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.
I agree. If I was paying $100 on the base price of the machine for wireless, I'd be pretty disappointed since I would never use this feature. Same goes for the GPU. I am not interested in paying more for a better GPU because it's not going to help my regular applications.
Quote:
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.
In all honestly, exactly how many people have BT devices? There are a million and one wireless keyboards and mice out there that aren't BT. Seems odd to pay extra for BT just to allow one to use a BT mouse/keyboard.
Because using the internal BT module keeps you from plugging up an USB 2.0 port unnecessarily.
That is true, and that is why there is an option to get BT installed. The reason these things aren't installed in the 'Base Models' is because Apple is trying to keep the prices down. I liked the look of the G4 iMac, but the price kept me from buying it. I don't remember how much they were, but I do remember looking at the lowend model and saying "This is way too much".
I admit, these are pricier than a similar PC, but the gap isn't as large, and that is why I bought this one. But the easiest way to keep that price down is to not include options that the average Joe won't use.
People don't want BT standard... but when it's standard in a PowerBook, we're happy? Strange.
I don't think I will have a problem with the GPU in my 20", as I could easily go the next 6 months without playing a game. But I know that a lot of people DO, and this is seen as a big red stop sign in their purchase decision making.
It should at least be a BTO upgrade. My god, would that be so difficult?
I agree. If I was paying $100 on the base price of the machine for wireless, I'd be pretty disappointed since I would never use this feature. Same goes for the GPU. I am not interested in paying more for a better GPU because it's not going to help my regular applications.
In all honestly, exactly how many people have BT devices? There are a million and one wireless keyboards and mice out there that aren't BT. Seems odd to pay extra for BT just to allow one to use a BT mouse/keyboard.
you're GPU is used for everything. It would help regular applications. It would help overall system performance. The iMac does not serve one dumbass intro to computing market segment. It covers a price range from 1299 to nearly 2000. Yet the features don't scale. Only screen size.
BT devices. It's standard on Powerbooks and everyone makes a big deal of how apple pushes standards forward and forces acceptance. The original imac made waves because it relied solely on the at the time brand new USB. There were practically no devices at all, especially mac compatible. Apple lead the way. Why not be the first to push wireless acceptance. Oh wait.....let's make excuses for them.
There are some figures on Tom's Hardware, running Doom 3 on high and low end cards. The figures for the Geforce 5200 (as in the iMac) are laughable.
I would love to buy one, I'd love to leave the horrible world of Wintel and join the Mac club again. But I can't afford a PowerMac and that GPU just doesn't cut it.
So close but so far. iMac will be great for many people, just so long as they never try to play a new game on it.
Come Rev.B Imac G5, if there's a BTO option of a Radeon 9800 in there... my money is yours Apple.
Given all the kafuffle over the GPU and RAM, Apple would have to be idiots not to improve these with the next rev, at least in the two higher end models.
you're GPU is used for everything. It would help regular applications. It would help overall system performance.
I understand that, however for most 2D users, it's more than sufficient. I have a RADEON 7500 in my PC and it's more than I need. I cannot imagine an Nvidia 5200 is slower than that or is it?
Quote:
The iMac does not serve one dumbass intro to computing market segment. It covers a price range from 1299 to nearly 2000. Yet the features don't scale. Only screen size.
I cannot argue that the features don't scale because they don't, but at the same time, wouldn't too many options confuse the new user? Us power users see the benefit of options, but I firmly believe that too many options confuses people.
Quote:
BT devices. It's standard on Powerbooks and everyone makes a big deal of how apple pushes standards forward and forces acceptance. The original imac made waves because it relied solely on the at the time brand new USB. There were practically no devices at all, especially mac compatible. Apple lead the way. Why not be the first to push wireless acceptance. Oh wait.....let's make excuses for them.
Wow, such anger over an entry level machine... one persons's trash is another persons's treasure, I guess.
Another comment on this issue. I haven't seen the new iMac G5 in person yet, so can't really say what I think of it in person design-wise, but I do feel that the GPU issue is fairly significant.
Having only 256MB of RAM isn't a terribly big deal (though the 20" model should probably ship with 512MB base), because it is easily and affordably upgraded. RAM is dirt cheap these days. That said, you can't upgrade the GPU, and I really do think that Apple should have opted for a different choice of video cards when designing this consumer PC, particularly for the 20" model.
