This is basically a pre-requisite to cheaper 17 and 20" models. Apple doesn't want you to buy a tower, they would rather sell you a more expensive iMac. So, while the 17 and 20" models are set to fall in price, this primes the model range for a high end model to step in at the 1999 price.
There are no balance issues, the sunflower arm is gone afterall, and the larger the screen, the less bezel, so it scarecly has to be larger than the current 20" model, just a tad wider.
Visually, it absolutely makes sense, Apple is slowly paring the iMac's visual interface down to a screen and keyboard. The larger screen means that the desktop dominates your view, it simplifies the AIO even further. It will happen, it will be good...
This is basically a pre-requisite to cheaper 17 and 20" models. Apple doesn't want you to buy a tower, they would rather sell you a more expensive iMac. So, while the 17 and 20" models are set to fall in price, this primes the model range for a high end model to step in at the 1999 price.
There are no balance issues, the sunflower arm is gone afterall, and the larger the screen, the less bezel, so it scarecly has to be larger than the current 20" model, just a tad wider.
Visually, it absolutely makes sense, Apple is slowly paring the iMac's visual interface down to a screen and keyboard. The larger screen means that the desktop dominates your view, it simplifies the AIO even further. It will happen, it will be good...
personally i can deal with a 23" new iMac g5 model at the 1999 price...
only if however the 17 and 20 inchers show improvements of video card, ram and/or hard disk bottleneck issue. personally i can deal with 17 and 20 inchers holding at their price points should these improvements actually happen
given the above, more power to apple and whoever that enjoys a f8cking kick as 23 incher... get some sweet speakers and/or sub, and that's a nice little personal home theater, hell, you can slide your office chair to the side, kick back on a lounge with friends/loved ones/the chick/guy you're trying to seduce and watch a dvd/ divx/ whatever...
Didn't anyone notice the putative relase date is April 1?
There's no way that Apple is going to make a major product announcement on April Fool's day.
This report of Tiger's release has got to be bogus.
Apple Computer was founded April 1, 1976.
I do not think any respected rumor site would be silly enough to use April 1 as a date unless they felt certain their info was reliable. After all, no site wants the ire of Mac users on them for pulling a bad April Fool's Joke.
I have a current iMac on order - it's taking a lot longer for them to deliver it than I thought and they're estimating 15 or 16 March to me now. Would I be able to cancel at this stage, and if so, should I?
You can cancel. I changed my order from a 17" iMac to a 20" the day before it was supposed to ship.
Would I? Depends on you. I order for the present and rarely wait for the next best thing. I would suggest getting all the ram you can in it. I dread opening the iMac up and putting in more ram. I had 2 x 512 chips put in it. I wish I just got the full 2 gig and been done with it but Apple's ram prices are outrageious.
And yes it's disapointing if Apple do not give a better video card for the i macs.
Apple has never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, put a decent graphics card in their consumer line. Don't hold your breath, expect just a memory upgrade if we're lucky.
Apple has never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, put a decent graphics card in their consumer line. Don't hold your breath, expect just a memory upgrade if we're lucky.
yeah you know, it sounds like heresy but now that i am 'married' to the mac i wouldn't mind having a 'mistress' on the side -- a build-your-own winXP gaming rig with some nvidia/ati SLI thingy, for half-life2, counter-strike condition zero/source, and hmmm... maybe some other games
nahhh f8ck it i think i'll just buy a PS2
hmm gotta get a job first before i consider either option \
Get the PS2. Though this is bound to offend some, a computer as a gaming machine is idiotic (no matter the platform). There aren't enough unique titles to justify it, and the sorts of games that are appreciably better on a computer (not fps) but things like simms, rts, etc... tend to be just as good on a lower spec machine. A computer to satify the measurbators will run about $1000. The same thousand will buy a PS2 and at least a dozen games, but 15-20 if you shop smart. The PS2 will work, and won't crash...
Buy whatever you like for computing, WIN or Mac, both are good. Just don't make gaming the measure of either, unless of course you derive more satisfaction from frame-rate comparos than actually playing the games themselves...
Get the PS2. Though this is bound to offend some, a computer as a gaming machine is idiotic (no matter the platform). There aren't enough unique titles to justify it, and the sorts of games that are appreciably better on a computer (not fps) but things like simms, rts, etc... tend to be just as good on a lower spec machine. A computer to satify the measurbators will run about $1000. The same thousand will buy a PS2 and at least a dozen games, but 15-20 if you shop smart. The PS2 will work, and won't crash...
