Even more so if you are like many of us those upgrade expenses are spread out over a long period of time. The purchases generally being made when funds permit.
A computer that is not upgradeable is not really worth it for the average user. That doesn't mean that AIO or other non upgradeable machine have no value, just that the majority of the market needs to have some form of upgradability.
Now as to the orginal question it is a matter of a few thing for me.
1. Price
2. The expandability question. Does it use standard components? Is the RAM upgradable well beyond current limits? Can the video be upgraded?
3. What sort of performance are we talking about? Whatever is being delivered needs to have at least a 2GHz processor.
4. Does the machine leave with a good feeling about value and future proofness?
I will be the first to say that some of the material being speculated about has me very interested. So it comes down to what sort of deal or package Apple throws together. EVen an AIO has the potential of being purchased if I feel the above issues are addressed. Not knowing what the machine is though makes the whole thread here rather pointless.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by rickag
NO, NOT EVEN CLOSE. Sonnet G4 400MHz upgrade card $239, ATI Rage Pro upgrade card ~$80, USB/Firewire card ~$60. Let's see a low end tower is $1999. Upgrading extended the life of the 7500 3-4 years, so far. Yes, it's slower and I'm forced to use my laptop to do a lot of what I should be doing on a desktop. But $1999 - $379 = $1620.
2. The expandability question. Does it use standard components? Is the RAM upgradable well beyond current limits? Can the video be upgraded?
3. What sort of performance are we talking about? Whatever is being delivered needs to have at least a 2GHz processor.
4. Does the machine leave with a good feeling about value and future proofness?
I will be the first to say that some of the material being speculated about has me very interested. So it comes down to what sort of deal or package Apple throws together. EVen an AIO has the potential of being purchased if I feel the above issues are addressed. Not knowing what the machine is though makes the whole thread here rather pointless.
1. It's got to be much more affordable than the current disaster. (Selling only 60K? No WONDER Apple lumped sales with eMacs...ergo...what did eMac tell you consumer wants? AIO? Maybe not? Affordable? Maybe yes...)
2. Standard components so Apple doesn't have to do a complete redesign when poor sales flush it down the toilet... So that IF it is a hit, Apple aint waiting on a mini-hard drive manufacturer to ramp up volume...
3. I think CPU must be/prop' be 1.8 - 2.0. 1.8 low end. 2 gig middle and upper model. Consumers now have access to final cut express. Ergo. More power needed. More consumers are using Photoshop style image editing apps. They are no longer the province of the 'pro' market (whatever that is...?)
4. Yes, can I upgrade the graphics card to at least low end next gen' tech'? Will Apple themselves sell these add ons to generate more income? Sell 5 million of these babies...think about how much you could make by selling gpu and cpu upgrades yourself. Why let 3rd parties cream all that income?
AIO. I don't care really. If it incorporates the flexibility of the 'box' design.
I have a TAM (20th Annv. Mac) since 1997. I'm ready for a new computer and the new imac may be the one. I'm sure it is going to be a great performing product and look great too. Anxious to see it and read the specs.
Is it true that those were delivered by guys in tuxes who arrived in a limo?
Not been a mac-er for a long time, I just hapened to read that somewhere, but for the price of $10000, it doesnt seem unlikely.
if it's got a decent graphics card I'll consider it...
Now that Tiger will make use of the graphics engine so much...
no kidding. and here i thought i was set with my geforce 4 titanium for at least the next couple revisions of mac os x. well, i mean, it'll still run, and probably quite well. i'll just miss out on the eye candy. and i like the eye candy.
my dual-g4 has 4x agp in it. can i upgrade to a faster agp card? like would a radeon 9800 really be all that crippled by being in a 4x slot? just trying to plan out my gadget budget.
1. It's got to be much more affordable than the current disaster. (Selling only 60K? No WONDER Apple lumped sales with eMacs...ergo...what did eMac tell you consumer wants? AIO? Maybe not? Affordable? Maybe yes...)
The eMac is simply a very good computer for certain markets. It is not however the machine that most people on this board would buy. In contrast the iMac was a computer many would have loved to buy if Apple didn't castrate the thing at birth and then allowed it to age in a very ungracefull manner.
Buying a computer based on looks is like choosing a wife based on looks. You may very well apprciate the good looks but if she comes up short on mental considerations the relationship is likely to become extremely stressed. This is the issue with the iMac 2, looks good but is doumb as a rock.
