The issue is not that everyone would immediately run out and get an Xserve instead of a PowerMac. The issue is that as soon as people saw an Xserve at, say, 2.5GHz they'd hold out for the PowerMac update that was obviously right around the corner.
Yes, exactly. And I'm still suspicious of the "2.3 GHz" image that showed up on multiple Apple servers when the G5 Xserve was first announced. It's possible Apple intended to introduce the Xserve at 2.3, and simultaneously bump the towers to something like 2.0/2.3/2.6, with all shipping in February or March. IBM's delays would obviously scuttle both parts of that plan.
Quote:
The only despairing reviews of the iMac I've seen come from tech-ish forums like this one and (especially) Ars. Federal Computer Week just posted a glowing review of the 20" iMac last week. Perhaps the iMac's greatest obstacle to acceptance is the small but vocal army of Mac and PC technical types (and wanna-bes) who scare people away from the machine.
Be that as it may, iMac sales do in fact suck. You can partially blame me if you like, but I cannot recommend an iMac to anyone right now. Depending on the users's needs, one or more of the eMac, iBook, or 1.6 G5 is going to be a much better buy.
The iMac doesn't need a G5. It needs a funeral. The eMac is the low end Mac. The iMac will never be priced right for the consumer market no matter what they put in it. Only a consumer tower will bridge the gap between the eMac and the PM.
... Go check out xbench, the eMac will score around 130 with its new bus speed and RAM, a single processor 1.8G5 scores 140 with what ...
I get around 201 on my 1.6. Or am I running the old version?
Great points made on this thread. I like the form-factor of the 17" iMac, but no way am I going to pay that kind of money for a 1.2GHz G4. You guys are absolutely right, a 1.xGHz G5 isn't going to have much appeal either. This is the top-of-the-line consumer machine. It needs a 2.0GHz G5 or faster.
What they'll probably come out with, in a week or two, is exactly what the original poster said, a 1.5GHz G4, maybe with an updated graphics chipset.
Go check out xbench, the eMac will score around 130 with its new bus speed and RAM, a single processor 1.8G5 scores 140 with what will be far superior architecture than what will be put into a consumer iMac.
I don't believe you would make buying decisions based on xbench .
I think many of the response in this thread pretty much sum up the sales issue with the iMac. Who in their right mind will pay that much money for 1.xxGHz G4. What is even worst is that no one can reasonable reccomend such a machine to friends.
Understand that I like the iMac as far as its all in one form factor goes. There really are a few pluses there. On the other hand I work for every dollar I spend on my computing hardware. If one is to maximise those dollars they have to buy performance right on the knee of the price performance curve. I'm not sure the iMac is even on the contemporary curve.
If Apple does come out with the 1.5 GHz revision to the iMac I can't see this having positive impact on sales. It might just alienate even more customers.
DAVE
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
I get around 201 on my 1.6. Or am I running the old version?
Great points made on this thread. I like the form-factor of the 17" iMac, but no way am I going to pay that kind of money for a 1.2GHz G4. You guys are absolutely right, a 1.xGHz G5 isn't going to have much appeal either. This is the top-of-the-line consumer machine. It needs a 2.0GHz G5 or faster.
What they'll probably come out with, in a week or two, is exactly what the original poster said, a 1.5GHz G4, maybe with an updated graphics chipset.
I think Amorph is the wiser man on this thread....
are you all gamers or something? What do you need to do with your CONSUMER iMac ? Render HD video projects? Run 128 tracks of 24bit 192k audio to 7.1 ?
what is it you do with these machines that leave you SCREAMING for a G5 ?
isn't it so that you really want to buy a PRO powermac but can't afford it? hey, join the club!
I wouldn't soon recommend an iMac to someone, though I have.
To my mother for instance, who's always complaining about the dodgy wintel boxes my dad drags into the cave. To my sister, cos she has had this cheap HP wintel box for a year or so which keeps giving her hassle and so the store has replaced it with a new one four times or so! But it's just a badly designed cheap box with impressive specs.Really, I'm about to set a rule for family meetings: No bitching about computers when I'm around cos I've given them all the answer to their problems time and again. Buy a mac and get on with your lives!
