Disgruntled Apple Fans UNITE !

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 103
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    In my life I have used computers to do a lot of things. I have produced intense mathematical simulations, intricate 3D models & renders for commercial product visualization, graphics-rich magazines, written programs, and more, all on hardware vastly inferior to the current iMac. Modern computers are BEYOND most of our contemporary needs, even those like me who are bona-fide power-users.



    On some level I would agree but you just try using ZBrush with a 2 million poly object on reasonably priced Mac hardware. You can tell people they shouldn't try to put so much strain on the computer or use more layers or whatever but they can still reply that they can buy a PC that will do it for the same price or less. This basically translates to Macs can't do what they want to do.



    Whether or not a computer less powerful than a calculator put a man on the moon, it doesn't mean people should always be content with any old spec on offer when there is better elsewhere.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    If they had any ability, and legitimately needed a GPU that could, indeed, replicate pan-fried catfish, they'd be able to afford a Mac Pro. Enough said.



    Yeah but as it's been said many times, not everyone wants something as large and heavy as a Mac Pro. I've been in a situation where a G5 tower had to be carried a few blocks and it took two people and even then it wasn't that easy. They are pretty freakin' huge.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone


    Linux and Windows people can build their own machines already. What do they want with a Mac.



    If you are into professional competition gaming, you aren't using a Mac anyway so what's the fuss?



    Just because you aren't using a Mac doesn't mean you don't want to be using one. Also, gaming was just an example, general 3D software including things like Motion needs hardware acceleration too.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel


    Secondly, Apple doesn't care much about gamers. End of story. They are a tiny part of the overall market.



    Tiny part?? I don't think so somehow. Hardcore gamers maybe but not the millions of people who also buy and play games.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel


    What games can't you play?



    Splinter Cell Double Agent, judging by the old iMac anyway.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel


    or you to hate the iMac is like for me to hate on women's fashion trends. Ultimately, I have an opinion, but I'm not part of the market.



    But isn't it just that you aren't part of the market because they don't offer what you want?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tinkerer


    Apple really only caters to creative professionals.



    No they don't with sub-par GPU offerings. Pros need good cards more than anyone and high end gaming cards can suffice in a lot of cases, they don't just need GPUs like the quadro.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPoster


    You mean a small, lightweight tower like this?



    YES, that's it right there!! Thanks for posting that.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPoster


    Are you serious about somebody taking a Mac to a LAN event, no matter how powerful it is? At least 75% of Mac games won't network with their PC counterparts. (thanks again for Direct Connect, Microsoft! )



    No, they'd run Windows, although they could always boot up the Mac side for the odd game that is supported like maybe when we get Gears of War (wow, let's see how the iMacs run that one).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 132GHz,4TB DDR8 SDRAM,95TB HDD


    Its actually a computer a enthusiast made at my local PC shop for sale, so he made it.

    As for noisiness, I will check that out actually - Ill PM you if it isnt, and tell you what the fan im using is.



    Sounds good and that's handy him being local as you don't have to go far to get repairs or upgrades. I have a few local computer shops near me but they keep closing down because they can't compete with the likes of newegg. Those machines iPoster linked to look pretty good and the BTO options look exactly what I imagined for a Mac mid-tower. I configured a Core 2 Duo with 8600GTS for around $1500. The lowest end design actually looks the best to me out of the 3. If the exchange rate holds up with them, that comes in closer to the lowest iMac for price. Tray loading drives too.



    If only I could be sure OS X would run well enough, I would probably get one. I just can't bring myself to use Windows 24/7. This is always what holds me back from getting decent hardware.
  • Reply 82 of 103
    iposteriposter Posts: 1,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    No, they'd run Windows, although they could always boot up the Mac side for the odd game that is supported like maybe when we get Gears of War (wow, let's see how the iMacs run that one).



    Ah, I forgot about Bootcamp! I'm not on Intel yet, obviously.
  • Reply 83 of 103
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    On some level I would agree but you just try using ZBrush with a 2 million poly object on reasonably priced Mac hardware.



    ZBrush is CPU and RAM bound. Having a better GPU does nothing for you here. The iMac's CPU and RAM aren't too shabby. As someone who dislikes using insular examples, I'll take the time to also point out that VERY FEW THINGS aside from the latest shoot-em-up video games require beefy GPUs.



    The rest of your post is what they call "grasping for straws." You're unwilling to believe reality. That's your own problem.
  • Reply 84 of 103
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    Tiny part?? I don't think so somehow. Hardcore gamers maybe but not the millions of people who also buy and play games.



    Which is where all the money is in gaming.



