New iMac G5 Announced

[H. Georgan]

Some hilarious criticisms (and lots of praise) of the new iMac over at Macintouch.com.

Some of the best, paraphrased:

* Everything is NOT behind the screen... some components are below or slightly outside the borders of the actual screen! Apple are liars!

* No FM radio! How can this be the digital hub??

* It's bigger than a Sun thin client!

😀

My favourite complaint--either read here or macnn.com forums--was "I can't believe it comes with Quicken 2004 and not 2005". Man, what a deal-breaker.

 

[Xtremehkr]

The Trolls are in, the Trolls are out, the Trolls are running all about...

I went to the Apple store yesterday hoping to catch a glimpse and perhaps buy one if it were available with everything I wanted.

A really good product just seems to bring the Apple haters out of the woodwork. Oh well, I can't really see what the big deal is, a much better computer with more power, functions and capability for less money? is that all?

Speaking of games, I have a Graphite CRT 600 iMac and it plays all of the games I want it too. Ok, so they are mainly games like CIV III and Age of Empires and not DOOM or UTK2004, but maybe that is an insight to some of the more subtle differences between a Mac and a PC user.

The hardest decision I am facing right now is whether to squeeze some more time out of 'old faithful' and wait for the G5 2 gig iMac model which should be coming soonish. It will be more polished as well since it won't be right off of the production line.

Not that my old G3 is ready for retirement just yet, but it will become a secondary computer that I can use for different things.

And since Macs are so versatile, it will no doubt be used for different lifestyle apps.Maybe it will hold, manage and play all of the music in the house and stream it to where ever I want through airports.

It's nice to see the trolls though, Apple has another winner I guess.

 

[Timelessblur]

I dont think the complain would be that bad if the card was upgradeble. Just look at the ram complants most of them low balled because they can easily be upgraded to real amont.

Its pretty clear that a lot of people are willing to pay for a better card. If apple had made it an opitional to upgraded it to a desent graphic card. But this biggest problem is the card in the iMac is a piece of crap and to make it worse you can not upgrade it at all.

 

[Porchland]

1. It was interesting that the "elevator" fake turned out looking more like the actual announced iMac than any of the other mockups that I saw.

2. As far as hanging it on the wall, I don't think that's in the works for iMac, as all of the inputs are directly on the back of the unit. If Apple intended to evolve this machine into the wall-hanging pizza box, I think the inputs -- at least one or two of them -- would be oriented to the side or bottom of the unit.

3. Forget the headless iMac. F-O-R-G-E-T it. Phil Schiller said during the keynote that one of the hallmarks of the iMac is the single-piece design. I think he said that in part to diffuse the notion that a headless version is NOT in the works.

4. Schiller needs to meet my friend Jenny C.

 

[Lancetx]

yeah it CAN run motion but it will run it like crap. When ones hardware barely makes the system requirements then it means that it barely will run.

Ok, to avoid being a broken record I'll say this only one more time. Motion is a pro app. The iMac is a consumer machine. Over 95% of potential iMac buyers out there will never buy or ever even use an app like Motion. Apple is not promoting the iMac to professionals either, they promote Power Mac G5s to that demographic. Same goes in the Wintel world. Find me a $1,299 major name brand consumer grade PC with a comparable LCD display included that will run pro apps any better than the Apple iMac will. The fact is that you won't. Sure, I wish the graphics card was higher grade too, but there are plenty of PCs out there that are worse. Besides, most iMac buyers won't need a higher performance graphics card than the one included anyway.

 

[myapplseedshurt]

can't wait to switch

man, from the passion induced here, I can't wait to switch. you people have real fire in your bellys.

Is there an initiation? Do I have to sacrifice my pc by throwing it over a cliff? 😛

it's like there is some comradary (sp?) that goes beyond the computing experience, like you guys/girls plug the ethernet cable into your head instead of the machine 😱

I will definitely switch when I can, I'll be on the other side in the mean time... 😡

 

[sethypoo]

Looks like a G5 powerbook is very close!!!!

