I don't have much to say that hasn't been said already, but I'll try anyway.
That thing is a abomination, plain and simple, and Junkyard really isn't arguing his case or point very well at all. If I recall, it's just that Apple needs to boost performance on their consumer-level machines, so that other consumer machines don't make them look like they're stuck with years-old technology and speeds (especially if they're a lumped-together cheapass piece of 'styled' rubbish like this one). They must, to appeal to uninformed/"stupid" consumers, at least?the lowest common denominator, or at least a lower common denominator than they currently do?we all know Apple must, in order to be wildly successful in society today.
I agree and disagree with JYD's position here. Where I disagree with him is in how he compared the machine to the iMac. In terms of utility, this thing isn't even close. The $1100 is a celery cpu, which wouldn't beat the iMac. The $1300 might be on par with the $1399 iMac, perhaps edging it out a little. So really, it is only $100 difference for agruably similar performance.
I do agree that this thing has a presents a challenge for some of Apple's sales. Many new buyers walk into a CompUSA and decide on a purchase with these qualifications: 1-price, 2-features they recoqnise, 3-names they know, and 4-features which are seemingly comparable. Now one point 1, this product might beat iMac a little. Point 2, all the great features of the iMac like Superdrive, iApps digital display are meaningless to most new buyers to whom the iMac is targeted. They are just unfamiliar techno-jargon. Features like mhz, WindowsXP, DVD, FM radio are phrases that the average newbie might recoqnise and see that are missing from the iMac when compared to the Integra2. Point 3, they may know Apple's name, but they do know MS Windows and Intel. Point 4-when comparing features the recoqnise but don't really understand, the Integra2 *seems* to look better (2.0ghz vs 1ghz), or the same (15" integrated LCD).
While this computer is no iMac killer, it does, I think, have the ability to take some newbie that might otherwise pop for the iMac, especially in a store that might have them both side by side, with ignorant sales staff.
My point is NOT that this computer is better than an iMac. I don't believe it is.
What I'm trying to illustrate with this is that to average, computer illiterate consumers, this computer will SEEM to be better than an iMac. Wintel users will THINK it is better than an iMac.
OS X, iMovie, and Superdrive don't mean ANYTHING to most computer users, even literate ones.
So please don't attack me for saying that this computer is better than the iMac...of course it isn't. The problem is that Apple's iMac looks worse than this computer ON PAPER, and only Mac users will understand why the Mac is better in reality.
The users Apple needs to convince aren't going to understand why they should buy an iMac over this piece of sh!t. They don't get "it".
What I'm saying is that Apple needs to quit using 3 year old technology in their computers, so that they at least seem comparable ON PAPER. Then the consumers will begin to look at other things that Apple offers. But as long as Macs look like crap on paper, Apple is facing an uphill battle.
How do these people sleep at night! They are trying to be Apple yet saying lies about how they are better than apple. If they were better they would not be coppying. A few examples from there site...
The "xBook"
Bad attempt at Aqua
I will kill who ever wrought this.
"Every once in a while, we come across a product that can truly change the landscape in the PC market place. The Northgate Integra? is that product today, and it crosses the boundaries from the PC industry to home entertainment, and a wide range of digital multimedia uses. We are excited to be part of the total solution offering, by delivering Microsoft XP with each Northgate Integra?, and enabling users to experience the most user friendly interface"
[QB]Interesting how a Wintel maker can offer the same features as Apple's iMac for $1100. Apple says it's the LCD prices....I say it's the margins Apple needs.
Here's the iMac Killa, and it packs more processing power than any iMac will even a year from now.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
First off I would like to say that I do appreciate JYD's posts. Some of you say he's pessimistic, but my interpretation is that he is attempting to show a balanced view, besides it takes a brave soul to march into a Mac-centric message board and post anything titled "wintel's new imac killa!"
With regard to the Northgate box, I recall when E-Machines attempted something similiar with a 1998 vintage iMac rip-off. As I recall they blew it and copied the iMac design a little too closely and Apple sued them. If I am remembering the incident correctly Daewoo the parent company of E-Machines had to pull the system from the market.
I did see one of these E-Machine "iMac-alikes" and I couldn't help but notice the cheap plastics, crappy display and overall unpleasentness about it. This Northgate box gives a similar impression.
Cheap, poorly designed, poorly engineered parts in a box that bears more resemblence to a cheap TV than a "cool" computer.
