New iMac G5 Announced

[slughead]

i think you're right about the user experience...osx mated with the hardware and all the ilife stuff...very good stuff indeed. i'm willing to pay a bit more for a better user experience given comparable specs on the other stuff.

This whole PC specs vs Mac specs misses the point. The benefit of the Mac is the software-hardware union. Windows + Dell, doesn't compare to the experience of OSX + Mac. Specs aren't the only things that indicate how quickly a given task can be completed.

I don't see how mac hardware has anything to do with the iLife stuff. Think about it: iPhoto doesn't use mac hardware, iTunes was ported to PC and works fine with PC hardware, iMovie doesn't work with Mac hardware, nor does iSync or anything else.

To say you NEED Mac Hardware to do something like iLife is just plain silly. They've shown the most questionable part (CD burning) to be done just fine, the rest was meant to operate with standards preset by the camera industries.

OS X is cool, but don't think for a minute that Apple hardware makes it possible. The only reason it's designed for Apple hardware is so they can SELL Apple hardware.

Don't believe me? sit down with iTunes on a PC. Flawless performance--does everything masterfully. Apple has even ported OS X to x86, they just know that they don't want to do that right now.

People talk about stability problems with "3rd party hardware", but Apple's hardware is substantially 3rd party already! Apple doesn't design hardware, they design enclosures for parts, and they're damn good at it.

The only difference between mac hardware and PC hardware is that Apple writes all most of the drivers for their hardware themselves.

Meanwhile, in the PC world, Windows XP offers equal stability with almost NO drivers written by MS. It's the era of standards and compliances, the time for conflicting IRQs and things of that nature are over.

According to the Apple apologists, this is impossible. How, they ask, can you possibly have a stable OS when the drivers are coming from 5-10 different companies for each machine? In fact, Apple often uses the low-end and/or low-quality parts such as the Quantum drives in the first G3s (including Rev A imac '98) and the Maxtor drives in the first G5s. People say "oh they never tested it", and then rev B comes along and they end up using Seagates and IBMs.

So to sum up: no, Apple's hardware is not physically necessary to run the iLife apps or OS X. However, it is structurally necessary for Apple to make money on hardware, not software. I don't blame them, it's just a difference in structure.

[edit: in my previous post, I was merely pointing out that people were comparing Apple's to Oranges (yukk yukk yukk), but not using the sweetest orange to compare to the freshest Apple. They compared a dell desktop with display to the iMac while ignoring the options you open up if you're going to judge machines on specs only.]

 

[zim]

zim, there is a base education model for $1099 only viewable if you log in as a purchaser for your school. it doesn't have an optical drive.

I see, thanks rare that I venture into that area.

 

[kugino]

I don't see how mac hardware has anything to do with the iLife stuff. Think about it: iPhoto doesn't use mac hardware, iTunes was ported to PC and works fine with PC hardware, iMovie doesn't work with Mac hardware, nor does iSync or anything else.

To say you NEED Mac Hardware to do something like iLife is just plain silly. They've shown the most questionable part (CD burning) to be done just fine, the rest was meant to operate with standards preset by the camera industries.

OS X is cool, but don't think for a minute that Apple hardware makes it possible. The only reason it's designed for Apple hardware is so they can SELL Apple hardware.

Don't believe me? sit down with iTunes on a PC. Flawless performance--does everything masterfully. Apple has even ported OS X to x86, they just know that they don't want to do that right now.

People talk about stability problems with "3rd party hardware", but Apple's hardware is substantially 3rd party already! Apple doesn't design hardware, they design enclosures for parts, and they're damn good at it.

The only difference between mac hardware and PC hardware is that Apple writes all most of the drivers for their hardware themselves.

Meanwhile, in the PC world, Windows XP offers equal stability with almost NO drivers written by MS. It's the era of standards and compliances, the time for conflicting IRQs and things of that nature are over.

According to the Apple apologists, this is impossible. How, they ask, can you possibly have a stable OS when the drivers are coming from 5-10 different companies for each machine?

