Originally posted by Steve
Kick, I totally respect you man, and agree with most of what you say, but you're dead wrong about this.
Your generalization of spec-whore gamers is nearly as bad as their generalization of Mac users, who wouldn't mind if Apple sold them ten-year-old hardware, as long as it came in a pretty colored shell.
The GF5200 isn't high performance. It's not mid-performance. It's not even low-performance. It is literally UNUSABLE to run any game released in the past three years. Period. It was the embarassing bottom of the barrel when it was released. In mid-2004 it is stunningly inadequate.
And here you missed *MY* point.
The 5200 is *FINE* for the *LOW-END* iMac, aimed at the budget consumer, enterprise desks, and educational labs. Couple that with the fact that the TS report *could be completely wrong* on several details, and suddenly this entire argument looks pretty stupid. The 5200, if it is indeed on the higher-end machines, would be a bad move, even in my opinion, but, and just for the clue-impaired, this is the important bit coming up here... I am going to reserve my whining and ire for when the machines are actually released, and we see what the performance and price points actually are
I can tell you don't play games, so of course you can't understand why anyone would want to engage in something so "silly."
Actually, I do. I just don't expect to be able to play Unreal Tournament at highest resolution on a low-end iMac any more than I expect to be able to compete in an F1 race in a Honda Accord. Different markets, different products. Believe it or not, there *are* some market segments for whom a 5200 is not only adequate, but a damned smart move, since it saves them money. The viewpoint that there are *no* such markets, because the poster can't see past their own spec-whore gaming nose, is what I'm trying to bash down here. It's short-sighted and inane. Whining that 'no one' will want the 5200 is idiotic. For some people, it's just freakin' fine.
Think about that the next time we're all typing out massive paragraphs on how giddy the forthcoming architectural upgrades nested in QuickTime 7 are making us. [/B]
Actually, I believe we're not too far off on this, since we're both clued in to the fact that there is a wide array of markets. It's too bad that many posters here seem to be missing the fact that *they* are not the sole market demographic. I would firmly expect an optical-less 5200-graphics card iMac to be $999 or less... and at that price, it's a great idea, period. For $2k, yeah, I'd expect more in the graphics card, but frankly, not much. It simply isn't worth the expenditure to 95% of the people out there.
Gamers drive the hardware on the PC, to be sure. But they're still a niche market *there*, compared to the masses of PCs sold to businesses and such. Because of this, there is still a low-end market for enterprise and educational labs... with low end graphics hardware.
*Until the iMacs actually shop and we get real confirmation of spec and prices*, this argument is meaningless.