First off all I think everyone here should read this.
Yes. Go read it fully!
Now go whine:
"The haters offer their assessment. The forums are ablaze with vitriolic rage. Haters pan the device for being less powerful than a Cray X1 while zealots counter that it is both smaller and lighter than a Buick Regal. The virtual slap-fight goes on and on, until obscure technical nuances like, ?It's GPU is SHIT!? become matters of life and death."
Old. I think everybody on this forum has seen that by now.
Oh, except you, until a few hours ago.
We're not whining, we're just saddened by Apple's lack of real-world sensibility.
I think what a lot of people don't want to admit to is that gamers are not even important with respect to this issue. There are others that need good video performance. A iMac G5 would almost be ideal for these people if it had the capability to perform well with OpenGL and any number of visualization packages.
The other thing that stands out is that the LCD's are rather high resolution. Thus you are starting out at a disadvantage with respect to performance. Then the system gets saddled with an outdated GPU. Frankly does not make alot of sense to me.
So I see a lot of people that could have benefitted from the iMac G5, being very disappointed in the delivered machine. It is certainly not a machine that Apple will make inroads into business with as it is suitable only for low end installations and every company has a broad spectrum of needs. So I don't see many organizations standardizing on this hardware.
In a nut shell I think Apple came real close to having a winner with this machine. It is unfortunate that they went and made a huge mistake with respect to the GPU. It certainly represents hardware that was modern two or three years ago. What is even worst is that Apple is introducing this machine and configuration and will not likely have it on the market before the Intel world comes out with a whole series of machines for the next quarter. Frankly it is baffeling that Apple would have gone this route when they know what the demand in the market place is - even more so as they know what future OS'es will be supporting.
In the end it demonstrats that Apple is still arrogant and does have much respect for the market.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by 3.1416
Agreed. However, there are lots and lots of people who want to occasionally play games, but who are not "serious gamers". The 5200FX is potentially a dealbreaker for them.
The focus on 'upgrade' is an issue - the reality is that expansion in a low cost machine is important. It is one of the reasons Apple has made little progress on some fronts.
If you are a developer of an unigue PCI card that wants to target the lower end, you can't do it on Apple hardware. Whole classes of Applications are eliminated due to the lack of capapbillity. Bit of a chicken and egg problem.
Apple just eliminates itself from consideration for many, simply because of the lack of expansion or interface slots.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by iDave
Since I'm not a gamer, there's no need for me to upgrade the GPU. I think the desire of everyone to upgrade is misstated. I also believe it has little to do with the Mac's percentage of market share.
(There are exceptions. A few people need to upgrade.)
In a nut shell this sums up the issue; for an expensive piece of hardware we are not talking about much in the way of cost to do it right. Apple didn't and they still expect us to pay the Apple tax on the hardware. I don't see that many people being gullible and going out and buying the machine.
It is sad for Apple but it appears that this machine will be about as successful as iMac2. The G5 isn't that much of a draw in and of its self and in any event it is not running fast enough to be competitive. It will be interesting to see how this machine looks with repsect to unbiased reviews and testing.
Dave
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Res
The truly sad thing is that it would only add about $40 to the cost to put in a decent video-card.
Dave I think that the whole upgrade market thing is a niche. Sure it costs Apple sales but nowhere near what many people over dramatize.
There are more computer users who just want a computer to run good when they buy it without the need for tinkering. Just as there are people who "trick" out their car with the latest accessories there are those who do the same with computers. However look at the cars driving the roads and you notice most people don't change a thing.
If users get 3 years out of the iMac G5 1.8Ghz computer then it's cost them no more than the average cable bill. Most of the features you'd need for PCI are included on the motherboard already. If you need a high end PCI then a Powermac is your choice.
The reality to me is this. Apple has far more demographic data than any of us. That data likely points to the fact that while people "like" the idea of upgradability a precious few actually utilize that feature. By reducing the upgradability you can enable 2" thick G5 computers.
Nuff said. Get a PC or Console if you're a serious gamer. Duh.
Console gaming is a different animal. Consoles are good for games that are played by multiple players on same screen, are played from a living room sofa on a TV, are not really designed for network play (this might change in the next generation of consoles though) and have the kind of controls that a console-type controller is good for. The console simply cannot replace the computer.
A PC or a Mac is good for the exact opposite type of game, and also for some games that exist for a console. But a PC costs money, a lot of it. If you go build a decent gaming PC it will set you back in the neighborhood of 700?, plus you need a screen. Consider the buyer who wants to play games, and would prefer to use a Mac for work. The obvious options are[list=1][*]1450? iMac, 700? gaming PC, need a screen[*]700? gaming/work PC, need a screen, no Mac[/list=1]A 200? option to add a GeForce 6600 to the iMac would be of great deal of interest to many buyers. Currently, if the buyer has <2500? to spend, the only solution is to make do without the Mac. Not many people are willing to pay 1450? for an OS.
I'm a serious gamer, have a console, a PC and a Mac. I have made games for a living, and will probably do that again sometime in the future.
Gaming on the Mac: I think we all need to stop for a moment and watch the RvB video right now.
Nuff said. Get a PC or Console if you're a serious gamer. Duh.
