I'll Buy A New iMac G5 When...
...I can choose the video card I wish to have, through a BTO option. Like it is on the current high-end PowerBooks.
At the moment, the graphics card is pretty lame. With the current AI reports around here saying that parts will be user-serviceable and perhaps replaceable, I can't see why the video card can't be.
Apple, take note. You will sell a lot of these iMacs, but you will sell a whole lot more with a choice of video cards.
For now, I'll wait for the first iMac G5 revision. Hopefully common sense prevails.
On another note, the iMac G5 is a nice piece of work! m.
At the moment, the graphics card is pretty lame. With the current AI reports around here saying that parts will be user-serviceable and perhaps replaceable, I can't see why the video card can't be.
Apple, take note. You will sell a lot of these iMacs, but you will sell a whole lot more with a choice of video cards.
For now, I'll wait for the first iMac G5 revision. Hopefully common sense prevails.
On another note, the iMac G5 is a nice piece of work! m.
Comments
I did get the upgrade on the PB at work, but I don't play games and 95% of the time will be in Safari, iLife, Photoshop Elements, Office and accounting software. the 5200 will be just fine. The the only time I will be using an app that is heavy on the graphics card would be when I work on digital movies of the family, and that is not that often. (Have the capability on the PB, but have yet to finish or burn a movie onto DVD because of my work schedule.)
I believe that the iMac will be a very well balanced computer for a very large number of potential buyers - far more than Apple could actually serve. If the PC/iPod crowd get onto it then you will probably be waiting for a rev b as production of the rev a will sell out very quickly.
Actually, maybe Apple held the graphics to the 5200 so they wouldn't have the problem of a 6 month waiting list . . .
Ok so a 128Mb card would improve framerates but I can't see it being a big difference
This chip was a budget choice well over a year ago, and the older GeForce 4 Ti 4200s pretty much destroy it performance-wise, and the Ti 4200s in turn aren't exactly a glowing choice for the newest generation of games (such as Doom III), even though mine still serves me well on my PC for most gaming purposes.
Originally posted by imac600mhz
I dont think the graphic card would matter that much in the imac as it is the G5 that gets those 3 times faster than imac G4 frame rates in halo and UT2K4.
Ok so a 128Mb card would improve framerates but I can't see it being a big difference
the 128MB vs. 64MB vram will basically only get you higher resolutions for textures in 3D games. Current GFX chips aren't speed-limited by a lack of VRAM. VRAM (or more accurately GDDRx) bandwidth increases will help increase framerates, but added MB's don't increase framerates at a given resolution. Of course, Photoshop will make use of the higher VRAM (and system RAM), so it's a good idea for anyone that makes professional use of photoshop on a powerbook.
or
A 17" Superdrive version when it costs 1299.
Any of the current models MUST HAVE 512MB of RAM and 160GB HDDs as the base requirement before I look at them.
With "Core" technologies coming to tiger, I will wait for a rev two that ships with the new OS, and more core compliant technologies, like a PCI-Express based graphics solution. This is coming sometime after it appears in the PM line -- hopefully January for the PMs and a late Q1 rev for the iMacs.
I will also wait for 8X DVD burning -- 4X is too slow. It goes to the quality of the user experience. I don't want to sit there twidling my thumbs every time I want to burn a disc.
I would almost buy a 20" version if I were in the market for one, but it will need at least 128MB VRAM and FW800.
Originally posted by Matsu
I'll buy a 17" combo drive version when it costs 999.
or
A 17" Superdrive version when it costs 1299.
Any of the current models MUST HAVE 512MB of RAM and 160GB HDDs as the base requirement before I look at them.
With "Core" technologies coming to tiger, I will wait for a rev two that ships with the new OS, and more core compliant technologies, like a PCI-Express based graphics solution. This is coming sometime after it appears in the PM line -- hopefully January for the PMs and a late Q1 rev for the iMacs.
I will also wait for 8X DVD burning -- 4X is too slow. It goes to the quality of the user experience. I don't want to sit there twidling my thumbs every time I want to burn a disc.
I would almost buy a 20" version if I were in the market for one, but it will need at least 128MB VRAM and FW800.
hey matsu,
while I agree with most of your qualms, the superdrive thing seems silly to me. no offense. even most of the pc hardware sites seem to acknowledge that the faster drives are nice, especially since they tend to cost the same (or within a couple of bucks) but say that anyone with any interest in NOT making expensive coasters should continue to burn at 4x. Reliable media at higher speeds is quite expensive still, and even then, not without flaws. So, at least for me, 8x vs. 4x doesn't seem like a reasonable sticking point in buying a CONSUMER machine.
but when it comes to the video chipset point, I think it was silly for Apple to choose such a low-end solution, even if it does fulfill most consumer needs. The 5200 would certainly be forgiveable across the board if they offered a BTO option. either that, of have the middle and top models include a better solution. that said, I think the people who expect a 9800 in this kind of consumer machine are crazy. I don't care how many new generations of GFX chips come out, the 9800 is a big, power-hungry, hot chip, and not particularly suited to this kind of application.
But as I'm waiting for tiger before I buy a new mac, I'll see what the options are at that time.
Originally posted by Merovingian
...I can choose the video card I wish to have, through a BTO option. Like it is on the current high-end PowerBooks.
