TS reports on new imac specs - Page 9

But if I wait I don't know if I will be able to get the g4 considering it is pretty much sold out now.... Or do u think they may be available in the future?

well, if i were you, i would look around at your local apple resellers and see what their stock is like. if they have a bunch now, i would bet they will still have a bunch in 2-3 weeks from now.

it's also likely that you'll find used ones on the internet when the new models are announced/available.

there are probably people on this board much more capable of giving you a straight answer on this, though especially in terms of how older models are handled when new ones are introduced-- i have always tried to buy macs soon after they are introduced. in my mind, the g4 is old news. i am sure that the new iMac will be just as worthy as the old one, and probably significantly faster. it's just too near to release to rush out and get a soon-to-be-outdated model, in my opinion. but hey, what do i know?

Sadly, it has been like this for a while.

Hey, leaving specs aside for a second, do you think the iMac will have a white enclosure or an aluminum one, like the PowerMac?

I think it's gonna be white again.

Apple seems to be very hung up to their detrimate in keeping pro and crippled consumer line. iMac will come in colors and i guess will either be aluminum with maybe colors as mini pod or a changeable color case made of clear plastic.

The machine without the optical drive and with the GF4MX is for educational institutions only. It's for things like an Internet terminal in a library. Used for research, looking up books in the library catalog, and e-mail. For such a machine, you don't need an optical drive, and you sure as hell don't need a high-end gaming card! About the last thing you need in such a setting is the library catalog being unavailable to students because a bunch of kids are playing a tournament of Doom III and taking up all the computers.

If you go to the Apple Education store and shop for your school (not for yourself as an individual), you'll see that there's already an eMac model with no optical drive. Apple is just making an equivalent model in the iMac line for schools that want the same kind of thing, but with an LCD screen.

i don't want it to be white, but it probably will be. how else would we be able to tell the iMac and powermacs apart?

i'd like an aluminum one. it's the sexiest color for a computer ever. well, actually, ruby red was, but i don't see them going back there anytime soon. hmm, actually as i type this on my ti-book, i'm thinking thaT the light-greyish color of the border is pretty nice too-- darker than (ack) white and not power-aluminum.

but really, it's the design and shape of the thing, and maybe the material too, that will dictate it's color.

Exactly. Of course, the 'sexier' 'more serious' form factor will also make this a natural fit for enterprise terminals now. The TCO of maintaining these beasties will be much less than a comparable XP filled business, all other things (HW quality, etc) being equal. Ghost those puppies from a central Xserve with a good sized NAS unit, and you're looking at a rock-solid business network for not much money.

I hope it's going to be white. I know a lot of people would prefer aluminum, but I just prefer the white look myself. I also suspect that it will be white given that their regular iPod is white and it seems like that's the standard Apple "consumer" color, at least for now... of course, that could change as early as September I guess...

I also think the current iMacs are a work of art. Mine is too slow and too small a screen (15"), but man do I like looking at it. Nowadays I pretty much exclusively use my 17" PowerBook for reasons which should be obvious, but I'd really rather be using a nice fast white iMac with a big screen

Of course knowing Apple, whatever it looks like it will be beautiful, they haven't disappointed me yet style-wise.

Matsu
In the News Comments board in the thread "Apple burnt by iMac G5 heat issues" you said something awhile back and I was wondering if you ever elaborated on the statement and what you saw? Did I miss your explanation?

Obviously not, taking TS's rumors as gospel. I mean, that's just silly.


Provide supporting evidence for this assertion.


blah blah blah


blah blah blah


And... you're back to this non-argument. You seem to have this unsubstantiated belief that low-end terminals for labs and enterprise need to have the most kickin-ass latest graphics hardware, and anything over a year old is just oh so useless. Been to a large company lately? How about an educational institution? Machines are regularly *several* years old. There is no 'forced upgrade cycle' here, except in your own mind, I'm sorry. Secretaries and accountants do not need Quake capable GPUs. Neither do students using lab machines for general purpose work. There is a *definite* market for low-end machines with fast networking, a good CPU, a chunk of RAM, and a reasonable local hard drive. In such environments, an optical drive is a *liability*. Do you know how hard UNC had to fight to get a contract with IBM that would let them *remove* the optical drives from lab machines without voiding the warrantee? See, they were ordered en masse via a state contract, so the BTO was... non-existent. No optical drive is a *plus* in these situations... provided you have a strong infrastructure support. Which MacOS X Server provides in spades. It's a solid solution, period. The 5200 is *fine* in these environments. Hell, in 99% of the cases, it's overkill, regardless of how old it may be. In fact, the very point that a good deal of previously CPU-intensive work is being offloaded to a capable GPU means that these machines are now relatively more powerful than they would have been before... they can do more, with a lesser CPU. Previously, if you wanted to boost image editing, you simply had to boost the CPU... now, there's a choice. A reasonable CPU + reasonable GPU = low-end machine.