Looks to me like Northgate is trying to pump up the marketing on this thing and call it a competitor to an Apple kit and offer no substancial user value to the package.
Yeah the specs look nice on paper, perhaps this box in some tasks is faster than an iMac, but it lacks elegance and clearly this thing is aimed at people looking to save money, not get a great machine.
What I'm trying to illustrate with this is that to average, computer illiterate consumers, this computer will SEEM to be better than an iMac.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Mostly true, I think, especially if these computer illiterate consumers don't want to spend much for a computer. That's life, some more victims of well organized marketing these hard times.
I think JYD is right as well in that the UNinformed consumer isnt interested in stuff like superdrives, they dont even know what they are. But I would like to ask JYD this if you read it- Do you think Apple should go after dumbass Joe Sixpack with a machine like this or ignore that market and go after the more informed consumer who have a DVcam or Digital Camera or uses Photoshop with better faster iMac at similar prices to now? I'm sure Apple have though about it plenty and lets all remember the computer retail industry is in a really slump and no-ones immune. Whadda reckon?
are we sure this is a real company? this glaring error was found on the xbook info page:
"The X-Box is fully loaded, but you can also custom configure it with the maximum CPU performance offered (up to AMD XP 2200), memory, or mass storage."
[quote]The Californian company said its new Integra, "crosses the boundaries between the PC industry to home entertainment and a wide range of digital multimedia uses." They reckon it'll knock nicely-coloured spots off Apple's i- and eMacs.<hr></blockquote>
Not sure if I understand the sentence right (maybe not?), but "nicely-coloured spots off Apple's i' and eMacs"?
eMac never had any "colored spots" to knock off. The LCD iMac never did either. Hell, the traditional iMac itself is only available in Snow.
I think lots of journalists and non-Mac people ONLY remember the lime/strawberry period and STILL think that's all it is, or that was the sole claim to fame for the iStuff.
Again, maybe I misunderstand the sentence. Maybe that phrase "knocking nicely colored spots off..." means something else entirely. I'm willing to concede that.
However, if it DOESN'T and the writer is too lazy to visit Apple's website to notice the distinct lack of color on ANYTHING, then he is indeed a dipstick. Lazy and uninformed, at best.
JD is right: For JA this computer will have the same features as an iMac at a lower price and unless Apple make it attractive for him they loose a sale to this "beauty".
And about software/hardware: If it wasn´t for the software I would have been outta here. DOn´t get me wrong. There are no computers for me but Powerbooks but Apple IS a software company that sells hardware. This past MWNY was one of the greatest Apple moments for me as it looks like it will give my aging Pismo its fourth life (the purchase, the iApp floodwave, X and now Jaguar).
People may bitch about the lack of speed etc. but if they really stayed on for other reasons than the software I would say they had serious problems.
If JD is getting a bad rep here for stating the obvious I think people have serious problems. I don´t buy the "Apple is doomed" stuff but they have a serious problem they have to adress somehow if they don´t want to end up with only the die-hards left. AFAIK Apple have lost marked share since The Second Coming. AYes they are more profitable than the rest of the buisness and before the return of Him but if you want your computer company to survive on the long run you have to have larger markedshare to start a positive feedback mechanism.
[edit]Oh yes BTW: I used old Basic syntax because the ritual blabber is as elegant as it[/edit]
Do you all have such a heinously low opinion of the public to think that a mere number ending in "Ghz" would sway a consumer from the iMac to that POS? Forget all the reflexive defensiveness a lá "Of course I know the iMac is a better machine, but Joe Bumblefück, what does he know?" You do not have to be an experienced Mac user, have a computer science or design degree, or be an interior decorator to recognize a superior product when you see one.
"People won't know what a Superdrive is." I laugh my ass off. I can just see the conversation in my head:
CompUSA Apple rep:Now, this model iMac comes with our Superdrive--
Frightened WinTel drone:(Clamping hands over ears) Cut it out! Ah cain't follow all yer fancy tech talk! You think Ah'm some kinda engineer?! That's it, come on, Brandeen -- we're gettin' a Dell!
This whole thread presupposes that a customer who might otherwise purchase the iMac will choose this PC instead because its specs are better. (Actually pretty much the only spec that's better is the clock speed, but leave that aside.) This in turn presupposes that this hypothetical customer is at least, y'know, looking at the iMac. And that, in turn, presupposes that this hypothetical consumer is so rock-stupid they will utterly fail to find any redeeming quality in the iMac once they realize the processor is slower.
