The new iMac, the more and more I think about it, is excellant. I dont care if people werent buying iMacs before, now there is no complaining.
The low end tower will get blown out by the high end iMac...what an awesome machine for that price!
I am on a plenty fast 800 Mhz G4 iMac that I spent 1800 on. Just think about 200 Mhz more speed, 20 more gigs of HD space, a better gpx card, bluetooth, and the larger LCD!!! :eek:
I am floored.
[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Macintosh ]</p>
Yes, I agree that the 17" version is awesome. The 15" is still lacking though. If it had the newer motherboard (Airport Extreme, bluetooth, 133 MHz bus, DDR, AGP 4X) but still at 800 MHz with the 15" LCD, that would be a much better value. Also, the GeForce 2MX is pretty out of date today, considering you can't replace it... they should use the 32 MB GeForce 4MX from the previous high end.
<strong>I think everyone will agree that the base iMac sucks. There is no way around that fact. Heck, the base emac sucks as well. It is disgracful that Apple still sell computer with only 128 MB ram (that barely runs its OS) and 5400 RPM HD. That is the sad part.
Now, the new 17 inch iMac is nice. They key points are 133 bus and a 64 MB gf4 MX wiht 4X AGP. That fact alone will make it handle OS X better. It should have 512 ram and a 7200 RPM HD and it would be a killer computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Given how aggressive Apple's been about pricing lately,
(I think the 12" PB and $999 iBook show that, not to mention the new $20" display), I'm wondering if something is actually forcing them to keep these prices up? Apple's days of 50% margins are gone. For some reason, I think these machines are costing alot. Believe me I'll bet Apple wants a $999 FP iMac and $699 eMac as much as we do.
The poster who decried the lousy sales #s was absolutely right. Theres no WAY this machine can even remotely be considered anywhere near as successful as the 233MHz iMac. Unlike the cube, though, this one will not EOL anytime soon. Too much is riding on it. Mark my words, we *will* see impressive price/performance in the coming months.
BTW, this 13-month product cycle is not only unprecedented, its also nuts! This machine must be doing *really* poorly for Apple to not even bother to update specs due to inventory glut.
[QB]It is disgracful that Apple still sell computer with only 128 MB ram (that barely runs its OS). <hr></blockquote>
Maybe Apple wants to save in costs? You can always get cheapest RAMs from internet or local PC shops, if you need more RAM. 256MB RAM should be minimum in iMac.
wow, i may have been out of it the past few days, but to listen to some of the bullsh!t flowing around here is epic.
"fw800 is a pro feature. consumers don't need it..."
yet, they threw ddr ram in there because...? trust me, 512 mb - 1 gig of CHEAPER sdram would do the job any consumer would need, and save some cost on the machine and upgrading.
oh yeah, and basic airport just wasn't getting the job done for those consumers, either, so they had to go EXTREME. but it's okay that apple left off fw800 because...
"fw800 is a pro feature. consumers don't need it..."
make up your damn minds, already.
and i have yet to hear a good explanation as to what exactly is the difference between the geforce4 mx for the 17" two days ago and today? didn't the geforce 4 mx ALWAYS have 64 mb of ddr ram on it?
and while i am on that soapbox, someone mind explaining to me why they have removed the ability of multiple monitors for the geforce 4 mx? it's the same card in my dual 1 gig at work, and i run two monitors off it. i mean, they don't have to call attention to it, but why remove the finctionality altogether?
and don't say that 1024x768 or 1440x990 is all a consumer will ever need. they tried that crap with the clamshell ibooks. i never bought into that, but there are a bunch of people with pretty decent, firewire capable ibooks (the graphite/indigo/key lime line) that can't run imovie anymore (it now requires 1024x768, and they don't have multiple monitor support in those ibooks).
and finally, if i hear one more person say they are cheaper, i will don my ass-kickin' boots, and administer some RDF of my own. the price of the baseline imac went UP. no matter how you justify it, it went UP. i have screenshots of proof! yet everyone says it's cheaper. and when you call 'em on it, they're like "yeah, but look at all the new stuff you get..." oh for cryin' out loud. why don't you just start charging by the MegaHert (sp?) to justify price increases. "well, we went from 800 MHz to 1 GHz, so let's charge 200 more dollars...!"
i swear, i love you guys, but some of you people are psycho!
