New iMac G5 Announced

[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.
-snip-
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?

Oy, do you work in marketing or something? **** marketing. In 1998 I'd been an IT professional for 5 years already, with 4 years working on Macs and 2 years experience working on Macs in a video editing facility.

In 1998, professionals were doing "high-end" video editing on systems with custom video compression hardware that cost tens of thousands of dollars. There was no Final Cut Pro in 1998. In 1998, I still occasionally saw and used Avid suites running on PPC-upgraded Quadra 950's because so much of the video processing was done in add-on hardware that the main system CPU didn't matter much.

So, no, professionals weren't doing "high-end" video editing on the iMac in 1998.

But I never said the imac was marketed towards professionals! I said the original imac sold well because it offered high-end performance for the money. No, it wasn't very expandable - but out of the box it was as fast as Apple's more expensive pro machines and as fast or faster than just about anything you could buy for $1300, mac or pc.

Anyone who disputes this either wasn't paying attention in 1998 or has seriously selective memory.

-vga4life

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I guess it'll take until tomorrow morning to really LOVE this new member of the family...

One accessory i can already think of is one battery, and there you go, the apple tablet!

The old iMac is dead, long live the new iMac!

It may take a while longer....

Hard to tell the new G5 iMac's from some of the LCD screens out there. Other than color of course.

 

[oingoboingo]

I appreciate that, but a lot of the people who are making these video card/gaming complaints are the hardcore gamers who need to play the latest and greatest with full features turned on, yadda yadda, and that card, although more than acceptable, would not cut it - after all, the FX5200 is a decent card, yet it obviously is "complete crap" if you ask some of the people here. They're a tough crowd to please...

Even when it comes to UT2004 and Halo though, there are significant improvements with this new iMac over the old one, as can be seen here. Again though, some people are never happy... I agree with your point though.

...and it's not just previously high-end cards like the Radeon 9700 from 2 years ago which will play Doom 3 well. Cards from the mid to low range of 2 years ago, like the nVidia GeForce 4 4200 and 4400 play the game well, as do cards like the ATI Radeon 9500.

We shouldn't expect the iMac to have a top-line graphics chip like a Radeon X800 or a GeForce 6800. Of course...it's a consumer machine, so it's not going to have a cutting edge gamer's card. But there's a whole host of mid-range graphics chips out there to choose from, which are reasonably priced and have performance which leaves the FX 5200 in the dust. And leaving the FX 5200 in the dust isn't really hard...it's an updated version of the GeForce 4 MX 440, itself an updated version of the GeForce 2 MX. Not exactly a sparkling heritage, and it's reflected in it's near-to-bottom of the market performance.

This really isn't directed at you Shard, but to everyone who trots out the standard line that "consumers don't play games". I don't think so. Professionals play games on their PowerMacs? No. Gaming is one of the most common uses for a computer in the home, and this doesn't just include the tiny sliver of the market that has their overclocked Alienware system with liquid cooling and twin PCI Express GeForce 6800 cards. Apple has plastered their iMac G5 site with gaming references. A Halo/UT2004 performance graph dominates both the 'G5 processor' and 'widescreen graphics' pages of the iMac G5 site. The increase in gaming performance is the most prominent comparison made with the previous G4 iMac. Doom III and World of Warcraft are mentioned explicitly. Games are bundled with the iMac G5. Apple knows that people want to play games on their consumer iMac, and they've tailored their website accordingly.

It's just that they've tried to save $25 by fitting one of nVidia's worst GPU designs ever, and that's what has so many people shaking their heads here. So much of else of the iMac G5 is so good...12 hours after the launch, I'm still to-ing and fro-ing about selling my PowerMac G5 1.6GHz to pick up one of these things, mainly on the basis of the huge space savings that the iMac G5 would bring to my cramped apartment. But that GPU! Oh...that GPU

 

[Applespider]

First thing I thought of when I read people talking about the 'chin' on the iMac...

is this the iMac Leno

 

[ThomasJefferson]

I like the price and the G5 package. I would consider one if I had not just purchased 12in powerbook.

