I didn't think resolution independence would come as soon as 10.5. This doesn't totally change my opinion, but it's a significant general purpose use for GPU power.
I didn't think resolution independence would come as soon as 10.5. This doesn't totally change my opinion, but it's a significant general purpose use for GPU power.
Yeah. I'm hoping maybe we get it in a 10.4.5 upate or something.
The first pic looks funny because he said every time he opened a new app the resolution had to be reset. But it does let you see how funky thinks can get. I'm hoping Apple doesn't wait until 10.5 that's 2 years away at the least.
Well this is exactly why I think that Apple really has a winner in OS/X, many of the benefits of low cost "UNIX" systems without the limitations. The problem continues to be the lack of competitive hardware to run it on the desktop. Apple did an excellent job with the XServe G5 maybe they can do that with iMac3.
I do think that you slightly underestimate the state of 3D under Linux. Sure it is far from perfect and video drivers need a lot of work, but that doesn't mean it is not being used.
You do hit one key element squarely on the head, Mac OS/x and many of its applications do make use of the video hardware now. In the future it will only be more so. I really don't understand people that say they would buy the iMac3 with a third string video card. It really makes no sense at all if you understand the platform.
Thanks
Dave
Quote:
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.
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.
The TAM wasn't an inexpensive computer, but it certainly didn't cost $10K. Oh I did have to pick it up myself. For an additional $3K I could have had the "Concierge" service whwere they would have delivered it, set it up, and wiped my nose.
The TAM wasn't an inexpensive computer, but it certainly didn't cost $10K. Oh I did have to pick it up myself. For an additional $3K I could have had the "Concierge" service whwere they would have delivered it, set it up, and wiped my nose.
when it first was released it was indeed 10K. they quickly dropped the price and then dropped it further
'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.
I don't mind a 25% Mac tax. I just wish/hope the new iMacs get away from the ridiculous Mac tax of 100% for a computer that is worth much less uncoupled from the display.
I heard a sales rep from PC World saying that they don't make money on the Tower boxes. Margins are razor thin everywhere. They make it on selling LCD monitors/printers (which leads to sales of expensive ink cartridges...consumables...) Therein lay a tale on the iMac 2. Couple a bad computer to a sexy design and glue it to the monitor and you make your profit off the LCD and average or less components.
Agree with above post.
If Apple goes with a single 2.4 with 9600XT video card 20 inch LCD. I'm so there.
No. Really. AIO or not. I'd lay the smack down for that.
I think there's a link to Nvidia's new graphics slot tech' for laptops somewhere. I'd like to see Apple incorp that level of flexibility into iMac 3. Access to ram, cpu and gpu would be nice.
I'm beginning to like the alu monitor iMac idea more and more.
I just hope it aint the whore of babylon style 'cripple' that iMac 2 was.
I think Amorph said that Apple have an upgradeable slot for graphics in the PowerBook? Surely even the 9700 laptop gpu with 128 megs of ram would be okay?
I don't mind the Geforce mx crap on the barebones entry level iMac 3. But I hope they offer better GPU specs as the model goes up the pay ladder. Another weakness of the iMac 2.
In the iMac mock-up concept threads they have some cool images of what the new iMac could look like. I'd buy on of the monitor mac and G5 mini-tower macs in a heart beat!
I believe that the iMac3 design first faced a cost issue during the design work. If you look at the cost of the 20" display ($1,299) you can see the problem Apple faced. They are probably going to want to get the entry level iMac retail price down to that level and then expand the performance and display size (20"?) to a $2,199 level. That leaves $900 of space for the top of the line if they go headless and you get a 20" display - Aghhh! Costs will be the driving force behind an AIO form and I can live with that - my new PB is an AIO and I love it.
I'm far more interested in Apple moving the technologies from the PM to the iMac, making it a strong single G5 line. Things that move the iMac from having a fast FSB, SATA HD, fast memory, etc. are going to be a detriment to the line. Give me those things as a core and I'll be happy to upgrade the graphics card when i put in my BTO.
There is no way I can wait. I have wanted an iMAC for 1/2 year now finally they upgrade it. The 1st second it is available I'll be buying one. What is it going to look like. APPLE I WANT PICTURES!!!!!
