It's a logical update. Better graphics, USB 2, more RAM, and a speed bump of both the mobo and the CPU. Add a little price drop (at least in europe) and you have a good buy : nothing exceptional or revolutionary, but an honest product.
It is a step in the right direction, but it is still way over priced and underpowered. Hopefully the next update will have a G5 in it...
Why iMac is unpowered? How many people will do high Photoshop photo editing, FinalCut Pro heavy video editing or Maya heavy 3D modelling at home??? Apple has G5 PowerMacs for that kind of work. I think iMac is great computer for small things. It isn't meant to be high-end workstation. It's computer for homes!
Why iMac is unpowered? How many people will do high Photoshop photo editing, FinalCut Pro heavy video editing or Maya heavy 3D modelling at home??? Apple has G5 PowerMacs for that kind of work. I think iMac is great computer for small things. It isn't meant to be high-end workstation. It's computer for homes!
Well, for one thing there is gaming. A computer for the home should be a good gaming computer. The 64MB GeForce FX 5200 Ultra is a low end video card and does not do a very good job on demanding games. At the very least you would want a 128MB Radeon 9600 pro for modern games. The 1.25 GHz G4 on a slow bus is also a bit anemic for gaming.
You don't have to be doing heavy video editing in Finalcut Pro to want a faster home computer. Programs like iMovie can use all the processing power you can through at it (I'm always waiting for transitions or other effects to render).
I like the design of the 17" iMac (although I hate the color), but the price is too high for the performance it delivers.
Quite a valid point Res, the computer gaming industry is absolutely massive.
Yet, I prefer to purchase the iMac form factor over an equivalent ammount of gaming capability.
Thankfully, the computer industry is large enough to support companies which choose to pursue either type of customer. I hope that Apple doesn't choose to start catering to gamers as I feel that a dedicated game console better fills the niche.
As of yet, I don't think any of the major computer manufacturers have proven the PC gaming market as key to the success of their brand. All the profitable ones are selling moderately powerful machines to businesses and stripped down boxes to home users.
Well, for one thing there is gaming. A computer for the home should be a good gaming computer. The 64MB GeForce FX 5200 Ultra is a low end video card and does not do a very good job on demanding games. At the very least you would want a 128MB Radeon 9600 pro for modern games. The 1.25 GHz G4 on a slow bus is also a bit anemic for gaming.
Though I'm a Mac fanatic I can say this without flinching.
Trans Intl. just announced a 2GB memory upgrade for the new iMac. Read the press release here.
$219 US for a 1GB chip in the factory slot, and $649 US for 1GB in the user slot (the smaller, SO-DIMM chip).
Of course $649 is a bit extreme, but $219 for that factory chip is not bad at all considering Apple will charge you $200 just to upgrade that chip from 256MB to 512MB.
I don't believe in the computer for gaming anymore. At least not expressly for gaming. A kick ass system will cost you 1000USD. For a 1000USD you could buy a console and 10-14 games. For the PC to be worth the cost and set-up and issues, you'd have to pirate 10-14 games over 2-3 years. Do that many PC games come out that are worth it? Probably not, at least the new wizz bang pixel pushers.
Typically, the games that are worth a little time (actually fun, instead of just eye candy), games like 2-d scrollers, retro games, puzzels and sims just don't need the horsepower and you're fine with a cheap system. The point of games is fun, buy a console and be happy. Buy a cheap PC for Office/Internet and older games/emulators and just have fun. Or buy a mac, games should not be a computer priority, and the mac games that fall into the actually "fun" category are every bit as good as the PC stuff 99% of the time.
But this iMac update sucks. I don't even think the update is that horrible per se, but the update price keeps the supposedly "consumer" mac soundly mired on the wrong side of ridiculously overpriced. There's just no good reason why a machine of that spec shouldn't be 1299. The Euro/Candian price drops are just LONNNGGGGG OVERDUE conversion adjustments, the machine is still grossly overpriced and unless they take a real 300-400USD out of it's price tag ASAP, it will still be incredibly overpriced.
I don't believe in the computer for gaming anymore. At least not expressly for gaming. A kick ass system will cost you 1000USD. For a 1000USD you could buy a console and 10-14 games. For the PC to be worth the cost and set-up and issues, you'd have to pirate 10-14 games over 2-3 years. Do that many PC games come out that are worth it? Probably not, at least the new wizz bang pixel pushers.
Yes and no.
If you are satisfied with so so framerates than sure XBox is great, I have one.
