 9800 with at least 128MB ram.

The thing is, that the 5200 will be seriously lame in 6-12 months. It runs stuff now, but its going to make for a lot of disappointed iMac owners a year from now when they can't run the new games well or at all.

Apple should have a BTO option for video.

To me, this is the most glaring flaw in the new iMac. That and the fact that Steve seems to have a fetish for all-in-one machines. He needs to realize that its not 1984 and that most Americans already own monitors.

 

[Mord]

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.

your 64mb radeon beats a 5200 you know, and your dual 1.25GH g5 probably beats a single g5 in most things

 

[Savage Henry]

i'll sell my macs now and wait for the pbg5

Yeah ... but unless you are a hardcore laptop user who doesn't get drawn into the desktop world, you'll be drawn into the iMac G5 ... you will ... you know it!!!

But to be honest, I love to see the PBG5 in about 12 months.... wooo yeah ...

 

[Applespider]

A lot of people WANT to switch. But keep forcing them to buy an LCD screen (which they don't need - they're SWITCHERS, they ALREADY have a CRT/LCD display) .

I disagree with this point although as with most of the statements on here, no actual facts. I know several people who have a CRT monitor and an old Windows PC and are considering switching.

They are the kind of people for whom virus subscriptions and remembering Windows updates is kinda confusing - not the kind of people on this board. They assume that when you buy a computer, you buy a new screen in any case, 'cos gee, will that old on work with the new one and oooh, look when I buy my new computer, I really want one of those flat screens 'cos they look so much better.

My mother has a serviceable CRT monitor and an old HP PC. She looked at this and now knows what her next computer purchase will be. She doesn't care about graphics cards or RAM. She looks, she likes, she sees the price, she buys

 

[shyataroo]

what else is apple going to announce any ideas? 3.0ghz G5? E.O.L. G4 towers? the ability to use the iMac G5 with the G5 tower?

 

[blakemsf]

Warranty for Education

I love the new iMac and hopefully will be purchasing about 25 for our school between now and next spring(I hope rev 2 comes out by then). I just wish Apple would include Apple Care for education and not have you buy it for $120 or whatever it is. Education (public that is) can not update their hardware as frequently as everyone else so these have to last longer than the normal buyer. I think the price and specs are great on these iMacs but I wish they could give people the option to upgrade the card if needed.

 

[JGowan]

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

No problem.

 

[granex]

video card debate

People are starting to loose focus on the video card debate. It is fine that Apple offers a low cost standard on these consumer level machines, as many have been arguing. It would be extremely nice, however, if they at least offered the option of having a slightly better graphics card on the higher end machines.

I'm probably going to get one of these machines, but I would have been willing to pay more for a better graphics card. The lack here is making me wonder if I shouldn't keep waiting. This is a real issue for some people and the lack of the option here will affect some sales.

This is the only negative thing I see in this computer at this relative price point. It will cost more than $1,000 to get a mac with a better graphics card (of course nearly everything else will be better too). A workstation is too expensive and way too big for what I need at home. It would be nice to have the potential to play graphics intensive games (or at least that is what my kids are going to say -- they are already against getting a mac for home because of game availability). They won't force me to to the more expensive machine. I will either live with what they offer or not buy. In sort, Apple has missed the chance to squeak out a little more profit margin on the upper end here.

 

[quackattack]

Yea, one more inch to go. lol

I'm one of the few who is hoping the G5 PB is a ways away. I couldn't stand the thought of my month old 1.5 G4 PB being out of date...

 

[alexf]

If the iMac did not come with a screen, it would no longer be an iMac.

The all-in-one aspect is what has defined the iMac from the beginning.

A screenless iMac is essentially an oxymoron.

 

[mullmann]

(Steve) needs to realize that its not 1984 and that most Americans already own monitors.

