How many you people who are complaining about lack of upgradeablity actually push the IMac to the limits? Not many I would think, if youre a professional, earning client fees from your endevours then get your hand in your pocket and buy a G5 desktop. The IMac is intended for consumers who want to play with music, DVD, toy around with photos or basic graphics and play the odd game.
Ignore the power, use the machine for what its intended, be creative. As the saying goes "A bad tradesman always blames his tools."
How many you people who are complaining about lack of upgradeablity actually push the IMac to the limits? Not many I would think, if youre a professional, earning client fees from your endevours then get your hand in your pocket and buy a G5 desktop. The IMac is intended for consumers who want to play with music, DVD, toy around with photos or basic graphics and play the odd game.
Ignore the power, use the machine for what its intended, be creative. As the saying goes "A bad tradesman always blames his tools."
Man, you certainly know EXACTLY what I do with my computers eh?
No, I don't make $$ from my endeavours or I would consider a PMac. I am a hobbyist who is getting more and more into recording, programming, and the occasional game (usually Tetris or Diablo II).
I'm in the market for a new computer and maybe unlike some people, I know exactly what I want because I have an idea of how I'll be using my computers for the next 3-5 years. I need a G5 because if I want to stay up on Mac technology I'll probably need one. Otherwise I'll continue plugging away on my PowerBook.
Speaking of PowerBook, it's my current AIO computer. The computer I'd like to replace is my 5 year old PC desktop. I want to replace it with another desktop so I can add in an audio card so my friends and I can record our jams. If the new iMac doesn't have a PCI slot, then I have a choice of either spending hundreds more on a firewire solution, or hundreds more on a PowerMac, then more $$ for the actual PCI card. Either way I look at it, it's a lose-lose situation for me and my wallet.
If Apple can't put out an expandable desktop for consumers, then I won't be buying one, period. I don't understand why you think you know more about my computing needs then I do but whatever. You do what you think is best and I will do the same.
The new iMac is not going to be last year's computer at $999, it's going to be next year's computer at $1299. I'll take that 1.6 or 1.8 GHz G5 and run, you guys can whine about BS expansion and graphics card speed, frames per second and photoshop mili-seconds, all while I'm using my computer and doing real work.
Video editing will be a dream on a G5 with a 17'' high res LCD display.
I'm sorry but 1.6 Ghz G5 being Tomarrow's processor is an appologists line that will not help bring about sales. I guess you've been feed that line long enough that you believe it. I know that it makes you much happier in life to go through it with lowered expectations, but there are enough people that expect a bit more from our hard earned money. If Apple were mearly to bring back the price performance level that they had in the iMac back in 2000 then I'm sure you would hear a lot less bitÇ_ing, but that wont happen with a 1.6 Ghz G5 at $1299. Given the fact that the PM's are all duals one would expect that the bottom end iMac should be reasonabley priced with a 1.8 Ghz chip, and a 2.0 Ghz chip is reasonable for the high end. If Apple were being agressive they should be able to put in 2.5 Ghz chips in the high end, that is if IBM could make enough of them.
Have you people also considered the possibility that there could be a surprise introduction of a mini tower, along with the prosumerish iMac?
Not with the constrained supplies of G5 chips from IBM. In fact, I would take this as a sign that the G5 PB's won't be intro'ed till mid next year at earliest. If Apple were smart then they would have FreeScale working very hard on a portable chip with "G5" performance levels and keep the 970's that IBM can supply in their desktops.
Would you honestly be able to tell the difference in the performance of a single processor 1.6 G5 and a 1.8 G5? I doubt it, but it depends on the application. Most likely, you wouldnt be able to tell the difference, it would be minimal.
Would you honestly be able to tell the difference in the performance of a single processor 1.6 G5 and a 1.8 G5? I doubt it, but it depends on the application. Most likely, you wouldnt be able to tell the difference, it would be minimal.
Don't forget, the FSB speed is tied to processor speed (50% of proc. speed to be exact). So processor speed has a larger meaning than just it processes instructions x% faster. It changes how fast data moves through the CPU<->buss<->RAM connects.
In your example, not only is there a 200MHz processor speed gain between 1.6 & 1.8GHz, there is a 100MHz buss gain between an 800 and 900MHz FSB.
Ah, I see. So the spec PowerMac9,1 in the latest platform plugins from 10.3.5 mean what exactly? It is a pro machine (being an odd numbered spec) and it sure ain't gonna be a PowerMac. It is all right before everyone's eyes yet a lot of people seem to want to look away....
And don't forget, the fastest competitor's bus speed is 800 MHz. Apple will have that on their low end iMac. Pretty awesome.