But sometimes the so so framerates are MUCH better on a PC/Mac, whatever. (Correction: framerates are better on Mac/PCs and thus not so so)
Furthermore many good and replayable games are PC only. That said there are many good console only games, in particular fighting ones.
But the graphical capabilities on a computer far outmatch console systems in the end.
Here's the problem. The specs are perfect for eighteen months ago. (Replace the vid card with GeForce Ti 4600 or some such.) Or... The specs are perfect for today with a much lower price. When speaking of the iMac comparatively to PCs, price is the real issue. For that price, the machine is WAY, WAY over priced. $1800 US gets you a lot of PC. At that price, it should have a G5 1.6 in it right now. By the time it gets a 1.6 in it, it will no longer be a good value. They are perpetually behind the price/performance/current tech curve. Either the price is too high, or the performance is too slow, or the technology is too old by at least a generation. By the time the iMac started shipping in mass, either one, two, or all three of these things have been true. This means that it is never really an unquestionably good value. The other problem dealing with price is that Apple needs to decide who they are selling these things to. If to entry level consumers, then they are way out of range. If to prosumers, then they need better and more currents specs. The only people this really leaves as a target audience are those style conscience consumers who have more dollars than sense, computer sense, that is. In short, all those who are complaining are right. Apple needs to raise the specs for the prosumers who do not mind paying top dollar for the iMac for their demanding tasks. Or... Apple needs to lower the price for the Web surfers and emailers. They need to make a decision and do one or the other IMO.
Yes the price needs to come down. No matter what the cost, margins be damned. Otherwise the iMac is going to be Cubed. They're sooo expensive for what they are. And they force you to get a Superdrive!
Why iMac is unpowered? How many people will do high Photoshop photo editing, FinalCut Pro heavy video editing or Maya heavy 3D modelling at home??? Apple has G5 PowerMacs for that kind of work. I think iMac is great computer for small things. It isn't meant to be high-end workstation. It's computer for homes!
Mac Voyer said it. Well reasoned paragraph. He really sums up the big problem with the iMac 2 line. The iMac2 has always been behind.
Given a decent graphics card (hello, Mr. Expensive price...can I configure my OWN graphics card?) and a decent CPU then they might make convincing pro machines.
Apple seemed to have fallen into the Cube trap. AGAIN! Am I consumer? Or prosumer?
Only it's design has been far in front. Superb. Let down by inadequate architecture. Blame Moto?
A 1.6 G5 would make it competitive now. In a year's time?
Too late, Luthor!
Lemon Bon Bon
Save the last dance for me. The iMac2. Son of Cube. Mediocre update.
How about an early G5 Spring refresh? I'm touching wood as I say that...
We'll see what happens when the 970 0.09 cpus come out. Here's hoping...
I don't believe in the computer for gaming anymore. At least not expressly for gaming. A kick ass system will cost you 1000USD. For a 1000USD you could buy a console and 10-14 games. For the PC to be worth the cost and set-up and issues, you'd have to pirate 10-14 games over 2-3 years. Do that many PC games come out that are worth it? Probably not, at least the new wizz bang pixel pushers.
And gaming on my couch with a 55 inch HDTV is way cooler than getting RSI over a keyboard. Mmmmm... HDTV games...
Console gaming is quite a bit cheaper but there are certain genres of games that are sadly lacking (RTS). Also, no Diablo II for consoles.
Yes the price needs to come down. No matter what the cost, margins be damned. Otherwise the iMac is going to be Cubed. They're sooo expensive for what they are. And they force you to get a Superdrive!
I think that the problem is that in the current economy, Apple is more concerned with their bottom line than with growing marketshare. I can't blame them- at least they are staying alive and growing R&D. The downside is that iMacs cost too much for what you get.
Hopefully, all the revenue that Apple will get from PC iTMS will give Apple confidence to sell iMacs at a lesser price and to thus grow marketshare. Having other sources of revenue lets Apple play the marketshare growth game.
I don't believe in the computer for gaming anymore. At least not expressly for gaming. A kick ass system will cost you 1000USD. For a 1000USD you could buy a console and 10-14 games. For the PC to be worth the cost and set-up and issues, you'd have to pirate 10-14 games over 2-3 years. Do that many PC games come out that are worth it? Probably not, at least the new wizz bang pixel pushers.
Typically, the games that are worth a little time (actually fun, instead of just eye candy), games like 2-d scrollers, retro games, puzzels and sims just don't need the horsepower and you're fine with a cheap system. The point of games is fun, buy a console and be happy. Buy a cheap PC for Office/Internet and older games/emulators and just have fun. Or buy a mac, games should not be a computer priority, and the mac games that fall into the actually "fun" category are every bit as good as the PC stuff 99% of the time.
