Originally posted by Banana Nut Bread I spend a great deal of money on my computer, being what the marketing people call an "enthusiast", so the price point of a Mac isn't my issue.
...
I like to tinker a little, upgrade RAM, upgrade video card, etc as I go along, and I like to squeeze as much performance out as I can, but in a small form factor.
...
The PowerMac line is just too massive for me.
...
Until I can find an Apple product that gives me the flexibility I need in a form factor I can stand, I'm stuck in the PC world, wishing I could play in the Mac world [/B]
Sounds like you want a HIGH-end mini-headless. Don't hold your breath. If anything, Apple needs a LOW-end mini-headless to create an entry cost even lower than the eMac.
Suggestion: put the PowerMac on the floor
Anyway, the G5 iMacs's not for a DIY'er, but it's a great design at the right price. They'll sell a ton. The removable foot opens up tons of possibilities.
I must say this new aesthetic (first featured on the Cinema displays) looks like something a PC manufacturer would come up with. Sure it's an Apple and looks it but the overall design and functionality doesn't look like something Jonathan Ive would come up with. Did I hear correctly that he was not involved much with this project if at all? The port placement is ill conceived and something I would expect to see on a Dell... a mess of cables dangling in mid air and rendering the wall mount option useless. The combination of a notebook drive and vertical orientation will hold speeds back. None of this seems like it was really thought through and that is not like Apple. Notice there was no promotional video this time around? It's almost as if this was the result of some abandoned PowerBook project adapted into a desktop product rather than a ground-up redesign as a new iMac. Now we know why a laptop manufacturer is producing these.
I find it very odd that this iMac embodies everything that Steve Jobs himself said would be a mistake to do when designing the previous model.
I have emailed the photos and specs to several people this morning in the 30 to 60 age group (both Mac and PC users) and none were all that thrilled with it. Many thought the drive placement was strange, the port placement was just plain terrible (the lack of inputs on the front was mentioned by all) and that the depth and weight were just not important factors to them. One good thing was the lack of complaints about pricing. It seems this may be the one thing Apple did right. I think these have the best price to performance ratio of any Apple product and they all seem to agree.
They look like neat units and I look forward to seeing them in peson, but I have to agree with those who wanted more RAM. The top end model should be 512 MB and a 128 MP video card would have been nice. Still. I might get one on the next rev if I can convince the wife.
I'm not too worried about the lack of FW800. So far, I haven't seen many devices that are supporting this. The ones that I do see are squarely aimed at a pro-audience. IMO, it is a good cost-savings move to leave FW800 out in this initial release.
Count me in a someone who isn't interested in a cheap headless Mac.
C'mon, why would I want to go searching for a monitor that looks good enough to match Apples iMacs? You people complain about the price of an iMac, but the price of their monitors!
Count me in as someone who wants a good looking machine that can live in a living room environment, that is quiet (can't stress how important that is, to ME), and that works.
Looks-wise, I think they did a great job. It does conjure the iPod in more ways than one. It's the perfect hub for your Digital Spoke! It's clean, friendly, it doesn't have the awkward proportion between the screen and the body that the 15" iMac did, and (with the wireless kb and mouse) it only has one cord. As my boss said of that last feature, it's about damn time.
I agree. I don't think most people realize how inconvenient current computer designs are. It seems that most people are oblivious to the hassle, having been conditioned into what 'computing' involves. They've come to expect boxes and wires everywhere.
One cord!
Imagine, an articulated arm suspending the iMac above your desk, swining any which way for different uses and audiences. Wifi net connection, wifi printer sharing, wifi audio output, bluetooth keyboard, bluetooth mouse...
It could have a single power cord inside the articulated arm.
I predict that a few years down the road, people will laugh at how primitive and cumbersome most computers are today. Once liberated by such designs it will be hard for people to go back to a world where computers occupy their entire desk and wires dangling everywhere.
I couldent agree more, but what do you think about the heat issue? I still think this video card is on the low end of what it almost needed to be a consumer level machine these days. I feel like they would have spent the additional $8-10 per machine to put in a better GPU if there wasnt something else hindering the process.
Well, if it was heat related they could of used an ATI 9700 mobile chip. I still think it?s budget related, Apples development team was given a max price tag and they ran with it. We will never know the full story on Apples decision to use the 5200 but I do know this the iMac update will have a better video card and that?s when I?ll buy.
I would be interested in why you wouldn't recommend the high end. That is what I am getting ready to order mainly because the screen appears to have better specs than the 17". And I keep my machines for awhile. (Still have the iMac DVSE 400).