I agree. The G5 enclosures are getting smaller and smaller. Yes, 2 inches is far away from the current thickness of the PowerBook G4's, but it's better than the hugeness of the G5 tower 😛.

This iMac looks so, so cool.

 

[weldon]

While it would be nice to have a faster GPU as an option, I suppose there are some limitations. You would never be able to drop a standard AGP card in there because of the space constraints and the lack of external ports, or rather one port that goes to the built-in and one that gets routed to the video out port on the back. Basically, the video card is custom for the iMac and I can understand why they have to stick with one design (as a custom upgrade card would never sell enough to justify the costs of making it).

Still, when they come out with faster GPU's in future versions of the iMac I would jump for joy if they stuck with the same form factor so you could drop a newer card in an older iMac. But then, Apple has to go and redesign everything every so often so that this kind of upgrade path is never really available (except in towers with standard PCI and AGP slots).

 

[Trekkie]

this is like a classic game debate I wish I wouldn't enter in to but here I go

Dude. Thank you. That explains it a lot. I'd not seen that before.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

People just love to complain, don't they?

You're upset because the new iMac has an average vid card and a small amount of ram.

What's so funny is, if Apple had put in a better card and some more ram, the machine would have cost a couple hundred dollars more, and you would then be screaming about the high price tag.

You just can't please everyone.

The new iMac looks like a GREAT machine, at a suprisingly great price. (something Apple isn't really known for.) In fact, there's nothing else like it out there. It's the first of it's kind. Design that intuitive and ground-breaking doesn't come cheap.

You can buy a souped-up Corvette that's faster than a BMW, but it's still just a Chevy.

mudflapper

I agree about the video card. A 128mb should have been a BTO option. For some reason that seems like an option that Apple has chosen not to offer.

About the 256mb vs. 512mb. Many systems at this price level in the PC world have 512mb RAM already. It might not be a single SIMM, but it is 512mb none the less. The fact is that consumers buy by the "numbers", never mind that the numbers make no sense in real terms.

I have to agree with some of the "whiners" about the RAM. 512mb is the norm today. And in this level of machine, there should be no reason for the lack of memory.

 

[Trekkie]

Wow, slow down a second here, you're speaking 24 letters a minute. Is that enough in verbal communication ?

no but I type 150WPM 😉

The point is, this 24 frames per second is the biological limit of perception neurologically. When we watch motion, we capture the motion blur as well, this hints us where the object is going. If you use a camera to capture a fast moving object, you will notice this, the blur trail tells you where the object is next headed. TV shows and movies all have this. If you freeze a frame on your DVD or VCR with a lot of action, you'll see that the motion is not defined, but captured over a range of exposure time to preserve perceived motion. Video games, on the other hand, DO NOT capture frame to frame motion. If you do a frame capture, you'll get just the characters and their positions, you don't capture the second derivative of the motion, the velocity, because your capture time IS ZERO. Hence, the 24 frames a second in a first person shooter seems a lot choppier than 24 frames a second in your favourate TV show or movie even though the update rate of movement is the same. The key here is the inter-frame interpolation, which exists in the form of motion blurrs in motion captured sequences, but do not exist in video games, that is more than enough information to trick your brain into perceiving fluid motion. If the motion gap is large, for example in a FPS, someone gets blown away by a fast rocket, even 60fps seems jumpy since the distance travelled by fast objects between relative frames is still high due to increased velocity of the travelling object.