Anywho, the iMac is a stylie cute (NO NONSENSE) AIO desktop aimed at the well off consumers and trendy/graphical/music industry offices.
That kind of thing, it is meant to impress physically and it does, to some.
It is designed to be a good all in one digital hub thingy.
That means surfing the internet, email traffic, manage your music library in style, make an easy picture library for your digipics, hook up your digicamcorder and easily edit your holiday flicks and maybe a few educative games for your kids!
AND IT DOES ALL THOSE THINGS WONDERFULLY !
don't forget that our friend Steve J is one rich granola hippy and couldn't care less about the cracked games you may want to run on his digital hub halo mac.
Steve has got his head so far in the ground he gets fed spring rolls by a bucket on a rope from a pit hole in China! But that's ok, he's a visionary, he should. He doesn't make computers for you whiners, not for the world as it is. He makes computers for the world as he wants it to be.
Thats why Bil Gates won, cos he's a cheap dickhead like the rest of us.
Remember that the iMac is what APPLE developed it for not what YOU want it to be.
indeed, the eMac is more like what the old crt iMac was. If only they'd loose that wretched white and make it look more sweet and less like an italian bottle opener I might consider buying one.
If you want a screaming machine, get a powermac or DIY up a nice headache windows machine!
Indeed, I don't see the point to have a G5 processor in a consumer machine. A powerful (32-bit) processor yes, to respond to current software requirements, but a 64-bit one? Why?
What do you people mean by too much power? The G5 is not too much power. You have completely bought into the RDF if you honestly believe that. Some of you have been in the Mac universe so long that you have forgotten how the real world works. For the average buyer of a $1500 to $2000 computer, there is no such thing as too much power. No shopper goes into a computer store saying to the sales person, "I just want enough power to surf the Web and do email. Just give me something cute and cuddly, but not too strong." None sense!
You have got to remember that Apple is the only company that makes a hard distinction between pros and consumers. People who buy expensive computers are multifaceted. They are business people with kids that play demanding games. They have a DV and digital cam, or think they might be getting one soon. They have unrealistic hopes and dreams about what they might some day do with their computer. They like the fact that it is expandable even though they are likely never to crack open the case. They like having two mouse buttons even if they only ever learn to use one of them. No body wants to feel limited by their purchase. No one purposely buys themselves into a tight corner.
The very nomenclature that Apple uses keep the vast majority of the market at bay. (i) vs. Power. If that is all you knew about the product, which one would you want to buy? Apple would be better off distinguishing the lines by the names Power and Pro. Everybody wants power. By the naming scheme, Apple is telling prospective customers that the (i) line is not powerful. It is cute. there is not much of a market out there for a $2000 non-powerful machine.
Indeed, I don't see the point to have a G5 processor in a consumer machine. A powerful (32-bit) processor yes, to respond to current software requirements, but a 64-bit one? Why?
The main reason that I can think of is to take full advantage of the current and future G5 optimizations and the benefits fo the IBM's "tuned" compiler for the G5.
ndeed, I don't see the point to have a G5 processor in a consumer machine. A powerful (32-bit) processor yes, to respond to current software requirements, but a 64-bit one? Why?
I don't know, maybe to have more than 8 tracks in GarageBand. Maybe folks want good performance in iMovie and iDVD. Using iMovie and IDVD on a dual G5 things work the way they should. Doing the same tasks on an iMac are somewhat painful. I had a friend who would have totally bought a 20" iMac, but couldn't bring himself to spend that much on a 1.25 GHz machine. Instead he bought a Single G5 1.8 and a 20" cinema display and spent a lot more. He'll never upgrade anything, save for maybe the RAM. He wants to try video editing in FCE and knew he'd need some power. Is he a pro? No. Can he use a G5? Yep.
Like other posters have said there is no way I can recommend an iMac right now. My dad has a 17" and its an awesome machine, however the current offerings are way underpowered. Throw a 2GHz G5 in the 20 inch model (look at the price, its a "high end" system) and it'd be pretty killer. To hold off putting a G5 in the iMac because they won't go in a PowerBook is ridiculous!
I think Amorph is the wiser man on this thread....
are you all gamers or something? What do you need to do with your CONSUMER iMac ? Render HD video projects? Run 128 tracks of 24bit 192k audio to 7.1 ?
what is it you do with these machines that leave you SCREAMING for a G5 ?
