Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New iMac G5 Announced
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Apple riding on iPod's coat-tail...
I think that with the success of the iPod, Apple is just trying to win more people over from the PC world. And since the iPod is such a crossover hit, the next step is to show the PC world that the iMac is as cool for life as the iPod is for music. So, I think this move to associate the iPod and the iMac is a great step in gaining marketshare. Great job Apple!wdlove said:
macidiot said:
Who cares about Apple's market share? As long as they stay in business and make products that *I* like at price points *I* can afford, then I am happy.
And since they've turned a profit for several years in a row, and have built up a substantial bank account, I would say that we're safe for a little while. Apple is on the right track to keep making cool products for ME.
If you don't like it, I couldn't care less. (I'm assuming you probably do, but are just playing devil's advocate.) The truth is if I woke up tomorrow and every single person in the US had bought an iMac, it would lose some appeal to me. I don't want what everybody else has, I want something better.
Just like a band that goes on MTV...if I've not heard them myself I assume they are probably crappy. The mass public (in the US for sure) likes crappy music, so if a band has found mainstream success that is a red flag for me.
I own the best computer, I bought the best video game system, and I own the best MP3 player. Call me a snob, but I'd rather have the best or nothing at all.
it's the iPod on steroids!!!!!
the promotional stuff for the new iMac so heavily features the iPod....interesting that Apple's identity is now driven by a music player instead of a computer.....I hope they keep making computers for a while though LOL
check out the G5 iMac Introduction Video and you'll get an idea of what they see as their market for this machine.......it's all iPod, iLife, photos, music and video..........sorry gamers, nothing at all about gaming in the intro video
the promotional stuff for the new iMac so heavily features the iPod....interesting that Apple's identity is now driven by a music player instead of a computer.....I hope they keep making computers for a while though LOL
check out the G5 iMac Introduction Video and you'll get an idea of what they see as their market for this machine.......it's all iPod, iLife, photos, music and video..........sorry gamers, nothing at all about gaming in the intro video
Probably true, But my point is Apple is always looking for ways and schemes to garner additional profits and revenues, i.e., Ilife, .mac, preferred customer card, etc.Maxx Power said:
What better way to make additional revenue then BTO video cards that only they make, no competition, no inventory concerns, it's BTO, so someone has ordered it, to not have an BTO or upgradeable slot for video guarantees they will not make any money off that slot in the emac, like they do for Ram, BT, Airport, Hard drive, Bt mice and keys, etc. if you get my drift.
Of course they may think the only way you will buy a new computer in two to 4 years from them is if that is the inly way you can increase graphic performance and having an upgrade available will make you hold unto it longer. WSO they throw those possible profits away on that belief. Planned obselense? JMT
Actually I think someone will figure out a way, cause the demand is their , if Apple refuses. Maybe?
daveg5 said:Are we sure yet that the Video card, or the memory on the Video card is soldered and non upgradeable. Maybe it is?. One can hope.
Of course it is soldered. I find the fact that apple would even consider modular designs to be proposterous considering the LAST thing they want you to do is upgrade the system instead of buying new systems or more systems. Apple religiously practices the capitalistic doctrine that people should spend money to solve problems, even the problems created by spending money in the first place. Look at the G5, one optical drive, no processor sockets for upgrades, the emac, with almost nothing user upgradable, as well as their business practice of crippling the video card on the iBook by not supporting dual display when ANY laptop at that price range that offers display output (the vast majority) offers dual display spanning and mirroring, and their religious practice of crippling the G4's performance intentionally by pairing the G4 with a 133Mhz bus in the iBooks when the G4 will happily do 167Mhz FSB instead. And what's the idea of DDR ram in the G4 iBooks ? 133FSB is better served by the cheaper and more avaliable PC133, easily obtainable and very cheap. And according to Arstechnica, the chipset designs of apple's G4 series is sub-par.
andiwm2003 said:
Tom's Hardware Guide performed a very extensive roundup of graphics cards a little while back, and should be required reading for anyone selecting a new system. Here are a few benchmarks of modern games which are available on the Mac platform (although the tests were performed on PCs, so the actual FPS scores may bear no resemblance to those achievable on the iMac G5. The relative performance of the various GPUs is the important thing here).