I'm sorry to disappoint you: your fellow human beings may anger and frustrate you now and then, but they're not that stupid. They know -- because they can read -- that the iMac has a pivoting screen that adjusts to their comfort more easily than anything else out there. By reading the spec sheet and following the string of words after "Superdrive," they can deduce that this inscrutable device enables them to do something with CDs and DVDs. By carefully parsing the word "iMovie," they may conclude that this software allows them to in some way create or edit, y'know, movies.
Really, people. Am I talking out of my ass here? Am I just being way too optimistic about my fellow human beings?
When the iMac first came out and started to ship, I read the reactions from the first buyers at places like Amazon and CNet. A lot of them were PC users. Not sysadmins, hardware dorks, or Unix developers: they were average consumers who wanted a little more out of a computer than what they were getting, and who by and large were thrilled with their decisions. One of the most frequent comments: "At last, I have a reason to get a Mac." The iMacs were just as slow than as they are today; it didn't matter to these buyers. There were plenty of PCs with flat-panel monitors, all faster than the iMac; it didn't matter. They felt a superior user experience was worth a tradeoff in speed.
This whole issue is a chimera, a paper tiger, a non-starter. The same trembling and outrage was in the air when eMachines made their iMac knockoff; those systems sank without trace, and so will this one, because anyone with the curiosity and taste to be interested in the iMac in the first place will know a derivative piece of crap when they see one.
What this thread is really about is the same thing that all the others are about: frustration with Apple's slow processors. All well and good; there's a lot to be frustrated about. But the frustration is mutating into paranoia. Suddenly there's a threat around every corner, so that now even a knockoff PC made by a company no one ever heard of is going to be stealing pennies out of Apple's pocket. Apple is in enough of a bind with its processors without this deranged fixation on everything the WinTel world does.
And for those of you ready to call me an apologist ... well, fück it, call me an apologist. If the alternative is this waking fever dream so many of you seem determined to inhabit, apologetics start to look not half-bad.
It's really not that horrible of a system, closest to an iMac you'll get for being a PC user. Don't like XP? Reformat, go install 2K. I see this being a nice computer that I could have in the kitchen (though I wouldn't be able to afford it JUST for a room, secondary computer).
Industrial design wise, you all know that if Apple came out with something like this instead of the current design, you'd be goo goo and ga ga for it. Not once have I seen a clone product EVER be ackknowledged as a decent design despite the fact that it looks nearly the same (not in this case as the current iMac looks like a lamp, this one just looks like a fat LCD panel) while offering as good if not better performance.
As for the fact that it's using DDR, it's true that RDRAM will offer a smaller boost compared to it. However, it is not as much as a post here (don't want to bother a direct quote) claims.
This review is on the SiS648 chipset, the 650 (which the Integra is based on) is basically the 645 with integrated graphics so please refer to the 645. You'll see that in both tests, the i850E + RDRAM platform will hold a 3% advantage. Sure in 3DS Max, the gap will be a bit wider, but overall, it is not a huge difference whatsoever. Hardly noticeable.
I am at no means a fan of any integrated chipset (except for nForce), but you really need to give the SiS 650 more credit.
The first graph is from tech-report, they did a review on the Shuttle SS50 (which sucked, no AGP > not a good LAN rig to begin with, the new SS51 on the otherhand is pretty nice), uses the SiS 650 chipset. Now, although it's a P4 2.4, a 1.8 will perform just the same. I really like the tech-report's reviews along with Anand's, very informative, clear, etc. The second graph is from barefeats.com, these reviews on the otherhand I don't like. I'm still fused about an older article they did comparing the G4/500 with Voodoo 5 to a 1Ghz P3 with TNT2, saying how the G4 was the ultimate gaming machine because of the G4 architecture. Utter bullshit.
If you adjust setttings down to normal on both machines, Q3A is going to be playable on BOTH machines at 45fps+.
In this situation:
iMac: Faster graphics by a significant margin.
Integra: More games by a significant margin.
Neither machines are gaming machines simply put.
Everything else spec wise is about the same except for a few lacking features on the PC behalf, as Eugene pointed out, the Integra only has 1 Firewire. The LCD is also analog on the Integra. DVD-ROM/CD-RW wise, I don't think I would ever get a CD-RW unless I had another CD drive so I could copy stuff. External firewire or USB CD-ROM's are hella expensive. Tower wins in this case.