I've begun converting close to 30 hours of home videos from analog to digital into my G4 15" 1.25GHz. Powerbook. I bought Final Cut Express for $99 during Apple's recent offer. While I only just have begun, it seems editing so far isn't that bad, but after applying almost any transition, video effect, etc. can be a pain because it must first be rendered which is very time consuming. I haven't begun working on sound but I guess this will also stress the computer. Yes, I think I need a faster processor to really enjoy the experience.
Just for added info. The reason I have the G4 15 Powerbook is because I needed a laptop for work and a new desktop for home and I couldn't afford both. I decided on the Powerbook so that I could do basic video editing until I could afford a desktop replacement and also learn the ins and outs of Final Cut Express. sidenote: soon after I bought Apple upgraded the iBook to a G4 which would have allowed me to buy an iBook and lowend tower with what I paid for the Powerbook, oh well, tech moves fast and I'm still happy.
Point is, yes many consumers do need a faster cpu than a G4. The G4 while adequate doesn't compete with what the windows world offers in the same price range. That said, Apple's software is a pleasure to use, Final Cut Express is great and I wish I had the money to upgrade to the latest version, need to save up the $99.
I don't know, maybe to have more than 8 tracks in GarageBand. Maybe folks want good performance in iMovie and iDVD. Using iMovie and IDVD on a dual G5 things work the way they should. Doing the same tasks on an iMac are somewhat painful.
All these applications are 32-bit software. No need for a G5 here. Need for a more powerful system? Certainly yes. The problem is that, in PowerPC land, there is nothing more powerful than a G4 that is not a G5 and, consequently, 64-bit. Perhaps that's why people keep talking about G5 in iMacs, without considering the fact that those G5 are 64-bit processors. And we are still far away from the day when common tasks will require 64-bit processing power.
I think it is exceedingly unlikely that Apple will start putting the 970FX into the iMac before the PowerMac. Once the 970FX is yielding properly (and apparently now it is) there may be very few parts below 2 GHz, certainly not enough to sustain the potential iMac G5 market. As a result we'll see Xserve and a new PowerMac using it for a while until the production is really in full swing. At that point we may see an iMac G5 before a PowerBook G5, although I'm not sure that Apple will keep the iMac's current form factor alive much longer -- it may not survive the processor transition.
Look at the case of the iMac... it can support more power/heat requirements than a PowerBook, but it cannot support a 130 nm 970 + system controller, even at a mere 1.6 GHz. The new 7447A G4 at 1.5 GHz will have close enough perfomance to the slowest G5 that it doesn't matter. Better in some cases, worse in others. And the memory controller is probably a lot cheaper for the G4.
Personally I don't think we'll see a G5 iMac until the PowerMac transitions to the next processor after the 970FX (6-12 months). Then we'll see the iMac, or replacement form factor, break the 2 GHz mark.
What do you people mean by too much power? The G5 is not too much power. You have completely bought into the RDF if you honestly believe that. Some of you have been in the Mac universe so long that you have forgotten how the real world works. For the average buyer of a $1500 to $2000 computer, there is no such thing as too much power. No shopper goes into a computer store saying to the sales person, "I just want enough power to surf the Web and do email. Just give me something cute and cuddly, but not too strong." None sense!
Heh. This is one half of the classic no-win argument. I'm just waiting for the other half to drop.
The other half, of course, is that "people just want a cheap machine to do surf the Web and do email."
How many consumers do you think have any freaking idea what a "1.xx GHz G4" is? Personally, I'd love to see a G5 iMac. It certainly wouldn't hurt. But I think that the "1.xx GHz G4" is only an impediment to sales to the extent that semi-technical spec-sheet addicts tell people it is. The iMac is a perfectly capable machine. (GarageBand doesn't show its weakness, either, because you can load Logic on the same machine and do many, many more tracks - GarageBand is just going through its iPhoto 1.0 phase. It'll get better.)