It is a funny video, but not quite true. Here is a list of games for the mac from just one online store:
4x4 Evolution 2
Active Lancer
Activision Anthology: Remix Edition
Adrenaline Sports Pack
Age of Empires II
Age of Mythology
Alien vs. Predator 2
Aliens vs Predator Gold
American McGee's Alice
Another War
Baldur's Gate II
Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal
Battlefield 1942 Deluxe Edition
Bejeweled & Alchemy
Black & White Platinum Pack
Bugdom 2
Bugdom/Bugdom 2/Nanosaur Bundle
Burning Monkey Casino
Burning Monkey Mah Jong
Burning Monkey Solitaire 3
Call of Duty
Civilization III: Game of the Year
Cliver Barker's Undying
Command & Conquer: Generals
Delta Force: Black Hawk Down
Diablo Battle Chest
Diablo II
Dominions II: The Ascension Wars
Dungeon Siege
Enigmo
Escape from Monkey Island
Europa Universalis II
F1 Championship Season 2000
Fallout
Fallout 2
Fallout/Fallout 2 Bundle
Freedom Force
Game Doctor
Ghost Master
Giants: Citizen Kabuto
Halo: Combat Evolved
Hard Rock Casino
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Harry Potter Deluxe Edition
Hearts of Iron
Hexen II and Heretic II Combo
Icewind Dale
Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb
iPuppet Presents: Colin's Classic Cards
James Bond 007: NightFire
Jinni Zeala Pinball
Kasparov Chessmate
Kelly Slater's Pro Surfer
Kickoff 2002
Knights & Merchants
Law & Order: Dead on the Money
Links Championship Edition
MacGames DVD Volume 1 (Back Issue)
MacGames DVD Volume 2 (Back Issue)
Master of Orion III
Max Payne
Medal of Honor: Allied Assault
Medal of Honor: Breakthrough
Medal of Honor: Deluxe Edition
Medal of Honor: Spearhead
MindRover
Myth III: The Wolf Age
Nanosaur 2: Hatchling
Nascar Racing 2002 Season
Nascar Racing 2003
Neverwinter Nights
Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark Expansion Pack
Neverwinter Nights: Shadow of Undrentide Expansion Pack
No One Lives Forever
No One Lives Forever 2
Pangea Super Pack
Rayman 3
Republic: The Revolution
Return to Castle Wolfenstein
Sacrifice
Shadowbane
Shrek 2
SimCity 4
Snowball Run
Solace
Soldier of Fortune 2
Space Colony
Spider-Man 2: The Game
SpyHunter
Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force Combo
Star Trek: Elite Force II
Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds
Star Wars: Jedi Knight II
Star Wars: Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy
Super Collapse II
The Best of MacGames DVD 2002
The Best of MacGames DVD 2003
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
The Sims
The Sims Hot Date
The Sims Makin' Magic
The Sims: Superstar
The Sims: Unleashed
The Sims: Vacation
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2003
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon
Tom Clancy's Raven Shield
Tomb Raider: Chronicles
Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness
Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4
Total Immersion Racing
ToySight
TRON 2.0
Tropico: Mucho Macho Edition
Unreal Tournament 2004
Victoria
Wakeboarding Unleashed
Warcraft III
Warcraft III Battle Chest
Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne
Warrior Kings
Worms 3D
Worms Blast
X-Plane Version 7
X2: Wolverine's Revenge
XIII
Zoo Tycoon
Zoo Tycoon Marine Mania
A lot of Mac users like to play games on their Mac. Telling them to switch to a PC or get a console is just dumb, and misses the point that many of us want to work and play on the same computer.
It is a fact: Consumers want to play games on their computers (over half of software sales are games). With the new iMac using 3 year old video-cards, Apple is basically shooting itself in the foot. Of the four people I know who were in the market to get the new iMac, only one has decided to purchase it. Two others have decided to wait until Apple comes out with something, in the $1500 to $1600 price range, that has a better video-card. The last one (a Mac user for over 10 years) has taken the advice that so many of the people on this forum love to give out, and is switching over to PCs.
If Apple had set the price $40 higher and used a middle of the road video-card instead of the slowest one sill in production, I think that the new iMacs would have been a big hit. As it is now, I think that it will do about as well as the iMac 2 did -- OK sales, but nothing spectacular.
If Apple had set the price $40 higher and used a middle of the road video-card instead of the slowest one sill in production, I think that the new iMacs would have been a big hit. As it is now, I think that it will do about as well as the iMac 2 did -- OK sales, but nothing spectacular.
Because of games?? I'm "game" for this challege. So what are the stipulations. I guess we should give it a year huh and see if the iMac G5 sales drop off like the iMac G4. If they do not drop off are you willing to make a public apology and gladly gulp crow? I think the gaming aspect is being far overblown.
17" high quality LCD
G5 Processor
are going to make the difference. Mark your calendars ...Res will be eating some black bird Sept of 2005. I guarantee it.
It is certainly not a machine that Apple will make inroads into business with as it is suitable only for low end installations and every company has a broad spectrum of needs. So I don't see many organizations standardizing on this hardware.
In a nut shell I think Apple came real close to having a winner with this machine. It is unfortunate that they went and made a huge mistake with respect to the GPU.
You seem to have a very strange understanding on how computer hardware decisions are made in large organizations and businesses.
I work for a rather large insurer (some thousand desktops) in Germany and we are transitioning from Windows NT to XP. In the preparation process a lot of software had to be tested for compatibility and thereby I acquired an understanding on what the main aspects for the afore mentioned decisions are.
There is lots and lots of very specialised software, some standard stuff and a good portion of proprietary programms. All of which are essential to keep the business up and running.
For a Windows-based company it is easier to adapt to the next version of the same OS than to re-write everything for a totaly "new" (to the programmers) platform.
If a transition away from MS would ever be considered, it would be a transition to Linux because you could keep the hardware (and from there on a transition to the Mac would slowly become an option due to its Linux/Unix underpinings). They would never transition the hardware platform across the entire enterprise.
Secondly, MS-certified personell (or people that have an understanding of Windows) are by far easier to acquire on the job market than Mac-people. And although Apple does a lot of great stuff with regard to OS X client/server intregration, user profile and hard- and software asset maintenance, Windows is what these people know. Besides, adding another platform results in the necessity to install additional support workforce (helpdesks etc.).
Thirdly, all that counts is initial price. We will transition from one manufacurer to another. But it will be a slow transition: only computers that need to be replaced (due to age, for example) will be replaced.
Spec wise, these systems could be had cheaper from your local computer store, but a certain level of quality and reliability needs to be assured.
And you know what: There is hardly any relevance to what GPU these things sport. I would be surprised if they had something like the FX5200 Ultra. It will be some integrated stuff. As long as it reliably shows all your documents, noone cares! They don't do games or heavy 3d stuff.
You could say that soon (as soon as Longhorn is coming out) the machines would need to be compatible to DirectX 9.something. Well, as stated, one OS platform will be kept as long as there is support (security updates) form the manufacturer because it is such a hassle to switch.
So, even if the iMac had a G6 with a top of the line PCI-Express GPU at a price substantially under that of a Windows machine, the company I work for would not switch (to the Mac, that is). And I assume that this company is pretty similar to most other big computing installations: running office software and old proprietary stuff (resulting in a slow hardware upgrade cycle).
Did I mention that the choice of GPU is irrelevant as long as it does what it is supposed to?
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
In the end it demonstrats that Apple is still arrogant and does have much respect for the market.
This might be true to the extent that not everyone can get exactly the system he wants/needs at the desired price point. But it could be that (due to Apple's limited production and marketing capabilities) the path they chose to take is the most profitable.
Because of games?? I'm "game" for this challege. So what are the stipulations. I guess we should give it a year huh and see if the iMac G5 sales drop off like the iMac G4. If they do not drop off are you willing to make a public apology and gladly gulp crow? I think the gaming aspect is being far overblown.
