Disgruntled Apple Fans UNITE !

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Ok, a lot of us are unhappy at the update to the iMac.



We all know the choice of GPUs in the new iMac is appaling and insulting, to put it lightly.

For those that dont know, here, a benchmark just for reference:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=11



Apple seems to have give the iMac a very nice CPU update, but TOTALLY CRIPPLED the computer when it comes to 3D intensive applications by choosing the NOTORIOUSLY poor-performing ATi HD 2000 series, which seems like a very bizarre decision on their part (political, perhaps ?)





Also, quite a few of us are less than pleased with Apples choice to make glossy screens mandatory. Hell, I myself want a matte screen for more reasons than one.



However, just moaning about it on forums wont get us far -

here, follow this link, and take your complaints up to Apple.



http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=338795



This way, if they get enough complaints, they may make a update.

Its not impossible - remember that the 7600GT was added as a CTO to the previous iMac.



Please, also, pass this on to any other people you know are not happy with the update.



IF WORK TOGETHER, WE CAN ACHIEVE SOMETHING !
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 103
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm no



    If someone wants to game then they can buy a Mac Pro and put in whatever GPU they can find that works. The iMac has atypical cooling requirements that preclude using some GPU. I'm ok with that but then again I'm not a huge gamer and if I was I'd be using a console.



    I "like" glossy screens. If there's a glare problem the issue is with your lighting and not the screen.



    I find that usually many "disgruntled" Mac fans are simply fans employing their own RDF. If you cannot see the world beyond your own perspectives then you won't understand why certain decisions are likely to be made.
  • Reply 2 of 103
    dualsduals Posts: 41member
    Wahhhh! The mouse is white and not black - unite!



    Dude you have a choice, get a tower with whichever graphics card you want. Not everybody is going to love every specification. Get over it.
  • Reply 3 of 103
    Why the hell should I spend between £2500-£3000 just to have a choice to be able to play games decently and be able to use OSX ?



    murchison, the 8600GTS is also availble with passive cooling - there is no reason why a far superior and cheap GPU cant be included.



    As for glossy screens, you may like it, but many people dont. Apple should atleast offer a choice between matte and glossy.



    This is not a matter of perspective, but a matter of TERRIBLE decisions on the part of Apple.



    And Duals, there is no reason for me to buy a cheap-ass Dell. Even less so when, apparently, "gaming is back to the Mac". I dont ask for a 8800GTX Quad Core L33T rig, but I ask for a decent GPU. Perhaps a 8600GTS, or (I know im asking too much though), a 8800GTS. And yes, I know including a 8800GTS would probably require more cooling and render the iMac perhaps 2/10ths of a inch thicker, but I really dont care, since I would rather have 4-5x the performance at the expense of the iMac being a pinhead thicker.



    Apple has almost literally crippled the new iMac with the ATi 2400 and 2600 - that GPU series is one of the biggest flops in GPU history !
  • Reply 4 of 103
    dualsduals Posts: 41member
    I wasn't necessarily implying that you had to get a dell tower. By all means, get a mac pro tower and whichever graphics card you want.



    I have a glossy new 20 inch imac ($1499 model) on my desk as of last night. It feels anything but crippled in fact it's very snappy. I love the screen, very sharp and I don't have any issues with glare, my computer faces away from a window. So the display is bright and beautiful.
  • Reply 5 of 103
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 132GHz,4TB DDR8 SDRAM,95TB HDD View Post


    Why the hell should I spend between £2500-£3000 just to have a choice to be able to play games decently and be able to use OSX ?



    murchison, the 8600GTS is also availble with passive cooling - there is no reason why a far superior and cheap GPU cant be included.



    As for glossy screens, you may like it, but many people dont. Apple should atleast offer a choice between matte and glossy.



    This is not a matter of perspective, but a matter of TERRIBLE decisions on the part of Apple.



    And Duals, there is no reason for me to buy a cheap-ass Dell. Even less so when, apparently, "gaming is back to the Mac". I dont ask for a 8800GTX Quad Core L33T rig, but I ask for a decent GPU. Perhaps a 8600GTS, or (I know im asking too much though), a 8800GTS. And yes, I know including a 8800GTS would probably require more cooling and render the iMac perhaps 2/10ths of a inch thicker, but I really dont care, since I would rather have 4-5x the performance at the expense of the iMac being a pinhead thicker.



    Apple has almost literally crippled the new iMac with the ATi 2400 and 2600 - that GPU series is one of the biggest flops in GPU history !



