New iMac G5 Announced

[slughead]

Thats right, no games for apple... Even though Xbox2 is running on IBMs architectured, rumored to being developed on our beloved Powermacs....

I know you're being sarcastic, but you're still right.

Even though Xbox2 is going to use the PPC instruction set, it does NOT mean macs will see more games.

Apple just doesn't have directX or any of the other APIs windows has.

If Xbox2 DID run the same OS, then all the similar instruction set would do is allow 'porting' without recompiling.

And no, I don't think there will be many new FPS games released for mac. Apple's biggest consumers (the iMac users) will have no use for them.

 

[-hh]

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.

Its not a dumb question.

The answer is that its straightforward engineering that's easily done.

But the catch (there's always a catch) is that it costs more to offer this feature, which will have to be reflected in the product's end price.


-hh

 

[Lancetx]

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!

I agree. Apple is marketing this to consumers, not professionals or hard core gamers. Like it or not, Apple has designed the iMac, eMac and iBook to work well with apps like Safari, Mail, iLife '04 Suite, Final Cut Express, Photoshop Elements, Quicken, etc, etc. If you're heavy into Final Cut Pro HD, Motion, DVD Studio Pro, etc, those are geared toward Power Mac and PowerBook market. It's not that they won't run at all on the consumer "i" computers because they will, it's just that they aren't designed specifically for that. And no Mac is ideal for hard core gaming anyway IMO. You either need to get a PS2 or a gaming PC if that's your cup of tea. This forum is not at all a good cross section of the "average" Mac user. Most people out there will never have a need for any "pro" app anyway. I doubt 5% of iMac buyers will ever even own any of these apps so it's just not a major issue. People just can't expect a $1,299 consumer machine to run pro apps like a $2,500+ pro machine, it's that simple. I'm not saying it's wrong to disagree with Apple's strategy here, but that's just the way it is and it's going to be whether we like it or not.

 

[sushi]

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....

There is a huge difference in performance between a G3 and a G5. And this difference is easily seen. I'm talking today, not tomorrow -- and this difference will only get greater in the future.

Now in the case of your daughter, depending on her age, it might not matter for a while. But once she has experienced the speed of a new faster computer, it is kind of hard to go back to a slower machine. This is true whether it is a Mac or a PC.

My suggestion if you don't want your bubble burst, don't let her work on a new G5 Dual 2.5 Ghz system for a while. Because after she enjoys the power of that machine, it will be hard as hell for her to return to the vintage G3.

Now with the G5 iMac, there won't be as big a change in performance as you would see with a Dual 2.5 system. However there will be a significant difference.

Please note, I am not saying that the B&W G3 is not a good system. It was and still is in many ways. But it is dated.

Sushi

 

[mrpod]

New Imac. What a piece of crap!

I wait 6 months for a new computer. I wait patiantly...month.. after month...And they give us this crap? How stupid do they think we are? It is ugly and if they were going to pick form over function then why choose to make it look so childlike? The idea obviously didn't work (among other things) due to the blank space at the bottom. Even from what you can see they were trying to do.they failed.

 

[gooddog]

The Field Effect takes hold again

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



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



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

******************************
Hi,

The only Macs that produced Love At First Sight, for me, were the original bike-born
1984 Macintosh and then the inflatable Rev/A Bondi iMac ... which I decided to buy , literally, in a glance ( 0.43 seconds ) thinking it was a much un-needed TV so cute I had to pet it.

The original FP 15" I am typing this on struck me as a bad joke. Within 24 hours, the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field had me in it's manifold.

Now, this huge white thing with a very long jaw struck me as a subliminal effort to remind me that I should vote democrat this year.

Then I played the BEP's intro movie a mere
53 times with my QuickTime on loop.

And now, I feel euphoric, serene, and definitely like I am of the Body of Landreu.
Come, be one of us, one of us, one of us...

Didn't I want a video iPod ?

