Poll: Would you buy an iMac with the specs published by TS?

1356710

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 184
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jiminy C.

    I meant that I would rather buy a Power Book G5 when it comes out rather than buying the iMac G5, although that may take some time. I'm willing to wait. Sorry for being not specific.



    iMac's and PowerBook's are to completely differnet computers. The iMac is a consumer model desktop and the PowerBook is a high end laptop. It is hard to compare the two. You are getting nicer stuff for a more expensive price, so ya the PowerBook is better.
  • Reply 42 of 184
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Yes you are.



    My how quickly expectations can get out of hand. A year ago a 2Ghz G5 was the fastest Mac you could buy and it was $3k sans monitor.



    Next month you'll be able to buy a 1.8Ghz computer with a great LCD for less than $2k. I fail to see the problem here. The value is great. I'm getting a G5 in a consumer computer. Once tiger ships so will Xcode 2.0 which means every developer has access to GCC 3.5 and auto vectorization so my iMac g5 gets yummy software.



    The complaints are mainly coming from fanboys who want to brag to their PC using friends how fast their Macs are. There is nothing in the TS article that leads me to believe you couldn't accomplish serious work on the iMac g5. Is that what it's all about...accomplishing "work"






    Exactly, Thank You
  • Reply 43 of 184
    If $999 is to expenisve for a computer with specs that used to be awsome half a year ago, stop bitching and get the ghz, ram, and whatever the hell you want in a pc. The iMac is just what I thought it would be so, I am satisfied. At least it is a Mac.
  • Reply 44 of 184
    Quote:

    Originally posted by O4BlackWRX

    If you want to play games get a PC. Since when has Apple been known for it's "Gaming Platform?" What really gets me is half the people that are complaining about the price. If you really need to have a faster CPU and a better GPU (and I mean really really need that) chances are you can afford to get a PowerMac G5. Let's face it Apple has not lead the computer industry in anything but the sheer style of computers. People that buy Apple's are not ones that go around boasting of how many FPS you can run on this game of how fast it is. Apple makes a great computer that actually works. When's the last time you had to run Adaware or SpyBot on your Mac?? These new iMac's are great. I know I spent over a month on a waiting list to get my iMac G4 800Mhz and I paid $1,700 for it (it had a Superdrive & 15" that's it). So in comparsion the new iMac G5's are amazing. I had never owned an Apple and the iMac was a great computer for me to learn on. I have since moved up to a PowerMac G5 Rev. B 2.0Ghz because I need more power. Long story short these iMac G5's are great considering who is going to be buying them. If you're complaining about the cost to what you get value, then why not save up and get a PowerMac G5 Dual 1.8Ghz for $1,999 and go out and get a crappy monitor from Wal-Mart. You are paying for the form factor of the G5 and to restate what several intelligent people on this thread has said "It's called profit." If you can't handle that then don't get an iMac G5 but I know for a fact a lot of people will.....



    I don't personally mind that the iMac may or may not have the top of the line graphics card (which at the time would be something with 256 MB), but I do know what it is that I desire. I would be very pleased if they offered the BTO option of 128 MB and I would be happy to pay extra for it. I believe that it is based on personal priorities. As an example, may I ask you a question? What if the price you paid for your PowerMac actually shipped with a 500 MHZ G4 (which would be 25% of what you received; very similar to what is being offered in speculation for the graphics card of 64 MB vs the high end of 256 MB)? I recognize that is stretching it a bit, but would you have purchased it?
  • Reply 45 of 184
    @homenow@homenow Posts: 998member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by volcom1206

    If $999 is to expenisve for a computer with specs that used to be awsome half a year ago, stop bitching and get the ghz, ram, and whatever the hell you want in a pc. The iMac is just what I thought it would be so, I am satisfied. At least it is a Mac.



    #1 the rumor has them starting at $1299, not $999.