At the moment, the graphics card is pretty lame. With the current AI reports around here saying that parts will be user-serviceable and perhaps replaceable, I can't see why the video card can't be.
Apple, take note. You will sell a lot of these iMacs, but you will sell a whole lot more with a choice of video cards.
For now, I'll wait for the first iMac G5 revision. Hopefully common sense prevails.
On another note, the iMac G5 is a nice piece of work! m.
you know, if upgradable video cards are THAT important to you, why not jsut get a Power Mac. iMacs aren't meant for power users, and regular consumers probably can't tell the difference between the 5200 and the 9800XT. Not to mention the fact that the 9800 XT ALONE is the about 2 inches thick.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
you know, if upgradable video cards are THAT important to you, why not jsut get a Power Mac. iMacs aren't meant for power users, and regular consumers probably can't tell the difference between the 5200 and the 9800XT. Not to mention the fact that the 9800 XT ALONE is the about 2 inches thick.
uhg. you're embarrassing to the mac community when you make blanket statements like that.
Not having a BTO option for graphics on the iMac is plain simply horrible business by apple. having one would result in more direct sales, more revenue, more profit, larger margins, and greater customer satisfaction.
there is no downside. yet mac fanboys seem to make believe there are.
a 2000 monitorless powermac is not the solution. suggesting so is beyond ignorant.
Originally posted by applenut
uhg. you're embarrassing to the mac community when you make blanket statements like that.
Not having a BTO option for graphics on the iMac is plain simply horrible business by apple. having one would result in more direct sales, more revenue, more profit, larger margins, and greater customer satisfaction.
there is no downside. yet mac fanboys seem to make believe there are.
a 2000 monitorless powermac is not the solution. suggesting so is beyond ignorant.
speaking of embarassing the mac community...
i s'pose you discussed this with the imac engineers who stuffed the g5 into that little package and still had room for full size hard drive and full size ram, monitor AND power supply. gee, it can only be a political decision keeping a geforce 6800 out of the imac. LOL and why cant i put in 8 gigs of memory, its a freakin 64 bit system... hah
back on topic, I'll buy a new imac... when i sell my emac. Im just tired of moving that 50 pounder around my place. 18lbs sounds more reasonable. and i will play my games on my pc
Originally posted by I-bent-my-wookie
speaking of embarassing the mac community...
i s'pose you discussed this with the imac engineers who stuffed the g5 into that little package and still had room for full size hard drive and full size ram, monitor AND power supply. gee, it can only be a political decision keeping a geforce 6800 out of the imac. LOL and why cant i put in 8 gigs of memory, its a freakin 64 bit system... hah
back on topic, I'll buy a new imac... when i sell my emac. Im just tired of moving that 50 pounder around my place. 18lbs sounds more reasonable. and i will play my games on my pc
yes, you are an embarrassment, not only can you not write but you have no idea what you are talking about
no one said anything about sticking a geforce 6800 in there. Apple offers a 128MB VRAM upgrade on the Powerbook that is 4 times smaller in volume. The same could easily be offered for the iMac and would in my opinion satisfy some complainers. another graphic chip option could also probably be done. there are low heat/power options. hell, stick the latest laptop chip from ATI in there, it'd probably be a lot better than the 5200 ultra.
so, stop talking out of your ass.
PowerMacs until then.
I also have to ask a question in regard to those people out there saying that the iMac is a "consumer" computer rather than a "prosumer" machine because it doesn't have a better vid-card. I handed down my 600 MHz G3 iBook to my Mom recently when I got my new 1.25 GHz PB. The iBook had 640MB ram in it and Mom has yet to complain to me about inability to use iLife, Office, or anything else she happens to use it for. So in that respect, a 600 MHz G3 iBook is a consumer computer because it does everything she needs it to do. Now, when compared to what the new iMac offers, I'd say it's a far cry from what Mom is contently using, and gross overkill for what she, "a consumer" is doing. I think people want all the bells and whistles they can get and the freedom of choice to decide what they want in their computer, much like they have demanded from the auto industry for years. I'm sure Apple and Jonathan Ive are well aware that people like options, otherwise there'd be ONE iMac version, One PB version, ONE iBook version, ONE PM version, ONE eMac version, ONE XServe version, and ONE iPod version. They are obviously well aware that people like options. So why limit the vidcard with the new iMac? Could be because they want to have something significant to add to version B, along with FW800. They have the rest of the computer right, so maybe this is their way to placate many people, pissing off prosumers, knowing that half a year from now they'll finally have BTO everything and a free flowing supply (hopefully) of G5's to drop in them, having gotten most of the education orders out of the way by that time (again hopefully). When they do that, I'll happily buy a new iMac. The last thing I want is a huge PM to contend with when all I want are better graphics.
1680 x 1050 pixels, millions of colors? that would make the 5200 scream for mercy if you ever tried video editing (FCE), or even heavy photoshop work, and UT2k4, I dont even want to think about that one.
reg
Originally posted by applenut
Not having a BTO option for graphics on the iMac is plain simply horrible business by apple. having one would result in more direct sales, more revenue, more profit, larger margins, and greater customer satisfaction.
And you have something to back up this assertion...other than "gut feel"?