Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Think Secret Says iMac Updates Are Coming

Apple needs major help in its consumer line

Yes the PowerMac G5 is faster and less expensive than any of the PC Workstations out there. Apple rules here.

But in the consumer world, its hard to push Apple. These G4 machines are WAY underpowered and WAY overpriced. Apple needs to get rid of the G4's ASAP.

I talked my mom into getting a 1Ghz iMac back in April. It doesn't feel much faster than my iBook. I built my sister an AMD 1800+ system that cost less than half of my mom's iMac and pretty much runs circles around it.

Apple needs to get the G5's in the iMacs. Do they really think professionals will buy iMacs instead of PowerMacs if they both are running G5's? I doubt it. In the PC world, consumer level PC's pretty much have the same processors as the higher end systems. Its the other accessories that make the difference.

I hope its in their plans. Maybe at MacWorld in January we'll see G5's across the board except for maybe in the iBooks.
 
i dont think, and by "dont think" i mean hope, that apple is not stupid enough to neglect such a historic and consumer friendly system.
In my opinion this (potential) upgrade sucks.
 
Originally posted by Wonder Boy
i dont think, and by "dont think" i mean hope, that apple is not stupid enough to neglect such a historic and consumer friendly system.
In my opinion this (potential) upgrade sucks.
Click to expand...

But they've done that. The original iMac was a great success, but it was held back (Motorola is partially to blame here, but it has happened before). The iMac DV was hardly a value machine the second half of its life.
 
Re: Re: iMac=internet Mac

Originally posted by j_maddison
As an imac user I dont know why Powermac users assume imac users want an underpowered, outdated chip. this imac update is junk, rubish, ridiculous. They should have thrown in 1.4 chips, or even made the line up dual processors.

i dont understand why you think a 1.25ghz processor kicks butt. Hell if i was someone who was considering switching over to the mac platform, i'd be looking and thinkin hmmm 1.25ghz or this shiney and cheaper 3ghz intel machine. no contest mate. im using a mac because i liek the os, in reality they are underpowered by some considerable margin. and before you start blabbering on about the mhz myth, rubish or we wouldnt all be getting so exited about the G5. The reality is that until the imac and emac start shipping with a decent spec apple will have limited success in winning over the wintel market. and bottom line is that the home consumer market (imac/emac) is a much bigger market than the powermac market.

sorry but anyone who thinks all imac consumers are happy with a 1.25ghz processor is smoking something

jay
Click to expand...

Can I get an amen?

I guess I'm a prosumer (been using macs since my SE and selling them from the SE days until the G3) and I want a G5 iMac. Cost is not my issue, I want a sexy powerhouse in a small package. Based on this rumor, looks like Apple is forcing me to buy a G5 PMac. In protest, I will buy a third party monitor.
Recommendations anyone?
 
Re: Apple needs major help in its consumer line

Originally posted by jocknerd

Apple needs to get the G5's in the iMacs. Do they really think professionals will buy iMacs instead of PowerMacs if they both are running G5's? I doubt it. In the PC world, consumer level PC's pretty much have the same processors as the higher end systems. Its the other accessories that make the difference.

I hope its in their plans. Maybe at MacWorld in January we'll see G5's across the board except for maybe in the iBooks.
Click to expand...

If Apple is worried that a G5 iMac will cannibalize Powermac sales, I think they're wrong. iMacs are not expandable, will never support dual processors and don't need to support 4 or 8 GB of RAM.

I think a lot of people want what I want, a kick ass G5 iMac, 1GB RAM and a good video card. I'm not a gamer, just want an elegant, small, fast computer with a nice flat panel display.

Sadly, Apple will probably force me to buy a 1.8. I might wait until MacWorld to see what's on tap til then.
 
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
anemic? a 1.25 with fx5200 will do better in every test vs a 1 gig and 4mx card. This is not a bad imac boost, and if they can get 7457 with 200 fsb in there then all the better. I wish apple would get a better video chipset in the imac since it can not be upgraded, to keep forcing cheap video cards on new imac users sucks Steve. They should have a gamers imac that can kick pc a--! but even the single g5's come with that lame fx5200 garbage.
Click to expand...

we need 256 meg graphics cards right now. that's one place macs have always lagged: the memory on the graphics cards. You can rest assured that the same model card on a mac will have half the mem it does on a PC. And certainly, the Mac cards vastly underperform the PC ones.

nVIDIA and ATI need to get on the ball. A lot of graphics intensive people use macs, and not all of them are going to shell out for a quadro (is there even a quadro for mac??). There should be a graphics card up to par with PCs, because after all, to a large portion of the Mac population, Macintosh=graphics.
 
I have a simple way to differ the iMacs from the PowerMacs that would please lots of people:

iMacs receive single G5 processors

PowerMacs receive dual processors across the line

There, let it be done...
 
you are kidding still no L3 cache, geforce 4 mx 32MB come on apple
give em 1MB L3 at least and radeon 64mb and 128mb 9000 at least. let this be good game players since you cant upgrade the video or cpu later or at least put the price down 20-25% cpu speed increase after 9 mos is so so so
 
Well, time will tell...but I do see a very bright future for Apple... (brighter than the glowing Apple on the lid of my PowerBook, at least)😀
 
Originally posted by GregGomer
Good idea, since Think Secret is usually the most accurate and consistent of the rumor sites.
Click to expand...

Sorry if it wasn't clear that I'm just upset over PowerBooks not being released right away.
 