I'm sure you didn't mean that literally, because it's clearly untrue. Anyway, I would guess that most of the monitors out there already are verging on obsolete -- not in terms of performance, but design. The world is going wide-screen, and most of the monitors out there are still 4:3 aspect ratio. Besides, I would bet (and I have no data to back this up; just my guess) that the majority of people, when they buy a new PC to replace an old one, buy a new monitor along with it even if their old one is perfectly fine. They just go ahead and get the one bundled with their new system, the one that looks like it "goes" with the computer, etc. I don't think the mandatory monitor with the iMac will faze those people at all.

 

[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.

Oh? I'd like to invite you to examine the facts.

The 233 MHz Rev. A iMac that shipped in August 1998 was as fast as the beige PowerMac G3 then selling for $2k, and only marginally slower than the 266 MHz beige G3 tower that sold for $2400 (for the desktop model) or $3000 (for the tower).

On the x86 side at the time, the Pentium II 450 MHz was the latest and greatest, and totally out of the price range of mortals. The overclockable Celeron 300A was the PC enthusiast's choice, but building a complete system from it cost as much as an iMac.

If you weren't paying attention back then, a little googling should reassure you that this was true. Believe it or not, Apple's original iMac was a genuinely good deal, not just a "good deal for a Mac"!

See:
http://www.lowendmac.com/imacs/imac.shtml
http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/g3.shtml
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/19980824/index.html
http://www.infotoday.com/cilmag/jul98/story1.htm

PC's have gotten much cheaper since then, where macs have only gotten more expensive, relatively speaking.

How quickly people forget...

The original iMac was a huge, raging success because its price was competitive. Apple needs to make a price-competitive machine again or just give up and become an ipod-only company.

-vga4life

 

[JLS]

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.

You need a G5 to do that?.. If thats what you want to do get a G3 iMac off ebay for £100.. lol

 

[macidiot]

Three step process:

1. Buy your iMac
2. Place iMac directly behind your glorious 23" display
3. Plug iMac video-out into Cinema Display.

lol, that is one solution.

My point was that they should make a headless iMac. And from the looks of it, they could do one for about $6-700.

 

[alexf]

Oh? I'd like to invite you to examine the facts.

The 233 MHz Rev. A iMac that shipped in August 1998 was as fast as the beige PowerMac G3 then selling for $2k, and only marginally slower than the 266 MHz beige G3 tower that sold for $2400.

On the x86 side at the time, the Pentium II 450 MHz was the latest and greatest, and totally out of the price range of mortals. The overclockable Celeron 300A was the PC enthusiast's choice, but building a complete system from it cost as much as an iMac.

PC's have gotten much cheaper since then, where macs have only gotten more expensive.

How quickly people forget...

The original iMac was a huge, raging success because its price was competitive. One of these days Apple will have to make a price-competitive machine again.

-vga4life

As you probably know, MHz alone is not what defines a machine's performance. The original iMac was NEVER INTENDED TO BE A PRO LEVEL MACHINE. This is a simple fact. Send an email to Apple's marketing dept. and if you're lucky enough to get a reply I am sure they would tell you this also.

Following is text taken directly from the Apple site when they introduced the iMac in 1998. The key word that keeps appearing in this marketing text is INTERNET:
-
"Designed around a simple premise— that the internet should be as easy to use as a Macintosh—iMac is the internet-age “computer for the rest of us.”
With one-button online access and a stunning new design, iMac combines all the possibilities of the internet with all the capabilities of the Macintosh.
Since 1984 there have basically been three kinds of computers. Computers that are large and hard to use. Computers that are small and hard to use. And computers called Macintosh.
Now the company that started the personal computer revolution is helping parents, kids, students and teachers take advantage of internet evolution.
Introducing iMac, the computer that combines all the possibilities of the internet with all the magic of the Macintosh.
The iMac will come fully loaded. You'll get everything you need to explore the internet for just $1,299"
-
Does this text sound oriented towards the power user? I don't think so. Again, do you really believe that many professionals were doing high-end video editing on an iMac?

 

[Flying Llama]

lol, that is one solution.

My point was that they should make a headless iMac. And from the looks of it, they could do one for about $6-700.

There cannot be a "headless" iMac, that's what the iMac is: all-in-one!
but if they did another new model that was headless maybe for edu it could be very cheap indeed.