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....
...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!
Yes, but even using two processor lines, the speeds were comperable. I would not have a problem if the Apple were shipping an iMac G4 if the speeds were comperable to the G5's, as they were back in the original iMac G3's day. That would mean a 2.5 Ghz G4 processor, which everyone knows does not exist. Beyond that the all dual line-up of the PowerMac should allow for a closer speed range between the iMac and the PowerMac, especially given the price of the iMac.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rhumgod
But why not wait until we see the released product before bashing it. TS specs are rumored. And, I think, from a bad source.
This is a future hardware thread specifically to discuss the specs released by the TS article, so it is appropriate for me to voice my opinion on it here isn't it? There are definatly enough people voicing their praise of the anemic specs.
1. What i meant by "Apple has not stagnated' is that they have been innovating.
2. Think Secret is probably wrong on these specs, why? It was pretty early for them to come out of nowhere with those claims.
3. The alleged specs should not be called anemic, look at what higher ed asks for a college student to have as a minimum. Penn State says the bare minimum Mac should have 128 MB RAM, a 350 MHz G3 processor or above, a 10 GB HD, and Mac OS X.
4. We do not know what other hardware introductions Apple may roll out.
There are tons of unanswered questions still. I think we need to hold off on flaming Apple, at least until we get concrete evidence about what this thing really is going to be....which probably won'y happen until it is actually released.
RDF plain and simple. MOST of the Mac users I know don't have Macs as fast as a single 1.6Ghz G5 yet they still manage to survive. Some of you want a shotgun to kill a gnat. Speed of the computing only goes so far based on hardware alone ...we must take the OS into account as it will determine the realword speed differences.
Again you will soon see that if Apple hits $1299 with a 17" LCD these iMacs a hot seller they will be. Saying otherwise is science fiction. The avg computer user is not as savvy as many on these boards. 1.6Ghz is fast to them and the OS has much more than what they're used to featurewise. I see only chip yields from keeping this iMac off the best seller list.
If you think you can be more productive with a PC running at 3Ghz then by all means prove us wrong. However, I doubt many of us will be dining on crow anytime soon.
Apple's sales are stagnant and that's a plus because the sales were on the decline years ago before the Jobsian Resurrection. Apple has more tricks up their sleeves and more aquisitions to make. This belly aching over the iMac specs is foolhardy and will be long forgotten soon enough.
I believe too that Apple is far too criticized, and without cause. Apple's sales are only increasing. It's great to see the Mac outselling the iPod, even if it is by about 15,000 units...it just says something. People are willing to pay $300 or $400 for an iPod but also $850 to $3000 on a Mac. That's great news because it shows that the Mac still has tremendous value.
It depends on what your priorities are. If you are a computer user that has embraced the digital lifestyle, then the Mac is for you. If you love being productive and making money using your computer, then the Mac is for you. If you make music, movies, are in publishing, or make web content, the Mac is for you.
If you like games and like fighting viruses, Microsoft can hook you up.
And specs are one thing... just numbers. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the megahertz in my powerbook or the amount of ram I have. I'm just marveled everyday because my mac just works, and it's because of the impressive OS, not the metal and silicon inside.
3. The alleged specs should not be called anemic, look at what higher ed asks for a college student to have as a minimum. Penn State says the bare minimum Mac should have 128 MB RAM, a 350 MHz G3 processor or above, a 10 GB HD, and Mac OS X.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
People still stuck in spec whore'dom?
RDF plain and simple. MOST of the Mac users I know don't have Macs as fast as a single 1.6Ghz G5 yet they still manage to survive. Some of you want a shotgun to kill a gnat. Speed of the computing only goes so far based on hardware alone ...we must take the OS into account as it will determine the realword speed differences.
If all you want do is send e-mail and serf the web a 1.6GHz G5 is fast enough (so is a 600MHz G3 -- if that is all you do, don't bother upgrading to a new computer).
If you want to use iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, GarageBand, Photoshope Elements, Logic Express, Final Cut Express or a modern game, a 1.6 GHz is vary slow.
What some people seem to forget when talking about computers is that no currently available system is fast enough to do much more than basic word processing in real time. Once you start rendering transitions in video, or playing around with filters on that 6 Megapixel photo you took of your grand kids, you have to wait, and wait... Things are a lot better now then they were a few years ago, but until personal computers can preform all of the desired tasks in real time, they are not as fast as the average consumer wants them to be.
Now a 1.6GHz G5 is extremely anemic when compared to a 2.4 GHz Athlon 64 or 3.4Ghz HT P4. Which is what you find in the iMacs price range. Of course what's really galling is that Apple has access to chips that are over 50% faster, but they are refusing to offer them in a iMac (or other single processor machine). Let's not forget that they are paring the slow processor with a terrible video card.
