Originally Posted by 132GHz,4TB DDR8 SDRAM,95TB HDD
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.
how dramatic \
Is there really "no viable option for someone who wants to do ANY gaming at all." Is the Mac Pro not an option? It may not be the option you prefer, but it's certainly an option.
And why is it such a shock that "its a terrible choice for anyone who wants to run ANY demanding 3D applications" Would you not think that you would need a pro machine to run "demanding 3D applications?
It doesn't sound as though many people agree with you or want to sign-up to your revolution.
That doesn't prove he's wrong.
I'd join the revolution. It is indeed a crap GPU. Obviously we do have a choice, but the only option for non-Pro users (or pro-gamers for that matter) is to get a windows box or a Macbook Pro. There was already a huge gap in Apple's lineup and they just made it bigger.
Has anyone actually tested these new machines on any games? I understand the benchmarks and all but is it plausible that you can actually play a game on this machine?
Besides, if you look at the links you guys have already provided, the old iMacs had a NVidia 7600GT, which is not much faster than the 2400 and 2600 GPUs in the newer syetems. Apple had to cut corners somewhere in upgrading the screens (like em or not, those glass screens can't be cheap to make), the aluminum casing, the processors, R&D, and marketing. A few frames per second in a video game is where they saw they could make their adjustment to be able to cut the consumer cost. And if you look at the ish site cygnusrk727 provided, you are actaully saving more than what Apple is toting.
Neither the previous nor the newer iMac was not designed for what you want the newer machine to be capable of.
No mater what most of you are saying (iMac is just for internet, email, music, etc - which btw my Mini does just fine and for much less, so shouldn't the iMac be that little bit better?), the fact of the matter is, the old 24' model had as a CTO option a GeForce 7600, which is better than the current top-of-the-current-offerings ATI 2600 Pro.
Why go backwards?
EDIT: If anything, why not offer a better GPU as an option? I'd gladly pay up to $150 for a better GPU!
Actually, quite a few of you state that the iMac is "only meant for checking emails" and etc.
I would actually dispute that - the iMac is the AIO.
The Mini is meant for stuff like checking emails.
Apple has almost literally gone, to quote a poster on MacRumors, "one step forward, and two steps back".
If the iMac was meant for merely checking emails, we wouldnt have a option to buy a 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBJRA10
how dramatic \
Is there really "no viable option for someone who wants to do ANY gaming at all." Is the Mac Pro not an option? It may not be the option you prefer, but it's certainly an option.
And why is it such a shock that "its a terrible choice for anyone who wants to run ANY demanding 3D applications" Would you not think that you would need a pro machine to run "demanding 3D applications?
"criminal" are you kidding me?
The thing is that apart from the GPU, the new iMac is very much a semi-pro machine - the 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme, a 4GB RAM limit, and a possibility of upto 1TB of HDD space very much contradict the general notion that the iMac is meant for 'grandma checking her mail'.
Unless 'grandma' wants to find her mail in under a milisecond, and store every email sent across the internet within 800 miles of her for the week of August 7 - 14th, this is a very versatile machine - its both consumer and prosumer.
The inclusion of the 2400 and 2600 is...it pains me to say this, as a long time Apple fan, but its absolutely idiotic.
Its like putting square tires on a ferrari - sure the car is really damn fast, but the tires are limiting it severely. Similar case here.
As for a Mac pro, I say again, paying upward of £2500 just to get half-decent FPS in any game is rediculous.
You see, im not asking for the entire lineup to be changed to 8800GTS and GTXs, but as with the PowerMac G5 (7800GT was offered later on in its life) and the previous iMac (7600GT was offered later), I want another CTO option.
This will not change anything for 'grandma who wants to check her emails', and it will make people who want a bit more...'oomph' satisfied. Win-Win.
Originally Posted by 132GHz,4TB DDR8 SDRAM,95TB HDD
Indeed.
The inclusion of the 2400 and 2600 is...it pains me to say this, as a long time Apple fan, but its absolutely idiotic. Its like putting square tires on a ferrari - sure the car is really damn fast, but the tires are limiting it severely. Similar case here.
Seriously. This is driving everyone crazy. Three is a total insult since Apple wants to us to buy the extra's too. iMac's cannot support a full system purchase.
Every PC sold today comes with at least 5-6 USB ports on it. Even the 3 year old Dell laptop I have to use at work as 4 USB ports on it.
iMac's pathetic - yet realistic USB layout.