Buy whatever you like for computing, WIN or Mac, both are good. Just don't make gaming the measure of either, unless of course you derive more satisfaction from frame-rate comparos than actually playing the games themselves...
i enjoyed Command and Conquer Generals on an eMac 1.25ghz so generally i agree with you... i am not an FPS head for the most part, but i am dying to check out Half-Life 2..!!
but i am glad i am not going to throw myself into the gaming scene, even though i got into UT2004-ONS-TORLAN for a while, and i enjoy a good PoolDay or IceWorld on CounterStrike, and after a few levels of Doom3, i lost interest in it... but i do want to check out HalfLife2...!!
thanks for the advice basically i am just gonna wait and keep on harassing my local internet gaming cafe to get HalfLife2... until then i've got counterStrike whenever i've got an itchy finger..!! seriously, after watching quite a number of episodes of Alias i feel i have gotten better at counterStrike.. i've stopped shooting at legs and feet, i watch my ammo (short clean bursts), anticipate the enemy, use dumb teammates as decoys, take cover, switch to handgun in emergencies, reload only when i know it's safe, and lay down cover fire when running away
or maybe that day the guys I was playing against just sucked
Ps2 blows vs a cheap pc for gamming.My god i almost cry when I hear that.Ps2 can't do vertext and pixil shading,no aniotopic filtering,I no even sure trilinar filtering,Enveromental bump mapping (make shiny surfaces like light reflecting off a marble floor and making textures not look flat,Dot3 bumpmapping and way more.Ps2 hardware in grafix is about the same a working with DX5/6 or whatever version of opengl was when quake3 came out or before.I can't even do t&l the major feat of dx7.
my system is old 1.16ghz Amd Xp with 768mb sdram with a gf4ti4400 and i can play farcry,hl2,doom 3,any new game at 1024x768 or 800x600.
Doom 3 At 800x600 with high quaity i got 20 to 40 fps and it looked good
my system cost me 250 bucks +150 for the video card over a year ago.U don't need to spend 1000bucks on a pc.for gamming u only do once and a while.
personally i can deal with a 23" new iMac g5 model at the 1999 price...
only if however the 17 and 20 inchers show improvements of video card, ram and/or hard disk bottleneck issue. personally i can deal with 17 and 20 inchers holding at their price points should these improvements actually happen
given the above, more power to apple and whoever that enjoys a f8cking kick as 23 incher... get some sweet speakers and/or sub, and that's a nice little personal home theater, hell, you can slide your office chair to the side, kick back on a lounge with friends/loved ones/the chick/guy you're trying to seduce and watch a dvd/ divx/ whatever...
I can't see a 23" iMac. What would be the rational for it?
This would have to be one heck of an expensive machine. A fast G5, at least. Maybe two. It would have to have at least a 9600 128MByte card. A large HD, better audio in and out, more ports. At least one Firewire 800, and 1 400. 3 or four USB 2 ports. etc.
As I say, expensive. Who would buy it? I wouldn't. I've been doing video, publishing, and photo work for years. This would be fast enough, but if it's not upgradable, forget it.
Yeppers, an HD iMac would totally RULE! If the price were right I bet Apple would sell lots of them, just keep it at the current $1900. Oh, and put in a good video chipset!
Yeppers, an HD iMac would totally RULE! If the price were right I bet Apple would sell lots of them, just keep it at the current $1900. Oh, and put in a good video chipset!
23" and 30" are still far too expernsive. In the UK it's £699 for 20" £1249 for 23" and £2099 for 30" They really need to get the 23" down to £1000 if it's going to sell properly (as well as fixing the magenta)
Ps2 blows vs a cheap pc for gamming.My god i almost cry when I hear that.Ps2 can't do vertext and pixil shading,no aniotopic filtering,I no even sure trilinar filtering,Enveromental bump mapping (make shiny surfaces like light reflecting off a marble floor and making textures not look flat,Dot3 bumpmapping and way more.Ps2 hardware in grafix is about the same a working with DX5/6 or whatever version of opengl was when quake3 came out or before.I can't even do t&l the major feat of dx7.
When I'm busy shooting the bad guys I often exclaim "My God this thing can't do vertext!" and "Where the hell is the aniotopic filtering damnit!?" and get so distracted that I get blown to pieces. I blame the lack of of Dot3 bumpmapping for my demise.
