New iMac G5 Announced

[petej]

The need for revisions

Given that products need to be revised every few months or so to keep them fresh and that CPU speeds are hitting brick walls and yield issues it becomes clear what apple have done here. They have launched a form factor that will appeal but specifications that the may leave mac / gaming addicts questioning the need to buy. This helps to keep demand down to a manageable level. In 6 months time, what gets revised. Maybe a small CPU speed bump (assuming that Power Macs get a bump). Definately a bigger GPU bump. Another 6 months, another GPU bump. As SJ said during the WWDC - the GPU is where the performance gains are to be made.

 

[Timelessblur]

Er, no, a gamer needs a better graphics card. Name one Pro app which will run on a screen no more than 1680x1050 which requires a better graphics card. As has been proven, the iMac runs Motion. It runs Final Cut Pro. It runs Shake. Please tell me why a prosumer system needs a better card. One example would be fine. Just one would be enough.

As far as I can tell, a Motion/FCP/Shake-running system is pretty much definable as prosumer. Hell, it's definable as "pro" for most uses.

games is one as it been made clear over and over again. Motion would be another as I will explain below

Motion will run on the new iMac but barely. You never want to run software when the computer barely makes the required system specs (aka graphic card) yeah they will run but very poorly slow and poorly. I can think of some programs I have used in the past on a PC that is for pro lv design work. Yeah the entry lv graphic card could run it and met the required miniumal graphic card specs but it ran really slowly and like crap. Now lets bump that card up to 9600 lv it still struggled with it but it more useble. Lastly on a 9800 pro it was pretty nice and it worked. I dont remeber the name of the software off the top of my head because it was a friend of mine showing me some stuff on it and he is a archtech major. The program is a 3d Drafting program that blow Autocad out of the water in what it can do.

I use Autocad my self a lot more in my major and I can get a low lv graphic card to really have problems with Autocad in the stuff I do on a very requlare bases since they do like 3d modling that much. When you have to start rotating the 3d Model you start having problems.

Above is an example of why you would want a better graphic card that is above minmual specs. so for motion alone you would want a better card.

 

[Windowlicker]

I thought all G5's system bus was half the processor speed?

someone probaly answered already, but: a faster bus creates more heat.. that's probably the reason.

I was pretty unlucky with this imac thing.. yesterday when I came home I was ready to watch what the new imac looks like (and if there actually is one). but someone at our ISP had screwed quite a bit and out internet connection didn't work the whole day!! I actually just got it working like 15 minutes ago.

first impressions: BEAUTIFUL! That space below the screen is a bit weird though. Price is great -- much cheaper than the old ones. I assume it's quiet too. This will make the eMac look pretty sluggish. We'll see how it sells in the future.

Now I'm off to watch Schiller's keynote!

 

[JGowan]

This is the first I've heard of the hard drive and optical drive being "easy to replace."

Watch the keynote now on Apple's site. I didn't hear ANYTHING about replacing the HD. He showed a slide of the back and told how easy it was to get to the RAM and the Airport Card, but never mentioned (I don't believe) the HD or removing it. Sounds like an over-zealous reporter.

 

[appleface]

u r cr8z

i don't know why is everyone griping about the imac not running motion or photoshop or fcp? if you're going to buy thousands of dollars worth of graphics programs, why in the world would you run them on a $1300 piece or hardware. that's like trying to fit a gormet kitchen in a studio apartment. the imac appears to me to be perfectly designed, thought through, and implemented. it is targeted towards the same people who would use an ipod. these are the people who enjoy using computers to enhance their lives by using Safari, iLife, and iPods. the imac is not intended for professional video editors.