USB Port 1= Keyboard
USB Port 2= iPod
USB Port 3= Printer
Keyboard Ports:
USB Port 1= Mouse
USB Port 2= Point and Shoot camera
Now that I am out of USB ports, it's a pain to have to plug and unplug the following:
1) My iPhone
2) Wife's Palm Sync cable
3) DSLR Camera
4) JBL Soundsticks and iSub (Real computer speakers - lets face it, iMac Rev3 speakers are pathetic)
It is a total farce to see apple comparing the cord-reduced imac sitting next to a cord-ridden PC. it is a farce because nobody has a computing environment like that. I love the iMac all-in-one design but I still have cords all over the place. Now, in addition to all the cords, I have to buy a USB hub which just adds to the cord mess. Apple needs to think about how people are living with their computers as much as they are trying to provide great software for using the computer. And the ports on the Keyboard are worse. i don't want corded mess behind my computer and I certianly don't want corded mess in front of the computer where I have to look at it.
My suggestions for phase 1:
1) Get rid of the ports in the keyboard
2) Put 6 USB ports on the back of the iMac's.
3) 2 FW 400 / 1 FW 800
My suggestion for Phase 2:
Start adding Wireless USB to the iMac's. Apple is very much a trendsetter and this would be a good place to start.
Seriously. This is driving everyone crazy. Three is a total insult since Apple wants to us to buy the extra's too. iMac's cannot support a full system purchase.
Every PC sold today comes with at least 5-6 USB ports on it. Even the 3 year old Dell laptop I have to use at work as 4 USB ports on it.
iMac's pathetic - yet realistic USB layout.
USB Port 1= Keyboard
USB Port 2= iPod
USB Port 3= Printer
Keyboard Ports:
USB Port 1= Mouse
USB Port 2= Point and Shoot camera
Now that I am out of USB ports, it's a pain to have to plug and unplug the following:
1) My iPhone
2) Wife's Palm Sync cable
3) DSLR Camera
4) JBL Soundsticks and iSub (Real computer speakers - lets face it, iMac Rev3 speakers are pathetic)
It is a total farce to see apple comparing the cord-reduced imac sitting next to a cord-ridden PC. it is a farce because nobody has a computing environment like that. I love the iMac all-in-one design but I still have cords all over the place. Now, in addition to all the cords, I have to buy a USB hub which just adds to the cord mess. Apple needs to think about how people are living with their computers as much as they are trying to provide great software for using the computer.
My suggestion, Put 6 USB ports on the back of the iMac's
Seriously. This is driving everyone crazy. Three is a total insult since Apple wants to us to buy the extra's too. iMac's cannot support a full system purchase.
Every PC sold today comes with at least 5-6 USB ports on it. Even the 3 year old Dell laptop I have to use at work as 4 USB ports on it.
iMac's pathetic - yet realistic USB layout.
USB Port 1= Keyboard
USB Port 2= iPod
USB Port 3= Printer
Keyboard Ports:
USB Port 1= Mouse
USB Port 2= Point and Shoot camera
Now that I am out of USB ports, it's a pain to have to plug and unplug the following:
1) My iPhone
2) Wife's Palm Sync cable
3) DSLR Camera
4) JBL Soundsticks and iSub (Real computer speakers - lets face it, iMac Rev3 speakers are pathetic)
It is a total farce to see apple comparing the cord-reduced imac sitting next to a cord-ridden PC. it is a farce because nobody has a computing environment like that. I love the iMac all-in-one design but I still have cords all over the place. Now, in addition to all the cords, I have to buy a USB hub which just adds to the cord mess. Apple needs to think about how people are living with their computers as much as they are trying to provide great software for using the computer.
My suggestion, Put 6 USB ports on the back of the iMac's
Or you could just buy an addapter for $5 and stop bitching about it. turns 1 usb 2 port into 4, some probably offer even more.
Also, why exactly do you have them all plugged in at the same time. Half of them were mobile devices. Are you too lazy to connect and disconnect the adapters each time?
Originally Posted by 132GHz,4TB DDR8 SDRAM,95TB HDD
The thing is that apart from the GPU, the new iMac is very much a semi-pro machine - the 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme, a 4GB RAM limit, and a possibility of upto 1TB of HDD space very much contradict the general notion that the iMac is meant for 'grandma checking her mail'.
Unless 'grandma' wants to find her mail in under a milisecond, and store every email sent across the internet within 800 miles of her for the week of August 7 - 14th, this is a very versatile machine - its both consumer and prosumer.
The inclusion of the 2400 and 2600 is...it pains me to say this, as a long time Apple fan, but its absolutely idiotic.
Its like putting square tires on a ferrari - sure the car is really damn fast, but the tires are limiting it severely. Similar case here.
As for a Mac pro, I say again, paying upward of £2500 just to get half-decent FPS in any game is rediculous.