I think everyone agrees that the only really weak point is the alloted RAM and the graphics card. Thankfully both are upgradeable. If you want a large LCD and a G5 for under 2,000, this is the only way to go. Literally.
But think about it like this....this is a Rev A machine, things will get cheaper, more refined and faster. Apple still does have some wiggle room, and enough time to iron out the kinks.
Would you honestly be able to tell the difference in the performance of a single processor 1.6 G5 and a 1.8 G5? I doubt it, but it depends on the application. Most likely, you wouldnt be able to tell the difference, it would be minimal.
Are you running out of arguments to back up the fact that 1.6 Ghz is a "Godsend" so the Mac platform, and that it is everything that the iMac needs? The fact is that it doesn't matter if I will ever use the power of a 1.8 Ghz processor what matters is that I am getting the best value that Apple can give me. I am the consumer after all, and I should demand as much as my dollar can get me. If I were buying a Corvette I wouldn't settle for a 200 hp engine or a top speed of 70 miles per hour. It doesnt mater that I will probably never "legaly" need the speed or the horse power, what matters is that I am paying for it so I want every last horse, and evey last mph that they will get me.
Are you running out of arguments to back up the fact that 1.6 Ghz is a "Godsend" so the Mac platform, and that it is everything that the iMac needs? The fact is that it doesn't matter if I will ever use the power of a 1.8 Ghz processor what matters is that I am getting the best value that Apple can give me. I am the consumer after all, and I should demand as much as my dollar can get me. If I were buying a Corvette I wouldn't settle for a 200 hp engine or a top speed of 70 miles per hour. It doesnt mater that I will probably never "legaly" need the speed or the horse power, what matters is that I am paying for it so I want every last horse, and evey last mph that they will get me.
Of course that is Chevrolet you are referring to, not say, Lotus (automobiles). If you want to sniffle that their low end model is only a four cylinder, that whine away. You are crying on deaf ears. Get a friggin Viper and all of its ten cylinders. Or a Saleen. An iMac is a budget box...kinda like a cheapo Dell.
Thing is, you are going to be satisfied with the performance. Hell, I am happy still with my 867MHz (not even a Gig! ) PowerBook. If I needed that performance, I would get a dual 2.5 PowerMac. I don't, and I need the portability. If you are looking for leading edge technology, the iMac is not it.
Of course that is Chevrolet you are referring to, not say, Lotus (automobiles). If you want to sniffle that their low end model is only a four cylinder, that whine away. You are crying on deaf ears. Get a friggin Viper and all of its ten cylinders. Or a Saleen. An iMac is a budget box...kinda like a cheapo Dell.
Thing is, you are going to be satisfied with the performance. Hell, I am happy still with my 867MHz (not even a Gig! ) PowerBook. If I needed that performance, I would get a dual 2.5 PowerMac. I don't, and I need the portability. If you are looking for leading edge technology, the iMac is not it.
The Lotus 4 cylender was backed up with custom tuned, ported and polished engine with $20,000 worth of twin turbo chargers put on top, which has long since been replaced with an 8 cylinder engine. Point taken though, a better comparison would have been with a Camaro or Mustang.
Back to the subject. I find it interesting that when people want to say that the iMac is a good value they call it a boutique computer, but when they say the performance is good it is a budget computer. Which is it? Either way it doesn't make a difference. A single 1.6 Ghz processor is slow by today's standards in the computer world, that is with the exception of the Mac world. The Power Mac is a good deal becouse it has dual processors, if it was stuck with a single processor at 2.5 Ghz would still be a good deal?
My point is, and has been that the G4 iMac, and the rumored specs and price of the G5 successor fail to bring the value to the Mac platform that the original iMac did. If Apple were to bring that value back to the line then we would see 2.5 Ghz iMacs at the top end of the model lineup given today's prices. I won't bother with spouting the prices and specs again, they have been posted time and time again, and if you need to look at lowendmac's web site. The bottom line is that the PowerPC platform has failed to keep up with the rest of the industry since the introduction of the G4, which was ahead of or matched the Pentium when it was released, and though it is supposedly less expensive than Intel and AMD chips Apple has not been able to leverage that to their advantage to stay cost competative with their competition in the consumer market.
I do fully understand that it is not Apple's fault that IBM and Motorolla/Freescale have no been able to deliver on the promise of these chips. I think that they do need to use the leverage, threat, that the portability of OS X brings to their platform to try to get the two companies working together again so that we might see the type of development and delivery of marketable chips that we saw in the early days of the PowerPC platform, and if these companies cannot deliver the chips in a quantity and price that Apple needs to stay competative then it might be time for Apple to consider abandoning them for the industry standard.
