I have to agree with the majority, the most seriously lacking feature is video upgradeability or a BTO option: and I don't mind paying extra for it. The 20" looks awesome but that stock card seems pretty puny.
The one game/entertaininment that I enjoy is X-Plane and my GeoForce MX4 w/64 Mb doesn't allow the textures and scenery that make it realistic. If I turn on just a few then the sim hesitiates and chokes and it seems more like MS Flight Sim on a 486.
I really don't need/want a big honkin' PMG5 - I rather like the form factor of the new iMac. Let's hope Rev B is up to snuff.
The one game/entertaininment that I enjoy is X-Plane and my GeoForce MX4 w/64 Mb doesn't allow the textures and scenery that make it realistic. If I turn on just a few then the sim hesitiates and chokes and it seems more like MS Flight Sim on a 486.
Is it safe for me to infer, from all of the complaints about the iMac video chip, that the primary concern is about playing games?
P.S. When I go to the NVIDIA website...it lists the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra as a GPU for "mainstream", "value", "gamer" and "enthusiast" users. Now I realize that this is NVIDIA's site...but many people seem to be acting as if Apple had just reverted back to VGA graphics or something.
Chris Cuilla, You're right in believing that the majority of concern is about playing games, at least in this thread. I have two primary fears. The first being that it will fail to render current games flawlessly like kids games. I have a 1.25 GHz PB with 1 GB RAM and when I threw in "Real Myst" for my nephew to play, it was absolutely sickening to see it drop frames and choke on several occasions during game play and lets not even discuss how embarrassing it was to see the opening sequences. It's obvious that my current vidcard in my PB just couldn't hack it. It was sickening because "Real Myst" system requirements are: "Power Macintosh G3 300 MHz, Mac OS 8.6 or later / 64 MB RAM, Mac OS 10.1 or later / 128 MB RAM, 3D Video Card / 16 MB Memory". That's what the box itself says. Me, being a knowledgable buyer believe that my laptop ought to have ZERO problems rendering the game for my nephew. I was certainly let down. So I'm very skeptical when it comes to listening to what a VPU can do by a company. Real results are all I'm concerned with because I shouldn't have to be concerned with playing games with such minimum requirements. The iMac has a videocard that everyone is complaining about as being weak and "dated" when concerning the offering by NVIDIA. So how are we to feel about buying a computer that most likely will not play games as they were intended to be played today, much less down the road when more advanced games come out that kids want to play. It would be nice if they would be happy with old school games that require nothing in order to be played, but the kids want the latest and greatest games and so the current iMac offering makes me extremely nervous. Perhaps Tiger will fix all of this. Perhaps it won't.
...When we can part with $1,400 after tax to buy one of them next year. Time to get rid of the old Hewlett-Packard, if the family can see the benefit to having a Mac. Which ain't easy.
Chris Cuilla, You're right in believing that the majority of concern is about playing games, at least in this thread. I have two primary fears. The first being that it will fail to render current games flawlessly like kids games. I have a 1.25 GHz PB with 1 GB RAM and when I threw in "Real Myst" for my nephew to play, it was absolutely sickening to see it drop frames and choke on several occasions during game play and lets not even discuss how embarrassing it was to see the opening sequences. It's obvious that my current vidcard in my PB just couldn't hack it. It was sickening because "Real Myst" system requirements are: "Power Macintosh G3 300 MHz, Mac OS 8.6 or later / 64 MB RAM, Mac OS 10.1 or later / 128 MB RAM, 3D Video Card / 16 MB Memory". That's what the box itself says. Me, being a knowledgable buyer believe that my laptop ought to have ZERO problems rendering the game for my nephew. I was certainly let down. So I'm very skeptical when it comes to listening to what a VPU can do by a company. Real results are all I'm concerned with because I shouldn't have to be concerned with playing games with such minimum requirements. The iMac has a videocard that everyone is complaining about as being weak and "dated" when concerning the offering by NVIDIA. So how are we to feel about buying a computer that most likely will not play games as they were intended to be played today, much less down the road when more advanced games come out that kids want to play. It would be nice if they would be happy with old school games that require nothing in order to be played, but the kids want the latest and greatest games and so the current iMac offering makes me extremely nervous. Perhaps Tiger will fix all of this. Perhaps it won't.