 

[takao]

I think that a lot more than "joe average" types will embrace it. I think pretty much most "joe not-hardcore-gamer" types will embrace it. And "jane like-a-neat-home" types will embrace it even more.

arghhhh
_i am_ a joe "not-hardcore" gamer who would like to have a _middle class_ graphics card in the imac i'm talking about a optional radeon 9600 (or gforce 5700) for the imac...thsoe are ordinary middle class chips...thats far from being a 1337 h4rdc0r€ gamer graphics card
people are asking for an _option_ not for a standard

Who's driving flat-screen TV purchases? Women. Who's going to love this flat-screen wall-mountable Mac? Women. And who's going to use their wives' love of its form factor to upgrade to a new Mac? Men.

perhaps adding a TV tuner would have been a wise idea ... (i know i know there is not much space available)

This thing's the new mini. It's not going to be sitting in warehouses. If you want one, buy early.

of course it will...it's small, brand new and white

 

[mhar4]

Just read Forrester Research's analysis. They're saying that Apple stopped short of creating a genre defining iMac by not having a TV turner card and Tivo-like functions and by not having the wireless stuff built-in.

Now THAT I agree with. A digital tuner would have been a great bonus, especially with the form factor as it is.

 

[MacinDoc]

With the introduction of the new G5 iMac, it make the 20" Cinema display look like a huge rip off. In the UK the 20" Cinema display is £999 while for an additional £350 quid you can 20" iMac.

I haven't looked into the differences between the 2 screens but I am guessing not very much.

I think it might be time to drop the price of the new displays to more reasonable levels.

I had been planning to get a Cinema Display anyway, along with a new Power Mac. When the 20" iMac came out at only $700 Canadian (about £280) more than the display, I ordered one. If you bought the HD, SuperDrive, and software seperately, it would cost you $700 Canadian. That's like getting the case, power supply, motherboard, GPU (crappy as everyone says it is) and RAM (OK, I did upgrade to 512, because that cost less than ordering a 512 MB DIMM from OWC) for free!

With respect to the GPU, I must say I'm disappointed it's not something like the Radeon 9700 found in Powerbooks, but to be quite honest, I've been getting by with the original Radeon Mac Edition 32 MB card for years, and have no complaints. Admittedly, the most complex game on my Mac is Age of Mythology. My only real concern is that this video card will not take advantage of the full capabilities of Tiger. Of course, by the time Tiger comes out, the new multi-core multi-threading Power5 derivative PPC chips will make the 970FX look pathetic anyway, so all the naysayers will want to upgrade their Macs at that time. For now, I'm happy with a compact, reportedly quiet all-in-one design that will allow me to do my work with a minimum of distractions from clutter. And if something better comes out in the future, I can still sell it on eBay...

 

[appleface]

hey whiners

if you want to game hardcore, buy a $5500 alienware desktop and use that old lcd you don't want to get rid of. that's a good idea.

 

[Lancetx]

Watch the keynote now on Apple's site. I didn't hear ANYTHING about replacing the HD. He showed a slide of the back and told how easy it was to get to the RAM and the Airport Card, but never mentioned (I don't believe) the HD or removing it. Sounds like an over-zealous reporter.

They weren't referring to the keynote. They were referring to a demonstration yesterday at the SF Apple Store by Greg Joswiak. Here's the link to the full story here...

 

[Ton Palmans]

Two small questions.... (third and last time)

OK, sorry to ask these questions yet again (I posted them twice before, but to no avail), guess they're still drowning in all the barking about the graphics card, other PC's and/or Macs, sigh..... So one final try.

Personally I like the design really very much and it fits well to my needs, but two things are not yet clear to me:

1. Noise levels. It seems to be a quit design, but has anybody actually heard one of these in Paris and reported on the noise levels?

2. Responsetime of the display. Is this the new 16 ms or the old 25 ms, anybody know? I can live happily with the FX 5200, but 25 ms would be a big disappointment. I could not read it on the apple site, which worries me a bit.

Thanks for any help on these questions.

 

[jsw]

games is one as it been made clear over and over again. Motion would be another as I will explain below
...

Well, I'll ignore the games part, as that doesn't apply to "prosumer" needs. Games are definitively "consumer", and even the most die-hard Mac enthusiasts will admit that Macs suck - relatively speaking - at FPS games.

I'll defer judgment on Motion until I see reviews. My understanding of the product is that the 5200 will probably work fairly well on it - it isn't 3D intensive like Autocad, and, of course, we'll likely never know how well Autocad will run on a Mac. However, I'll certainly be open to changing my opinion if reviews show it sucks.