While I prefer the look of the G4 iMac, my fav, this new G5 will grow on me. Not a total dog at all. I mean, its an LCD screen. Whots to get upset about. Looks like a real engineering achievement.

cool beans

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

well... a nice machine of course... but ho-hum design when compared to the iMac G4. Now that was futuristic! Not even Apple could top that!

The G5 iMac looks like a computer. It looks like a terminal. It looks like something you'd see someone entering your order into at a restaurant.

Sure people will say "Where's the computer" but they said that about the G4 iMac too.

This new iMac is a laptop on a stand. Nothing revolutionary or even evolutionary about that. Anyone one could have done that. All they've done is taken out the battery and put in the power supply.

These will sell, but they just lack the "Wow!" factor the G4 iMac had. It's not a head turner.

I'm sad, but I guess I knew it was going to happen.

In some ways I wish Apple had gone to this:

http://www.shopping.hp.com/cgi-bin/...l&page=home&site=main&product_code=DL516A#ABA

 

[The Red Wolf]

First thing I thought of when I read people talking about the 'chin' on the iMac...

is this the iMac Leno

Would you rather have the power supply behind the screen giving it a nice fuzzy look like so many View Sonic monitors configured in that manner? I'm all for the "chin".

 

[Agent Smith]

Nice, but...

Apple did a good job with the design, but a couple of things could cause grief:

1. The power cord makes hanging the thing from a wall difficult, unless you use a router and redecorate your wall;

2. THE VIDEO CARD!!! Although they've said Doom III will run (not really an issue with the G5), I'm skeptical about the framerate with a 64 MB card. It would really be cool if they could include a better card with the upcomming revision, even if it was BTO. I'm sure people would appreciate the option.

3. Really neat how the cooling system works, but I'm wondering how one keeps that cooling slit clear of dust and debris. I'm sure there is mesh or something like that, but how does one keep it clean?

Again, good job, but I think I'll go with a Dual G5.

P.S. The other thing they really did well on is the price. The G4 iMac 20" was $2 999 CDN; the new 20" is $2 499 CDN. Kudos for that, I would have paid more for a better video card though...

 

[tech4all]

First thing I thought of when I read people talking about the 'chin' on the iMac...

is this the iMac Leno

lol, good comparision. They do have striking similarities, huh?

 

[Timelessblur]

Well to the people who keep definding the POS crappy graphic card in the iMac yeah a lot of people dont need the graphic card power. I cut the slack on the lowest Imac ou there for not having a upgradble graphic card but lets move up to higher model with the 1.8 Ghz G5. That is clearly in the mid range in price and you notic you can get a PC with simlar specs and guess what a upgraudble graphic card.


Also if this many people are complain about the graphic card it pretty clear there is a a problem a HUGE problem. The other stuff people are complain about is hear and there but a very small number so they can writen off. Now lets look at the graphic card everyone is compalining about it. People complain that apple does not get games made for it. Well guess what the game manfactors are not going to bother making games for apple until apple get serios about getting there hardware required in there mid range computers ie the iMac. We not taking about thowing a top of the line card in there. The POS graphic card would be forgiveble if they made it upgraduble though a 9800XT/pro. If it is intergrated at least have it at the leval of a 9700pro or a 9600XT card in there if you can not upgrade it.

As it stands right now the new Imac will be major out dated in 1-2 years and it lost a lot of years off it life spam due to the graphic card alone. It pretty said when you can by a computer loaded down with nearly top of the line stuff in it and there is a lot of software out there that you computer cannot or bareily can run all due to one peice of the hardware

 

[gorkonapple]

The thing about Core Image is that it downgrades as needed, just like Quarts Extreme. Granted, I have no idea what Apple will do with their apps in the future.

You won't be able to run Motion on an iMac, and CoreImage won't run optimally. Then again, Tiger won't be out until probably late spring / early summer 2005. By then we will probably have another iMac revision that could support it.

To me, I don't see CoreImage as being that big of a deal on an iMac. Not sure why you'd buy a consumer machine to do high end video effect compositing.