To see just how bad the 5200FX performs, here is a link to BareFeats comparing that card to a few others in a Dual 2GHz G5.
I don't expect Apple to make cheap computers, and I am willing to pay more for a Mac than I would for a PC of equivalent power. Even if they had to rase the price a little, the single processor Macs should have the same speed, or faster, chips as the dual power Macs. That is how all of the other computer companies do it.
If the rumored specs are correct, this is a very disappointing update, and I will not be getting one, nor will I recommend it to others.
Res you have to remember Apple could shovel crap into the next imac and the zealots would be jumping up and down how great it is. Fx5200 is crap and a 1.6 G5 from last year is still a slow cpu from last year. At least apple got the slow ,ever stagnating,behind all other cpu's G4 out of the machine so its a good half step foward. Doom3 might be able to run on this machine at 640 x 480 on low if and when it ever comes out for Mac.\
-you're badly influenced by the dark side of the force?
-your karma stinks?
-you're a borg?
If you disagree with Res' post that's one thing, but why resort to personal attacks? I don't get some of you people. This is a discussion of the rumored specs for the next iMac, not a discussion on how some forumite must be messed in the head if his/her opinion doesn't mesh with yours.
I think most people are concerned about value for the money, this is where Apple has failed miserably in the past. This failure is reflected in sales.
Quote:
RDF plain and simple. MOST of the Mac users I know don't have Macs as fast as a single 1.6Ghz G5 yet they still manage to survive. Some of you want a shotgun to kill a gnat. Speed of the computing only goes so far based on hardware alone ...we must take the OS into account as it will determine the realword speed differences.
One can manage to survive on bread and water, but that is certain death in the long run. The problem is that the effects of a bread and water diet sneaks up on you and suddenly you are struggling to remain functional and recover. Sure there are many people that survive with old hardware for a very long time, there are also those that discover all of a sudden that they are running software that is 4 or 5 versions old and they don't have the option of upgrading due to hardware constraints.
As far as speed goes the speed of the OS and the speed of the hardware are two different things. Fast hardware can go a long way to making a OS more functional. It is extremely silly to deny this. It doesn't matter if we are talking the same versions of OS/X or an entirely different platform -- fast hardware does make a difference. If you are running the same OS and faster performance is required, you have no other option but to address hardware issues.
The problem in the past and probally with the iMac3, is that Apple simply does not attempt to configure their hardware to support their OS in a manner similar to other platforms. One issue is the slow processors Apple uses which they have little control over. The other is the use of oudated technology on new platforms. Here we are talking about limited memory and poor or barely functional video cards. This hardware supports the OS, without it the OS can not function -- good fast hardware does impact usability of the OS.
Quote:
Again you will soon see that if Apple hits $1299 with a 17" LCD these iMacs a hot seller they will be. Saying otherwise is science fiction. The avg computer user is not as savvy as many on these boards. 1.6Ghz is fast to them and the OS has much more than what they're used to featurewise. I see only chip yields from keeping this iMac off the best seller list.
Apple will have a hot seller if they address a number of issues beyond the price point. If they don't it will sell like the iMac2, that is to people with more money than brains.
As to the average computer user they are influenced by marketing to an extent but they are also aware of the performance of other hardware that can be had. A 1.6GHz G5 is not fast relative to an AMD64 implementation. comparable maybe but fast is not in the cards.
Quote:
If you think you can be more productive with a PC running at 3Ghz then by all means prove us wrong. However, I doubt many of us will be dining on crow anytime soon.
If it was a question of productivity Apple would be selling a lot more hardware to the corporate world. It is prety plain and simple. Besides a 3GHz PC running Linux or other UNIX platform is an entirely different beast.
Quote:
Apple's sales are stagnant and that's a plus because the sales were on the decline years ago before the Jobsian Resurrection.
First off Apples sales with respect the iMac are not stagnant at all, the recently went through a massive decline in sales. Are we out of touch here or what. Stagnant sales are a sure sign of trouble for any company, to try to paint this as a positive issue is foolish. Frankly the rest of Apples Mac hardware isn't doing all that great either.
Quote:
Apple has more tricks up their sleeves and more aquisitions to make. This belly aching over the iMac specs is foolhardy and will be long forgotten soon enough.
Well I can agree that it is foolhardy to get to wound up in hardware that has not been delivered yet. On the other hand there is much in the way of historical evidence about how Apple behaves in the consumer place. Much of this behaviour has lead to their lack of visibility in that market place.
One must also remember that by the time this iMac3 hardware makes it to market, a whole new generation of PC hardware will hit the market place. The new PC hardware is liekly to support PCI-Express and the latest video cards operating on that bus. They are likely to have 4 times the installed memory and possibly dual core chips. If not dual core they are very likely to be running AMD's 64 bit extensions and at a very fast clip.