17" high quality LCD
G5 Processor
are going to make the difference. Mark your calendars ...Res will be eating some black bird Sept of 2005. I guarantee it.
I would be willing to bet that if Apple gave the users a choice of the current iMac models, and ones that were $40 more expensive with a good graphics card, that the ones with the good video card would outsell the ones with the FX5200u card by over a 3-1 margin. Don't put a three year old video-card in a new machine -- that's not too hard a concept to understand.
You might not like it, but games make of over 50% [edit that was supposed to be 30% not a 50%] of computer software sales -- so yes, a lot of us are flabbergasted by the near sighted fools who, for some strange reason, want Apple to avoid as much of that market as they can. Overblown. Right...
If Apple had put in a good video card and offered colors, I think that this version of the iMac would have sold as well (or even better than) the original iMac. As it is I don't think we will be seeing numbers like that. Although, since so many people have been holding off buying a new computer until the iMac G5 came out I would expect really good sales at first (and if Apple comes out with a relatively quick upgrade to the video-card it might be able to maintain those sales).
I really wish that people would drop the discussion of games in relation to the GPU. For many that has nothing to do with it, games are often a secondary consideration.
At issue is getting good performance for the dollar expended, which once again Apple has ignored. There are many applications where the new iMac would have been ideal if it wasn't for the selection of the GPU. It would have made a nice engineering workstation in a network connected work group. Like wise there was potential for the machine to be applied in a content development environment. There are many other applications where this machine could have been applied if Apple hadn't screwed up again.
If Apple had come out with one model with this GPU as a low end machine I would not be raising the stink I'm am now. The problem is that they have 3 models all with the worst GPU on the market and they are trying to sell them at an unreasonably high price.
The other thing that people seem to underestimate is that the LCD's are high resolution and thus require more form the GPU in the first place. This gets even worst with the 20" model. People are concerned about the poor performance of this GPU are quoting performance figures based on low resolution bench marking. Does anybody reasonably believe that the GPU will get better at the native resolution of the 20" screen?
My suspicion is that Apple has the GPU soldered into the main board and was not willing to do a minor rev to support another GPU. That is my guess anyways as I'm not sure where the GPU is located. Having everything soldered into one board is a good thing and potentially could lead to longer life for the computer. But this is not reason enough to ignore pretty obvious consumer demand.
In the end I believe that people here should seriously consider getting a linux based machine and sending their purchase receipts to Apple to show them where all that potential sales money went to. It is pretty pathetic that Apple has continued to ignore consumer demand, even in the face of the terrible sales of the iMac3. It is sort of like Ground Hog Day, they just continue to recycle the same failed marketing programs again and again and again. Why I don't know as it certianly isn't helping the bottom line.
Remember this though the issue is not gaming for many of us. It is simply not wanting to lay down a lot of money and get screwed royally. Frankly that IS what Apple is doing with their customers by offering the configurations listed. It is time to shut down this gravy train and put Apple on a diet. Maybe after loosing a few hundred million they will wise up and deliver what is wanted by their users, not by the managements teams desire to line their pockets with the excess profits off hardware that was good enough for the bargain basement crowd two years ago.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Because of games?? I'm "game" for this challege. So what are the stipulations. I guess we should give it a year huh and see if the iMac G5 sales drop off like the iMac G4. If they do not drop off are you willing to make a public apology and gladly gulp crow? I think the gaming aspect is being far overblown.
17" high quality LCD
G5 Processor
are going to make the difference. Mark your calendars ...Res will be eating some black bird Sept of 2005. I guarantee it.
I assure you %50 of software sales are not games. While I do not doubt the clout of the gaming industry(its revenues surpass that of Hollywoods) I have seen far too much importance placed on gaming. Does the smart family buy a computer for gaming or just wise up and grab the Xbox for $149 on sale.
My thesis is this.
Consumers are tired of being afraid to put their computer on the internet. They are tired of viruses, trojans, worms and setting up firewalls. They want their peaceful lives back. They want to regain the computing innocence that they had before. Enter Apple. A nice friendly system that is easy to setup and highly functional. The consumer now realizes that gaming on consoles is the more frugal way. They realize that console games can be rented at the local blockbuster. Fiscal sense awashes them and cleanses the geek disease that afflicts them. They grab their credit card..the new iMac is theirs.
My point is games are important but spending $1300+ to get them is foolish. DOOM will be available on consoles soon. Half Life will never come to the Mac. The horse isn't just dead on this subjects it's been ground into the Earth.
My point is games are important but spending $1300+ to get them is foolish.
I completely disagree with that statement.
There is not a single person that I have ever heard of that has spent $1300+ on just games.
With a $1300 computer you can not only game, but you can surf the web, use the computer for schoolwork, etc... burn CDs, DVDs. You can use a high end PC to edit video, create 3d renderings, run photoshop, and the list goes on.
I agree... $1300 on a unit whos sole purpose is to play games is stupid.
I for one consider myself somewhat of a hardcore gamer, but I would estimate only 10% of the time spent on my computer is dedicated to games.
I guess my point is, for $1300 you get a whole lot more than just games.
You seem to have a very strange understanding on how computer hardware decisions are made in large organizations and businesses.
Not really at all, in fact my job requires close relationships with the IT folks. We are talking a large corporation here.
Quote:
I work for a rather large insurer (some thousand desktops) in Germany and we are transitioning from Windows NT to XP. In the preparation process a lot of software had to be tested for compatibility and thereby I acquired an understanding on what the main aspects for the afore mentioned decisions are.
The environment I'm in is a bit different with research, production and professional departments all in the same building. We likewise have the same problems with software and hardware. The differnece is that there can be a huge difference in the performance demand from one end of the building to the other. In every case though the goal is to meet those demands at a reasonable price point.
Quote:
There is lots and lots of very specialised software, some standard stuff and a good portion of proprietary programms. All of which are essential to keep the business up and running.
Same here. I'm geussing though that we have a wider range of performance demands. Some ding bat in the management group certianly doesn't need the GPU performance of a CAD station, nor the expasnion capability required to interface to production equipment or the metrology end of the business.
Quote:
For a Windows-based company it is easier to adapt to the next version of the same OS than to re-write everything for a totaly "new" (to the programmers) platform.
This is very much the case, but that was not what I was getting at. The point I'm trying to make is that the current iMac is only good for low end installations. Apple offfers nothing that produces a signifcant boost in performance within the iMac line. It does make one wodner why they even bothered to offer three models. One could even suggest that the 20" model may see a signifcant drop in performance relative to the other model due to all the extra pixels to drive.
