Another lame iMac G5 review

chagi · September 23, 2004 9:36AM

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/040923/tech_test_imac_g5_2.html

I have to run to University, so I don't really have time to post a full critique, but highlights include bashing Apple because wireless features (keyboard, mouse, bluetooth support + airport extreme) aren't included by default.

Good bloody lucky finding a PC desktop that would have all of that included with a base model.

s.metcalf · September 23, 2004 10:02AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chagi

[B]http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/040923/tech_test_imac_g5_2.html

I like the comment "a song playing in the iTunes jukebox software stuttered while I was rendering video in iMovie"....well DUH! My PC at work used to stutter MP3 playback when I was searching for files on the hard disk!

kotatsu · September 23, 2004 10:23AM

Pretty poor review. If you want to blast the new iMac, then it has a very clear target - it's GPU. The rest is fine and it's silly to critisize as PCs are no better.

If only it had a better GPU in there, a Radeon 9800 for example, then I would buy.

macsrgood4u · September 23, 2004 10:27AM

Base RAM is insufficent, as we all know. Double it to get rid of the stutters, or get two 512 sticks and fly! The iMac is NOT a pro machine. It fills the needs of most people. 7.5 million lower powered iMacs have been sold. This version will surely outsell the previous model by a large margin... one which I have - a 17" and love. I look at the crystal ball and predict two million units in the first year (assuming IBM can supply the chips). Let's come back in '05 and compare notes.

murbot · September 23, 2004 10:28AM

While this reviewer is obviously a bit of a dolt (finding it odd that the iMac doesn't accept more than 2GB of RAM, for instance), you can't really blame the iMovie/iTunes comments. If Apple would ship their machines with a decent amount of RAM he probably wouldn't have had that skipping.

256MB is pathetic, and whoever is in charge of deciding on that amount should be clubbed.

g2g · September 23, 2004 10:29AM

I checked this one out....http://www.time.com/time/gadget/20040922/...If only it had a better GPU in there, a Radeon 9800 for example, then I would buy...X2

g2g · September 23, 2004 10:41AM

Well maybe a 20-inch 1.8 or higher GHz 512 or 1g ram 9800 or 6800 flavor gpu bluetooth ...etc....not a pro ...but it would have HP....

mikef · September 23, 2004 12:48PM

Aside from video games, how would a better GPU benefit the average user?

I have never been a gamer and don't view the world the way they do. My Xbox works perfectly well for any video gaming I intend on doing.

IMHO, advertising any Mac as a gaming machine is a waste. Apple needs to target the average user who wants to get work done as easily and efficiently as possible. I think the iMac fits this role perfectly.

amorph · September 23, 2004 1:05PM

I agree that 256MB of RAM — especially on the top end model — is chintzy, and so I can't blame anyone who dings the iMac for performance flaws related to that decision. The only real consolation is that it can be easily and inexpensively corrected, both at purchase time ($75 extra for a total of 512MB) and afterward. Still, this seems like an absurdly easy thing for Apple to correct — perhaps once the production lines are mature and the per-unit costs have dropped.

However, none of that stopped Walt Mossberg from contributing a glowing review of the iMac. I don't have a permalink to his article, and I don't know how long this one will point to his review, but there it is.

The most notable thing about the reviews I've read, besides the generally positive tone (to understate, in some cases) is that the iMac is being offered as a general-market PC rather than the latest offering for Mac enthusiasts. This is a very significant change in perception.

I have a good feeling about this iMac's prospects.

mikef · September 23, 2004 1:21PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amorph

I agree that 256MB of RAM — especially on the top end model — is chintzy, and so I can't blame anyone who dings the iMac for performance flaws related to that decision.

I guess I am an exception to this, but... I just bought a 12" iBook and prior to installing a RAM upgrade, I used the machine for a little while with 256MB RAM. Surprisingly contrary to everything I read, the machine was usable for email, web, some iPhoto, iTunes, etc.

Regardless, I do agree that 256MB is not enough RAM. I have 768MB in my iBook now and rarely have I seen it use more than about 512MB RAM.

Quote:

Still, this seems like an absurdly easy thing for Apple to correct — perhaps once the production lines are mature and the per-unit costs have dropped.