What we may very well see is a new iMac that is so foar behind what is available in the PC market place that Apple may have a total flop on their hands. MacOS/X is nice but it is not nice enough to sell Apples hardware failures.
If you disagree with Res' post that's one thing, but why resort to personal attacks? I don't get some of you people. This is a discussion of the rumored specs for the next iMac, not a discussion on how some forumite must be messed in the head if his/her opinion doesn't mesh with yours.
The Apple appologists arguments are getting stale, that's the problem. Good points have been made on both sides, with the best being that Apple probably can't deliver the computers with the performance and value that the original iMac had, their chip suppliers can't produce them or can't produce them at a quantity that Apple needs, so Apple has resorted to cosmetic upgrades that increase the price of the system at a cost of further decreasing the value to the consumer.
If you want to use iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, GarageBand, Photoshope Elements, Logic Express, Final Cut Express or a modern game, a 1.6 GHz is vary slow.
I disagree... for casual use, my 867MHz Powerbook is adequate for most (if not all-- I've no experience with GarageBand & Logic Express) of those tasks. I think a 1.6 will do just fine for any of these consumer applications.
[...]
Quote:
Res you have to remember Apple could shovel crap into the next imac and the zealots would be jumping up and down how great it is. Fx5200 is crap and a 1.6 G5 from last year is still a slow cpu from last year. At least apple got the slow ,ever stagnating,behind all other cpu's G4 out of the machine so its a good half step foward. Doom3 might be able to run on this machine at 640 x 480 on low if and when it ever comes out for Mac.
It's not zealots that have driven up the percentage of Mac purchases at Colleges across the country, and it's not a desire to play Doom3, either. Believe it or not, there are other reasons people buy computers. If Apple has overcome the major shortcomings of the iMac2 (expensive & difficult to build, etc.), and if they have a healthy spec bump in 6-8 months time, I'd imagine they'll sell upwards of 1.5 million of them in the coming year-- perhaps even two million. Saddly, it'd be without gamers (other than casual gamers), but that's a far cry from the (probably) < 250k the iMac2 sold last year... The iMac, even with the anemic specs TS has, will probably be a huge hit.
What some people seem to forget when talking about computers is that no currently available system is fast enough to do much more than basic word processing in real time. Once you start rendering transitions in video, or playing around with filters on that 6 Megapixel photo you took of your grand kids, you have to wait, and wait... Things are a lot better now then they were a few years ago, but until personal computers can preform all of the desired tasks in real time, they are not as fast as the average consumer wants them to be.
Now a 1.6GHz G5 is extremely anemic when compared to a 2.4 GHz Athlon 64 or 3.4Ghz HT P4. Which is what you find in the iMacs price range. Of course what's really galling is that Apple has access to chips that are over 50% faster, but they are refusing to offer them in a iMac (or other single processor machine). Let's not forget that they are paring the slow processor with a terrible video card.
To see just how bad the 5200FX performs, here is a link to BareFeats comparing that card to a few others in a Dual 2GHz G5.
I don't expect Apple to make cheap computers, and I am willing to pay more for a Mac than I would for a PC of equivalent power. Even if they had to rase the price a little, the single processor Macs should have the same speed, or faster, chips as the dual power Macs. That is how all of the other computer companies do it.
If the rumored specs are correct, this is a very disappointing update, and I will not be getting one, nor will I recommend it to others.
That's a fair post.
Apple doesn't seem to get it.
Yeesh. Offer single cpu G5 towers with a subsequent drop in price. In the 895-£1295 range.
I'd happily pay £1295 for a 2.5 gig G5 and BTO option for a 6800. I'd be happy at that.
The perfect antidote to all this iMac G5 pain is to offer non-AIO customers a range of single cpu G5 towers for a price bracket less than the dual range. Keep the dual as workstation. Single G5 towers for enthusiasts and gamers.
Apple are too rigid with what they've got then scratch their heads about sales blaming everything but the real reason. Price. Powermacs too expensive...iMacs too aenemic. Hello...something inbetween. Doesn't need to be a cube. They've done the r&d on the tower. Give us more tower product.
Why is it that Apple decided the new PowerMacs do not need dual optical drives? Just about every PC and previous PowerMacs offered the option for dual Optical drives. I realize you can buy an external drive to be the 2nd, but never understood the reasoning for only one optical drive in such a high end computer. I like Macs a lot - especially the laptop line - but always wondered about this move. I find it hard to believe the user community of the PowerMacs does not have a need for a second built in Optical drive... Any ideas?