You see, im not asking for the entire lineup to be changed to 8800GTS and GTXs, but as with the PowerMac G5 (7800GT was offered later on in its life) and the previous iMac (7600GT was offered later), I want another CTO option.
This will not change anything for 'grandma who wants to check her emails', and it will make people who want a bit more...'oomph' satisfied. Win-Win.
The iMac isn't for gma and her email. It's for dad or mom and her email, her photos, making short videos of the kids soccer, keeping family stuff organized, downloading music and front row.
I think that the problem with the whole premise is that you seem to have an attitude that you are entitled to something from Apple. That they as a company "owes" you something. How can you seriously be "insulted" by this upgrade. If that is the case, you take life far to personally. I'm serious - insulted? criminal?
maybe you're just ranting, but think about what you're really saying.... do you really mean it?
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.
I'm surprised at you murch. We would think that after Apple had their hoopla with J.Carmac, and EA Games they would at least back up the claim that Games were decent on Macs with better graphics all around the line. I think it's a kind of insulting. That card is shit now. What's it going to look like in a year? It's not like this machine has any longevity with a card like that.
The iMac isn't for gma and her email. It's for dad or mom and her email, her photos, making short videos of the kids soccer, keeping family stuff organized, downloading music and front row.
I think that the problem with the whole premise is that you seem to have an attitude that you are entitled to something from Apple. That they as a company "owes" you something. How can you seriously be "insulted" by this upgrade. If that is the case, you take life far to personally. I'm serious - insulted? criminal?
maybe you're just ranting, but think about what you're really saying.... do you really mean it?
I would still dispute that further and say that the Mac Mini is more than enough for 'mother and father' then.
Im not saying they cannot be allowed to buy a iMac, but the Mac Mini can handle those tasks quite well at about half the price.
You see, as onlooker agrees, Apple does owe us something. They owe us a computer which can run games decently.
But obviously, im somewhat exaggerating - im not literally insulted, and I dont think its criminal - im just incredibly let down. This could be more than due to the fact that ive waited over 2 years to buy a computer from Apple, and the new iMac is pretty much everything I need - apart from the pathetic excuse for a GPU.
Whats interesting is that on Apples website, as a poster on the MacRumours forum stated, the 2600 Pro is advertised as "offering great gaming performance", which is a questionable thing to state.
This also is even more strange step if some of you really think that gaming 'isnt on Apples agenda'.
Here is the link again for all those who want to take the complaints about...well, anything about the new iMac up to Apple -
Comments
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.
how dramatic
Is there really "no viable option for someone who wants to do ANY gaming at all." Is the Mac Pro not an option? It may not be the option you prefer, but it's certainly an option.
And why is it such a shock that "its a terrible choice for anyone who wants to run ANY demanding 3D applications" Would you not think that you would need a pro machine to run "demanding 3D applications?
"criminal" are you kidding me?
It doesn't sound as though many people agree with you or want to sign-up to your revolution.
That doesn't prove he's wrong.
I'd join the revolution. It is indeed a crap GPU. Obviously we do have a choice, but the only option for non-Pro users (or pro-gamers for that matter) is to get a windows box or a Macbook Pro. There was already a huge gap in Apple's lineup and they just made it bigger.
zaqarov
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.
Are you still here? Sheesh dude. Buy a Mac Pro and get over yourself.
Besides, if you look at the links you guys have already provided, the old iMacs had a NVidia 7600GT, which is not much faster than the 2400 and 2600 GPUs in the newer syetems. Apple had to cut corners somewhere in upgrading the screens (like em or not, those glass screens can't be cheap to make), the aluminum casing, the processors, R&D, and marketing. A few frames per second in a video game is where they saw they could make their adjustment to be able to cut the consumer cost. And if you look at the ish site cygnusrk727 provided, you are actaully saving more than what Apple is toting.
Neither the previous nor the newer iMac was not designed for what you want the newer machine to be capable of.
Why go backwards?
EDIT: If anything, why not offer a better GPU as an option? I'd gladly pay up to $150 for a better GPU!
apple pls upgrade to nVidia, san ATI all together, atleast by MWSF 08???
Are you still here? Sheesh dude. Buy a Mac Pro and get over yourself.
With attitudes like this becoming more and more common in out community, Apple is very lucky that Redmond is completely clueless.
Actually, quite a few of you state that the iMac is "only meant for checking emails" and etc.
I would actually dispute that - the iMac is the AIO.
The Mini is meant for stuff like checking emails.
Apple has almost literally gone, to quote a poster on MacRumors, "one step forward, and two steps back".
