The range being offered is underpowered. People are looking at the G5 and assuming it's better running at any speed than any Pentia running at any speed, and that's just plain not true. Running 32 bit code, it's going to be only slightly faster than a G4 scaled to the same MHz, which is roughly the speed of a P3 scaled to the same MHz, and until all Apple's offerings are 64 bit and are most of the PPCs out there, you can bet that almost all the code being run will be 32 bit.
It has too high a cost of entry. Oh sure, there's no perfect price, I'm sure if the baseline Mac cost $499 (not impossible if you went back to the "other" type of AIO, with the computer built into the keyboard instead of the monitor, and monitor available seperately - ugly, but it works.) there'd be people demanding a $200 Mac. They'd be wrong though.
But, regardless, I think $1,299 is well above what most people are willing to pay. You can BS about "all" Dell's computers that cost less than $999 being awful, but, well, frankly they're not. They're, for the most part, powerful machines that can run all the latest software. They're not as good as they could be, but...
...the proposed iMac isn't as good as it could be either! Frankly, it's a lemon. It doesn't have enough memory, it has a slow CPU (1.6 and 1.8MHz G5? Just saying "64 bit" and "megahertz myth" doesn't mean you can get away with anything), and it has limited growth potential. And this is a machine designed to discourage upgrading - so it has to be good out of the box, it has to be powerful enough that someone considering buying it isn't going to think "Well, this will be obsolete in 12 months, it already doesn't run much of the software I want to run." or else it has to be so cheap that it doesn't matter.
I don't see it as good value for money. It's not a continuation of 1G iMac, it's an apparent continuation of the disaster that was 2G iMac, an elegant and attractive computer that's too expensive and too underpowered for anyone other than the more-money-than-sense crowd to buy it.
The #1 thing that concerns me though is the "Education model". Apple currently has one, precisely one, computer aimed at the reasonable-value market (and it's not that great a value right now anyway, and is butt-ugly.) Apple had better not be considering withdrawing it.
I hope for Apple's sake there's more to the iMac 3G than the leaked specs and pricing. Much more. OS X is something I'd recommend to anyone, but I balk at the idea of recommending someone buy a machine with the power of a $300-400 Wal*Mart box + monitor for $1,000 more simply to run that OS.
You might find it cheaper! Panels are paid by the square inch, not the resolution -- unless there are wild difference in overall screen realestate. YOu'll find that Apple's 17" widescreen has slightly less overall square footage, and slightly less overall resolution. And it's also far more standard than you think: used as it is in a wide variety of notebooks and Apple's own PB17.
If you haven't seen major differences between LCD displays, even when comparing only within roughly the same size and pixel counts range, then you either haven't done much looking around or you aren't very particular about display quality.
Just look at a 17" iMac (current version) and a 17" PowerBook. The iMac looks much better. The 17" PB's display looks good for a laptop, but it's nowhere near as nice as the iMac's display. Brightness, contrast, and breadth of viewing angle are obvious differences.
If it's not a difference in the LCD panels themselves (which I tend to doubt), then it's the quality of the backlights and/or the enclosures -- something makes a big difference in quality, and whatever that something is, it's probably not free.
Quote:
The whole point of the AIO mobo, when you avoid double sided mobos and odd shapes, is that the integrated solution will be cheaper. Everything is scale to fit, just enough PS output, cheaper embedded GPU, one cicuit board, no daughtercards, no slots, less assembly steps. If the argument has suddenly become that the AIO is more expensive, please see the numerous headless Mac threads just build a mini-tower or cube, or whatever sell it from 799-1499 sans display, and let the end user think about that.
While there are factors about AIO motherboards that might sometimes bring down costs, I don't think the savings Apple can muster that way for a custom G5 motherboard are going to come anywhere near the savings due to economy of scale for generic, mass-produced low-end PC motherboards.
I just did some shopping around at Dell and Gateway for what you could get for around $999 with a 17" LCD in the PC World...
Start with the lowest-of-the low Celeron System at Dell. If you think 256 MB and no DVD burner is unacceptable in any system being sold these days, this has CD-ROM (that's Read Only -- no burner of any sort at all) and a skimpy 128 MB of RAM.
So let's boost the above all the way up to those lousy iMac specs of a mere 256 MB and a combo drive -- still no DVD burner, just CD-RW/DVD-ROM.
Select the cheapest 17" flatscreen Dell offers. This isn't widescreen, it's only 1280x1024 with NO DIGITAL input. Analog only in this price range.
Video card? Who knows. I couldn't find this spec anywhere, at least in plain sight, and as far as I can tell, it's probably just whatever comes built-in on the motherboard. The RAM on this system is referred to as "shared RAM" -- I think that means that there isn't any dedicated video RAM at all, in which case your video has to share the use of that piddling 256 MB with the rest of the system. I don't think anyone's going to be thrilled about playing Doom III on this box either.
What's the price? $997 before $50 mail-in rebate. You also get a cheap printer (bonus, dood!) but have to pay $25 extra for the USB cable to connect the printer up. Dell also wants another $99 for the cheapest shipping option (3-5 delivery), so you're up over $1000 at this point.
You really, really think Apple should -- rather than coming up with a completely different product -- turn the 17" iMac into something cheesey enough to compete with this schlock?
What I want to know is which lunatic started this "consumer desktops have to start at $999" BS. To me, and to all the other consumer desktop users I know $1300 is better than acceptible for what you get in an iMac. It's 64 bit computing, and you CAN'T find a 64 bit Opertron (or whatever AMDs name for thier 64 bit chipset is) in a $1300 machine, at least not on the consumer level.