Quote:
If a transition away from MS would ever be considered, it would be a transition to Linux because you could keep the hardware (and from there on a transition to the Mac would slowly become an option due to its Linux/Unix underpinings). They would never transition the hardware platform across the entire enterprise.
Yep Linux is a much greater threat to Apple than MS ever was. Few people seem to realize this but it is very much the case. I'm running FC2 now matter of fact.
As to the entire enterprise that would depend on the enterprise. Here such things would likely happen on a departmental basis.
Quote:
Secondly, MS-certified personell (or people that have an understanding of Windows) are by far easier to acquire on the job market than Mac-people. And although Apple does a lot of great stuff with regard to OS X client/server intregration, user profile and hard- and software asset maintenance, Windows is what these people know. Besides, adding another platform results in the necessity to install additional support workforce (helpdesks etc.).
I can't say that I'm all that impressed with MS certified personnel. Yeah some can be usefull, but many of them only know what they have been trained to know and have a very thin depth of knowledge. Generally there is a lot more happening than just MS systems in a large faclity. Heck there are still UNIX mainframes sitting in our facility.
Quote:
Thirdly, all that counts is initial price. We will transition from one manufacurer to another. But it will be a slow transition: only computers that need to be replaced (due to age, for example) will be replaced.
Price is always important but that is only part of the equation. You certianly wouldn't saddle the people doing vision system work in our plant with a PC suitable for a manager.
Quote:
Spec wise, these systems could be had cheaper from your local computer store, but a certain level of quality and reliability needs to be assured.
This is one that I always love to hear. Midn you I'm oftne the one that has to lug fialed hardware off the floor, but hey we bought from the approved manufacture and made sure that none of the money spent remained in the community.
When I hear such a tone coming from somebody I immediately suspect their ethics!
Quote:
And you know what: There is hardly any relevance to what GPU these things sport. I would be surprised if they had something like the FX5200 Ultra. It will be some integrated stuff. As long as it reliably shows all your documents, noone cares! They don't do games or heavy 3d stuff.
That is fanatastic if a whole facility can run off one model PC but that can't happen every where. By the same token not everybody needs a big tower. There are however a range of applications that could user much better GPU performance and a reasonable boost in processor power. Unfortunately Apple decided not to offer a model that can support a wide range of users.
Quote:
You could say that soon (as soon as Longhorn is coming out) the machines would need to be compatible to DirectX 9.something. Well, as stated, one OS platform will be kept as long as there is support (security updates) form the manufacturer because it is such a hassle to switch.
So, even if the iMac had a G6 with a top of the line PCI-Express GPU at a price substantially under that of a Windows machine, the company I work for would not switch (to the Mac, that is). And I assume that this company is pretty similar to most other big computing installations: running office software and old proprietary stuff (resulting in a slow hardware upgrade cycle).
Did I mention that the choice of GPU is irrelevant as long as it does what it is supposed to?
By the same token the GPU is very relavant if it impacts productivity. Sure that is not the case everywhere, even in out plant, but it has to be considered.
Quote:
This might be true to the extent that not everyone can get exactly the system he wants/needs at the desired price point. But it could be that (due to Apple's limited production and marketing capabilities) the path they chose to take is the most profitable.
Well I'm certain that Apple thought that the iMac2 would be profitable for them also, but I would imagine that they never really did well with the machine. By the same token the iMac3 will be a similar drag on company performance. There is little sense in offering three models where for the most part the only variation is in the screen size.
To really maintain profitablity they need to introduce hardware that sells well. Having just one performance point in the iMac is just plain stupid.
...By the same token the iMac3 will be a similar drag on company performance. There is little sense in offering three models where for the most part the only variation is in the screen size....
Gosh, you're a hard guy to please. This new consumer model comes in three versions for very good reasons. The low end is for the budget conscious or those who have no need for a superdrive. The middle model gets you a slightly faster processor and superdrive for just $200 more. The upper end, which seems a very good deal, gets you a big 20 inch screen and twice the hard drive space.
With regard to GPUs, you'll argue your points to the end of the earth so I don't know why I bother. My opinion is that most (not all) consumers and small-business people for whom the iMac is intended don't even know what a GPU is unless they're gamers (and you suggest we forget about the gamers' point of view). Most will never miss not having a high-end GPU and they will certainly not think their new G5 iMac is slow, just because it doesn't have one. Those who do care, should probably save for a Power Mac because they appreciate such things and know or think they'll need it. Perhaps I'd agree with you that the GPU in two of the Power Macs is underpowered.
I'd much rather see Apple put larger hard drives and more memory in their iMacs than a better GPU. In these days of digital music, photos, and video; an 80GB hard drive seems paltry. Many people would get a lot of use out of a bigger drive and more memory, unlike a GPU.
With regard to GPUs, you'll argue your points to the end of the earth so I don't know why I bother.
Yeah, me too
Quote:
My opinion is that most (not all) consumers and small-business people for whom the iMac is intended don't even know what a GPU is
I agree with that statement, as such. But while few consumers are going to specifically demand a "powerful GPU", a decent number of them do want the computer they buy to be able to play games reasonably well. If they ask their more knowledgeable friends about the iMac's capabilities in that area, they will be told (correctly) that it's not very good.
Quote:
I'd much rather see Apple put larger hard drives and more memory in their iMacs than a better GPU. In these days of digital music, photos, and video; an 80GB hard drive seems paltry. Many people would get a lot of use out of a bigger drive and more memory, unlike a GPU.
256 megs of RAM is truly ridiculous (512 should be the minimum on every Mac), but at least that's easy to fix. 80 and 160 gig HDs are ok for the large majority of users (I archive lots of shows with EyeTV and am nowhere near close to filling up my 160), and there's always Firewire external drives. If the GPU were similarly upgradeable, I'd have no problem with the 5200FX as the default.
Similar to the point made about the GPU, doubling hard disk size in the two lower end iMacs would cost perhaps $20 per unit. Compare this to buying a new external Firewire drive at close to $200 retail. Again, I think more people would benefit from a bigger default hard drive.
Some; those who do nothing but surf and email; will never come close to filling up 80GB but they'd probably be better off with an eMac. The iMac is supposedly your digital hub so I think it should come with lots of disk space.
Don't get me wrong. I'm pleased to see the new iMacs just the way they are. Compared to what they replace, they're a great value. They should sell well.