Had Landreu not said that the screen would be too small for watching ?

Has Landreu not provided the Body with a
big, honking iPod cum VIDEO ?

Always wanting a pod to sleep next to because of its corporeal charms - yet never purchasing one because of my impecunious condition; I now have a G5 iPod that computes, Will Robinson !!!

And with my Formac FireWire TRV Studio pillow thing, I will watch 20" TV as I am wont to do.

My new-found love is such that I seek not even the articulated arm of Satan for my future G5 thing. The silken foot will do best,
because Father Knows Best.

Remember : Black Eyed Peas 53 times before bed.

---gooddog

 

[Yvan256]

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.

Problem is, with all the digital television setups and standards, putting an "old TV tuner" in the iMac was a backwards idea (where I live, it's less expensive to get basic digital cable then basic regular cable. Shows you how much they want to kill regular, old cable).

As for not having the wireless stuff built-in, it's to keep the cost down (since you can have it with BTO (same with bigger HD) or later on by installing it yourself, just like the RAM).

Besides, I'm probably not the only one who *doesn't* want wireless (doesn't the keyboard/mouse need batteries? I got enough crap that requires batteries already, I'd rather have a wired keyboard/mouse that won't stop working in the middle of what I'm doing).

 

[Hlau]

One question. How come this thing doesn't have a power brick and the cinema displays have one?

 

[Ton Palmans]

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.

OK, thanks for your opinion (you too Postal).

Well, I'm not a gamer, but I do plan to watch DVD's on the 20" iMac G5. Would de 25 ms be noticable in fast action scenes for example? If the displays were of the new 16 ms type, I would feel better.

Guess we'll have to wait for more in depth reviews...

 

[Yvan256]

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.

The "keep demand down" idea isn't so bad from a marketing/sales point of view. If indeed they can't keep up with demand with such a crappy GPU it means a lot of people will buy it (not needing a better GPU).

Then later on, put a good GPU with 128MB in it and sell another huge wave of iMac G5's (at the same price, if not lower). I sure hope so, and probably a lot of potential switchers might drool at this very idea.

Seems I could be forced to get a "rev.B" after all. <g>

 

[iGary]

I wait 6 months for a new computer. I wait patiantly...month.. after month...And they give us this crap? How stupid do they think we are? It is ugly and if they were going to pick form over function then why choose to make it look so childlike? The idea obviously didn't work (among other things) due to the blank space at the bottom. Even from what you can see they were trying to do.they failed.

Boo.Hoo.

 

[iGary]

One question. How come this thing doesn't have a power brick and the cinema displays have one?

The power source is inside.

 

[CubaTBird]

ibook

i still like my ibook g4, it treats me well and gets the job done.... if i want to play pc games, i'll just build a cheap 500 dollar comp to get the job done around xmas time.....

 

[Yvan256]

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.

Yeah sure. Simply because we don't want a low-class GPU like the FX5200 Ultra (with only 64MB) that MUST mean we're gaming-crazed maniacs who wants 200 fps in 2048x1600 with next year's games.

There is such a thing as people who pay 5000$+ for a Windoze gaming PC, but the people here complaining about the FX 5200 Ultra are NOT from that group.

The FX 5200 Ultra 64MB is a very, VERY poor choice, bottom-of-the-barrel crap (for a brand new computer coming late 2004). We're not asking for an ATI X800 with 256MB, we're just asking a *decent* GPU and at least 128MB.

Your comment is the upper extreme of what exists, just like what the iMac G5 is the lower extreme of what's available today in terms of GPU.

