or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › TS reports on new imac specs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

TS reports on new imac specs - Page 15

post #561 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
The new iMac is not going to be last year's computer at $999, it's going to be next year's computer at $1299. I'll take that 1.6 or 1.8 GHz G5 and run, you guys can whine about BS expansion and graphics card speed, frames per second and photoshop mili-seconds, all while I'm using my computer and doing real work.

Video editing will be a dream on a G5 with a 17'' high res LCD display.

I agree. I'd love the new imac.
*Powerbook G4 12" - 1.5 GHZ
*iMac Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHZ (Mid 2007), *Apple 20-inch Cinema Display (Aluminium)
*iPhone 4S, Airport Extreme (2011) *MacBook Air 11-inch (Late 2010)
Reply
*Powerbook G4 12" - 1.5 GHZ
*iMac Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHZ (Mid 2007), *Apple 20-inch Cinema Display (Aluminium)
*iPhone 4S, Airport Extreme (2011) *MacBook Air 11-inch (Late 2010)
Reply
post #562 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
The new iMac is not going to be last year's computer at $999, it's going to be next year's computer at $1299. I'll take that 1.6 or 1.8 GHz G5 and run, you guys can whine about BS expansion and graphics card speed, frames per second and photoshop mili-seconds, all while I'm using my computer and doing real work.

What about us that's both doing real work, unpleasantly on underperforming Apple hardware, and "whine about BS expansion and graphics card speed, frames per second and photoshop mili-seconds", at the same time?

Are we superior, or something else?

The "I'm doing real work, while you're just bitching cluelessly" kind of "argument" is a nice way of showing that you're running out of gas. Not to specifically kick you in the ass, Messiahtosh, but I'm just fucking tired of that way of bitching, which IMO is much worse than the actual bitching about specs and stuff is in the first place.
post #563 of 698
You guys seem to be the ones in need of the computer upgrade, not me.
post #564 of 698
How many you people who are complaining about lack of upgradeablity actually push the IMac to the limits? Not many I would think, if youre a professional, earning client fees from your endevours then get your hand in your pocket and buy a G5 desktop. The IMac is intended for consumers who want to play with music, DVD, toy around with photos or basic graphics and play the odd game.

Ignore the power, use the machine for what its intended, be creative. As the saying goes "A bad tradesman always blames his tools."
post #565 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by Razororg
How many you people who are complaining about lack of upgradeablity actually push the IMac to the limits? Not many I would think, if youre a professional, earning client fees from your endevours then get your hand in your pocket and buy a G5 desktop. The IMac is intended for consumers who want to play with music, DVD, toy around with photos or basic graphics and play the odd game.

Ignore the power, use the machine for what its intended, be creative. As the saying goes "A bad tradesman always blames his tools."

Man, you certainly know EXACTLY what I do with my computers eh?

No, I don't make $$ from my endeavours or I would consider a PMac. I am a hobbyist who is getting more and more into recording, programming, and the occasional game (usually Tetris or Diablo II).

I'm in the market for a new computer and maybe unlike some people, I know exactly what I want because I have an idea of how I'll be using my computers for the next 3-5 years. I need a G5 because if I want to stay up on Mac technology I'll probably need one. Otherwise I'll continue plugging away on my PowerBook.

Speaking of PowerBook, it's my current AIO computer. The computer I'd like to replace is my 5 year old PC desktop. I want to replace it with another desktop so I can add in an audio card so my friends and I can record our jams. If the new iMac doesn't have a PCI slot, then I have a choice of either spending hundreds more on a firewire solution, or hundreds more on a PowerMac, then more $$ for the actual PCI card. Either way I look at it, it's a lose-lose situation for me and my wallet.

If Apple can't put out an expandable desktop for consumers, then I won't be buying one, period. I don't understand why you think you know more about my computing needs then I do but whatever. You do what you think is best and I will do the same.
post #566 of 698
Have you people also considered the possibility that there could be a surprise introduction of a mini tower, along with the prosumerish iMac?
post #567 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by NittanyLionTosh
Have you people also considered the possibility that there could be a surprise introduction of a mini tower, along with the prosumerish iMac?

Yes, considered and rejected.

