New iMac G5 Announced

[egor]

Sorry, you are way off. I used to work for CompUsa, and even though building a computer these days doesn’t require technically advance individuals, the average Joe is simply no willing or able to do it. When you deal with customers and listen to their concerns you learn that they simply don’t have the time, the interest, or the knowledge to build their own PC’s (Even though one can learn to do it effortlessly). The Average Joe has many other things going on in their lives to worry about building their own computer. Computers are time saving tools, and normal people use them, not build them. Some hobbyists build their own cars (Saving thousands of dollars), but for the most par, people just buy cars. There is a marketing term called segmentation, which is used to describe segments of a market (Computer, in this case) to whom a company chooses to serve based on their product’s (or services) strengths and features. Each segment of the computer industry market is composed by people with different interests, education, age, industry, etc. So when Apple released the new iMac they positioned them selves to target one or several market segments to whom they believe they will be able to serve well. Seldom one will find a company attempting to serve all segments with a single product (hence the variety of configurations and products out there, they even sell parts for individuals interested in building their own computers) because most companies don’t have enough resources and/or products to effectively serve all the market. Sure you can build your own computer; therefore, you are in different segment because you have different interests. Personally, I could build my own PC, however I don’t have time to do it and I just chose not to therefore belonging to a different segment. This is the way it works.

Thanks for the response but I think that was a bit irrelevent. I was just saying that it takes hardly any time at all to build a pc, nor that much knowledge or level of intelligence. In fact, you'd get a pc quicker by doing it that way than ordering a Dell custom-build, and at the time I was completely new to it all, it wasn't a hassle at all.

I wasn't talking about segmentation or whether you can compare so and so to so and so.

 

[hacurio1]

Thanks for the response but I think that was a bit irrelevent. I was just saying that it takes hardly any time at all to build a pc, nor that much knowledge or level of intelligence. In fact, you'd get a pc quicker by doing it that way than ordering a Dell custom-build, and at the time I was completely new to it all, it wasn't a hassle at all.

I wasn't talking about segmentation or whether you can compare so and so to so and so.

I didn’t disagree with the possibility that perhaps it could be easier or cheaper to build your own PC; however, I was trying to make it clear and correct point you to the fact that the great majority simple don’t want to do it (Far many and various reasons, it varies from individual to individual).

 

[gopher]

__________

Screen protector yes -- the rest -- dunno...

I teach in LA,CA.

If Apple wants to make a student lab computer, advertise it agressively and price it the same way, with free OS X or option for free Linux as well as the economizing I suggest below, then here is what schools need:

A school computer, for student use, needs extraordinary features in two areas : anti-vandalism and anti-porno. Busted labs are seldom replaced within the decade, and lawsuits by parents of porno-injured angels are even more expensive: fear of lawyers reigns supreme.

The screen needs to be TOUGH and a replaceable tough shell would be grand.

The case needs to have baffles that channel soft drinks, gum, paper wads, used condoms, etc. away from electronics and can be easily unlocked for frequent cleaning. That pizza slit along the top back of the G5 iMac is a chump's trademark.

All ventilation ports need the above baffling.

All removable media drives need to be centralized at the supervisor's station.

Access to the net must be only to pre-selected sites rather than by using naive "rules" based S/W.

Lock-down to the bench must be robust and use special fasteners.

All serial numbers, etc. must be up-front and behind the screen protector for inventory.

Picture quality is of minor importance --- functional is good enough. Here is a great place for Apple to unload it's LCD's with a FEW bad pixels --- not in our home use , DVD watching machines. The schools get a price break for bad pixels/ we pay a little extra for 100% pixel guarantee -- all are happy.

Gaming abilities are also unimportant -- we don't play games with them : mostly math S/W and English practice WP etc.

Sound quality is also unimportant, but sanitary headphone capability does matter a lot: maybe careels with directed beam sound projectors ( transducer phased array type ) could achieve this with no student contact.

Virtual (projected) keyboards and
track pads that work from behind replaceable, clear, tough plastic would be a heaven sent if functional. Most kids are very slow hunt-and-peck typists.

Supporting furniture, like properly chevronned rows for total visibility of class from the teacher's elevated desk is needed sorely: and I mean SORELY : I still have eight scars on my shins from one year of scrambling through the forest of chair legs to answer questions.