The design of this imac has to go down in history as the best kept secret Apple has ever pulled off. I mean we know they are coming in a month and a half, at least one of these puppies has to be sitting somewhere getting its picture taken against a white background for thier website...
Comments
I didn't think resolution independence would come as soon as 10.5. This doesn't totally change my opinion, but it's a significant general purpose use for GPU power.
Originally posted by Gon
Whoa...
I didn't think resolution independence would come as soon as 10.5. This doesn't totally change my opinion, but it's a significant general purpose use for GPU power.
Yeah. I'm hoping maybe we get it in a 10.4.5 upate or something.
Check these out.
http://www.purrrr.net/temp/applications.png
http://www.purrrr.net/temp/quartzdebug.png
The first pic looks funny because he said every time he opened a new app the resolution had to be reset. But it does let you see how funky thinks can get. I'm hoping Apple doesn't wait until 10.5 that's 2 years away at the least.
I do think that you slightly underestimate the state of 3D under Linux. Sure it is far from perfect and video drivers need a lot of work, but that doesn't mean it is not being used.
You do hit one key element squarely on the head, Mac OS/x and many of its applications do make use of the video hardware now. In the future it will only be more so. I really don't understand people that say they would buy the iMac3 with a third string video card. It really makes no sense at all if you understand the platform.
Thanks
Dave
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.
Originally posted by a_greer
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.
The TAM wasn't an inexpensive computer, but it certainly didn't cost $10K. Oh I did have to pick it up myself. For an additional $3K I could have had the "Concierge" service whwere they would have delivered it, set it up, and wiped my nose.
Originally posted by woofer
The TAM wasn't an inexpensive computer, but it certainly didn't cost $10K. Oh I did have to pick it up myself. For an additional $3K I could have had the "Concierge" service whwere they would have delivered it, set it up, and wiped my nose.
when it first was released it was indeed 10K. they quickly dropped the price and then dropped it further
Originally posted by applenut
when it first was released it was indeed 10K. they quickly dropped the price and then dropped it further
I guess I should have said that I didn't pay $10K for it.
'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.
I don't mind a 25% Mac tax. I just wish/hope the new iMacs get away from the ridiculous Mac tax of 100% for a computer that is worth much less uncoupled from the display.
I heard a sales rep from PC World saying that they don't make money on the Tower boxes. Margins are razor thin everywhere. They make it on selling LCD monitors/printers (which leads to sales of expensive ink cartridges...consumables...) Therein lay a tale on the iMac 2. Couple a bad computer to a sexy design and glue it to the monitor and you make your profit off the LCD and average or less components.
Agree with above post.
If Apple goes with a single 2.4 with 9600XT video card 20 inch LCD. I'm so there.
No. Really. AIO or not. I'd lay the smack down for that.
I think there's a link to Nvidia's new graphics slot tech' for laptops somewhere. I'd like to see Apple incorp that level of flexibility into iMac 3. Access to ram, cpu and gpu would be nice.
I'm beginning to like the alu monitor iMac idea more and more.
I just hope it aint the whore of babylon style 'cripple' that iMac 2 was.
I think Amorph said that Apple have an upgradeable slot for graphics in the PowerBook? Surely even the 9700 laptop gpu with 128 megs of ram would be okay?
I don't mind the Geforce mx crap on the barebones entry level iMac 3. But I hope they offer better GPU specs as the model goes up the pay ladder. Another weakness of the iMac 2.
In the iMac mock-up concept threads they have some cool images of what the new iMac could look like. I'd buy on of the monitor mac and G5 mini-tower macs in a heart beat!
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by kenaustus
... What's it going to take to get you to buy?...
Well, i am a potential buyer, though, IiiiiiiF they offer a headless machine.
A white plastic pizza box would suit my needs... also, if this headless iMac G5 has a xServe look, i wouldn't wail either
greetings
I'm far more interested in Apple moving the technologies from the PM to the iMac, making it a strong single G5 line. Things that move the iMac from having a fast FSB, SATA HD, fast memory, etc. are going to be a detriment to the line. Give me those things as a core and I'll be happy to upgrade the graphics card when i put in my BTO.
The design of this imac has to go down in history as the best kept secret Apple has ever pulled off. I mean we know they are coming in a month and a half, at least one of these puppies has to be sitting somewhere getting its picture taken against a white background for thier website...