It seems to me that Apple went in to the extreme of motherboard consolidation with this model. I'm sure that graphics card is soldered to the motherboard. I am sure they cut every nickel to get the costs down as much as possible. I mean just look at the specs, almost everything is exactly the same except for screen size and hard drive size. The superdrive is not a soldered component obviously. One thing to look at in the models though is the cost of the display. It would be interesting to see what the manufacturing cost of the displays are. I imagine a 20" is under a thousand. If anything I see Apple going all out in their definition of "all-in-one."
It is going to be interesting in six months time to see how this approach has helped them.
Don't get me wrong. I'm pleased to see the new iMacs just the way they are. Compared to what they replace, they're a great value. They should sell well.
On that we agree. I can easily recommend the iMac3 to many people, whereas I couldn't with the iMac2.
Comments
Originally posted by bsodmike
First off all I think everyone here should read this.
Yes. Go read it fully!
Now go whine:
"The haters offer their assessment. The forums are ablaze with vitriolic rage. Haters pan the device for being less powerful than a Cray X1 while zealots counter that it is both smaller and lighter than a Buick Regal. The virtual slap-fight goes on and on, until obscure technical nuances like, ?It's GPU is SHIT!? become matters of life and death."
Old. I think everybody on this forum has seen that by now.
Oh, except you, until a few hours ago.
We're not whining, we're just saddened by Apple's lack of real-world sensibility.
The other thing that stands out is that the LCD's are rather high resolution. Thus you are starting out at a disadvantage with respect to performance. Then the system gets saddled with an outdated GPU. Frankly does not make alot of sense to me.
So I see a lot of people that could have benefitted from the iMac G5, being very disappointed in the delivered machine. It is certainly not a machine that Apple will make inroads into business with as it is suitable only for low end installations and every company has a broad spectrum of needs. So I don't see many organizations standardizing on this hardware.
In a nut shell I think Apple came real close to having a winner with this machine. It is unfortunate that they went and made a huge mistake with respect to the GPU. It certainly represents hardware that was modern two or three years ago. What is even worst is that Apple is introducing this machine and configuration and will not likely have it on the market before the Intel world comes out with a whole series of machines for the next quarter. Frankly it is baffeling that Apple would have gone this route when they know what the demand in the market place is - even more so as they know what future OS'es will be supporting.
In the end it demonstrats that Apple is still arrogant and does have much respect for the market.
Dave
Originally posted by 3.1416
Agreed. However, there are lots and lots of people who want to occasionally play games, but who are not "serious gamers". The 5200FX is potentially a dealbreaker for them.
If you are a developer of an unigue PCI card that wants to target the lower end, you can't do it on Apple hardware. Whole classes of Applications are eliminated due to the lack of capapbillity. Bit of a chicken and egg problem.
Apple just eliminates itself from consideration for many, simply because of the lack of expansion or interface slots.
Dave
Originally posted by iDave
Since I'm not a gamer, there's no need for me to upgrade the GPU. I think the desire of everyone to upgrade is misstated. I also believe it has little to do with the Mac's percentage of market share.
(There are exceptions. A few people need to upgrade.)
It is sad for Apple but it appears that this machine will be about as successful as iMac2. The G5 isn't that much of a draw in and of its self and in any event it is not running fast enough to be competitive. It will be interesting to see how this machine looks with repsect to unbiased reviews and testing.
Dave
Dave
Originally posted by Res
The truly sad thing is that it would only add about $40 to the cost to put in a decent video-card.
There are more computer users who just want a computer to run good when they buy it without the need for tinkering. Just as there are people who "trick" out their car with the latest accessories there are those who do the same with computers. However look at the cars driving the roads and you notice most people don't change a thing.
If users get 3 years out of the iMac G5 1.8Ghz computer then it's cost them no more than the average cable bill. Most of the features you'd need for PCI are included on the motherboard already. If you need a high end PCI then a Powermac is your choice.
The reality to me is this. Apple has far more demographic data than any of us. That data likely points to the fact that while people "like" the idea of upgradability a precious few actually utilize that feature. By reducing the upgradability you can enable 2" thick G5 computers.
Originally posted by bsodmike
Nuff said. Get a PC or Console if you're a serious gamer. Duh.
Console gaming is a different animal. Consoles are good for games that are played by multiple players on same screen, are played from a living room sofa on a TV, are not really designed for network play (this might change in the next generation of consoles though) and have the kind of controls that a console-type controller is good for. The console simply cannot replace the computer.
A PC or a Mac is good for the exact opposite type of game, and also for some games that exist for a console. But a PC costs money, a lot of it. If you go build a decent gaming PC it will set you back in the neighborhood of 700?, plus you need a screen. Consider the buyer who wants to play games, and would prefer to use a Mac for work. The obvious options are[list=1][*]1450? iMac, 700? gaming PC, need a screen[*]700? gaming/work PC, need a screen, no Mac[/list=1]A 200? option to add a GeForce 6600 to the iMac would be of great deal of interest to many buyers. Currently, if the buyer has <2500? to spend, the only solution is to make do without the Mac. Not many people are willing to pay 1450? for an OS.
I'm a serious gamer, have a console, a PC and a Mac. I have made games for a living, and will probably do that again sometime in the future.
Originally posted by bsodmike
Gaming on the Mac: I think we all need to stop for a moment and watch the RvB video right now.
Nuff said. Get a PC or Console if you're a serious gamer. Duh.