    So until you see Apple start developing games, you'll never see them selling cheap gaming boxes with high specs that cut into their margins just so software companies can make money hand over fist from the leisure activities of Mac consumers.



    Apple makes Macs that run Apple software the best.



    No Apple games? No Apple gaming computers.



    Vertical integration.



    The end.
  • Reply 85 of 103
    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.



    I find it funny that the most significant difference between the specs of this apparent price comparison is the GPU. By the way, the old GeForce 7600 GT shown in the older iMac is much faster than the Radeon HD 2600 Pro in the new iMacs.



    I realize that the new Radeon HD series has a few features which the old 7000 series lacks, but why not a Radeon HD 2600 XT which can at least be seriously compared to the 7600 GT. It uses only slightly more power than the 2600 PRO and retails for about $20 more. Do you not see why some of us are upset? I realize that many people can be satisfied by budget GPUs, but I would appreciate if Apple would at least do me the courtesy of offering me ($20) better graphics as one of their $200 or so CTO options.
  • Reply 86 of 103
    targontargon Posts: 103member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 132GHz,4TB DDR8 SDRAM,95TB HDD View Post


    To hell with it.



    In precisely either 3 hours or 72 hours im picking up a...



    QX6700

    4GB RAM 800MHz

    ASUS 8800GTX

    P5N32-E

    500GB 7200 RPM SATA

    (and other peripherals)



    Uber L33T haxxor computer for £1,200.

    Im tired of Apple dictating what hardware I will be using year, after year, after year, after bloody-year. Im picking up this beast, going to run hackint0sh on it.



    Now your talking sense. Please do yourself a favor and take a more serious look at Intel's own logic boards. Personally my trust in boards from the taiwanese companies is pretty low due to quality control. I've had much better success with Intel boards than i have with others. Im speaking not from a hackint0sh POV btw.



    Hope your project goes well, please take the time to report back an let us know how it is all running.
  • Reply 87 of 103
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    ZBrush is CPU and RAM bound. Having a better GPU does nothing for you here. The iMac's CPU and RAM aren't too shabby. As someone who dislikes using insular examples, I'll take the time to also point out that VERY FEW THINGS aside from the latest shoot-em-up video games require beefy GPUs.



    Well ok but then try and take the model from Zbrush into hardware accelerated software and it'll choke. You can use displacement maps and things but some rendering engines don't handle displacements too well.



    No doubt you'll point out again that this is what a Mac Pro is for but the Mac Pro is simply too big and heavy.



    It's also not about having a 'beefy' GPU. Apple don't even sell a small headless Mac with a midrange GPU (in fact the GMA only just crawls into the low end) despite the competition selling small computers with high end ones.



    My biggest problem with the iMac has always been and will always be that I don't want a display tied in with the computer because if it breaks, I'm without a computer because the repair costs half the price of the computer itself. Plus, I have a display already so why should I pay out such a huge cost for a display I don't need when I could put that money on a better GPU?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    The rest of your post is what they call "grasping for straws." You're unwilling to believe reality. That's your own problem.



    The reality is that PC manufacturers are selling far superior hardware options at a far more reasonable price. I believe that reality, I just don't like it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tinkerer


    So until you see Apple start developing games, you'll never see them selling cheap gaming boxes with high specs that cut into their margins



    I don't really see how it would cut into their margins if they put the same margins on them. All they'd do is build a machine with cheaper desktop parts and put on the same markup. It's still cheaper for the consumer because it was cheaper for Apple to build it but Apple make the same profit.
  • Reply 88 of 103
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    I used to be a spec-whore who built my own PC's.



    Eventually, it became like a cat chasing its own tale. You have to upgrade every 6 months if you want to be ahead of the curve.



    I had a Mac at the same time (well, from 1998 on) and I actually found myself using it probably 75% of the time.
  • Reply 89 of 103
    looks like we have a Mobility Radeon HD 2600 XT underclocked under the hood after all.



    Read post #165 and onwards.

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...=339616&page=7
  • Reply 90 of 103
    I've been using Macs for over 15 years and this iMac is the biggest letdown I've ever seen. I could almost live with some of its drawbacks, but the glossy screen is the final straw.



    I've been trying to make this point over on MacRumors, but that site is filled up with too many Apple zealots who insist on drowning me out and mocking people who disagree.



    See, I don't have very good eyesight to begin with and any glare or reflection off the screen, no matter how minor it seems to others, is a pain in the butt for me. I get eyestrain very easily and sometimes it leads to splitting headaches. The coming of the LCD has been a godsend to me. I haven't had any of those problems with an LCD. And now... Apple wants to go back to that? WTF? No thank you.