With regards to Motion....which words in "are on the list" do you not understand? If it's on the list, you should hope that it at least works. Sure, it might be slow, but it will work.

Tiger's CoreImage will probably definitely run on anything that is out now and the near future. Just like Quartz Extreme work on lesser Macs, the new CoreImage will be fine on anything selling now and a couple revs back. Anything less would simply not BE Apple.

 

[aafuss1]

What I predicted vs what was announced:
CPU:1.6-1.8GHz G5-970FX?:
Yes, but we will not know whether the G5 is the 970fx until Apple releases the developer note later.
RAM:512MB
-256MB, the 512mb as an upgrade by the user
HD-80-160GB
-Accurate
Audio:5.1/7.1 audio, HD Audio similar to Intel's HD Audio
-no HD audio but optical in/out-5.1 audio
Video:FX5200, 128MB:
-FX5200, but half VRRAM-64MB
Software:iMac G4 bundle+ MediaBlaster's Invader Zim DVD Vol 1/2:
-same as before, no iMac G4 bundle+ MediaBlaster's Invader Zim DVD Vol 1/2 but new games-Marbleblast and nanosaur 2 were mentioned.
Price:$1200-1800-accurate enough

 

[dizastor]

In some ways I wish Apple had gone to this:

Eww. Please tell me that's sarcasm.
1) Pug-Fugly.
2) You could do that yourself with an iBook and creative use of 3rd party accessories.
3) Laptops are not meant to fly.

... the iMac Leno

I want the iMac "Playmate Edition" with really big, round, voluptuous... speakers.

 

[nagromme]

Apple should have a BTO option for video.

To me, this is the most glaring flaw in the new iMac.

Agreed--they need a BTO video option at the low-end. But that's not the iMac (AIO, supercompact). That's a NEW Mac. A mythical headless sub-pro Mac. This iMac is great, but it's not that OTHER Mac.

You're not the only one that wants a sub-pro tower. I bet Apple knows that too... For instance, I can see the eMac becoming headless one day--and if so, perhaps gaining swappable slots.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Apple fails to innovate, Mr. Ives runs out of ideas.
It is a Flat panel monitor! Not much on the innovation and design front.
All in one flat panel computers are not new.
I do have to say that the price is excellent for a G5 + Monitor.
This will most likely sell very well. I might even think
about getting one for Christmas.


Frump.

Time will only tell...

IMO it does lack some of the design "fore-thinking" that we are used to seeing.

In terms of design it does not have the "revolutionary" design that many of us have looked forward too. Yet, for the "all-in-one" designs it does raise the bar. And with the VESA mount I see possibilities that other computers do not offer.

 

[Catt]

The specs of my Toshiba Laptop bought a little over 4 months ago for £1000

2.4 GHz P4-M (Matches most P4 2.8s in performance)
512Mb RAM
80Gb HDD
DVD-Multidrive
Bluetooth
Synaptics C-Pad
15inch Clear Advanced Super View LCD (@1600x1200)
64Mb GeForce 5600
Extra drive bay (termed 'style bay')

The model itself is well over a year old and has now been discontinued.
This is a very similar machine to the new entry level and intermediate iMac (£919 and £1049 in the UK), yet offers far better value for money. To bring the iMac up to speed would cost £85 direct from Apple (upgrading the RAM and adding Bluetooth). In addition my laptop is far more expanable, with both a PC-Card slot and a style-bay, AND the laptop is four months older than the iMac which probably won't ship to the UK until October.

This is where Apple falls down. If it wants to compete with PCs it has to provide like for like components at a like for like price. The iMac represents good value compared to other Apple products, yes, but it doesn't take much to find computers out there that push Apple's value for money.

The debate about the graphics card in the iMac is not about whether the consumer needs one its about whether the consumer deserves one for the price. Otherwise we'd still all be using 1Ghz processors and paying £1200 for them, because after all thats all most consumers need.