It is a funny video, but not quite true. Here is a list of games for the mac from just one online store:
4x4 Evolution 2
Active Lancer
Activision Anthology: Remix Edition
Adrenaline Sports Pack
Age of Empires II
Age of Mythology
Alien vs. Predator 2
Aliens vs Predator Gold
American McGee's Alice
Another War
Baldur's Gate II
Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal
Battlefield 1942 Deluxe Edition
Bejeweled & Alchemy
Black & White Platinum Pack
Bugdom 2
Bugdom/Bugdom 2/Nanosaur Bundle
Burning Monkey Casino
Burning Monkey Mah Jong
Burning Monkey Solitaire 3
Call of Duty
Civilization III: Game of the Year
Cliver Barker's Undying
Command & Conquer: Generals
Delta Force: Black Hawk Down
Diablo Battle Chest
Diablo II
Dominions II: The Ascension Wars
Dungeon Siege
Enigmo
Escape from Monkey Island
Europa Universalis II
F1 Championship Season 2000
Fallout
Fallout 2
Fallout/Fallout 2 Bundle
Freedom Force
Game Doctor
Ghost Master
Giants: Citizen Kabuto
Halo: Combat Evolved
Hard Rock Casino
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Harry Potter Deluxe Edition
Hearts of Iron
Hexen II and Heretic II Combo
Icewind Dale
Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb
iPuppet Presents: Colin's Classic Cards
James Bond 007: NightFire
Jinni Zeala Pinball
Kasparov Chessmate
Kelly Slater's Pro Surfer
Kickoff 2002
Knights & Merchants
Law & Order: Dead on the Money
Links Championship Edition
MacGames DVD Volume 1 (Back Issue)
MacGames DVD Volume 2 (Back Issue)
Master of Orion III
Max Payne
Medal of Honor: Allied Assault
Medal of Honor: Breakthrough
Medal of Honor: Deluxe Edition
Medal of Honor: Spearhead
MindRover
Myth III: The Wolf Age
Nanosaur 2: Hatchling
Nascar Racing 2002 Season
Nascar Racing 2003
Neverwinter Nights
Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark Expansion Pack
Neverwinter Nights: Shadow of Undrentide Expansion Pack
No One Lives Forever
No One Lives Forever 2
Pangea Super Pack
Rayman 3
Republic: The Revolution
Return to Castle Wolfenstein
Sacrifice
Shadowbane
Shrek 2
SimCity 4
Snowball Run
Solace
Soldier of Fortune 2
Space Colony
Spider-Man 2: The Game
SpyHunter
Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force Combo
Star Trek: Elite Force II
Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds
Star Wars: Jedi Knight II
Star Wars: Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy
Super Collapse II
The Best of MacGames DVD 2002
The Best of MacGames DVD 2003
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
The Sims
The Sims Hot Date
The Sims Makin' Magic
The Sims: Superstar
The Sims: Unleashed
The Sims: Vacation
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2003
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon
Tom Clancy's Raven Shield
Tomb Raider: Chronicles
Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness
Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4
Total Immersion Racing
ToySight
TRON 2.0
Tropico: Mucho Macho Edition
Unreal Tournament 2004
Victoria
Wakeboarding Unleashed
Warcraft III
Warcraft III Battle Chest
Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne
Warrior Kings
Worms 3D
Worms Blast
X-Plane Version 7
X2: Wolverine's Revenge
XIII
Zoo Tycoon
Zoo Tycoon Marine Mania
A lot of Mac users like to play games on their Mac. Telling them to switch to a PC or get a console is just dumb, and misses the point that many of us want to work and play on the same computer.
It is a fact: Consumers want to play games on their computers (over half of software sales are games). With the new iMac using 3 year old video-cards, Apple is basically shooting itself in the foot. Of the four people I know who were in the market to get the new iMac, only one has decided to purchase it. Two others have decided to wait until Apple comes out with something, in the $1500 to $1600 price range, that has a better video-card. The last one (a Mac user for over 10 years) has taken the advice that so many of the people on this forum love to give out, and is switching over to PCs.
If Apple had set the price $40 higher and used a middle of the road video-card instead of the slowest one sill in production, I think that the new iMacs would have been a big hit. As it is now, I think that it will do about as well as the iMac 2 did -- OK sales, but nothing spectacular.
.
If Apple had set the price $40 higher and used a middle of the road video-card instead of the slowest one sill in production, I think that the new iMacs would have been a big hit. As it is now, I think that it will do about as well as the iMac 2 did -- OK sales, but nothing spectacular.
Because of games?? I'm "game" for this challege. So what are the stipulations. I guess we should give it a year huh and see if the iMac G5 sales drop off like the iMac G4. If they do not drop off are you willing to make a public apology and gladly gulp crow? I think the gaming aspect is being far overblown.
17" high quality LCD
G5 Processor
are going to make the difference. Mark your calendars ...Res will be eating some black bird Sept of 2005. I guarantee it.
Originally posted by wizard69
It is certainly not a machine that Apple will make inroads into business with as it is suitable only for low end installations and every company has a broad spectrum of needs. So I don't see many organizations standardizing on this hardware.
In a nut shell I think Apple came real close to having a winner with this machine. It is unfortunate that they went and made a huge mistake with respect to the GPU.
You seem to have a very strange understanding on how computer hardware decisions are made in large organizations and businesses.
I work for a rather large insurer (some thousand desktops) in Germany and we are transitioning from Windows NT to XP. In the preparation process a lot of software had to be tested for compatibility and thereby I acquired an understanding on what the main aspects for the afore mentioned decisions are.
There is lots and lots of very specialised software, some standard stuff and a good portion of proprietary programms. All of which are essential to keep the business up and running.
For a Windows-based company it is easier to adapt to the next version of the same OS than to re-write everything for a totaly "new" (to the programmers) platform.
If a transition away from MS would ever be considered, it would be a transition to Linux because you could keep the hardware (and from there on a transition to the Mac would slowly become an option due to its Linux/Unix underpinings). They would never transition the hardware platform across the entire enterprise.
Secondly, MS-certified personell (or people that have an understanding of Windows) are by far easier to acquire on the job market than Mac-people. And although Apple does a lot of great stuff with regard to OS X client/server intregration, user profile and hard- and software asset maintenance, Windows is what these people know. Besides, adding another platform results in the necessity to install additional support workforce (helpdesks etc.).
Thirdly, all that counts is initial price. We will transition from one manufacurer to another. But it will be a slow transition: only computers that need to be replaced (due to age, for example) will be replaced.
Spec wise, these systems could be had cheaper from your local computer store, but a certain level of quality and reliability needs to be assured.
And you know what: There is hardly any relevance to what GPU these things sport. I would be surprised if they had something like the FX5200 Ultra. It will be some integrated stuff. As long as it reliably shows all your documents, noone cares! They don't do games or heavy 3d stuff.
You could say that soon (as soon as Longhorn is coming out) the machines would need to be compatible to DirectX 9.something. Well, as stated, one OS platform will be kept as long as there is support (security updates) form the manufacturer because it is such a hassle to switch.
So, even if the iMac had a G6 with a top of the line PCI-Express GPU at a price substantially under that of a Windows machine, the company I work for would not switch (to the Mac, that is). And I assume that this company is pretty similar to most other big computing installations: running office software and old proprietary stuff (resulting in a slow hardware upgrade cycle).
Did I mention that the choice of GPU is irrelevant as long as it does what it is supposed to?
Originally posted by wizard69
In the end it demonstrats that Apple is still arrogant and does have much respect for the market.
This might be true to the extent that not everyone can get exactly the system he wants/needs at the desired price point. But it could be that (due to Apple's limited production and marketing capabilities) the path they chose to take is the most profitable.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Because of games?? I'm "game" for this challege. So what are the stipulations. I guess we should give it a year huh and see if the iMac G5 sales drop off like the iMac G4. If they do not drop off are you willing to make a public apology and gladly gulp crow? I think the gaming aspect is being far overblown.