-In Unreal Tournament 2003 (1024x768, 32 bit colour) the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra scores 42.4 FPS, which is a scrape above the Radeon 8500 (39.8 FPS) and decent amount below the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 (51.4 FPS).
-For Call of Duty (again, at 1024x768, 32 bit colour), the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra scores 55.5 FPS. The next slowest card is the GeForce 4 MX 460 at 46.4 FPS. A 64MB Radeon 9200 scores 59.2 FPS, the old Radeon 9000 Pro scores 68.3.
-For Halo, the FX 5200 Ultra racks up 19.58 FPS. The Radeon 9200 scores 16.1, the Radeon 9000 Pro scores 18.47, and the Radeon 8500 managed 24.96. The budget PC gamer's friend from a few years back, the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 gets 28.04.
So...depending on the benchmark, the FX 5200 Ultra performs in the ballpark of a Radeon 9000 Pro (last seen as the default graphics card in the discontinued PowerMac G4, I believe) yet can be consistently beaten by the mid-range champ of a few years back, the GeForce 4 Ti 4200. Decide for yourself if the performance will be acceptable or not.
bar italia said:
How "profound". You've quite "the paradox" right there.
Let me ask you, do you plan on playing games on your Mac? If so, why don't you just buy a PM? Too much money? Then why not buy an iMac and an XBox? It would save you some money, and you'd never have to worry about a game crashing on you or needing more RAM or HD space.
I just don't get why some people think they are entitled to tell Apple how to make each machine. Why don't you just look at what Apple offers and pick the one that suits you? Or go somewhere else if Apple doesn't make quite what you want.
Darn it -- I am so sick of this thread but everytime I log on its grown five pages in length and I just have to read some. Well I'm unplugging tomorrow to move back to school, so maybe I'll be able to stay away until we get enough stories on Page 1 to knock this one off.
I might be crazy, but damn, I'm very impressed with this. When you look at the shot of the iMac with keyboard, etc..., that white space under the screen is almost insignificant. To think, that computer is smaller than any CRT, and around the same size as a lot of LCD's (non-Apple, of course). It's simply beautiful, and priced to kill too.
Well, said, but we still dont know, but I believe you.Maxx Power said:
I was of the belief that the G5 processor in the Powermacs, can be replaced. like all Powermacs before, and that Powerlogix was looking into upgrades in the nest few years, but any faster upgrade will need. fan control.
Timelessblur said:
The disappointment of an extremely slim percentage of computer users doesn't make it a "huge" problem. It only seems "huge" because your sample population is biased, skewed, and you are only seeing opinions of people who feel strongly enough about the topic at hand to post here. The games/Apple thing is a chicken/egg situation. Someone has got to take the big risk and take the first step. I don't blame either for not moving forward 'cause there is a lot of money down the drain if the other side doesn't meet you in the middle. If Apple builds it will they come? Maybe, maybe not. The gamers that demand the best systems typically tweak them, build them, and upgrade parts piece-meal frequently. Even if a Mac did come around that could play DoomIII w/the best of them I doubt that would make many gamers switch because they still couldn't build, tweak, and upgrade their systems to their liking. Cost/bennifit<sp?> ya know? Right now neither Apple, nor most of the game developers, think the cost is worth the bennifit<sp?>.
As for the comparisons to some of the other "all-behind-the-screen" units that have bigger this, bigger that, Tivo, and a kitchen sink, how well do they work? If something is cumbersome to use is the average consumer goona keep using it? Isn't that one reason people choose Macs? Isn't that one reason the iPod is still king of the hill even though many other players have more features and cost less? Who cares about the laundry list of better features if the damn thing is such a PITA that you rarely use any of those features?