Now see, there is something I didn't know. I've only seen benchmarks that scream 'frames per second' which when you look at it from a biological standpoint knowing video/film that 24 fps is the most you can discern. Not being a monster gamer obsessing over the latest Ars or THG 'review' on a card but all they do is print FPS but don't tell people who don't obsess over it what an FPS is in computer speak.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

On to the "headless mac" comments. I think I may see what Steve and others at Apple are going for, or at least see as the future. Computers are becoming so small that we may well be on the edge of the computer not being a seperate piece but a part of every product we own - truely smart appliances. Yes, there have been other attempts at the monitor/computer package but they have been much larger and bulky - even the original imac. The last rev b imac came much closer to this all making the computer something you would want to put in a living space not tucked away in a back "office." This new imac has taken a step closer, and Apple succeeds with in terms of doing the design better than anyone else. However, it is still a ways off. The price of larger LCDs, and perhaps organic lcd, needs to come down significantly. A quick search on the net shows a 20" CRT TV runs $100-$200, make that a flat CRT and the price goes $150-$250. Make it an LCD and price runs $500-$1000. Most of those do not inlcude a DVD player, not to mention a burner. At $1900, the 20" imac comes close (not there yet, but close) to being a viable choice to replace a 20" TV. I have a 19" TV in my bedroom. It is big and bulky. A 20" new imac would be a nice replacement. There are many things which would need to change, like perhaps the graphics card, ability to watch TV (w/inputs for cable or sat tv boxes), auto-sizing when swithcing back and forth between TV and computer use (so when you start working in Word or surfing the net it enlarges everything so you can read it from your bed 🙂 ). You may disagree and say "I never would want to do that!" but 10 years ago I couldn't fathom filling up 1GB of hard drive space, now I use more than that for my music! To close this out, the headless imac, or anything short of a proline computer, maybe dead from Apple. They are looking towards the future and might actually be starting the process of not being a computer company anymore and becoming an appliance/electronics company. They may just be on track for where the future will take us - again ahead of everyone else.

I think you hit on a strong point. At 20" the iMac is something that could find a home in the tight housing spaces of today.

 

[takao]

Goofy analogy. You're still stuck on the processor & video card. Again, Apple could've intro'd an iMac that would fit your gaming desires, but guess what?... you would have to PAY for that beefed up hardware. And EVERYBODY (including YOU, Yvan) would've pitched a bitch. Again, this computer is not aimed at you. Go get a PC. Nobody's stopping you. In fact, I challenge you to go and put together a list of your DREAM GAMING PC, along with actual costs associated with Video Card, Ram, etc. and POST IT HERE. I would love to know what you deem to be GAME-READY actually costs. And be honest as I'm sure there will be plenty of people ready to flame you if you cheat on price points.

hmm don't want to burst any bubbles but today at the store (www.mediamarkt.at warning: german required) i saw nicely put package ('nice' for a x86 of course 😉 )
pentium 3,something HT
512 mb ram
dvd dual format burner (better than
160 GB harddisk (or was it 120 GB...but more than the 1399 € imac)
geforce 5700 with 128 mb (more than all imacs)
fire wire port,6 usb 2.0 (ditto)
+17" LCD + one el-chepo usb printer+stereo speaker

but of course it's an ugly box and i wouldn't buy it...it's no laptop has no widescreen and the processor is too hot. and it doesn't run OS X but still it sells at 1299 € (100€ less than the imac)

sorry but even for somebody who isn't going to buy a pc as next computer this looks like a not-so-bad-deal (for a x86) if you are interested in games...

i didn't asked the guys of the store if it was selling good...perhasp i'll ask friday.. (i actually was checking out dvds, gamecube games and looking for a cheap PCl aptop for my uncle ...he needs serial port support for some high tech central heating adjusting at customers..so ibook is sadly not an option)

 

[g4tom]

new form

You know for a fact that the form for this was suppose to mimic the monitor line. There is only so much you can do with a flat LCD. Most companies put thick wide ugly plastic frames and bases on them. Apple came up with the really cool thin metal L shaped leg. And a minimal amount of framing around the screen. That is what set it apart from the other LCD's, the new cool design. That L shaped leg is thin, it even takes away some of the thickness of the monitor by it being so thin and eye catching. The new iMac was late, we all know that. Something didn't work to plan, or it wouldn't have been late. Something was changed. I has got to be that huge ugly amount of plastic they stuck at the bottom of it. If it looked just like the monitor line, with the same specs, nobody would be complaining. Well maybe a little about the crappy video card, but it will work just fine for the average kid who's parents buy them one of these for school and playing on the internet and doing mail. The original plan was probably one really cool looking iMac, without the big chin staring you in the face.