17" high quality LCD
G5 Processor
are going to make the difference. Mark your calendars ...Res will be eating some black bird Sept of 2005. I guarantee it.
I would be willing to bet that if Apple gave the users a choice of the current iMac models, and ones that were $40 more expensive with a good graphics card, that the ones with the good video card would outsell the ones with the FX5200u card by over a 3-1 margin. Don't put a three year old video-card in a new machine -- that's not too hard a concept to understand.
You might not like it, but games make of over 50% [edit that was supposed to be 30% not a 50%] of computer software sales -- so yes, a lot of us are flabbergasted by the near sighted fools who, for some strange reason, want Apple to avoid as much of that market as they can. Overblown. Right...
If Apple had put in a good video card and offered colors, I think that this version of the iMac would have sold as well (or even better than) the original iMac. As it is I don't think we will be seeing numbers like that. Although, since so many people have been holding off buying a new computer until the iMac G5 came out I would expect really good sales at first (and if Apple comes out with a relatively quick upgrade to the video-card it might be able to maintain those sales).
At issue is getting good performance for the dollar expended, which once again Apple has ignored. There are many applications where the new iMac would have been ideal if it wasn't for the selection of the GPU. It would have made a nice engineering workstation in a network connected work group. Like wise there was potential for the machine to be applied in a content development environment. There are many other applications where this machine could have been applied if Apple hadn't screwed up again.
If Apple had come out with one model with this GPU as a low end machine I would not be raising the stink I'm am now. The problem is that they have 3 models all with the worst GPU on the market and they are trying to sell them at an unreasonably high price.
The other thing that people seem to underestimate is that the LCD's are high resolution and thus require more form the GPU in the first place. This gets even worst with the 20" model. People are concerned about the poor performance of this GPU are quoting performance figures based on low resolution bench marking. Does anybody reasonably believe that the GPU will get better at the native resolution of the 20" screen?
My suspicion is that Apple has the GPU soldered into the main board and was not willing to do a minor rev to support another GPU. That is my guess anyways as I'm not sure where the GPU is located. Having everything soldered into one board is a good thing and potentially could lead to longer life for the computer. But this is not reason enough to ignore pretty obvious consumer demand.
In the end I believe that people here should seriously consider getting a linux based machine and sending their purchase receipts to Apple to show them where all that potential sales money went to. It is pretty pathetic that Apple has continued to ignore consumer demand, even in the face of the terrible sales of the iMac3. It is sort of like Ground Hog Day, they just continue to recycle the same failed marketing programs again and again and again. Why I don't know as it certianly isn't helping the bottom line.
Remember this though the issue is not gaming for many of us. It is simply not wanting to lay down a lot of money and get screwed royally. Frankly that IS what Apple is doing with their customers by offering the configurations listed. It is time to shut down this gravy train and put Apple on a diet. Maybe after loosing a few hundred million they will wise up and deliver what is wanted by their users, not by the managements teams desire to line their pockets with the excess profits off hardware that was good enough for the bargain basement crowd two years ago.
Dave
Originally posted by hmurchison
Because of games?? I'm "game" for this challege. So what are the stipulations. I guess we should give it a year huh and see if the iMac G5 sales drop off like the iMac G4. If they do not drop off are you willing to make a public apology and gladly gulp crow? I think the gaming aspect is being far overblown.
17" high quality LCD
G5 Processor
are going to make the difference. Mark your calendars ...Res will be eating some black bird Sept of 2005. I guarantee it.
I assure you %50 of software sales are not games. While I do not doubt the clout of the gaming industry(its revenues surpass that of Hollywoods) I have seen far too much importance placed on gaming. Does the smart family buy a computer for gaming or just wise up and grab the Xbox for $149 on sale.
My thesis is this.
Consumers are tired of being afraid to put their computer on the internet. They are tired of viruses, trojans, worms and setting up firewalls. They want their peaceful lives back. They want to regain the computing innocence that they had before. Enter Apple. A nice friendly system that is easy to setup and highly functional. The consumer now realizes that gaming on consoles is the more frugal way. They realize that console games can be rented at the local blockbuster. Fiscal sense awashes them and cleanses the geek disease that afflicts them. They grab their credit card..the new iMac is theirs.
My point is games are important but spending $1300+ to get them is foolish. DOOM will be available on consoles soon. Half Life will never come to the Mac. The horse isn't just dead on this subjects it's been ground into the Earth.
My point is games are important but spending $1300+ to get them is foolish.
I completely disagree with that statement.
There is not a single person that I have ever heard of that has spent $1300+ on just games.
With a $1300 computer you can not only game, but you can surf the web, use the computer for schoolwork, etc... burn CDs, DVDs. You can use a high end PC to edit video, create 3d renderings, run photoshop, and the list goes on.
I agree... $1300 on a unit whos sole purpose is to play games is stupid.
I for one consider myself somewhat of a hardcore gamer, but I would estimate only 10% of the time spent on my computer is dedicated to games.
I guess my point is, for $1300 you get a whole lot more than just games.
See my comments below!
Originally posted by RolandG
You seem to have a very strange understanding on how computer hardware decisions are made in large organizations and businesses.
Not really at all, in fact my job requires close relationships with the IT folks. We are talking a large corporation here.
Quote:
I work for a rather large insurer (some thousand desktops) in Germany and we are transitioning from Windows NT to XP. In the preparation process a lot of software had to be tested for compatibility and thereby I acquired an understanding on what the main aspects for the afore mentioned decisions are.
The environment I'm in is a bit different with research, production and professional departments all in the same building. We likewise have the same problems with software and hardware. The differnece is that there can be a huge difference in the performance demand from one end of the building to the other. In every case though the goal is to meet those demands at a reasonable price point.
Quote:
There is lots and lots of very specialised software, some standard stuff and a good portion of proprietary programms. All of which are essential to keep the business up and running.
Same here. I'm geussing though that we have a wider range of performance demands. Some ding bat in the management group certianly doesn't need the GPU performance of a CAD station, nor the expasnion capability required to interface to production equipment or the metrology end of the business.
Quote:
For a Windows-based company it is easier to adapt to the next version of the same OS than to re-write everything for a totaly "new" (to the programmers) platform.
This is very much the case, but that was not what I was getting at. The point I'm trying to make is that the current iMac is only good for low end installations. Apple offfers nothing that produces a signifcant boost in performance within the iMac line. It does make one wodner why they even bothered to offer three models. One could even suggest that the 20" model may see a signifcant drop in performance relative to the other model due to all the extra pixels to drive.
