[quoting me saying that I haven't heard of Apple being stingy - context snipped]
?!
I haven't heard of them being stingy with review models.
It's right there in the text. It's not hard to find.
If you look around a bit, you might even find me dinging them for being stingy with RAM. All you have to do is actually read the posts here and your responses will make sense.
no matter how much you don't want to believe it, the imac just just too thin at this point to use a high-end GPU. the 9600 and 9800 are wayyyy too hot still. you HAVE to keep this in mind. its not a cost issue, its a space and heat issue.
I guess my one inch thick Powerbook can't possibly have far more GPU power than the iMac, then?
What's new? My 1st gen blueberry iMac could barely load Quake 3, which was pretty much the D3 equivalent of its time. None of the 1st gen iMacs EVER played 3d games well. The Rage Pro card they used was pretty much a joke compared to the Voodoo and Nvidia offerings of the time.
And yet Apple shipped around 6 million of the bubble-iMacs.
Take a chill pill folks. The inability of the iMac 3 to play D3 at a speed you would deem acceptable is unlikely to hurt it significantly.
What's new? My 1st gen blueberry iMac could barely load Quake 3, which was pretty much the D3 equivalent of its time. None of the 1st gen iMacs EVER played 3d games well. The Rage Pro card they used was pretty much a joke compared to the Voodoo and Nvidia offerings of the time.
And yet Apple shipped around 6 million of the bubble-iMacs.
Take a chill pill folks. The inability of the iMac 3 to play D3 at a speed you would deem acceptable is unlikely to hurt it significantly.
did those jelly beans have high resolution 20 inch displays and a cost of nearly 2000 dollars?
did those jelly beans have high resolution 20 inch displays and a cost of nearly 2000 dollars?
Well I bought my original for $1299, which is of course the starting point for iMac3. Factor inflation since 1998, and my iMac v1 would cost around 1600 today I guess.
Irrespective of price points the iMac has NEVER been a good gaming machine, even when it was at the heights of its popularity. It simply isn't aimed at the niche the people in this thread seem to occupy. While it might seem 'obvious' to folks in this thread that they may be able to secure some extra sales by stuffing in some other card, Apple needs to balance this against:
- existing supply contracts
- time to the market issues
- expected increase in sales vs cost of implementation etc.
Apple is a business. There will be people who have considered these issues logically and opted for the 5200. While this relegates the iMac to a 3d gaming lightweight, I really don't think it is the disaster people in this thread are making it out to be.
6 million bubble Macs folks. Rage Pro graphics cards which were about a 1/3 of the speed of the Voodoo 1/2/3s of the era.
Irrespective of price points the iMac has NEVER been a good gaming machine, even when it was at the heights of its popularity. It simply isn't aimed at the niche the people in this thread seem to occupy. While it might seem 'obvious' to folks in this thread that they may be able to secure some extra sales by stuffing in some other card, Apple needs to balance this against:
Gaming is no longer a niche. The games industry makes more money than Hollywood now. True most of that is in the console sector, but PC games such as Half Life 2, Doom 3, and The Sims 2 will do very big business. They also generate huge publicity an buzz, - a lot of people will want to play them.
iMac will struggle with all of these, even Sims 2. Surely an ideal game for the iMac?
Furthermore there are a growing number of people who want to get out of PC land. iMac would be an ideal machine to switch to, IF it had a proper GPU in it.
That Apple push iMac as a games platform on their own website is curious. If they think highly enough of games to push them so hard, why do they not at least offer a BTO option on iMac for a game capable GPU?
Well I bought my original for $1299, which is of course the starting point for iMac3. Factor inflation since 1998, and my iMac v1 would cost around 1600 today I guess.
Irrespective of price points the iMac has NEVER been a good gaming machine, even when it was at the heights of its popularity. It simply isn't aimed at the niche the people in this thread seem to occupy. While it might seem 'obvious' to folks in this thread that they may be able to secure some extra sales by stuffing in some other card, Apple needs to balance this against:
- existing supply contracts
- time to the market issues
- expected increase in sales vs cost of implementation etc.
Apple is a business. There will be people who have considered these issues logically and opted for the 5200. While this relegates the iMac to a 3d gaming lightweight, I really don't think it is the disaster people in this thread are making it out to be.
6 million bubble Macs folks. Rage Pro graphics cards which were about a 1/3 of the speed of the Voodoo 1/2/3s of the era.
inflation does not apply to the computer industry. since 1998 computers have gotten cheaper and more powerful.
you're computer you bought does not adjust for inflation. if you want to see what it would cost today look at the eMac. big difference.
the current iMac DOES NOT target the same market that the original did. It's in a completely different pricing bracket. The lowend, yes. Highend, hell no. The highend is attracting people who know computers, are probably prosumers or have had several computers already and don't need a computer jr. experience.