Not. Gonna. Happen.
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
post #568 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Yes, considered and rejected.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

What he said.
post #569 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
The new iMac is not going to be last year's computer at $999, it's going to be next year's computer at $1299. I'll take that 1.6 or 1.8 GHz G5 and run, you guys can whine about BS expansion and graphics card speed, frames per second and photoshop mili-seconds, all while I'm using my computer and doing real work.

Video editing will be a dream on a G5 with a 17'' high res LCD display.

I'm sorry but 1.6 Ghz G5 being Tomarrow's processor is an appologists line that will not help bring about sales. I guess you've been feed that line long enough that you believe it. I know that it makes you much happier in life to go through it with lowered expectations, but there are enough people that expect a bit more from our hard earned money. If Apple were mearly to bring back the price performance level that they had in the iMac back in 2000 then I'm sure you would hear a lot less bitÇ_ing, but that wont happen with a 1.6 Ghz G5 at $1299. Given the fact that the PM's are all duals one would expect that the bottom end iMac should be reasonabley priced with a 1.8 Ghz chip, and a 2.0 Ghz chip is reasonable for the high end. If Apple were being agressive they should be able to put in 2.5 Ghz chips in the high end, that is if IBM could make enough of them.
post #570 of 698
You do not know that for sure.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #571 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by NittanyLionTosh
Have you people also considered the possibility that there could be a surprise introduction of a mini tower, along with the prosumerish iMac?

Not with the constrained supplies of G5 chips from IBM. In fact, I would take this as a sign that the G5 PB's won't be intro'ed till mid next year at earliest. If Apple were smart then they would have FreeScale working very hard on a portable chip with "G5" performance levels and keep the 970's that IBM can supply in their desktops.
post #572 of 698
Would you honestly be able to tell the difference in the performance of a single processor 1.6 G5 and a 1.8 G5? I doubt it, but it depends on the application. Most likely, you wouldnt be able to tell the difference, it would be minimal.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #573 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Would you honestly be able to tell the difference in the performance of a single processor 1.6 G5 and a 1.8 G5? I doubt it, but it depends on the application. Most likely, you wouldnt be able to tell the difference, it would be minimal.

Don't forget, the FSB speed is tied to processor speed (50% of proc. speed to be exact). So processor speed has a larger meaning than just it processes instructions x% faster. It changes how fast data moves through the CPU<->buss<->RAM connects.

In your example, not only is there a 200MHz processor speed gain between 1.6 & 1.8GHz, there is a 100MHz buss gain between an 800 and 900MHz FSB.
post #574 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Yes, considered and rejected.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Ah, I see. So the spec PowerMac9,1 in the latest platform plugins from 10.3.5 mean what exactly? It is a pro machine (being an odd numbered spec) and it sure ain't gonna be a PowerMac. It is all right before everyone's eyes yet a lot of people seem to want to look away....
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #575 of 698
And don't forget, the fastest competitor's bus speed is 800 MHz. Apple will have that on their low end iMac. Pretty awesome.

I think everyone agrees that the only really weak point is the alloted RAM and the graphics card. Thankfully both are upgradeable. If you want a large LCD and a G5 for under 2,000, this is the only way to go. Literally.

But think about it like this....this is a Rev A machine, things will get cheaper, more refined and faster. Apple still does have some wiggle room, and enough time to iron out the kinks.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #576 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Would you honestly be able to tell the difference in the performance of a single processor 1.6 G5 and a 1.8 G5? I doubt it, but it depends on the application. Most likely, you wouldnt be able to tell the difference, it would be minimal.