    Oh there's reasons why. Could be thermal characteristics or price. Glossy screens appeal to consumers. I don't think Apple made this decision without looking at the adequate data in the marketplace. I don't see Macbook owners complaining and I'm typing this on a laptop with a glossy screen and it's just not an issue to me. I'm likely not the only one thinking like this.



    I realize that to a gamer a Mac simply isn't the value proposition. ATI probably sold Apple those GPU for pennies on the dollar. They don't perform that well.



    Perhaps there will be an upgraded option but likely not in this release of iMacs.
  • Reply 6 of 103
    Thats the problem you see - the Mac Pro is a very expensive machine.



    The iMac may not seem crippled at first, but 3D intensive applications will however prove me right. Specifications wise, the iMac is excellent...intill we come to the GPU.

    We have a $89/£50 video card with a $2,100/£1500 (yeah, UK pays more) machine.

    It is absolutely criminal.

    You have a 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme processor (nice one, Apple - this was a good choice), a option for upto 4GB of RAM (Once again, nice, nice), and suddenly, you come to the 2600 Pro which is only marginally more powerful than the X1600.



    Here, try running any new-newish game on that iMac - you will see very lackluster performance.

    This is all the more worrying when you cannot change the GPU in the iMac - what is terrible now will be unthinkable in 2-3 years.



    EDIT_1: Murchison, I say again, the 8600GTS, a FAR more powerful counterpart is available for a similar price with similar heat output. There is absolutely no reason a 8800GTS could not be fitted into that iMac.

    As you yourself say, the 2600 is not the ideal choice for a game. I would go further and say its a terrible choice for anyone who wants to run ANY demanding 3D applications. ATi, as you say, provably offered a very cheap price, and Apple succumbed. This is very depressing.

    Apple will also loose quite a few customers because of this since now, there is no viable option for someone who wants to do ANY gaming at all. And teenagers in their mothers houses are not the only people who play games. Many people do.
  • Reply 7 of 103
    imacs are not for excessive gaming period. Im sure the GPU is powerful enough to support what a imac is intentionally ment to be used for. And you say in 2-3 years time the GPU will be unthinkable, well im sure the whole unit will be out of date at the current rate computers are advancing nowerdays.



    What is done is done, macs have never been up to scratch with GPU's anyway.
  • Reply 8 of 103
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by griffin View Post


    imacs are not for excessive gaming period. Im sure the GPU is powerful enough to support what a imac is intentionally ment to be used for. And you say in 2-3 years time the GPU will be unthinkable, well im sure the whole unit will be out of date at the current rate computers are advancing nowerdays.



    What is done is done, macs have never been up to scratch with GPU's anyway.



    That is no excuse, since, to repeat myself, it has been stated "gaming is coming back to the Mac".

    And we are not demanding a 8800GTX in Quad SLi, but merely, a decent GPU.



    As ive stated before, the ATi 2000 series is a notoriously pathetic line of graphics cards.

    Apple should not atleast shamelessy force people who want to do any amount of gaming to buy a Mac Pro. I like OSX, so its hard for me to go and buy a Windows box, but Apple is offering no other option.



    Oh, and the rate the computers are advancing is no excuse either - even decent GPUs from 5-6 years ago can still hold their own in terms of light gaming. Eg: The GeForce 4/5 series



    Perhaps with enough complaints, Apple will, like to the previous iMac model, offer a new GPU as CTO.
  • Reply 9 of 103
    Reading up on this i cant help but think this is all for the new face of apple i.e. Electrical and environmental requirements.



    Both the ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro and the ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT have very impressive power efficiency due to their 65nm chip used. Maybe this is what Jobs was looking for in a GPU to fit the whole environmental imac design.



    But are there any other GPUs which offer simular power efficiency and are better then the current GPUs in the imacs?



    This although is not going to stop me from buying a imac now because i knownly wont need a powerful GPU.
  • Reply 10 of 103
    shanmugamshanmugam Posts: 1,200member
    investors who have interest only in $$$ should be banned from this thred
  • Reply 11 of 103
    4metta4metta Posts: 365member
    It's sad there isnt even an option to upgrade the gpu. I actually believe that will change in the future for BTOs.





    Let's wait untill Leopard before we totally write off the chip though.
  • Reply 12 of 103
    4metta4metta Posts: 365member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 132GHz,4TB DDR8 SDRAM,95TB HDD View Post


    That is no excuse, since, to repeat myself, it has been stated "gaming is coming back to the Mac".

    And we are not demanding a 8800GTX in Quad SLi, but merely, a decent GPU.



    As ive stated before, the ATi 2000 series is a notoriously pathetic line of graphics cards.