64 meg graphic card. Hey, I have a 64 meg Radeon 9000 in my Dual 1.25 G4 and it's peachy keen for every game on the market for Mac right now (I play Americas Army at highest resolution settings without a problem. Same with Warbirds 2004), it's fine for graphic intensive "consumer" programs too like Painter 8, Photoshop, etc...
Consumer machines aren't generally used for rendering Finding friggin' Nemo scenes. or applying 450 Photoshop filters to a 47" - 54" movie poster.
Expandability. You can add RAM, an Airport card (unless it's integrated already), and a host of Firewire drives and peripherals. Do what's the problem? How much crap does someone at the consumer level have? Chances are aside from a large MP3 file (which can go on an iPod or Firewire drive too) they don't have much.
iApps. Sure, a PC user can scour versiontracker to find buggy, shitty, proprietary, freeware and shareware that performs similar functions. But consumers get them on first boot in an iMac and included in the sale price of the machine.
I think the main problem most people here have with the TS iMac specs is it doesn't fit THEIR definition of "good consumer computer", and for most of them it seems that such a computer is another cube. Well, here's a newsflash for you, the cube is dead. It failed. No amount of expandibility or the ability to connect your own monitor to it, or anything saved it. People like me chose the AIO iMac's for a myriad of reasons, including ease of setup, ease of use, adequate power, and price. At the time the iMac G3 350 was a helluva deal at almost half the price of the cube.
Mine lasted me 5 years. Now my Dad has it and it still works fine and meets his needs.
I am not going to speculate about what "consumers" do with their machines, I know what I do with mine (which isn't a consumer machine) and I also know that the TS iMac would more than meet my computing needs for years to come.
What I want to know is which lunatic started this "consumer desktops have to start at $999" BS.
Fred Anderson
Quote:
Consumer machines aren't generally used for rendering Finding friggin' Nemo scenes. or applying 450 Photoshop filters to a 47" - 54" movie poster.
Quote:
I am not going to speculate about what "consumers" do with their machines...
Quote:
I think the main problem most people here have with the TS iMac specs is it doesn't fit THEIR definition of "good consumer computer"
Or maybe it only fits YOUR definition of "good consumer computer." The iMac G4 was a flop and the iMac G5, according to the TS specs, repeats every mistake. It has been proven, over and over, that computer buyers overwhelmingly prefer to buy a tower and a monitor vs. an LCD AIO.
The range being offered is underpowered. People are looking at the G5 and assuming it's better running at any speed than any Pentia running at any speed, and that's just plain not true. Running 32 bit code, it's going to be only slightly faster than a G4 scaled to the same MHz, which is roughly the speed of a P3 scaled to the same MHz, and until all Apple's offerings are 64 bit and are most of the PPCs out there, you can bet that almost all the code being run will be 32 bit.
No you're wrong. You just can't boil G4 vs G5 performance down to a nice tidy little package. Integer performance between the two is similar but the two FP units in the G5 are far more superior. Plus the G5 queues a lot of instructions(215 I believe). History seems to show me that it takes at least 2 years before developers really have optimizing for a processor down. It seems rather de'rigeur for people to downplay the G5 when it suits them but the truth is closer to "the G5 is faster than the G4 and with more optimizations will get even faster in the future"(at the same clock). The IBM XLC compiler bears this out in ways. Maybe it doesn't do G4 compiling well(still equal to GCC) but it kicks ass for the G5.
Quote:
But, regardless, I think $1,299 is well above what most people are willing to pay. You can BS about "all" Dell's computers that cost less than $999 being awful, but, well, frankly they're not. They're, for the most part, powerful machines that can run all the latest software. They're not as good as they could be, but...
Then a Macintosh iMac G5 LCD isn't for these people. Apple makes the eMac..if they don't like that they can go buy a PC. Apple doesn't beg for sales, they put extra care in software and hardware design. That thing I want to see is Apple whoring their product out. It is a privledge to have a Mac. PC people like them but many just can't pay the extra price. It's good to be somewhat exclusive. Running a Mac means you like an improved computing experience and you're willing to pay for it. Apple is very financially fit right now and moving forward steadily. They don't need huge sales in the $999 or less category.
Quote:
it has a slow CPU (1.6 and 1.8MHz G5? Just saying "64 bit" and "megahertz myth" doesn't mean you can get away with anything)
Oh so a 1.6 or 1.8Ghz G5 is slow now? Riiiiight keep stroking that RDF man you almost sounded convincing.
Quote:
I hope for Apple's sake there's more to the iMac 3G than the leaked specs and pricing. Much more. OS X is something I'd recommend to anyone, but I balk at the idea of recommending someone buy a machine with the power of a $300-400 Wal*Mart box + monitor for $1,000 more simply to run that OS.
YOU....ARE ....DUMB
I'm sorry I violated the TOS but sometimes you read a post so stupid in content, so rife with banality I literally dry heaved reading this.
I will no sit on AI any longer and subject myself to the mindless rantings of an idiot while holding my tongue. I think I lost brain cells reading this trash.
I'm sincerely hoping some of you all switch to PC so that that IQs of both platforms can rise.
Good post BigMcLargehuge man since when did Mac users become so "spec whorish". Also of note is that these "Spec Whore" never get any real work done with their computer beyond playing the occaisonal game and ranting on a message board about how they feel slighted because their graphics card doesn't have the RAM or texel pipleline they want. Get a fuggin' life people. It's a computer for chrissakes.
Good post BigMcLargehuge man since when did Mac users become so "spec whorish". Also of note is that these "Spec Whore" never get any real work done with their computer beyond playing the occaisonal game and ranting on a message board about how they feel slighted because their graphics card doesn't have the RAM or texel pipleline they want. Get a fuggin' life people. It's a computer for chrissakes.
Thanks Murch!