Chris Cuilla, or better yet, why get a gaming console if your computer can do it? The gaming console answer is always a way out for people who refuse to hold Apple accountable for providing a decent VPU solution that won't choke and sputter with video game offerings. I wasn't even talking about Doom 3 or Unreal Tournament. I was talking about Real Myst. I refuse to accept that Windows users don't have to be told "well just get an X-Box", while Mac users "settle" for substandard VPU's. Just once in my life I wish Steve Jobs played Games. If he did, none of us would be talking about this because he'd have killed people at Apple until he got to play cutting edge games without any loss in quality. When the new iMac has BTO options for people that don't want to suffer through the games that ARE offered on the Mac platform, I'll buy one.
The iMac is 80% there. Across the board it should have Bluetooth built in (actually every model should have Bluetooth built in standard), Firewire 800, and a graphics chip on a separate mini card. The card merely needs to have a mini AGP connector and a ribbon cable going to the LCD panel. It can even be a proprietary connector, it just needs to be easy to swap up cards. This would even open up 3rd party video card manufacturers, although this may not be a positive for Apple. BUT, it could be argued that this would increase iMac value and that would increase sales at the expense of a longer imac life-span, but that could be a plus in that it keeps market share steady.
Here's my take. It's not perfect, but I'll offer it anyway.
To build a decent gaming rig -- Fast CPU and GPU, lotsa RAM, fast disk -- you need about 1K (monitor not included)
To buy a console, you need about $200. Games cost 50 bucks. Therefore, 1K buys a system and about 15-16 games (not including the bargain/previously enjoyed bin at blockbuster).
Why would you build a PC expressly for gaming? Will there be more than 3-4 MUST HAVE games in any given year? The console pretty much covers it, for less money and a better experience. Just to come out even, you have to pirate every single computer game -- after dumping all your cash into the PC. Why bother. Just buy the console. The game quality is there and the user experience is better.
Now there are games that are better on a PC. Your Mysts and RTS, the Sims, stuff like that. But that stuff plays fine on any PC, and any Mac to boot.
...when Apple implements the Nvidia MXM interface. There is no reason for Apple not to offer an upgradeable vid card. Especially for $1299-$1899.
I'm not sure many people here are qualified to make that assertion. As we can probably all agree, the iMac is an engineering feat (size, power, heat, even cost). One of those trade-offs might just be the GPU.
Chris Cuilla, or better yet, why get a gaming console if your computer can do it?
Because they are cheap and you can use it for games while someone uses the computer for...well...computing? And...you can hook it up to your TV too.
Quote:
The gaming console answer is always a way out for people who refuse to hold Apple accountable for providing a decent VPU solution that won't choke and sputter with video game offerings.
I'm not a gamer...and I am only asking.
Quote:
while Mac users "settle" for substandard VPU's.
Here we go again. Not sub-standard. Though perhaps not acceptable for the gaming crowd.
Quote:
Just once in my life I wish Steve Jobs played Games.
Instead, perhaps, he has better things to do with his time.
it could be argued that this would increase iMac value and that would increase sales at the expense of a longer imac life-span, but that could be a plus in that it keeps market share steady.
So many assert this without really supporting their argument. Why does everyone assume that the upgradeable GPU is the key to Apple's growth? I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that Apple likely knows its (overall) customers better than most of us on this board.
So many assert this without really supporting their argument. Why does everyone assume that the upgradeable GPU is the key to Apple's growth? I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that Apple likely knows its (overall) customers better than most of us on this board.
I don't think it's the key, only a step in the right direction. Actually what I am arguing is that a longer lasting iMac via upgradable parts is better for Apple in the long run.
Matsu, I agree that consoles are cheap. I have plenty of friends using X-Box's on a daily basis. But why have a great computer with an amazing monitor and not use it for the same thing? Believe me, I have a hard time believing that the iMac can't be a gaming computer. If consoles are a few hundred bucks that proves in and of itself that it shouldn't cost too much to make a gaming Mac.