The GeForce 5200 was an entry level graphics card choice a year and a half ago in the PC world. It may be okay for most currently shipping titles, but it's going to get absolutely killed by next-gen titles that will be out in quantity soon (i.e. based on Half Life 2 & Doom III engines).
It isn't all that bad: the 5200 Ultra is 50% faster than a plain 5200. (There are still better cards around. Not sure if any of them fit the iMac space, power, price and heat constraints.)
I couldn't be happier with my 20". With all of the constant whining here by people that would only buy one if it had...yeah maybe you would...maybe you wouldn't.
The reports that having matched memory actually making a significant difference in speed vs non identical sticks is starting to trickle in. So let's say that Apple put in 512 in your iMac. You would then have to buy the identical stick to get the 128 bit advantage. I predict that would cause just as many gripes because Apple then would have you cornered into having to buy an identical stick to what they installed. Or it would hamstring the people that want to go above 1 gig memory with matching sticks. Now you have to throw away or sell the 512.
I have 2 matching sticks of 512's. Coming from a G3 iMac 400 and a G4 12" PB this machine flies. No beachballs. No I don't play the newest games but we use Photoshop, Sketchup, Office, iLife, etc.
Use one for awhile. Maybe your mind will be changed. Until then, it would be like me giving a review of or criticizing any product I don't own. Worthless.
I think you're stretching the definition of an entry level machine when that so-called machine costs $1899.
Interesting... as a PC user, I am frequently reminded that Mac prices aren't a factor since it's such a superior platform. I agree, the price is too high for an entry level machine.
One should hope that with the prices of LCD displays in the industry dropping across the board, Apple will adjust the prices accordingly. I am not counting on it, though.
Regardless, this is a pretty hostile crowd. If you don't like the new iMac, don't buy it. A lot of people are already satisfied with their iMac G5 purchases, so they all can't be bad.
It isn't all that bad: the 5200 Ultra is 50% faster than a plain 5200. (There are still better cards around. Not sure if any of them fit the iMac space, power, price and heat constraints.)
5200 is pretty much bottom of the pile. Take a look at the Doom 3 figures on TomsHardware. It's a joke.
Surely in the 20" iMac, there would be space for at least a Radeon 9800? Even that's an old chip now and ATI have moved on to much quicker things.
The unfortunate side to Apple's hype about the new iMac, is that they specifically mention that it's quick for games. Which it isn't. You can buy even a fairly cheap PC from a high street store and you'll still end up with a better gfx card than the iMac has. At least Radeon 9600 level, if not higher.
Not only is the graphic card weak, but the GPU in the new iMac is nothing to wright home about.
The G5 processor in the iMac is only about 2/3 the speed of the top 2.5GHz G5. That is is like coming out with a new PC that used a 2.2GHz P4, not something to get real excited about when you can get PCs with 3.4GHz P4s.
In the barefeats comparison test the current 1.5GHz powerbook outperformed the new iMacs on some tests. (caused mostly buy the weak graphics processor).
I went to the Apple store and played around with a new iMac for awhile and was not impressed -- it is not very powerfu,l and I preferred the arm of the last iMac.
Truthfully, I am just not happy with the price/performance ratio of any Mac right now (except the Xserve, which is a pretty nice deal). It looks I will be waiting a while longer for a new Mac.
Out of interest, how long is the gap between iMac updates?
--When can we expect a Rev.B to make it out onto market? I have cash in hand here, just give me a good GPU Apple. BTO is fine, and I'll pay plenty of extra cash for it.
I'm at the start of the switcher chain here. I have my iPod, love it, and now I'm ready for the next step.
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.
Not a reasonable request. The issue is not that black and white. This is a problem that Apple should address *somehow*. It's absurb to tell people to fork over $3000-$5000 (depending on the tower and monitor) just to be able to have a system that can perform respectably on modern games or can use some other $20 after-market card they need.
Apple needs to consider a middle class prosumer system.
The FX 5200 Ultra isn't anywhere near the bottom of the pile. It's better than the GPUs on most entry level PCs, which are generally Intel shared-memory crap.
Quote:
Take a look at the Doom 3 figures on TomsHardware. It's a joke.
DOOM 3, with all features maxed out, is so punishing that it hardly runs well on anything. Fortunately, if you're willing to turn some things down, it runs well enough. At any rate, that's like saying that the iBook is a terrible notebook because it can't run Motion.
Quote:
The unfortunate side to Apple's hype about the new iMac, is that they specifically mention that it's quick for games. Which it isn't. You can buy even a fairly cheap PC from a high street store and you'll still end up with a better gfx card than the iMac has. At least Radeon 9600 level, if not higher.