Quote:
2. Standard components so Apple doesn't have to do a complete redesign when poor sales flush it down the toilet... So that IF it is a hit, Apple aint waiting on a mini-hard drive manufacturer to ramp up volume...
Standard compnents to keep costs in check is number one. The other issues are upgradeability, I consider this an important parameter in any machine. The otherside of the mini-hard drive that you comment on is the possibility of the format being restricted or disappearing.
Quote:
3. I think CPU must be/prop' be 1.8 - 2.0. 1.8 low end. 2 gig middle and upper model. Consumers now have access to final cut express. Ergo. More power needed. More consumers are using Photoshop style image editing apps. They are no longer the province of the 'pro' market (whatever that is...?)
Your reasoning is sound but I think there would be greater acceptance of the machine if the bottom end was 2 GHz and the top end hit about 2.4GHz. The issue is that buy the time the machine actually hits the market in any volume the performance offered buy those chips will be mainstream or average. So unless Apple wants to market yet another computer that performs like a dog with a broken leg it needs to pay attention to performance issues.
Quote:
4. Yes, can I upgrade the graphics card to at least low end next gen' tech'? Will Apple themselves sell these add ons to generate more income? Sell 5 million of these babies...think about how much you could make by selling gpu and cpu upgrades yourself. Why let 3rd parties cream all that income?
I don't know what form factor the current machine will have it is safe to assume it will be compact. What I want to see in this machine is a video card that is a industry standard form factor that will have upgrade sources other than Apple. It is either that or solder in the latest GPU one can find and hope that it will be good for a few years. There is zero likely hood that Apple will do that though. that is offer modern video performance.
Quote:
AIO. I don't care really. If it incorporates the flexibility of the 'box' design.
Yes flexibility is important and I take that to mean atleast easy upgrades but also some expandability. If not I might as well stick with my Linux systems.
Not that Linux doesn't have some great benefits (I've got several Linux machines), but what's the point of having a great graphics card in Linux...Tux Racer? Unless you're an architect or engineer, really, what's the point? Want to play games? Get a freakin' console! An entire console will cost less than a modern PCIe card.
The whole reason we want great graphics cards on our Macs is because, unlike other platforms, Mac OS X actually uses them.
That said, I'll probably buy the new iMac regardless of the GPU or expandability. I need something compact and minimal for the living room that doesn't cost as much as a portable.
Not buying, my Powerbook is good enough, and I haven't got funds for hardware in the foreseeable future. Might recommend the iMac3 to friends and family, if the price point is right. I predict it will *not* be if iMac3 is an AIO - then it's iMac2 all over again, and sales will remain poor despite the G5.
Edit: I don't think card slot expandability matters much. On all the PC's I've had, I have never upgraded the graphics card. If the included GPU is decent enough (like a Radeon 9600Pro or 9800Pro, currently) games will run with it as long as the CPU is enough for those games.
I'll buy one if it is powerful enough to compete in todays market place, and not too over priced (I expect to pay a 25% Mac tax, but I just can't bring myself to pay an extra 50%-100%)
If Apple gives us a 2.4 GHz G5, with a Radeon 9600XT (or better), a 20" display and a super drive for $1,799.00 I'll order one the day it is announced.
If the best they give us is a 1.8 GHz G5, a NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra, with a 20" display and a super drive for $2,199.00 -- I'll skip this iMac.
Not that Linux doesn't have some great benefits (I've got several Linux machines), but what's the point of having a great graphics card in Linux...Tux Racer? Unless you're an architect or engineer, really, what's the point? Want to play games? Get a freakin' console! An entire console will cost less than a modern PCIe card.
The whole reason we want great graphics cards on our Macs is because, unlike other platforms, Mac OS X actually uses them.
That said, I'll probably buy the new iMac regardless of the GPU or expandability. I need something compact and minimal for the living room that doesn't cost as much as a portable.
I'd say Linux gaming is incidental, just like Mac gaming.. if you have a Linux or Mac system and you also happen to like the few games that are available for your platform, you play. It doesn't make sense to get the system for games, but getting $100 more expensive graphics card is not a big investment.
OS X uses graphics acceleration - so what? It just means the system benefits from a decent amount of graphics memory. What good is a fast GPU do when all you do is move a few rectangular blocks around?
You aren't much of a gamer if you think a console can replace a gaming PC. Two very different animals. If anything, an existing PC can replace the console to a degree.
If Apple gives us a 2.4 GHz G5, with a Radeon 9600XT (or better), a 20" display and a super drive for $1,799.00 I'll order one the day it is announced.