 

[g4tom]

new iMac

I have been told that this new machine has an internal power supply, they think. I am hoping there is not an external power brick for this. This style of computer is popular, and this is by far the best looking one to date. Aside from the question about an internal or external power supply. I am not liking the uneven frame around the screen. Personally I would have gave it a bigger monitor and kept the border uniform in width. If the frame had to be that size, or made the insides fit behind that monitor. As with most new Macs, video cards are always disappointing, 128 meg cards are now industry standard on everything but the low end line or a dell. As for an 80 gig drive, computer stores quit carrying them, except for the Sunday paper sales ads where they show up for 29$ after rebate and RAM..... 256????? again why? That same Sunday paper sale ad has 256 chips on sale for 9$, PUT 2 IN APPLE!! Quit being so cheap.

 

[wdlove]

I wait 6 months for a new computer. I wait patiantly...month.. after month...And they give us this crap? How stupid do they think we are? It is ugly and if they were going to pick form over function then why choose to make it look so childlike? The idea obviously didn't work (among other things) due to the blank space at the bottom. Even from what you can see they were trying to do.they failed.

I take it that you don't like the new iMac. What do you think that they were trying to accomplish? What type of Mac now?

 

[Kingsnapped]

I've been reading a lot of things what this new imac is NOT FOR (motion, etc...). Will someone please tell me what it IS FOR besides web surfing, text editing, chat-room stuff. ::snip::

I'll bite.

It IS FOR OSX. This computer isn't designed for the pro who wants to run Motion, it's for the users who want a Mac and realize they don't need the ability to cram four hard drives in it.

You go on to talk about the lack of "killer apps," OSX and iLife 04 are pretty killer to me, iMovie is what got me into editing four years ago, got me to switch and eventually sent me to college for Multimedia Production. Did you see the iMac intro video? Did you read any of the thousands of comments before this? People are going to be doing a lot more than Mail and Safari on these machines. They'll be making more media than they ever did with their $400 word processing Dells. Just because it can't run professional, realtime particle generators doesn't make it worthless.

 

[Flying Llama]

I have been told that this new machine has an internal power supply, they think. I am hoping there is not an external power brick for this. This style of computer is popular, and this is by far the best looking one to date. Aside from the question about an internal or external power supply. I am not liking the uneven frame around the screen. Personally I would have gave it a bigger monitor and kept the border uniform in width. If the frame had to be that size, or made the insides fit behind that monitor. As with most new Macs, video cards are always disappointing, 128 meg cards are now industry standard on everything but the low end line or a dell. As for an 80 gig drive, computer stores quit carrying them, except for the Sunday paper sales ads where they show up for 29$ after rebate and RAM..... 256????? again why? That same Sunday paper sale ad has 256 chips on sale for 9$, PUT 2 IN APPLE!! Quit being so cheap.

$9!!!! That's cheap!! Show me where i can get that!!

 

[Timelessblur]

My question is what is out there for the people who need something more powerful than the iMac but they dont need to power of the Powermac?

Orginal the iMac could briged that gap but now well the iMac has fallen down to just a cheap computer with a LCD. it is basicly almost an Emac with an LCD.

I know there are a lot of people who need and want something that is in the middle ground not an one end or the other.

THe graphic card is one of the largest things keeping the iMac from filling that massive void.

 

[myapplseedshurt]

cooling concerns

One thing to consider in this design is the powersavings. So even though this is a desktop, they will be be REQUIRED BY THIS DESIGN to run the system as a notebook solely due to cooling requirements.

I think this aspect is the clot in the bloodstream when everyone else is worrying about messed up hair.

 

[Wash!!]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Once again Apple did not read my mind and made a Mac that can live to my wet dreams!!!!! whaaaaa!!!
Where is my 1000000000000GHz GPU with 10 TB of ram to run my games at 100000000000000000000 FPS and why is not free!!!!! whaaaaaa

BTW

 

[daveg5]

There is a huge difference in performance between a G3 and a G5. And this difference is easily seen. I'm talking today, not tomorrow -- and this difference will only get greater in the future.

Now in the case of your daughter, depending on her age, it might not matter for a while. But once she has experienced the speed of a new faster computer, it is kind of hard to go back to a slower machine. This is true whether it is a Mac or a PC.