So to sum up: no, Apple's hardware is not physically necessary to run the iLife apps or OS X. However, it is structurally necessary for Apple to make money on hardware, not software. I don't blame them, it's just a difference in structure.

slughead, you gotta chill out... nowhere do i say that hardware is NECESSARY for the software...it's just that right now, apple hardware is the only way to run the life stuff and osx, excluding itunes. sure, apple could rewrite all the other stuff to run on windows, but they haven't...what you get with the beauty of the apple hardware and the functionality of osx and ilife is a nice user experience. you don't need to start ranting about how hardware has nothing to do with the software, etc...sure, that may be right...but the combination of apple's hardware along with their software and os makes for a very nice user experience...'sall i'm sayin'

 

[slughead]

slughead, you gotta chill out... nowhere do i say that hardware is NECESSARY for the software...it's just that right now, apple hardware is the only way to run the life stuff and osx, excluding itunes. sure, apple could rewrite all the other stuff to run on windows, but they haven't...what you get with the beauty of the apple hardware and the functionality of osx and ilife is a nice user experience. you don't need to start ranting about how hardware has nothing to do with the software, etc...sure, that may be right...but the combination of apple's hardware along with their software and os makes for a very nice user experience...'sall i'm sayin'

Pardon me, I thought you were implying that Apple's hardware had something to do with the goodness that are the iLife Apps. Certainly the other guy was implying that.

And by the way, Apple wouldn't have to re-write anything to run OS X on x86, as they have already ported the OS to x86 (and are keeping it current, FYI). All they'd have to do is recompile the iLife Apps on OSX for x86 and be done with it.

They could probably have OS X 10.3.5 for x86 on shelves in under a month if they wanted to (and if the hardware companies would write drivers for it). Actually they could add an "Apple" touch to it and rent out space for drivers on software update on Apple's servers, totally surpassing the MS experience.

You think the G5 is neat? Imagine a quad processor opteron running OS X with 16GB of RAM.. that'd be freakin cool. 100% custom machine right down to the ultra-modular OS X.

But, it's never going to happen and I don't have any hard feelings about it.

 

[kugino]

Pardon me, I thought you were implying that Apple's hardware had something to do with the goodness that are the iLife Apps. Certainly the other guy was implying that.

And by the way, Apple wouldn't have to re-write anything to run OS X on x86, as they have already ported the OS to x86 (and are keeping it current, FYI). All they'd have to do is recompile the iLife Apps on OSX for x86 and be done with it.

They could probably have OS X 10.3.5 for x86 on shelves in under a month if they wanted to (and if the hardware companies would write drivers for it). Actually they could add an "Apple" touch to it and rent out space for drivers on software update on Apple's servers, totally surpassing the MS experience.

You think the G5 is neat? Imagine a quad processor opteron running OS X with 16GB of RAM.. that'd be freakin cool. 100% custom machine right down to the ultra-modular OS X.

But, it's never going to happen and I don't have any hard feelings about it.

not a problem, slughead.

it is amazing to imagine what the G5 processor is capable of...and who knows, sheer performance could win me over to running it on a pc...but i still like the user experience and the aesthetics of working on apple hardware...it just makes me feel better.

 

[daveg5]

The second best selling Mac the iBook. It has an ATI Mobility Radeon 9200 with 32MB DDR video memory. Sales are booming. Most consumers love the iBook. The iMac is aimed at the same market. There is obviously a huge base of users (like me) who don't need a fast graphic card...

I disagree, the emac is aimed at that market, the market being education/school and first time buyers. the imac is made 1 level up from newbie, and one level down from pro.
emac, ibook= beginner
imac powerbook 12"= intermediate
powermac and powerbook+ pro and pccard/pci/firewire 800, upgradeable graphics. independant dual displays.

 

[daveg5]

yea but isnt the emac, the best selling desktop mac for almost two years running, i dont think he will drop it quite yet

well the powerbooks excellent 15.2" screen is more than sufficient for most and cheaper than a 17". the emac could get an LCD top model.
base 1.5 combo $599, super drive $799, superdrive plus 15.2 wide screen similar to imac at 1.6 $999.
QUOTE]

Well thats sort of what I am thinking, because Steve has always wanted to dump the crt and shipping must cost a bomb for 20kg units.

Maybe 2005 they might phase it out in favour of an lcd or at least introduce a new emac, although I wonder if they will resist because it would canabalise iMac sales...

 

[daveg5]

I couldn't agree more. In 12 months time the iMac G5 wil either have improved in it's tech specs or the price will have come down, and either way the eMac will look out of sync in the consumer line. I just think that the more they plough the higher the bottom line contribution will need to be. If they slap on the LCD, which makes perfect market and physical sense, they'll have to make cutbacks elsewhere in the product just the make the line viable, which the bulk-buying Dell has in spades.