I've seen so many overdramatic swoons and wails that the TS Specs will somehow lead to the death of Apple and the alienation of their 2% market share and cries to the digital gods that Apple just, for the love of all that's silicon, please, consider MY well thought out design for an amazing pizza-box/headless/cube/iMac/upgradable/clusterable/supercomputer/with a terabyte of storage/complete upgradability/swan neck/tetrahedron base/32X Superdrive/two gigs of on-board RAM/robotic arms/male-female love orafice for "interface"/256 meg graphics card/able to play Doom 3 at top res right out of the box/with a cheap LCD as an option/iMac.
And it HAS to be under $999 or the world will end and everyone will buy bottom of the line Dells.
I repeat Murch's mantra "Get a fuggin life you people".
G5 shortage. Two new reports indicating G5s will still be in short supply until the first quarter of 2005. What does that mean? If you want a G5 iMac you had better order very fast. My order will be placed on Day 1.
Form factor. Apple has been working on the G5 for about a year. I believe that it will be a very impressive looking computer and will have a very strong sales rate between now and Christmas. It will be all that Apple can do to keep up with demand of the AIO form when demand is high and G5s are scarce. Don't look for a headless line (headless iMac or PM mini) until there are a lot of G5 chips available. When (if) it comes out you will probably finding the pricing such that the G5 iMac with a similar configuration is cheaper.
The Mac experience. Everyone is forgetting about the experience of using a Mac and concentrating on specifications. As someone who still has to use a PC at work the PC "experience" is the clearest indication that the few extra bucks I spend on a Mac are the best investment I have ever made - except, of course, when I was able to buy Apple stock at under $15.
Dell. Dull ads tout super cheap computers, but their average selling price is $1,500+. Looks like the difference between Dell and Apple is that Dull starts off lower and moves the customer higher.
There was also a neat Dull story the other day. Seems that they are dropping the cheapest computers they sell in China because they cannot compete with the local manufacturers, who sell a $365 computer without windows. LOL.
If you haven't seen major differences between LCD displays, even when comparing only within roughly the same size and pixel counts range, then you either haven't done much looking around or you aren't very particular about display quality.
Just look at a 17" iMac (current version) and a 17" PowerBook. The iMac looks much better. The 17" PB's display looks good for a laptop, but it's nowhere near as nice as the iMac's display. Brightness, contrast, and breadth of viewing angle are obvious differences.
If it's not a difference in the LCD panels themselves (which I tend to doubt), then it's the quality of the backlights and/or the enclosures -- something makes a big difference in quality, and whatever that something is, it's probably not free.
I never said that here isn't a huge difference in range from the best to the worst displays. Apple's are among the best, but they aren't alone by any stretch, so many panels from DELL, Samsung, and Princeton are equal to the task, as are items from Formac and others.
Take the 19" LCD I'm looking at as I type. 1280x1024, which I like, so I can sit way back. 700:1 contrast, 300cd/m^2 brightness, 25ms response -- all as good or better than Apple Displays. It also has digital and analogue inputs for my PC and my powerbook. Perfect, all for 700 Canadian, about 300 Canadian cheaper than Apple's 17" LCD.
The 20-23-30 are better deals, Apple's higher end large panels have always been more competitive, but there's lots out there with display quality that's every bit as good as the Apple 17" for a LOT less.
BTW, some neat new panels backlit with LED grids are supposed to be coming. Supposedly contrast ratio is incredible, can't wait to see them.
700:1 contrast, 300cd/m^2 brightness, 25ms response -- all as good or better than Apple Displays. It also has digital and analogue inputs for my PC and my powerbook. Perfect, all for 700 Canadian, about 300 Canadian cheaper than Apple's 17" LCD.
This is another spec whore post. I've hung out long enough at the AVS Forums to know not to trust Contrast Ratio specs from manufacturers. I think brightness is a better and more stable benchmark but the picture doesn't look better when you crank up the brightness so that measurement is somewhat superfluous.
Monitors are too easy. You look at them and if you like one more than the other visually then that's your monitor.
I think the Mac community has taken on the worst aspect of the PC community. An over-reliance on specs and under-reliance on getting work done. I will purge that sickness from my being, the CPU or the GPU don't make you work..you make them work.
Kinda reminds me of people that crank out beautiful work and you ask them what they use for software and many times its a version 2 or 3 revisons behind. It's not the brush..it's the artist. Where has the art gone from this platform? Well that's overdoing it. The art is alive and well but at specialized sites. Artists don't have time to deal with AI like flame wars and obsessing over hardware so they aren't likely to stick around.
Regardless on whether we think the new iMacs are good values or not..great stuff can and will be done with them.
Or maybe it only fits YOUR definition of "good consumer computer." The iMac G4 was a flop and the iMac G5, according to the TS specs, repeats every mistake. It has been proven, over and over, that computer buyers overwhelmingly prefer to buy a tower and a monitor vs. an LCD AIO.
i had to read that twice.
you drew an unfounded and rather bold conclusion.
there are 4 possible reasons why computer buyers overwhelmingly "prefer" to buy a tower/monitor vs. an aio and you didn't name 3 of them.
01. they just prefer towers over aio. (just like some people prefer mac donalds over burger king)
02. there is no (good) wintel aio alternative, that isn't or but ugly or heavily overpriced.
03a. they know pc's are obsolete in 2 years and that's why they buy a tower and a separate monitor.
so, after 2 years, they can buy a new tower and keep the same monitor.
03b. they know they can upgrade their pc. but the idea of upgrading it, makes them faint. so this translates itselfs in an action similar to option 03a.
04a. the salesperson in their local dynabite told them to buy a tower and a separate monitor.
04b. their brother in law (who happens to be a self proclaimed computerwizard) told them to do so.