 

[Celsior]

Value & Lose the LCD

Best value? Probably the 17" 1.8, as it's only $200 more than the 17" 1.6 and you get a SuperDrive. For $400 more than the 17" 1.8, you double the hard drive space and get the bigger monitor--so it's about $300 more for the larger LCD.

So what about the LCD? A quick looksie at the 20" monitor suggests that the 20" iMac internals can be had for the low, low, affordable, Switcher-friendly $600. So why doesn't Apple just come out with that much-discussed headless Mac? It could be the form factor similar to my good ol' Mac IIsi, or better yet, the size of something that can be stacked ontop of my A/V equipment. Apple, are you listening??!!

 

[alexf]

Oy, do you work in marketing or something? **** marketing. In 1998 I'd been an IT professional for 5 years already, with 4 years working on Macs and 2 years experience working on Macs in a video editing facility.

In 1998, professionals were doing "high-end" video editing on systems with custom video compression hardware that cost tens of thousands of dollars. There was no Final Cut Pro in 1998. In 1998, I still occasionally saw and used Avid suites running on PPC-upgraded Quadra 950's because so much of the video processing was done in add-on hardware that the main system CPU didn't matter much.

So, no, professionals weren't doing "high-end" video editing on the iMac in 1998.

But I never said the imac was marketed towards professionals! I said the original imac sold well because it offered high-end performance for the money. No, it wasn't very expandable - but out of the box it was as fast as Apple's more expensive pro machines and as fast or faster than just about anything you could buy for $1300, mac or pc.

Anyone who disputes this either wasn't paying attention in 1998 or has seriously selective memory.

-vga4life

Good for you, but with all due respect I'm not interested in your qualifications / experience.

You simply stated that the original iMac sold so well because it was 1) powerful and 2) well-priced. This is simplistic and only partially correct.

I happen to think that the latter reason had far more to do with it than the speed, and the all-in-one "cute" design had at least as much to do with its sales as its competitive price.

Again, the original iMac was marketed towards people who wanted to use the Internet (and by the way, no, I don't work in marketing).

I don't agree with you that the iMac is no longer competively priced either. Please find me a similar PC configuration for around the same price and I will stand corrected.

 

[dizastor]

Well to the people who keep definding the POS crappy graphic card in the iMac yeah a lot of people dont need the graphic card power. I cut the slack on the lowest Imac ou there for not having a upgradble graphic card but lets move up to higher model with the 1.8 Ghz G5. That is clearly in the mid range in price and you notic you can get a PC with simlar specs and guess what a upgraudble graphic card...

1) PC's are for PC people. Macs are for smart people.
2) My grandma doesn't care that she can't run Doom 3 at 60fps, but does like using iMovie, iPhoto, and iDVD.
3) All computers (PC/Mac) are "seriously outdated" in 2 years. Most people will still find them usable, however.
4) Refer to Post #752.

*Insert comment about bad grammar here.*

 

[gorkonapple]

3) Bluetooth and WiFi have interoperability issues. Having a bluetooth keyboard alongside WiFi could lead to some users experiencing problems.

Hmm...thats funny. I sync my PocketPC using Bluetooth and the whole time I am syncing, I am surfing the net over WiFi with no problems.

I don't know what your doing wrong, but I don't have a problem getting Bluetooth and WiFi interoperating.

 

[RichardCarletta]

My assessment of the New iMac G5

The design makes sense . Sure some people like the lamp look of the previous model , but the new design compacts 98% of the machine behind the monitor. This design might allow for future updates with bigger lcds. The new iMac G5 is designed and looks like Apple's new HD Cinema Displays . Notice that the 20" iMac G5 is $600 more than the 20" HD Cinema Displays ? They share the same screen resolutions. I think in 6 months Apple should update the iMac G5 lineup with a 23 " iMac G5 with 2 GHZ G5 and Radeon 9800 Special Edition. It could become the special edition of the iMac G5 lineup and if the buyers want it , then they could pay the $3000 MSRP. In 6 months if sales data warrant it , if the lowend model sales aren't doing that well , maybe by that time the middle model (1.8 GHZ ) could be bumped down to $1300 and the 1.6 GHZ G5 could become history for Apple desktops .