But this iMac update sucks. I don't even think the update is that horrible per se, but the update price keeps the supposedly "consumer" mac soundly mired on the wrong side of ridiculously overpriced. There's just no good reason why a machine of that spec shouldn't be 1299. The Euro/Candian price drops are just LONNNGGGGG OVERDUE conversion adjustments, the machine is still grossly overpriced and unless they take a real 300-400USD out of it's price tag ASAP, it will still be incredibly overpriced.
Console games are just not up to the standards of good computer games. The may be cheaper, but the game play, controller options, and graphics, are so much better on a computer that puts the consoles to shame.
You are right, you can get a good gaming machine with a radeon 9800 for around $1000.00 and it is just not good for Apples business that a $1800.00 iMac is not powerful enough to offer any competition.
The gaming market is not insignificant, it is one of the driving forces in the computer market. For a long time I was a happy Mac gamer, most of the good games came out for the Mac, and I did not mind waiting an extra 6 months to get them. Then I started playing UT, it was a great game, but the fastest mac was not powerful enough to play it on-line at a decent frame rate (even after adding in a Voodoo card). That lack of power caused me to build my first PC. To keep up with the ever increasing demands of modern games I've upgraded or built a new PC every year since then. A lot of other people do the same. Apple should not ignore any segment of the market, and gaming makes up a fairly large segment of the consumers.
I really hope that when the G5 iMac comes out that they will put a good graphics card into it. It has the potential of becoming a truly great overall consumer/gaming machine.
Right now, the price/performance ratio of iMacs is just terrible.
Here's the problem. The specs are perfect for eighteen months ago. (Replace the vid card with GeForce Ti 4600 or some such.) Or... The specs are perfect for today with a much lower price. When speaking of the iMac comparatively to PCs, price is the real issue. For that price, the machine is WAY, WAY over priced. $1800 US gets you a lot of PC. At that price, it should have a G5 1.6 in it right now. By the time it gets a 1.6 in it, it will no longer be a good value. They are perpetually behind the price/performance/current tech curve. Either the price is too high, or the performance is too slow, or the technology is too old by at least a generation. By the time the iMac started shipping in mass, either one, two, or all three of these things have been true. This means that it is never really an unquestionably good value. The other problem dealing with price is that Apple needs to decide who they are selling these things to. If to entry level consumers, then they are way out of range. If to prosumers, then they need better and more currents specs. The only people this really leaves as a target audience are those style conscience consumers who have more dollars than sense, computer sense, that is. In short, all those who are complaining are right. Apple needs to raise the specs for the prosumers who do not mind paying top dollar for the iMac for their demanding tasks. Or... Apple needs to lower the price for the Web surfers and emailers. They need to make a decision and do one or the other IMO.
Enlightening read ? thank you. Question: what, if not the iMac, would you recommend to someone currently in the market for a solid upper-mid-range (cost and performance) Mac?
Comments
Originally posted by SerpentFruit
My understanding is they have 167Mhz buses that were in the last Powermac....
Yes it is 167 Mhz bus. I just checked Apple's site.iMac Tech Specs
The iMac now has Audio Line In!
Whoo!
Originally posted by Res
It is a step in the right direction, but it is still way over priced and underpowered. Hopefully the next update will have a G5 in it...
Why iMac is unpowered? How many people will do high Photoshop photo editing, FinalCut Pro heavy video editing or Maya heavy 3D modelling at home??? Apple has G5 PowerMacs for that kind of work. I think iMac is great computer for small things. It isn't meant to be high-end workstation. It's computer for homes!
Originally posted by Stratosfear
Why iMac is unpowered? How many people will do high Photoshop photo editing, FinalCut Pro heavy video editing or Maya heavy 3D modelling at home??? Apple has G5 PowerMacs for that kind of work. I think iMac is great computer for small things. It isn't meant to be high-end workstation. It's computer for homes!
Well, for one thing there is gaming. A computer for the home should be a good gaming computer. The 64MB GeForce FX 5200 Ultra is a low end video card and does not do a very good job on demanding games. At the very least you would want a 128MB Radeon 9600 pro for modern games. The 1.25 GHz G4 on a slow bus is also a bit anemic for gaming.
You don't have to be doing heavy video editing in Finalcut Pro to want a faster home computer. Programs like iMovie can use all the processing power you can through at it (I'm always waiting for transitions or other effects to render).