Re: Why the 7455 r3.4

Everybody was expecting the 1.33GHz 7457 machines, but even the rumors keep saying the yield is way too low.

Then Motorola started updating info on the new 7455 r3.4(aka rev G).

The timing looked darned close to making the cut for the PowerBooks, iMacs, etc. and replacing the 7455 r3.3(aka rev F) in them.

---

Originally posted by Sun Baked
INTRODUCTION OF REV G 7455/7445

Motorola is pleased to announce the new mask revision for the 7455 and 7445 product families. The new mask revision, 5L64M, is fabricated at MOS13, a Motorola fabrication facility in Austin, Texas. Production shipment using this new mask will begin in July, 2003.

The 5L64M mask revision (Revision G MC7455A/MC7445A, e.g. MC7455ARX1000LG) is designed to replace the 9L96C (Revision C, e.g. XPC7455RX1000LC and XPC7455RX800NC) mask revision. We will offer a Last Time Buy Date on the XPC7455/XPC7445 Revision C device, 9L96C. Last time buy date will be 07/15/2004 with a Last Time Ship Date of 07/15/2005.
Click to expand...
Heck even this rev G intro doc mentions the chip in the PowerBook (XC7455ARX867WF) is a device affected by the intro of this new mask.

You can even download the 7455 Qualification report (now with 7455 rev 3.4 included)

Or the MPC7450 Family Chip Errata for the MPC7455 and MPC7445 added the rev 3.4 to it's list.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by daveg5
you are kidding still no L3 cache, geforce 4 mx 32MB come on apple
give em 1MB L3 at least and radeon 64mb and 128mb 9000 at least. let this be good game players since you cant upgrade the video or cpu later or at least put the price down 20-25% cpu speed increase after 9 mos is so so so
Click to expand...

I don't understand why Apple doesn't do a L3 cache either now that the G5's are out. The G5 doesn't even have a L3 cache so it's not like it would be confussing for people.

A 1.3 with a L3 cache would be a nice bump to see.
 
Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
here is what i see.

Consumer
G4 iBook
G4 eMac

Prosumer
iMac

Pro
PowerMac
Powerbook
Click to expand...

Actually it should go like this:

EDUCATION:
G4 eMac - because kids poke LCD screeens in school - so Apple had to go back to CRT.

CONSUMER:
G4 iBook
G4 iMac

PRO:
G5 Powermac
G5 Powerbook.


well anyways... expect to see similar upgrades to the powerbooks later this week.... G4 1.25mhz... 🙁
 
Disappointed

Really disappointing is the GeForce4MX in the 15" modell. I hope they have at least a BTO option for an FX card.
The iMac is really the consumer Mac and what do consumers want ? Playing games ! What do you need to do that ? Gooood graphics !

That update took them that long and what they present is frustrating.
 
7457 yields are probably too low to be able to order enough for both Powerbook and Imac updates (If indeed it will be a 7455). Powerbooks need this critical 7457 update more so than the imac. The Imac is to the Powermac what the Ibook is to the Powerbook.....not really designed as a production machine. If 7457 chip yields are low, jam 'em in the flagship portable line, not the consumer desktop line.

Screw L3 cache, if IBM can afford to throw 1mb of full speed L2 cache in a consumer CPU (PowerPC 750GX), you'd think next generation G4's would as well. 256k L2 cache is pretty lame, Native sound Processing (Audio FX Plugins, Reaktor ect.) as well as emulation software (Virtual PC) really needs a healthy ammount of fast L2 cache.

p9
 
G5 imac and emac

G5 imac and emac will not be on the market til next summer.

You guys are crazy to expect they release it now!

Powerbook will be for awhile til Apple engineers figure out away to eliminate the 9 fans, and power usage.

Crazy people!
 
Originally posted by themadchemist
we need 256 meg graphics cards right now. that's one place macs have always lagged: the memory on the graphics cards. .
Click to expand...

Err, not really. Graphic card memory will only let you do a couple of things...run higher resolutions with more colours (not much point in this after 32 to 64 megs even including for 3d z-buffers, because you can't get monitors with those kinds of resolutions), or load up more and higher res textures.

Now textues are really a gaming thing, and even then I think you'll find that very few games will actually be using that huge amount of memory for textures until a few more years (I could be wrong...Doom3? - but ID have always made games for next year's system).

My point is that having THAT much more memory in the graphics card is like putting a P4 3.2Ghz in a 3 year old motherboard (or the G4 on our 133Mhz bus...🙁 ). It's not the memory in the card that's going to make the difference - it's the quality of the subsystemst hat matters, especially the ramdac (for picture quality...and what is one of Apple's main markets? That's right, graphic savvy people).

So I'd rather have a modest about of video ram and really great subsystems, than 128megs of additional video ram that will never get used.
 
Originally posted by mim
Err, not really. Graphic card memory will only let you do a couple of things...run higher resolutions with more colours (not much point in this after 32 to 64 megs even including for 3d z-buffers, because you can't get monitors with those kinds of resolutions), or load up more and higher res textures.

Now textues are really a gaming thing, and even then I think you'll find that very few games will actually be using that huge amount of memory for textures until a few more years (I could be wrong...Doom3? - but ID have always made games for next year's system).
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me.... as long as a 64mb Nvidian FX runs Warcraft 3 a lo better than the mx I'll be happy. 🙂

(It should, right?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back