If the iMac was meant for merely checking emails, we wouldnt have a option to buy a 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme.
how dramatic
Is there really "no viable option for someone who wants to do ANY gaming at all." Is the Mac Pro not an option? It may not be the option you prefer, but it's certainly an option.
And why is it such a shock that "its a terrible choice for anyone who wants to run ANY demanding 3D applications" Would you not think that you would need a pro machine to run "demanding 3D applications?
"criminal" are you kidding me?
The thing is that apart from the GPU, the new iMac is very much a semi-pro machine - the 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme, a 4GB RAM limit, and a possibility of upto 1TB of HDD space very much contradict the general notion that the iMac is meant for 'grandma checking her mail'.
Unless 'grandma' wants to find her mail in under a milisecond, and store every email sent across the internet within 800 miles of her for the week of August 7 - 14th, this is a very versatile machine - its both consumer and prosumer.
The inclusion of the 2400 and 2600 is...it pains me to say this, as a long time Apple fan, but its absolutely idiotic.
Its like putting square tires on a ferrari - sure the car is really damn fast, but the tires are limiting it severely. Similar case here.
As for a Mac pro, I say again, paying upward of £2500 just to get half-decent FPS in any game is rediculous.
You see, im not asking for the entire lineup to be changed to 8800GTS and GTXs, but as with the PowerMac G5 (7800GT was offered later on in its life) and the previous iMac (7600GT was offered later), I want another CTO option.
This will not change anything for 'grandma who wants to check her emails', and it will make people who want a bit more...'oomph' satisfied. Win-Win.
Indeed.
The inclusion of the 2400 and 2600 is...it pains me to say this, as a long time Apple fan, but its absolutely idiotic. Its like putting square tires on a ferrari - sure the car is really damn fast, but the tires are limiting it severely. Similar case here.
Good analogy...
Every PC sold today comes with at least 5-6 USB ports on it. Even the 3 year old Dell laptop I have to use at work as 4 USB ports on it.
iMac's pathetic - yet realistic USB layout.
USB Port 1= Keyboard
USB Port 2= iPod
USB Port 3= Printer
Keyboard Ports:
USB Port 1= Mouse
USB Port 2= Point and Shoot camera
Now that I am out of USB ports, it's a pain to have to plug and unplug the following:
1) My iPhone
2) Wife's Palm Sync cable
3) DSLR Camera
4) JBL Soundsticks and iSub (Real computer speakers - lets face it, iMac Rev3 speakers are pathetic)
It is a total farce to see apple comparing the cord-reduced imac sitting next to a cord-ridden PC. it is a farce because nobody has a computing environment like that. I love the iMac all-in-one design but I still have cords all over the place. Now, in addition to all the cords, I have to buy a USB hub which just adds to the cord mess. Apple needs to think about how people are living with their computers as much as they are trying to provide great software for using the computer. And the ports on the Keyboard are worse. i don't want corded mess behind my computer and I certianly don't want corded mess in front of the computer where I have to look at it.
My suggestions for phase 1:
1) Get rid of the ports in the keyboard
2) Put 6 USB ports on the back of the iMac's.
3) 2 FW 400 / 1 FW 800
My suggestion for Phase 2:
Start adding Wireless USB to the iMac's. Apple is very much a trendsetter and this would be a good place to start.
Thanks for reading.
Every PC sold today comes with at least 5-6 USB ports on it. Even the 3 year old Dell laptop I have to use at work as 4 USB ports on it.
iMac's pathetic - yet realistic USB layout.
USB Port 1= Keyboard
USB Port 2= iPod
USB Port 3= Printer
Keyboard Ports:
USB Port 1= Mouse
USB Port 2= Point and Shoot camera
Now that I am out of USB ports, it's a pain to have to plug and unplug the following:
1) My iPhone
2) Wife's Palm Sync cable
3) DSLR Camera
4) JBL Soundsticks and iSub (Real computer speakers - lets face it, iMac Rev3 speakers are pathetic)
It is a total farce to see apple comparing the cord-reduced imac sitting next to a cord-ridden PC. it is a farce because nobody has a computing environment like that. I love the iMac all-in-one design but I still have cords all over the place. Now, in addition to all the cords, I have to buy a USB hub which just adds to the cord mess. Apple needs to think about how people are living with their computers as much as they are trying to provide great software for using the computer.
My suggestion, Put 6 USB ports on the back of the iMac's
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 ?
Because you're getting multiple benefits. You usually pay for stuff like that.
Seriously. This is driving everyone crazy. Three is a total insult since Apple wants to us to buy the extra's too. iMac's cannot support a full system purchase.