I do think Apple should keep the eMac. Apple needs to keep a lowend and low price mac to compete pricewise against the bargain basement PCs . Perhaps a lowend 1.8 GHZ G5 eMac with Superdrive for an even $1000 . In a surprising move, Apple could offer the 1 GHZ G4 OS 9 booting eMac combo drive unit again for those retro or diehard last holdouts for classic mac fanatics (there are some ) . A $600 dollar price may sound fair.

 

[Catt]

Hmm...thats funny. I sync my PocketPC using Bluetooth and the whole time I am syncing, I am surfing the net over WiFi with no problems.

I don't know what your doing wrong, but I don't have a problem getting Bluetooth and WiFi interoperating.

They both use the same fequency band. The bluetooth standard has frequency hopping built into such that its supposed to switch quick enough to avoid colliding with WiFi. Basically Bluetooth PANs and Wifi LANs can't co-exist very easily if both are continuously operative. Synching, transfering etc are a different matter.

I've had, and heard of, problems using a bluetooth headset connected to a phone within a Wifi network, I assumed that the keyboard might suffer from similar problems. Maybe I'm wrong (quite possible really )

 

[brownreese]

Lucy & Ethel on iMac Assembly Line

"I bet that Apple can't meet the demand. Demand will be off the charts."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You must be kidding! When is the last time Apple met the demand of those predictible early adopters? --like me--These folks are salivating now that there is something to respond to in making a new mac purchase.

As an aside, I am wrestling with the esthetics. Intellectually, it's nothing more than a laptop turned inside out with a front veneer of eMac...All, delicately balanced on a minimalist L-shaped brushed Aluminum stand.

I can't tell if you can pivot the screen other than by physically repositioning it. I love being able to swing my 15" imac screen around to show a picture to my partner.

 

[titaniumducky]

The new iMac looks great spec-wise except for that graphics card - it's a little disappointing. The price is so awesome I want to cry! $1299 for a 1.6GHz G5 and a 17" LCD - add $50 for RAM and OS X - this system may well be what brings OS X's market share into double digits when combined with the "iPod effect."

However, the design just didn't wow me. Of course, the G5 didn't do that at first, but after I saw one in person, I thought it was awesome; hopefully this will be the same way. It's mainly the plastic sitting under the screen - it just seems unbalanced. Also, I was hoping for an aluminum look (yeah, I know that's for pro machines...)

Lastly, HERE COMES THE G5 PowerBook! They fit a 1.6 in 2"; I say they can get it into 1" by MWSF '04!

On the whole, this machine looks like the awesome balance between power and price we've been waiting for.

edit: Upon checking the design again (this time from real photos), I think the design is growing on me a little - slowly

 

[just a thought]

I'd like to weigh in as a "professional" user. I run a small publishing house. Our two "workhorse" design computers are a G4 iMac and a Cube. I just bought a bottom-of-the-line G5 iMac to replace the Cube (moving to one of our editors who will replace her clamshell iBook with it).

The fact of the matter is, even though we do graphics-intensive stuff, I've NEVER felt that any of the video cards (all stock) we've worked with have lacked in any way, shape or form. And we are doing NOTHING but graphics work. We don't play games. We run Photoshop and Quark and Illustrator day in and day out and the only reason we're replacing the Cube with the G5 is because the PROCESSOR is much faster.

The fact of the matter is that this is about as close to a perfect machine as I could imagine: it's fast, it's got a good screen, and it takes up almost no space on the workbench. I ordered it as soon as I got in to work this morning.

The reality is that most professionals don't seek out the top of the line stuff--they don't need the fastest graphics cards, they don't even need the fastest processors. Every design professional I've talked--and I know a lot of heavy-hitters--makes a decision of cost vs performance and goes from there. A friend of mine who has one countless publishing design awards heads up a shop that up until this year were still running entirely on blue and white G3s.

Based on that, I can assure you that, among professional graphic designers, this thing is going to be HUGE.