The 9600 has worse support for programmable textures, and it's less programmable overall. So, in one increasingly crucial respect, the 5200 Ultra is a better GPU both for next-generation games and for Tiger. And, it's all too easy to buy a retail PC with much worse graphics acceleration than the iMac's.
Comments
Originally posted by endymionls
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.
I agree. If I was paying $100 on the base price of the machine for wireless, I'd be pretty disappointed since I would never use this feature. Same goes for the GPU. I am not interested in paying more for a better GPU because it's not going to help my regular applications.
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.
In all honestly, exactly how many people have BT devices? There are a million and one wireless keyboards and mice out there that aren't BT. Seems odd to pay extra for BT just to allow one to use a BT mouse/keyboard.
Because using the internal BT module keeps you from plugging up an USB 2.0 port unnecessarily.
That is true, and that is why there is an option to get BT installed. The reason these things aren't installed in the 'Base Models' is because Apple is trying to keep the prices down. I liked the look of the G4 iMac, but the price kept me from buying it. I don't remember how much they were, but I do remember looking at the lowend model and saying "This is way too much".
I admit, these are pricier than a similar PC, but the gap isn't as large, and that is why I bought this one. But the easiest way to keep that price down is to not include options that the average Joe won't use.
I don't think I will have a problem with the GPU in my 20", as I could easily go the next 6 months without playing a game. But I know that a lot of people DO, and this is seen as a big red stop sign in their purchase decision making.
It should at least be a BTO upgrade. My god, would that be so difficult?
Originally posted by mikef
I agree. If I was paying $100 on the base price of the machine for wireless, I'd be pretty disappointed since I would never use this feature. Same goes for the GPU. I am not interested in paying more for a better GPU because it's not going to help my regular applications.
In all honestly, exactly how many people have BT devices? There are a million and one wireless keyboards and mice out there that aren't BT. Seems odd to pay extra for BT just to allow one to use a BT mouse/keyboard.
you're GPU is used for everything. It would help regular applications. It would help overall system performance. The iMac does not serve one dumbass intro to computing market segment. It covers a price range from 1299 to nearly 2000. Yet the features don't scale. Only screen size.
BT devices. It's standard on Powerbooks and everyone makes a big deal of how apple pushes standards forward and forces acceptance. The original imac made waves because it relied solely on the at the time brand new USB. There were practically no devices at all, especially mac compatible. Apple lead the way. Why not be the first to push wireless acceptance. Oh wait.....let's make excuses for them.
I would love to buy one, I'd love to leave the horrible world of Wintel and join the Mac club again. But I can't afford a PowerMac and that GPU just doesn't cut it.
So close but so far. iMac will be great for many people, just so long as they never try to play a new game on it.
Come Rev.B Imac G5, if there's a BTO option of a Radeon 9800 in there... my money is yours Apple.
Originally posted by applenut
you're GPU is used for everything. It would help regular applications. It would help overall system performance.
I understand that, however for most 2D users, it's more than sufficient. I have a RADEON 7500 in my PC and it's more than I need. I cannot imagine an Nvidia 5200 is slower than that or is it?
The iMac does not serve one dumbass intro to computing market segment. It covers a price range from 1299 to nearly 2000. Yet the features don't scale. Only screen size.
I cannot argue that the features don't scale because they don't, but at the same time, wouldn't too many options confuse the new user? Us power users see the benefit of options, but I firmly believe that too many options confuses people.
BT devices. It's standard on Powerbooks and everyone makes a big deal of how apple pushes standards forward and forces acceptance. The original imac made waves because it relied solely on the at the time brand new USB. There were practically no devices at all, especially mac compatible. Apple lead the way. Why not be the first to push wireless acceptance. Oh wait.....let's make excuses for them.
Wow, such anger over an entry level machine... one persons's trash is another persons's treasure, I guess.
I think you're stretching the definition of an entry level machine when that so-called machine costs $1899.
Having only 256MB of RAM isn't a terribly big deal (though the 20" model should probably ship with 512MB base), because it is easily and affordably upgraded. RAM is dirt cheap these days. That said, you can't upgrade the GPU, and I really do think that Apple should have opted for a different choice of video cards when designing this consumer PC, particularly for the 20" model.
The GeForce 5200 was an entry level graphics card choice a year and a half ago in the PC world. It may be okay for most currently shipping titles, but it's going to get absolutely killed by next-gen titles that will be out in quantity soon (i.e. based on Half Life 2 & Doom III engines).