Why is it that Apple decided the new PowerMacs do not need dual optical drives? Just about every PC and previous PowerMacs offered the option for dual Optical drives. I realize you can buy an external drive to be the 2nd, but never understood the reasoning for only one optical drive in such a high end computer. I like Macs a lot - especially the laptop line - but always wondered about this move. I find it hard to believe the user community of the PowerMacs does not have a need for a second built in Optical drive... Any ideas?
Why is it that Apple offered iMacs with DVD read only drives when PCs were shipping with CD R/W?
It's Apple. That's the only answer I can give you. They were wrong then. They're wrong now.
Apple are great. But their greatness is flawed.
No 17 inch Alu display. No LCD display for less than £500 quid. Crap graphics in Towers and forthcoming iMacs. And a laptop/consumer line that hasn't transitioned to G5 over a year later. No Tower under £1400. No-non AIO under £1400. No BTO option on consumer machines worth nothing. OBSCENE mark-ups on ram. Dull displays on laptops when Sony laptops are shipping with bright displays. Crap CRT 17 inch in eMac. Stingy ram in all machines. Oh...and no dual optical in the 'worlds fastest computer'.
Apple's good things outweight their bad by a large margin but you'd have to thing the sun shines out their arse to believe that any of the above is acceptable in the 21st century.
[snippity-snip] Dull displays on laptops when Sony laptops are shipping with bright displays.[snippity-snip]Lemon Bon Bon
I take issue with this remark. My PowerBook screen is brighter than any laptop I've been able to put it up against. For the most part, these have been Dell, Gateway or Compaq laptops.
While the other laptops may have had a higher resolution, they certainly weren't brighter. I normally run my screen at 1/2 brightness because anything higher is too bright.
I disagree... for casual use, my 867MHz Powerbook is adequate for most (if not all-- I've no experience with GarageBand & Logic Express) of those tasks. I think a 1.6 will do just fine for any of these consumer applications.
I have a 1.25GHz Powerbook and while using Final Cut Express is enjoyable, primarily due to the ease of use, it does not provide the speed I desire. I haven't upgraded to the latest version, so I can't say how real time rendering would perform, but in order to see most of my edits, I must render sections in the timeline and wait to see if I like the change. Waiting is a pain in the butt, if I step through the edits, instead of rendering first, the play is choppy and disjointed at best, skipping a lot of frames.
Yes, even as a hobby, I want as much speed as possible for my money.
What amazes me, is Apple's absolute resistance to providing a consumer desktop that is not an AIO. It ain't that hard of a concept, if I were trying to increase market share, as Apple has stated they wish to do, I certaintly wouldn't be artificially narrowing my target market by only supplying a consumer AIO option.
Opps, to make sense, the argument I use above kind of needs the addition, "the biggest reason I am not enamored with the iMac is the cost of the LCD screen, love it, won't pay for it. Give me more power, let me select the screen at a time I choose and I'll be happy.
I take issue with this remark. My PowerBook screen is brighter than any laptop I've been able to put it up against. For the most part, these have been Dell, Gateway or Compaq laptops.
While the other laptops may have had a higher resolution, they certainly weren't brighter. I normally run my screen at 1/2 brightness because anything higher is too bright.
Go to a Sony retailer and take a look at one of the Vaio laptops with an Xbrite screen. Put one of those in a Powerbook and it would be closer to perfection.
Why is it that Apple offered iMacs with DVD read only drives when PCs were shipping with CD R/W?
It's Apple. That's the only answer I can give you. They were wrong then. They're wrong now.
You're right about the dvd-drive disaster, they where terrible wrong back than.
But I think it's quit possible that all the doomgloomers in this thread don't see what's happening.
People are not that interested anymore in monstrious specs for the lowest price. They're starting more and more to appreciate comfort in the things they're surrounding themselfs with. Especially high-tech gadgets, like digital cameras, mobile phones, mp3-players, DVcams and computers have to be fun, easy and comfortable to use, without concessions to the hardware, software or that stupid smart ass cousin they have to ask for help everytime their pc crashes when they want to print a word document.
So, bad implemented state of the art hardware is a consession too. In the long run manufacturers will lose clients.
Quote:
Apple are great. But their greatness is flawed.
No 17 inch Alu display. No LCD display for less than £500 quid. Crap graphics in Towers and forthcoming iMacs. And a laptop/consumer line that hasn't transitioned to G5 over a year later. No Tower under £1400. No-non AIO under £1400. No BTO option on consumer machines worth nothing. OBSCENE mark-ups on ram. Dull displays on laptops when Sony laptops are shipping with bright displays. Crap CRT 17 inch in eMac. Stingy ram in all machines. Oh...and no dual optical in the 'worlds fastest computer'.