04c. because everybody else "seems" to prefers a tower and a monitor
the reason why 95% of pc-buyers don't buy a mac is fear.
fear that something they already can't comprehend (computers) also will isolate them from their family, friends, tons of free (stolen) goodies and the rest of the world.
fear they make the wrong choice that will set them back $1299
and after that 95% of the pc-buyers would laugh at them and only 5% will support them.
Take the 19" LCD I'm looking at as I type. 1280x1024, which I like, so I can sit way back. 700:1 contrast, 300cd/m^2 brightness, 25ms response -- all as good or better than Apple Displays. It also has digital and analogue inputs for my PC and my powerbook. Perfect, all for 700 Canadian, about 300 Canadian cheaper than Apple's 17" LCD.
Sounds very nice. But the display you describe is not what you're going to get bundled in a $999 deal for a computer system which includes a 17" -- and certainly not a 19" -- LCD as part of the deal.
That display, or something comparable, probably would available as an upgrade option, an upgrade which will probably get the total system price up to, if not beyond, the $1300 price for the 17" iMac.
Kinda reminds me of people that crank out beautiful work and you ask them what they use for software and many times its a version 2 or 3 revisons behind. It's not the brush..it's the artist.
Exactly.
I don't believe it's even been a year since pscates was gracing us with beautiful renderings of widescreen iMacs that he rendered on a tangerine iMac.
As to the poll, I demur. You can't possibly get a measure of a machine by looking at numbers. My Saturn sedan has more HP than my dad's Miata, but guess which is more fun to drive? I'll have a look at the thing when it actually comes out, and judge then. The whole can be greater than the sum of the parts, or less, all depending on how well Apple integrates them. Given that the iMac will be highly integrated, there's no way to see how well it'll all work without sitting down in front of one.
Personally, I play very little. My G4 Cube is sweating it out with Mathematica and xCode. Also, I am the family´s biographer, so the 2000(+) pictures of the family is my task. And currently burning a DVD from my sisters great wedding in England.
But.... It all has to do with putting a not so very good video-card into a very expensive box. It is about this feeling of being tricked. I am sure that if the video-card has been only a little better, or newer, or something that gave a little bit more oomph, everything would have been roses.
Am I the only person in here with a 14 year old son ? A person who absolutely loves sniping his old man ?
But.... It all has to do with putting a not so very good video-card into a very expensive box.
Is $1299 USD really that much in Norway? I mean do people really think $149 GPUs are in $1299 computers because on the PC side you don't get to this level as standard equipment until you spend $1499 or above. Of course you can BTO lower end configs.
Quote:
Am I the only person in here with a 14 year old son ? A person who absolutely loves sniping his old man ?
Dangerous little sucker isn't he? I have some time to improve before I'm in your shoes.
Apple's done well but there are very evident weaknesses that must be addressed. Looking at their earnings they just aren't selling more computers. I tried to deny it but Bborofka succinctly pointed on another board that sales are indeed stagnant.
This is easy to verify. Apple still depends on hardware profit to exist. And that means we pay more money for this hardware. I've always been an advocate of Apple becoming a little more Microsoftian and devoting themselves to getting more software out there that can be licensed. They only do about billion a year in software. That's not enough. Software is high margin and your don't have supply issues with software. A hot app is like printing money.
Sadly there haven't been much steps to doing this and its a long haul but if Apple can address this weakness then they can profit more and sell more hardware. Until then I don't see how we won't get higher priced Macs and pissed off fans.
I am sure that if the video-card has been only a little better, or newer, or something that gave a little bit more oomph, everything would have been roses.
The thing I'm really happy about is that people are feeling tricked about the video card and not some other part of the computer.
It beats feeling tricked about the whole operating system. A few minutes ago my brother was just telling me how they denied him the access to our university's wireless network because he didn't have all the latest Windows security fixes installed.
Is $1299 USD really that much in Norway? I mean do people really think $149 GPUs are in $1299 computers because on the PC side you don't get to this level as standard equipment until you spend $1499 or above. Of course you can BTO lower end configs.
Problem is that we norwegians pay $1935 for the exact same piece of $1299 hardware. It's a sad combination of the norwegian state tax (24% VAT) and the norwegian Apple tax.
It's a $2000 dollar computer, and at least I expect a $200 graphics card in it (9600 XT 128MB). This may have skewed my perspective a bit, I realize.
Problem is that we norwegians pay $1935 for the exact same piece of $1299 hardware. It's a sad combination of the norwegian state tax (24% VAT) and the norwegian Apple tax.
It's a $2000 dollar computer, and at least I expect a $200 graphics card in it (9600 XT 128MB). This may have skewed my perspective a bit, I realize.
Yeah, that puts it in perspective. I have a question. Since Macs are manufactured in Asia, are they less expensive in Taiwan than they are in the US or another part of the world?
It's all too easy to look at computing from a US centric viewpoint. It does cause some strange things for instance
I want to check out ADAM Pro monitors from Germany but they are pretty damn expensive here. Germans(well some of them) for some reason love Mackie monitors which are expensive there. We're both pining for the deal the other gets in their homeland.
Yeah, that puts it in perspective. I have a question. Since Macs are manufactured in Asia, are they less expensive in Taiwan than they are in the US or another part of the world?
Not all macs are manufactured in Asia. My brother's new Dual 1.8 G5 was manufactured in Cork, Ireland. :-)
Comments
The range being offered is underpowered. People are looking at the G5 and assuming it's better running at any speed than any Pentia running at any speed, and that's just plain not true. Running 32 bit code, it's going to be only slightly faster than a G4 scaled to the same MHz, which is roughly the speed of a P3 scaled to the same MHz, and until all Apple's offerings are 64 bit and are most of the PPCs out there, you can bet that almost all the code being run will be 32 bit.