I'm not saying that it's selling well, and I'm not saying that it couldn't use more power. I'm saying that the problems it has lie elsewhere. If Apple bumps the current design to a 1.5GHz G4 (or a G5) and keeps the current prices, it will continue to sell at about the same rate (or a bit higher - the G5 would coax some pros to buy iMacs instead of PowerMacs or eMacs). If they release a more appealing design at a more appealing price, the iMac should sell nicely regardless of what CPU's under the hood.
Quote:
The very nomenclature that Apple uses keep the vast majority of the market at bay. (i) vs. Power. If that is all you knew about the product, which one would you want to buy? Apple would be better off distinguishing the lines by the names Power and Pro. Everybody wants power. By the naming scheme, Apple is telling prospective customers that the (i) line is not powerful. It is cute. there is not much of a market out there for a $2000 non-powerful machine.
Unfortunately for your argument, the iMac sold a lot better when it was a lot cuter.
The problem is that, in PowerPC land, there is nothing more powerful than a G4 that is not a G5 and, consequently, 64-bit. Perhaps that's why people keep talking about G5 in iMacs, without considering the fact that those G5 are 64-bit processors. And we are still far away from the day when common tasks will require 64-bit processing power.
So what? Even in the towers, the 64-bitness of the G5 is mostly a non-issue. The main benefit is that it's much better at 32-bit applications. It makes no sense to reject the idea of a G5 in the iMac *because* it's 64-bit.
isn't it so that you really want to buy a PRO powermac but can't afford it? hey, join the club!
No. See my earlier post. The iMac is a bad value compared to *cheaper* Apple products. Look at the $1800 iMac versus the $1000 eMac. (I'm ignoring the 15" iMac because 1024x768 on a desktop is ridiculous). All the iMac gives you is an LCD with slightly more pixels, and a cute form factor. That's not worth $800 to buyers who are remotely price-sensitive. If portability has any value to you at all, the $1100 iBook is going to be a better deal. And if you're doing anything CPU-intensive (e.g. GarageBand, Halo), you'll be much happier with a 1.6 G5 and 3rd party LCD for not much more money.
hey don't get me wrong, I don't think too much of the current iMac at all.
but I still use two 733 quicksilvers in my studio and they run 32 tracks of 24bit/44.1kHz audio each with a good number of high quality plugs without a problem. And the limitation to 32 tracks is through the software, not the hardware. So effectively you have a more powerful processor with the iMac and eMac at present than the ones I've used to produce dozens of professional recordings on. Now if GarageBand is giving you hassle, then that's because of bad preference settings or poor programming on apples part.
it's still a young app, indeed, give it some time. But try tweaking the system before in the meanwhile.
Comments
Originally posted by Amorph
The issue is not that everyone would immediately run out and get an Xserve instead of a PowerMac. The issue is that as soon as people saw an Xserve at, say, 2.5GHz they'd hold out for the PowerMac update that was obviously right around the corner.
Yes, exactly. And I'm still suspicious of the "2.3 GHz" image that showed up on multiple Apple servers when the G5 Xserve was first announced. It's possible Apple intended to introduce the Xserve at 2.3, and simultaneously bump the towers to something like 2.0/2.3/2.6, with all shipping in February or March. IBM's delays would obviously scuttle both parts of that plan.
The only despairing reviews of the iMac I've seen come from tech-ish forums like this one and (especially) Ars. Federal Computer Week just posted a glowing review of the 20" iMac last week. Perhaps the iMac's greatest obstacle to acceptance is the small but vocal army of Mac and PC technical types (and wanna-bes) who scare people away from the machine.
Be that as it may, iMac sales do in fact suck. You can partially blame me if you like, but I cannot recommend an iMac to anyone right now. Depending on the users's needs, one or more of the eMac, iBook, or 1.6 G5 is going to be a much better buy.
Originally posted by MacGraham
... Go check out xbench, the eMac will score around 130 with its new bus speed and RAM, a single processor 1.8G5 scores 140 with what ...
I get around 201 on my 1.6. Or am I running the old version?
Great points made on this thread. I like the form-factor of the 17" iMac, but no way am I going to pay that kind of money for a 1.2GHz G4. You guys are absolutely right, a 1.xGHz G5 isn't going to have much appeal either. This is the top-of-the-line consumer machine. It needs a 2.0GHz G5 or faster.