Are you running out of arguments to back up the fact that 1.6 Ghz is a "Godsend" so the Mac platform, and that it is everything that the iMac needs? The fact is that it doesn't matter if I will ever use the power of a 1.8 Ghz processor what matters is that I am getting the best value that Apple can give me. I am the consumer after all, and I should demand as much as my dollar can get me. If I were buying a Corvette I wouldn't settle for a 200 hp engine or a top speed of 70 miles per hour. It doesnt mater that I will probably never "legaly" need the speed or the horse power, what matters is that I am paying for it so I want every last horse, and evey last mph that they will get me.
post #577 of 698
Buy a dual processor G5, it is very fast.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #578 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by @homenow
Are you running out of arguments to back up the fact that 1.6 Ghz is a "Godsend" so the Mac platform, and that it is everything that the iMac needs? The fact is that it doesn't matter if I will ever use the power of a 1.8 Ghz processor what matters is that I am getting the best value that Apple can give me. I am the consumer after all, and I should demand as much as my dollar can get me. If I were buying a Corvette I wouldn't settle for a 200 hp engine or a top speed of 70 miles per hour. It doesnt mater that I will probably never "legaly" need the speed or the horse power, what matters is that I am paying for it so I want every last horse, and evey last mph that they will get me.

Of course that is Chevrolet you are referring to, not say, Lotus (automobiles). If you want to sniffle that their low end model is only a four cylinder, that whine away. You are crying on deaf ears. Get a friggin Viper and all of its ten cylinders. Or a Saleen. An iMac is a budget box...kinda like a cheapo Dell.

Thing is, you are going to be satisfied with the performance. Hell, I am happy still with my 867MHz (not even a Gig! ) PowerBook. If I needed that performance, I would get a dual 2.5 PowerMac. I don't, and I need the portability. If you are looking for leading edge technology, the iMac is not it.
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #579 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Of course that is Chevrolet you are referring to, not say, Lotus (automobiles). If you want to sniffle that their low end model is only a four cylinder, that whine away. You are crying on deaf ears. Get a friggin Viper and all of its ten cylinders. Or a Saleen. An iMac is a budget box...kinda like a cheapo Dell.

Thing is, you are going to be satisfied with the performance. Hell, I am happy still with my 867MHz (not even a Gig! ) PowerBook. If I needed that performance, I would get a dual 2.5 PowerMac. I don't, and I need the portability. If you are looking for leading edge technology, the iMac is not it.

The Lotus 4 cylender was backed up with custom tuned, ported and polished engine with $20,000 worth of twin turbo chargers put on top, which has long since been replaced with an 8 cylinder engine. Point taken though, a better comparison would have been with a Camaro or Mustang.

Back to the subject. I find it interesting that when people want to say that the iMac is a good value they call it a boutique computer, but when they say the performance is good it is a budget computer. Which is it? Either way it doesn't make a difference. A single 1.6 Ghz processor is slow by today's standards in the computer world, that is with the exception of the Mac world. The Power Mac is a good deal becouse it has dual processors, if it was stuck with a single processor at 2.5 Ghz would still be a good deal?

My point is, and has been that the G4 iMac, and the rumored specs and price of the G5 successor fail to bring the value to the Mac platform that the original iMac did. If Apple were to bring that value back to the line then we would see 2.5 Ghz iMacs at the top end of the model lineup given today's prices. I won't bother with spouting the prices and specs again, they have been posted time and time again, and if you need to look at lowendmac's web site. The bottom line is that the PowerPC platform has failed to keep up with the rest of the industry since the introduction of the G4, which was ahead of or matched the Pentium when it was released, and though it is supposedly less expensive than Intel and AMD chips Apple has not been able to leverage that to their advantage to stay cost competative with their competition in the consumer market.

I do fully understand that it is not Apple's fault that IBM and Motorolla/Freescale have no been able to deliver on the promise of these chips. I think that they do need to use the leverage, threat, that the portability of OS X brings to their platform to try to get the two companies working together again so that we might see the type of development and delivery of marketable chips that we saw in the early days of the PowerPC platform, and if these companies cannot deliver the chips in a quantity and price that Apple needs to stay competative then it might be time for Apple to consider abandoning them for the industry standard.

Now, I'm not Apple bashing becouse I find it fun to do so. Quite the contrary, I dislike watching Apple stagnate like they have the past 3-4 years. I consider their software and hardware intergral to my profession, and a joy to work on. I also have one at home. I would honestly like to see Apple do better. I would also like to see Apple come out with a computer that makes me want to buy a new one over upgrading my 450 mhz Cube. Honestly, for the price and performance of this rumored computer I can't say that Apple has done that, and I think it is a sad state for Apple to be today, of course my bank account and credit limit are breathing a sigh of relief at the news.