    #2 the 1.6 Ghz G5 was not touted as awsome, as I recall the consensus was that it was not worth the price. Initial sales figures reflected that as well, and the price dropped as I recall at or about the time that Apple added a second processor to the 1.8 Ghz model. I have even read that the 1.6 Ghz G5 is not that much better than te 1.4 Ghz G4 in real world tests, and how many years ago did Apple release the 1.4 Ghz G4 Towers?



    #3 This is a discussion about the future hardware, if you do not like reading viewpoints that differ from yours then what are you doing reading this board instead of your diary? If you are satisfied with the new specs fine, even post that on the boards, but don't complain when other posters have a view that is different from yours...you do have the choice not to read them.
  • Reply 46 of 184
    moosemanmooseman Posts: 126member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by @homenow

    #1 the rumor has them starting at $1299, not $999.



    #2 the 1.6 Ghz G5 was not touted as awsome, as I recall the consensus was that it was not worth the price. Initial sales figures reflected that as well, and the price dropped as I recall at or about the time that Apple added a second processor to the 1.8 Ghz model. I have even read that the 1.6 Ghz G5 is not that much better than te 1.4 Ghz G4 in real world tests, and how many years ago did Apple release the 1.4 Ghz G4 Towers?



    #3 This is a discussion about the future hardware, if you do not like reading viewpoints that differ from yours then what are you doing reading this board instead of your diary? If you are satisfied with the new specs fine, even post that on the boards, but don't complain when other posters have a view that is different from yours...you do have the choice not to read them.






    Amen. More crap. The $999 machine everyone is floating is the EDU machine that lacks an optical drive. Makes iTunes, iMovie, and iPhoto really useful when you can't burn movies, archive photos, or burn CDs for the car.



    Apple has already said they don't give a crap about an affordable consumer machine, even though Fred admitted Apple has completely missed the sweet spot with the last iMac. I believe they basically said they'd rather sell iPods than consumer Macs. And these iMac specs support the claim. Good enough for the faithful to not flee, but not nearly good enough to attract any new blood.



    If you are trying to tempt switchers, I couldn't imagine doing it with a 1.6GHz G5 with no optical drive.



    The "consumer" model available to everyone will be the $1299 or $1399 model.
  • Reply 47 of 184
    Homenow are you on crack or something I am fine with the new iMac that is what I was stating. Yes I do believe there should be a few changes such as 15in and 17in 1.6ghz and a 17in and a 20in 1.8ghz, but hey I love the front side bus speed that I belive will be a 800mhz and a 900mhz. The iMac is everything I thought it would be, and I am satisfied.
  • Reply 48 of 184
    lgnomelgnome Posts: 81member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by O4BlackWRX

    If When's the last time you had to run Adaware or SpyBot on your Mac??



    mm.. sorry.. have to chime in here.. but a lot of people do run Little Snitch.. not quite the same i know.. but very close.. and what LS catches now is just the beginning..
  • Reply 49 of 184
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    There's no reason why the 17" combo model described shouldn't cost 999.



    When a decent 17" LCD display -- Apple doesn't use the crap you'll get for $399 (after $179 mail-in rebate!) -- would cost 2/3 of that $999, how do you figure $333 for the rest of a 1.6 GHz G5 system?



    Now, if you've got a problem with this new iMac not being the long wished-for "headless Mac", or if you don't want to buy a bundled high quality 17" monitor either because you've already got a display you'd like to use, or because you'll settle for the $399 dreck, or because you can't use the iMac's display on a new computer later -- those are all separate issues.



    But because a high-quality 17" LCD is part of what you'd be getting with the purported new G5 iMac, there's no way to reasonably expect the new 17" model to be priced at only $999. What sort of quality do you think you'd get for a PC "deal" for $999 that included a 17" LCD at that price?
  • Reply 50 of 184
    Shetline although I agree with you, like I said earlier apple should offer a 15in and 17in monitores for the 1.6ghz models and a 17in and 20in monitors for the 1.8ghz models. This would make the baseline computer a little cheaper, also I don't need a 20in monitor, I would rather have a 1.8ghz with a 17in monitor. The price begins to add up with bigger monitors.