So in conclusion, this isn't an "iMac killa", it's not even targeted at mac users if you haven't figured it out already.
I hate integrated, I always will, I will never buy any machine like this of the sort nor will I ever purchase an iMac.
I find it amusing how everyone gets in a fuss whenever someone posts a thread like this, GET THE **** OVER IT. There are always going to be more options on the PC side, if you're not looking for a Windows experience then by all means, ignore this. It shouldn't be that hard. The same applies for stupid trolls of any sort. I'm personally typing this post on my PC (1.35tbird, 512mb ddr, etc) that i built last year, it's fast, it's cheap, it works for me. Everyone entitled to their own preferences. (and yes I know, I'm a hypocrite. )
(BTW, if I stated anything that's already been said, my apologies, I briefly skimmed at what was posted and didn't want to read every post word for word)
It's really not that horrible of a system, closest to an iMac you'll get for being a PC user. Don't like XP? Reformat, go install 2K.<hr></blockquote>
First, you can't officially buy a Windows 2000 Upgrade for XP, so instead of the $219 MSRP, that's $319 MSRP. What a deal! Don't like XP Home? XP Pro is only $99 or $199 more depending on whether you go retail or get it OEM installed...an option I didn't see because their store page was busted at the time.
[quote]Industrial design wise, you all know that if Apple came out with something like this instead of the current design, you'd be goo goo and ga ga for it.<hr></blockquote>
Most certainly not. Apple did come up with designs like these ages ago. So did Gateway and IBM and a slew of other all-in-one makers. Apple's iMac is different, from the base to the arm, to the halo around the LCD.
[quote]Not once have I seen a clone product EVER be ackknowledged as a decent design despite the fact that it looks nearly the same (not in this case as the current iMac looks like a lamp, this one just looks like a fat LCD panel) while offering as good if not better performance.<hr></blockquote>
JYD, you have a point with Power Macs. If it was time for me to get a new computer for video, graphics, whatever high-end, and I had to choose now, it would not be a Mac.
However, this is the iMac. A thermo-controlled fan, crisp large adjustable LCD, beauty, Mac OS X, a decent graphics chip and hard drive space are more important for me than a (icky) 1.8GHz Celeron.
The CPU may have high clock cycles, but it is a cache-deprived willamette with SiS graphics. The iMac might even perform as good when Mac OS X Jaguar arrives, and is better now for games/multimedia.
In fact, the only thing it has over the iMac is the inclusion of 5.1 sound as an option.
Comments
That thing is a abomination, plain and simple, and Junkyard really isn't arguing his case or point very well at all. If I recall, it's just that Apple needs to boost performance on their consumer-level machines, so that other consumer machines don't make them look like they're stuck with years-old technology and speeds (especially if they're a lumped-together cheapass piece of 'styled' rubbish like this one). They must, to appeal to uninformed/"stupid" consumers, at least?the lowest common denominator, or at least a lower common denominator than they currently do?we all know Apple must, in order to be wildly successful in society today.
I do agree that this thing has a presents a challenge for some of Apple's sales. Many new buyers walk into a CompUSA and decide on a purchase with these qualifications: 1-price, 2-features they recoqnise, 3-names they know, and 4-features which are seemingly comparable. Now one point 1, this product might beat iMac a little. Point 2, all the great features of the iMac like Superdrive, iApps digital display are meaningless to most new buyers to whom the iMac is targeted. They are just unfamiliar techno-jargon. Features like mhz, WindowsXP, DVD, FM radio are phrases that the average newbie might recoqnise and see that are missing from the iMac when compared to the Integra2. Point 3, they may know Apple's name, but they do know MS Windows and Intel. Point 4-when comparing features the recoqnise but don't really understand, the Integra2 *seems* to look better (2.0ghz vs 1ghz), or the same (15" integrated LCD).
While this computer is no iMac killer, it does, I think, have the ability to take some newbie that might otherwise pop for the iMac, especially in a store that might have them both side by side, with ignorant sales staff.
[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
Anyone want an Athlon 1700 XP machine? Cause I got one I'm getting rid of.....
ting5, iBook whore
My point is NOT that this computer is better than an iMac. I don't believe it is.
What I'm trying to illustrate with this is that to average, computer illiterate consumers, this computer will SEEM to be better than an iMac. Wintel users will THINK it is better than an iMac.