I believe that Apple can and should do better. As many have pointed out thier hardware sales hav been stagnant over the last 3 years, and that is not good for a business, especially a publicly traded company.
post #580 of 698
Apple has done everything BUT stagnate over the past 3-4 years, christ man.
post #581 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by NittanyLionTosh
Apple has done everything BUT stagnate over the past 3-4 years, christ man.

How much has their hardware business gown over the last 3-4 years? How many more units have they shipped this quarter over the same quarter 3 years ago? They defiantly have not doubled that business, and I don't think that even have a 25% yearly growth in hardware sales. Is it 10% growth, or less? Yes they have come out with some good products and services, but it has not gone to significantly increase their core hardware business which relative to the growth in the personal computer market has been stagnate over the last 3-4 years.

I will admit this, Apple has seen a growth in portable sales over this time, but it is offset by a decline in desktop sales, it has not signifigantly increased the total number of units shiped year to year.
post #582 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by @homenow
Back to the subject. I find it interesting that when people want to say that the iMac is a good value they call it a boutique computer, but when they say the performance is good it is a budget computer. Which is it? Either way it doesn't make a difference. A single 1.6 Ghz processor is slow by today's standards in the computer world, that is with the exception of the Mac world. The Power Mac is a good deal becouse it has dual processors, if it was stuck with a single processor at 2.5 Ghz would still be a good deal?

While I agree that the iMac was released at or near PowerMac speeds, the PM was quickly (within 6 months) upgraded to the G4 and the spread has stayed until this day. That was Jobs plan. To separate the two lines.

I also agree that for the price, the iMac is not a very good deal. No one, including Apple who recently were quoted acknowledging the fact, is denying that.

But why not wait until we see the released product before bashing it. TS specs are rumored. And, I think, from a bad source.

In any event, the fact remains, and will for the forseeable future, that the iMac will lag behind the PowerMac. Hopefully, they will adjust the price or give the end user the option of adding his/her own LCD panel, instead of inflating the price of the "computer for the masses" by releasing it as an AIO. I feel that is what they are going to do, however, so they better start doing some price adjusting. And quick!
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #583 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by Rhumgod
While I agree that the iMac was released at or near PowerMac speeds, the PM was quickly (within 6 months) upgraded to the G4 and the spread has stayed until this day. That was Jobs plan. To separate the two lines....

...In any event, the fact remains, and will for the forseeable future, that the iMac will lag behind the PowerMac. Hopefully, they will adjust the price or give the end user the option of adding his/her own LCD panel, instead of inflating the price of the "computer for the masses" by releasing it as an AIO. I feel that is what they are going to do, however, so they better start doing some price adjusting. And quick!

Yes, but even using two processor lines, the speeds were comperable. I would not have a problem if the Apple were shipping an iMac G4 if the speeds were comperable to the G5's, as they were back in the original iMac G3's day. That would mean a 2.5 Ghz G4 processor, which everyone knows does not exist. Beyond that the all dual line-up of the PowerMac should allow for a closer speed range between the iMac and the PowerMac, especially given the price of the iMac.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rhumgod
But why not wait until we see the released product before bashing it. TS specs are rumored. And, I think, from a bad source.

This is a future hardware thread specifically to discuss the specs released by the TS article, so it is appropriate for me to voice my opinion on it here isn't it? There are definatly enough people voicing their praise of the anemic specs.
post #584 of 698
1. What i meant by "Apple has not stagnated' is that they have been innovating.

2. Think Secret is probably wrong on these specs, why? It was pretty early for them to come out of nowhere with those claims.

3. The alleged specs should not be called anemic, look at what higher ed asks for a college student to have as a minimum. Penn State says the bare minimum Mac should have 128 MB RAM, a 350 MHz G3 processor or above, a 10 GB HD, and Mac OS X.

4. We do not know what other hardware introductions Apple may roll out.

There are tons of unanswered questions still. I think we need to hold off on flaming Apple, at least until we get concrete evidence about what this thing really is going to be....which probably won'y happen until it is actually released.
post #585 of 698
People still stuck in spec whore'dom?