    Anyway, if you want to let Apple hear from you, go to the URL below, click the iMac link, and ask Apple why customers can't have a matte display option. I did. If enough of us make some noise about this, someone at Apple will take notice. They need to notice. It's a bad decision.



    http://www.apple.com/feedback/
  • Reply 91 of 103
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post


    I've been using Macs for over 15 years and this iMac is the biggest letdown I've ever seen. I could almost live with some of its drawbacks, but the glossy screen is the final straw.



    I've been trying to make this point over on MacRumors, but that site is filled up with too many Apple zealots who insist on drowning me out and mocking people who disagree.



    See, I don't have very good eyesight to begin with and any glare or reflection off the screen, no matter how minor it seems to others, is a pain in the butt for me. I get eyestrain very easily and sometimes it leads to splitting headaches. The coming of the LCD has been a godsend to me. I haven't had any of those problems with an LCD. And now... Apple wants to go back to that? WTF? No thank you.



    Anyway, if you want to let Apple hear from you, go to the URL below, click the iMac link, and ask Apple why customers can't have a matte display option. I did. If enough of us make some noise about this, someone at Apple will take notice. They need to notice. It's a bad decision.



    http://www.apple.com/feedback/



    I agree with you regarding the screens. I recently bought a MBP, and opted for the matte screen for exactly this reason, as my eyesight isn't very good and I hate glare. I'm not in the market for an iMac, but the lack of a matte screen option would definitely be a dealbreaker if I was.
  • Reply 92 of 103
    iposteriposter Posts: 1,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by griffin View Post


    looks like we have a Mobility Radeon HD 2600 XT underclocked under the hood after all.



    ATIcellerator is our friend!



    (when they work out support for that chipset)
  • Reply 93 of 103
    inkswampinkswamp Posts: 337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auslander View Post


    I agree with you regarding the screens. I recently bought a MBP, and opted for the matte screen for exactly this reason, as my eyesight isn't very good and I hate glare. I'm not in the market for an iMac, but the lack of a matte screen option would definitely be a dealbreaker if I was.



    Total dealbreaker. I mean, I could potentially deal with shortcomings in CPUs and RAM and the GPU and whatnot. It's a consumer model so you can't expect the top-of-the-line components. But this screen thing is a fundamental design change that causes people serious problems. It's akin to introducing a mouse or keyboard that is ergonomically bad just because it looks better.



    I'll be in the market early next year for a new computer. I was planning, as always, to make that a Mac. I need something a little more powerful than my current Mac for my job. However, I can't buy a glossy screen. Period. The mid-range iMac would have fit my budget and needs exactly, but the glossy screen blows the whole deal. Right now, Apple literally offers nothing that will fit my needs in my budget. I literally may have to look into PCs. My employer is 90% Windows anyway so it would be an easier way for me to go, but still that's pathetic. Unless Apple changes this, I won't be buying a Mac next year.



    For the first time in 15 years of using and buying Macs, Apple has nothing for me.



    Believe it or not, I pointed this dilemma out on MacRumors and some raving zealot accused me of lying. I wish I was making this up.
  • Reply 94 of 103
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post


    Total dealbreaker. I mean, I could potentially deal with shortcomings in CPUs and RAM and the GPU and whatnot. It's a consumer model so you can't expect the top-of-the-line components. But this screen thing is a fundamental design change that causes people serious problems. It's akin to introducing a mouse or keyboard that is ergonomically bad just because it looks better.



    I'll be in the market early next year for a new computer. I was planning, as always, to make that a Mac. I need something a little more powerful than my current Mac for my job. However, I can't buy a glossy screen. Period. The mid-range iMac would have fit my budget and needs exactly, but the glossy screen blows the whole deal. Right now, Apple literally offers nothing that will fit my needs in my budget. I literally may have to look into PCs. My employer is 90% Windows anyway so it would be an easier way for me to go, but still that's pathetic. Unless Apple changes this, I won't be buying a Mac next year.



    For the first time in 15 years of using and buying Macs, Apple has nothing for me.



    Believe it or not, I pointed this dilemma out on MacRumors and some raving zealot accused me of lying. I wish I was making this up.



    I read somewhere that there is a third party manufacturer that sells a screen cover/protector for the glossy Macbooks/MBPs, so I would think that the same company might decide to make one for the glossy iMac if the demand is high enough. That might work for you down the road.
  • Reply 95 of 103
    dudditsduddits Posts: 260member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post


    Total dealbreaker. I mean, I could potentially deal with shortcomings in CPUs and RAM and the GPU and whatnot. It's a consumer model so you can't expect the top-of-the-line components. But this screen thing is a fundamental design change that causes people serious problems. It's akin to introducing a mouse or keyboard that is ergonomically bad just because it looks better.



