Apple unveils the new iMac G5



  • Reply 141 of 440
    kcmackcmac Posts: 1,051member

    Originally posted by scottiB

    Here's some from MacNN boards:

    Thanks. I had seen that page but didn't scroll down far enough. He has a picture of his car in the middle of the slideshow and I quit there.

    The bottom of the screen looks a little odd after getting used to the simple screen of the older version but a great place for stickies, etc.

    Looks great.
  • Reply 142 of 440
    farvefarve Posts: 69member
    Sorry it should be iMac.
  • Reply 143 of 440
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member

    And now an iMac that looks like something a PC builder would come up with.

    So what PC builder has something that is this elegant?

    I want a link please.
  • Reply 144 of 440
    othelloothello Posts: 1,054member

    Originally posted by mattyj

    These iMacs are a great price, under £1000 inc VAT with a 17" LCD is great, just a pity about no option of a graphics card, but for who it is intended to sell to, this is great, interesting how the FSB speeds are lower than they are in the Powermacs that have the same processors. Guess this is due to heat?

    i agree -- the uk pricing is pretty good to my eyes as it breaks the £1000 mark. and going for the superdrive version isn't that much more.

    i see an ipod mini moment coming on -- they will sell like hotcakes even though we here at AI have problems with them.
  • Reply 145 of 440
    Guys, just shut up already. You're dissapointed for not finding pro features in a normal computer! If you're a serious enough gamer where you need a 128mb graphics card, and you're using a mac, go pick up a ps2, or an xbox. Also, look at the benchmarks, it runs Halo and UT2K4 fine. The prices are pretty good. Consider the fact that there is no 15" screen, so that first option is now gone. Also it's not a choice between $1900 iMac and $2000 powermac, when the powermac requires a screen. So add at least $300 for a crt.
  • Reply 146 of 440
    idaveidave Posts: 1,283member

    Originally posted by DGNR8

    ...You have got to be kidding me! This is what the wait was for? This is the best Apple could do?...

    People who write posts like this must be talented designers. I'd be hard pressed to dream up something better. A tiny footprint, all-in-one computer & display. One cord to plug in the wall. Done.

    For my own use, I wish Apple would make one almost just like it without the display and deduct $200. I'd buy one, but I already have a big display.
  • Reply 147 of 440
    sluslu Posts: 23member
    Didn't read the whole thread yet, but I just ordered one (and I am switcher)!

    -1.8 G5 w/17"

    -512 MB RAM 1 DIMM (Upgraded)

    -160GB HDD (Upgraded)

    -Airport Extreme (Upgraded)

    -All the other standard jazz

    $1,627 w/edu discount.

    I think that is pretty good. I was going to go for 20", but I decieded on a 17" plus an 20 GB iPod
  • Reply 148 of 440
    xterra48xterra48 Posts: 169member
    totally agree brianru, those pisc make me relise that the bezel is perfect as is the whole design. time to get a mop to clean up this puddle of drool.
  • Reply 149 of 440
    peharripeharri Posts: 169member
    It's probably worth noting that the machine doesn't contain enough RAM to run many "modern" games. I found UT2003 stuttering on my 512Mb TiBook, it only started to work smoothly when I upgraded to a gig.

    I think Apple has to decide what it really wants to do with the whole AIO concept. Is it really a "Buy it, plug it in, and it just works" thing? If so, they need to address the memory issue head on. Because if people do buy it, and find a significant amount of software they run constantly battling the machine's limits, they'll get a poor idea of what Macs are in general.

    If, on the other hand, the intention is to produce a machine you regularly upgrade, including on the day you buy it, then the form factor just isn't appropriate for that.

    256Mb and a lower-spec default graphics card is fine for PowerMacs, the end user is going to want to customize their's anyway. A higher baseline is needed for the types of machine Apple expects users will not open.
  • Reply 150 of 440
    mattyjmattyj Posts: 898member
    Orthello, only thing that doesn't make sense now is that the stand alone 20" LCD is 1000GBP, and the iMac 20" is 1300GBP, the displays are exactly the same - according to the tech specs, so what does this mean? We'll probably see the displays get a price reduction. That or a G5 computer only costs 300 quid...
  • Reply 151 of 440
    xterra48xterra48 Posts: 169member
    elegance is simplicity, beauty, and being well suited to specific need, the imac is perfect for consumers and will be more of a hit than the G4.
  • Reply 152 of 440
    I've used Macs since 1984 (my brother bought one of the first ones when he was in college -- back when they came with an extensive animated tutorial and System 1.0). While I've had my ups and downs over the years, this is the first time I've gotten a real sense that Apple is writing off its PC business and trying to wind it down neatly.

    Back in the early '90s, when Apple first moved to PowerPC, the selling point was: "yes, they're more expensive, but they're much faster than Windows computers because our computers have RISC!" That worked for a while until Intel caught and passed AIM. Then the selling point was: "well, they're more expensive, but they're faster for these discrete (graphics oriented) tasks." That was OK until Avid jumped ship to Windows, Adobe started optimizing Photoshop for Wintel and 3D acceleration became a Windows specialty. Then the selling point was "well, they're more expensive, but they come with this great software and there's nothing like it for Windows and besides which, OS X beats the pants off Windows '95". Then Microsoft came out with XP which honestly isn't bad at all. Now, as far as I can tell, the selling point is: "get it if you want iLife, Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro and besides which, no one writes viruses and worms for our system because it has such a small market share" iTunes and the iPod are available for Windows. Most of the other stuff in OS X has pretty good counterparts in Windows. The fit and finish might not be perfect, but there are folks starting to pay attention to design on the Windows side.