OS X, iMovie, and Superdrive don't mean ANYTHING to most computer users, even literate ones.
So please don't attack me for saying that this computer is better than the iMac...of course it isn't. The problem is that Apple's iMac looks worse than this computer ON PAPER, and only Mac users will understand why the Mac is better in reality.
The users Apple needs to convince aren't going to understand why they should buy an iMac over this piece of sh!t. They don't get "it".
What I'm saying is that Apple needs to quit using 3 year old technology in their computers, so that they at least seem comparable ON PAPER. Then the consumers will begin to look at other things that Apple offers. But as long as Macs look like crap on paper, Apple is facing an uphill battle.
The "xBook"
Bad attempt at Aqua
I will kill who ever wrought this.
"Every once in a while, we come across a product that can truly change the landscape in the PC market place. The Northgate Integra? is that product today, and it crosses the boundaries from the PC industry to home entertainment, and a wide range of digital multimedia uses. We are excited to be part of the total solution offering, by delivering Microsoft XP with each Northgate Integra?, and enabling users to experience the most user friendly interface"
there is much more...but I can not bare to go on.
[QB]Interesting how a Wintel maker can offer the same features as Apple's iMac for $1100. Apple says it's the LCD prices....I say it's the margins Apple needs.
Here's the iMac Killa, and it packs more processing power than any iMac will even a year from now.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
First off I would like to say that I do appreciate JYD's posts. Some of you say he's pessimistic, but my interpretation is that he is attempting to show a balanced view, besides it takes a brave soul to march into a Mac-centric message board and post anything titled "wintel's new imac killa!"
With regard to the Northgate box, I recall when E-Machines attempted something similiar with a 1998 vintage iMac rip-off. As I recall they blew it and copied the iMac design a little too closely and Apple sued them. If I am remembering the incident correctly Daewoo the parent company of E-Machines had to pull the system from the market.
I did see one of these E-Machine "iMac-alikes" and I couldn't help but notice the cheap plastics, crappy display and overall unpleasentness about it. This Northgate box gives a similar impression.
Cheap, poorly designed, poorly engineered parts in a box that bears more resemblence to a cheap TV than a "cool" computer.
Looks to me like Northgate is trying to pump up the marketing on this thing and call it a competitor to an Apple kit and offer no substancial user value to the package.
Yeah the specs look nice on paper, perhaps this box in some tasks is faster than an iMac, but it lacks elegance and clearly this thing is aimed at people looking to save money, not get a great machine.
I doubt Steve Jobs is losing sleep over this one.
<strong>
What I'm trying to illustrate with this is that to average, computer illiterate consumers, this computer will SEEM to be better than an iMac.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Mostly true, I think, especially if these computer illiterate consumers don't want to spend much for a computer. That's life, some more victims of well organized marketing these hard times.
"The X-Box is fully loaded, but you can also custom configure it with the maximum CPU performance offered (up to AMD XP 2200), memory, or mass storage."
the x what? heh
[quote]The Californian company said its new Integra, "crosses the boundaries between the PC industry to home entertainment and a wide range of digital multimedia uses." They reckon it'll knock nicely-coloured spots off Apple's i- and eMacs.<hr></blockquote>
Not sure if I understand the sentence right (maybe not?), but "nicely-coloured spots off Apple's i' and eMacs"?
eMac never had any "colored spots" to knock off. The LCD iMac never did either. Hell, the traditional iMac itself is only available in Snow.
I think lots of journalists and non-Mac people ONLY remember the lime/strawberry period and STILL think that's all it is, or that was the sole claim to fame for the iStuff.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Again, maybe I misunderstand the sentence. Maybe that phrase "knocking nicely colored spots off..." means something else entirely. I'm willing to concede that.
However, if it DOESN'T and the writer is too lazy to visit Apple's website to notice the distinct lack of color on ANYTHING, then he is indeed a dipstick. Lazy and uninformed, at best.
<strong>
Dare I say... best post ever?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dare.
20 Goto 10
30 MyOpinion <> JD
40 Print MyOpinion
50 Goto 10
JD is right: For JA this computer will have the same features as an iMac at a lower price and unless Apple make it attractive for him they loose a sale to this "beauty".
And about software/hardware: If it wasn´t for the software I would have been outta here. DOn´t get me wrong. There are no computers for me but Powerbooks but Apple IS a software company that sells hardware. This past MWNY was one of the greatest Apple moments for me as it looks like it will give my aging Pismo its fourth life (the purchase, the iApp floodwave, X and now Jaguar).