My g/f's dad bought her a top-end iRiver MP3 player (she wanted something small to work out with). He thinks WMP 9 is head and shoulders better than iTunes and that an iPod is an okay player (so obviously a Mini was out of the question). The iRiver costs less, has more features (smaller storage size, but that's a non-issue 'cause she didn't want/need a large amount of storage) but it took about 2 days worth of updates, re-installs, and tweaks to get the player to work. At one point my g/f was really irritated and was like, "This shouldn't be this hard! Why can't it just work!?"
Bingo.
I'm not saying the GFX card in the new iMac isn't a bit disappointing and I'm not saying that the new iMac is the best solution for everyone. But lets let the horse get out of the gate before we send it to the glue factory.
I think the "GFX card myth" is replacing the MHZ myth. Unless you are more than a casual gamer the GFX card in an iMac shouldn't make such a big deal.
Lethal
oingoboingo said:
You are forgetting to mention those performance numbers are from PC games as well as PC versions of video cards.
PC games are usually tuned more code wise to run faster on a greater range of customer base as well as they usually release games targeting PC's first, with a lot of emphasis on development and optimization for the x86 platform. It takes them a few years to develop a decent game like UT2004 or Quake III, mostly for the coding and optimizations. Some third party company wants to port this to Mac, they spend less than a year to come out with a playable product, I hardly think the level of Mac specific optimization is comparable to that of the PC code.
Secondly, if you noticed the trend in performance graphics cards in the last little while, and here I give you an example, the 9600Pro that is bundled with the G5 powermac's only run at 364Mhz compared to the stock standard of 400Mhz on the PC. As well as the 9700 Pro's used in the new powerbooks are also on the bottom of the acceptable speed to qualify for ATI's badge "PRO". I do believe this occurs only for the OEM products, as I have no experience with aftermarket performance graphics cards, and I do believe a good chunk if not the majority of the Mac users will never and have never purchased or used a Mac aftermarket performance video card.
Thirdly, in games like UT2004 where a huge amount of sources of sound must be played back with positional sound effects, the lack of a dedicated Hardware Sound Processing DSP really hinders the performance, for benchmarks refer to www.barefeats.com they have conducted several benchmarks avaliable http://www.barefeats.com/ut2004.html with and without sound. This was also discussed in a forum at InsideMacGames. This is perhaps the biggest noticeable hit in performance since it means 50 fps difference in UT2004 on a single processor powered G5.
These three factors combined, we have enough reason to believe that if those are the scores one can expect, then the actual performance of the installed 5200 Ultra in any Mac computer is quite a bit lower than that, if not unplayable at native resolutions of any Mac LCD monitor.
This means one thing --> the "Steam Powered" (creatively said by some clever bloke here in this thread, credits go to him/her), coal burning Nvidiot 5200 Ultra Slow Edition is not acceptable, especially NOT considering the price of the computers they are in, and further exacerbating this is the fact these cards are non-upgradable, perhaps forever. Investment in one of these machines is like buying several thousand dollars of lottery, you might get what you want, but be prepared to be severily disappointed.
alexf said:
No need to apologize, it's nice to take a break from the topic at hand every once and a while - especially in a thread of this size!
I will indeed be going to Prague so I'll take your advice - I've been to some crowded places throughout the world though, so we'll see how it stacks up!
Thanks for the best wishes...
Catt said: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
There are more issues having to do with the noise floor, than collisions
Listen, put a 2.4 Ghz Phone system, Bluetooth devices and wifi together and the noise floor goes up big time. Turn on the microwave, and you have a great barrage jammer!
I use a PB, with AEX and BT. A BT mouse, Syncing an iPaq, and a BT phone, and I do not seem to have problems (with the 2.4 Ghz phone in the backgorund). However, add a Nokia 6600 to the mix, and well the 6600 becomes deaf. But that is a 6600 implementation issue, and not a strike against BT. A T610 Ericsson has no problem with the above config.
