Apple unveils the new iMac G5

11618202122

Comments

  • Reply 341 of 440
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aurora

    I would take that with a grain of salt, notice no frame rates only a percentage of faster then G4 which i dont think is true either, Apple has made it a habit of s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g the truth a little on its own benches.



    No they haven't
  • Reply 342 of 440
    thttht Posts: 3,149member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kcmac

    I would be interested in why you wouldn't recommend the high end.



    My initial thoughts are that for a 20" monitor with 1680x1050 resolution and Quartz Extreme/CoreImage/CoreVideo Tiger, I think the FX5200 Ultra with 64 MB is a little weak. That's just a nagging thing really. Expose seems to work fine on my 8 MB iBook 500, so I'm probably wrong. For most purposes, I think it is fine though. It'll work fine for its entire lifetime outside of 3D games and 3D apps that require a lot of graphics memory and pixel pushing.



    All three models really hit a nice price point for their performance, and I would struggle in deciding which model to take.



    Quote:

    PC 3200 is listed on the Apple store and I called Memory to Go who says it is the same thing. Is it?



    That's what Apple says. You may want to wait on the 3rd party RAM to make sure.
  • Reply 343 of 440
    Quote:

    Originally posted by johnq

    What is particularly odd is that the Apple Wireless Mouse and Keyboard are nowhere to be seen when going through the normal purchasing process, not even on subsequent "Apple Extras" section.....what's the deal? I thought adding the Bluetooth module might toggle them but it doesn't. Strange.



    You can select it under the Keyboard options. The only options before used to be English or Spanish keyboards. Now, you can select the wireless keyboard.
  • Reply 344 of 440
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Cosmic Trigger

    You can select it under the Keyboard options. The only options before used to be English or Spanish keyboards. Now, you can select the wireless keyboard.



    Ah!! Ok...I saw the Mac OS X disc icon and totally ignored it Since I wasn't really buying I was in skim mode looking at the icons Missed the clearly labeled "Apple Keyboard & Mouse" title...
  • Reply 345 of 440
    thttht Posts: 3,149member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Apple always chintzes on BTO when they first release a product, because the mere option of BTO makes a model more expensive to manufacture. Once the kinks are out and the line is running smoothly, they have the option of doing BTO.[/b]



    Yeah, but when has Apple really ever offered BTO options in the iMac? The biggies would be CPU options, graphics options, and LCD resolutions.



    Quote:

    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.



    Apple doesn't have to make the iMac cater to everyone. What they should do is have different machines cater to as many niches as possible or prudent. The iMac G5 is fine, I think it hits all the right price points, but what's wrong with them offering a G5 mini (1.6/1.8/2.0 GHz cpus, 1 AGP, 1 PCI, 1 hard drive) starting from $999 and a 17" monitor for $499 in addition to the iMac G5? They could get pretty good margins if enough people buy Apple monitor, especially the 20" and 23" monitors. Heck, what's wrong with them offering a 15" iMac with 1.4 GHz G5 for $999?
  • Reply 346 of 440
    thttht Posts: 3,149member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by talksense101

    Was the Fx5200 Ultra in the old iMac also at AGP 8X? The performance gains of this card in the new iMac as claimed by Apple are impressive.



    As someone said before, nope. iMac G4 has AGP 4x. The benchmarks on the Apple website would only make sense if Halo and Unreal were FPU heavy apps that were memory bandwidth starved on the old iMac G4. Who knows how Apple tested it, though.
  • Reply 347 of 440
    resres Posts: 711member
    Here are my thoughts on the new iMac



    Overall Design

    The computer built behind the LCD was an interesting design choice, especially since Steve Jobs mentioned it was not a good way to go when he introduced the iMac2. The problems with this design are still here (because of the vertical placement of the optical drive, this model is stuck with a slower superdrive), but they went with it anyway. One also wonders if cooling constraints do to the thin size will prevent Apple from putting in faster G5s and graphics cards in the future.



    The VESA mount is something that I really like about this design. It will allow some very interesting mounting options.



    As for the color: Apple's insistence on using industrial white for a consumer machine is unfathomable. One of the reasons that the iMac 1 sold so well was that it gave people a choice in colors so that they could choose one that went with their decor or personality. If they ever want a new iMac to sell as well as the original models they must give consumers a choice of colors (or if they are only going to use one, make it black, or even silver).