I like the design of the 17" iMac (although I hate the color), but the price is too high for the performance it delivers.
Yet, I prefer to purchase the iMac form factor over an equivalent ammount of gaming capability.
Thankfully, the computer industry is large enough to support companies which choose to pursue either type of customer. I hope that Apple doesn't choose to start catering to gamers as I feel that a dedicated game console better fills the niche.
As of yet, I don't think any of the major computer manufacturers have proven the PC gaming market as key to the success of their brand. All the profitable ones are selling moderately powerful machines to businesses and stripped down boxes to home users.
Originally posted by Res
Well, for one thing there is gaming. A computer for the home should be a good gaming computer. The 64MB GeForce FX 5200 Ultra is a low end video card and does not do a very good job on demanding games. At the very least you would want a 128MB Radeon 9600 pro for modern games. The 1.25 GHz G4 on a slow bus is also a bit anemic for gaming.
Though I'm a Mac fanatic I can say this without flinching.
If you are buying a computer for gaming buy a PC.
Everyone will tell you this.
$219 US for a 1GB chip in the factory slot, and $649 US for 1GB in the user slot (the smaller, SO-DIMM chip).
Of course $649 is a bit extreme, but $219 for that factory chip is not bad at all considering Apple will charge you $200 just to upgrade that chip from 256MB to 512MB.
Here's a link to their product page.
Typically, the games that are worth a little time (actually fun, instead of just eye candy), games like 2-d scrollers, retro games, puzzels and sims just don't need the horsepower and you're fine with a cheap system. The point of games is fun, buy a console and be happy. Buy a cheap PC for Office/Internet and older games/emulators and just have fun. Or buy a mac, games should not be a computer priority, and the mac games that fall into the actually "fun" category are every bit as good as the PC stuff 99% of the time.
But this iMac update sucks. I don't even think the update is that horrible per se, but the update price keeps the supposedly "consumer" mac soundly mired on the wrong side of ridiculously overpriced. There's just no good reason why a machine of that spec shouldn't be 1299. The Euro/Candian price drops are just LONNNGGGGG OVERDUE conversion adjustments, the machine is still grossly overpriced and unless they take a real 300-400USD out of it's price tag ASAP, it will still be incredibly overpriced.
Originally posted by Matsu
I don't believe in the computer for gaming anymore. At least not expressly for gaming. A kick ass system will cost you 1000USD. For a 1000USD you could buy a console and 10-14 games. For the PC to be worth the cost and set-up and issues, you'd have to pirate 10-14 games over 2-3 years. Do that many PC games come out that are worth it? Probably not, at least the new wizz bang pixel pushers.
Yes and no.
If you are satisfied with so so framerates than sure XBox is great, I have one.
But sometimes the so so framerates are MUCH better on a PC/Mac, whatever. (Correction: framerates are better on Mac/PCs and thus not so so)
Furthermore many good and replayable games are PC only. That said there are many good console only games, in particular fighting ones.
But the graphical capabilities on a computer far outmatch console systems in the end.
Originally posted by Stratosfear
Why iMac is unpowered? How many people will do high Photoshop photo editing, FinalCut Pro heavy video editing or Maya heavy 3D modelling at home??? Apple has G5 PowerMacs for that kind of work. I think iMac is great computer for small things. It isn't meant to be high-end workstation. It's computer for homes!
not at $1800
Given a decent graphics card (hello, Mr. Expensive price...can I configure my OWN graphics card?) and a decent CPU then they might make convincing pro machines.
Apple seemed to have fallen into the Cube trap. AGAIN! Am I consumer? Or prosumer?
Only it's design has been far in front. Superb. Let down by inadequate architecture. Blame Moto?
A 1.6 G5 would make it competitive now. In a year's time?
Too late, Luthor!
Lemon Bon Bon
Save the last dance for me. The iMac2. Son of Cube. Mediocre update.
How about an early G5 Spring refresh? I'm touching wood as I say that...
We'll see what happens when the 970 0.09 cpus come out. Here's hoping...
Originally posted by Matsu
I don't believe in the computer for gaming anymore. At least not expressly for gaming. A kick ass system will cost you 1000USD. For a 1000USD you could buy a console and 10-14 games. For the PC to be worth the cost and set-up and issues, you'd have to pirate 10-14 games over 2-3 years. Do that many PC games come out that are worth it? Probably not, at least the new wizz bang pixel pushers.