As for your comment regarding games that play better on PC's like Sims and Mysts, I guess my 1.25 GHz PB was the exception there? The graphics are choppy as hell and that is NOT my definition of "plays fine". If that were the case, I wouldn't be looking at getting a more powerful Mac. The iMac is an engineering feat, but just once I'd love Apple to include a GPU in that list of engineering feats.
Is it fair of Apple to insist upon my paying a PowerMac premium just to get "plays fine" capability from current games? Perhaps I'm alone in believing that current release Mac's ought to be able to handle all current release games? Is everyone at Apple, including Jonathan Ive oblivious to this?
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
I don't understand the logic of the gaming PC.
Here's my take. It's not perfect, but I'll offer it anyway.
To build a decent gaming rig -- Fast CPU and GPU, lotsa RAM, fast disk -- you need about 1K (monitor not included)
To buy a console, you need about $200. Games cost 50 bucks. Therefore, 1K buys a system and about 15-16 games (not including the bargain/previously enjoyed bin at blockbuster).
Why would you build a PC expressly for gaming? Will there be more than 3-4 MUST HAVE games in any given year? The console pretty much covers it, for less money and a better experience. Just to come out even, you have to pirate every single computer game -- after dumping all your cash into the PC. Why bother. Just buy the console. The game quality is there and the user experience is better.
Now there are games that are better on a PC. Your Mysts and RTS, the Sims, stuff like that. But that stuff plays fine on any PC, and any Mac to boot.
yes, you are an embarrassment, not only can you not write but you have no idea what you are talking about
no one said anything about sticking a geforce 6800 in there. Apple offers a 128MB VRAM upgrade on the Powerbook that is 4 times smaller in volume. The same could easily be offered for the iMac and would in my opinion satisfy some complainers. another graphic chip option could also probably be done. there are low heat/power options. hell, stick the latest laptop chip from ATI in there, it'd probably be a lot better than the 5200 ultra.
so, stop talking out of your ass.
whats embarassing is two adults in a pissing contest on a matter of opinion (im making a big assumption your an adult). we can each have our opinion, but your initial comment be-littling someone for a different and absolutely valid opinion was just that, embarassing... personally i dont care what you think, but i think you should have a little more respect for the other people on this board. as long time member you should know better. maybe you have to bark like that to get things done in 'da bronx' but in the rest of the world there is a little thing called tolerance and understanding...
i love statements like this, too easy
"Not having a BTO option for graphics on the iMac is plain simply horrible business by apple... there is no downside"
If there was no downside, dont you think steve-o would have done it? Its not a conspiracy, that black ford is not following you. further to the imac technical discussion, when you add an option for a hard-wired component you have to create multiple motherboard runs. That invariably raises the cost of all models of the imac as you lose economies of scale by forking to multiple models. The economies of scale lost can be quite large, The imac is a two motherboard stream of computers now (1.6, 1.8 ). Add just 1 video card option and you are at 4. Depending on volumes you could easily be cutting your volumes for each by 50%. After all the whining on AI (not by you as far as i know) about the price of the imac I thought i would finally hear some cheers since it is finally affordable even with a 17" widescreen lcd. i thought i would hear cheers because you can buy cheap memory or hard drives from your local pc shop... but no. Regardless, you lash out at others with petty insults instead of challenging them on the merit of the argument.
How do you think a discussion will end up when you lead your initial response with "you are an embarassment...". It ends like like a slap-fight in the school yard sandbox, which unfortunately is much of what AI has degraded to.
Not a flame, but a valid question as my memory is crap; has Apple ever offered BTO graphics or even more varied graphics offerings within the same line for iMac/iBook/eMac? Did the iMac G4 20" have a more robust GPU then the 17"? Because if not why are people arguing they should now?
The iMac G5 may be a new form factor, a new processor but its still an iMac. One trait of the i and e line are budget GPUs. Non-upgradable, low-end GPUs. The 5200 is the baseline for Tiger which will do for now but I assume their will be another refresh for the entire product line up by then.