    In addition, the specs are "off" for the target market. One of the brilliant points of the original iMac was that out of the box, with no modification or special orders, you got a machine you could plug in to the wall and the internet that would be just about as good as the desktop machines available at that time (albeit less expandable). Now, the non-BTO machines are crippled (at least on RAM. The HD is probably OK) -- does Apple expect the average purchaser in a store to know that the machine they just bought has unacceptable performance because Apple messed up the specs and the consumer should have known to upgrade the RAM?

    I just don't get the sense that Apple's PC sales are high enough to support an R&D operation sufficient to keep it on the cutting edge. I was nervous when they split iPod out into a separate division and made Joswiak head of it (instead of computer hardware), but I thought they might have sufficient depth of talent in reserve that the PC side of things would thrive once they overcame the processor shortfall. Now I'm not so sure. These machines seem targeted at the "replacement" crowd among Apple's increasingly small desktop market. There's nothing that I see Apple marketing that would build market share back to the 10% level, which means that the lion's share of resources will always be focused on the Windows side of the fence. Even if Apple is 8 times as efficient at development as anyone else, that means that there's an edge on the Windows side that will compound until Apple is in the dust.

    I'm very disappointed. I'll probably encourage my wife's parents to get one of these (their old iMac is getting long in the tooth and I don't want to force them to learn XP), and our replacement computer will probably be a PowerMac, but I seriously doubt that our computer after that will be a Mac.
  • Reply 153 of 440
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member

    Originally posted by slu

    (and I am switcher)!

    I have a friend who's a switcher to, during the day he's Charlie and at night she's Charleene.
  • Reply 154 of 440
    big macbig mac Posts: 480member

    Originally posted by peharri

    It's probably worth noting that the machine doesn't contain enough RAM to run many "modern" games. I found UT2003 stuttering on my 512Mb TiBook, it only started to work smoothly when I upgraded to a gig.

    My G5 has run UT2004 on the highest settings with only 512MBs installed. With the experience I had with my iBook, I came to believe 512MBs was insufficient for multiple logins and demanding gaming, but it really is adequate as long as you have a faster Mac.

    Apple should have provided a higher end GPU for the 20" model, but heat and/or size could well be a limiting factor.
  • Reply 155 of 440
    ic1maleic1male Posts: 121member
    On the grand unveiling, I thought it looked a bit cack. But after looking at the camera photos and the VR, I can appreciate how wonderful it looks.
  • Reply 156 of 440
    macsrgood4umacsrgood4u Posts: 3,007member
    Apple's website photos are always heavily doctored and don't show the "depth" or detail of the enclosurers. We already know that when we see any of the products in-person. They always look nicer and invite one to touch them! Here are some more "real" photos on site:
  • Reply 157 of 440
    rtorprtorp Posts: 1member

    Originally posted by mattyj

    Orthello, only thing that doesn't make sense now is that the stand alone 20" LCD is 1000GBP, and the iMac 20" is 1300GBP, the displays are exactly the same - according to the tech specs, so what does this mean? We'll probably see the displays get a price reduction. That or a G5 computer only costs 300 quid...

    Well, as far as I can tell, the specs are not the same! According to the tech specs on the new iMac has lower brightness and contrast ratios than the cinema display. The same as the older cinema display actually!
  • Reply 158 of 440
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    I like it, I think it looks fantastic in the expo pictures.

    I'm a year out from getting a new comp, but I look forward to when that moment arrives.

    The superdrive speed is unfortunate, but as has been said it's probably a laptop superdrive due to design constraints.
  • Reply 159 of 440
    fahlmanfahlman Posts: 738member

    Originally posted by trajik78 card...blah, blah...Doom...blah, blah, blah.

    What percentage of the entire computer buying public are gamers? I would guess a very small percentage buy a computer because it can run the latest game. People buy computers to download pictures from their digital camera so that they can email those digital photographs to grandma and grandpa who will then print them out and hang them on the 'frige. The latest greatest video card is not required for any of these tasks. Anyways, buy an xbox, playstation, or a gamecube if you want to play games.
  • Reply 160 of 440
    chris vchris v Posts: 460member
    I like it. Sure, the video card could be better, but this is a consumer machine, and hard-core gamers aren't usually looking to the iMac as the ultimate gaming machine.

    What impresses me the most is the layout of the guts. It seems like the new design borrows more from the Xserve than anything else. Take an Xserve, shrink it down for one processor and one hard drive, stand it on its face, and slap and LCD on the lid-- presto, new iMac.

    I think they'll do a little better than the "Sunflower" iMac G4, and as usual, the real thing in person will probably look and feel better than we're all thinking form looking at photos.
Sign In or Register to comment.