Now, I'm not Apple bashing becouse I find it fun to do so. Quite the contrary, I dislike watching Apple stagnate like they have the past 3-4 years. I consider their software and hardware intergral to my profession, and a joy to work on. I also have one at home. I would honestly like to see Apple do better. I would also like to see Apple come out with a computer that makes me want to buy a new one over upgrading my 450 mhz Cube. Honestly, for the price and performance of this rumored computer I can't say that Apple has done that, and I think it is a sad state for Apple to be today, of course my bank account and credit limit are breathing a sigh of relief at the news.
I believe that Apple can and should do better. As many have pointed out thier hardware sales hav been stagnant over the last 3 years, and that is not good for a business, especially a publicly traded company.
Apple has done everything BUT stagnate over the past 3-4 years, christ man.
How much has their hardware business gown over the last 3-4 years? How many more units have they shipped this quarter over the same quarter 3 years ago? They defiantly have not doubled that business, and I don't think that even have a 25% yearly growth in hardware sales. Is it 10% growth, or less? Yes they have come out with some good products and services, but it has not gone to significantly increase their core hardware business which relative to the growth in the personal computer market has been stagnate over the last 3-4 years.
I will admit this, Apple has seen a growth in portable sales over this time, but it is offset by a decline in desktop sales, it has not signifigantly increased the total number of units shiped year to year.
Back to the subject. I find it interesting that when people want to say that the iMac is a good value they call it a boutique computer, but when they say the performance is good it is a budget computer. Which is it? Either way it doesn't make a difference. A single 1.6 Ghz processor is slow by today's standards in the computer world, that is with the exception of the Mac world. The Power Mac is a good deal becouse it has dual processors, if it was stuck with a single processor at 2.5 Ghz would still be a good deal?
While I agree that the iMac was released at or near PowerMac speeds, the PM was quickly (within 6 months) upgraded to the G4 and the spread has stayed until this day. That was Jobs plan. To separate the two lines.
I also agree that for the price, the iMac is not a very good deal. No one, including Apple who recently were quoted acknowledging the fact, is denying that.
But why not wait until we see the released product before bashing it. TS specs are rumored. And, I think, from a bad source.
In any event, the fact remains, and will for the forseeable future, that the iMac will lag behind the PowerMac. Hopefully, they will adjust the price or give the end user the option of adding his/her own LCD panel, instead of inflating the price of the "computer for the masses" by releasing it as an AIO. I feel that is what they are going to do, however, so they better start doing some price adjusting. And quick!
Comments
Ignore the power, use the machine for what its intended, be creative. As the saying goes "A bad tradesman always blames his tools."
Originally posted by Razororg
How many you people who are complaining about lack of upgradeablity actually push the IMac to the limits? Not many I would think, if youre a professional, earning client fees from your endevours then get your hand in your pocket and buy a G5 desktop. The IMac is intended for consumers who want to play with music, DVD, toy around with photos or basic graphics and play the odd game.
Ignore the power, use the machine for what its intended, be creative. As the saying goes "A bad tradesman always blames his tools."
Man, you certainly know EXACTLY what I do with my computers eh?
No, I don't make $$ from my endeavours or I would consider a PMac. I am a hobbyist who is getting more and more into recording, programming, and the occasional game (usually Tetris or Diablo II).
I'm in the market for a new computer and maybe unlike some people, I know exactly what I want because I have an idea of how I'll be using my computers for the next 3-5 years. I need a G5 because if I want to stay up on Mac technology I'll probably need one. Otherwise I'll continue plugging away on my PowerBook.
Speaking of PowerBook, it's my current AIO computer. The computer I'd like to replace is my 5 year old PC desktop. I want to replace it with another desktop so I can add in an audio card so my friends and I can record our jams. If the new iMac doesn't have a PCI slot, then I have a choice of either spending hundreds more on a firewire solution, or hundreds more on a PowerMac, then more $$ for the actual PCI card. Either way I look at it, it's a lose-lose situation for me and my wallet.
If Apple can't put out an expandable desktop for consumers, then I won't be buying one, period. I don't understand why you think you know more about my computing needs then I do but whatever. You do what you think is best and I will do the same.
Originally posted by NittanyLionTosh
Have you people also considered the possibility that there could be a surprise introduction of a mini tower, along with the prosumerish iMac?
Yes, considered and rejected.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Yes, considered and rejected.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
What he said.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
The new iMac is not going to be last year's computer at $999, it's going to be next year's computer at $1299. I'll take that 1.6 or 1.8 GHz G5 and run, you guys can whine about BS expansion and graphics card speed, frames per second and photoshop mili-seconds, all while I'm using my computer and doing real work.