It has too high a cost of entry. Oh sure, there's no perfect price, I'm sure if the baseline Mac cost $499 (not impossible if you went back to the "other" type of AIO, with the computer built into the keyboard instead of the monitor, and monitor available seperately - ugly, but it works.) there'd be people demanding a $200 Mac. They'd be wrong though.
But, regardless, I think $1,299 is well above what most people are willing to pay. You can BS about "all" Dell's computers that cost less than $999 being awful, but, well, frankly they're not. They're, for the most part, powerful machines that can run all the latest software. They're not as good as they could be, but...
...the proposed iMac isn't as good as it could be either! Frankly, it's a lemon. It doesn't have enough memory, it has a slow CPU (1.6 and 1.8MHz G5? Just saying "64 bit" and "megahertz myth" doesn't mean you can get away with anything), and it has limited growth potential. And this is a machine designed to discourage upgrading - so it has to be good out of the box, it has to be powerful enough that someone considering buying it isn't going to think "Well, this will be obsolete in 12 months, it already doesn't run much of the software I want to run." or else it has to be so cheap that it doesn't matter.
I don't see it as good value for money. It's not a continuation of 1G iMac, it's an apparent continuation of the disaster that was 2G iMac, an elegant and attractive computer that's too expensive and too underpowered for anyone other than the more-money-than-sense crowd to buy it.
The #1 thing that concerns me though is the "Education model". Apple currently has one, precisely one, computer aimed at the reasonable-value market (and it's not that great a value right now anyway, and is butt-ugly.) Apple had better not be considering withdrawing it.
I hope for Apple's sake there's more to the iMac 3G than the leaked specs and pricing. Much more. OS X is something I'd recommend to anyone, but I balk at the idea of recommending someone buy a machine with the power of a $300-400 Wal*Mart box + monitor for $1,000 more simply to run that OS.
Originally posted by Matsu
You might find it cheaper! Panels are paid by the square inch, not the resolution -- unless there are wild difference in overall screen realestate. YOu'll find that Apple's 17" widescreen has slightly less overall square footage, and slightly less overall resolution. And it's also far more standard than you think: used as it is in a wide variety of notebooks and Apple's own PB17.
If you haven't seen major differences between LCD displays, even when comparing only within roughly the same size and pixel counts range, then you either haven't done much looking around or you aren't very particular about display quality.
Just look at a 17" iMac (current version) and a 17" PowerBook. The iMac looks much better. The 17" PB's display looks good for a laptop, but it's nowhere near as nice as the iMac's display. Brightness, contrast, and breadth of viewing angle are obvious differences.
If it's not a difference in the LCD panels themselves (which I tend to doubt), then it's the quality of the backlights and/or the enclosures -- something makes a big difference in quality, and whatever that something is, it's probably not free.
The whole point of the AIO mobo, when you avoid double sided mobos and odd shapes, is that the integrated solution will be cheaper. Everything is scale to fit, just enough PS output, cheaper embedded GPU, one cicuit board, no daughtercards, no slots, less assembly steps. If the argument has suddenly become that the AIO is more expensive, please see the numerous headless Mac threads just build a mini-tower or cube, or whatever sell it from 799-1499 sans display, and let the end user think about that.
While there are factors about AIO motherboards that might sometimes bring down costs, I don't think the savings Apple can muster that way for a custom G5 motherboard are going to come anywhere near the savings due to economy of scale for generic, mass-produced low-end PC motherboards.
Originally posted by shetline
I just did some shopping around at Dell and Gateway for what you could get for around $999 with a 17" LCD in the PC World...
Start with the lowest-of-the low Celeron System at Dell. If you think 256 MB and no DVD burner is unacceptable in any system being sold these days, this has CD-ROM (that's Read Only -- no burner of any sort at all) and a skimpy 128 MB of RAM.
So let's boost the above all the way up to those lousy iMac specs of a mere 256 MB and a combo drive -- still no DVD burner, just CD-RW/DVD-ROM.
Select the cheapest 17" flatscreen Dell offers. This isn't widescreen, it's only 1280x1024 with NO DIGITAL input. Analog only in this price range.
Video card? Who knows. I couldn't find this spec anywhere, at least in plain sight, and as far as I can tell, it's probably just whatever comes built-in on the motherboard. The RAM on this system is referred to as "shared RAM" -- I think that means that there isn't any dedicated video RAM at all, in which case your video has to share the use of that piddling 256 MB with the rest of the system. I don't think anyone's going to be thrilled about playing Doom III on this box either.
What's the price? $997 before $50 mail-in rebate. You also get a cheap printer (bonus, dood!) but have to pay $25 extra for the USB cable to connect the printer up. Dell also wants another $99 for the cheapest shipping option (3-5 delivery), so you're up over $1000 at this point.
You really, really think Apple should -- rather than coming up with a completely different product -- turn the 17" iMac into something cheesey enough to compete with this schlock?
What I want to know is which lunatic started this "consumer desktops have to start at $999" BS. To me, and to all the other consumer desktop users I know $1300 is better than acceptible for what you get in an iMac. It's 64 bit computing, and you CAN'T find a 64 bit Opertron (or whatever AMDs name for thier 64 bit chipset is) in a $1300 machine, at least not on the consumer level.
64 meg graphic card. Hey, I have a 64 meg Radeon 9000 in my Dual 1.25 G4 and it's peachy keen for every game on the market for Mac right now (I play Americas Army at highest resolution settings without a problem. Same with Warbirds 2004), it's fine for graphic intensive "consumer" programs too like Painter 8, Photoshop, etc...