For this market, yes, a flat panel (reduced footprint), reasonable CPU, reasonable GPU, optical-*LESS* machine at $999 (less in bulk) with serious infrastructure support is a rather good deal, when you look at the entire package, and stop focussing on spec A or spec B to the exclusion of the larger picture.


I wasn't the one that brought up this supposition that Apple will just screw over the users with some heretofore unknown technology that will, at a stroke, apparently make their machines stop working, and into dead paperweights. That's just paranoid hand-waving, and you know it. As I stated before, please indicate with any degree of factual basis, what technology you can see coming down the pipe that would make a CoreImage/Video capable GPU suddenly useless. Come on, give it a whirl. CoreI/V was a gimme three years ago, nice to see them getting it out there... the fact that it works on a chip as low as a 5200 is a stroke of genius. It wasn't unexpected. What *was* was how low the GPU could be and still take advantage of it. Nice bonus.

So give us a clue into your crystal ball, as to what specific technology you see coming down the line, and a rough estimate as to the timeframe. See, without that, your argument regarding 'forced upgrade cycle' rather dries up. If you *have* an answer, I'd love to hear it. I mean what the hell, maybe you have years of graphics research under your belt too, and can see some neat trick that I'm missing. If not, well... just admit it, and we can end this idiotic pissing match.

In other words, please show the logic and facts behind your so far unsupported claims. You have mine, either reciprocate, or concede that your argument is lacking in substance.

See, this is what I get for peeking into a post of someone on my ignore list... learn from me kids! Don't peek! It's not worth it!

[edit]

Stupid rant post deleted by yours truly.

I'm one of the people who was initially shocked and disapointed with the possible nVidia FX5200 chip that may arrive in the new iMacs.

Well, until now, kind of...

On an airplane trip last night, I opened up my Dell laptop which I bought about 2 years ago and played "Colin McRae Rally 2" at a pretty good resolution and with alot of the effects turned on. It looked good and it ran without a glitch, very fast. This morning I checked the video card I have in this machine, and wow, it's only a GeForce2 Go with 32MB RAM. I'm not a big video card buff, but isnt this quite a bit slower than the FX5200 w/ 64MB?

So maybe the video card in the consumer level machine aint so bad afterall. Of course, I have a Ti4200 w/ 128MB in my current desktop and I'm hoping the new iMacs gfx cards will have comparable power. The bigger hope, and I think a very likely outcome is that the new iMacs will come with upgradable video cards.

-M

Colin McRae 2 is a 3 year old game...

'nuff said.

Still looks good. :P

I guess I'm just an old fart...hell, I drive an 18 year old car. :P

-M

The Ti4200 is likely to be faster in some games but even the 5200fx has an advantage of it because the Ti4200 doesn't have the necessary Pixel and Vertex support.

I think many complaining about the 5200fx fear that they will be locked out of future games but honestly the Mac is no hotbed of gaming activity so I get a kick out of this.

Oh yeah, it looks alright and it's not bad at all. But no-one is going to buy an iMac G5 with the intention of playing 3 year old games, they want to play new and upcoming ones. That's the people that want to play games anyway.

Personally i want an iMac G5 to use the digital hub, surf the net, experiment with low-level video and image editing and just general usage.

If i want games i'll play them on the 3 games consoles i've got.