You and everyone else on the planet would be ordering this Though, don't hold your breath.
$1299 20" display
$500 2.4Ghz G5(estimated)
= $1799 for two components. Where do we fit the rest of the computer in?
I'm not overly concerned about clockspeed. The GPU is becoming vastly more important the the user experience of OSX than clockspeed. We'll see if Apple takes care of us with some decent GPUs.
OS X uses graphics acceleration - so what? It just means the system benefits from a decent amount of graphics memory. What good is a fast GPU do when all you do is move a few rectangular blocks around?
Gross oversimplification. That almost sounded like Thurrotian logic.
OS X uses graphics acceleration - so what? It just means the system benefits from a decent amount of graphics memory. What good is a fast GPU do when all you do is move a few rectangular blocks around?
Maybe you don't understand how Quartz Extreme works. You're not just "moving a few rectangular boxes around." The windowing system is fully composited, allowing for true alpha transparency, anti-aliasing, etc.
Besides, there are no "rectangular boxes" in OS X. They're rounded rectangular boxes, thank you very much.
I know that Core Image and friends are coming, but if I understand correctly, they do not speed things up as much as they make application development easier. Even if there is significant speed improvement, that is going to show in graphics and video work only. There are things that the GPU are very well suited for and that would be a tremendous bandwidth hog when done on the CPU, like window handling, but weak GPUs are truly enough for that. What are you thinking about, exactly? Why a fast GPU would be essential for general office and home use?
Trying to push general tasks to a special purpose processor that the GPUs are is very much like pounding a round peg to a square hole. I wonder if the buzz about this is mostly just an allergic reaction to Apple's perpetual weak CPU problem (an unnamed peg manufacturer can't make square pegs big enough ). It's great that this problem is slowly getting addressed by G5's in the consumer lineup. If they make iMac3 right, only laptop speed remains behind.
Maybe you don't understand how Quartz Extreme works. You're not just "moving a few rectangular boxes around." The windowing system is fully composited, allowing for true alpha transparency, anti-aliasing, etc.
Besides, there are no "rectangular boxes" in OS X. They're rounded rectangular boxes, thank you very much.
I know Quartz does a lot of stuff. It just happens to be the kind of stuff GPUs are extremely efficient for, therefore I assume a "lesser" GPU should be enough.
The rectangular boxes are no less rectangular (from the POV of the GPU) if the bitmaps in the corners are "rounded" by alpha.
Gon I see your point but I look at it a little differently.
Core Image/Video will make programming easier but they also make it easier to incorporate elements in your applicatins that would bog the CPU down more than you'd like. Every application that we use is being pumped through the GPU so we might as well take advantage of its 128 and 256bit processing and Pixel Shaders.
No I don't think your basica productivity applications will see a huge boost unless they add transitions and video and image processing. I guess conventional wisdom states that if you are doing basic web browsing and office productivy applications then CPU speed isn't the prime obstacle to your success.
I find the things that slow computers down the most seems to be image or video processing. Which Apple has deftly addressed in Tiger.
They have also advanced Quartz 2D which will likely have the moniker "Quartz 2D Extreme" It's currently disabled in the preview release but should be live for the final. This should give everyone a speedup in standard window speed. I look forward to it since I hate gui lag in window resizing.
No I don't think your basica productivity applications will see a huge boost unless they add transitions and video and image processing. I guess conventional wisdom states that if you are doing basic web browsing and office productivy applications then CPU speed isn't the prime obstacle to your success.
I assume you mean, computer speed isn't the prime obstacle to your success. And you are right. I find all PC processors have been fine for most productivity work for years.. so these performance discussions are actually of interest for different performance niches. There's the audio pros, the graphics pros, database people, gamers, and programmers. Database guys and programmers mostly aren't interested in whatever the GPU has to offer beyond the window swingin'. I acknowledge that as a general purpose computer, the iMac should have a good GPU. It's just not necessary for many people, including non-gamer consumers and said professionals.
Offloading as much of the display work to the GPU frees the CPU up for other task. Apple has stated with their app Motion your speed will improve almost linearly with the speed of your GPU.
Thus if Quartz 2D Extreme acceleration is faster depending on the speed of the GPU I think consumers will be forced to look at what they are getting in this area beyond just gaming.
Also with Apple proclaiming the CRT to be dead it's important that consumers know that LCDs come in native resolutions. Many like the big screens but they don't like miniscule text and icons. While Apple has stated that it's not coming in the inital Tiger release they already have Resolution Independence in the PR build. Thus we will rely on our GPU to be fast because more and more of the UI is being written in a manner that allows for GPU acceleration which makes Rez Independence a feasible feature.