The fact is, the lack of a more powerful GPU option is costing them sales. Spin it whichever way you want....if they had a GPU option they would sell more iMacs.
No doubt. If your buying a computer mainly, and strictly for games it's almost as complicated to build as a PC for DCC, VIdeo, CAD, or Audio. A bit less expensive, but your really hand picking the best parts as you see fit. The iMac has never really fallen into that category, and DOOM 3 isn't even getting ported to the Mac for some time according to the developers. By that time there will be an iMac revision/update, and it will probably have a new video card as well.
Seriously I don't think a stock build (no BTO ops) iMac would play the game that well anyway. Even after an update. You would probably need to fill the RAM to full capacity.
Another matter is DOOM3 isn't that impressive - from what I've heard it's pretty much a disappointment, and was a mostly a bunch of hype. THe visuals are great looking, but if the game pretty much sucks who cares right?
No doubt. If your buying a computer mainly, and strictly for games it's almost as complicated to build as a PC for DCC, VIdeo, CAD, or Audio. A bit less expensive, but your really hand picking the best parts as you see fit. The iMac has never really fallen into that category, and DOOM 3 isn't even getting ported to the Mac for some time according to the developers. By that time there will be an iMac revision/update, and it will probably have a new video card as well. -snip-
One of the reasons why Doom 3 is not already ported to the Mac is that only the few people who have fast G5 towers with an upgraded videocard would be able to play it. It would make no sense to release it now -- there just are not enough Macs capable of running Doom 3. I would not release doom 3 for the Mac until the iMac could play it at a decent frame rate on medium/low settings.
Here's a logic question for all those that say that the next-gen of iMac3 will likely have a better GPU. What logic do you have to support this claim? If Apple believes the current offering is sufficient to meet the demands of it's target consumer group, what motivation does Steve Jobs have to change GPU's? History proves that Apple is disinterested in quality GPU integration in iMacs. There has NEVER been a highend or even medium level GPU offering in iMacs as gamers see them. I wish this weren't the case, but Steve Jobs isn't the least bit interested in gaming computers. The evidence is in the offerings and the history of Mac's in general. Until new upper-level members are introduced at Apple that are gamers, there will be ZERO drive toward that market regardless of the disinformation presented on their website in regard to gaming performance.
The only tactic that could possibly work - though it would burn relations - is gaming companies publicly shaming Apple for not providing quality GPU options at a price point the average household can afford. Magazine articles, and news spots publicly showing the iMac lagging, could be the motivation needed to get Apple to finally address this market. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, but considering Steve's temper, it could also be a PR nightmare. It's obvious that Apple isn't the least bit concerned with the viewpoints presented in these forums, nor are Apple's upper management interested in our opinions of their products, otherwise this issue would have been addressed some time ago. They know that we'll all eventually upgrade and we'll "settle" for what we can afford because we have no other choice but to buy the products they provide in the configurations they deem adequate if we choose to run Mac OS X.
Another matter is DOOM3 isn't that impressive - from what I've heard it's pretty much a disappointment, and was a mostly a bunch of hype. THe visuals are great looking, but if the game pretty much sucks who cares right?
You might want to play it before saying things like that.
Doom 3 is one of my favourite games this year, I loved every minute of it. The visuals are amazing, and a big part of the experience, but it also has an amazing atmosphere and plenty of shocks. Plus it's a great shooter which is surprisingly long.
It's had lots of great reviews too, it isn't just me saying that it's good.
But, even if Doom 3 wasn't up to much it wouldn't make any difference to the iMac problem. Doom 3 is one of the first of the new way of high end games. Far Cry was first, then Doom 3, next up are Half Life 2, Stalker, Quake 4, and so on. It won't be long before every PC shooter has Doom 3 level visuals or higher.
Doom 3 will run on the iMac after they optimize the code. I would compare the situation with that of Unreal Tournament 2004. The initial systems specs were hefty and the current demo runs well on my USB2.0 iMac.
Here's a logic question for all those that say that the next-gen of iMac3 will likely have a better GPU. What logic do you have to support this claim? If Apple believes the current offering is sufficient to meet the demands of it's target consumer group, what motivation does Steve Jobs have to change GPU's?
Well, there was the report a while ago that nVidia has stopped making 5200 chips. Admittedly, it was because there was a glut of them on the market, and at the rate they're selling them now, the current supply would last for at least several months. Who knows-- maybe there's enough of them left in the channel that Apple could keep them in the iMac through the next update.