I guess what I am trying to say, depending on how the BT device is implemented, your mileage may vary. I have had good luck. (Except the friggin Nokia 6600. Geez Symbian, can't your stack deal with it?
)
daveg5 said:
Yeah, i think the whole board can be replaced, but the thing is, just like the way you can upgrade your CPU in a PC by switching the whole motherboard, the cost for upgrading to a new G5 cpu by buying one of those upgrade boards if they will ever be produced will be really high. Since those boards are much harder to design and manufactor than just putting in a new CPU. Ever thought of those water cooled G5's, the whole assembly is considered one unit, if you want to replace that, the cost would set you back a kidney and a liver...
Okay, I lost patience at page 28 for two complaints I've heard over and over in this thread:
1) The 600MHz bus will "cripple" the G5's memory bandwidth
AND
2) The 4X SuperDrive is a travesty
Firstly, the 600MHz bus will definitely NOT cripple the iMac G5's memory bandwidth, because the memory is only running at 400MHz DDR (200MHz in reality), FAR less than the bus speed. It would slow it slightly if the iMac used a dual-channel RAM system, but since it doesn't, 600MHz is not a ridiculous limitation.
Secondly, the SuperDrive that's in the iMac is a LAPTOP DRIVE. A slot-loading, laptop drive. There are no 8X laptop DVD burners of which I'm aware. They used a laptop drive because it saves space and cuts down on heat. For the people complaining about dual-layer... Obviously you're quite removed from the reality of consumer computers. Dual layer is strictly the realm of enthusiasts and professionals right now. Even DVD burning in general isn't a very widespread activity among the bulk of computer users.
I'll admit the graphics card is anemic. You know how many games I run on my PowerBook? 0. It's not a gaming machine. I use my PC for that. It's two years old, and it runs DOOM 3 quite acceptably. You know how much of my daily work I do on my PC? Approximately 0. That's what my PowerBook is for. Would it be nice if the iMac had a better graphics chipset? Yes. Would I still be unblieveably happy if someone plopped a new iMac G5 down on my desk today? You bet.
1) The 600MHz bus will "cripple" the G5's memory bandwidth
AND
2) The 4X SuperDrive is a travesty
Firstly, the 600MHz bus will definitely NOT cripple the iMac G5's memory bandwidth, because the memory is only running at 400MHz DDR (200MHz in reality), FAR less than the bus speed. It would slow it slightly if the iMac used a dual-channel RAM system, but since it doesn't, 600MHz is not a ridiculous limitation.
Secondly, the SuperDrive that's in the iMac is a LAPTOP DRIVE. A slot-loading, laptop drive. There are no 8X laptop DVD burners of which I'm aware. They used a laptop drive because it saves space and cuts down on heat. For the people complaining about dual-layer... Obviously you're quite removed from the reality of consumer computers. Dual layer is strictly the realm of enthusiasts and professionals right now. Even DVD burning in general isn't a very widespread activity among the bulk of computer users.
I'll admit the graphics card is anemic. You know how many games I run on my PowerBook? 0. It's not a gaming machine. I use my PC for that. It's two years old, and it runs DOOM 3 quite acceptably. You know how much of my daily work I do on my PC? Approximately 0. That's what my PowerBook is for. Would it be nice if the iMac had a better graphics chipset? Yes. Would I still be unblieveably happy if someone plopped a new iMac G5 down on my desk today? You bet.
When I first saw the new iMac G5 coming to reality this morning on the Apple home pages.
I was pleased with the overall design.
I called the Apple Store at 6:15 A.M. E.S.T., probably as the poor young lady I spoke to was having her first cup of coffee and she was not even aware that the new machine was already posted.
Unfortunately, my enthusiasm bubble burst when I found out that
that not even the top end 20" model offered any upgrade in the graphics card. Bad form Apple!
I will also agree that the vertical mounted SuperDrive concerns me over the long haul.
