Disgruntled Apple Fans UNITE !

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 103
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stuff99 View Post


    just get a ps3 if u want to play games



    I already have that anyway. But...ach, just read my post.
  • Reply 42 of 103
    Feedback supplied, also mentioned the LACK of USB 2 port on the back 3 is NOT acceptable when the "lesser" mini has 4!!!



    even my PS3 has 4 USB 2 ports!
  • Reply 43 of 103
    Disgruntled Apple Fans UNITE !



    And GO HERE or HERE



    Seriously, Apple is just another company. Don't like their products, buy someone else's!



  • Reply 44 of 103
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dutch pear View Post


    Disgruntled Apple Fans UNITE !



    And GO HERE or HERE



    Seriously, Apple is just another company. Don't like their products, buy someone else's!







    Why are you pushing windows on us ?

    We as Mac fans should know all too well that Windows is crap for anything other than gaming.



    If we were talking about a company like Sony or HP here, then yeah, lets just go to someone else.

    But with Apple, were else are you going to get your fix of OSX ?

    OSX is brilliant, and I dare not entertain the thought of using XP or (gasp) Vista as a everyday OS.



    Apple just seems to have screwed up a very vital component in its primary desktop line

    This may well be because they pushing people who want a decent GPU to buy a Mac Pro - this is highway robbery for anyone who likes OSX but is a power-user too.

    Has Apple started changing to a far less customer friendly corporation ? I hope not, but the iPhone is not a good indication.



    I mean, look at the MacBook - generally, its a nice piece of kit, but to make people want to buy a Macbook Pro, the shove in integrated graphics, which burn performance to the ground. Also, look at the new iMac displays - sure, glossy is great for some people, but why is Apple forcing EVERY SINGLE BUYER of the iMac to adopt glossy when some dispise it. Also, they seem to be warding Pros away from the iMac by this, once again, forcing them to upgrade to the Mac Pro for a decent experience. Perhaps its just me, but Apples entire selling strategy is changing - its no longer "buy this, that or the other" but now "you could buy this, but we have decided to make you buy that by crippling this"
  • Reply 45 of 103
    I agree with the OP, but if you want to run Mac OSX you know you're just going to have to live with Apple hardware, through better or worse, richer or poorer etc. There needs to be a massive backlash to get them anywhere near changing their minds, but judging by the mixed response to the thread, it's not likely to happen...



    Then again, I wouldn't benefit from the graphics increase as I don't really game, just the basic work/photos/music/internet combo.



    Just to straighten out, what are the 3D intensive tasks that you are referring to?
  • Reply 46 of 103
    frykefryke Posts: 217member
    The price difference between the 2.4 GHz and the 2.8 GHz 24" iMac is more or less the price of a Playstation 3. If you're serious about gaming, you're using a console, anyway. You've already stated that you _do_ own a PS3. Good for you!



    If you _see_ that the reason for the graphic cards in the current iMac probably is pricing offered by ATi, you should be happy Apple went with ATi instead of their probable bargaining position: To use intel's onboard graphic chip set.



    The iMac isn't and has _never_ been "the solution" for a gamer's needs. Its graphics have never been decently upgradable in the 9 years it's been around. Why start expecting the iMac to be a gamer's machine now? It's completely nuts of you to do so.



    While we're on the part where you're completely nuts: You're talking about "3D applications" other than games in your posts. What are you talking about? Which "3D applications" actually make use of a 3D accelerator graphics card in a way that makes the current iMac (the one just introduced) suck? Name two. Now name the one the majority of Mac users use everyday. You'll find none. If you're talking about professional 3D software and making money with that, you'll find no problem in buying a maxxed out Mac Pro, because it's a good investment. It's bonkers to put the iMac where it doesn't belong.



    That whole attitude thing you bring on with your thread and your follow-up posts aren't working for you. Let's start again:



    The new iMac's choice of graphics cards isn't the best possible. There would have been other options that seem viable to you. That's okay. If you currently own a decent Mac, there's no reason to downgrade to this new iMac right now. Instead, you have _several_ options you seem to be missing:



    - Buy a used Mac Pro. You'll find one for less than the maxxed-out iMac that _doesn't_ meet your needs. This option will also allow you to use a cheap, non-glossy, display.

    - Wait it out. Apple will probably add one or the other graphics BTO option in a couple of months. Who knows, we might see a completely new (well, new CPU and GPU) iMac by January '08.
  • Reply 47 of 103
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fryke View Post


    The price difference between the 2.4 GHz and the 2.8 GHz 24" iMac is more or less the price of a Playstation 3. If you're serious about gaming, you're using a console, anyway. You've already stated that you _do_ own a PS3. Good for you!



    If you _see_ that the reason for the graphic cards in the current iMac probably is pricing offered by ATi, you should be happy Apple went with ATi instead of their probable bargaining position: To use intel's onboard graphic chip set.