 

[Trekkie]

Again, let me emphasize that the 5200 is not a mid-range video card, it is an entry level or ultra-cheapo-browse-internet-and-write-letters-to-grandchildren card. It will not run doom3 here or there, it will not run doom3 ANYWHERE.

See this is where I think we have our disagreement. You are talking about a segment of the market that is so minute, that it'd cost more to support than to go with a good card.

We're talking about going from a 2MX card to 4MX to a 5200 ultra or whatever. There are some significant leaps from a regular consumer perspective here, not from a gamer perspective but if you're looking for gaming on a computer you have too much money. GC, PS2, Xbox are the way to go with gaming, the day of a $2000 computer for video games is going away I fear. While such a small segment of the market in general, it does drive.

See I don't hang out with a bunch of geeks like I used to when I was in my 20s. Now I have neighbors, and what not. I find it really funny though when they come over and want to show me something cool they got for their computer. two years after Medal of Honor was out on the PC I got drug next door by my neighbor to show me this awesome game that I'd played for a year now... heh.

What drove me a bit nuts was he had an HP desktop with the Intel 'extreme' video and was excited at how well it looked and how fast it was. My ATI Radeon 9700 that I spent $300 on didn't look that much better except in lag type areas with lots of people online...not $300 better mind you

This computer is Apple's ONLY PC. The powermac is a workstation, this is a PC, the difference is speed and cost. This is the sort of thing that makes came companies ignore Apple: Why the hell should carmack make doom3 for mac? Why I ask you? The ONLY people who can run it are people with G5s. Mind you, I think they will release it, but what about farcry, Half life 2, and so many others? Apple is killing the gaming market for mac, not windows or game companies. It's the people who MADE the iMac a gaming crapbox.

Go to Best Buy. Look at the product line offered, you are hard pressed to find an AGP slot enabled system any more. This is the direction of the 'consumer' desktops, if you want a gaming machine buy a gamecube or build a PC yourself...that's about where we are stuck...

 

[Chmeeee]

2. As far as hanging it on the wall, I don't think that's in the works for iMac, as all of the inputs are directly on the back of the unit. If Apple intended to evolve this machine into the wall-hanging pizza box, I think the inputs -- at least one or two of them -- would be oriented to the side or bottom of the unit.

Its most definitely wall hangable, but it hangs from an arm, meaning that there is more than enough room behind it for cables, connections, etc.

Taken from the Apple website:

iMac G5 VESA Mount Adapter Kit

Available for order in October.

Allows iMac G5 to be used with VESA compliant mounting solutions such as wall mounts and articulating arms.

The iMac G5 VESA Mount Adapter allows your iMac G5 computer to be used with a variety of alternate mounting solutions such as wall mounts and zero footprint articulating arms based on the VESA flat panel mounting interface (FPMI). The new iMac G5 family features a removable desktopfoot. iMac G5 VESA Mount Adapter Kit contains a tool that allows you to remove the system foot and to attach the VESA Mount Adapter to the computer. The iMac G5 is now ready to attach to any VESA compliant mounting solution that has a 100mm x 100 mm attachment.

The iMac G5 line with the VESA mount adapter attached complies with the VESA MIS-D, 100, C version of the specification.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Shouldn't we be able to buy a $600 headless G5 mac?
Then Apple would actually have something to contend with the low end PCs out there.

The new iMac is nice. Love the design. Definitely want one.
I'm disappointed as usual though with Apples price.

If Apple were a "computer" company we might see a headless Mac. But Apple is much more than just computers. And they don't see the "advantage" of competing on price alone. They want to compete on substance and style.