    Price and Performance

    Well, we all know were the major problems are here, and the granddaddy of them all is the use of one of the weakest graphic cards still being sold. The Nvidea 5200 Ultra is a bad joke of a video card, and it is crippling what would otherwise be a fairly decent system (a little overpriced and underpowered, but not that bad for Apple). Here is a Barefeats link (note: they are using a 2GHz G5 on those tests, so it will be worse on the iMac) and a few Tom's Hardware links Link 1 Link2 Link 3 that show just how lame a card the FX 5200 ultra is by todays standards (actually the Tom's Hardware article is from last year, and even then the FX 5200 ultra was a dog of a card).



    The truly sad thing is that it would only add about $40 to the cost to put in a decent video-card. Gaming makes up over half of computer software sales -- why in heavens name is Apple trying to avoid that market by crippling the iMac's graphics, when it would only take a few dollars more to make it a computer that would handle most of the games? I know Steve Jobs doesn't like computer games, but this is hurting Apples bottom line -- It just dosen't make sense!
  • Reply 348 of 440
    Quote:

    The truly sad thing is that it would only add about $40 to the cost to put in a decent video-card. Gaming makes up over half of computer software sales -- why in heavens name is Apple trying to avoid that market by crippling the iMac's graphics, when it would only take a few dollars more to make it a computer that would handle most of the games? I know Steve Jobs doesn't like computer games, but this is hurting Apples bottom line -- It just dosen't make sense!



    Forgive me if I'm not current on Apple, but I believe Avi Tevaranian detests using a computer to play games. As long as he's at Apple, Macs will never be "gaming savvy". If you ask me, this is typical Ivory Tower mentality on the part of Apple. They dare to dictate the market when they control very little of it.
  • Reply 349 of 440
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Squirrel_Monkey

    Forgive me if I'm not current on Apple, but I believe Avi Tevaranian detests using a computer to play games. As long as he's at Apple, Macs will never be "gaming savvy". If you ask me, this is typical Ivory Tower mentality on the part of Apple. They dare to dictate the market when they control very little of it.



    I don't know if that is true or not, I wouldn't be surprised. It wouldn't be the only thing Apple "detests" people doing with their Macs. Your last sentence could not be any truer.
  • Reply 350 of 440
    Has anyone heard what the actual surface of the iMac is?



    It was supposed to be brushed aluminum... but it looks like it is coated with something... what is that colored hard coat stuff that they use on custom Harleys?



    I remember what it is called now -- "powder-coating". This is what it looks like to me.
  • Reply 351 of 440
    idaveidave Posts: 1,283member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ArticulatedArm

    Has anyone heard what the actual surface of the iMac is?



    I suspect it's plastic much like the iBooks. Sure looks like it.
  • Reply 352 of 440
    Has anyone checked to see what identifier is used for these new iMacs? Is it 'PowerMac 8,1' as had been rumored?
  • Reply 353 of 440
    i'm a newbie here, i know, (and i'm still in high school, so yeah, i have certain limitations on what i can afford and such) so theres a few things i'd like to say in regards to all recent events at apple expo and about many things in general.



    first of all, i like the new imac. i am currently running a 450 mhz g3 slot-load imac. its slow, but not all that bad, considering its 4 1/2 years old. the new ones are a hell of a lot better than what i've got. i'm not much of a gamer right now, but i'm interesting in getting into it. the graphics card question on the new imac i think is trivial, because most people don't need something like a radeon 9600 or something like that. it would be nice, but for most consumers, its not required. and seriously, most games these days will run fine on a 5200 ultra. if you look at the requirements for games like Halo and UT2004, they require a geforce 2. A GEFORCE 2. HONESTLY. this is a smidge bit better, last time i looked. besides, the improved CPU and frontside bus will dramatically help frame-rates and overall quality of the the games. i think everyone is being a little dramatic with the whole deal, because really, the only game thats going to cause problems with the card is Doom 3 when it comes out. until then, its not an issue. to those of you that are still skeptical, i would suggest waiting until the second incarnation of the iMac G5 so that bugs can be fixed, and so that hardware can be updated. i'm guessing prices will drop and it will go up to 2 ghz, and it will probably go to a radeon 9600 w/ 128 mb. as for normal ram and hard drive capacity, it'll probably improve as well, we'll have to see.