Easy, but not free.

Quote:

The most notable thing about the reviews I've read, besides the generally positive tone (to understate, in some cases) is that the iMac is being offered as a general-market PC rather than the latest offering for Mac enthusiasts. This is a very significant change in perception.

Wasn't it always supposed to be a "general-market PC"? I thought that was the whole intention of the iMac. If a user thinks they're "above" owning a consumer-class machine, they can buy a G5.

Quote:

I have a good feeling about this iMac's prospects.

When it was first announced and displayed, I didn't think much of it, but I am coming around and could definitely see one of these on my desk shortly.

I like to consider myself a power user (having used personal computers for 25+ years including being a profesional software developer for the past 10 year), however I have a budget. I think the iMac will fit my home computer needs just perfectly.

pbg4 dude · September 23, 2004 1:47PM

I was another person who dinged the iMac for its less than stellar GPU. However, I find myself on a waiting list for 20" iMac G5s (I'm #5 on the list, today they got 4

).

I'm getting it to permanently retire my '99 PC as well as shrink my computing space footprint to make room for the mini-me that'll be making his/her appearance this coming January.

For my needs (audio recording, mixing, editing, video stuff, programming and DiabloII) this computer should do well.

However, I am bummed that I have to spend for a RAM upgrade right off the bat. I've done some recording with my PBG4 and its 512MB RAM wasn't enough to handle more than a couple minutes of recording in GB / Soundtrack before the whole system started lagging hard. I mean like click, wait, wait, click, wait kind of lag.

Eventually I'll have to get the RAM to 1GB, especially once I start dabbling with video.

placebo · September 23, 2004 2:33PM

This is painful, especially considering that many people think that the iMac is the only thing that Apple makes other than the iPod.

amorph · September 23, 2004 3:24PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mikef

I guess I am an exception to this, but... I just bought a 12" iBook and prior to installing a RAM upgrade, I used the machine for a little while with 256MB RAM. Surprisingly contrary to everything I read, the machine was usable for email, web, some iPhoto, iTunes, etc.

Sure. That's why I reserved my objection for the top end model. 256MB RAM in the entry level model is OK. 256MB in a $1900 machine, though?

Quote:

Wasn't it always supposed to be a "general-market PC"?

What I meant by that was, the reviews aren't saying "if you're a Mac user, you'll like this machine." They're saying, "you'll like this machine." None of the previously de rigeur language about compatibility, etc., that I remember from older reviews (including Mossberg's) is there. They're recommending the iMac to PC owners, too. In other words, the general market, not just the Mac market.

Quote:

I like to consider myself a power user (having used personal computers for 25+ years including being a profesional software developer for the past 10 year), however I have a budget. I think the iMac will fit my home computer needs just perfectly.

I'm in about the same position you're in, and I wouldn't hesitate to have an iMac on my desk either. In fact, this is pretty much the machine I wanted when I bought my Cube (adjusted for 4 years of advances in computing power, obviously...).

And the first thing I'll do when I get one is put more goddamn RAM in.

jnrjr79 · September 23, 2004 3:34PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Placebo

This is painful, especially considering that many people think that the iMac is the only thing that Apple makes other than the iPod.

Do you think this is true? I thought for the past couple of years that Apple laptops seem to have a higher profile than their desktops. I guess the iMac might make more of an impact, though, due to its unique design over the years. I also may be biased b/c I'm in the laptop-centric world of grad school. Still, I'm not sure if the iMac is the most visible product in the lineup. I think the original was, but not so sure anymore. The 2nd iMac wasn't nearly as popular, and as such, I tend to wonder if iBooks or Powerbooks are more on the forefront of people's minds now.

chagi · September 23, 2004 7:25PM

Quote:

Originally posted by murbot

While this reviewer is obviously a bit of a dolt (finding it odd that the iMac doesn't accept more than 2GB of RAM, for instance), you can't really blame the iMovie/iTunes comments. If Apple would ship their machines with a decent amount of RAM he probably wouldn't have had that skipping.

256MB is pathetic, and whoever is in charge of deciding on that amount should be clubbed.