Well i never liked any consels after i got into pc gaming there just no match vs a pc or even a mac.I like rts games like warcraft 1/2/3,fps,turn based games like civ2/3 and kohan,role playing games like BGate 1/2+addion,neverwinternights,and many others,space sims like X2-the threat,decent freespace and the list goes on.same with fps like hl1/2,doom3,thief 1/2/3 etc.
I don't game on the fastest comp in the world.
athlon xp1800 @1.16ghz,768mb sdram@100mhz cas 2,2,2 and a gf4ti4400.cost to me was 250cdn +150cdn for my gf4ti4400 over a year ago and no its not a dell its all retail parts and a enermax 350 watt ps. I just moved my hdd,cdrw,sound card over from my old celeron 366 that i have got in 2000.So pretty much i am saying even if your a part time gammer u don't need to spend a crap load for the fastest just to game on a pc.Still have way more choices for great games than what a ps2/xbox,game cube.
Here kicker my system ran doom 3 at 800x600 @high setting's and i got between 25 to 40 fps .
Comments
This is basically a pre-requisite to cheaper 17 and 20" models. Apple doesn't want you to buy a tower, they would rather sell you a more expensive iMac. So, while the 17 and 20" models are set to fall in price, this primes the model range for a high end model to step in at the 1999 price.
There are no balance issues, the sunflower arm is gone afterall, and the larger the screen, the less bezel, so it scarecly has to be larger than the current 20" model, just a tad wider.
Visually, it absolutely makes sense, Apple is slowly paring the iMac's visual interface down to a screen and keyboard. The larger screen means that the desktop dominates your view, it simplifies the AIO even further. It will happen, it will be good...
Originally posted by Matsu
23" iMac is coming...
This is basically a pre-requisite to cheaper 17 and 20" models. Apple doesn't want you to buy a tower, they would rather sell you a more expensive iMac. So, while the 17 and 20" models are set to fall in price, this primes the model range for a high end model to step in at the 1999 price.
There are no balance issues, the sunflower arm is gone afterall, and the larger the screen, the less bezel, so it scarecly has to be larger than the current 20" model, just a tad wider.
Visually, it absolutely makes sense, Apple is slowly paring the iMac's visual interface down to a screen and keyboard. The larger screen means that the desktop dominates your view, it simplifies the AIO even further. It will happen, it will be good...
personally i can deal with a 23" new iMac g5 model at the 1999 price...
only if however the 17 and 20 inchers show improvements of video card, ram and/or hard disk bottleneck issue. personally i can deal with 17 and 20 inchers holding at their price points should these improvements actually happen
given the above, more power to apple and whoever that enjoys a f8cking kick as 23 incher... get some sweet speakers and/or sub, and that's a nice little personal home theater, hell, you can slide your office chair to the side, kick back on a lounge with friends/loved ones/the chick/guy you're trying to seduce and watch a dvd/ divx/ whatever...
Originally posted by IAmNotReallyHuman
Didn't anyone notice the putative relase date is April 1?
There's no way that Apple is going to make a major product announcement on April Fool's day.
This report of Tiger's release has got to be bogus.
Apple Computer was founded April 1, 1976.
I do not think any respected rumor site would be silly enough to use April 1 as a date unless they felt certain their info was reliable. After all, no site wants the ire of Mac users on them for pulling a bad April Fool's Joke.
Would I? Depends on you. I order for the present and rarely wait for the next best thing. I would suggest getting all the ram you can in it. I dread opening the iMac up and putting in more ram. I had 2 x 512 chips put in it. I wish I just got the full 2 gig and been done with it but Apple's ram prices are outrageious.
Eric
Originally posted by Powerdoc
And yes it's disapointing if Apple do not give a better video card for the i macs.
Apple has never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, put a decent graphics card in their consumer line. Don't hold your breath, expect just a memory upgrade if we're lucky.
Originally posted by Relic
Apple has never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, put a decent graphics card in their consumer line. Don't hold your breath, expect just a memory upgrade if we're lucky.
yeah you know, it sounds like heresy but now that i am 'married' to the mac i wouldn't mind having a 'mistress' on the side -- a build-your-own winXP gaming rig with some nvidia/ati SLI thingy, for half-life2, counter-strike condition zero/source, and hmmm... maybe some other games
nahhh f8ck it i think i'll just buy a PS2
hmm gotta get a job first before i consider either option
Buy whatever you like for computing, WIN or Mac, both are good. Just don't make gaming the measure of either, unless of course you derive more satisfaction from frame-rate comparos than actually playing the games themselves...