    Apple needs to wake up and smell the coffee, Apple apeals to a small number of perople. They could easily increase sales by offer a 17,20,23 and 30in cinema display. Or have a computer called and eCube similar to the older PowerCube. Not everyone wants an AIO, I think the iMac should be the only one. Apple aslo needs to offer a higher base ram not 256 but 512. And video cards sux. Lots of people would appreacite in a high end computer to have something better than the nVidia 5200fx Ultra.
  • Reply 51 of 184
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by volcom1206

    Shetline although I agree with you, like I said earlier apple should offer a 15in and 17in monitores for the 1.6ghz models and a 17in and 20in monitors for the 1.8ghz models. This would make the baseline computer a little cheaper, also I don't need a 20in monitor, I would rather have a 1.8ghz with a 17in monitor. The price begins to add up with bigger monitors.



    I think we're still in agreement. I certainly agree that Apple should come up with some better feature/pricepoint combinations. In my earlier post I merely wanted to comment that the particular assertion -- that a new G5 iMac with a high-quality 17" LCD could/should be priced at US $999 -- was not very realistic.
  • Reply 52 of 184
    @homenow@homenow Posts: 998member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by volcom1206

    Homenow are you on crack or something I am fine with the new iMac that is what I was stating. Yes I do believe there should be a few changes such as 15in and 17in 1.6ghz and a 17in and a 20in 1.8ghz, but hey I love the front side bus speed that I belive will be a 800mhz and a 900mhz. The iMac is everything I thought it would be, and I am satisfied.



    hmm...why would you think I'm on crack? because I do not think that the rumored price point and performance are where they should be for the iMac today? Or maybe that I pointed out that others have a right to an opinion that is different than yours, and they have as much right to voice it on these boards as you do?



    The article talks about a range of models, starting with an EDU model and moving up to a high end with a price range of $1300-$2200. To me that indicates that the EDU model is either $1300, since that is the bottom end computer that they talk about, or at best $999. Yet Apple themselves stated the the G4 iMac missed the "sweet spot" and this model, G5 or not, will not bring a the iMac down to a price that Apple has admitted they need to achieve with the iMac. I seriously it will do much better than the previous iMac did given these specs, and may do worse.



    The G5 is a good processor, and I'm sure that it will attract current owners of Macs to upgrade their computers, especially older ones. I don't think that the models as stated will attract new customers though, given that you can get a 3 Ghz P4 computer with more memory, better video, and larger HD than the base model iMac3 at a comparable price. Attracting new consumers to the platform should be a major goal of Apple's because that builds the business which adds value to stock holders investment which in turn attracts investors.



    I personally feel that the Apple needs to bring back the value that the original iMac had to the line (wasn't the 500 mhz G4 equil to or faster than Intels offerings when it was released?), which would put the top of the line iMac up to 2 Ghz, not 1.8 Ghz. Also, given the direction that they have indicated they are moving with Tiger, I would hope that Apple would begin releasing consumer hardware that is ready for the future direction that the OS is moving toward. This means using a video card that does a bit more than meet the minimum requirements of the technology that they have anounced would be incorperated into the next major release of the OS. There is also a new version of Open GL ready to come out, and Quicktime is ready for a new release. How will this hardware hold up to the task if more and more of the video processing is offloaded to a video card that is not up to the task? How is that going to affect ther performance of the OS, both percieved and real?



    Next is marketing. The iMac has the brand recognition as Apple's consumer computer, not the eMac. Apple has spent a lot of money to build this brand recognition over the years. Now, with the iMac 2 and if these prices are correct with its successor as well, Apple is waisting this brand recognition. They are reinforcing the perception on the market that Macs are expensive. Case in point, my Mom and Step-Dad are in the market for a new computer. My Mom, at my advise, suggested a Mac, but my Step-Dad, after shopping around, told her that they don't have one available for less than $1300 which is more than they are wanting to spend. The iMac is the price and computer that consmers associate with Apple, not the eMac, and the eMac has had little or no advertising to change this perception.