What they'll probably come out with, in a week or two, is exactly what the original poster said, a 1.5GHz G4, maybe with an updated graphics chipset.
Originally posted by cubist
I get around 201 on my 1.6. Or am I running the old version?
congratulations you have the worlds fastest 1.6 G5. Must be an error there, only dual 2.0Ghz seem to get near 200!!!
Originally posted by MacGraham
Go check out xbench, the eMac will score around 130 with its new bus speed and RAM, a single processor 1.8G5 scores 140 with what will be far superior architecture than what will be put into a consumer iMac.
I don't believe you would make buying decisions based on xbench
Understand that I like the iMac as far as its all in one form factor goes. There really are a few pluses there. On the other hand I work for every dollar I spend on my computing hardware. If one is to maximise those dollars they have to buy performance right on the knee of the price performance curve. I'm not sure the iMac is even on the contemporary curve.
If Apple does come out with the 1.5 GHz revision to the iMac I can't see this having positive impact on sales. It might just alienate even more customers.
DAVE
Originally posted by cubist
I get around 201 on my 1.6. Or am I running the old version?
Great points made on this thread. I like the form-factor of the 17" iMac, but no way am I going to pay that kind of money for a 1.2GHz G4. You guys are absolutely right, a 1.xGHz G5 isn't going to have much appeal either. This is the top-of-the-line consumer machine. It needs a 2.0GHz G5 or faster.
What they'll probably come out with, in a week or two, is exactly what the original poster said, a 1.5GHz G4, maybe with an updated graphics chipset.
Originally posted by wizard69
If Apple does come out with the 1.5 GHz revision to the iMac I can't see this having positive impact on sales.
I hope, and believe, that Apple will drop the price in the next iMac revision, which certainly will be a G4.
are you all gamers or something? What do you need to do with your CONSUMER iMac ? Render HD video projects? Run 128 tracks of 24bit 192k audio to 7.1 ?
what is it you do with these machines that leave you SCREAMING for a G5 ?
isn't it so that you really want to buy a PRO powermac but can't afford it? hey, join the club!
I wouldn't soon recommend an iMac to someone, though I have.
To my mother for instance, who's always complaining about the dodgy wintel boxes my dad drags into the cave. To my sister, cos she has had this cheap HP wintel box for a year or so which keeps giving her hassle and so the store has replaced it with a new one four times or so! But it's just a badly designed cheap box with impressive specs.Really, I'm about to set a rule for family meetings: No bitching about computers when I'm around cos I've given them all the answer to their problems time and again. Buy a mac and get on with your lives!
Anywho, the iMac is a stylie cute (NO NONSENSE) AIO desktop aimed at the well off consumers and trendy/graphical/music industry offices.
That kind of thing, it is meant to impress physically and it does, to some.
It is designed to be a good all in one digital hub thingy.
That means surfing the internet, email traffic, manage your music library in style, make an easy picture library for your digipics, hook up your digicamcorder and easily edit your holiday flicks and maybe a few educative games for your kids!
AND IT DOES ALL THOSE THINGS WONDERFULLY !
don't forget that our friend Steve J is one rich granola hippy and couldn't care less about the cracked games you may want to run on his digital hub halo mac.
Steve has got his head so far in the ground he gets fed spring rolls by a bucket on a rope from a pit hole in China! But that's ok, he's a visionary, he should. He doesn't make computers for you whiners, not for the world as it is. He makes computers for the world as he wants it to be.
Thats why Bil Gates won, cos he's a cheap dickhead like the rest of us.
Remember that the iMac is what APPLE developed it for not what YOU want it to be.
indeed, the eMac is more like what the old crt iMac was. If only they'd loose that wretched white and make it look more sweet and less like an italian bottle opener I might consider buying one.
If you want a screaming machine, get a powermac or DIY up a nice headache windows machine!
Y'all have fun now ya hear!
You have got to remember that Apple is the only company that makes a hard distinction between pros and consumers. People who buy expensive computers are multifaceted. They are business people with kids that play demanding games. They have a DV and digital cam, or think they might be getting one soon. They have unrealistic hopes and dreams about what they might some day do with their computer. They like the fact that it is expandable even though they are likely never to crack open the case. They like having two mouse buttons even if they only ever learn to use one of them. No body wants to feel limited by their purchase. No one purposely buys themselves into a tight corner.