Consumer machines aren't generally used for rendering Finding friggin' Nemo scenes. or applying 450 Photoshop filters to a 47" - 54" movie poster.
Expandability. You can add RAM, an Airport card (unless it's integrated already), and a host of Firewire drives and peripherals. Do what's the problem? How much crap does someone at the consumer level have? Chances are aside from a large MP3 file (which can go on an iPod or Firewire drive too) they don't have much.
iApps. Sure, a PC user can scour versiontracker to find buggy, shitty, proprietary, freeware and shareware that performs similar functions. But consumers get them on first boot in an iMac and included in the sale price of the machine.
I think the main problem most people here have with the TS iMac specs is it doesn't fit THEIR definition of "good consumer computer", and for most of them it seems that such a computer is another cube. Well, here's a newsflash for you, the cube is dead. It failed. No amount of expandibility or the ability to connect your own monitor to it, or anything saved it. People like me chose the AIO iMac's for a myriad of reasons, including ease of setup, ease of use, adequate power, and price. At the time the iMac G3 350 was a helluva deal at almost half the price of the cube.
Mine lasted me 5 years. Now my Dad has it and it still works fine and meets his needs.
I am not going to speculate about what "consumers" do with their machines, I know what I do with mine (which isn't a consumer machine) and I also know that the TS iMac would more than meet my computing needs for years to come.
Originally posted by BigMcLargehuge
What I want to know is which lunatic started this "consumer desktops have to start at $999" BS.
Fred Anderson
Consumer machines aren't generally used for rendering Finding friggin' Nemo scenes. or applying 450 Photoshop filters to a 47" - 54" movie poster.
I am not going to speculate about what "consumers" do with their machines...
I think the main problem most people here have with the TS iMac specs is it doesn't fit THEIR definition of "good consumer computer"
Or maybe it only fits YOUR definition of "good consumer computer." The iMac G4 was a flop and the iMac G5, according to the TS specs, repeats every mistake. It has been proven, over and over, that computer buyers overwhelmingly prefer to buy a tower and a monitor vs. an LCD AIO.
The range being offered is underpowered. People are looking at the G5 and assuming it's better running at any speed than any Pentia running at any speed, and that's just plain not true. Running 32 bit code, it's going to be only slightly faster than a G4 scaled to the same MHz, which is roughly the speed of a P3 scaled to the same MHz, and until all Apple's offerings are 64 bit and are most of the PPCs out there, you can bet that almost all the code being run will be 32 bit.
No you're wrong. You just can't boil G4 vs G5 performance down to a nice tidy little package. Integer performance between the two is similar but the two FP units in the G5 are far more superior. Plus the G5 queues a lot of instructions(215 I believe). History seems to show me that it takes at least 2 years before developers really have optimizing for a processor down. It seems rather de'rigeur for people to downplay the G5 when it suits them but the truth is closer to "the G5 is faster than the G4 and with more optimizations will get even faster in the future"(at the same clock). The IBM XLC compiler bears this out in ways. Maybe it doesn't do G4 compiling well(still equal to GCC) but it kicks ass for the G5.
But, regardless, I think $1,299 is well above what most people are willing to pay. You can BS about "all" Dell's computers that cost less than $999 being awful, but, well, frankly they're not. They're, for the most part, powerful machines that can run all the latest software. They're not as good as they could be, but...
Then a Macintosh iMac G5 LCD isn't for these people. Apple makes the eMac..if they don't like that they can go buy a PC. Apple doesn't beg for sales, they put extra care in software and hardware design. That thing I want to see is Apple whoring their product out. It is a privledge to have a Mac. PC people like them but many just can't pay the extra price. It's good to be somewhat exclusive. Running a Mac means you like an improved computing experience and you're willing to pay for it. Apple is very financially fit right now and moving forward steadily. They don't need huge sales in the $999 or less category.
it has a slow CPU (1.6 and 1.8MHz G5? Just saying "64 bit" and "megahertz myth" doesn't mean you can get away with anything)
Oh so a 1.6 or 1.8Ghz G5 is slow now? Riiiiight keep stroking that RDF man you almost sounded convincing.
I hope for Apple's sake there's more to the iMac 3G than the leaked specs and pricing. Much more. OS X is something I'd recommend to anyone, but I balk at the idea of recommending someone buy a machine with the power of a $300-400 Wal*Mart box + monitor for $1,000 more simply to run that OS.
YOU....ARE ....DUMB
I'm sorry I violated the TOS but sometimes you read a post so stupid in content, so rife with banality I literally dry heaved reading this.
I will no sit on AI any longer and subject myself to the mindless rantings of an idiot while holding my tongue. I think I lost brain cells reading this trash.
I'm sincerely hoping some of you all switch to PC so that that IQs of both platforms can rise.
Good post BigMcLargehuge man since when did Mac users become so "spec whorish". Also of note is that these "Spec Whore" never get any real work done with their computer beyond playing the occaisonal game and ranting on a message board about how they feel slighted because their graphics card doesn't have the RAM or texel pipleline they want. Get a fuggin' life people. It's a computer for chrissakes.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Good post BigMcLargehuge man since when did Mac users become so "spec whorish". Also of note is that these "Spec Whore" never get any real work done with their computer beyond playing the occaisonal game and ranting on a message board about how they feel slighted because their graphics card doesn't have the RAM or texel pipleline they want. Get a fuggin' life people. It's a computer for chrissakes.
Thanks Murch!