    If this is article is true and this is the best that Apple can do right now then so be it, but they will need to work harder in the future to bring about a consumer computer that can compete well against the competition in the market and truely attract new customers to the platform. Or maybe it is time to admit defeat and abandon the consumer market?
  • Reply 53 of 184
    Shetline there is also no reason Apple has to put the very best monitor on the iMac, it would be very easy to settle with the 2nd,3rd,4th or 5th best. But you know Apple it's qualtity where it dosen't need to be and crap where it actually counts.
  • Reply 54 of 184
    @homenow asking apple to compete with the PowerMac is not resonable. The iMac should be 1.6ghz and a 1.8ghz not a 2ghz. The iMac is where it should be at performace wise relative to the PwerMac. The price could be altered in means that are stated above, 15in,17, and 20in monitors could be one way. Another could be less expenise monitors. I do agree Apple can do better, but the iMac is all that I thought it would be.



    And I never said people can't have an opinion. I just think, be resonable Apple can't make this computer any cheaper and keep a high quality 17in monitor. It is what it is. Don't look at the cover look at what apple stands for: a great opperating system (Mac OSX), new cool look, and new ideas.



    PS: Apple get better video cards NOW!!!!!!!!!
  • Reply 55 of 184
    tak1108tak1108 Posts: 222member
    Non upgradable videocard and all-in-one are the deal killer for me. Now, I am going to get a new powerbook as soon as I can afford it.



    I'll probably sell my G4 tower to get one too. But the iMac is not my computer, because of the built in monitor and lack of upgradablility for a desktop.



    I would be very tempted if it were a cube starting at $999 without monitor. I'd sell my tower in a heartbeat for a new cube.
  • Reply 56 of 184
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by volcom1206

    Shetline there is also no reason Apple has to put the very best monitor on the iMac, it would be very easy to settle with the 2nd,3rd,4th or 5th best. But you know Apple it's qualtity where it dosen't need to be and crap where it actually counts.



    It would be far better for Apple to come out with alternatives like a 15" iMac or a headless Mac or something else to meet lower price points than to start using permanently-attached crappy monitors. If you've looked at 17" monitor prices, you would be at 5th best or worse if the monitor were cheap enough to get the whole iMac package down to $999.



    For all of you who gripe so much about lame video cards (is this the "where it counts" you have in mind?), a lame monitor affects all users, whether they care about video game performance and FPS bragging rights or not. What good would a high frame rate be if the monitor's LCD refresh lag is so slow that fast moving objects leave visible trails or "submarine" into invisibility, or if a friend you're playing with can barely see what you're doing because at 3" off-axis the display can barely be seen?
  • Reply 57 of 184
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Ok now i've heard this twice and I can't believe it.



    "The 1.6 Ghz G5 is barely faster than a 1.4 Ghz G4"



    Cinebench 2003 pre-G5 optimized



    That is an incorrect statement. While the G5 has a lower IPC its FPU unit is much more powerful. So you're likely to see integer functions stay relatively close between the two but the G5 pulls away in FPU heavy applications. All things being considered I'd like the G5 over the G4 any day. Not to mention the ability to address more memory.



    Mac users are just as irrational as PC users. The disappointment in graphics cards does not suddenly make a G5 processor "old" or trivial. A G4 system will never access more than 4GB of RAM. That makes it old to me regardless of better IPC.



    Also don't forget the G5 can queue something like 215 instructions. Doesn't sound too sexy but it is vital for future iterations as the G5 can dispatch more instructions. I'm not sure a programmer need explicitly modify their code to handle this.



    My take is



    $1299 for a 17" iMac with Superdrive, 5200fx and 80GB HD is a "place your order" computer.