The next rev iMac will probably have a newer GPU, albeit nothing spectacular and nothing upgradable. Considering this iMac was codename "El Cheapo" (kidding, kidding. It was meant to save mucho dinero) and most likely was supposed to be released many months earlier its current GPU isn't horrible.
whats embarassing is two adults in a pissing contest on a matter of opinion (im making a big assumption your an adult). we can each have our opinion, but your initial comment be-littling someone for a different and absolutely valid opinion was just that, embarassing... personally i dont care what you think, but i think you should have a little more respect for the other people on this board. as long time member you should know better. maybe you have to bark like that to get things done in 'da bronx' but in the rest of the world there is a little thing called tolerance and understanding...
i love statements like this, too easy
"Not having a BTO option for graphics on the iMac is plain simply horrible business by apple... there is no downside"
If there was no downside, dont you think steve-o would have done it? Its not a conspiracy, that black ford is not following you. further to the imac technical discussion, when you add an option for a hard-wired component you have to create multiple motherboard runs. That invariably raises the cost of all models of the imac as you lose economies of scale by forking to multiple models. The economies of scale lost can be quite large, The imac is a two motherboard stream of computers now (1.6, 1.8 ). Add just 1 video card option and you are at 4. Depending on volumes you could easily be cutting your volumes for each by 50%. After all the whining on AI (not by you as far as i know) about the price of the imac I thought i would finally hear some cheers since it is finally affordable even with a 17" widescreen lcd. i thought i would hear cheers because you can buy cheap memory or hard drives from your local pc shop... but no. Regardless, you lash out at others with petty insults instead of challenging them on the merit of the argument.
How do you think a discussion will end up when you lead your initial response with "you are an embarassment...". It ends like like a slap-fight in the school yard sandbox, which unfortunately is much of what AI has degraded to.
with a user name like "i-bent-my-wookie" and the tone of your posts its hard to take you as an adult and seriously.
you know what is embarrassing? people here thinking they are so holier than thou because they own a mac. it's bullshit. what's embarrassing? someone suggesting something or complaining about something and then being told to go buy a PC or stop whining and go pay twice as much. it's this elitist bullshit that is embarrassing. you have a problem with me for pointing that out or telling someone that...... big deal. life goes on. i really don't value your opinion and you come across just as pompous and elitist as the sorry bastards you are defending.
Quote:
If there was no downside, dont you think steve-o would have done it?
no i don't. history has shown "steve-o" has done some seriously stupid things and made some dumb decisions just because of his ideals and ego.
[quote]
they ship different motherboards all the time. they do things like this for other components. they can do the same for GPU. the powerbook has a 128MB BTO option that doesn't seem to be a huge problem. the same could be offered on the iMac very easily I would think.
benefits?
1. Direct sales from the Apple online store. larger margins as a result
2. Increased revenue and profit from added cost of component
3. Increased customer satisfaction
4. More sales to people who were not buying due to video card.
They do it on other products. Every other computer manufacter does it. So can Apple. The iMac is 2 inches thick and has 4 times the volume of a Powerbook. If 128MB option can be done on the Powerbook, it can be done on the iMac.
Quote:
Regardless, you lash out at others with petty insults instead of challenging them on the merit of the argument.
Comments
The one game/entertaininment that I enjoy is X-Plane and my GeoForce MX4 w/64 Mb doesn't allow the textures and scenery that make it realistic. If I turn on just a few then the sim hesitiates and chokes and it seems more like MS Flight Sim on a 486.
I really don't need/want a big honkin' PMG5 - I rather like the form factor of the new iMac. Let's hope Rev B is up to snuff.
Originally posted by ruidoso48
The one game/entertaininment that I enjoy is X-Plane and my GeoForce MX4 w/64 Mb doesn't allow the textures and scenery that make it realistic. If I turn on just a few then the sim hesitiates and chokes and it seems more like MS Flight Sim on a 486.
Is it safe for me to infer, from all of the complaints about the iMac video chip, that the primary concern is about playing games?