I've seen so many overdramatic swoons and wails that the TS Specs will somehow lead to the death of Apple and the alienation of their 2% market share and cries to the digital gods that Apple just, for the love of all that's silicon, please, consider MY well thought out design for an amazing pizza-box/headless/cube/iMac/upgradable/clusterable/supercomputer/with a terabyte of storage/complete upgradability/swan neck/tetrahedron base/32X Superdrive/two gigs of on-board RAM/robotic arms/male-female love orafice for "interface"/256 meg graphics card/able to play Doom 3 at top res right out of the box/with a cheap LCD as an option/iMac.
And it HAS to be under $999 or the world will end and everyone will buy bottom of the line Dells.
I repeat Murch's mantra "Get a fuggin life you people".
G5 shortage. Two new reports indicating G5s will still be in short supply until the first quarter of 2005. What does that mean? If you want a G5 iMac you had better order very fast. My order will be placed on Day 1.
Form factor. Apple has been working on the G5 for about a year. I believe that it will be a very impressive looking computer and will have a very strong sales rate between now and Christmas. It will be all that Apple can do to keep up with demand of the AIO form when demand is high and G5s are scarce. Don't look for a headless line (headless iMac or PM mini) until there are a lot of G5 chips available. When (if) it comes out you will probably finding the pricing such that the G5 iMac with a similar configuration is cheaper.
The Mac experience. Everyone is forgetting about the experience of using a Mac and concentrating on specifications. As someone who still has to use a PC at work the PC "experience" is the clearest indication that the few extra bucks I spend on a Mac are the best investment I have ever made - except, of course, when I was able to buy Apple stock at under $15.
Dell. Dull ads tout super cheap computers, but their average selling price is $1,500+. Looks like the difference between Dell and Apple is that Dull starts off lower and moves the customer higher.
There was also a neat Dull story the other day. Seems that they are dropping the cheapest computers they sell in China because they cannot compete with the local manufacturers, who sell a $365 computer without windows. LOL.
Originally posted by shetline
If you haven't seen major differences between LCD displays, even when comparing only within roughly the same size and pixel counts range, then you either haven't done much looking around or you aren't very particular about display quality.
Just look at a 17" iMac (current version) and a 17" PowerBook. The iMac looks much better. The 17" PB's display looks good for a laptop, but it's nowhere near as nice as the iMac's display. Brightness, contrast, and breadth of viewing angle are obvious differences.
If it's not a difference in the LCD panels themselves (which I tend to doubt), then it's the quality of the backlights and/or the enclosures -- something makes a big difference in quality, and whatever that something is, it's probably not free.
I never said that here isn't a huge difference in range from the best to the worst displays. Apple's are among the best, but they aren't alone by any stretch, so many panels from DELL, Samsung, and Princeton are equal to the task, as are items from Formac and others.
Take the 19" LCD I'm looking at as I type. 1280x1024, which I like, so I can sit way back. 700:1 contrast, 300cd/m^2 brightness, 25ms response -- all as good or better than Apple Displays. It also has digital and analogue inputs for my PC and my powerbook. Perfect, all for 700 Canadian, about 300 Canadian cheaper than Apple's 17" LCD.
The 20-23-30 are better deals, Apple's higher end large panels have always been more competitive, but there's lots out there with display quality that's every bit as good as the Apple 17" for a LOT less.
BTW, some neat new panels backlit with LED grids are supposed to be coming. Supposedly contrast ratio is incredible, can't wait to see them.
700:1 contrast, 300cd/m^2 brightness, 25ms response -- all as good or better than Apple Displays. It also has digital and analogue inputs for my PC and my powerbook. Perfect, all for 700 Canadian, about 300 Canadian cheaper than Apple's 17" LCD.
This is another spec whore post. I've hung out long enough at the AVS Forums to know not to trust Contrast Ratio specs from manufacturers. I think brightness is a better and more stable benchmark but the picture doesn't look better when you crank up the brightness so that measurement is somewhat superfluous.
Monitors are too easy. You look at them and if you like one more than the other visually then that's your monitor.
I think the Mac community has taken on the worst aspect of the PC community. An over-reliance on specs and under-reliance on getting work done. I will purge that sickness from my being, the CPU or the GPU don't make you work..you make them work.
Kinda reminds me of people that crank out beautiful work and you ask them what they use for software and many times its a version 2 or 3 revisons behind. It's not the brush..it's the artist. Where has the art gone from this platform? Well that's overdoing it. The art is alive and well but at specialized sites. Artists don't have time to deal with AI like flame wars and obsessing over hardware so they aren't likely to stick around.
Regardless on whether we think the new iMacs are good values or not..great stuff can and will be done with them.
Originally posted by bborofka
Or maybe it only fits YOUR definition of "good consumer computer." The iMac G4 was a flop and the iMac G5, according to the TS specs, repeats every mistake. It has been proven, over and over, that computer buyers overwhelmingly prefer to buy a tower and a monitor vs. an LCD AIO.
i had to read that twice.
you drew an unfounded and rather bold conclusion.
there are 4 possible reasons why computer buyers overwhelmingly "prefer" to buy a tower/monitor vs. an aio and you didn't name 3 of them.
01. they just prefer towers over aio. (just like some people prefer mac donalds over burger king)
02. there is no (good) wintel aio alternative, that isn't or but ugly or heavily overpriced.
03a. they know pc's are obsolete in 2 years and that's why they buy a tower and a separate monitor.
so, after 2 years, they can buy a new tower and keep the same monitor.
03b. they know they can upgrade their pc. but the idea of upgrading it, makes them faint. so this translates itselfs in an action similar to option 03a.
04a. the salesperson in their local dynabite told them to buy a tower and a separate monitor.
04b. their brother in law (who happens to be a self proclaimed computerwizard) told them to do so.