    Drop the Superdrive and it's a "possible purchase candidate"



    This unit is going to be replaced next spring by another model. Apple may move to PCI express by then and have more options for cards. Parents buying their kids computers for school don't care about gaming in fact many would rather the gaming be kept a light as possible. Gaming isn't always a "good" thing to all people. We need to "shift our center" here and look from all angles.



    Programmatically moving the G5 down to $1299 price points is important. It means developers can now start targetting the G5 for optimizations knowing that a G5 Powerbook is next and 2005 will have Apple shipping 3 million G5 enabled systems.



    No the 5200 isn't a "to die for GPU' but it will allow you to play plenty of games with the "cool" features turned on and take advantage of future OS advancements. What is important is delivering a G5 to consumers and a new form factor that isn't quite as divisive as the "Lamp Shade" and cheaper to boot.



    A year from now the iMac may contain CPU faster than the fastest G5 available today. Powermacs will be dual core, iMacs will stay single core. The trick is to get the system out and see how it does and then "turn the wick up".
  • Reply 58 of 184
    I will neither buy the new iMac (TS specs) nor recommend it.



    For me to consider buying it or recommending it, it must have:



    1. PCIe graphics slot with NVidia 6600 graphics standard

    2. Faster processors (anything lower than 2GHz is not competitive, and 2GHz itself is only marginally competitive)

    3. 512MB RAM
  • Reply 59 of 184
    Shetline I was not saying they had to put in a crappy 17in. I think Apple could downgrade the monitor just a tad, not a lot. So it would be a less expenisve 15in,17in,and 20in. Or offer a nice 20in a medium 17in and an okay 15in. I don't know. It's just the monitors are so nice for a consumer computer.
  • Reply 60 of 184
    @homenow@homenow Posts: 998member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by volcom1206

    @homenow asking apple to compete with the PowerMac is not resonable. The iMac should be 1.6ghz and a 1.8ghz not a 2ghz. The iMac is where it should be at performace wise relative to the PwerMac. The price could be altered in means that are stated above, 15in,17, and 20in monitors could be one way. Another could be less expenise monitors. I do agree Apple can do better, but the iMac is all that I thought it would be.



    I know, Apple makes the PowerMac, it would be unreasonable for them to compete against their own product. As to the point that you were trying to make, the PM is currently an all dual line-up with high end components requireing a powerfull power source and custom, complicated cooling. The iMac is a single processor consumer computer that should be built with value in mind. The fact that $1300 is too high a price point for the iMac is not just my sentiment, it is Apple's as well. If they can't bring that price point down with a 17" LCD pannel, then they might try with a 16" or a 15". Stick with standard IDE drives insead of moving to Serial ATA, put a smaller hard drive in it, a CD Rom or burner instead of a Combo drive as your entry. Whatever it takes.



    As to processor speeds relative to the PowerMacs, look again at how the original iMacs compared to the PM's. Fall 1999 iMac ($999) 350 mhz G3 vs. PM G4 "Yikes" 350 mhz ($1599). Summer 2000 iMac DV ($999)400 mhz G3 (High end 500 mhz G3) vs PM G4 400 mhz (High end dual 500 mhz G4). And it continues on throughout most of the original iMacs life, offering nearly the performance of the PowerMac in a consumer AIO package. That isone of the reasons that the original iMac did so well in the market place, it didn't ignore performance. That changed with the iMac 2 and the eMac, which are now considerably slower than their PM counterparts as well as the rest of the market that the iMac is competing in. Apple needs to regain this price performance value if they are going to seriously compete in the market today, and if IBM or Freescale can't deliver a PowerPC processor that Apple can do this with then Apple needs to reexamine their reliance on this archetecture which has been lagging further and futher behind since the introduction of the G4 processor.



    As to the specs themselves, without looking at the price...yea pretty much what I would have expected given Apple's non-agressive pricing since the last recession started. Years of lowered expectations, and still not enough for me to choose replacing my Cube over upgrading it (at least for now).
Sign In or Register to comment.