Honestly I guess we'll find out next spring when iLife 5 ships how important the GPU is. If we see massive speedups in Core Image enabled iLife then we'll have our final answer. Should be fun.
Comments
A computer that is not upgradeable is not really worth it for the average user. That doesn't mean that AIO or other non upgradeable machine have no value, just that the majority of the market needs to have some form of upgradability.
Now as to the orginal question it is a matter of a few thing for me.
1. Price
2. The expandability question. Does it use standard components? Is the RAM upgradable well beyond current limits? Can the video be upgraded?
3. What sort of performance are we talking about? Whatever is being delivered needs to have at least a 2GHz processor.
4. Does the machine leave with a good feeling about value and future proofness?
I will be the first to say that some of the material being speculated about has me very interested. So it comes down to what sort of deal or package Apple throws together. EVen an AIO has the potential of being purchased if I feel the above issues are addressed. Not knowing what the machine is though makes the whole thread here rather pointless.
Dave
Originally posted by rickag
NO, NOT EVEN CLOSE. Sonnet G4 400MHz upgrade card $239, ATI Rage Pro upgrade card ~$80, USB/Firewire card ~$60. Let's see a low end tower is $1999. Upgrading extended the life of the 7500 3-4 years, so far. Yes, it's slower and I'm forced to use my laptop to do a lot of what I should be doing on a desktop. But $1999 - $379 = $1620.
AIO fits the bill for me.
Now that Tiger will make use of the graphics engine so much...
1. Price
Heh, heh...hee...
No, really...
1. Price
2. The expandability question. Does it use standard components? Is the RAM upgradable well beyond current limits? Can the video be upgraded?
3. What sort of performance are we talking about? Whatever is being delivered needs to have at least a 2GHz processor.
4. Does the machine leave with a good feeling about value and future proofness?
I will be the first to say that some of the material being speculated about has me very interested. So it comes down to what sort of deal or package Apple throws together. EVen an AIO has the potential of being purchased if I feel the above issues are addressed. Not knowing what the machine is though makes the whole thread here rather pointless.
1. It's got to be much more affordable than the current disaster. (Selling only 60K? No WONDER Apple lumped sales with eMacs...ergo...what did eMac tell you consumer wants? AIO? Maybe not? Affordable? Maybe yes...)
2. Standard components so Apple doesn't have to do a complete redesign when poor sales flush it down the toilet... So that IF it is a hit, Apple aint waiting on a mini-hard drive manufacturer to ramp up volume...
3. I think CPU must be/prop' be 1.8 - 2.0. 1.8 low end. 2 gig middle and upper model. Consumers now have access to final cut express. Ergo. More power needed. More consumers are using Photoshop style image editing apps. They are no longer the province of the 'pro' market (whatever that is...?)
4. Yes, can I upgrade the graphics card to at least low end next gen' tech'? Will Apple themselves sell these add ons to generate more income? Sell 5 million of these babies...think about how much you could make by selling gpu and cpu upgrades yourself. Why let 3rd parties cream all that income?
AIO. I don't care really. If it incorporates the flexibility of the 'box' design.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by woofer
I have a TAM (20th Annv. Mac) since 1997. I'm ready for a new computer and the new imac may be the one. I'm sure it is going to be a great performing product and look great too. Anxious to see it and read the specs.
Is it true that those were delivered by guys in tuxes who arrived in a limo?
Not been a mac-er for a long time, I just hapened to read that somewhere, but for the price of $10000, it doesnt seem unlikely.
Originally posted by philbot
if it's got a decent graphics card I'll consider it...
Now that Tiger will make use of the graphics engine so much...
no kidding. and here i thought i was set with my geforce 4 titanium for at least the next couple revisions of mac os x. well, i mean, it'll still run, and probably quite well. i'll just miss out on the eye candy. and i like the eye candy.
my dual-g4 has 4x agp in it. can i upgrade to a faster agp card? like would a radeon 9800 really be all that crippled by being in a 4x slot? just trying to plan out my gadget budget.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
1. It's got to be much more affordable than the current disaster. (Selling only 60K? No WONDER Apple lumped sales with eMacs...ergo...what did eMac tell you consumer wants? AIO? Maybe not? Affordable? Maybe yes...)
The eMac is simply a very good computer for certain markets. It is not however the machine that most people on this board would buy. In contrast the iMac was a computer many would have loved to buy if Apple didn't castrate the thing at birth and then allowed it to age in a very ungracefull manner.