P.S. When I go to the NVIDIA website...it lists the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra as a GPU for "mainstream", "value", "gamer" and "enthusiast" users. Now I realize that this is NVIDIA's site...but many people seem to be acting as if Apple had just reverted back to VGA graphics or something.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
...but many people seem to be acting as if Apple had just reverted back to VGA graphics or something.
And what would the problem with that be?
I think that besides games, the main concern in Core Image in Tiger.
...When we can part with $1,400 after tax to buy one of them next year. Time to get rid of the old Hewlett-Packard, if the family can see the benefit to having a Mac. Which ain't easy.
Originally posted by Brian Green
Chris Cuilla, You're right in believing that the majority of concern is about playing games, at least in this thread. I have two primary fears. The first being that it will fail to render current games flawlessly like kids games. I have a 1.25 GHz PB with 1 GB RAM and when I threw in "Real Myst" for my nephew to play, it was absolutely sickening to see it drop frames and choke on several occasions during game play and lets not even discuss how embarrassing it was to see the opening sequences. It's obvious that my current vidcard in my PB just couldn't hack it. It was sickening because "Real Myst" system requirements are: "Power Macintosh G3 300 MHz, Mac OS 8.6 or later / 64 MB RAM, Mac OS 10.1 or later / 128 MB RAM, 3D Video Card / 16 MB Memory". That's what the box itself says. Me, being a knowledgable buyer believe that my laptop ought to have ZERO problems rendering the game for my nephew. I was certainly let down. So I'm very skeptical when it comes to listening to what a VPU can do by a company. Real results are all I'm concerned with because I shouldn't have to be concerned with playing games with such minimum requirements. The iMac has a videocard that everyone is complaining about as being weak and "dated" when concerning the offering by NVIDIA. So how are we to feel about buying a computer that most likely will not play games as they were intended to be played today, much less down the road when more advanced games come out that kids want to play. It would be nice if they would be happy with old school games that require nothing in order to be played, but the kids want the latest and greatest games and so the current iMac offering makes me extremely nervous. Perhaps Tiger will fix all of this. Perhaps it won't.
So why don't people just get a game console?
I would have already ordered one if they had. Since they didn't, no soup for you, Apple.
My only hope is that Apple replaces the eMac with an honest to goodness mini-box with a PCI slot and an AGP slot
Ahhh, who am I kidding. Apple loves screwing its customers. $2000 to get a PCI slot and an AGP slot. Pathetic.
Here's my take. It's not perfect, but I'll offer it anyway.
To build a decent gaming rig -- Fast CPU and GPU, lotsa RAM, fast disk -- you need about 1K (monitor not included)
To buy a console, you need about $200. Games cost 50 bucks. Therefore, 1K buys a system and about 15-16 games (not including the bargain/previously enjoyed bin at blockbuster).
Why would you build a PC expressly for gaming? Will there be more than 3-4 MUST HAVE games in any given year? The console pretty much covers it, for less money and a better experience. Just to come out even, you have to pirate every single computer game -- after dumping all your cash into the PC. Why bother. Just buy the console. The game quality is there and the user experience is better.
Now there are games that are better on a PC. Your Mysts and RTS, the Sims, stuff like that. But that stuff plays fine on any PC, and any Mac to boot.
Originally posted by mooseman
...when Apple implements the Nvidia MXM interface. There is no reason for Apple not to offer an upgradeable vid card. Especially for $1299-$1899.
I'm not sure many people here are qualified to make that assertion. As we can probably all agree, the iMac is an engineering feat (size, power, heat, even cost). One of those trade-offs might just be the GPU.
Originally posted by Brian Green
Chris Cuilla, or better yet, why get a gaming console if your computer can do it?
Because they are cheap and you can use it for games while someone uses the computer for...well...computing? And...you can hook it up to your TV too.
The gaming console answer is always a way out for people who refuse to hold Apple accountable for providing a decent VPU solution that won't choke and sputter with video game offerings.
I'm not a gamer...and I am only asking.
while Mac users "settle" for substandard VPU's.