I've done that. hehe. When Sim City 3K was too heavy for my PCs, I had to can the game for a couple of years till I got a computer capable of running it. Same thing happened when I bought Sim City 4. It ran real ugly so I'll just put it away and I'll play it again in a couple of years. That's why I love consoles.

heh... okay, not many people will buy iMac G5s to play 3 year old games

Yes! If you want to game seriously then get a PowerMac or a build a hot PC with all the right stuff. I have a new G5 1.8dual at work and it has the GeForce FX 5200. Guess what? I play Halo on it all the time and even serve Halo games on our LAN (yes I know the card has nothing to do with serving a game - shut up in advance). I have absolutely no complaints about it's performance. There is nothing wrong with this card and it will probably be good for at least 3 more years.

So for all the 5200 complainers I think Kickaha said it earlier: "Blah, blah blah" And I might even add "Blah dee farkin' blah"!

Yeah, I'm just a weird case. I should read the recommended system requirements instead of the minimum ones before buying

Yeah and Halo is like what... 2-3 years old?

Apple stock took a small hit late today when a major Wall Street firm said delivery of G5 chips is not going as well as hoped. Apple thought they'd catch up in August. Doesn't look like it will happen. Soooooo, don't expect a lot of iMac G5's to be shipping no matter what the configuration. Looks like IBM will continue to keep Apple from reaching its sales goals. The more things change (Moto to IBM) the more they stay the same, unfortunately.

WelshDog:
Just wait until you fire up Doom 3 on that card. Enough said.

Just fvcking with you, haha!

What I saw were the institutional prices on eMacs, and the a friend's screen grab of the iMac delay page in the Apple store, whcih had already been posted on AI. Doesn't mean I wasn't shown, just means it isn't as interesting as I tried to make it sound.

The only inside info I can scoop for ya relate to edu and urban planning. I can tell you where some Canadian Apple STores will land -- but most people know that already, and I can tell you if/when/how much the "real" edu dicounts are -- not what Apple posts on their site.

It isn't about gaming seriously as much as gaming at all. Great it's a card that can support things from a few years ago but it's being released in a machine today.

Just turning away every person who ever might want to play a game on their computer would be about the stupidest thing Apple could do. You don't need the MP of a PowerMac for a gaming rig you just need a better video card than those iMacs have.

Actually no Halo Mac was released on December 3rd, 2003 so it isn't even a year old.

and when was the Xbox version released and PC? just because the mac version was late doesn't mean it's a newer game

And yet, the fact remains that there will always be a rather large contingent of people for whom games, even those two or three years old, are simply not on their radar as essential or necessary.

And that doesn't even touch on the educational or enterprise markets.

The 5200, if it actually ships in the mid and high end iMacs, may very well be a bad choice for capturing those people who really want to play the latest and greatest games. But there will remain a sizable market for whom it will be not only adequate, but appropriate, as a low-end unit.

the markets you name are served very well by the eMac.

I agree, but the *perception* is that they are 'so last year'. Also, they're hellabig compared to a thin LCD. They lack the sex appeal that an LCD flat AIO would have for enterprise. (Okay, I'll admit it, I think they're butt ugly.)

Consider a $999 iMac the eMac Deux, if it materializes. But, for that market a reasonable G5, 5200 GPU and lack of optical is a great package, and will remain so for a few years of lifecycle.

agreed.

but you agree that above 1299, it's neccessary to have a much improved graphic chip, right?

I tend to agree.

As I've said all along, yes, an improved graphics chip in the higher end machines would attract more consumers, is my opinion.

Whether they *need* it, or it's just a 'whose is bigger' match is anyone's guess.

In any case, we'll see what's actually in the beasts when they're announced.

I thought this was a Mac forum.

The real 5200.

PC and Mac versions came out pretty close to each other. Xbox ver is irrellevant since it is console based. Don't you think currently available game cards are considered durng a games developement? It's all about drivers.

FYI Doom 3 supports all nvida FX chipsets according to id's website. Yes I know probably not at 42fps, but hey, turn down yer video settings.

several months is not pretty close. and the xbox version is relevant as the graphics were designed for a 733Mhz P3 and a Geforce 3 level card.

OMG you mean most people (85%) never add anything (other than ram) to a machine that is NOT very upgradeable in the first place? Gee I wonder how many would have added more had they been easier to upgrade. If that's your argument I suggest you start over.

Yeah, turn'em all the way down, and it'll still be chop chop chop (i.e. below 30 FPS very often). High-quality gaming experience.