Apple's good things outweight their bad by a large margin but you'd have to thing the sun shines out their arse to believe that any of the above is acceptable in the 21st century.
Lemon Bon Bon
You could accept the glorious world of windows instead.
Comments
Originally posted by Rhumgod
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....
...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!
Yes, but even using two processor lines, the speeds were comperable. I would not have a problem if the Apple were shipping an iMac G4 if the speeds were comperable to the G5's, as they were back in the original iMac G3's day. That would mean a 2.5 Ghz G4 processor, which everyone knows does not exist. Beyond that the all dual line-up of the PowerMac should allow for a closer speed range between the iMac and the PowerMac, especially given the price of the iMac.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
But why not wait until we see the released product before bashing it. TS specs are rumored. And, I think, from a bad source.
This is a future hardware thread specifically to discuss the specs released by the TS article, so it is appropriate for me to voice my opinion on it here isn't it? There are definatly enough people voicing their praise of the anemic specs.
2. Think Secret is probably wrong on these specs, why? It was pretty early for them to come out of nowhere with those claims.
3. The alleged specs should not be called anemic, look at what higher ed asks for a college student to have as a minimum. Penn State says the bare minimum Mac should have 128 MB RAM, a 350 MHz G3 processor or above, a 10 GB HD, and Mac OS X.
4. We do not know what other hardware introductions Apple may roll out.
There are tons of unanswered questions still. I think we need to hold off on flaming Apple, at least until we get concrete evidence about what this thing really is going to be....which probably won'y happen until it is actually released.
RDF plain and simple. MOST of the Mac users I know don't have Macs as fast as a single 1.6Ghz G5 yet they still manage to survive. Some of you want a shotgun to kill a gnat. Speed of the computing only goes so far based on hardware alone ...we must take the OS into account as it will determine the realword speed differences.
Again you will soon see that if Apple hits $1299 with a 17" LCD these iMacs a hot seller they will be. Saying otherwise is science fiction. The avg computer user is not as savvy as many on these boards. 1.6Ghz is fast to them and the OS has much more than what they're used to featurewise. I see only chip yields from keeping this iMac off the best seller list.
If you think you can be more productive with a PC running at 3Ghz then by all means prove us wrong. However, I doubt many of us will be dining on crow anytime soon.
Apple's sales are stagnant and that's a plus because the sales were on the decline years ago before the Jobsian Resurrection. Apple has more tricks up their sleeves and more aquisitions to make. This belly aching over the iMac specs is foolhardy and will be long forgotten soon enough.
I believe too that Apple is far too criticized, and without cause. Apple's sales are only increasing. It's great to see the Mac outselling the iPod, even if it is by about 15,000 units...it just says something. People are willing to pay $300 or $400 for an iPod but also $850 to $3000 on a Mac. That's great news because it shows that the Mac still has tremendous value.
It depends on what your priorities are. If you are a computer user that has embraced the digital lifestyle, then the Mac is for you. If you love being productive and making money using your computer, then the Mac is for you. If you make music, movies, are in publishing, or make web content, the Mac is for you.
If you like games and like fighting viruses, Microsoft can hook you up.
Originally posted by NittanyLionTosh
3. The alleged specs should not be called anemic, look at what higher ed asks for a college student to have as a minimum. Penn State says the bare minimum Mac should have 128 MB RAM, a 350 MHz G3 processor or above, a 10 GB HD, and Mac OS X.
Originally posted by hmurchison
People still stuck in spec whore'dom?
RDF plain and simple. MOST of the Mac users I know don't have Macs as fast as a single 1.6Ghz G5 yet they still manage to survive. Some of you want a shotgun to kill a gnat. Speed of the computing only goes so far based on hardware alone ...we must take the OS into account as it will determine the realword speed differences.
If all you want do is send e-mail and serf the web a 1.6GHz G5 is fast enough (so is a 600MHz G3 -- if that is all you do, don't bother upgrading to a new computer).
If you want to use iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, GarageBand, Photoshope Elements, Logic Express, Final Cut Express or a modern game, a 1.6 GHz is vary slow.
What some people seem to forget when talking about computers is that no currently available system is fast enough to do much more than basic word processing in real time. Once you start rendering transitions in video, or playing around with filters on that 6 Megapixel photo you took of your grand kids, you have to wait, and wait... Things are a lot better now then they were a few years ago, but until personal computers can preform all of the desired tasks in real time, they are not as fast as the average consumer wants them to be.
Now a 1.6GHz G5 is extremely anemic when compared to a 2.4 GHz Athlon 64 or 3.4Ghz HT P4. Which is what you find in the iMacs price range. Of course what's really galling is that Apple has access to chips that are over 50% faster, but they are refusing to offer them in a iMac (or other single processor machine). Let's not forget that they are paring the slow processor with a terrible video card.