[quote]- FW800... what's the deal with whining about this? How many people on the planet can make use of FW800 yet are still in the market for a non-professional computer? What could an iMac possibly do with 800 that it can't do with 400? Perhaps, 5 years from now, we'll be seeing our first CAT5E based FW networks... but who will be using an old, non-professional computer on such a network? Maybe 37 people on the planet. However, none of the people posting here are among those 37. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] now, im sure fw800 is more money but i dont think anywhere near something like 50 bucks <hr></blockquote>
OK if the miniscule price alone wasn't enough reason to add FW2...
Let's think about your logic. No one will be using these iMacs in a few years. Um.. Ever seen a school or college? THEY WILL. And since FW 2 has a different physical that alone is reason enough, since FW2 doesn't add much to price.
Not including FireWire 2 was what really struck me as pathetic about these updates. It's just more Apple "crippleware", like when they cripple my IIsi to sell more IIci's, for example. This artificial segmentation seems illogical... Wouldn't selling LOTS more iMacs make up for the fewer sales of PowerMacs you're making by forcing people who want FW2 to buy PowerMacs instead of iMacs?
Oh well it is the year of the laptop after all... At least for me.
[quote] i swear, i love you guys, but some of you people are psycho! <hr></blockquote>
fair enough. and you're right about their "mid-range" imac model going down in price. i was just getting sick of everyone thinking the new pricing was all sunshine and lollipops.
plus, i've had an incessant 100 - 102 degree fever over the past three days. what's everyone else's excuse?
That's exactly what it is. Poor Apple. You really have to feel for them. They're so "hemmed in" because of the poor clocking ability of the G4 that they have to resort to leaving of L3 Cache and the latest FW to add distinction to the line. Here's to the 970 giving them enough breathing room to sell Macs based on Clock Speed. I consider Wireless capability, and I/O base connectivity and those should all be aligned to one standard IMO.
"fw800 is a pro feature. consumers don't need it..."
yet, they threw ddr ram in there because...? trust me, 512 mb - 1 gig of CHEAPER sdram would do the job any consumer would need, and save some cost on the machine and upgrading.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can understand the bottom model not having FW800, because it's essentially last year's model down to the screws. The lack on the 17" is an omission. FW400 languished for years before Apple put it on their consumer lines, and FW800 will be doomed to the same fate, only with USB2 challenging FireWire in the consumer space. They should either commit to FW by giving us FW800 on all new models, or adopt USB2.
[quote]<strong>and while i am on that soapbox, someone mind explaining to me why they have removed the ability of multiple monitors for the geforce 4 mx? it's the same card in my dual 1 gig at work, and i run two monitors off it. i mean, they don't have to call attention to it, but why remove the finctionality altogether?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The GeForce 4MX in the iMac is not the same as the one in your tower. The tower gets an entire AGP card, which has full functionality; the iMac has a chip soldered onto the motherboard.
The chips are aimed at AIO and laptop applications, and so they have not only fewer capabilities than the cards, they're modular: Vendors can customize the exact features that the chip is capable of.
I personally don't like the fact that Apple has removed multiple-monitor capability from its position as a standard Mac feature, but they have. In the iMac's case it might be disabled in firmware, as the iBook's spanning capabilities are, or the chip in the iMac might actually be incapable of it. I consider the firmware disabling to be more likely - if that's how it's done, there might be an iBook style firmware hack to enable spanning through the wierd VGA port in the back.