The very nomenclature that Apple uses keep the vast majority of the market at bay. (i) vs. Power. If that is all you knew about the product, which one would you want to buy? Apple would be better off distinguishing the lines by the names Power and Pro. Everybody wants power. By the naming scheme, Apple is telling prospective customers that the (i) line is not powerful. It is cute. there is not much of a market out there for a $2000 non-powerful machine.
Originally posted by PB
Indeed, I don't see the point to have a G5 processor in a consumer machine. A powerful (32-bit) processor yes, to respond to current software requirements, but a 64-bit one? Why?
The main reason that I can think of is to take full advantage of the current and future G5 optimizations and the benefits fo the IBM's "tuned" compiler for the G5.
FYI, Bill did not win bacause he is cheap. Windows is not cheap $$$ wise.
ndeed, I don't see the point to have a G5 processor in a consumer machine. A powerful (32-bit) processor yes, to respond to current software requirements, but a 64-bit one? Why?
I don't know, maybe to have more than 8 tracks in GarageBand. Maybe folks want good performance in iMovie and iDVD. Using iMovie and IDVD on a dual G5 things work the way they should. Doing the same tasks on an iMac are somewhat painful. I had a friend who would have totally bought a 20" iMac, but couldn't bring himself to spend that much on a 1.25 GHz machine. Instead he bought a Single G5 1.8 and a 20" cinema display and spent a lot more. He'll never upgrade anything, save for maybe the RAM. He wants to try video editing in FCE and knew he'd need some power. Is he a pro? No. Can he use a G5? Yep.
Like other posters have said there is no way I can recommend an iMac right now. My dad has a 17" and its an awesome machine, however the current offerings are way underpowered. Throw a 2GHz G5 in the 20 inch model (look at the price, its a "high end" system) and it'd be pretty killer. To hold off putting a G5 in the iMac because they won't go in a PowerBook is ridiculous!
Originally posted by ~ufo~
I think Amorph is the wiser man on this thread....
are you all gamers or something? What do you need to do with your CONSUMER iMac ? Render HD video projects? Run 128 tracks of 24bit 192k audio to 7.1 ?
what is it you do with these machines that leave you SCREAMING for a G5 ?
I've begun converting close to 30 hours of home videos from analog to digital into my G4 15" 1.25GHz. Powerbook. I bought Final Cut Express for $99 during Apple's recent offer. While I only just have begun, it seems editing so far isn't that bad, but after applying almost any transition, video effect, etc. can be a pain because it must first be rendered which is very time consuming. I haven't begun working on sound but I guess this will also stress the computer. Yes, I think I need a faster processor to really enjoy the experience.
Just for added info. The reason I have the G4 15 Powerbook is because I needed a laptop for work and a new desktop for home and I couldn't afford both. I decided on the Powerbook so that I could do basic video editing until I could afford a desktop replacement and also learn the ins and outs of Final Cut Express. sidenote: soon after I bought Apple upgraded the iBook to a G4 which would have allowed me to buy an iBook and lowend tower with what I paid for the Powerbook, oh well, tech moves fast and I'm still happy.
Point is, yes many consumers do need a faster cpu than a G4. The G4 while adequate doesn't compete with what the windows world offers in the same price range. That said, Apple's software is a pleasure to use, Final Cut Express is great and I wish I had the money to upgrade to the latest version, need to save up the $99.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
I don't know, maybe to have more than 8 tracks in GarageBand. Maybe folks want good performance in iMovie and iDVD. Using iMovie and IDVD on a dual G5 things work the way they should. Doing the same tasks on an iMac are somewhat painful.
All these applications are 32-bit software. No need for a G5 here. Need for a more powerful system? Certainly yes. The problem is that, in PowerPC land, there is nothing more powerful than a G4 that is not a G5 and, consequently, 64-bit. Perhaps that's why people keep talking about G5 in iMacs, without considering the fact that those G5 are 64-bit processors. And we are still far away from the day when common tasks will require 64-bit processing power.