To see just how bad the 5200FX performs, here is a link to BareFeats comparing that card to a few others in a Dual 2GHz G5.
I don't expect Apple to make cheap computers, and I am willing to pay more for a Mac than I would for a PC of equivalent power. Even if they had to rase the price a little, the single processor Macs should have the same speed, or faster, chips as the dual power Macs. That is how all of the other computer companies do it.
If the rumored specs are correct, this is a very disappointing update, and I will not be getting one, nor will I recommend it to others.
Originally posted by Res
something is wrong with you:
-your unhappy?
-your ying and yang are not balanced?
-your chakras are not in line?
-you're badly influenced by the dark side of the force?
-your karma stinks?
-you're a borg?
Originally posted by gar
something is wrong with you:
-your unhappy?
-your ying and yang are not balanced?
-your chakras are not in line?
-you're badly influenced by the dark side of the force?
-your karma stinks?
-you're a borg?
If you disagree with Res' post that's one thing, but why resort to personal attacks? I don't get some of you people. This is a discussion of the rumored specs for the next iMac, not a discussion on how some forumite must be messed in the head if his/her opinion doesn't mesh with yours.
Doom3 might be able to run on this machine at 640 x 480 on low if and when it ever comes out for Mac
30-60 fps with effects off. If you're lucky.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by hmurchison
People still stuck in spec whore'dom?
I think most people are concerned about value for the money, this is where Apple has failed miserably in the past. This failure is reflected in sales.
RDF plain and simple. MOST of the Mac users I know don't have Macs as fast as a single 1.6Ghz G5 yet they still manage to survive. Some of you want a shotgun to kill a gnat. Speed of the computing only goes so far based on hardware alone ...we must take the OS into account as it will determine the realword speed differences.
One can manage to survive on bread and water, but that is certain death in the long run. The problem is that the effects of a bread and water diet sneaks up on you and suddenly you are struggling to remain functional and recover. Sure there are many people that survive with old hardware for a very long time, there are also those that discover all of a sudden that they are running software that is 4 or 5 versions old and they don't have the option of upgrading due to hardware constraints.
As far as speed goes the speed of the OS and the speed of the hardware are two different things. Fast hardware can go a long way to making a OS more functional. It is extremely silly to deny this. It doesn't matter if we are talking the same versions of OS/X or an entirely different platform -- fast hardware does make a difference. If you are running the same OS and faster performance is required, you have no other option but to address hardware issues.
The problem in the past and probally with the iMac3, is that Apple simply does not attempt to configure their hardware to support their OS in a manner similar to other platforms. One issue is the slow processors Apple uses which they have little control over. The other is the use of oudated technology on new platforms. Here we are talking about limited memory and poor or barely functional video cards. This hardware supports the OS, without it the OS can not function -- good fast hardware does impact usability of the OS.
Again you will soon see that if Apple hits $1299 with a 17" LCD these iMacs a hot seller they will be. Saying otherwise is science fiction. The avg computer user is not as savvy as many on these boards. 1.6Ghz is fast to them and the OS has much more than what they're used to featurewise. I see only chip yields from keeping this iMac off the best seller list.
Apple will have a hot seller if they address a number of issues beyond the price point. If they don't it will sell like the iMac2, that is to people with more money than brains.
As to the average computer user they are influenced by marketing to an extent but they are also aware of the performance of other hardware that can be had. A 1.6GHz G5 is not fast relative to an AMD64 implementation. comparable maybe but fast is not in the cards.
If you think you can be more productive with a PC running at 3Ghz then by all means prove us wrong. However, I doubt many of us will be dining on crow anytime soon.
If it was a question of productivity Apple would be selling a lot more hardware to the corporate world. It is prety plain and simple. Besides a 3GHz PC running Linux or other UNIX platform is an entirely different beast.
Apple's sales are stagnant and that's a plus because the sales were on the decline years ago before the Jobsian Resurrection.
First off Apples sales with respect the iMac are not stagnant at all, the recently went through a massive decline in sales. Are we out of touch here or what. Stagnant sales are a sure sign of trouble for any company, to try to paint this as a positive issue is foolish. Frankly the rest of Apples Mac hardware isn't doing all that great either.
Apple has more tricks up their sleeves and more aquisitions to make. This belly aching over the iMac specs is foolhardy and will be long forgotten soon enough.
Well I can agree that it is foolhardy to get to wound up in hardware that has not been delivered yet. On the other hand there is much in the way of historical evidence about how Apple behaves in the consumer place. Much of this behaviour has lead to their lack of visibility in that market place.