    The iMac aims at the middle. it is a middle computer that tries to get as many middles as it can.



    Some people require a different GPU. They are not in the iMac middle.



    Some people require a matte screen. They are not in the iMac middle.



    It may be that enough middle people do not want the glossy screen that Apple will have a matte option for the iMac, and make the middle a little bigger.



    But at this point, the iMac middle does not include matte screens, and so you are not in the iMac middle.



    Welcome to the not in the iMac middle. There are two different non-middle Mac paths that meet your needs:



    You could get a new mac mini and a cinema display, or if you need more power, a mac pro and a cinema display. I assume your answer is the mini isn't powerful enough, and the pro is too expensive. But that's the price of not being in the middle. If you're not in the middle, you're in the bottom or the top.



    From what you said, that you can "deal with shortcomings in CPUs and RAM and the GPU and whatnot" it sounds like the bottom would suit you fine. Why then isn't a mini and a cinema display perfect? Surely you can put up with a cable connecting a tiny computer to a screen instead of an all-in-one in order to get the screen that you want?
  • Reply 96 of 103
    mrpiddlymrpiddly Posts: 406member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Duddits View Post


    You could get a new mac mini and a cinema display, or if you need more power, a mac pro and a cinema display. I assume your answer is the mini isn't powerful enough, and the pro is too expensive. But that's the price of not being in the middle. If you're not in the middle, you're in the bottom or the top.



    well the middle has the most people, most of the time, so apple has the biggest market.



    When some guy with no computer experience what-so-ever goes out and buys a imac he doesnt care what gpu it has in it. He just read some review that said it was good so he bought it. Its not like he is the type of person that will be doing high level activties either so it will be fine for most of the tasks he needs it for.



    Lets say that 15% of the people looking for a computer either are gamers or have a very good understanding of the technology market. That still leaves 85% of the computer buying population that might buy an imac. However due to the fact that they know nothing, they are more likly to pick up a $200 shit computer instead.
  • Reply 97 of 103
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrpiddly View Post


    well the middle has the most people, most of the time, so apple has the biggest market.



    When some guy with no computer experience what-so-ever goes out and buys a imac he doesnt care what gpu it has in it. He just read some review that said it was good so he bought it. Its not like he is the type of person that will be doing high level activties either so it will be fine for most of the tasks he needs it for.



    Lets say that 15% of the people looking for a computer either are gamers or have a very good understanding of the technology market. That still leaves 85% of the computer buying population that might buy an imac. However due to the fact that they know nothing, they are more likly to pick up a $200 shit computer instead.



    I think that rather than buying that $200 shit computer because he has no computer experience whatsoever (surely this demographic must be getting a little thin?), he buys it because his last computer, which he bought 18 months ago, was a $400 shit computer.



    I don't think Apple is ever going to woo many of the entirely cost driven crowd.



    I wept bitter tears when me own beloved brudder went that exact route: needed to replace the old shit computer so they headed down to Walmart to see what new shit computers were being proffered. I all but threatened him with sabotage to get him to buy a Mini, but even a few hundred dollars is significant to the cash strapped and debt burdened, and of course it doesn't help the Mini's case that often those shit computers come with shit LCDs and a pound of jelly beans.
  • Reply 98 of 103
    As I mentioned earlier, I'm not in the market for an iMac at all, but it seems a bit odd to me that Apple just dropped the matte screen option entirely for what must be one of, if not their most popular line of computers. Both options are available for both the Macbook and the Macbook Pro, so why wouldn't they offer both for the iMac? If they only had a glossy screen option for the MBPs I would probably still be using my 1.67 GHz Powerbook.



    Strange.
  • Reply 99 of 103
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:

    but it seems a bit odd to me that Apple just dropped the matte screen option entirely for what must be one of, if not their most popular line of computers.



    It only seems strange if you think the attitude of the people on these boards is representative of the majority of people in the market. And it is not.



    This clearly shows that since giving the option Apple sells far more glossy screens than it sells matte. Apple is able to lower its costs by only offering one type of screen.
  • Reply 100 of 103
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    It only seems strange if you think the attitude of the people on these boards is representative of the majority of people in the market. And it is not.



    This clearly shows that since giving the option Apple sells far more glossy screens than it sells matte. Apple is able to lower its costs by only offering one type of screen.



    I can understand it from a business point of view, but I know a lot of people who prefer matte screens over the glossy ones - in fact we took a poll at work (about 35 people there) and glossy got 8 votes out of the 35.



    Still, either way, I'm sure Apple did *their* market research a lot more thoroughly than we did.



Sign In or Register to comment.