Video editing will be a dream on a G5 with a 17'' high res LCD display.
I'm sorry but 1.6 Ghz G5 being Tomarrow's processor is an appologists line that will not help bring about sales. I guess you've been feed that line long enough that you believe it. I know that it makes you much happier in life to go through it with lowered expectations, but there are enough people that expect a bit more from our hard earned money. If Apple were mearly to bring back the price performance level that they had in the iMac back in 2000 then I'm sure you would hear a lot less bitÇ_ing, but that wont happen with a 1.6 Ghz G5 at $1299. Given the fact that the PM's are all duals one would expect that the bottom end iMac should be reasonabley priced with a 1.8 Ghz chip, and a 2.0 Ghz chip is reasonable for the high end. If Apple were being agressive they should be able to put in 2.5 Ghz chips in the high end, that is if IBM could make enough of them.
Originally posted by NittanyLionTosh
Have you people also considered the possibility that there could be a surprise introduction of a mini tower, along with the prosumerish iMac?
Not with the constrained supplies of G5 chips from IBM. In fact, I would take this as a sign that the G5 PB's won't be intro'ed till mid next year at earliest. If Apple were smart then they would have FreeScale working very hard on a portable chip with "G5" performance levels and keep the 970's that IBM can supply in their desktops.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Would you honestly be able to tell the difference in the performance of a single processor 1.6 G5 and a 1.8 G5? I doubt it, but it depends on the application. Most likely, you wouldnt be able to tell the difference, it would be minimal.
Don't forget, the FSB speed is tied to processor speed (50% of proc. speed to be exact). So processor speed has a larger meaning than just it processes instructions x% faster. It changes how fast data moves through the CPU<->buss<->RAM connects.
In your example, not only is there a 200MHz processor speed gain between 1.6 & 1.8GHz, there is a 100MHz buss gain between an 800 and 900MHz FSB.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Yes, considered and rejected.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Ah, I see. So the spec PowerMac9,1 in the latest platform plugins from 10.3.5 mean what exactly? It is a pro machine (being an odd numbered spec) and it sure ain't gonna be a PowerMac. It is all right before everyone's eyes yet a lot of people seem to want to look away....
I think everyone agrees that the only really weak point is the alloted RAM and the graphics card. Thankfully both are upgradeable. If you want a large LCD and a G5 for under 2,000, this is the only way to go. Literally.
But think about it like this....this is a Rev A machine, things will get cheaper, more refined and faster. Apple still does have some wiggle room, and enough time to iron out the kinks.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Would you honestly be able to tell the difference in the performance of a single processor 1.6 G5 and a 1.8 G5? I doubt it, but it depends on the application. Most likely, you wouldnt be able to tell the difference, it would be minimal.
Are you running out of arguments to back up the fact that 1.6 Ghz is a "Godsend" so the Mac platform, and that it is everything that the iMac needs? The fact is that it doesn't matter if I will ever use the power of a 1.8 Ghz processor what matters is that I am getting the best value that Apple can give me. I am the consumer after all, and I should demand as much as my dollar can get me. If I were buying a Corvette I wouldn't settle for a 200 hp engine or a top speed of 70 miles per hour. It doesnt mater that I will probably never "legaly" need the speed or the horse power, what matters is that I am paying for it so I want every last horse, and evey last mph that they will get me.
Originally posted by @homenow
Are you running out of arguments to back up the fact that 1.6 Ghz is a "Godsend" so the Mac platform, and that it is everything that the iMac needs? The fact is that it doesn't matter if I will ever use the power of a 1.8 Ghz processor what matters is that I am getting the best value that Apple can give me. I am the consumer after all, and I should demand as much as my dollar can get me. If I were buying a Corvette I wouldn't settle for a 200 hp engine or a top speed of 70 miles per hour. It doesnt mater that I will probably never "legaly" need the speed or the horse power, what matters is that I am paying for it so I want every last horse, and evey last mph that they will get me.
Of course that is Chevrolet you are referring to, not say, Lotus (automobiles). If you want to sniffle that their low end model is only a four cylinder, that whine away. You are crying on deaf ears. Get a friggin Viper and all of its ten cylinders. Or a Saleen. An iMac is a budget box...kinda like a cheapo Dell.
Thing is, you are going to be satisfied with the performance. Hell, I am happy still with my 867MHz (not even a Gig!