I think it's important to remember that Apple does occasionally make changes to satisfy their customers. The 14" iBook and the mini DVI connector on the 12" Powerbook are both examples of this.
Personally, I'm hoping Apple switches to PCI Express with the next revision of the iMac, and we get something like an x300 on the low end, with an optional x500 (x600? I forget what it's called) on the high end. Or better yet, x5/600 on low end, & x800 on the high end. Somehow, I suspect that the next revision will still be AGP, though. In that case, a 9600XT or 5700Ultra would be nice, if they're cool enough to go in the case.
Doom 3 will run on the iMac after they optimize the code. I would compare the situation with that of Unreal Tournament 2004. The initial systems specs were hefty and the current demo runs well on my USB2.0 iMac.
I consider the UT2004 bot deathmatch hardly playable, so I wouldn't even try against human opponents. I have the newest generation 15" 1.33GHz PB, 768MB RAM. Apart from the PB having a better GPU, that should be the equal of the USB2.0 iMac, no?
Wouldn't playing against human opponents be faster than bots because the CPU isn't busy doing all the bot AI calculations?
Depends. Running the networking code is not free, and you can make a bot to use little or a lot of CPU. However, my experience with the botmatch was very bad, many levels (like the Assault and Onslaught ones) being unplayable, and only halfway playable mode being deathmatch at lowest settings. I don't think the stock bots can possibly take so much CPU the game suddenly becomes playable against human opponents.
I remember how disappointed I was when I bought my first iMac 450 DV+ and it couldn´t play unReal tournament on full settings !
Doom3, Halo and UT2003/2004 should be playing flawlessly on a new iMac. I am not a pro, but as many others, there is children involved and they play games !!!
Halo and UT2004 will barely run at high settings on a powermac 2.5 with a 9600xt. Its all about the graphics card... and the 5200 isn't going to pump out anything serious. My 5900xt on my PC barely runs doom3 at high (not max) settings... on 1024/768. If you ask me, releasing doom3 for mac is a waste of time... the only 3 cards that will be able to run it decently are the 9600,9800, and 6800.... unless IDSoftware does some MAJOR optimizations!
I consider the UT2004 bot deathmatch hardly playable, so I wouldn't even try against human opponents. I have the newest generation 15" 1.33GHz PB, 768MB RAM. Apart from the PB having a better GPU, that should be the equal of the USB2.0 iMac, no?
Gon what settings do you have the game on? I have everything on normal, except texture quality which is set to high, made a few ini tweaks, I have the exact same setup as you, and I enjoy a 7 bot deathmatch with good fps - i.e. playable all the time, some maps slow down, but most do not.
Comments
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
[quoting me saying that I haven't heard of Apple being stingy - context snipped]
?!
I haven't heard of them being stingy with review models.
It's right there in the text. It's not hard to find.
If you look around a bit, you might even find me dinging them for being stingy with RAM. All you have to do is actually read the posts here and your responses will make sense.
Originally posted by exhibit_13
no matter how much you don't want to believe it, the imac just just too thin at this point to use a high-end GPU. the 9600 and 9800 are wayyyy too hot still. you HAVE to keep this in mind. its not a cost issue, its a space and heat issue.
I guess my one inch thick Powerbook can't possibly have far more GPU power than the iMac, then?
What's new? My 1st gen blueberry iMac could barely load Quake 3, which was pretty much the D3 equivalent of its time. None of the 1st gen iMacs EVER played 3d games well. The Rage Pro card they used was pretty much a joke compared to the Voodoo and Nvidia offerings of the time.
And yet Apple shipped around 6 million of the bubble-iMacs.
Take a chill pill folks. The inability of the iMac 3 to play D3 at a speed you would deem acceptable is unlikely to hurt it significantly.
Originally posted by Sceptic
So the iMac won't play Doom 3 well.
What's new? My 1st gen blueberry iMac could barely load Quake 3, which was pretty much the D3 equivalent of its time. None of the 1st gen iMacs EVER played 3d games well. The Rage Pro card they used was pretty much a joke compared to the Voodoo and Nvidia offerings of the time.
And yet Apple shipped around 6 million of the bubble-iMacs.
Take a chill pill folks. The inability of the iMac 3 to play D3 at a speed you would deem acceptable is unlikely to hurt it significantly.
did those jelly beans have high resolution 20 inch displays and a cost of nearly 2000 dollars?
Originally posted by applenut
did those jelly beans have high resolution 20 inch displays and a cost of nearly 2000 dollars?
Well I bought my original for $1299, which is of course the starting point for iMac3. Factor inflation since 1998, and my iMac v1 would cost around 1600 today I guess.