[quote]I can understand the bottom model not having FW800, because it's essentially last year's model down to the screws. The lack on the 17" is an omission. FW400 languished for years before Apple put it on their consumer lines, and FW800 will be doomed to the same fate, only with USB2 challenging FireWire in the consumer space. They should either commit to FW by giving us FW800 on all new models, or adopt USB2. <hr></blockquote>
Agreed.
[quote] I personally don't like the fact that Apple has removed multiple-monitor capability from its position as a standard Mac feature, but they have. In the iMac's case it might be disabled in firmware, as the iBook's spanning capabilities are, or the chip in the iMac might actually be incapable of it. I consider the firmware disabling to be more likely - if that's how it's done, there might be an iBook style firmware hack to enable spanning through the wierd VGA port in the back. <hr></blockquote>
Artificial. Crippleware. A pattern at Apple. Like how they tried to prevent my Blue and White G3 from accepting upgrades or like how they tried to get iMac owners to buy only Apple RAM with a firmware update, invalidating 3rd party RAM. Dirty. I hope Apple gets rid of this kind of behavior but I fear it will only happen more if they don't get better products and more money soon.
EmAn you are right about RAM, it is dirt cheap now and a crime that Apple gives you not even enough RAM to run OS X let alone a few apps. 384 should be minimum. Even in the base iBook.
OOoo but let me quote some RAM prices from Appple:
To add 256 megs of RAM to the middle iMac, it costs $100.
Are you kidding me? Sure Apple RAM is probably CL2 instead of CL3 and it has been tested, installed, and shipped, but anyone can agree almost 5 times the price is absolutely NUTS. Prices went from "really really ridiculously ludicrous" to "slightly less really really ridiculously ludicrous."
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before of if you guys know, but the new 17" model also has Audio In and S-Video and Composite Video out. Not highly publicized features, but fairly significant.
Comments
The low end tower will get blown out by the high end iMac...what an awesome machine for that price!
I am on a plenty fast 800 Mhz G4 iMac that I spent 1800 on. Just think about 200 Mhz more speed, 20 more gigs of HD space, a better gpx card, bluetooth, and the larger LCD!!! :eek:
I am floored.
[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Macintosh ]</p>
<strong>I think everyone will agree that the base iMac sucks. There is no way around that fact. Heck, the base emac sucks as well. It is disgracful that Apple still sell computer with only 128 MB ram (that barely runs its OS) and 5400 RPM HD. That is the sad part.
Now, the new 17 inch iMac is nice. They key points are 133 bus and a 64 MB gf4 MX wiht 4X AGP. That fact alone will make it handle OS X better. It should have 512 ram and a 7200 RPM HD and it would be a killer computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 17" iMac does ship with a 7200rpm HD.
(I think the 12" PB and $999 iBook show that, not to mention the new $20" display), I'm wondering if something is actually forcing them to keep these prices up? Apple's days of 50% margins are gone. For some reason, I think these machines are costing alot. Believe me I'll bet Apple wants a $999 FP iMac and $699 eMac as much as we do.
The poster who decried the lousy sales #s was absolutely right. Theres no WAY this machine can even remotely be considered anywhere near as successful as the 233MHz iMac. Unlike the cube, though, this one will not EOL anytime soon. Too much is riding on it. Mark my words, we *will* see impressive price/performance in the coming months.
BTW, this 13-month product cycle is not only unprecedented, its also nuts! This machine must be doing *really* poorly for Apple to not even bother to update specs due to inventory glut.
Dangerous. Joe Dangerous.
both the 15 and 17 have 7200 HD, but the 15 is ATA 66 and the 17 is ATA 100....was the old 15" lcd iMac at ATA 66??
g
<strong>
both the 15 and 17 have 7200 HD, but the 15 is ATA 66 and the 17 is ATA 100....was the old 15" lcd iMac at ATA 66??
g</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is the old iMac...nothing has changed. Even the bluetooth option on the 15" is a USB adapter and not internal.