RDF plain and simple. MOST of the Mac users I know don't have Macs as fast as a single 1.6Ghz G5 yet they still manage to survive. Some of you want a shotgun to kill a gnat. Speed of the computing only goes so far based on hardware alone ...we must take the OS into account as it will determine the realword speed differences.

Again you will soon see that if Apple hits $1299 with a 17" LCD these iMacs a hot seller they will be. Saying otherwise is science fiction. The avg computer user is not as savvy as many on these boards. 1.6Ghz is fast to them and the OS has much more than what they're used to featurewise. I see only chip yields from keeping this iMac off the best seller list.

If you think you can be more productive with a PC running at 3Ghz then by all means prove us wrong. However, I doubt many of us will be dining on crow anytime soon.

Apple's sales are stagnant and that's a plus because the sales were on the decline years ago before the Jobsian Resurrection. Apple has more tricks up their sleeves and more aquisitions to make. This belly aching over the iMac specs is foolhardy and will be long forgotten soon enough.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #586 of 698
Interesting post hmurch!

I believe too that Apple is far too criticized, and without cause. Apple's sales are only increasing. It's great to see the Mac outselling the iPod, even if it is by about 15,000 units...it just says something. People are willing to pay $300 or $400 for an iPod but also $850 to $3000 on a Mac. That's great news because it shows that the Mac still has tremendous value.

It depends on what your priorities are. If you are a computer user that has embraced the digital lifestyle, then the Mac is for you. If you love being productive and making money using your computer, then the Mac is for you. If you make music, movies, are in publishing, or make web content, the Mac is for you.

If you like games and like fighting viruses, Microsoft can hook you up.
post #587 of 698
And specs are one thing... just numbers. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the megahertz in my powerbook or the amount of ram I have. I'm just marveled everyday because my mac just works, and it's because of the impressive OS, not the metal and silicon inside.
post #588 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by NittanyLionTosh

3. The alleged specs should not be called anemic, look at what higher ed asks for a college student to have as a minimum. Penn State says the bare minimum Mac should have 128 MB RAM, a 350 MHz G3 processor or above, a 10 GB HD, and Mac OS X.

Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
People still stuck in spec whore'dom?

RDF plain and simple. MOST of the Mac users I know don't have Macs as fast as a single 1.6Ghz G5 yet they still manage to survive. Some of you want a shotgun to kill a gnat. Speed of the computing only goes so far based on hardware alone ...we must take the OS into account as it will determine the realword speed differences.

If all you want do is send e-mail and serf the web a 1.6GHz G5 is fast enough (so is a 600MHz G3 -- if that is all you do, don't bother upgrading to a new computer).

If you want to use iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, GarageBand, Photoshope Elements, Logic Express, Final Cut Express or a modern game, a 1.6 GHz is vary slow.

What some people seem to forget when talking about computers is that no currently available system is fast enough to do much more than basic word processing in real time. Once you start rendering transitions in video, or playing around with filters on that 6 Megapixel photo you took of your grand kids, you have to wait, and wait... Things are a lot better now then they were a few years ago, but until personal computers can preform all of the desired tasks in real time, they are not as fast as the average consumer wants them to be.

Now a 1.6GHz G5 is extremely anemic when compared to a 2.4 GHz Athlon 64 or 3.4Ghz HT P4. Which is what you find in the iMacs price range. Of course what's really galling is that Apple has access to chips that are over 50% faster, but they are refusing to offer them in a iMac (or other single processor machine). Let's not forget that they are paring the slow processor with a terrible video card.

To see just how bad the 5200FX performs, here is a link to BareFeats comparing that card to a few others in a Dual 2GHz G5.

I don't expect Apple to make cheap computers, and I am willing to pay more for a Mac than I would for a PC of equivalent power. Even if they had to rase the price a little, the single processor Macs should have the same speed, or faster, chips as the dual power Macs. That is how all of the other computer companies do it.