Time will tell, but I certainly think you are right.

unless they add a screen protector and are willing to cut margins, i think crt emac will servive, maybe with am improve screen. 1280x1024 @85hz would be nice, no dead pixels, excellent response, no dead pixels, 180 degree viewing angle and easy on the eyes, a low bottom lcd just cant match the quality price and durability of that.

 

[daveg5]

xbox supports 1080i resolution. 1920x1080. DD5.1. But its interlaced compared to computer monitors which are all progresive scan. Without getting technical, progressive scan effectively doubles the resolution vs an interlaced signal.

gamecube supports 480p. DPLII

ps2 supports 480p. DPL

480p is progressive scan dvd quality. If you have a HD set, 480p is greater than 640x480. Something like 768x480(I forget what it is in widescreen). Old tube tv's are generally inferior to computer crt's(since tv is typically built for an interlaced signal and 320x240).

But just because the consoles support these higher standards, doesn't mean the games do. Only a small percentage of the games support these higher resolutions. Mostly because the majority of consoles are hooked up to tv's that can't take advantage of the greater resolution. If you hook up any console to a tv via rca or s-video, your pretty much just going to get 320x240 interlaced. Possibly 480i. I'm pretty sure progressive scan or better requires at least a component connection.

xbox , correct me if I am wrong, supports many resolutions, of hd including 420-480-720 Progressive, or interlaced, A lot depends on what monitor you have it connected to and what vga/dvi adapter you are using.

 

[daveg5]

Some of you guys are saying this is comparable to a PC in features/price.

I think the iMac is fairly priced for what it's competing with and the size as an important feature. Otherwise, I think you're mainly paying for form, not function, if you compare it to a www.pricewatch.com computer:

Since the 17" iMac has sales tax in 49 states (??), at 8% $1,299 is $1,402.92, so keep that in mind. Also keep in mind that both of these configurations carry a monitor with more pixels and a higher contrast ratio, measuring 20". The 20" iMac is $1,899 ($2,050.92 with 8% sales tax), so keep that in mind as well. Also note that all of these parts may be purchased without sales tax in 48-49 states.

$50 - GeForceFX U 5200 128MB
$27 - 256MB DDR 3200 RAM
$268 - P4 3.2Ghz with Mobo + 8X AGP 800MHZ FSB
$49 - soundcard with Optical I/O
$62 - SATA 80GB HD
$588 - 20" LCD, 1600x1200, 600:1 Contrast, with speakers and microphone. Aluminum enclosure.
$65.50 - NEC 8X DUAL/DOUBLE LAYER DVD BURNER DVD±R
$64 - Antec case w/350watt PSU (also antec)
======
$1,173.50

~$1,400 system:
$208 - Radeon 9800 128MB
$110 - 1,024MB DDR 3200 RAM
$268 - P4 3.2Ghz with Mobo + 8X AGP 800MHZ FSB
$49 - soundcard with Optical I/O
$62 - SATA 80GB HD
$588 - 20" LCD, 1600x1200, 600:1 Contrast, with speakers and microphone. Aluminum enclosure.
$65.50 - NEC 8X DUAL/DOUBLE LAYER DVD BURNER DVD±R
$64 - Antec case w/350watt PSU (also antec)
======
$1,414.50

The emboldened text means it is better than what's in the iMac by any measure. The display was not emboldened because some people might value a 16:9 display over the 4:3 compared here, instead of the better contrast ratio/more pixels.

[edit: I should also point out that ALL the shipping rates were included in the parts' prices (as is the case with all pricewatch numbers). In addition, you can buy the new iMac from somewhere other than the Apple Store and not have to pay sales tax.]

Do you have to build those yourself, how much per hour and how is the warranty/service used.

 

[daveg5]

I wanna iMac, but my only "wish" is a replaceable GPU...

If the video card blows do you need a whole new motherboard, that would be costly to apple wouldnt it?

 

[slughead]

Do you have to build those yourself, how much per hour and how is the warranty/service used.

All of those parts have at least a 2 year warranty, some have a lifetime warranty (the RAM, PSU, and CPU will, for instance). But if one of the chips dies, for instance, you can just send it to the company and they'll figure it out, instead of leaving your whole computer at a store over the weekend or shipping it somewhere.