Of course, I'll only change it from "the iMac is a real prosumer offering" to "the iMac is a fantastic consumer-level offering".

 

[Timelessblur]

Ok people here dont understand how the FSB comes up with that number.

The real FSB is 150 Mhz on the Imacs

The Real FSB on a computer with reported 800 mhz FSB is 200 mhz.

The reason they are reported much higher is they are getting for instuction sets per clock cycle so you get to multiple it by that number. 4 also is the max number that they can get on one cycle (it takes understanding how etricty flows)

Now that 50mhz diffence in speed really does not look that bad now does it. a 200 Mhz FSB is really about as fast as almost any CPU out there goes out. Ram runnes at 200 Mhz (DDR ram automaclit doubles the number if it running daul channel).

 

[Postal]

1. Noise levels. It seems to be a quit design, but has anybody actually heard one of these in Paris and reported on the noise levels?

2. Responsetime of the display. Is this the new 16 ms or the old 25 ms, anybody know? I can live happily with the FX 5200, but 25 ms would be a big disappointment. I could not read it on the apple site, which worries me a bit.

Thanks for any help on these questions.

1. I doubt anyone would be able to accurately gauge the noise levels on the show floor - there would be so much ambient noise that unless it was clearly noisy at speed, you wouldn't hear much. Given that it's supposed to be quieter at idle than the iMac G4 was, I wouldn't be surprise if it stayed very quiet most of the time.

2. I wouldn't honestly be able to answer this, but if you're only doing occasional gaming and/or movie watching, 25 ms is adequate. I suspect that it would be more logical for Apple to use displays from their existing lineups (the 17" PowerBook and the 20" Cinema Display) rather than have a separate production run.

 

[jsw]

1. Noise levels. It seems to be a quiet design, but has anybody actually heard one of these in Paris and reported on the noise levels?

As mentioned above, it'd be hard to tell in Paris, and it's supposed to be quieter then the G4 iMac. The G4 iMac, BTW, is essentially silent. Even the G5 PowerMacs are pretty quiet with 9 fans. Since the iMac has three - and cool design on at least two of them - I suspect it's really, really quiet.

2. Response time of the display. Is this the new 16 ms or the old 25 ms, anybody know? I can live happily with the FX 5200, but 25 ms would be a big disappointment. I could not read it on the apple site, which worries me a bit.

You'll need to wait for reviews here if it's important. I suspect worse than 16ms, but can't confirm that. However, as also mentioned above, 25ms isn't a problem either. I'd wait a week for reviews, which will undoubtedly mention a display issue if one exists.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

Does this mean Mac OS X 10.3.6 will have a revised computer icon in the Finder? Based around the new design?

 

[AidenShaw]

Check your facts....your logic is way off

Ok people here dont understand how the FSB comes up with that number.

The real FSB is 150 Mhz on the Imacs

The Real FSB on a computer with reported 800 mhz FSB is 200 mhz.

The reason they are reported much higher is they are getting for instuction sets per clock cycle so you get to multiple it by that number. 4 also is the max number that they can get on one cycle (it takes understanding how etricty flows)

Now that 50mhz diffence in speed really does not look that bad now does it. a 200 Mhz FSB is really about as fast as almost any CPU out there goes out. Ram runnes at 200 Mhz (DDR ram automaclit doubles the number if it running daul channel).

Ummm - the PPC970 bus on the PM is double-pumped, not quad-pumped like the Pentiums.

Your deconstruction of the bus speeds is based on faulty logic.

The bus is transferring data at 600MHz or 800MHz - regardless of the base clock frequency. Comparing the base (300 MHz for PPC, 200 MHz for P4) does not work - even though the P4 bus is 2/3 the frequency of the PPC, it's transferring data 1/3 faster.

DDR always doubles the rate - that's what the "double" part of DDR means.

Dual channel DDR is effectively quad rate - two channels running at double rate. Your dual channel 200MHz DDR is a match for 800 MHz.