Quote:
If a transition away from MS would ever be considered, it would be a transition to Linux because you could keep the hardware (and from there on a transition to the Mac would slowly become an option due to its Linux/Unix underpinings). They would never transition the hardware platform across the entire enterprise.
Yep Linux is a much greater threat to Apple than MS ever was. Few people seem to realize this but it is very much the case. I'm running FC2 now matter of fact.
As to the entire enterprise that would depend on the enterprise. Here such things would likely happen on a departmental basis.
Quote:
Secondly, MS-certified personell (or people that have an understanding of Windows) are by far easier to acquire on the job market than Mac-people. And although Apple does a lot of great stuff with regard to OS X client/server intregration, user profile and hard- and software asset maintenance, Windows is what these people know. Besides, adding another platform results in the necessity to install additional support workforce (helpdesks etc.).
I can't say that I'm all that impressed with MS certified personnel. Yeah some can be usefull, but many of them only know what they have been trained to know and have a very thin depth of knowledge. Generally there is a lot more happening than just MS systems in a large faclity. Heck there are still UNIX mainframes sitting in our facility.
Quote:
Thirdly, all that counts is initial price. We will transition from one manufacurer to another. But it will be a slow transition: only computers that need to be replaced (due to age, for example) will be replaced.
Price is always important but that is only part of the equation. You certianly wouldn't saddle the people doing vision system work in our plant with a PC suitable for a manager.
Quote:
Spec wise, these systems could be had cheaper from your local computer store, but a certain level of quality and reliability needs to be assured.
This is one that I always love to hear. Midn you I'm oftne the one that has to lug fialed hardware off the floor, but hey we bought from the approved manufacture and made sure that none of the money spent remained in the community.
When I hear such a tone coming from somebody I immediately suspect their ethics!
Quote:
And you know what: There is hardly any relevance to what GPU these things sport. I would be surprised if they had something like the FX5200 Ultra. It will be some integrated stuff. As long as it reliably shows all your documents, noone cares! They don't do games or heavy 3d stuff.
That is fanatastic if a whole facility can run off one model PC but that can't happen every where. By the same token not everybody needs a big tower. There are however a range of applications that could user much better GPU performance and a reasonable boost in processor power. Unfortunately Apple decided not to offer a model that can support a wide range of users.
Quote:
You could say that soon (as soon as Longhorn is coming out) the machines would need to be compatible to DirectX 9.something. Well, as stated, one OS platform will be kept as long as there is support (security updates) form the manufacturer because it is such a hassle to switch.
So, even if the iMac had a G6 with a top of the line PCI-Express GPU at a price substantially under that of a Windows machine, the company I work for would not switch (to the Mac, that is). And I assume that this company is pretty similar to most other big computing installations: running office software and old proprietary stuff (resulting in a slow hardware upgrade cycle).
Did I mention that the choice of GPU is irrelevant as long as it does what it is supposed to?
By the same token the GPU is very relavant if it impacts productivity. Sure that is not the case everywhere, even in out plant, but it has to be considered.
Quote:
This might be true to the extent that not everyone can get exactly the system he wants/needs at the desired price point. But it could be that (due to Apple's limited production and marketing capabilities) the path they chose to take is the most profitable.
Well I'm certain that Apple thought that the iMac2 would be profitable for them also, but I would imagine that they never really did well with the machine. By the same token the iMac3 will be a similar drag on company performance. There is little sense in offering three models where for the most part the only variation is in the screen size.
To really maintain profitablity they need to introduce hardware that sells well. Having just one performance point in the iMac is just plain stupid.
Thanks
dave
Originally posted by wizard69
...By the same token the iMac3 will be a similar drag on company performance. There is little sense in offering three models where for the most part the only variation is in the screen size....
Gosh, you're a hard guy to please. This new consumer model comes in three versions for very good reasons. The low end is for the budget conscious or those who have no need for a superdrive. The middle model gets you a slightly faster processor and superdrive for just $200 more. The upper end, which seems a very good deal, gets you a big 20 inch screen and twice the hard drive space.
With regard to GPUs, you'll argue your points to the end of the earth so I don't know why I bother. My opinion is that most (not all) consumers and small-business people for whom the iMac is intended don't even know what a GPU is unless they're gamers (and you suggest we forget about the gamers' point of view). Most will never miss not having a high-end GPU and they will certainly not think their new G5 iMac is slow, just because it doesn't have one. Those who do care, should probably save for a Power Mac because they appreciate such things and know or think they'll need it. Perhaps I'd agree with you that the GPU in two of the Power Macs is underpowered.
I'd much rather see Apple put larger hard drives and more memory in their iMacs than a better GPU. In these days of digital music, photos, and video; an 80GB hard drive seems paltry. Many people would get a lot of use out of a bigger drive and more memory, unlike a GPU.
Originally posted by iDave
With regard to GPUs, you'll argue your points to the end of the earth so I don't know why I bother.
Yeah, me too
My opinion is that most (not all) consumers and small-business people for whom the iMac is intended don't even know what a GPU is
I agree with that statement, as such. But while few consumers are going to specifically demand a "powerful GPU", a decent number of them do want the computer they buy to be able to play games reasonably well. If they ask their more knowledgeable friends about the iMac's capabilities in that area, they will be told (correctly) that it's not very good.
I'd much rather see Apple put larger hard drives and more memory in their iMacs than a better GPU. In these days of digital music, photos, and video; an 80GB hard drive seems paltry. Many people would get a lot of use out of a bigger drive and more memory, unlike a GPU.
256 megs of RAM is truly ridiculous (512 should be the minimum on every Mac), but at least that's easy to fix. 80 and 160 gig HDs are ok for the large majority of users (I archive lots of shows with EyeTV and am nowhere near close to filling up my 160), and there's always Firewire external drives. If the GPU were similarly upgradeable, I'd have no problem with the 5200FX as the default.
Some; those who do nothing but surf and email; will never come close to filling up 80GB but they'd probably be better off with an eMac. The iMac is supposedly your digital hub so I think it should come with lots of disk space.
Don't get me wrong. I'm pleased to see the new iMacs just the way they are. Compared to what they replace, they're a great value. They should sell well.
It is going to be interesting in six months time to see how this approach has helped them.
Originally posted by iDave
Don't get me wrong. I'm pleased to see the new iMacs just the way they are. Compared to what they replace, they're a great value. They should sell well.
On that we agree. I can easily recommend the iMac3 to many people, whereas I couldn't with the iMac2.