It'd take about 2 hours to put together, but my time isn't worth $300/hour. I can put together a computer in a case like that in about 30 minutes. It's usually taking the parts out that takes a while.

 

[daveg5]

All of those parts have at least a 2 year warranty, some have a lifetime warranty (the RAM, PSU, and CPU will, for instance). But if one of the chips dies, for instance, you can just send it to the company and they'll figure it out, instead of leaving your whole computer at a store over the weekend or shipping it somewhere.

It'd take about 2 hours to put together, but my time isn't worth $300/hour. I can put together a computer in a case like that in about 30 minutes. It's usually taking the parts out that takes a while.

well add 90day phone support, and 2 hour builder cost. and a $100 name brand fee. your name on it so we can trust it. and what do you have?

 

[oingoboingo]

Finally something we can all agree on.

However, I think it's at least 640x480, but you're right: the only reason Xbox gets good framerates is the low resolution.

The thing is running a GeForce2 MX for God's sake.

No, it's part of a custom nVidia chipset, with features and performance placing it somewhere around GeForce 3 levels of performance with some extra GeForce 4-type features added.

This information is easily available anywhere on the net. Where did you pull the "GeForce 2 MX" from?!?!

From Anandtech's Xbox overview:

The chipset behind the Xbox does veer slightly from the nForce 420-D design for the PC.* The Integrated Graphics Processor (IGP) still functions as the effective North Bridge for the platform however it features a much more powerful graphics core than the PC's nForce IGP.* Whereas the nForce IGP on the PC features a GeForce2 MX (NV11) core, the Xbox IGP features a custom designed core internally known as the NV2A.* You can take the codename to mean that the integrated graphics offers performance and features somewhere in-between the currently available NV20 (GeForce3) core and the upcoming NV25 core.


The NV2A features the same 4 pixel pipelines of the GeForce3 core and operates at 233MHz.* This puts the fill rate of the NV2A in between that of the GeForce3 and the GeForce3 Ti 500.* Naturally the NV2A features the same DirectX 8.1 pixel and vertex shader support that was introduced with the GeForce3 with one major modification – the NV2A has two vertex shaders.* The addition of a second vertex shader is a huge performance gain for games the reason being that most instructions that will be sent to the vertex shader require at least two instructions to execute.* Providing the GPU with dual vertex shaders will tremendously increase the throughput of these vertex programs allowing some operations to be completed in a single clock cycle.* Considering that a very impressive feature of the vertex shader is the ability to do the setup for DOT3 bump-mapping, the dual vertex shaders will definitely help performance tremendously in titles that make extensive use of per-pixel DOT3 bump-mapping.*


The core also supports the same multisampling AA formats as the GeForce3 including Quincunx.* This is actually a very important feature since most games are rendered and displayed at 640 x 480 where aliasing is especially bad.

 

[slughead]

well add 90day phone support

Done: if you have trouble with your hardware, you can e-mail the manufacturer for years afterwards. I chose good quality components.

2 hour builder cost.

You're right, it costs you, the builder, 2 hours. Don't know how to assemble a computer? It comes with manuals (which are how I learned). That's why I said 2 hours instead of 30 minutes, it's a fair amount of time, it might take you longer if you've never even replaced a stick of RAM before (I nearly broke my thumbs and my PC100 RAM back in the day trying to install it backwards).

$100 name brand fee.

Already included: viewsonic monitor, NEC dvd burner, Western Digital HD, Intel CPU.

your name on it so we can trust it.

Put your own name on it, I trust myself more than I trust Chinese factory workers *cough*.

What do you have?

A [fun] learning experience that saved you hundreds of dollars at the cost of your time from breakfast to lunch on a Saturday morning, and the satisfaction of knowing your machine can have a logo of your own personal design on the front .

Again, if you read my post I did make it clear that the iMac is not about these technical specs, it's about the low spacial requirements of the physical device, the design, and the OS. However, to restate AGAIN, as a disclaimer: This was only in response to those who compared Dell Systems to the iMac instead of the reality which is the customized windows world. If you ARE thinking of "getting a dell," consider this as an option.

 

[slughead]

No, it's part of a custom nVidia chipset, with features and performance placing it somewhere around GeForce 3 levels of performance with some extra GeForce 4-type features added.