Yup, that's another thing that caught my eye. Apparently 2GB of RAM just isn't going to be enough for Jane and Joe Blow when they buy their consumer PC?

mr. bob · September 23, 2004 8:54PM

Just stopped by Amazon, the top three sellers in desktops are the three models of the iMac G5.

By the way out of the top eleven sellers, eight are Apple models. Not too shabby. Market share is looking up if Amazon is a true guage of sentiment.

Will have to check out the portable stats.

8) 8) 8)

applenut · September 23, 2004 10:49PM

Apple would have me sold if they

1. Upped the GPU to something respectable for today's standards

2. Upped the standard RAM to 512MB

3. Included Bluetooth and Airport as standard

Now, before you attack me for unrealistic desires....I would like this included as standard on the high end most expensive model. As it is, adding these basic (to me) requirements for computer use makes the total cost insanely higher and in the case of the GPU impossible.

I've desired a minitower in the 1000-2000 range but this has me sold if they could provide those three things on the high end 20 inch model for the same price. so close.....i want one badly.

endymionls · September 23, 2004 11:33PM

Come on guys. Everyone is hung up on the amount of standard RAM, GPU, and the fact that Wireless/Bluetooth are not included. Have you guys stopped to think that if the amount of RAM included was upped and that Wireless/Bluetooth were included that the price would be just that much more. SO ADD THE OPTIONS IF YOU WANT THEM WHEN YOU ORDER IT.

As for the GPU, this isn't designed to be a hardcore gaming machine. It's marketed towards (at least for what I've noticed) the average user that surfs the web, does a little word processing, listens to some music, and chats, and would like to have all this functionality in a small machine.

Including Bluetooth and Wireless would just be a waste for some people. While I have a wireless network inside of my house, I wouldn't get wireless in a PC since I have switches behind my desk. As for Bluetooth devices, I don't have any. And if I do get one down the road, I'll buy a USB dongle for it. It's not like it'll get in the way back there.

I have the midrange model (17 inch, SuperDrive), and I'm so beyond happy with it. It's footprint is much smaller than my PC, and does almost everything that my PC does (outside of playing Final Fantasy XI and running XP which I will be teaching, and the later can be fixed once I get Virtual PC 7).

Granted, I upped the amount of RAM to 1 GB right away, but that's only because I'm impatient, and I planned on doing that from the beginning.

If you guys have a complaint about it, then make it a legitimate one, like the aluminum foot is the wrong color gray. Quit picking on the features that can be added.

dmgeist · September 24, 2004 12:39AM

Okay i am still using a 600mhz ibook with a 8mb ati rage card, and i played and conquered Diablo 2, War-craft 3, Neverwinter Nights, Black and white, etc... Ive used it for rendering in bryce as well as using Photoshop 7. When i got the ibook i only had 384mb of memory, now i have 640 mg. When i get a new mac wether it be a imac or a powerbook i'll know that it will be useable for many years. So can you people please stop comparing generic pc parts to apples. The chips such as the GPUs are physically different than PC GPUs. Not to mention that Mac OS X is optimized to take full advantage the limited amount of cards available.

The only time i noticed my laptops age was playing Neverwinter Nights.

Then i knew Its time to upgrade. Im not just a gamer. Most of the time im doing graphics work. Ive ran this laptop with ten to twelve apps running with only 384mg of memory.

P.S Any time you render anything in either a 3D App or imovie these programs are going to take up some processor time. DUHhhh

Just becuase a song studders during this task doesnt mean the sky is falling. When windows xp came out my mp3s would slow down when i was browsing the filesystem, what kind of crap is that?

talksense101 · September 24, 2004 4:51AM

I agree with the review on the amount of RAM shipped with the machine. It is silly.

The review doesn't seem as bad as it is made up to be.

imacfp · September 24, 2004 7:57AM

Quote:

Originally posted by applenut

3. Included Bluetooth and Airport as standard

As long as you could remove those things I'd say you're right on the high end, but I have a feeling Apple would bump up the price to cover the cards and you'd still have to buy a base station for $129 or $199. I'd rather see Apple spend that money on a better GPU and more RAM.

Another lame iMac G5 review

Comments