One must also remember that by the time this iMac3 hardware makes it to market, a whole new generation of PC hardware will hit the market place. The new PC hardware is liekly to support PCI-Express and the latest video cards operating on that bus. They are likely to have 4 times the installed memory and possibly dual core chips. If not dual core they are very likely to be running AMD's 64 bit extensions and at a very fast clip.
What we may very well see is a new iMac that is so foar behind what is available in the PC market place that Apple may have a total flop on their hands. MacOS/X is nice but it is not nice enough to sell Apples hardware failures.
Dave
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
If you disagree with Res' post that's one thing, but why resort to personal attacks? I don't get some of you people. This is a discussion of the rumored specs for the next iMac, not a discussion on how some forumite must be messed in the head if his/her opinion doesn't mesh with yours.
The Apple appologists arguments are getting stale, that's the problem. Good points have been made on both sides, with the best being that Apple probably can't deliver the computers with the performance and value that the original iMac had, their chip suppliers can't produce them or can't produce them at a quantity that Apple needs, so Apple has resorted to cosmetic upgrades that increase the price of the system at a cost of further decreasing the value to the consumer.
If you want to use iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, GarageBand, Photoshope Elements, Logic Express, Final Cut Express or a modern game, a 1.6 GHz is vary slow.
I disagree... for casual use, my 867MHz Powerbook is adequate for most (if not all-- I've no experience with GarageBand & Logic Express) of those tasks. I think a 1.6 will do just fine for any of these consumer applications.
[...]
Res you have to remember Apple could shovel crap into the next imac and the zealots would be jumping up and down how great it is. Fx5200 is crap and a 1.6 G5 from last year is still a slow cpu from last year. At least apple got the slow ,ever stagnating,behind all other cpu's G4 out of the machine so its a good half step foward. Doom3 might be able to run on this machine at 640 x 480 on low if and when it ever comes out for Mac.
It's not zealots that have driven up the percentage of Mac purchases at Colleges across the country, and it's not a desire to play Doom3, either. Believe it or not, there are other reasons people buy computers. If Apple has overcome the major shortcomings of the iMac2 (expensive & difficult to build, etc.), and if they have a healthy spec bump in 6-8 months time, I'd imagine they'll sell upwards of 1.5 million of them in the coming year-- perhaps even two million. Saddly, it'd be without gamers (other than casual gamers), but that's a far cry from the (probably) < 250k the iMac2 sold last year... The iMac, even with the anemic specs TS has, will probably be a huge hit.
What some people seem to forget when talking about computers is that no currently available system is fast enough to do much more than basic word processing in real time. Once you start rendering transitions in video, or playing around with filters on that 6 Megapixel photo you took of your grand kids, you have to wait, and wait... Things are a lot better now then they were a few years ago, but until personal computers can preform all of the desired tasks in real time, they are not as fast as the average consumer wants them to be.
Now a 1.6GHz G5 is extremely anemic when compared to a 2.4 GHz Athlon 64 or 3.4Ghz HT P4. Which is what you find in the iMacs price range. Of course what's really galling is that Apple has access to chips that are over 50% faster, but they are refusing to offer them in a iMac (or other single processor machine). Let's not forget that they are paring the slow processor with a terrible video card.
To see just how bad the 5200FX performs, here is a link to BareFeats comparing that card to a few others in a Dual 2GHz G5.
I don't expect Apple to make cheap computers, and I am willing to pay more for a Mac than I would for a PC of equivalent power. Even if they had to rase the price a little, the single processor Macs should have the same speed, or faster, chips as the dual power Macs. That is how all of the other computer companies do it.
If the rumored specs are correct, this is a very disappointing update, and I will not be getting one, nor will I recommend it to others.
That's a fair post.
Apple doesn't seem to get it.
Yeesh. Offer single cpu G5 towers with a subsequent drop in price. In the 895-£1295 range.
I'd happily pay £1295 for a 2.5 gig G5 and BTO option for a 6800. I'd be happy at that.
The perfect antidote to all this iMac G5 pain is to offer non-AIO customers a range of single cpu G5 towers for a price bracket less than the dual range. Keep the dual as workstation. Single G5 towers for enthusiasts and gamers.
Apple are too rigid with what they've got then scratch their heads about sales blaming everything but the real reason. Price. Powermacs too expensive...iMacs too aenemic. Hello...something inbetween. Doesn't need to be a cube. They've done the r&d on the tower. Give us more tower product.
Lemon Bon Bon
Curious...
Why is it that Apple decided the new PowerMacs do not need dual optical drives? Just about every PC and previous PowerMacs offered the option for dual Optical drives. I realize you can buy an external drive to be the 2nd, but never understood the reasoning for only one optical drive in such a high end computer. I like Macs a lot - especially the laptop line - but always wondered about this move. I find it hard to believe the user community of the PowerMacs does not have a need for a second built in Optical drive... Any ideas?