Irrespective of price points the iMac has NEVER been a good gaming machine, even when it was at the heights of its popularity. It simply isn't aimed at the niche the people in this thread seem to occupy. While it might seem 'obvious' to folks in this thread that they may be able to secure some extra sales by stuffing in some other card, Apple needs to balance this against:
- existing supply contracts
- time to the market issues
- expected increase in sales vs cost of implementation etc.
Apple is a business. There will be people who have considered these issues logically and opted for the 5200. While this relegates the iMac to a 3d gaming lightweight, I really don't think it is the disaster people in this thread are making it out to be.
6 million bubble Macs folks. Rage Pro graphics cards which were about a 1/3 of the speed of the Voodoo 1/2/3s of the era.
Originally posted by Sceptic
Irrespective of price points the iMac has NEVER been a good gaming machine, even when it was at the heights of its popularity. It simply isn't aimed at the niche the people in this thread seem to occupy. While it might seem 'obvious' to folks in this thread that they may be able to secure some extra sales by stuffing in some other card, Apple needs to balance this against:
Gaming is no longer a niche. The games industry makes more money than Hollywood now. True most of that is in the console sector, but PC games such as Half Life 2, Doom 3, and The Sims 2 will do very big business. They also generate huge publicity an buzz, - a lot of people will want to play them.
iMac will struggle with all of these, even Sims 2. Surely an ideal game for the iMac?
Furthermore there are a growing number of people who want to get out of PC land. iMac would be an ideal machine to switch to, IF it had a proper GPU in it.
That Apple push iMac as a games platform on their own website is curious. If they think highly enough of games to push them so hard, why do they not at least offer a BTO option on iMac for a game capable GPU?
Originally posted by Sceptic
Well I bought my original for $1299, which is of course the starting point for iMac3. Factor inflation since 1998, and my iMac v1 would cost around 1600 today I guess.
Irrespective of price points the iMac has NEVER been a good gaming machine, even when it was at the heights of its popularity. It simply isn't aimed at the niche the people in this thread seem to occupy. While it might seem 'obvious' to folks in this thread that they may be able to secure some extra sales by stuffing in some other card, Apple needs to balance this against:
- existing supply contracts
- time to the market issues
- expected increase in sales vs cost of implementation etc.
Apple is a business. There will be people who have considered these issues logically and opted for the 5200. While this relegates the iMac to a 3d gaming lightweight, I really don't think it is the disaster people in this thread are making it out to be.
6 million bubble Macs folks. Rage Pro graphics cards which were about a 1/3 of the speed of the Voodoo 1/2/3s of the era.
inflation does not apply to the computer industry. since 1998 computers have gotten cheaper and more powerful.
you're computer you bought does not adjust for inflation. if you want to see what it would cost today look at the eMac. big difference.
the current iMac DOES NOT target the same market that the original did. It's in a completely different pricing bracket. The lowend, yes. Highend, hell no. The highend is attracting people who know computers, are probably prosumers or have had several computers already and don't need a computer jr. experience.
The fact is, the lack of a more powerful GPU option is costing them sales. Spin it whichever way you want....if they had a GPU option they would sell more iMacs.
Seriously I don't think a stock build (no BTO ops) iMac would play the game that well anyway. Even after an update. You would probably need to fill the RAM to full capacity.
Another matter is DOOM3 isn't that impressive - from what I've heard it's pretty much a disappointment, and was a mostly a bunch of hype. THe visuals are great looking, but if the game pretty much sucks who cares right?
Originally posted by onlooker
No doubt. If your buying a computer mainly, and strictly for games it's almost as complicated to build as a PC for DCC, VIdeo, CAD, or Audio. A bit less expensive, but your really hand picking the best parts as you see fit. The iMac has never really fallen into that category, and DOOM 3 isn't even getting ported to the Mac for some time according to the developers. By that time there will be an iMac revision/update, and it will probably have a new video card as well. -snip-
One of the reasons why Doom 3 is not already ported to the Mac is that only the few people who have fast G5 towers with an upgraded videocard would be able to play it. It would make no sense to release it now -- there just are not enough Macs capable of running Doom 3. I would not release doom 3 for the Mac until the iMac could play it at a decent frame rate on medium/low settings.
The only tactic that could possibly work - though it would burn relations - is gaming companies publicly shaming Apple for not providing quality GPU options at a price point the average household can afford. Magazine articles, and news spots publicly showing the iMac lagging, could be the motivation needed to get Apple to finally address this market. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, but considering Steve's temper, it could also be a PR nightmare. It's obvious that Apple isn't the least bit concerned with the viewpoints presented in these forums, nor are Apple's upper management interested in our opinions of their products, otherwise this issue would have been addressed some time ago. They know that we'll all eventually upgrade and we'll "settle" for what we can afford because we have no other choice but to buy the products they provide in the configurations they deem adequate if we choose to run Mac OS X.