It would be nice for Apple to compete on each price level. But history has shown that Apple is not that concerned about that. And overall their sales and stock seem to indicate that their vision works.

It is sort of like the company I work for. Sure, I think that that they could be better and stronger. Yet 50 years later, they have shown that for their vision it works. It is in the photography sector that has seen a number of changes through the years.

Be assured that Apple knows what the consumer will pay. If not we will see price decreases soon down the road. So far they have not been wrong in recent times.

 

[zim]

Ok, to avoid being a broken record I'll say this only one more time. Motion is a pro app. The iMac is a consumer machine. Over 95% of potential iMac buyers out there will never buy or ever even use an app like Motion. Apple is not promoting the iMac to professionals either, they promote Power Mac G5s to that demographic. Same goes in the Wintel world. Find me a $1,299 major name brand consumer grade PC with a comparable LCD display included that will run pro apps any better than the Apple iMac will. The fact is that you won't. Sure, I wish the graphics card was higher grade too, but there are plenty of PCs out there that are worse. Besides, most iMac buyers won't need a higher performance graphics card than the one included anyway.

I don't agree. Although, you did leave it open to 5% of iMac users would be doing just the opposite of what you said.. so I guess I am part of that 5%.

I know of many iMac owners who use FCP and DVD Studio Pro, remember that DVD Studio Pro was designed for a wide range of users including Pro and intermediate.

I think there will be iMac users using Motion. Sure speed is nice but these individuals are usually artist or hobbits and don't have deadlines so not having live previews is not going to hinder their creative flow.

I also fit into this group, artist currently equipped with a 20" iMac, I have never been slowed down in production by my iMac, in fact when comparing to my production rate from a year ago, I have dramatically increased in my production speed, specifically speaking of the CPU and due to application updates. I am currently learning Maya, yes on my iMac and it runs fine, yes I know it would render faster on a PowerMac but I don't care... creativity is not measured by how fast your computer is. I also run FCE, afterEffects, DVD Studio Pro, Adobe CS products and select Macromedia products... gee, I am a professional... humm.. yes I know 5% you said.

Yes I would LOVE to see a faster video card, not disagreeing with you there, but honestly for the price, I think that the iMac is a great deal and I will be running motion on it so blah.

Would love to hear from the rest of the 5% who use their iMac for things considered "Professional."

 

[slughead]

No, they DON'T. There will be games that run absolutely stellar on the iMac G5 and there will those that don't. They have to meet people with the most advanced technology they can while maintaining certain costs and certain price points. Don't you GET IT? A lot of people LIKED the "Lamp" iMac but felt it was too pricey. Apple had to do several things in introducing this new unit (1) stay true to "the soul of the imac"; (2) better specs; (3) more innovative design; (4) lower price... and in my opinion (and many people that will speak with their wallets), they succeeded.

Yes, they DO!:
from http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html :

They talk about games and they compare it to something else that SUCKED.

JUST LOOK AT THE PICTURE! They use PERCENTAGES instead of FPS!!

And let me state again: Yes, it WILL RUN Motion and Doom3, it'll just run them so slowly they'll be unusable!

This isn't just about hardcore gamers, this is about ALL people who play games. As in ANYONE who plays ANY games that were made past 2003.

Yes, SOME new games will run, but MOST will run crappily.

Even now, RTS games are switching to 3D! My bro had a 5200 Ultra with 128mb for his PC and it ran perimeter like absolute crap!

This is not a mid range card! This is an entry level card! Hardcore gamers buy the top card, moderate-occasional gamers buy mid-range cards, and grandmothers buy cards like the 128mb 5200FX!

Saying "Only hardcore gamers need something better" is an amazing show of fanboyism. Even people who just play the occasional game of UT04 or MOH/AA would want something better than this.. way better.

Saying "oh it'll do most things" is a crock! The G4 iMac ran "most things" it just ran them "terribly." Why upgrade at all? G3s will run games like civ3 fine, OMG we don't need a G5! stop the presses!