04c. because everybody else "seems" to prefers a tower and a monitor
the reason why 95% of pc-buyers don't buy a mac is fear.
fear that something they already can't comprehend (computers) also will isolate them from their family, friends, tons of free (stolen) goodies and the rest of the world.
fear they make the wrong choice that will set them back $1299
and after that 95% of the pc-buyers would laugh at them and only 5% will support them.
because 95% of the people can't be wrong...
Originally posted by Matsu
Take the 19" LCD I'm looking at as I type. 1280x1024, which I like, so I can sit way back. 700:1 contrast, 300cd/m^2 brightness, 25ms response -- all as good or better than Apple Displays. It also has digital and analogue inputs for my PC and my powerbook. Perfect, all for 700 Canadian, about 300 Canadian cheaper than Apple's 17" LCD.
Sounds very nice. But the display you describe is not what you're going to get bundled in a $999 deal for a computer system which includes a 17" -- and certainly not a 19" -- LCD as part of the deal.
That display, or something comparable, probably would available as an upgrade option, an upgrade which will probably get the total system price up to, if not beyond, the $1300 price for the 17" iMac.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Kinda reminds me of people that crank out beautiful work and you ask them what they use for software and many times its a version 2 or 3 revisons behind. It's not the brush..it's the artist.
Exactly.
I don't believe it's even been a year since pscates was gracing us with beautiful renderings of widescreen iMacs that he rendered on a tangerine iMac.
As to the poll, I demur. You can't possibly get a measure of a machine by looking at numbers. My Saturn sedan has more HP than my dad's Miata, but guess which is more fun to drive? I'll have a look at the thing when it actually comes out, and judge then. The whole can be greater than the sum of the parts, or less, all depending on how well Apple integrates them. Given that the iMac will be highly integrated, there's no way to see how well it'll all work without sitting down in front of one.
Personally, I play very little. My G4 Cube is sweating it out with Mathematica and xCode. Also, I am the family´s biographer, so the 2000(+) pictures of the family is my task. And currently burning a DVD from my sisters great wedding in England.
But.... It all has to do with putting a not so very good video-card into a very expensive box. It is about this feeling of being tricked. I am sure that if the video-card has been only a little better, or newer, or something that gave a little bit more oomph, everything would have been roses.
Am I the only person in here with a 14 year old son ? A person who absolutely loves sniping his old man ?
Only with a mac could these pages exist.
homepage.mac.com/zenarcade
But.... It all has to do with putting a not so very good video-card into a very expensive box.
Is $1299 USD really that much in Norway? I mean do people really think $149 GPUs are in $1299 computers because on the PC side you don't get to this level as standard equipment until you spend $1499 or above. Of course you can BTO lower end configs.
Am I the only person in here with a 14 year old son ? A person who absolutely loves sniping his old man ?
Dangerous little sucker isn't he? I have some time to improve before I'm in your shoes.
Apple's done well but there are very evident weaknesses that must be addressed. Looking at their earnings they just aren't selling more computers. I tried to deny it but Bborofka succinctly pointed on another board that sales are indeed stagnant.
This is easy to verify. Apple still depends on hardware profit to exist. And that means we pay more money for this hardware. I've always been an advocate of Apple becoming a little more Microsoftian and devoting themselves to getting more software out there that can be licensed. They only do about billion a year in software. That's not enough. Software is high margin and your don't have supply issues with software. A hot app is like printing money.
Sadly there haven't been much steps to doing this and its a long haul but if Apple can address this weakness then they can profit more and sell more hardware. Until then I don't see how we won't get higher priced Macs and pissed off fans.
Originally posted by zenarcade
I am sure that if the video-card has been only a little better, or newer, or something that gave a little bit more oomph, everything would have been roses.
The thing I'm really happy about is that people are feeling tricked about the video card and not some other part of the computer.
It beats feeling tricked about the whole operating system. A few minutes ago my brother was just telling me how they denied him the access to our university's wireless network because he didn't have all the latest Windows security fixes installed.
Oh, the joy of using OS X. 8)
Originally posted by hmurchison
Is $1299 USD really that much in Norway? I mean do people really think $149 GPUs are in $1299 computers because on the PC side you don't get to this level as standard equipment until you spend $1499 or above. Of course you can BTO lower end configs.
Problem is that we norwegians pay $1935 for the exact same piece of $1299 hardware. It's a sad combination of the norwegian state tax (24% VAT) and the norwegian Apple tax.
It's a $2000 dollar computer, and at least I expect a $200 graphics card in it (9600 XT 128MB). This may have skewed my perspective a bit, I realize.
Originally posted by Zapchud
Problem is that we norwegians pay $1935 for the exact same piece of $1299 hardware. It's a sad combination of the norwegian state tax (24% VAT) and the norwegian Apple tax.
It's a $2000 dollar computer, and at least I expect a $200 graphics card in it (9600 XT 128MB). This may have skewed my perspective a bit, I realize.
Yeah, that puts it in perspective. I have a question. Since Macs are manufactured in Asia, are they less expensive in Taiwan than they are in the US or another part of the world?
It's all too easy to look at computing from a US centric viewpoint. It does cause some strange things for instance
I want to check out ADAM Pro monitors from Germany but they are pretty damn expensive here. Germans(well some of them) for some reason love Mackie monitors which are expensive there. We're both pining for the deal the other gets in their homeland.
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
Yeah, that puts it in perspective. I have a question. Since Macs are manufactured in Asia, are they less expensive in Taiwan than they are in the US or another part of the world?
Not all macs are manufactured in Asia. My brother's new Dual 1.8 G5 was manufactured in Cork, Ireland. :-)
Originally posted by Zapchud
Not all macs are manufactured in Asia. My brother's new Dual 1.8 G5 was manufactured in Cork, Ireland. :-)
Do you know if they're cheaper in Ireland because they're a domestic product?
I'm a senior member. Woohoo! 8)