This information is easily available anywhere on the net. Where did you pull the "GeForce 2 MX" from?!?!

It's actually a modified GeForce 3 Ti, as someone else pointed out. Thank you for, again, clearing that up.

The point was: the graphics card could not run Halo at 1024 even if any normal TVs actually supported it. In fact, I heard that Halo chunks on the system even AT the reduced resolution (which I'll leave up to debate, since I'm not clear about that either).

What I am interested in is the melting rate for the Xboxen. I heard that's why they're switching to PPC--to lower the heat.

 

[AidenShaw]

ask someone who owns one...

You think the G5 is neat? Imagine a quad processor opteron running OS X with 16GB of RAM.. that'd be freakin cool.

Yes, the nightmare of NUMA.

Think about it. Some memory is attached directly to the CPU. Some memory is attached to another CPU, but we can get there over a HyperTransport link. (But beware, all the cache coherency traffic is also on the link.)

Scared yet? A quarter of the RAM is local, 2 quarters is a high-latency HT link away. OMFG - what about the 4th quarter?

Don't be frightened, kids, but that's 2 HT links away. (Oh, and all that cache coherency traffic has been multiplied too.)

If you have a NUMA-aware OS *and* and NUMA-aware application - a quad Opteron can be interesting. If things aren't NUMA-aware, it can really suck. (BTW, the latest "unstable" build of the Linux 2.6 kernel is a lot better - as long as your app is NUMA-aware.)

The quad Opteron is mainly "hype" - you'll see big print advertising for a few edge conditions where it's great. But, don't bet your business on a quad Opteron running other apps at that speed.

 

[macidiot]

xbox , correct me if I am wrong, supports many resolutions, of hd including 420-480-720 Progressive, or interlaced, A lot depends on what monitor you have it connected to and what vga/dvi adapter you are using.

Your right, xbox supports all those resolutions as well. Well, not sure about 420...then again my friend supports 420, and he has an xbox...so that might count

I didn't mention it because 1080i is higher than all the others. I guess I figured that it was implied that the other resolutions you mentioned are also supported. For each platform I just mentioned the highest resolution supported...

 

[made4mac]

Some of you guys are saying this is comparable to a PC in features/price.

I think the iMac is fairly priced for what it's competing with and the size as an important feature. Otherwise, I think you're mainly paying for form, not function, if you compare it to a www.pricewatch.com computer:

Since the 17" iMac has sales tax in 49 states (??), at 8% $1,299 is $1,402.92, so keep that in mind. Also keep in mind that both of these configurations carry a monitor with more pixels and a higher contrast ratio, measuring 20". The 20" iMac is $1,899 ($2,050.92 with 8% sales tax), so keep that in mind as well. Also note that all of these parts may be purchased without sales tax in 48-49 states.

$50 - GeForceFX U 5200 128MB
$27 - 256MB DDR 3200 RAM
$268 - P4 3.2Ghz with Mobo + 8X AGP 800MHZ FSB
$49 - soundcard with Optical I/O
$62 - SATA 80GB HD
$588 - 20" LCD, 1600x1200, 600:1 Contrast, with speakers and microphone. Aluminum enclosure.
$65.50 - NEC 8X DUAL/DOUBLE LAYER DVD BURNER DVD±R
$64 - Antec case w/350watt PSU (also antec)
======
$1,173.50

~$1,400 system:
$208 - Radeon 9800 128MB
$110 - 1,024MB DDR 3200 RAM
$268 - P4 3.2Ghz with Mobo + 8X AGP 800MHZ FSB
$49 - soundcard with Optical I/O
$62 - SATA 80GB HD
$588 - 20" LCD, 1600x1200, 600:1 Contrast, with speakers and microphone. Aluminum enclosure.
$65.50 - NEC 8X DUAL/DOUBLE LAYER DVD BURNER DVD±R
$64 - Antec case w/350watt PSU (also antec)
======
$1,414.50

The emboldened text means it is better than what's in the iMac by any measure. The display was not emboldened because some people might value a 16:9 display over the 4:3 compared here, instead of the better contrast ratio/more pixels.

[edit: I should also point out that ALL the shipping rates were included in the parts' prices (as is the case with all pricewatch numbers). In addition, you can buy the new iMac from somewhere other than the Apple Store and not have to pay sales tax.]