    The iMac isn't and has _never_ been "the solution" for a gamer's needs. Its graphics have never been decently upgradable in the 9 years it's been around. Why start expecting the iMac to be a gamer's machine now? It's completely nuts of you to do so.



    While we're on the part where you're completely nuts: You're talking about "3D applications" other than games in your posts. What are you talking about? Which "3D applications" actually make use of a 3D accelerator graphics card in a way that makes the current iMac (the one just introduced) suck? Name two. Now name the one the majority of Mac users use everyday. You'll find none. If you're talking about professional 3D software and making money with that, you'll find no problem in buying a maxxed out Mac Pro, because it's a good investment. It's bonkers to put the iMac where it doesn't belong.



    That whole attitude thing you bring on with your thread and your follow-up posts aren't working for you. Let's start again:



    The new iMac's choice of graphics cards isn't the best possible. There would have been other options that seem viable to you. That's okay. If you currently own a decent Mac, there's no reason to downgrade to this new iMac right now. Instead, you have _several_ options you seem to be missing:



    - Buy a used Mac Pro. You'll find one for less than the maxxed-out iMac that _doesn't_ meet your needs. This option will also allow you to use a cheap, non-glossy, display.

    - Wait it out. Apple will probably add one or the other graphics BTO option in a couple of months. Who knows, we might see a completely new (well, new CPU and GPU) iMac by January '08.





    You see, normally, I wouldnt be suprised that Apple has used a crappy GPU - Ive been with Apple long enough to realise that. However, all that hullaballo at WWDC stated the exact opposite - Gaming IS coming back to the Mac.



    Common demanding 3D applications ? Final Cut, to name one...



    You raise valid points, but finding used machines (atleast in my area) is a hassle.



    Oh, and as for the attitude, well thats because I have to keep repeating what I essentially stated in my OP



    As for not too many complaints being sent, well quite many were sent on the MacRumurs version of this - any complaints gained here, if its even only a few, always helps persuade Apple to update.



    But still, perhaps I should just give up on Apple and build a Hackint0sh.
  • Reply 48 of 103
    frykefryke Posts: 217member
    (no need to quote the post right above yours...)



    Final Cut works fine with a "lesser" graphics card AFAIK. And even so: Final Cut is a Pro app. The iMac is not a pro Mac.



    About repeating what you've stated in your OP: Don't. If you create a thread and make a few points and the people who come to the thread and disagree, I don't see any reason to make the same points again, even if you change the wording.



    Used machines can be found online, as well.



    If building a hackint0sh with all its implications of illegality and probable current and future hassle (hacking, patching, being unable to update to the most recent system version at the time Mac users do etc.) is a viable option for you, then by all means do so. I can see where this absolutely makes sense. Apple is _not_ giving us back the inexpensive but internally expandable desktop machine.
  • Reply 49 of 103
    yamayama Posts: 427member
    Sadly, Apple has been making noises about gaming coming back to the Mac since at least 1999 when they got Carmack up on stage to demo Quake 3 Arena. Likewise, the iMacs have had low-end graphics cards since day one.



    While I do agree that it is a kick in the teeth that the MacBook Pro gets a superior GeForce card, it is not entirely unexpected. Particularly given Apple's inability to live up to their claims of iMacs being great games machines in the past.



    I guess Apple figures that the iMac is aimed at casual gamers who don't buy the latest and greatest FPS games. For that market, budget ATi cards are fine. As the hardcore PC games market continues to deminish I'm not too surprised this what they are aiming for.
  • Reply 50 of 103
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jgbx View Post




    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.



    emphasis added.





    enough said right there.



    Edit: The lower margin comment/blog link above is very interesting, and quite possibly explains the locked in ATi minimal. Possibly as the costs of other components come down (6-12 months) we'll see the option of other graphics cards appear. that is, it seems Apple has locked in their 'extra ram and HDD' prices for a good while, and are right now eating the cost of the lower margin. eating the cost and spitting out a mangled ATI2600.....





    Edit2: Didn't the G5 iMac have no fans? or am I mistaken.
  • Reply 51 of 103
    frykefryke Posts: 217member
    mistaken.
  • Reply 52 of 103
    shadowshadow Posts: 373member
    When complaining about the specs some guys here a missing on e of the main design goals of the iMac - to be compact and silent. When comparing Desktop vs. Mobile processor/chipset specs, only the power consumption is taken into account. There is other major difference though: the max operating temperature of the desktop CPUs is in the range of 65 deg. Celsius vs. 100 deg. Celsius for the mobile parts. This is A LOT. One of the first reviews on the Ars mentions that the new iMacs are extremely quiet:

    http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardw...e-new-imac.ars



    I like quiet machines! I am not a big fan of the glossy display though



    As all of us can read here:

    http://www.kodawarisan.com/k2007_02/...aaaaaaa_3.html



    the glass cover has a metal strip and is hold by a magnet. This brings hope that a third party can produce a matt cover.
  • Reply 53 of 103
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shadow View Post