The teacher's station needs remote access to each student screen and head-set : to answer questions.

Cases need attractive but graffitti-resistant finishes and coatings.

The kids need a swift kick to the a$$, but that is a whole other issue.

---gooddog

A lot sound like good suggestions. I hope you posted them all to http://www.apple.com/feedback/

They need as much feedback through their official site as possible to improve their products. Posting them here on Macrumors, they won't know that people need certain things. But give Apple direct feedback, and they will listen if enough people want it.

 

[macidiot]

In a word, yes.



Until grandma is comfortable going out and buying the parts to put together a machine, manufacturers that sell systems are not competing in the same space. I've seen this attitude before, and it's always from someone who knows at least something about computers but has forgotten that other people are about as stymied as a foreigner without a translation book. Computers are a mystical box that does things, sometimes ones that you don't want, for the vast majority of people. How else do you explain all the service departments, 'for dummies' style books, and other rigamarole that are the hallmarks of the everyday computer user?

My mother is not a stupid woman, as she's a highly successful physician and a former president of her professional association. She also doesn't really understand the difference between RAM and a hard drive, which is why she asks me for help. She couldn't build a computer to save her life, except perhaps by chance, so the homebuilt and enthusiasst side is a non-issue.

Imagine what it must be like for people who aren't as bright as she is.

Actually, a recent study of PC marketshare surprised everyone when it discovered that Dell was not the market leader. In fact, whitebox pc's dominated. So I don't know about grandma, but the rest of the US seems pretty comfortable with whitebox pc's. BTW, whitebox pc's are not just homebuilt machines. They are also machines built by a local independent PC shop, essentially the same as home built. A lot of people trust these local shops for repair and maintenance. And they usually come with warranties. Lots of small businesses just buy whitebox pc's from the company that does the support for them. They get exactly what they want, with no unnecessary stuff, and at a better price than brand name. And they get the name of a guy that they can call directly if something blows up. Very handy.

 

[voicegy]

A lot sound like good suggestions. I hope you posted them all to http://www.apple.com/feedback/

They need as much feedback through their official site as possible to improve their products. Posting them here on Macrumors, they won't know that people need certain things. But give Apple direct feedback, and they will listen if enough people want it.

Not that posting on the feedback page isn't a good idea (it most certainly is) but, believe me, Apple hangs around here quite a bit.

 

[AidenShaw]

Not that posting on the feedback page isn't a good idea (it most certainly is) but, believe me, Apple hangs around here quite a bit.

Aren't the logs from your Apache 1.3.31 server fun to peruse !?!

Does Microsoft spend much time here?

 

[Mechcozmo]

-->Apple<-- has ported Mac OS X to x86. Jobs made reference to it in an interview, even said that they were keeping it up, other rumors substantiated it./QUOTE]

Gotta love some people. "Other rumors substantiated it." Damn, I havn't laughed that hard since I was a little girl. (Dr. Evil!)

And the iMac, even if it is more expensive that a home-grown PC, will sell. Because although most people COULD they just don't want to spend the time learning and then assebling a PC. And if something goes wrong, they would most likely get worried, etc.

And the iMac isn't THAT bad. Yes, I do not like it a lot. But its design will be far easier to work with than that of the iMac G4s. And cmon, this post really has gone on long enough. 60+ pages!?!?!

 

[XboxEvolved]

iMac G5 is freakin sweet

I posted before but I will again.

I get a vibe from this forum that if its not in a big obnoxious case it can't do Photoshop, Flash, 3D programs, Halo etc.

The truth is these people probably bought the same thing in a big obnoxious case a year ago and are trying to jusify their purchases. The fact is Apple updates stuff all the freakin time, and you really can't catch up unless you make a whole hell of a lot of money to do so. Im getting this comp and sticking with it for at least 4 years. It has everything I need, and is great for anyone I would think.

 

[Sped]

The point of the liquid cooling system was NOT for heat dissipation, it was for sound reduction. ...
However, it'd be louder; and Apple seems to try to balance silence and specs.

I don't think you can separate the two. To say the liquid cooling system was not necessary for cooling and then to say only a few sentences later that Apple balances silence and specs is contradictory. You make the point brilliantly that the liquid system is for cooling AND noise.

And that's my point. Is the new enclosure potentially limiting if you can't get a liquid cooling system in it? I believe the same problems that could plague this enclosure are the ones making it difficult to produce a G5 powerbook.