I imagine working under the hood on this model will be about as user friendly as a BMW Z8.
I'm sure the new iMac G5 will prove to be a sensible consumer and small business machine for at least the first 7000 people who back ordered one today before noon.
As for me, sorry.
To quote the young lady at the Apple Store this morning.
" That's why we make the towers"
I was pleased with the overall design.
I called the Apple Store at 6:15 A.M. E.S.T., probably as the poor young lady I spoke to was having her first cup of coffee and she was not even aware that the new machine was already posted.
Unfortunately, my enthusiasm bubble burst when I found out that
that not even the top end 20" model offered any upgrade in the graphics card. Bad form Apple!
I will also agree that the vertical mounted SuperDrive concerns me over the long haul.
I imagine working under the hood on this model will be about as user friendly as a BMW Z8.
I'm sure the new iMac G5 will prove to be a sensible consumer and small business machine for at least the first 7000 people who back ordered one today before noon.
As for me, sorry.
To quote the young lady at the Apple Store this morning.
" That's why we make the towers"
I think Jan 05 (4-5 months) at San Fran we will see a Rev B iMac G5, with the 20" having 128 meg VRAM as an option or as standard...
Cless said:
I think the only bitch I have about the graphics is the mirroring crap. I don't
play computer games (guess I don't have enough time), but the ability to add an additional display would have been wonderful. Add a 20" HD to the 20" iMac. Nice. Oh well.... Even a VGA would have been good, but just mirroring. Sigh.....
Ok, enoughs enough.
The windows all in ones have "intel graphics" with shared memory. I have experience with this, and it is lousy.
Have you seen the all-in-one offering by PC companies? They look nowhere near as sleek are clean as this Imac.
The price is awesome. $1199 for a 1.6 G5 and 17" LCD?!? And buy your own ram. I'm glad Apple only offers 256. I'll go to Crucial...thank you very much.
I have used the MX 420 Nvidia card on a PC Celeron 1.8 and it was very impressive with Madden 2003, among other 3d games. This is an upgrade from that, and with a G5 behind it should perform just fine.
This system looks better, and will perform better than any PC offering out there at this price range. Unless you want "Intel Extream Integrated Graphics." I'll take the Nvidia 5200 & G5 anyday.
The windows all in ones have "intel graphics" with shared memory. I have experience with this, and it is lousy.
Have you seen the all-in-one offering by PC companies? They look nowhere near as sleek are clean as this Imac.
The price is awesome. $1199 for a 1.6 G5 and 17" LCD?!? And buy your own ram. I'm glad Apple only offers 256. I'll go to Crucial...thank you very much.
I have used the MX 420 Nvidia card on a PC Celeron 1.8 and it was very impressive with Madden 2003, among other 3d games. This is an upgrade from that, and with a G5 behind it should perform just fine.
This system looks better, and will perform better than any PC offering out there at this price range. Unless you want "Intel Extream Integrated Graphics." I'll take the Nvidia 5200 & G5 anyday.
Video benchmarks
Video benchmarks are very dependant on what resolution, Quality settings. you use, the newer faster video cards with more memory are sometimes actually slower at lower resolutions, you can really see them come into there own as the res goes up and Quality settings and textures go up in quality. Also of note is that games on Lcds look best at native res, although sometimes at other res also.
This is why the 20" with it's higher native res was expected to get a higher Quality/Memory card option or BTO
http://www.barefeats.com/motion.html
this should be a good indication of Tiger video.
Video benchmarks are very dependant on what resolution, Quality settings. you use, the newer faster video cards with more memory are sometimes actually slower at lower resolutions, you can really see them come into there own as the res goes up and Quality settings and textures go up in quality. Also of note is that games on Lcds look best at native res, although sometimes at other res also.
This is why the 20" with it's higher native res was expected to get a higher Quality/Memory card option or BTO
http://www.barefeats.com/motion.html
this should be a good indication of Tiger video.
- Status