[QB]It is disgracful that Apple still sell computer with only 128 MB ram (that barely runs its OS). <hr></blockquote>
Maybe Apple wants to save in costs? You can always get cheapest RAMs from internet or local PC shops, if you need more RAM. 256MB RAM should be minimum in iMac.
<strong>FireWire 800 doesn't cost much. All it involves is replacing the FireWire physical layer chip.
It probably wouldn't add more than $50 to the computer.
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
How does this affect the design of the motherboard and controller? Is it just plug-n-play?
"fw800 is a pro feature. consumers don't need it..."
yet, they threw ddr ram in there because...? trust me, 512 mb - 1 gig of CHEAPER sdram would do the job any consumer would need, and save some cost on the machine and upgrading.
oh yeah, and basic airport just wasn't getting the job done for those consumers, either, so they had to go EXTREME. but it's okay that apple left off fw800 because...
"fw800 is a pro feature. consumers don't need it..."
make up your damn minds, already.
and i have yet to hear a good explanation as to what exactly is the difference between the geforce4 mx for the 17" two days ago and today? didn't the geforce 4 mx ALWAYS have 64 mb of ddr ram on it?
and while i am on that soapbox, someone mind explaining to me why they have removed the ability of multiple monitors for the geforce 4 mx? it's the same card in my dual 1 gig at work, and i run two monitors off it. i mean, they don't have to call attention to it, but why remove the finctionality altogether?
and don't say that 1024x768 or 1440x990 is all a consumer will ever need. they tried that crap with the clamshell ibooks. i never bought into that, but there are a bunch of people with pretty decent, firewire capable ibooks (the graphite/indigo/key lime line) that can't run imovie anymore (it now requires 1024x768, and they don't have multiple monitor support in those ibooks).
and finally, if i hear one more person say they are cheaper, i will don my ass-kickin' boots, and administer some RDF of my own. the price of the baseline imac went UP. no matter how you justify it, it went UP. i have screenshots of proof! yet everyone says it's cheaper. and when you call 'em on it, they're like "yeah, but look at all the new stuff you get..." oh for cryin' out loud. why don't you just start charging by the MegaHert (sp?) to justify price increases. "well, we went from 800 MHz to 1 GHz, so let's charge 200 more dollars...!"
i swear, i love you guys, but some of you people are psycho!
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</p>
[quote] now, im sure fw800 is more money but i dont think anywhere near something like 50 bucks <hr></blockquote>
OK if the miniscule price alone wasn't enough reason to add FW2...
Let's think about your logic. No one will be using these iMacs in a few years. Um.. Ever seen a school or college? THEY WILL. And since FW 2 has a different physical that alone is reason enough, since FW2 doesn't add much to price.
Not including FireWire 2 was what really struck me as pathetic about these updates. It's just more Apple "crippleware", like when they cripple my IIsi to sell more IIci's, for example. This artificial segmentation seems illogical... Wouldn't selling LOTS more iMacs make up for the fewer sales of PowerMacs you're making by forcing people who want FW2 to buy PowerMacs instead of iMacs?
Oh well it is the year of the laptop after all... At least for me.
[quote] i swear, i love you guys, but some of you people are psycho! <hr></blockquote>
Thank you!
Yes, the base iMac went up. We don't need your screenshots for proof.
The 17" model also went DOWN by $350 CAD. I see you didn't bother mentioning that.
The 17" update is fine, albeit about 4 months late or more. Regardless, I think it's a pretty good value and I've placed my order.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>
<strong>I agree with much of what you're saying with the whole "pro feature" crap. I think they should have FW800.
Yes, the base iMac went up. We don't need your screenshots for proof.
The 17" model also went DOWN by $350 CAD. I see you didn't bother mentioning that.