    Apple should not atleast shamelessy force people who want to do any amount of gaming to buy a Mac Pro. I like OSX, so its hard for me to go and buy a Windows box, but Apple is offering no other option.



    Oh, and the rate the computers are advancing is no excuse either - even decent GPUs from 5-6 years ago can still hold their own in terms of light gaming. Eg: The GeForce 4/5 series



    Perhaps with enough complaints, Apple will, like to the previous iMac model, offer a new GPU as CTO.



    You won't have to get a Windows box. My WoW is running under Bootcamp with XP. The game plays better through Bootcamp on my macbook than it does natively on a macbook pro. No joke. Almost all my settings are turned up. And apparently Bootcamp will be standard as of Leopard.When I'm not gaming I simply flip back to mac os
  • Reply 13 of 103
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 4metta View Post


    You won't have to get a Windows box. My WoW is running under Bootcamp with XP. The game plays better through Bootcamp on my macbook than it does natively on a macbook pro. No joke. Almost all my settings are turned up. And apparently Bootcamp will be standard as of Leopard.When I'm not gaming I simply flip back to mac os



    I know, but Windows benchmark results for the 2600 Pro leave a LOT to be desired.
  • Reply 14 of 103
    auslanderauslander Posts: 183member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 132GHz,4TB DDR8 SDRAM,95TB HDD View Post


    That is no excuse, since, to repeat myself, it has been stated "gaming is coming back to the Mac".



    However, they never specifically stated that "gaming is coming to the iMac". The Mac Pro and the MBP lines have graphics that are far more powerful. The iMac is a nicely put together machine, but you can't please everyone with one model of computer. iMacs won't appeal to those who want to take their computer with them in a briefcase/backpack either. You choose the model you need from the lineup available.



    Gamers will almost certainly gravitate towards the high-end models or consoles anyhow.
  • Reply 15 of 103
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auslander View Post


    However, they never specifically stated that "gaming is coming to the iMac". The Mac Pro and the MBP lines have graphics that are far more powerful. The iMac is a nicely put together machine, but you can't please everyone with one model of computer. iMacs won't appeal to those who want to take their computer with them in a briefcase/backpack either. You choose the model you need from the lineup available.



    Gamers will almost certainly gravitate towards the high-end models or consoles anyhow.



    You make it sound as if I demand to have iMac have Quad Core processors and a 8800GTX-

    listen to me, as anothe rposter on the MacRumours forums stated,

    I dont want a rubbish GPU and I dont want a superb GPU - what I want is a average GPU.

    Apple seems to have gone ahead and awarded us with a rubbish GPU.
  • Reply 16 of 103
    auslanderauslander Posts: 183member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 132GHz,4TB DDR8 SDRAM,95TB HDD View Post


    You make it sound as if I demand to have iMac have Quad Core processors and a 8800GTX-

    listen to me, as anothe rposter on the MacRumours forums stated,

    I dont want a rubbish GPU and I dont want a superb GPU - what I want is a average GPU.

    Apple seems to have gone ahead and awarded us with a rubbish GPU.



    No, I'm just saying, as others have, that the iMac might not be the best choice for gaming or graphics-intensive work. That area is covered by other models. No argument here - just pointing out the fact.



    It's fine for day to day internet, sending email, chat, and many other things of course, and will probably be a resounding success as a result.
  • Reply 17 of 103
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm no



    If someone wants to game then they can buy a Mac Pro and put in whatever GPU they can find that works. The iMac has atypical cooling requirements that preclude using some GPU. I'm ok with that but then again I'm not a huge gamer and if I was I'd be using a console.



    I "like" glossy screens. If there's a glare problem the issue is with your lighting and not the screen.



    I find that usually many "disgruntled" Mac fans are simply fans employing their own RDF. If you cannot see the world beyond your own perspectives then you won't understand why certain decisions are likely to be made.



    Paying close to $3000 just play a game a decent framerate is completely unreasonable to ask.
  • Reply 18 of 103
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    It doesn't sound as though many people agree with you or want to sign-up to your revolution.
  • Reply 19 of 103
    http://the-ish.com/blog/?p=23



    Here's a good comparison of 24in iMacs before and after Tuesday.



    I guess this is what Apple meant by lower margins.
  • Reply 20 of 103
    iposteriposter Posts: 1,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cygnusrk727 View Post


    http://the-ish.com/blog/?p=23



    Here's a good comparison of 24in iMacs before and after Tuesday.



    I guess this is what Apple meant by lower margins.



    Now that's a nice price drop!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    Paying close to $3000 just play a game a decent framerate is completely unreasonable to ask.



    Agreed.
Sign In or Register to comment.