    When complaining about the specs some guys here a missing on e of the main design goals of the iMac - to be compact and silent. When comparing Desktop vs. Mobile processor/chipset specs, only the power consumption is taken into account. There is other major difference though: the max operating temperature of the desktop CPUs is in the range of 65 deg. Celsius vs. 100 deg. Celsius for the mobile parts. This is A LOT. One of the first reviews on the Ars mentions that the new iMacs are extremely quiet:

    http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardw...e-new-imac.ars



    I like quiet machines! I am not a big fan of the glossy display though



    As all of us can read here:

    http://www.kodawarisan.com/k2007_02/...aaaaaaa_3.html



    the glass cover has a metal strip and is hold by a magnet. This brings hope that a third party can produce a matt cover.



    I must say its strange Apple has chosen to limit themselves so much by using laptop components - would any of us complain if the iMac was 3/10ths of a inch thicker but offered far superior performance ? The computers would even be cheaper.





    Infact, has anyone seen CNETs recent review of the iMac ?

    It ran Quake 4 with the resolution of 1024x768 (20" iMacs resolution is 1680x1050 which that of the 24" is 1920x1200) with max details at 40fps.

    Now, if thats what Quake 4, at such a low resolution runs at, I dare not think about how a more modern game at the native resolution would run.



    Essentially, if you want a decent desktop with any longetivity, its either the Mac Pro or nothing, according to Apple.
  • Reply 54 of 103
    frykefryke Posts: 217member
    I think now you've got it. About the desktop part, I mean. The part about the futility of quoting the entire post right above yours – not so much.
  • Reply 55 of 103
    mrpiddlymrpiddly Posts: 406member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sequitur View Post


    My gripe is that there isn't a mini-tower. There's still a gap in the lineup.



    just take two mac mini's and strap them together on top of each other.
  • Reply 56 of 103
    shadowshadow Posts: 373member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 132GHz,4TB DDR8 SDRAM,95TB HDD View Post


    I must say its strange Apple has chosen to limit themselves so much by using laptop components - would any of us complain if the iMac was 3/10ths of a inch thicker but offered far superior performance ? The computers would even be cheaper.



    It is not that simple. 3/10ths of an inch will not do the job. Look at the temperatures I cited above. At 25 deg. Celsius ambient temperature the max. temperature of the desktop chip is about 40 degrees higher. For the mobile part it is 75 degrees higher. And the power consumption of desktop chip is higher as well. The heat dissipation depends on both linearly, so if you have 1.2 more power and 2 times lower temperature difference it will require 2.4 times higher efficiency of the cooling system. [EDIT] This is not taking into account the power saving features of the mobile chipsets which their desktop counterparts do not have! [/EDIT]] If you use small fans this will mean a lot of noise. Regarding the performance - look here:

    http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardw...new-imac.ars/5

    Not that bad IMO. This will hold the iMac perfectly usable for few years - not for hardcore gaming of course.

    The fact remains: you can't tweak the configuration to perfectly fit your dreams (it will meet your needs I assume ) - but that's Apple, get used to it
  • Reply 57 of 103
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 132GHz,4TB DDR8 SDRAM,95TB HDD View Post


    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 !







  • Reply 58 of 103
    aiolosaiolos Posts: 228member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zaqarov View Post


    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



    agreed!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by onlooker View Post


    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.



    that card is shit, and I have sent a complaint in to Apple.



    The thing is, no, the iMac is not a hardcore gamer's wet dream, that's what a mac pro is (yes, even some consider that not enough, but w/e). However, the iMac should not have a "major" update in which the GPU regresses. That's unacceptable. I understand that obviously the more expensive components, and Apple's upgrading the other system specs means they have to cut back somewhere, but they should definetely be offering a better GPU as a BTO. That way, the people who want the GPU power can have the GPU power.
  • Reply 59 of 103
    aiolosaiolos Posts: 228member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrpiddly View Post


    just take two mac mini's and strap them together on top of each other.



  • Reply 60 of 103
    iposteriposter Posts: 1,560member
    Just for grins, I ran Cinebench 10 on my current iMac G4 1GHz, the results weren't pretty to say the least! Almost an hour and a half later, (to run one pass!) here are my results:



    Quote:

    Processor : G4

    MHz : 1000

    Number of CPUs : 1

    Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.3.9



    Graphics Card : NVIDIA GeForce4 MX OpenGL Engine

    Resolution : 1440x900

    Color Depth : Millions



    ************************************************** **



    Rendering (Single CPU): 444 CB-CPU

    Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU





    Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 67 CB-GFX



    The new iMac is almost 6x faster at CPU rendering (thought it would be more considering how far behind the G4 is) and nearly 76x faster at OGL Shading!







    So it's quite an upgrade for some of us!
Sign In or Register to comment.