Every PC sold today comes with at least 5-6 USB ports on it. Even the 3 year old Dell laptop I have to use at work as 4 USB ports on it.
iMac's pathetic - yet realistic USB layout.
USB Port 1= Keyboard
USB Port 2= iPod
USB Port 3= Printer
Keyboard Ports:
USB Port 1= Mouse
USB Port 2= Point and Shoot camera
Now that I am out of USB ports, it's a pain to have to plug and unplug the following:
1) My iPhone
2) Wife's Palm Sync cable
3) DSLR Camera
4) JBL Soundsticks and iSub (Real computer speakers - lets face it, iMac Rev3 speakers are pathetic)
It is a total farce to see apple comparing the cord-reduced imac sitting next to a cord-ridden PC. it is a farce because nobody has a computing environment like that. I love the iMac all-in-one design but I still have cords all over the place. Now, in addition to all the cords, I have to buy a USB hub which just adds to the cord mess. Apple needs to think about how people are living with their computers as much as they are trying to provide great software for using the computer.
My suggestion, Put 6 USB ports on the back of the iMac's
Or you could just buy an addapter for $5 and stop bitching about it. turns 1 usb 2 port into 4, some probably offer even more.
Also, why exactly do you have them all plugged in at the same time. Half of them were mobile devices. Are you too lazy to connect and disconnect the adapters each time?
The thing is that apart from the GPU, the new iMac is very much a semi-pro machine - the 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme, a 4GB RAM limit, and a possibility of upto 1TB of HDD space very much contradict the general notion that the iMac is meant for 'grandma checking her mail'.
Unless 'grandma' wants to find her mail in under a milisecond, and store every email sent across the internet within 800 miles of her for the week of August 7 - 14th, this is a very versatile machine - its both consumer and prosumer.
The inclusion of the 2400 and 2600 is...it pains me to say this, as a long time Apple fan, but its absolutely idiotic.
Its like putting square tires on a ferrari - sure the car is really damn fast, but the tires are limiting it severely. Similar case here.
As for a Mac pro, I say again, paying upward of £2500 just to get half-decent FPS in any game is rediculous.
You see, im not asking for the entire lineup to be changed to 8800GTS and GTXs, but as with the PowerMac G5 (7800GT was offered later on in its life) and the previous iMac (7600GT was offered later), I want another CTO option.
This will not change anything for 'grandma who wants to check her emails', and it will make people who want a bit more...'oomph' satisfied. Win-Win.
The iMac isn't for gma and her email. It's for dad or mom and her email, her photos, making short videos of the kids soccer, keeping family stuff organized, downloading music and front row.
I think that the problem with the whole premise is that you seem to have an attitude that you are entitled to something from Apple. That they as a company "owes" you something. How can you seriously be "insulted" by this upgrade. If that is the case, you take life far to personally. I'm serious - insulted? criminal?
maybe you're just ranting, but think about what you're really saying.... do you really mean it?
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.
I'm surprised at you murch. We would think that after Apple had their hoopla with J.Carmac, and EA Games they would at least back up the claim that Games were decent on Macs with better graphics all around the line. I think it's a kind of insulting. That card is shit now. What's it going to look like in a year? It's not like this machine has any longevity with a card like that.
The iMac isn't for gma and her email. It's for dad or mom and her email, her photos, making short videos of the kids soccer, keeping family stuff organized, downloading music and front row.
I think that the problem with the whole premise is that you seem to have an attitude that you are entitled to something from Apple. That they as a company "owes" you something. How can you seriously be "insulted" by this upgrade. If that is the case, you take life far to personally. I'm serious - insulted? criminal?
maybe you're just ranting, but think about what you're really saying.... do you really mean it?
I would still dispute that further and say that the Mac Mini is more than enough for 'mother and father' then.
Im not saying they cannot be allowed to buy a iMac, but the Mac Mini can handle those tasks quite well at about half the price.
You see, as onlooker agrees, Apple does owe us something. They owe us a computer which can run games decently.
But obviously, im somewhat exaggerating - im not literally insulted, and I dont think its criminal - im just incredibly let down. This could be more than due to the fact that ive waited over 2 years to buy a computer from Apple, and the new iMac is pretty much everything I need - apart from the pathetic excuse for a GPU.
Whats interesting is that on Apples website, as a poster on the MacRumours forum stated, the 2600 Pro is advertised as "offering great gaming performance", which is a questionable thing to state.
This also is even more strange step if some of you really think that gaming 'isnt on Apples agenda'.
Here is the link again for all those who want to take the complaints about...well, anything about the new iMac up to Apple -
http://www.apple.com/feedback/imac.html