    for a long time i've been trying to get my parents to buy an eMac, because they're high-quality machines for a low price. its not outstanding, but its enough. the advantage over the new imac is the price and the radeon card. a 9200 isn't top of the line, but from what i've heard for a long time, the 9200 is better than the nvidia 5200 ultra. i dunno, any tips from anyone? i can get the education discounts, so i can get an eMac with a superdrive, an 80 gb HD and 512 MB RAM and and airport card for just over $1000. its a pretty good deal. on the imac side, i can get a 1.8 ghz 17-inch with comparable extras for around $1500. the ultimate question is then, should i get an emac, which is enough for what i do as well as for pretty much every game on the market right now, or should i wait 6 months or so and get the second version of the iMac G5? its a brain-teaser



    and with the powerbook g5, its still a possibility. the 2-inch thick imac is definitely a good sign, cuz it means they're getting closer. heat is still the biggest problem (perhaps even on the new imac? which is probably why they went with a less-than-the-best graphics card) so it may take a while. but keep in mind that this is the FIRST DAY of the apple expo, and there are most likely still things to come this week.
  • Reply 354 of 440
    rara Posts: 623member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacsRGood4U

    When the first iMac came out there was a round hole on the side door to run the cables through. I remember that at resellers the set ups failed to put them through the hole. Look here! Geez!!!!!!



    No, that was a thumb hole so you could open the door. If you noticed, the side of the door was curved to allow the cables to pass through without being squished.
  • Reply 355 of 440
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fishdoc

    I think my main point is simply that the new iMac, performance-per-dollar--wise, is certainly in the same ballpark as a "standard" PC.



    Fish




    For its specs the iMac is a very attractive computer but the problem isn't so much the price I don't think as much as Apple leaves a whopping great difference in price between their low end iMacs and their Powermacs. The iMac with a 20" monitor is less than the lowest PowerMac, there's no reason they couldn't fit in a more upgradeable machine to cater to people who play some games above the consumer line but below the PowerMacs. Odds on they are losing sales by not having it and BTO options would offer potential methods to boost margins.
  • Reply 356 of 440
    The one thing I want to know is whether this will play World of warcraft in native resolution @ at least 30fps.



    I think they also should have worked in a built in dock for ipods, I think that would really draw in the ipod crowd, and help the AIO aspect of the system. It won't be so pretty with a bunch of cords running from the back



    my $.02
  • Reply 357 of 440
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Res

    we all know were the major problems are here, and the granddaddy of them all is the use of one of the weakest graphic cards still being sold. The Nvidea 5200 Ultra is a bad joke of a video card



    Here's a thought: Apple probably contracted to buy a certain number of fx5200 chips from nvidia for the gen2 iMac. They didn't use them all. So they throw them into the gen3. In 3 to 6 months they release a tweaked version with improved graphics.



    Just my ruminations
  • Reply 358 of 440
    Quote:

    Originally posted by user543193

    The one thing I want to know is whether this will play World of warcraft in native resolution @ at least 30fps.



    WoW should run fine. The system requirements for the stress stress client are not that demanding. I would upgrade if this baby proves itself on the field.
  • Reply 359 of 440
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ArticulatedArm

    Has anyone heard what the actual surface of the iMac is?



    It was supposed to be brushed aluminum... but it looks like it is coated with something... what is that colored hard coat stuff that they use on custom Harleys?



    I remember what it is called now -- "powder-coating". This is what it looks like to me.




    Who says it was supposed to be brushed aluminum? Oh yes, RUMOR sites.

    It is made out of the same material that the iBook and the former LCD Mac is made out of. There seems to be a transparent outer shell with an off white inner shell - again similar to the first white iBooks. The stand is brushed aluminum. Powder coating goes over metal I believe, not plastic.



    P.S. Right about the hole in the door on the original iMac. I got it wrong. The new iMac however, seems to have that hole situated so cables can be put through it other then just the power cord.
  • Reply 360 of 440
    Does the finish resemble the iPods hi-glossy white? After all they are aiming squarely at this market so it makes sense to match 'em.
Sign In or Register to comment.