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Of course that is Chevrolet you are referring to, not say, Lotus (automobiles). If you want to sniffle that their low end model is only a four cylinder, that whine away. You are crying on deaf ears. Get a friggin Viper and all of its ten cylinders. Or a Saleen. An iMac is a budget box...kinda like a cheapo Dell.
Thing is, you are going to be satisfied with the performance. Hell, I am happy still with my 867MHz (not even a Gig!
The Lotus 4 cylender was backed up with custom tuned, ported and polished engine with $20,000 worth of twin turbo chargers put on top, which has long since been replaced with an 8 cylinder engine. Point taken though, a better comparison would have been with a Camaro or Mustang.
Back to the subject. I find it interesting that when people want to say that the iMac is a good value they call it a boutique computer, but when they say the performance is good it is a budget computer. Which is it? Either way it doesn't make a difference. A single 1.6 Ghz processor is slow by today's standards in the computer world, that is with the exception of the Mac world. The Power Mac is a good deal becouse it has dual processors, if it was stuck with a single processor at 2.5 Ghz would still be a good deal?
My point is, and has been that the G4 iMac, and the rumored specs and price of the G5 successor fail to bring the value to the Mac platform that the original iMac did. If Apple were to bring that value back to the line then we would see 2.5 Ghz iMacs at the top end of the model lineup given today's prices. I won't bother with spouting the prices and specs again, they have been posted time and time again, and if you need to look at lowendmac's web site. The bottom line is that the PowerPC platform has failed to keep up with the rest of the industry since the introduction of the G4, which was ahead of or matched the Pentium when it was released, and though it is supposedly less expensive than Intel and AMD chips Apple has not been able to leverage that to their advantage to stay cost competative with their competition in the consumer market.
I do fully understand that it is not Apple's fault that IBM and Motorolla/Freescale have no been able to deliver on the promise of these chips. I think that they do need to use the leverage, threat, that the portability of OS X brings to their platform to try to get the two companies working together again so that we might see the type of development and delivery of marketable chips that we saw in the early days of the PowerPC platform, and if these companies cannot deliver the chips in a quantity and price that Apple needs to stay competative then it might be time for Apple to consider abandoning them for the industry standard.
Now, I'm not Apple bashing becouse I find it fun to do so. Quite the contrary, I dislike watching Apple stagnate like they have the past 3-4 years. I consider their software and hardware intergral to my profession, and a joy to work on. I also have one at home. I would honestly like to see Apple do better. I would also like to see Apple come out with a computer that makes me want to buy a new one over upgrading my 450 mhz Cube. Honestly, for the price and performance of this rumored computer I can't say that Apple has done that, and I think it is a sad state for Apple to be today, of course my bank account and credit limit are breathing a sigh of relief at the news.
I believe that Apple can and should do better. As many have pointed out thier hardware sales hav been stagnant over the last 3 years, and that is not good for a business, especially a publicly traded company.
Originally posted by NittanyLionTosh
Apple has done everything BUT stagnate over the past 3-4 years, christ man.
How much has their hardware business gown over the last 3-4 years? How many more units have they shipped this quarter over the same quarter 3 years ago? They defiantly have not doubled that business, and I don't think that even have a 25% yearly growth in hardware sales. Is it 10% growth, or less? Yes they have come out with some good products and services, but it has not gone to significantly increase their core hardware business which relative to the growth in the personal computer market has been stagnate over the last 3-4 years.
I will admit this, Apple has seen a growth in portable sales over this time, but it is offset by a decline in desktop sales, it has not signifigantly increased the total number of units shiped year to year.
Originally posted by @homenow
Back to the subject. I find it interesting that when people want to say that the iMac is a good value they call it a boutique computer, but when they say the performance is good it is a budget computer. Which is it? Either way it doesn't make a difference. A single 1.6 Ghz processor is slow by today's standards in the computer world, that is with the exception of the Mac world. The Power Mac is a good deal becouse it has dual processors, if it was stuck with a single processor at 2.5 Ghz would still be a good deal?
While I agree that the iMac was released at or near PowerMac speeds, the PM was quickly (within 6 months) upgraded to the G4 and the spread has stayed until this day. That was Jobs plan. To separate the two lines.
I also agree that for the price, the iMac is not a very good deal. No one, including Apple who recently were quoted acknowledging the fact, is denying that.
But why not wait until we see the released product before bashing it. TS specs are rumored. And, I think, from a bad source.
In any event, the fact remains, and will for the forseeable future, that the iMac will lag behind the PowerMac. Hopefully, they will adjust the price or give the end user the option of adding his/her own LCD panel, instead of inflating the price of the "computer for the masses" by releasing it as an AIO. I feel that is what they are going to do, however, so they better start doing some price adjusting. And quick!