Buying a computer based on looks is like choosing a wife based on looks. You may very well apprciate the good looks but if she comes up short on mental considerations the relationship is likely to become extremely stressed. This is the issue with the iMac 2, looks good but is doumb as a rock.
2. Standard components so Apple doesn't have to do a complete redesign when poor sales flush it down the toilet... So that IF it is a hit, Apple aint waiting on a mini-hard drive manufacturer to ramp up volume...
Standard compnents to keep costs in check is number one. The other issues are upgradeability, I consider this an important parameter in any machine. The otherside of the mini-hard drive that you comment on is the possibility of the format being restricted or disappearing.
3. I think CPU must be/prop' be 1.8 - 2.0. 1.8 low end. 2 gig middle and upper model. Consumers now have access to final cut express. Ergo. More power needed. More consumers are using Photoshop style image editing apps. They are no longer the province of the 'pro' market (whatever that is...?)
Your reasoning is sound but I think there would be greater acceptance of the machine if the bottom end was 2 GHz and the top end hit about 2.4GHz. The issue is that buy the time the machine actually hits the market in any volume the performance offered buy those chips will be mainstream or average. So unless Apple wants to market yet another computer that performs like a dog with a broken leg it needs to pay attention to performance issues.
4. Yes, can I upgrade the graphics card to at least low end next gen' tech'? Will Apple themselves sell these add ons to generate more income? Sell 5 million of these babies...think about how much you could make by selling gpu and cpu upgrades yourself. Why let 3rd parties cream all that income?
I don't know what form factor the current machine will have it is safe to assume it will be compact. What I want to see in this machine is a video card that is a industry standard form factor that will have upgrade sources other than Apple. It is either that or solder in the latest GPU one can find and hope that it will be good for a few years. There is zero likely hood that Apple will do that though. that is offer modern video performance.
AIO. I don't care really. If it incorporates the flexibility of the 'box' design.
Yes flexibility is important and I take that to mean atleast easy upgrades but also some expandability. If not I might as well stick with my Linux systems.
Dave
Lemon Bon Bon [/B]
The whole reason we want great graphics cards on our Macs is because, unlike other platforms, Mac OS X actually uses them.
That said, I'll probably buy the new iMac regardless of the GPU or expandability. I need something compact and minimal for the living room that doesn't cost as much as a portable.
Edit: I don't think card slot expandability matters much. On all the PC's I've had, I have never upgraded the graphics card. If the included GPU is decent enough (like a Radeon 9600Pro or 9800Pro, currently) games will run with it as long as the CPU is enough for those games.
If Apple gives us a 2.4 GHz G5, with a Radeon 9600XT (or better), a 20" display and a super drive for $1,799.00 I'll order one the day it is announced.
If the best they give us is a 1.8 GHz G5, a NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra, with a 20" display and a super drive for $2,199.00 -- I'll skip this iMac.
Originally posted by Michael Wilkie
Not that Linux doesn't have some great benefits (I've got several Linux machines), but what's the point of having a great graphics card in Linux...Tux Racer? Unless you're an architect or engineer, really, what's the point? Want to play games? Get a freakin' console! An entire console will cost less than a modern PCIe card.
The whole reason we want great graphics cards on our Macs is because, unlike other platforms, Mac OS X actually uses them.
That said, I'll probably buy the new iMac regardless of the GPU or expandability. I need something compact and minimal for the living room that doesn't cost as much as a portable.
I'd say Linux gaming is incidental, just like Mac gaming.. if you have a Linux or Mac system and you also happen to like the few games that are available for your platform, you play. It doesn't make sense to get the system for games, but getting $100 more expensive graphics card is not a big investment.
OS X uses graphics acceleration - so what? It just means the system benefits from a decent amount of graphics memory. What good is a fast GPU do when all you do is move a few rectangular blocks around?
You aren't much of a gamer if you think a console can replace a gaming PC. Two very different animals. If anything, an existing PC can replace the console to a degree.
If Apple gives us a 2.4 GHz G5, with a Radeon 9600XT (or better), a 20" display and a super drive for $1,799.00 I'll order one the day it is announced.
You and everyone else on the planet would be ordering this
$1299 20" display
$500 2.4Ghz G5(estimated)
= $1799 for two components. Where do we fit the rest of the computer in?
I'm not overly concerned about clockspeed. The GPU is becoming vastly more important the the user experience of OSX than clockspeed. We'll see if Apple takes care of us with some decent GPUs.