People may bitch about the lack of speed etc. but if they really stayed on for other reasons than the software I would say they had serious problems.
If JD is getting a bad rep here for stating the obvious I think people have serious problems. I don´t buy the "Apple is doomed" stuff but they have a serious problem they have to adress somehow if they don´t want to end up with only the die-hards left. AFAIK Apple have lost marked share since The Second Coming. AYes they are more profitable than the rest of the buisness and before the return of Him but if you want your computer company to survive on the long run you have to have larger markedshare to start a positive feedback mechanism.
[edit]Oh yes BTW: I used old Basic syntax because the ritual blabber is as elegant as it[/edit]
[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>
<strong>The sky is falling again, I wonder who keeps lifting it back up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is lifting it back up is software, lifestyle customers and a huge sack of money in the bank
Do you all have such a heinously low opinion of the public to think that a mere number ending in "Ghz" would sway a consumer from the iMac to that POS? Forget all the reflexive defensiveness a lá "Of course I know the iMac is a better machine, but Joe Bumblefück, what does he know?" You do not have to be an experienced Mac user, have a computer science or design degree, or be an interior decorator to recognize a superior product when you see one.
"People won't know what a Superdrive is." I laugh my ass off. I can just see the conversation in my head:
CompUSA Apple rep: Now, this model iMac comes with our Superdrive--
Frightened WinTel drone: (Clamping hands over ears) Cut it out! Ah cain't follow all yer fancy tech talk! You think Ah'm some kinda engineer?! That's it, come on, Brandeen -- we're gettin' a Dell!
This whole thread presupposes that a customer who might otherwise purchase the iMac will choose this PC instead because its specs are better. (Actually pretty much the only spec that's better is the clock speed, but leave that aside.) This in turn presupposes that this hypothetical customer is at least, y'know, looking at the iMac. And that, in turn, presupposes that this hypothetical consumer is so rock-stupid they will utterly fail to find any redeeming quality in the iMac once they realize the processor is slower.
I'm sorry to disappoint you: your fellow human beings may anger and frustrate you now and then, but they're not that stupid. They know -- because they can read -- that the iMac has a pivoting screen that adjusts to their comfort more easily than anything else out there. By reading the spec sheet and following the string of words after "Superdrive," they can deduce that this inscrutable device enables them to do something with CDs and DVDs. By carefully parsing the word "iMovie," they may conclude that this software allows them to in some way create or edit, y'know, movies.
Really, people. Am I talking out of my ass here? Am I just being way too optimistic about my fellow human beings?
When the iMac first came out and started to ship, I read the reactions from the first buyers at places like Amazon and CNet. A lot of them were PC users. Not sysadmins, hardware dorks, or Unix developers: they were average consumers who wanted a little more out of a computer than what they were getting, and who by and large were thrilled with their decisions. One of the most frequent comments: "At last, I have a reason to get a Mac." The iMacs were just as slow than as they are today; it didn't matter to these buyers. There were plenty of PCs with flat-panel monitors, all faster than the iMac; it didn't matter. They felt a superior user experience was worth a tradeoff in speed.
This whole issue is a chimera, a paper tiger, a non-starter. The same trembling and outrage was in the air when eMachines made their iMac knockoff; those systems sank without trace, and so will this one, because anyone with the curiosity and taste to be interested in the iMac in the first place will know a derivative piece of crap when they see one.
What this thread is really about is the same thing that all the others are about: frustration with Apple's slow processors. All well and good; there's a lot to be frustrated about. But the frustration is mutating into paranoia. Suddenly there's a threat around every corner, so that now even a knockoff PC made by a company no one ever heard of is going to be stealing pennies out of Apple's pocket. Apple is in enough of a bind with its processors without this deranged fixation on everything the WinTel world does.
And for those of you ready to call me an apologist ... well, fück it, call me an apologist. If the alternative is this waking fever dream so many of you seem determined to inhabit, apologetics start to look not half-bad.
Industrial design wise, you all know that if Apple came out with something like this instead of the current design, you'd be goo goo and ga ga for it. Not once have I seen a clone product EVER be ackknowledged as a decent design despite the fact that it looks nearly the same (not in this case as the current iMac looks like a lamp, this one just looks like a fat LCD panel) while offering as good if not better performance.