You're one of the people who don't understand !

 

[jsw]

arghhhh
_i am_ a joe "not-hardcore" gamer who would like to have a _middle class_ graphics card in the imac i'm talking about a optional radeon 9600 (or gforce 5700) for the imac...thsoe are ordinary middle class chips...thats far from being a 1337 h4rdc0r€ gamer graphics card
people are asking for an _option_ not for a standard

FWIW, I would be really, really, really happy if the GPU were nicer. I would happily pay more for it. A kick-ass GPU would probably convince me to get off my butt and sell my old iMac and get one of these ASAP. Honestly.

I'm just saying that the 5200 isn't some god-awful horrible nightmare of a GPU, and most people will be just fine with it. What many seem to forget is that this is being paired with a nice G5 chip which can overcome many of the 5200's limitations. I totally agree that a better GPU would be, well, better.

 

[-hh]

... Look what $1000 will buy you in the PC world now:

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/MVGSBG/article.php/3394901

...Replace the $185 19" CRT with a 17" LCD for $400 and you're still under the lowest of the low-end imac.

...which brings your price up to $1200, which is the same basic price as the 1.6GHz iMac on any of its discounts (EDU, Govt. Employee, etc).

However, what this ignores is the hidden cost: this is a DIY assembly PC, which most Plain Vanilla Customers avoid like the plague. They're willing to pay extra to avoid such hassles, as well as a warranty to minimize the risk of a DOA. How much is that worth?

Well, a DIY PC assembly with Software Installs is easily a 4 hour job, and a good Tech retails at around $75/hour, so the custom assembly can be expected to run an additional $300.

Plus, the quoted website mentions it doesn't include shipping. Since the entire widgets list can't be purchased from a single vendor, figure perhaps another $100 in hidden expenses here.

Plus a warranty? Well, AppleCare runs $170 for the iMac, so let's call it $100.

Add these up and you get:

$1000 + $200 (LCD) + $300 (assembly) + $100 (extra S/H) + $100 (warranty)

= $1800.

That ticket buys a 20" LCD iMac on EDU discount, and the cheapest 20" LCD on Pricewatch is $588, which is a $188 increase on the 17" LCD in the DIY PC budget, so to equalize out the display would set the PC's price at $1988...almost $100 more than the 20" G5 iMac.

Look, I hate to rag on Apple - I'm a huge MacOS fan and long-time Mac owner. I just wouldn't feel the need to trash Apple if they'd stop crippling their consumer hardware. I simply feel that a 64 MB GeForce 5200FX has no place in a premium computer.

Same here. Personally, I also have my concerns about the GPU, but its not because I really think that I - or most Plain Vanilla Consumers - have a personal need for something more.

Instead, its because its a performance vulnerability that's going to generate loud, unkind opinions from the product buyer's whiny teen because he's going to try to make it pull double duty as a gaming platform.

If you're trying to design a "Family" PC, you have to recognize that there's going to eventually be a teen who wants to play shoot-em-up games in the family.

-hh

 

[JGowan]

To all the BellyAchers (aka My-Tummy-Hurts Syndrome)...

The Soul of an iMac

• All-in-one Elegance
• Extreme Simplicity
• Perfect for iLife
• Innovative Design

- Apple Keynote 9/31/2004, Paris

For those who are crying about Price and Specs and how it's not Headless and how it doesn't meet your Gaming Needs, GO TO DELL! Seriously. If the PC world is better suited for you, then why complain here on a MAC Forum?

It just doesn't make sense when you KNOW Apple's philosophy on what this very consumer computer is supposed to be. And if you're not sure, re-read the iMac criteria above.

Apple has ALWAYS advertised the iMac as the fun-&-easy-to-use connection to the internet (Step 3... there is no Step 3! -Jeff Goldblum) -- now that the internet is passé, Apple now touts iLife and how the computer can run that very well. It is supposed to be the all-around MAC to get most jobs done. Not a "Graphic Design Powerhouse" (though the top-tier 20" would be pretty sweet for Illustrator & Photoshop)... or a "Gamer's Paradise"...