Look at the case of the iMac... it can support more power/heat requirements than a PowerBook, but it cannot support a 130 nm 970 + system controller, even at a mere 1.6 GHz. The new 7447A G4 at 1.5 GHz will have close enough perfomance to the slowest G5 that it doesn't matter. Better in some cases, worse in others. And the memory controller is probably a lot cheaper for the G4.
Personally I don't think we'll see a G5 iMac until the PowerMac transitions to the next processor after the 970FX (6-12 months). Then we'll see the iMac, or replacement form factor, break the 2 GHz mark.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
What do you people mean by too much power? The G5 is not too much power. You have completely bought into the RDF if you honestly believe that. Some of you have been in the Mac universe so long that you have forgotten how the real world works. For the average buyer of a $1500 to $2000 computer, there is no such thing as too much power. No shopper goes into a computer store saying to the sales person, "I just want enough power to surf the Web and do email. Just give me something cute and cuddly, but not too strong." None sense!
Heh. This is one half of the classic no-win argument. I'm just waiting for the other half to drop.
The other half, of course, is that "people just want a cheap machine to do surf the Web and do email."
How many consumers do you think have any freaking idea what a "1.xx GHz G4" is? Personally, I'd love to see a G5 iMac. It certainly wouldn't hurt. But I think that the "1.xx GHz G4" is only an impediment to sales to the extent that semi-technical spec-sheet addicts tell people it is. The iMac is a perfectly capable machine. (GarageBand doesn't show its weakness, either, because you can load Logic on the same machine and do many, many more tracks - GarageBand is just going through its iPhoto 1.0 phase. It'll get better.)
I'm not saying that it's selling well, and I'm not saying that it couldn't use more power. I'm saying that the problems it has lie elsewhere. If Apple bumps the current design to a 1.5GHz G4 (or a G5) and keeps the current prices, it will continue to sell at about the same rate (or a bit higher - the G5 would coax some pros to buy iMacs instead of PowerMacs or eMacs). If they release a more appealing design at a more appealing price, the iMac should sell nicely regardless of what CPU's under the hood.
The very nomenclature that Apple uses keep the vast majority of the market at bay. (i) vs. Power. If that is all you knew about the product, which one would you want to buy? Apple would be better off distinguishing the lines by the names Power and Pro. Everybody wants power. By the naming scheme, Apple is telling prospective customers that the (i) line is not powerful. It is cute. there is not much of a market out there for a $2000 non-powerful machine.
Unfortunately for your argument, the iMac sold a lot better when it was a lot cuter.
Originally posted by PB
The problem is that, in PowerPC land, there is nothing more powerful than a G4 that is not a G5 and, consequently, 64-bit. Perhaps that's why people keep talking about G5 in iMacs, without considering the fact that those G5 are 64-bit processors. And we are still far away from the day when common tasks will require 64-bit processing power.
So what? Even in the towers, the 64-bitness of the G5 is mostly a non-issue. The main benefit is that it's much better at 32-bit applications. It makes no sense to reject the idea of a G5 in the iMac *because* it's 64-bit.
Originally posted by ~ufo~
isn't it so that you really want to buy a PRO powermac but can't afford it? hey, join the club!
No. See my earlier post. The iMac is a bad value compared to *cheaper* Apple products. Look at the $1800 iMac versus the $1000 eMac. (I'm ignoring the 15" iMac because 1024x768 on a desktop is ridiculous). All the iMac gives you is an LCD with slightly more pixels, and a cute form factor. That's not worth $800 to buyers who are remotely price-sensitive. If portability has any value to you at all, the $1100 iBook is going to be a better deal. And if you're doing anything CPU-intensive (e.g. GarageBand, Halo), you'll be much happier with a 1.6 G5 and 3rd party LCD for not much more money.
but I still use two 733 quicksilvers in my studio and they run 32 tracks of 24bit/44.1kHz audio each with a good number of high quality plugs without a problem. And the limitation to 32 tracks is through the software, not the hardware. So effectively you have a more powerful processor with the iMac and eMac at present than the ones I've used to produce dozens of professional recordings on. Now if GarageBand is giving you hassle, then that's because of bad preference settings or poor programming on apples part.
it's still a young app, indeed, give it some time. But try tweaking the system before in the meanwhile.