If the rumored specs are correct, this is a very disappointing update, and I will not be getting one, nor will I recommend it to others.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
post #589 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by Res

something is wrong with you:

-your unhappy?
-your ying and yang are not balanced?
-your chakras are not in line?
-you're badly influenced by the dark side of the force?
-your karma stinks?
-you're a borg?
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #590 of 698
Res you have to remember Apple could shovel crap into the next imac and the zealots would be jumping up and down how great it is. Fx5200 is crap and a 1.6 G5 from last year is still a slow cpu from last year. At least apple got the slow ,ever stagnating,behind all other cpu's G4 out of the machine so its a good half step foward. Doom3 might be able to run on this machine at 640 x 480 on low if and when it ever comes out for Mac.\
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #591 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by gar
something is wrong with you:

-your unhappy?
-your ying and yang are not balanced?
-your chakras are not in line?
-you're badly influenced by the dark side of the force?
-your karma stinks?
-you're a borg?

If you disagree with Res' post that's one thing, but why resort to personal attacks? I don't get some of you people. This is a discussion of the rumored specs for the next iMac, not a discussion on how some forumite must be messed in the head if his/her opinion doesn't mesh with yours.

post #592 of 698
Quote:
Doom3 might be able to run on this machine at 640 x 480 on low if and when it ever comes out for Mac

30-60 fps with effects off. If you're lucky.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #593 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
People still stuck in spec whore'dom?

I think most people are concerned about value for the money, this is where Apple has failed miserably in the past. This failure is reflected in sales.
Quote:

RDF plain and simple. MOST of the Mac users I know don't have Macs as fast as a single 1.6Ghz G5 yet they still manage to survive. Some of you want a shotgun to kill a gnat. Speed of the computing only goes so far based on hardware alone ...we must take the OS into account as it will determine the realword speed differences.

One can manage to survive on bread and water, but that is certain death in the long run. The problem is that the effects of a bread and water diet sneaks up on you and suddenly you are struggling to remain functional and recover. Sure there are many people that survive with old hardware for a very long time, there are also those that discover all of a sudden that they are running software that is 4 or 5 versions old and they don't have the option of upgrading due to hardware constraints.

As far as speed goes the speed of the OS and the speed of the hardware are two different things. Fast hardware can go a long way to making a OS more functional. It is extremely silly to deny this. It doesn't matter if we are talking the same versions of OS/X or an entirely different platform -- fast hardware does make a difference. If you are running the same OS and faster performance is required, you have no other option but to address hardware issues.

The problem in the past and probally with the iMac3, is that Apple simply does not attempt to configure their hardware to support their OS in a manner similar to other platforms. One issue is the slow processors Apple uses which they have little control over. The other is the use of oudated technology on new platforms. Here we are talking about limited memory and poor or barely functional video cards. This hardware supports the OS, without it the OS can not function -- good fast hardware does impact usability of the OS.
Quote:

Again you will soon see that if Apple hits $1299 with a 17" LCD these iMacs a hot seller they will be. Saying otherwise is science fiction. The avg computer user is not as savvy as many on these boards. 1.6Ghz is fast to them and the OS has much more than what they're used to featurewise. I see only chip yields from keeping this iMac off the best seller list.

Apple will have a hot seller if they address a number of issues beyond the price point. If they don't it will sell like the iMac2, that is to people with more money than brains.

As to the average computer user they are influenced by marketing to an extent but they are also aware of the performance of other hardware that can be had. A 1.6GHz G5 is not fast relative to an AMD64 implementation. comparable maybe but fast is not in the cards.
Quote:
If you think you can be more productive with a PC running at 3Ghz then by all means prove us wrong. However, I doubt many of us will be dining on crow anytime soon.

If it was a question of productivity Apple would be selling a lot more hardware to the corporate world. It is prety plain and simple. Besides a 3GHz PC running Linux or other UNIX platform is an entirely different beast.
Quote:

Apple's sales are stagnant and that's a plus because the sales were on the decline years ago before the Jobsian Resurrection.

First off Apples sales with respect the iMac are not stagnant at all, the recently went through a massive decline in sales. Are we out of touch here or what. Stagnant sales are a sure sign of trouble for any company, to try to paint this as a positive issue is foolish. Frankly the rest of Apples Mac hardware isn't doing all that great either.
Quote:
Apple has more tricks up their sleeves and more aquisitions to make. This belly aching over the iMac specs is foolhardy and will be long forgotten soon enough.