The 17" update is fine, albeit about 4 months late or more. Regardless, I think it's a pretty good value and I've placed my order.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: murbot ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
fair enough. and you're right about their "mid-range" imac model going down in price. i was just getting sick of everyone thinking the new pricing was all sunshine and lollipops.
plus, i've had an incessant 100 - 102 degree fever over the past three days. what's everyone else's excuse?
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</p>
That's exactly what it is. Poor Apple. You really have to feel for them. They're so "hemmed in" because of the poor clocking ability of the G4 that they have to resort to leaving of L3 Cache and the latest FW to add distinction to the line. Here's to the 970 giving them enough breathing room to sell Macs based on Clock Speed. I consider Wireless capability, and I/O base connectivity and those should all be aligned to one standard IMO.
We wanted better specs and cheaper prices.
Wa did we get?
All that.
I sold my old 15" Superdrive 2 Weeks ago and I will now buy me the new 17" Superdrive for just 300 $ in difference.
So it's quite cheap having the update.
I am satisfied with this update.
Very good price/value relation.
<strong>
"fw800 is a pro feature. consumers don't need it..."
yet, they threw ddr ram in there because...? trust me, 512 mb - 1 gig of CHEAPER sdram would do the job any consumer would need, and save some cost on the machine and upgrading.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can understand the bottom model not having FW800, because it's essentially last year's model down to the screws. The lack on the 17" is an omission. FW400 languished for years before Apple put it on their consumer lines, and FW800 will be doomed to the same fate, only with USB2 challenging FireWire in the consumer space. They should either commit to FW by giving us FW800 on all new models, or adopt USB2.
[quote]<strong>and while i am on that soapbox, someone mind explaining to me why they have removed the ability of multiple monitors for the geforce 4 mx? it's the same card in my dual 1 gig at work, and i run two monitors off it. i mean, they don't have to call attention to it, but why remove the finctionality altogether?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The GeForce 4MX in the iMac is not the same as the one in your tower. The tower gets an entire AGP card, which has full functionality; the iMac has a chip soldered onto the motherboard.
The chips are aimed at AIO and laptop applications, and so they have not only fewer capabilities than the cards, they're modular: Vendors can customize the exact features that the chip is capable of.
I personally don't like the fact that Apple has removed multiple-monitor capability from its position as a standard Mac feature, but they have. In the iMac's case it might be disabled in firmware, as the iBook's spanning capabilities are, or the chip in the iMac might actually be incapable of it. I consider the firmware disabling to be more likely - if that's how it's done, there might be an iBook style firmware hack to enable spanning through the wierd VGA port in the back.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>
Maybe Apple wants to save in costs? You can always get cheapest RAMs from internet or local PC shops, if you need more RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Adding some more RAM will really hurt them, right?
Agreed.
[quote] I personally don't like the fact that Apple has removed multiple-monitor capability from its position as a standard Mac feature, but they have. In the iMac's case it might be disabled in firmware, as the iBook's spanning capabilities are, or the chip in the iMac might actually be incapable of it. I consider the firmware disabling to be more likely - if that's how it's done, there might be an iBook style firmware hack to enable spanning through the wierd VGA port in the back. <hr></blockquote>
Artificial. Crippleware.
EmAn you are right about RAM, it is dirt cheap now and a crime that Apple gives you not even enough RAM to run OS X let alone a few apps. 384 should be minimum. Even in the base iBook.
OOoo but let me quote some RAM prices from Appple:
To add 256 megs of RAM to the middle iMac, it costs $100.
Now let me quote <a href="http://www.Dealram.com"; target="_blank">www.Dealram.com</a>
$29
Now, for Apple to give you 512 megs of RAM in one stick, they charge you an EXTRA $200.
Now from <a href="http://www.dealram.com"; target="_blank">www.dealram.com</a>
$43
Are you kidding me? Sure Apple RAM is probably CL2 instead of CL3 and it has been tested, installed, and shipped, but anyone can agree almost 5 times the price is absolutely NUTS. Prices went from "really really ridiculously ludicrous" to "slightly less really really ridiculously ludicrous."