Why is it that Apple offered iMacs with DVD read only drives when PCs were shipping with CD R/W?
It's Apple. That's the only answer I can give you. They were wrong then. They're wrong now.
Apple are great. But their greatness is flawed.
No 17 inch Alu display. No LCD display for less than £500 quid. Crap graphics in Towers and forthcoming iMacs. And a laptop/consumer line that hasn't transitioned to G5 over a year later. No Tower under £1400. No-non AIO under £1400. No BTO option on consumer machines worth nothing. OBSCENE mark-ups on ram. Dull displays on laptops when Sony laptops are shipping with bright displays. Crap CRT 17 inch in eMac. Stingy ram in all machines. Oh...and no dual optical in the 'worlds fastest computer'.
Apple's good things outweight their bad by a large margin but you'd have to thing the sun shines out their arse to believe that any of the above is acceptable in the 21st century.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
[snippity-snip] Dull displays on laptops when Sony laptops are shipping with bright displays.[snippity-snip]Lemon Bon Bon
I take issue with this remark. My PowerBook screen is brighter than any laptop I've been able to put it up against. For the most part, these have been Dell, Gateway or Compaq laptops.
While the other laptops may have had a higher resolution, they certainly weren't brighter. I normally run my screen at 1/2 brightness because anything higher is too bright.
Originally posted by Gamblor
I disagree... for casual use, my 867MHz Powerbook is adequate for most (if not all-- I've no experience with GarageBand & Logic Express) of those tasks. I think a 1.6 will do just fine for any of these consumer applications.
I have a 1.25GHz Powerbook and while using Final Cut Express is enjoyable, primarily due to the ease of use, it does not provide the speed I desire. I haven't upgraded to the latest version, so I can't say how real time rendering would perform, but in order to see most of my edits, I must render sections in the timeline and wait to see if I like the change. Waiting is a pain in the butt, if I step through the edits, instead of rendering first, the play is choppy and disjointed at best, skipping a lot of frames.
Yes, even as a hobby, I want as much speed as possible for my money.
What amazes me, is Apple's absolute resistance to providing a consumer desktop that is not an AIO. It ain't that hard of a concept, if I were trying to increase market share, as Apple has stated they wish to do, I certaintly wouldn't be artificially narrowing my target market by only supplying a consumer AIO option.
Opps, to make sense, the argument I use above kind of needs the addition, "the biggest reason I am not enamored with the iMac is the cost of the LCD screen, love it, won't pay for it. Give me more power, let me select the screen at a time I choose and I'll be happy.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
I take issue with this remark. My PowerBook screen is brighter than any laptop I've been able to put it up against. For the most part, these have been Dell, Gateway or Compaq laptops.
While the other laptops may have had a higher resolution, they certainly weren't brighter. I normally run my screen at 1/2 brightness because anything higher is too bright.
Go to a Sony retailer and take a look at one of the Vaio laptops with an Xbrite screen. Put one of those in a Powerbook and it would be closer to perfection.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Why is it that Apple offered iMacs with DVD read only drives when PCs were shipping with CD R/W?
It's Apple. That's the only answer I can give you. They were wrong then. They're wrong now.
You're right about the dvd-drive disaster, they where terrible wrong back than.
But I think it's quit possible that all the doomgloomers in this thread don't see what's happening.
People are not that interested anymore in monstrious specs for the lowest price. They're starting more and more to appreciate comfort in the things they're surrounding themselfs with. Especially high-tech gadgets, like digital cameras, mobile phones, mp3-players, DVcams and computers have to be fun, easy and comfortable to use, without concessions to the hardware, software or that stupid smart ass cousin they have to ask for help everytime their pc crashes when they want to print a word document.
So, bad implemented state of the art hardware is a consession too. In the long run manufacturers will lose clients.
Apple are great. But their greatness is flawed.
No 17 inch Alu display. No LCD display for less than £500 quid. Crap graphics in Towers and forthcoming iMacs. And a laptop/consumer line that hasn't transitioned to G5 over a year later. No Tower under £1400. No-non AIO under £1400. No BTO option on consumer machines worth nothing. OBSCENE mark-ups on ram. Dull displays on laptops when Sony laptops are shipping with bright displays. Crap CRT 17 inch in eMac. Stingy ram in all machines. Oh...and no dual optical in the 'worlds fastest computer'.
Apple's good things outweight their bad by a large margin but you'd have to thing the sun shines out their arse to believe that any of the above is acceptable in the 21st century.
Lemon Bon Bon
You could accept the glorious world of windows instead.
Boy, would you be happy.