The reports that having matched memory actually making a significant difference in speed vs non identical sticks is starting to trickle in. So let's say that Apple put in 512 in your iMac. You would then have to buy the identical stick to get the 128 bit advantage. I predict that would cause just as many gripes because Apple then would have you cornered into having to buy an identical stick to what they installed. Or it would hamstring the people that want to go above 1 gig memory with matching sticks. Now you have to throw away or sell the 512.
I have 2 matching sticks of 512's. Coming from a G3 iMac 400 and a G4 12" PB this machine flies. No beachballs. No I don't play the newest games but we use Photoshop, Sketchup, Office, iLife, etc.
Use one for awhile. Maybe your mind will be changed. Until then, it would be like me giving a review of or criticizing any product I don't own. Worthless.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
I think you're stretching the definition of an entry level machine when that so-called machine costs $1899.
Interesting... as a PC user, I am frequently reminded that Mac prices aren't a factor since it's such a superior platform. I agree, the price is too high for an entry level machine.
One should hope that with the prices of LCD displays in the industry dropping across the board, Apple will adjust the prices accordingly. I am not counting on it, though.
Regardless, this is a pretty hostile crowd. If you don't like the new iMac, don't buy it. A lot of people are already satisfied with their iMac G5 purchases, so they all can't be bad.
Originally posted by Stoo
It isn't all that bad: the 5200 Ultra is 50% faster than a plain 5200. (There are still better cards around. Not sure if any of them fit the iMac space, power, price and heat constraints.)
5200 is pretty much bottom of the pile. Take a look at the Doom 3 figures on TomsHardware. It's a joke.
Surely in the 20" iMac, there would be space for at least a Radeon 9800? Even that's an old chip now and ATI have moved on to much quicker things.
The unfortunate side to Apple's hype about the new iMac, is that they specifically mention that it's quick for games. Which it isn't. You can buy even a fairly cheap PC from a high street store and you'll still end up with a better gfx card than the iMac has. At least Radeon 9600 level, if not higher.
The G5 processor in the iMac is only about 2/3 the speed of the top 2.5GHz G5. That is is like coming out with a new PC that used a 2.2GHz P4, not something to get real excited about when you can get PCs with 3.4GHz P4s.
In the barefeats comparison test the current 1.5GHz powerbook outperformed the new iMacs on some tests. (caused mostly buy the weak graphics processor).
I went to the Apple store and played around with a new iMac for awhile and was not impressed -- it is not very powerfu,l and I preferred the arm of the last iMac.
Truthfully, I am just not happy with the price/performance ratio of any Mac right now (except the Xserve, which is a pretty nice deal). It looks I will be waiting a while longer for a new Mac.
--When can we expect a Rev.B to make it out onto market? I have cash in hand here, just give me a good GPU Apple. BTO is fine, and I'll pay plenty of extra cash for it.
I'm at the start of the switcher chain here. I have my iPod, love it, and now I'm ready for the next step.
iBook, iMac. Updates please!
Originally posted by mikef
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.
Not a reasonable request. The issue is not that black and white. This is a problem that Apple should address *somehow*. It's absurb to tell people to fork over $3000-$5000 (depending on the tower and monitor) just to be able to have a system that can perform respectably on modern games or can use some other $20 after-market card they need.
Apple needs to consider a middle class prosumer system.
Originally posted by kotatsu
5200 is pretty much bottom of the pile.
The FX 5200 Ultra isn't anywhere near the bottom of the pile. It's better than the GPUs on most entry level PCs, which are generally Intel shared-memory crap.
Take a look at the Doom 3 figures on TomsHardware. It's a joke.
DOOM 3, with all features maxed out, is so punishing that it hardly runs well on anything. Fortunately, if you're willing to turn some things down, it runs well enough. At any rate, that's like saying that the iBook is a terrible notebook because it can't run Motion.
The unfortunate side to Apple's hype about the new iMac, is that they specifically mention that it's quick for games. Which it isn't. You can buy even a fairly cheap PC from a high street store and you'll still end up with a better gfx card than the iMac has. At least Radeon 9600 level, if not higher.
The 9600 has worse support for programmable textures, and it's less programmable overall. So, in one increasingly crucial respect, the 5200 Ultra is a better GPU both for next-generation games and for Tiger. And, it's all too easy to buy a retail PC with much worse graphics acceleration than the iMac's.
This issue is blown way, way out of proportion.