I am going to order it with the base RAM at 256. Buying 1GB for $148 (vs. $225 on Apple store) at Memory to Go.
[/b].As for the "cheap headless box," I have to say that "everyone" does not include me. A cheap headless box is a toy for some geeks (not all geeks, or I'd want one). It's not a consumer product. [/B]
Consumers have spoken and said quite clearly that an inexpensive headless box is exactly what they want. This iMac3 is what's not a consumer product, it's a cheap comp married to an expensive LCD for those who are willing to throw out a perfectly good display in 2-4 years.
I do not make money off my Mac and yet as a consumer I have upgraded the past 4 Macs I've owned. (memory, video card, hard drives, cdrom drives, and in the case of the Performa 6400 it got a new cpu and mobo, now a 6500)
Course I suppose they put out upgrades because no one buys them. And don't give me that lame only gamers upgrade spiel. If that were the case there would be a lot fewer choices in upgrades.
Here's to another few years of Apple wondering why this iMac isn't doing as well as they'd expected.
I predict that at least Half of AI will be disapointed.
I was right!!!!! Dead on!!!! I could not have predicted the new iMac better!!!!!!!
I too am disappointed, as This is not a computer for me. I had hoped they would get it down to $999.
I mean, if they charge $699 for the 17" lcd. $1299 - $699 is $600 Where is that computer. Just give me the computer without the display. That's all I want.
Glad to see they have a monitor for less than $1299. Oh wait they don't.
Although I am glad they brought the price down on the 2 higher priced ones.
At first glance, i thought OMG. By the time I'd read the iMac mini site, I was seriously thinking about ordering on the spot. Yeah the Graphics are weak, Yeah I wanted 2.0ghz, but this is a seriously neat piece of engineering, and the price in the UK is simply unbelievably good. It is the perfect computer for anyone in the midrange catagory, non gamer.
am i seeing things correctly that the mouse and keyboard are wireless? that is going to be such a selling point in the retail market! people simply hate wires..
I just find that Sony always charges too much as well as Apple does. I'm not talking about bargain companies...just the likes of Dell, HP and Gateway.
But to be fair you need to see what else the iMac compete's against and that includes the "overpriced" ones as well. You can't just slam Apple based on the fact that you can get cheap PCs.
I just popped over to HP's site and configured a a650y machine very similar to the Dell in my earlier post and it comes to $1358 with rebates.
Spec for spec these new iMacs are competitive with quality PCs. The price is certainly not an issue.
What percentage of the entire computer buying public are gamers?
If you follow the statistics, more and more of the population are. Especially the lucrative 20-30 something male audience. Wired ran a story recently about falling TV viewership, and companies are moving toward advertising in games to get eyeballs back.
Quote:
I would guess a very small percentage buy a computer because it can run the latest game.
But people don't buy computers because it can't run the latest games full speed - and will not be able to run any future latest games decently. This is where the current iMac falls short. Sure, it can play last year's games fine, and probably this year's games ok. But next year and the year after that games will be pushing new boundaries and iMac owners will watch their GPU fall further behind even though their CPU, bus, memory, etc. will still be up to the task.
Quote:
People buy computers to download pictures from their digital camera so that they can email those digital photographs to grandma and grandpa who will then print them out and hang them on the 'frige. The latest greatest video card is not required for any of these tasks. Anyways, buy an xbox, playstation, or a gamecube if you want to play games.
That is one target market. Another is the junior/senior high school aged students who want/need a machine to do schoolwork on - and oh, by the way play GAMES. When Johnny or Jane are telling their parents which computer to buy, they're going to say, "Oh, don't buy that one, it's not upgradeable. We'll have to buy a new one in two years." And as a smart parent, I would take future-proofness into account when buying a machine for a child just reaching the age of getting their own computer.
Certainly there is a large chunk of Apple's target market who don't care about such things and couldn't spell GPU with a three key keyboard. But that just means Apple's targeting ignorant people, and alienating the informed consumers.
Yes, the current iMac is a fine machine - today. Yes, Apple will sell them as fast as they can make them. But when OS X 10.4 comes out with all those cool 3D effects I suspect people are going to really start whining about how inadequate the 5200 GPU is. Sure, Apple may have cooler G5s by then and have iMacs with faster GPUs, but that will just make current iMac buyers mad.
Sorry, this turned into kind of a long rant. Apple's been in the biz a long time. They'll make money on the new machines.