And gaming on my couch with a 55 inch HDTV is way cooler than getting RSI over a keyboard. Mmmmm... HDTV games...
Console gaming is quite a bit cheaper but there are certain genres of games that are sadly lacking (RTS). Also, no Diablo II for consoles.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Yes the price needs to come down. No matter what the cost, margins be damned. Otherwise the iMac is going to be Cubed. They're sooo expensive for what they are. And they force you to get a Superdrive!
I think that the problem is that in the current economy, Apple is more concerned with their bottom line than with growing marketshare. I can't blame them- at least they are staying alive and growing R&D. The downside is that iMacs cost too much for what you get.
Hopefully, all the revenue that Apple will get from PC iTMS will give Apple confidence to sell iMacs at a lesser price and to thus grow marketshare. Having other sources of revenue lets Apple play the marketshare growth game.
Originally posted by Matsu
I don't believe in the computer for gaming anymore. At least not expressly for gaming. A kick ass system will cost you 1000USD. For a 1000USD you could buy a console and 10-14 games. For the PC to be worth the cost and set-up and issues, you'd have to pirate 10-14 games over 2-3 years. Do that many PC games come out that are worth it? Probably not, at least the new wizz bang pixel pushers.
Typically, the games that are worth a little time (actually fun, instead of just eye candy), games like 2-d scrollers, retro games, puzzels and sims just don't need the horsepower and you're fine with a cheap system. The point of games is fun, buy a console and be happy. Buy a cheap PC for Office/Internet and older games/emulators and just have fun. Or buy a mac, games should not be a computer priority, and the mac games that fall into the actually "fun" category are every bit as good as the PC stuff 99% of the time.
But this iMac update sucks. I don't even think the update is that horrible per se, but the update price keeps the supposedly "consumer" mac soundly mired on the wrong side of ridiculously overpriced. There's just no good reason why a machine of that spec shouldn't be 1299. The Euro/Candian price drops are just LONNNGGGGG OVERDUE conversion adjustments, the machine is still grossly overpriced and unless they take a real 300-400USD out of it's price tag ASAP, it will still be incredibly overpriced.
Console games are just not up to the standards of good computer games. The may be cheaper, but the game play, controller options, and graphics, are so much better on a computer that puts the consoles to shame.
You are right, you can get a good gaming machine with a radeon 9800 for around $1000.00 and it is just not good for Apples business that a $1800.00 iMac is not powerful enough to offer any competition.
The gaming market is not insignificant, it is one of the driving forces in the computer market. For a long time I was a happy Mac gamer, most of the good games came out for the Mac, and I did not mind waiting an extra 6 months to get them. Then I started playing UT, it was a great game, but the fastest mac was not powerful enough to play it on-line at a decent frame rate (even after adding in a Voodoo card). That lack of power caused me to build my first PC. To keep up with the ever increasing demands of modern games I've upgraded or built a new PC every year since then. A lot of other people do the same. Apple should not ignore any segment of the market, and gaming makes up a fairly large segment of the consumers.
I really hope that when the G5 iMac comes out that they will put a good graphics card into it. It has the potential of becoming a truly great overall consumer/gaming machine.
Right now, the price/performance ratio of iMacs is just terrible.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Here's the problem. The specs are perfect for eighteen months ago. (Replace the vid card with GeForce Ti 4600 or some such.) Or... The specs are perfect for today with a much lower price. When speaking of the iMac comparatively to PCs, price is the real issue. For that price, the machine is WAY, WAY over priced. $1800 US gets you a lot of PC. At that price, it should have a G5 1.6 in it right now. By the time it gets a 1.6 in it, it will no longer be a good value. They are perpetually behind the price/performance/current tech curve. Either the price is too high, or the performance is too slow, or the technology is too old by at least a generation. By the time the iMac started shipping in mass, either one, two, or all three of these things have been true. This means that it is never really an unquestionably good value. The other problem dealing with price is that Apple needs to decide who they are selling these things to. If to entry level consumers, then they are way out of range. If to prosumers, then they need better and more currents specs. The only people this really leaves as a target audience are those style conscience consumers who have more dollars than sense, computer sense, that is. In short, all those who are complaining are right. Apple needs to raise the specs for the prosumers who do not mind paying top dollar for the iMac for their demanding tasks. Or... Apple needs to lower the price for the Web surfers and emailers. They need to make a decision and do one or the other IMO.
Enlightening read ? thank you. Question: what, if not the iMac, would you recommend to someone currently in the market for a solid upper-mid-range (cost and performance) Mac?