 

[aswitcher]

I am pretty impressed that the user added features (wifi and ram) are specifically placed to be on the centre of gravity. Nice work.

 

[Sped]

then again with the FSB of the iMacs having a 1/3 divider, by the math, we'll never see a 2.5 ghz chip in there...

I don't know... It appears that with the G5, Apple has made the bus speed whatever the heck they want it to be. It isn't like the years and years of 66 mHz bus speeds that slowly eaked up to 133 mHz. In the one year of G5 processors, we have seen everything from 533-1000 mHz.

 

[JerseyMike73]

then again with the FSB of the iMacs having a 1/3 divider, by the math, we'll never see a 2.5 ghz chip in there... 3x800 would be 2.4 ghz and 3x900 would be 2.7

actually the FSB on the iMac 1.6 ghz is 533, so if Apple wants to use a 2.5 in a future iMac the FSB would be 833

 

[MegaSignal]

I humbly beg to differ

The point of the liquid cooling system was NOT for heat dissipation, it was for sound reduction.

They probably stuck two 2.5's in a G5 case and noticed the fans were running at a high RPM, and decided to silence it with a simple liquid cooling system.

Wasn't the whole point of liquid cooling that Apple was forced into it due to "heat density" of the newer, smaller chips? In fact, don't the 2.5 chips produce less heat (90nm) overall than the 2.0 with the 130nm build? I would think that in addition to the fans, that the additional pumps and peripherals would have the potential of more noise...help me out here.

 

[macidiot]

Now who's comprehension skills are lacking? My point was -once again, for the hard of comprehension- that the COMPUTER is fine. That's what this is all about. The card- an admittedly limiting factor of the computer- will not, I suspect, stand in the way of sales of the _computer_ to the great degree that you think it will.

Oh, and those who game on the Mac are somehow wiser than those of us whose professional use of the platform isn't held to ransom by the GPU?

When did I ever say anything about iMac sales? And when did you ever say anything about iMac sales? As far as I can tell, you seemed to go on some rampage when I stated that Logic is not a good product to use to demonstrate the graphics power of the iMac. Think what you will, but Logic does not tax a computer's graphics capabilities. Sorry to burst your bubble.

But since you brought it up, iMac sales have collapsed since the old colored iMacs were replaced. The last generation were a sales disappointment. Primarily because it was clearly outclassed in price and performance. The consensus was, neat design, not a great computer. Way too expensive. Apparently, plenty of people chose NOT to buy an iMac because of its poor performance and high price. One of the factors was the weak, non-upgradeable graphics. Sorry. IMO, this is a case of Apple slavishly committing to design and sacrificing functionality and performance.

My concern is that Apple failed to address many of the problems that people had with the prior iMac. Poor graphics cababilities. Needless cost of a display. Non-upgradeablity. They have come up with a replacement that caters to the same people that bought the prior iMac. Unfortunately that is a shrinking group. The only clear improvement is the G5 chip. But its crippled, again partly due to slavish commitment to form over function. Sony has done a number of aio designs. Usually with the same responses... neat design, mediocre hardware. I hope the iMac sells millions. But I have doubts. At least the prior iMac had a truly unique design. This new one is basically a better Gateway AIO.

Anyway, I'm tired of your unfounded ranting. Plenty of other people on here post and manage not to stoop to childish barbs. And actually understand the context of other postings. Later.

 

[Charko]

macidiot, I agree with your analysis of the shortcomings and relative poor sales of the last iMac.

If anyone is interested, they're going to cover the iMac presentation in Paris on 'Click Online', a programme on BBC World television, at 19:30 CET - that's 18:30 GMT, I think.

 

[daveg5]

actually the FSB on the iMac 1.6 ghz is 533, so if Apple wants to use a 2.5 in a future iMac the FSB would be 833

I mentioned this before in my predictions before it was announced, that to keep it cool apple would have to either cut the L@ cache size, as they did before with powerbooks, or cut down the buss ratio.
I know that either one of these can affect heat and cooling from my overclocking days. the buss was the best bet as it shouldnt effect performance much, since the memory is single channel now and still at only 400MHZ.
What I was wondering was if Apple reduced the 1.25 buss in the 2.5 G5 to say a 1000 or 833, would that allow them to reach 3.0GHZ, or an enterprising G5 owner who is willing to risk his machine to find out. I have still not heard of one G5 that was overclocked. powerbook ibook emac imac, powermac G4,s but no G5

 

[the dairy giant]

So how does the new iMac compare to my 400 iMac DV?