Comments
Originally posted by Banana Nut Bread I spend a great deal of money on my computer, being what the marketing people call an "enthusiast", so the price point of a Mac isn't my issue.
...
I like to tinker a little, upgrade RAM, upgrade video card, etc as I go along, and I like to squeeze as much performance out as I can, but in a small form factor.
...
The PowerMac line is just too massive for me.
...
Until I can find an Apple product that gives me the flexibility I need in a form factor I can stand, I'm stuck in the PC world, wishing I could play in the Mac world
Sounds like you want a HIGH-end mini-headless. Don't hold your breath. If anything, Apple needs a LOW-end mini-headless to create an entry cost even lower than the eMac.
Suggestion: put the PowerMac on the floor
Anyway, the G5 iMacs's not for a DIY'er, but it's a great design at the right price. They'll sell a ton. The removable foot opens up tons of possibilities.
I find it very odd that this iMac embodies everything that Steve Jobs himself said would be a mistake to do when designing the previous model.
I have emailed the photos and specs to several people this morning in the 30 to 60 age group (both Mac and PC users) and none were all that thrilled with it. Many thought the drive placement was strange, the port placement was just plain terrible (the lack of inputs on the front was mentioned by all) and that the depth and weight were just not important factors to them. One good thing was the lack of complaints about pricing. It seems this may be the one thing Apple did right. I think these have the best price to performance ratio of any Apple product and they all seem to agree.
So to sum up:
Poor design.
Great price to performance ratio.
I will be getting a PowerBook.
I'm tired.
C'mon, why would I want to go searching for a monitor that looks good enough to match Apples iMacs? You people complain about the price of an iMac, but the price of their monitors!
Count me in as someone who wants a good looking machine that can live in a living room environment, that is quiet (can't stress how important that is, to ME), and that works.
Originally posted by Amorph
Looks-wise, I think they did a great job. It does conjure the iPod in more ways than one. It's the perfect hub for your Digital Spoke!
I agree. I don't think most people realize how inconvenient current computer designs are. It seems that most people are oblivious to the hassle, having been conditioned into what 'computing' involves. They've come to expect boxes and wires everywhere.
One cord!
Imagine, an articulated arm suspending the iMac above your desk, swining any which way for different uses and audiences. Wifi net connection, wifi printer sharing, wifi audio output, bluetooth keyboard, bluetooth mouse...
It could have a single power cord inside the articulated arm.
I predict that a few years down the road, people will laugh at how primitive and cumbersome most computers are today. Once liberated by such designs it will be hard for people to go back to a world where computers occupy their entire desk and wires dangling everywhere.
Originally posted by fahlman
Could someone with more time than me post a comparison the new iMac to the Sony VAIO® V310P
I already did in another thread:
The Vaio has:
15" screen
Integrated SIS graphics with 32MB shared memory
2.8GHz P4
512MB DDR SDRAM
Combo drive
All starting at $1499!
Originally posted by Playmaker
I couldent agree more, but what do you think about the heat issue? I still think this video card is on the low end of what it almost needed to be a consumer level machine these days. I feel like they would have spent the additional $8-10 per machine to put in a better GPU if there wasnt something else hindering the process.
Well, if it was heat related they could of used an ATI 9700 mobile chip. I still think it?s budget related, Apples development team was given a max price tag and they ran with it. We will never know the full story on Apples decision to use the 5200 but I do know this the iMac update will have a better video card and that?s when I?ll buy.
I would be interested in why you wouldn't recommend the high end. That is what I am getting ready to order mainly because the screen appears to have better specs than the 17". And I keep my machines for awhile. (Still have the iMac DVSE 400).
I am going to order it with the base RAM at 256. Buying 1GB for $148 (vs. $225 on Apple store) at Memory to Go.
http://www.memorytogo.com/COMPONEX/i...%2D1GB&eq=&Tp=
PC 3200 is listed on the Apple store and I called Memory to Go who says it is the same thing.
Is it?
Thanks.
Originally posted by Amorph
[/b].As for the "cheap headless box," I have to say that "everyone" does not include me. A cheap headless box is a toy for some geeks (not all geeks, or I'd want one). It's not a consumer product. [/B]
Consumers have spoken and said quite clearly that an inexpensive headless box is exactly what they want. This iMac3 is what's not a consumer product, it's a cheap comp married to an expensive LCD for those who are willing to throw out a perfectly good display in 2-4 years.