Why do we need a G5? why do we need 2GB max RAM? OMG it's amazing! some people, when they buy new computers, want NEW components in them! holy obsolescence batman! The 5200 is what? a year and a half old? and it was a mid-range card back then!

 

[AdamZ]

Hate the "iMac" logo on the back

I absolutly love the new design! I would consider selling my old iMac to get a new one. The only thing I do have trouble with is the word "iMac" that is on the back of the computer. It looks cheesy!! I think most people know just by looking at the computer what it is. They should have put an elegant Apple logo on the back instead like before. It looks so muck better.

 

[alexf]

I absolutly love the new design! I would consider selling my old iMac to get a new one. The only thing I do have trouble with is the word "iMac" that is on the back of the computer. It looks cheesy!! I think most people know just by looking at the computer what it is. They should have put an elegant Apple logo on the back instead like before. It looks so muck better.

Very much in agreement on the cheesiness of the logo on the back.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

I would say Apple is playing a little smoke and mirrors with that horrible graph that means almost nothing and i doubt its even true. Apple has a poor history of being honest with its benchmarks. Remember MacAddict and Macworld review of Powermac 2.0? turns out both magazines could not say it was faster then a P4 at 3.0 or FX51 because it wasnt and even Europe made Apple stop the fastest computer lies in advertisement. Go to lanse Doom3 benches and you will find a lot of benches of Doom3 and the fx5200, its running 10-15 fps at 1024x768 med settings being pushed by a p4 3.0 . A single 1.6 or 1.8 G5 doesnt match to a P4 3.0 so expect less frames or running the game at 640 x 480

 

[weldon]

The only thing I do have trouble with is the word "iMac" that is on the back of the computer. It looks cheesy!! I think most people know just by looking at the computer what it is. They should have put an elegant Apple logo on the back instead like before. It looks so muck better.

Well, I greatly prefer the Apple logo on the front to having big "iMac" text on the front. I wouldn't see the back at my desk anyways (faces a wall).

 

[Timelessblur]

Ok, to avoid being a broken record I'll say this only one more time. Motion is a pro app. The iMac is a consumer machine. Over 95% of potential iMac buyers out there will never buy or ever even use an app like Motion. Apple is not promoting the iMac to professionals either, they promote Power Mac G5s to that demographic. Same goes in the Wintel world. Find me a $1,299 major name brand consumer grade PC with a comparable LCD display included that will run pro apps any better than the Apple iMac will. The fact is that you won't. Sure, I wish the graphics card was higher grade too, but there are plenty of PCs out there that are worse. Besides, most iMac buyers won't need a higher performance graphics card than the one included anyway.

So once again there is a fairly large group of people left in the dust. People who need the pro app but can not/ do not need a PowerG5. We are going to call those people the Prosumers. Oh sorry they are SOL. Apple has noughthing and I mean nouththing to brigde the massive gap in there market line up

 

[Reality Cheque]

Exactly!

I said it once and I say it again: Apple blew it on the GPU/VRAM. I *WAS* going to get the 20" (no, really - I finally have the money after waiting for so long). But when I saw "FX 5200 Ultra 64MB"... eww.

Exactly!

When I got up Tuesday morning, I saw the new iMac and immediately logged-on to Apple to buy the 20" model -- looks great, good FSB, good HD, top-qulaity monitor, price is reasonable considering how much a stand-alone LCD would be for my aging G4 -- and had to cancel when I realized I was locked into a 64 MB card. I am not a serious gamer (or barely even play games), but 64 MB represents the bottom end of cards available right now with top-end cards maxing out at 256 MB. It's crazy to think I'm going to lock myself into a card for 3 years or so that is already the bottom end, already 2 years out of date, and has no ability to be upgraded.

I just want the option to upgrade the video as a BTO option, like I'm goign to upgrade the RAM. I don't mind spending the extra $$.