As for the fact that it's using DDR, it's true that RDRAM will offer a smaller boost compared to it. However, it is not as much as a post here (don't want to bother a direct quote) claims.
For example:
<a href="http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=1660&p=7"; target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=1660&p=7</a>;
This review is on the SiS648 chipset, the 650 (which the Integra is based on) is basically the 645 with integrated graphics so please refer to the 645. You'll see that in both tests, the i850E + RDRAM platform will hold a 3% advantage. Sure in 3DS Max, the gap will be a bit wider, but overall, it is not a huge difference whatsoever. Hardly noticeable.
I am at no means a fan of any integrated chipset (except for nForce), but you really need to give the SiS 650 more credit.
The first graph is from tech-report, they did a review on the Shuttle SS50 (which sucked, no AGP > not a good LAN rig to begin with, the new SS51 on the otherhand is pretty nice), uses the SiS 650 chipset. Now, although it's a P4 2.4, a 1.8 will perform just the same. I really like the tech-report's reviews along with Anand's, very informative, clear, etc. The second graph is from barefeats.com, these reviews on the otherhand I don't like. I'm still fused about an older article they did comparing the G4/500 with Voodoo 5 to a 1Ghz P3 with TNT2, saying how the G4 was the ultimate gaming machine because of the G4 architecture. Utter bullshit.
If you adjust setttings down to normal on both machines, Q3A is going to be playable on BOTH machines at 45fps+.
In this situation:
iMac: Faster graphics by a significant margin.
Integra: More games by a significant margin.
Neither machines are gaming machines simply put.
Everything else spec wise is about the same except for a few lacking features on the PC behalf, as Eugene pointed out, the Integra only has 1 Firewire. The LCD is also analog on the Integra. DVD-ROM/CD-RW wise, I don't think I would ever get a CD-RW unless I had another CD drive so I could copy stuff. External firewire or USB CD-ROM's are hella expensive. Tower wins in this case.
So in conclusion, this isn't an "iMac killa", it's not even targeted at mac users if you haven't figured it out already.
I hate integrated, I always will, I will never buy any machine like this of the sort nor will I ever purchase an iMac.
I find it amusing how everyone gets in a fuss whenever someone posts a thread like this, GET THE **** OVER IT. There are always going to be more options on the PC side, if you're not looking for a Windows experience then by all means, ignore this. It shouldn't be that hard. The same applies for stupid trolls of any sort. I'm personally typing this post on my PC (1.35tbird, 512mb ddr, etc) that i built last year, it's fast, it's cheap, it works for me. Everyone entitled to their own preferences. (and yes I know, I'm a hypocrite.
(BTW, if I stated anything that's already been said, my apologies, I briefly skimmed at what was posted and didn't want to read every post word for word)
[ 07-27-2002: Message edited by: jchen ]</p>
It's really not that horrible of a system, closest to an iMac you'll get for being a PC user. Don't like XP? Reformat, go install 2K.<hr></blockquote>
First, you can't officially buy a Windows 2000 Upgrade for XP, so instead of the $219 MSRP, that's $319 MSRP. What a deal! Don't like XP Home? XP Pro is only $99 or $199 more depending on whether you go retail or get it OEM installed...an option I didn't see because their store page was busted at the time.
[quote]Industrial design wise, you all know that if Apple came out with something like this instead of the current design, you'd be goo goo and ga ga for it.<hr></blockquote>
Most certainly not. Apple did come up with designs like these ages ago. So did Gateway and IBM and a slew of other all-in-one makers. Apple's iMac is different, from the base to the arm, to the halo around the LCD.
[quote]Not once have I seen a clone product EVER be ackknowledged as a decent design despite the fact that it looks nearly the same (not in this case as the current iMac looks like a lamp, this one just looks like a fat LCD panel) while offering as good if not better performance.<hr></blockquote>
They all look the same? Get your eyes checked.
<strong>Matsu: great post.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I second that. You've hit the nail on the head.
However, this is the iMac. A thermo-controlled fan, crisp large adjustable LCD, beauty, Mac OS X, a decent graphics chip and hard drive space are more important for me than a (icky) 1.8GHz Celeron.
The CPU may have high clock cycles, but it is a cache-deprived willamette with SiS graphics. The iMac might even perform as good when Mac OS X Jaguar arrives, and is better now for games/multimedia.
In fact, the only thing it has over the iMac is the inclusion of 5.1 sound as an option.
Barto