I do not make money off my Mac and yet as a consumer I have upgraded the past 4 Macs I've owned. (memory, video card, hard drives, cdrom drives, and in the case of the Performa 6400 it got a new cpu and mobo, now a 6500)
Course I suppose they put out upgrades because no one buys them. And don't give me that lame only gamers upgrade spiel. If that were the case there would be a lot fewer choices in upgrades.
Here's to another few years of Apple wondering why this iMac isn't doing as well as they'd expected.
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
So to sum up:
Poor design.
Great price to performance ratio.
I will be getting a PowerBook.
I'm tired.
On that note, I wish everyone a pleasent Macnight and I am out of here.
Originally posted by tak1108
I predict that at least Half of AI will be disapointed.
I was right!!!!! Dead on!!!! I could not have predicted the new iMac better!!!!!!!
I too am disappointed, as This is not a computer for me. I had hoped they would get it down to $999.
I mean, if they charge $699 for the 17" lcd. $1299 - $699 is $600 Where is that computer. Just give me the computer without the display. That's all I want.
Glad to see they have a monitor for less than $1299. Oh wait they don't.
Although I am glad they brought the price down on the 2 higher priced ones.
Originally posted by Bancho
Oh, so it's not ok to compare Apple to an expensively priced PC but it's fine to pit them against homebuilt or bargain basement ones?
I just find that Sony always charges too much as well as Apple does. I'm not talking about bargain companies...just the likes of Dell, HP and Gateway.
Originally posted by Bancho
I already did in another thread:
The Vaio has:
15" screen
Integrated SIS graphics with 32MB shared memory
2.8GHz P4
512MB DDR SDRAM
Combo drive
All starting at $1499!
I'd say the mid-range iMac G5 pretty well cleans the floor with that thing, spec-wise. The Sony has 40 GB more HD space, and 256 more MB RAM, but "integrated" graphics and a combo drive? Plus, you'd have to suffer through Windows. And I'm sure that new Viao® Creation© Suite is Real Good.?
I hope it sells by the millions.
Originally posted by tak1108
I was right!!!!! Dead on!!!! I could not have predicted the new iMac better!!!!!!!
Way to go nostradamus, here's a cookie.
Originally posted by trajik78
I just find that Sony always charges too much as well as Apple does. I'm not talking about bargain companies...just the likes of Dell, HP and Gateway.
But to be fair you need to see what else the iMac compete's against and that includes the "overpriced" ones as well. You can't just slam Apple based on the fact that you can get cheap PCs.
I just popped over to HP's site and configured a a650y machine very similar to the Dell in my earlier post and it comes to $1358 with rebates.
Spec for spec these new iMacs are competitive with quality PCs. The price is certainly not an issue.
Originally posted by fahlman
What percentage of the entire computer buying public are gamers?
If you follow the statistics, more and more of the population are. Especially the lucrative 20-30 something male audience. Wired ran a story recently about falling TV viewership, and companies are moving toward advertising in games to get eyeballs back.
I would guess a very small percentage buy a computer because it can run the latest game.
But people don't buy computers because it can't run the latest games full speed - and will not be able to run any future latest games decently. This is where the current iMac falls short. Sure, it can play last year's games fine, and probably this year's games ok. But next year and the year after that games will be pushing new boundaries and iMac owners will watch their GPU fall further behind even though their CPU, bus, memory, etc. will still be up to the task.
People buy computers to download pictures from their digital camera so that they can email those digital photographs to grandma and grandpa who will then print them out and hang them on the 'frige. The latest greatest video card is not required for any of these tasks. Anyways, buy an xbox, playstation, or a gamecube if you want to play games.
That is one target market. Another is the junior/senior high school aged students who want/need a machine to do schoolwork on - and oh, by the way play GAMES. When Johnny or Jane are telling their parents which computer to buy, they're going to say, "Oh, don't buy that one, it's not upgradeable. We'll have to buy a new one in two years." And as a smart parent, I would take future-proofness into account when buying a machine for a child just reaching the age of getting their own computer.
Certainly there is a large chunk of Apple's target market who don't care about such things and couldn't spell GPU with a three key keyboard. But that just means Apple's targeting ignorant people, and alienating the informed consumers.
Yes, the current iMac is a fine machine - today. Yes, Apple will sell them as fast as they can make them. But when OS X 10.4 comes out with all those cool 3D effects I suspect people are going to really start whining about how inadequate the 5200 GPU is. Sure, Apple may have cooler G5s by then and have iMacs with faster GPUs, but that will just make current iMac buyers mad.
Sorry, this turned into kind of a long rant. Apple's been in the biz a long time. They'll make money on the new machines.
- Jasen.