Well I can agree that it is foolhardy to get to wound up in hardware that has not been delivered yet. On the other hand there is much in the way of historical evidence about how Apple behaves in the consumer place. Much of this behaviour has lead to their lack of visibility in that market place.

One must also remember that by the time this iMac3 hardware makes it to market, a whole new generation of PC hardware will hit the market place. The new PC hardware is liekly to support PCI-Express and the latest video cards operating on that bus. They are likely to have 4 times the installed memory and possibly dual core chips. If not dual core they are very likely to be running AMD's 64 bit extensions and at a very fast clip.

What we may very well see is a new iMac that is so foar behind what is available in the PC market place that Apple may have a total flop on their hands. MacOS/X is nice but it is not nice enough to sell Apples hardware failures.

Dave
post #594 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
If you disagree with Res' post that's one thing, but why resort to personal attacks? I don't get some of you people. This is a discussion of the rumored specs for the next iMac, not a discussion on how some forumite must be messed in the head if his/her opinion doesn't mesh with yours.


The Apple appologists arguments are getting stale, that's the problem. Good points have been made on both sides, with the best being that Apple probably can't deliver the computers with the performance and value that the original iMac had, their chip suppliers can't produce them or can't produce them at a quantity that Apple needs, so Apple has resorted to cosmetic upgrades that increase the price of the system at a cost of further decreasing the value to the consumer.
post #595 of 698
Quote:
If you want to use iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, GarageBand, Photoshope Elements, Logic Express, Final Cut Express or a modern game, a 1.6 GHz is vary slow.

I disagree... for casual use, my 867MHz Powerbook is adequate for most (if not all-- I've no experience with GarageBand & Logic Express) of those tasks. I think a 1.6 will do just fine for any of these consumer applications.

[...]

Quote:
Res you have to remember Apple could shovel crap into the next imac and the zealots would be jumping up and down how great it is. Fx5200 is crap and a 1.6 G5 from last year is still a slow cpu from last year. At least apple got the slow ,ever stagnating,behind all other cpu's G4 out of the machine so its a good half step foward. Doom3 might be able to run on this machine at 640 x 480 on low if and when it ever comes out for Mac.

It's not zealots that have driven up the percentage of Mac purchases at Colleges across the country, and it's not a desire to play Doom3, either. Believe it or not, there are other reasons people buy computers. If Apple has overcome the major shortcomings of the iMac2 (expensive & difficult to build, etc.), and if they have a healthy spec bump in 6-8 months time, I'd imagine they'll sell upwards of 1.5 million of them in the coming year-- perhaps even two million. Saddly, it'd be without gamers (other than casual gamers), but that's a far cry from the (probably) < 250k the iMac2 sold last year... The iMac, even with the anemic specs TS has, will probably be a huge hit.
post #596 of 698
Quote:
What some people seem to forget when talking about computers is that no currently available system is fast enough to do much more than basic word processing in real time. Once you start rendering transitions in video, or playing around with filters on that 6 Megapixel photo you took of your grand kids, you have to wait, and wait... Things are a lot better now then they were a few years ago, but until personal computers can preform all of the desired tasks in real time, they are not as fast as the average consumer wants them to be.

Now a 1.6GHz G5 is extremely anemic when compared to a 2.4 GHz Athlon 64 or 3.4Ghz HT P4. Which is what you find in the iMacs price range. Of course what's really galling is that Apple has access to chips that are over 50% faster, but they are refusing to offer them in a iMac (or other single processor machine). Let's not forget that they are paring the slow processor with a terrible video card.

To see just how bad the 5200FX performs, here is a link to BareFeats comparing that card to a few others in a Dual 2GHz G5.

I don't expect Apple to make cheap computers, and I am willing to pay more for a Mac than I would for a PC of equivalent power. Even if they had to rase the price a little, the single processor Macs should have the same speed, or faster, chips as the dual power Macs. That is how all of the other computer companies do it.

If the rumored specs are correct, this is a very disappointing update, and I will not be getting one, nor will I recommend it to others.

That's a fair post.

Apple doesn't seem to get it.