Here we go again. Not sub-standard. Though perhaps not acceptable for the gaming crowd.
Just once in my life I wish Steve Jobs played Games.
Instead, perhaps, he has better things to do with his time.
Originally posted by Outsider
it could be argued that this would increase iMac value and that would increase sales at the expense of a longer imac life-span, but that could be a plus in that it keeps market share steady.
So many assert this without really supporting their argument. Why does everyone assume that the upgradeable GPU is the key to Apple's growth? I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that Apple likely knows its (overall) customers better than most of us on this board.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So many assert this without really supporting their argument. Why does everyone assume that the upgradeable GPU is the key to Apple's growth? I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that Apple likely knows its (overall) customers better than most of us on this board.
I don't think it's the key, only a step in the right direction. Actually what I am arguing is that a longer lasting iMac via upgradable parts is better for Apple in the long run.
As for your comment regarding games that play better on PC's like Sims and Mysts, I guess my 1.25 GHz PB was the exception there? The graphics are choppy as hell and that is NOT my definition of "plays fine". If that were the case, I wouldn't be looking at getting a more powerful Mac. The iMac is an engineering feat, but just once I'd love Apple to include a GPU in that list of engineering feats.
Is it fair of Apple to insist upon my paying a PowerMac premium just to get "plays fine" capability from current games? Perhaps I'm alone in believing that current release Mac's ought to be able to handle all current release games? Is everyone at Apple, including Jonathan Ive oblivious to this?
Originally posted by Matsu
I don't understand the logic of the gaming PC.
Here's my take. It's not perfect, but I'll offer it anyway.
To build a decent gaming rig -- Fast CPU and GPU, lotsa RAM, fast disk -- you need about 1K (monitor not included)
To buy a console, you need about $200. Games cost 50 bucks. Therefore, 1K buys a system and about 15-16 games (not including the bargain/previously enjoyed bin at blockbuster).
Why would you build a PC expressly for gaming? Will there be more than 3-4 MUST HAVE games in any given year? The console pretty much covers it, for less money and a better experience. Just to come out even, you have to pirate every single computer game -- after dumping all your cash into the PC. Why bother. Just buy the console. The game quality is there and the user experience is better.
Now there are games that are better on a PC. Your Mysts and RTS, the Sims, stuff like that. But that stuff plays fine on any PC, and any Mac to boot.
i) They bump up the graphics card
ii) Tiger is out
iii) My 800mhz, 17", G4 iMac grinds to a halt.
Actually I think by the time my G4 is beyond use there'll be something completely different on the market iMac4 maybe or G6 Powerbook.
buzz
Originally posted by applenut
yes, you are an embarrassment, not only can you not write but you have no idea what you are talking about
no one said anything about sticking a geforce 6800 in there. Apple offers a 128MB VRAM upgrade on the Powerbook that is 4 times smaller in volume. The same could easily be offered for the iMac and would in my opinion satisfy some complainers. another graphic chip option could also probably be done. there are low heat/power options. hell, stick the latest laptop chip from ATI in there, it'd probably be a lot better than the 5200 ultra.
so, stop talking out of your ass.
whats embarassing is two adults in a pissing contest on a matter of opinion (im making a big assumption your an adult). we can each have our opinion, but your initial comment be-littling someone for a different and absolutely valid opinion was just that, embarassing... personally i dont care what you think, but i think you should have a little more respect for the other people on this board. as long time member you should know better. maybe you have to bark like that to get things done in 'da bronx' but in the rest of the world there is a little thing called tolerance and understanding...
i love statements like this, too easy
"Not having a BTO option for graphics on the iMac is plain simply horrible business by apple... there is no downside"
If there was no downside, dont you think steve-o would have done it? Its not a conspiracy, that black ford is not following you. further to the imac technical discussion, when you add an option for a hard-wired component you have to create multiple motherboard runs. That invariably raises the cost of all models of the imac as you lose economies of scale by forking to multiple models. The economies of scale lost can be quite large, The imac is a two motherboard stream of computers now (1.6, 1.8 ). Add just 1 video card option and you are at 4. Depending on volumes you could easily be cutting your volumes for each by 50%. After all the whining on AI (not by you as far as i know) about the price of the imac I thought i would finally hear some cheers since it is finally affordable even with a 17" widescreen lcd. i thought i would hear cheers because you can buy cheap memory or hard drives from your local pc shop... but no. Regardless, you lash out at others with petty insults instead of challenging them on the merit of the argument.