Originally posted by onlooker
Another matter is DOOM3 isn't that impressive - from what I've heard it's pretty much a disappointment, and was a mostly a bunch of hype. THe visuals are great looking, but if the game pretty much sucks who cares right?
You might want to play it before saying things like that.
Doom 3 is one of my favourite games this year, I loved every minute of it. The visuals are amazing, and a big part of the experience, but it also has an amazing atmosphere and plenty of shocks. Plus it's a great shooter which is surprisingly long.
It's had lots of great reviews too, it isn't just me saying that it's good.
But, even if Doom 3 wasn't up to much it wouldn't make any difference to the iMac problem. Doom 3 is one of the first of the new way of high end games. Far Cry was first, then Doom 3, next up are Half Life 2, Stalker, Quake 4, and so on. It won't be long before every PC shooter has Doom 3 level visuals or higher.
Here's a logic question for all those that say that the next-gen of iMac3 will likely have a better GPU. What logic do you have to support this claim? If Apple believes the current offering is sufficient to meet the demands of it's target consumer group, what motivation does Steve Jobs have to change GPU's?
Well, there was the report a while ago that nVidia has stopped making 5200 chips. Admittedly, it was because there was a glut of them on the market, and at the rate they're selling them now, the current supply would last for at least several months. Who knows-- maybe there's enough of them left in the channel that Apple could keep them in the iMac through the next update.
I think it's important to remember that Apple does occasionally make changes to satisfy their customers. The 14" iBook and the mini DVI connector on the 12" Powerbook are both examples of this.
Personally, I'm hoping Apple switches to PCI Express with the next revision of the iMac, and we get something like an x300 on the low end, with an optional x500 (x600? I forget what it's called) on the high end. Or better yet, x5/600 on low end, & x800 on the high end.
Originally posted by talksense101
Doom 3 will run on the iMac after they optimize the code. I would compare the situation with that of Unreal Tournament 2004. The initial systems specs were hefty and the current demo runs well on my USB2.0 iMac.
I consider the UT2004 bot deathmatch hardly playable, so I wouldn't even try against human opponents. I have the newest generation 15" 1.33GHz PB, 768MB RAM. Apart from the PB having a better GPU, that should be the equal of the USB2.0 iMac, no?
Originally posted by Gon
I consider the UT2004 bot deathmatch hardly playable, so I wouldn't even try against human opponents.
Wouldn't playing against human opponents be faster than bots because the CPU isn't busy doing all the bot AI calculations?
Originally posted by Borborygmi
Wouldn't playing against human opponents be faster than bots because the CPU isn't busy doing all the bot AI calculations?
Depends. Running the networking code is not free, and you can make a bot to use little or a lot of CPU. However, my experience with the botmatch was very bad, many levels (like the Assault and Onslaught ones) being unplayable, and only halfway playable mode being deathmatch at lowest settings. I don't think the stock bots can possibly take so much CPU the game suddenly becomes playable against human opponents.
Originally posted by zenarcade
I agree !
I remember how disappointed I was when I bought my first iMac 450 DV+ and it couldn´t play unReal tournament on full settings !
Doom3, Halo and UT2003/2004 should be playing flawlessly on a new iMac. I am not a pro, but as many others, there is children involved and they play games !!!
Halo and UT2004 will barely run at high settings on a powermac 2.5 with a 9600xt. Its all about the graphics card... and the 5200 isn't going to pump out anything serious. My 5900xt on my PC barely runs doom3 at high (not max) settings... on 1024/768. If you ask me, releasing doom3 for mac is a waste of time... the only 3 cards that will be able to run it decently are the 9600,9800, and 6800.... unless IDSoftware does some MAJOR optimizations!
Originally posted by Gon
I consider the UT2004 bot deathmatch hardly playable, so I wouldn't even try against human opponents. I have the newest generation 15" 1.33GHz PB, 768MB RAM. Apart from the PB having a better GPU, that should be the equal of the USB2.0 iMac, no?
Gon what settings do you have the game on? I have everything on normal, except texture quality which is set to high, made a few ini tweaks, I have the exact same setup as you, and I enjoy a 7 bot deathmatch with good fps - i.e. playable all the time, some maps slow down, but most do not.
Originally posted by Gon
I guess my one inch thick Powerbook can't possibly have far more GPU power than the iMac, then?
Your one inch thick PowerBook doesn't have it's guts situated behind the display.