Yeesh. Offer single cpu G5 towers with a subsequent drop in price. In the 895-£1295 range.

I'd happily pay £1295 for a 2.5 gig G5 and BTO option for a 6800. I'd be happy at that.

The perfect antidote to all this iMac G5 pain is to offer non-AIO customers a range of single cpu G5 towers for a price bracket less than the dual range. Keep the dual as workstation. Single G5 towers for enthusiasts and gamers.

Apple are too rigid with what they've got then scratch their heads about sales blaming everything but the real reason. Price. Powermacs too expensive...iMacs too aenemic. Hello...something inbetween. Doesn't need to be a cube. They've done the r&d on the tower. Give us more tower product.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #597 of 698
Why is it that Apple decided the new PowerMacs do not need dual optical drives? Just about every PC and previous PowerMacs offered the option for dual Optical drives. I realize you can buy an external drive to be the 2nd, but never understood the reasoning for only one optical drive in such a high end computer. I like Macs a lot - especially the laptop line - but always wondered about this move. I find it hard to believe the user community of the PowerMacs does not have a need for a second built in Optical drive... Any ideas?

Curious...
post #598 of 698
Quote:
Why is it that Apple decided the new PowerMacs do not need dual optical drives? Just about every PC and previous PowerMacs offered the option for dual Optical drives. I realize you can buy an external drive to be the 2nd, but never understood the reasoning for only one optical drive in such a high end computer. I like Macs a lot - especially the laptop line - but always wondered about this move. I find it hard to believe the user community of the PowerMacs does not have a need for a second built in Optical drive... Any ideas?


Why is it that Apple offered iMacs with DVD read only drives when PCs were shipping with CD R/W?

It's Apple. That's the only answer I can give you. They were wrong then. They're wrong now.

Apple are great. But their greatness is flawed.

No 17 inch Alu display. No LCD display for less than £500 quid. Crap graphics in Towers and forthcoming iMacs. And a laptop/consumer line that hasn't transitioned to G5 over a year later. No Tower under £1400. No-non AIO under £1400. No BTO option on consumer machines worth nothing. OBSCENE mark-ups on ram. Dull displays on laptops when Sony laptops are shipping with bright displays. Crap CRT 17 inch in eMac. Stingy ram in all machines. Oh...and no dual optical in the 'worlds fastest computer'.

Apple's good things outweight their bad by a large margin but you'd have to thing the sun shines out their arse to believe that any of the above is acceptable in the 21st century.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #599 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
[snippity-snip] Dull displays on laptops when Sony laptops are shipping with bright displays.[snippity-snip]Lemon Bon Bon

I take issue with this remark. My PowerBook screen is brighter than any laptop I've been able to put it up against. For the most part, these have been Dell, Gateway or Compaq laptops.

While the other laptops may have had a higher resolution, they certainly weren't brighter. I normally run my screen at 1/2 brightness because anything higher is too bright.
post #600 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by Gamblor
I disagree... for casual use, my 867MHz Powerbook is adequate for most (if not all-- I've no experience with GarageBand & Logic Express) of those tasks. I think a 1.6 will do just fine for any of these consumer applications.

I have a 1.25GHz Powerbook and while using Final Cut Express is enjoyable, primarily due to the ease of use, it does not provide the speed I desire. I haven't upgraded to the latest version, so I can't say how real time rendering would perform, but in order to see most of my edits, I must render sections in the timeline and wait to see if I like the change. Waiting is a pain in the butt, if I step through the edits, instead of rendering first, the play is choppy and disjointed at best, skipping a lot of frames.

Yes, even as a hobby, I want as much speed as possible for my money.

What amazes me, is Apple's absolute resistance to providing a consumer desktop that is not an AIO. It ain't that hard of a concept, if I were trying to increase market share, as Apple has stated they wish to do, I certaintly wouldn't be artificially narrowing my target market by only supplying a consumer AIO option.

Opps, to make sense, the argument I use above kind of needs the addition, "the biggest reason I am not enamored with the iMac is the cost of the LCD screen, love it, won't pay for it. Give me more power, let me select the screen at a time I choose and I'll be happy.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › TS reports on new imac specs