My suggestion if you don't want your bubble burst, don't let her work on a new G5 Dual 2.5 Ghz system for a while. Because after she enjoys the power of that machine, it will be hard as hell for her to return to the vintage G3.

Now with the G5 iMac, there won't be as big a change in performance as you would see with a Dual 2.5 system. However there will be a significant difference.

Please note, I am not saying that the B&W G3 is not a good system. It was and still is in many ways. But it is dated.

Sushi

There is very little difference between the G5 and G4 and G3, when doing the things , his daughter does, email internet, colorizing in photoshop, etc. those simply dont speed up much with a dual G5. now if you start working with video, enconding , rendering, 3D, Later Games, Very large photoshop Jobs with lots of layers and fx, mp3 encoding for a large number of files. Garage band and audio programs with lots of fx and instruments. then you will see a major difference.
But from his daughters needs, startup, shutdown, listening to itunes, light photo editing, surfing, letters, simply wont see a big improvement, you can still do those on a 604 base upgraded with a combo drive to osx 10.15 using xpostfacto. even OS8-9 even, as they are not heavy cpu/video dependant.

 

[Hlau]

The power source is inside.

I know that. But if they're able to fit the power brick inside the iMac together with the guts of the computer, I'd assume that they can fit it inside the Cinema Displays when there's nothing else there and the casings aren't that much smaller.

 

[Yvan256]

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.

The 5200 really *is* a god-awful horrible GPU. We're in the second half of 2004, the 5200 is the lowest-priced video card you can get in the PC market. And even then, they're sold with 128MB, not 64MB.

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.

The CPU *cannot* overcome the 5200's limitations. If the 5200 has, say, a limit of 15 fps in Doom 3 at medium setting in 1440x900, then it will stay at 15 fps even if there was a dual G5 2.5GHz driving it. And as I said, that small 64MB VRAM won't be helping either.

This page http://tech-report.com/etc/2004q3/doom3-midlow/index.x?pg=3 shows the FX 5200 Ultra 128MB (not 64MB) can't even do 30 fps at medium quality in 1024x768. May I remind you the 17" iMac G5 LCD is 1440x900? That's ~65% more pixels to display, and so the result would be a lot lower, around 18 fps.

And 18 fps is way too low. There's a reason why NTSC gives us 30 images per second (60 fields/sec really, but the result is 30 images/sec).

As you see, I'm only saying the iMac G5 should be able to run a game like Doom 3 at native LCD resolution, medium quality and at least 30 fps. But the reality of the GPU used in it will result in half the minimum (and having only 64MB instead of 128MB, I'm sure the actual results will be lower than that).

See why we're pissed with that GPU choice?

 

[myapplseedshurt]

I'll bite.

It IS FOR OSX. This computer isn't designed for the pro who wants to run Motion, it's for the users who want a Mac and realize they don't need the ability to cram four hard drives in it.

You go on to talk about the lack of "killer apps," OSX and iLife 04 are pretty killer to me, iMovie is what got me into editing four years ago, got me to switch and eventually sent me to college for Multimedia Production. Did you see the iMac intro video? Did you read any of the thousands of comments before this? People are going to be doing a lot more than Mail and Safari on these machines. They'll be making more media than they ever did with their $400 word processing Dells. Just because it can't run professional, realtime particle generators doesn't make it worthless.

I guess I didn't make my point obvious...
I think what apple has to do (as their shareholders require) is to increase market share, even by a little bit, and I just don't see this machine doing that for them. I sort of like the design, but at the same time, I don't have a flat panel monitor yet. If I had a flat panel, that means I had lots of dollars to buy one and I don't want to spend more money on ANOTHER one, or I just bought a new peecee system which came with one free. This machine doesn't give me any reason to switch or upgrade. I WANT TO SWITCH FOR REASONS I CAN'T TELL YOU .
The problem is I don't have the disposable cash for the PM I want, and this new imac doesn't have that much appeal.