How do you think a discussion will end up when you lead your initial response with "you are an embarassment...". It ends like like a slap-fight in the school yard sandbox, which unfortunately is much of what AI has degraded to.
The iMac G5 may be a new form factor, a new processor but its still an iMac. One trait of the i and e line are budget GPUs. Non-upgradable, low-end GPUs. The 5200 is the baseline for Tiger which will do for now but I assume their will be another refresh for the entire product line up by then.
The next rev iMac will probably have a newer GPU, albeit nothing spectacular and nothing upgradable. Considering this iMac was codename "El Cheapo" (kidding, kidding. It was meant to save mucho dinero) and most likely was supposed to be released many months earlier its current GPU isn't horrible.
Originally posted by I-bent-my-wookie
whats embarassing is two adults in a pissing contest on a matter of opinion (im making a big assumption your an adult). we can each have our opinion, but your initial comment be-littling someone for a different and absolutely valid opinion was just that, embarassing... personally i dont care what you think, but i think you should have a little more respect for the other people on this board. as long time member you should know better. maybe you have to bark like that to get things done in 'da bronx' but in the rest of the world there is a little thing called tolerance and understanding...
i love statements like this, too easy
"Not having a BTO option for graphics on the iMac is plain simply horrible business by apple... there is no downside"
If there was no downside, dont you think steve-o would have done it? Its not a conspiracy, that black ford is not following you. further to the imac technical discussion, when you add an option for a hard-wired component you have to create multiple motherboard runs. That invariably raises the cost of all models of the imac as you lose economies of scale by forking to multiple models. The economies of scale lost can be quite large, The imac is a two motherboard stream of computers now (1.6, 1.8 ). Add just 1 video card option and you are at 4. Depending on volumes you could easily be cutting your volumes for each by 50%. After all the whining on AI (not by you as far as i know) about the price of the imac I thought i would finally hear some cheers since it is finally affordable even with a 17" widescreen lcd. i thought i would hear cheers because you can buy cheap memory or hard drives from your local pc shop... but no. Regardless, you lash out at others with petty insults instead of challenging them on the merit of the argument.
How do you think a discussion will end up when you lead your initial response with "you are an embarassment...". It ends like like a slap-fight in the school yard sandbox, which unfortunately is much of what AI has degraded to.
with a user name like "i-bent-my-wookie" and the tone of your posts its hard to take you as an adult and seriously.
you know what is embarrassing? people here thinking they are so holier than thou because they own a mac. it's bullshit. what's embarrassing? someone suggesting something or complaining about something and then being told to go buy a PC or stop whining and go pay twice as much. it's this elitist bullshit that is embarrassing. you have a problem with me for pointing that out or telling someone that...... big deal. life goes on. i really don't value your opinion and you come across just as pompous and elitist as the sorry bastards you are defending.
If there was no downside, dont you think steve-o would have done it?
no i don't. history has shown "steve-o" has done some seriously stupid things and made some dumb decisions just because of his ideals and ego.
[quote]
they ship different motherboards all the time. they do things like this for other components. they can do the same for GPU. the powerbook has a 128MB BTO option that doesn't seem to be a huge problem. the same could be offered on the iMac very easily I would think.
benefits?
1. Direct sales from the Apple online store. larger margins as a result
2. Increased revenue and profit from added cost of component
3. Increased customer satisfaction
4. More sales to people who were not buying due to video card.
They do it on other products. Every other computer manufacter does it. So can Apple. The iMac is 2 inches thick and has 4 times the volume of a Powerbook. If 128MB option can be done on the Powerbook, it can be done on the iMac.
Regardless, you lash out at others with petty insults instead of challenging them on the merit of the argument.
speaking from experience i see.