And while we're on the subject of Gamers... while Apple really "owes" you nothing (as this has never been really touted as a Gamer's Computer), it's quite amazing to me that two very popular games (Halo & Unreal Tournament), run 189% and 212% faster, respectively.

Give Apple a freakin' break!

 

[coggie355]

The Soul of an iMac

• All-in-one Elegance
• Extreme Simplicity
• Perfect for iLife
• Innovative Design

- Apple Keynote 9/31/2004, Paris

For those who are crying about Price and Specs and how it's not Headless and how it doesn't meet your Gaming Needs, GO TO DELL! Seriously. If the PC world is better suited for you, then why complain here on a MAC Forum?

It just doesn't make sense when you KNOW Apple's philosophy on what this very consumer computer is supposed to be. And if you're not sure, re-read the iMac criteria above.

Apple has ALWAYS advertised the iMac as the fun-&-easy-to-use connection to the internet (Step 3... there is no Step 3! -Jeff Goldblum) -- now that the internet is passé, Apple now touts iLife and how the computer can run that very well. It is supposed to be the all-around MAC to get most jobs done. Not a graphic design computer (though the top-tier 20" would be pretty sweet for Illustrator & Photoshop)

And Gamers... while Apple really "owes" you nothing (as this has never been really touted as a Gamer's Computer), it's quite amazing to me that two very popular games (Halo & Unreal Tournament), run 189% and 212% faster, respectively.

Give Apple a freakin' break!

VERY well said...

 

[Don't panic]

this might be a dum question, but how hard would it be, from a technical point of view, to design a graphic card that can be replaced at some point down the line?
It might well be that this is a great machine to do normal stuff now, but i'd like it to be still an at least decent machine, to do normal stuff in, say, 4 years.

 

[coggie355]

this might be a dum question, but how hard would it be, from a technical point of view, to design a graphic card that can be replaced at some point down the line?
It might well be that this is a great machine to do normal stuff now, but i'd like it to be still an at least decent machine, to do normal stuff in, say, 4 years.

Well on that point, Alienware Laptops, although they are specifically made for gaming, include a hatch on the bottom that is easily accessiable to replace not only your RAM but also your ENTIRE mobile graphics card...
But don't forget Alienwares are built simply to game

 

[-hh]

Most of the people here complaining about the graphics cards are probally 15 year old high school kids with nothing better to do and couldn't afford a better card anyway. Quit complaining and tell your parents to go buy you a POS Dell!!

And that's exactly the problem: 15 year olds who are the loud, persistant and unrepenting Advocates for which platform they want Mom + Pop to go buy...

...coupled with the current parental generation's tendency to give their kids anything they want, at any cost, just to stop their whining.

Its no longer just what Mom/Pop really needs in a PC - - it encompasses what they want, and most of the time, what they want is for Junior to stop his damn whining.

What that boils down to here is that they'll cave in to his moaning about poor graphics for gaming graphics and buy an "other-than-Mac" desktop.


As someone said back around page 37 (sorry I lost your attribution):

"I think there are a number of male youth potential switchers who will want gaming power and be put off by the weak graphics card."


And we can say what we want about allegedly not caring about marketshare, but the reality is that because none of us are getting any younger, we have to make sure that there are new customers coming into the fold just to maintain the marketshare we have now. Companies that allow their average consumer age to continuously grow are doomed to die. Just ask Oldsmobile.


-hh

 

[Wash!!]

People just don't get

this might be a dum question, but how hard would it be, from a technical point of view, to design a graphic card that can be replaced at some point down the line?
It might well be that this is a great machine to do normal stuff now, but i'd like it to be still an at least decent machine, to do normal stuff in, say, 4 years.

My daughter uses my old B/W G3 500, she uses for the internet and to watch videos and she uses photoshop CS to colorized her drawings and she is doing all this at the same time and the G3 just keeps going without a problem... most people don't see how efficient the OS is and that is what makes a big different. I can guarantee that in 3 more years she still be using the B/W and never see the performance difference to a G4 or G5....