OS X uses graphics acceleration - so what? It just means the system benefits from a decent amount of graphics memory. What good is a fast GPU do when all you do is move a few rectangular blocks around?
Gross oversimplification. That almost sounded like Thurrotian logic.
Originally posted by Gon
OS X uses graphics acceleration - so what? It just means the system benefits from a decent amount of graphics memory. What good is a fast GPU do when all you do is move a few rectangular blocks around?
Maybe you don't understand how Quartz Extreme works. You're not just "moving a few rectangular boxes around." The windowing system is fully composited, allowing for true alpha transparency, anti-aliasing, etc.
Besides, there are no "rectangular boxes" in OS X. They're rounded rectangular boxes, thank you very much.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Gross oversimplification.
I know that Core Image and friends are coming, but if I understand correctly, they do not speed things up as much as they make application development easier. Even if there is significant speed improvement, that is going to show in graphics and video work only. There are things that the GPU are very well suited for and that would be a tremendous bandwidth hog when done on the CPU, like window handling, but weak GPUs are truly enough for that. What are you thinking about, exactly? Why a fast GPU would be essential for general office and home use?
Trying to push general tasks to a special purpose processor that the GPUs are is very much like pounding a round peg to a square hole. I wonder if the buzz about this is mostly just an allergic reaction to Apple's perpetual weak CPU problem (an unnamed peg manufacturer can't make square pegs big enough
Originally posted by Michael Wilkie
Maybe you don't understand how Quartz Extreme works. You're not just "moving a few rectangular boxes around." The windowing system is fully composited, allowing for true alpha transparency, anti-aliasing, etc.
Besides, there are no "rectangular boxes" in OS X. They're rounded rectangular boxes, thank you very much.
I know Quartz does a lot of stuff. It just happens to be the kind of stuff GPUs are extremely efficient for, therefore I assume a "lesser" GPU should be enough.
The rectangular boxes are no less rectangular (from the POV of the GPU) if the bitmaps in the corners are "rounded" by alpha.
Core Image/Video will make programming easier but they also make it easier to incorporate elements in your applicatins that would bog the CPU down more than you'd like. Every application that we use is being pumped through the GPU so we might as well take advantage of its 128 and 256bit processing and Pixel Shaders.
No I don't think your basica productivity applications will see a huge boost unless they add transitions and video and image processing. I guess conventional wisdom states that if you are doing basic web browsing and office productivy applications then CPU speed isn't the prime obstacle to your success.
I find the things that slow computers down the most seems to be image or video processing. Which Apple has deftly addressed in Tiger.
They have also advanced Quartz 2D which will likely have the moniker "Quartz 2D Extreme" It's currently disabled in the preview release but should be live for the final. This should give everyone a speedup in standard window speed. I look forward to it since I hate gui lag in window resizing.
Originally posted by hmurchison
No I don't think your basica productivity applications will see a huge boost unless they add transitions and video and image processing. I guess conventional wisdom states that if you are doing basic web browsing and office productivy applications then CPU speed isn't the prime obstacle to your success.
I assume you mean, computer speed isn't the prime obstacle to your success. And you are right. I find all PC processors have been fine for most productivity work for years.. so these performance discussions are actually of interest for different performance niches. There's the audio pros, the graphics pros, database people, gamers, and programmers. Database guys and programmers mostly aren't interested in whatever the GPU has to offer beyond the window swingin'. I acknowledge that as a general purpose computer, the iMac should have a good GPU. It's just not necessary for many people, including non-gamer consumers and said professionals.
You're not thinking about the future though.
Offloading as much of the display work to the GPU frees the CPU up for other task. Apple has stated with their app Motion your speed will improve almost linearly with the speed of your GPU.
Thus if Quartz 2D Extreme acceleration is faster depending on the speed of the GPU I think consumers will be forced to look at what they are getting in this area beyond just gaming.
Also with Apple proclaiming the CRT to be dead it's important that consumers know that LCDs come in native resolutions. Many like the big screens but they don't like miniscule text and icons. While Apple has stated that it's not coming in the inital Tiger release they already have Resolution Independence in the PR build. Thus we will rely on our GPU to be fast because more and more of the UI is being written in a manner that allows for GPU acceleration which makes Rez Independence a feasible feature.
Honestly I guess we'll find out next spring when iLife 5 ships how important the GPU is. If we see massive speedups in Core Image enabled iLife then we'll have our final answer. Should be fun.