Hello,

First post from looooong time lurker! I have a question, which is totally unrelated to anything about graphics card.

I bought my iMac DV 400 nearly 5 years ago. I still use it, using 10.3, and using mainly Logic Audio, using software instruments, recording audio with plug in effects etc (just hobby/obsession, not pro). It has had some more ram and a bigger/faster HD added, but it seems pretty good that it has been able to keep pace (with increasing struggles and workarounds of course) for this length of time.

I think, (correct me if wrong) that the G3's from this period were more powerful than most 'equivalent' PCs of the time, so for my money I got something pretty good. (I realise that power is not everything, but with audio stuff like this, its a lot)

So was my old iMac comparatively more powerful for its time than the new iMac is for today I wonder? 1.6 -- 1.8ghz g5 versus 2.4 -- 3ghz pentium thingys... (or whatever the PC numbers are this week)

Does anyone have a perspective on that?

If i was to get one of these new beasts (which I like a lot) I wonder if it would last me as long as my current one has.

 

[Montserrat]

Damn

Thought I didn't like the look of the iMac in all the pictures against that blue background. Just seen some "real life" shots and it does look very tasty. I don't need one/want one really, but then again I said that about my iPod. hmm

By the way - with regards to previous post - Macs seem a lot better at aging than their PC counterparts. I have a 1 year old powerbook 867 and it hasn't lost any speed, whereas my Dad bought a 2Ghz desktop WinXP machine (against my advice )at christmas and it's already showing signs of slowing down. One of the many reasons I have no intention of buying a PC!

 

[AidenShaw]

I think, (correct me if wrong) that the G3's from this period were more powerful than most 'equivalent' PCs of the time, so for my money I got something pretty good. (I realise that power is not everything, but with audio stuff like this, its a lot)

So was my old iMac comparatively more powerful for its time than the new iMac is for today I wonder?

Comparatively, your old DV was closer to the top PC of fall '99 than the iMac G5 is today.

You have 400MHz with a 100MHz bus with a 512 KiB 200MHz cache, the top Intel chip at the introduction of the iMac DV (October 1999) was a PIII 733MHz on a 133MHz bus with a 256 KiB 733 MHz cache. The 1 GHz PIII came out in March 2000.

Using the typical 1.5 to 1 MHz advantage for the G3, you had a 600 MHz equivalent - using the extreme 2 to 1 advantage, you had an 800 MHz equivalent.

Today's iMac at 1.6/1.8 GHz, 533/600MHz with 512 KiB full speed cache. Today's PCs is 2.8/3.6 GHz Hyper-Threaded, 800 MHz bus with 1 MiB full speed cache.

The iMac should do well on AltiVec applications, but lose seriously on non-AltiVec code.

Apple's published benchmarks concentrate on dual CPU aware AltiVec friendly code, so it's hard to find anything substantial there. Note that the dual 3.2 GHz Xeon beats the dual 2.0 GHz G5 on LightWave. The dual 3.06 GHz Xeon is only 4% slower than the dual 1.8 GHz on "rendering". (Some of the Apple benchmarks are very misleading - different applications are compared - Logic vs. CuBase, FCP vs. Avid,...)

 

[Samiam1]

enough

Enough with the home built PC's already.

Yes, you can build it fast, cheaper and with all the latest and greatest do dads. But you're missing the entire point of apple's existence. You can't build a 2" all-in-one piece of design genius in your basement. You get the usual big, clunky, loud and gereric box PC when you build it in you basement. Apple pushes the envelope of design; balancing computing power and minimalist artistic form. That is why people buy apple. I laughed my a++ off when PC's started to look just like the original imac when it first came out.

To use a car metaphor (they seem to be popular here), porche makes a car that is a beautifully blended combination of power and design (sound familiar). My neighbor custom rebuilt an old chevy in his garage that can blow away any porche on a straight track. It has a big block 6, a massive spoiler, huge ugly blowers sticking out the front and a paint job like sombodies vision of hell, but damn is it fast.