Nice numbers, it's good to see you've done your homework. But I think you forgot something (an OS and software). I'm going to guess that this will more than make up for the money saved on hardware, with or without sales tax.

 

[slughead]

Nice numbers, it's good to see you've done your homework. But I think you forgot something (an OS and software). I'm going to guess that this will more than make up for the money saved on hardware, with or without sales tax.

Someone mentioned Dell and unfairly compared PC specs/price to apple's (purposefully ignoring the software/OS for the sake of argument) and I tried to straighten it out. I mentioned this at the beginning of the post, perhaps the disclaimer was not long enough.

People were trying to get away thinking that ignoring software, design, and physical space, they were still getting a "steal." .. I beg to differ.

 

[Timelessblur]

remeber home build computer are general always cheaper than a apple equivilent. Heck once you leave the dirt cheap computer out there and up in class a little home build are almost always cheaper than the prebuilt ones ({and that is if you go legit on the soft.

General costum built computers are in a class of there own and it never fair to compare them to prebuilt computers because as a rule they general are cheaper and better than a equivlent computers.

 

[kugino]

remeber home build computer are general always cheaper than a apple equivilent. Heck once you leave the dirt cheap computer out there and up in class a little home build are almost always cheaper than the prebuilt ones ({and that is if you go legit on the soft.

General costum built computers are in a class of there own and it never fair to compare them to prebuilt computers because as a rule they general are cheaper and better than a equivlent computers.

that's true, but it's just not an option for apple...we only have pre-built computers...all we can do is comparison shop, time our purchases and hope for no new announcements, etc.

 

[friarbayliff]

Yeah, there's no way to accurately compare a custom built machine to a prebuilt mac, like the iMac. I have a custom-built AMD desktop and a 12" powerbook. I don't see any real way to compare the two, even though my desktop technically has more power for less money.

 

[Passante]

Apple is competes with Dell

remeber home build computer are general always cheaper than a apple equivilent. Heck once you leave the dirt cheap computer out there and up in class a little home build are almost always cheaper than the prebuilt ones ({and that is if you go legit on the soft.

General custom built computers are in a class of there own and it never fair to compare them to prebuilt computers because as a rule they general are cheaper and better than a equivlent computers.

I agree. Comparisons with home built computers while interesting is not what Apple is trying to compete with. Most home buyers compair on price, a few easy to compare specs (monitor size hard drive and ram) and are heavily influenced by family and friends (thats how I switched my father-in-law ).

To illustrate my point I was in the Apple store last week waiting , as always, for the check out line to get shorter and started listening to a guy talking to the Apple sales rep about the 12 in powerbook. It was clear he was torn about what to do and wasn't going to buy so i asked the Apple guy if would check the stockroom for a powerbook caring case that was not on the shelf. While he was gone I told the customer that I had the 12 inch powerbook and that I loved it and asked if he had any questions. First he asked about viruses. He said he "lost his hard drive" to viruses on his compact 3 times. I told him I had only Mac one virus since 1986. It was a Word Macro virus. Then he asks about the superdrive. Apparently his price point was around $1500 and the superdrive put the cost of the computer out of his range and there was a "silver pc compatible computer" the he could get for around a thousand. I told him that I didn't get the superdrive and while it has some benefits depending on what you need to do he may not needed it. Then he said that he like to watch movies on his laptop and thats why he needed the superdrive.

So here's a guy looking at an Apple who is driven by price, a pretty face (he likes the silver color) and doesn't know what hardware he needs to watch movies.

I hope I set him right and that he purchased the powerbook but at that point the store finally had two cashiers so I got in line to check out.

Looking a the Dell desktop ad that comes with every Sunday paper I see only 3 desktops in the $1500 range, two are P4 2.8 Ghz one has a 15 in lcd, 512 ram 80 gig drive wireless keyboard and INTIGRATED GRAPHICS, the second is the same except it has a 17 inch screen, ATI 9000 with **64 meg v ram** AND DVD ROM drive (no burner), the third has a 3.2 P4, 160 Gb drive, cd burner,Radeon X 300 Se AND A 19inch CRT.

By my standards the new iMacs stack up fairly well. Time willtell

Sorry for the long post. After reading 1300 posts a finally had to say something.

 

[kirk26]

I wanna iMac, but my only "wish" is a replaceable GPU...

With an updated Nvidia card. ATI.....Never!!!