So build your PC and enjoy it. Those of us that "get it" will enjoy our new imacs.

 

[Ari_0]

Wow

Im surprised to hear yet another 62 pages of whining with about a few compliments interwoven in between. One wonders if this is down to being inept, or just sheer ignorance.

Its clear that apple wouldn't out-perform the POWERmac with this computer. That would defeat the whole point of its Target audience. Look, its very simple, when it comes to desktops, you have your low range studenty eMacs, appauling components but perfect for a budget price (apple's idea of budget, mind you) to help those students save a large portion of their loans to spend on other things.

Then you have the mid-range computer, as i predicted ealier, it would have a few components nerfed/ non-existent, for two main reasons: 1- if you wanted G5, its only natural to shave the cost elsewhere. 2- MID range meaning, when you have more dosh later, you could always upgrade the rest of the compnents (presumabley). And even if thats not the case, a top of the range iMAC comes close to £2600. Which is MID range

If you want a top of the range, then go for the super equipped PowerMacs with its 8GB ram and other high performance components, but dont expect the other Apple products to out-perform the G5 PowerMac until the PowerMac itself is updated. Remember you're paying for style, rebelious and a fashion-statement. Not some cheap Micro$oft wh**e. Incidentally a top of the range G5 PowerMc exceeds £4600. Copare that to a top of the range iMac and you understand my Mid range statement.

Me, its a PowerBook for now. Once i have the money that is (£2000).
P.S. I agree with the last post. Chiilll !!!

 

[slughead]

So build your PC and enjoy it. Those of us that "get it" will enjoy our new imacs.

Oh I think we all "get it", we just aren't impressed. I personally wouldn't see a problem with an extra inch in depth on the case in exchange for a BTO 9800XT 128mb, firewire 800, 1000 base T, a pull-out handle at the top, a security harness, and plugs in the center of the enclosure (to conceal them behind the base, and to resist tipping when pulled on).

You have to realize that the 17" iMac G5 only weights 18Lbs. It's easy to steal, easy to tip, and easy to carry. These problems/exploits need to be countered or exploited.

[edit: plus the contrast ratio on the screens (350:1) is below the minimum acceptable (400:1, soon to be 600:1/800:1).]

Picked up from another forum:

 

[kugino]

Oh I think we all "get it", we just aren't impressed. I personally wouldn't see a problem with an extra inch in depth on the case in exchange for a BTO 9800XT 128mb, firewire 800, 1000 base T, a pull-out handle at the top, a security harness, and plugs in the center of the enclosure (to conceal them behind the base, and to resist tipping when pulled on).

You have to realize that the 17" iMac G5 only weights 18Lbs. It's easy to steal, easy to tip, and easy to carry. These problems/exploits need to be countered or exploited.

[edit: plus the contrast ratio on the screens (350:1) is below the minimum acceptable (400:1, soon to be 600:1/800:1).]

Picked up from another forum:

do you want fries with that?

you haven't even seen one or played with one and you're already complaining about how inconvenient it is? stop rehashing old stuff and get over it. the imac is not perfect...nor is any computer for that matter. yes, apple could have implemented all the stuff you've asked for...but at a much higher price. they had to do what they did to get in under some magic price point.

 

[cyberddot]

I like 'em, I ordered one. I can build my own PC, I'm not doing that, because it's not a Mac when I'm finished.

 

[salmon]

I like 'em, I ordered one. I can build my own PC, I'm not doing that, because it's not a Mac when I'm finished.

Well said. As long as Apple releases well designed HW that's not a rip-off, there's no WAY I'm going to deal with the crap and vendor lock-in pestering that Microsh$! throws at you. I'll happily pay a bit of a premium for a VASTLY superior OS.

I like the new iMac (I'm going to get one if I can talk the wife into it). I hear what people are saying about the graphics card, but I'm not much of a gamer, and the games I do like are RTS or FRP anyways, not first person shooters - so I don't think that wil be any type of issue.

After seeing it, I like it MUCH better than the sunflower iMac - that design never sat right with me. This one will look great in my home office.

The big thing I like about the iMac G5 is the fact that it was designed to be more easily user upgradable (again, aside from the vid card), which makes me feel better about the monitor part of the all-in-one investment. Combine that with a 64-bit processor that's not fully being utilized by the OS, and I feel pretty comfortable that it will be a good long-term purchase.