Originally posted by Matsu
Get the PS2. Though this is bound to offend some, a computer as a gaming machine is idiotic (no matter the platform). There aren't enough unique titles to justify it, and the sorts of games that are appreciably better on a computer (not fps) but things like simms, rts, etc... tend to be just as good on a lower spec machine. A computer to satify the measurbators will run about $1000. The same thousand will buy a PS2 and at least a dozen games, but 15-20 if you shop smart. The PS2 will work, and won't crash...
Buy whatever you like for computing, WIN or Mac, both are good. Just don't make gaming the measure of either, unless of course you derive more satisfaction from frame-rate comparos than actually playing the games themselves...
i enjoyed Command and Conquer Generals on an eMac 1.25ghz
but i am glad i am not going to throw myself into the gaming scene, even though i got into UT2004-ONS-TORLAN for a while, and i enjoy a good PoolDay or IceWorld on CounterStrike, and after a few levels of Doom3, i lost interest in it... but i do want to check out HalfLife2...!!
thanks for the advice basically i am just gonna wait and keep on harassing my local internet gaming cafe to get HalfLife2... until then i've got counterStrike whenever i've got an itchy finger..!! seriously, after watching quite a number of episodes of Alias i feel i have gotten better at counterStrike.. i've stopped shooting at legs and feet, i watch my ammo (short clean bursts), anticipate the enemy, use dumb teammates as decoys, take cover, switch to handgun in emergencies, reload only when i know it's safe, and lay down cover fire when running away
or maybe that day the guys I was playing against just sucked
Originally posted by aplnub
I had 2 x 512 chips put in it. I wish I just got the full 2 gig and been done with it but Apple's ram prices are outrageious.
Eric
That's why i love crucial!
(www.crucial.com)
my system is old 1.16ghz Amd Xp with 768mb sdram with a gf4ti4400 and i can play farcry,hl2,doom 3,any new game at 1024x768 or 800x600.
Doom 3 At 800x600 with high quaity i got 20 to 40 fps and it looked good
my system cost me 250 bucks +150 for the video card over a year ago.U don't need to spend 1000bucks on a pc.for gamming u only do once and a while.
Originally posted by sunilraman
personally i can deal with a 23" new iMac g5 model at the 1999 price...
only if however the 17 and 20 inchers show improvements of video card, ram and/or hard disk bottleneck issue. personally i can deal with 17 and 20 inchers holding at their price points should these improvements actually happen
given the above, more power to apple and whoever that enjoys a f8cking kick as 23 incher... get some sweet speakers and/or sub, and that's a nice little personal home theater, hell, you can slide your office chair to the side, kick back on a lounge with friends/loved ones/the chick/guy you're trying to seduce and watch a dvd/ divx/ whatever...
I can't see a 23" iMac. What would be the rational for it?
This would have to be one heck of an expensive machine. A fast G5, at least. Maybe two. It would have to have at least a 9600 128MByte card. A large HD, better audio in and out, more ports. At least one Firewire 800, and 1 400. 3 or four USB 2 ports. etc.
As I say, expensive. Who would buy it? I wouldn't. I've been doing video, publishing, and photo work for years. This would be fast enough, but if it's not upgradable, forget it.
Originally posted by melgross
I can't see a 23" iMac. What would be the rational for it?
This is the year of HD. We need an iMac HD
Originally posted by MacCrazy
This is the year of HD. We need an iMac HD
yup.. 23" cinema display technically can handle 1080p full HDTV spec
now cram that into a sweet g5 iMac and you're surfing the year of HD..!**
an complement it with an Elgato HDTV tuner/receiver thingy. f8cking sweet personal home theatre dude...
**23" iMac g5 may need better video card to do HDTV/video/GPU number crunching
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Yeppers, an HD iMac would totally RULE! If the price were right I bet Apple would sell lots of them, just keep it at the current $1900. Oh, and put in a good video chipset!
23" and 30" are still far too expernsive. In the UK it's £699 for 20" £1249 for 23" and £2099 for 30" They really need to get the 23" down to £1000 if it's going to sell properly (as well as fixing the magenta)
Originally posted by Thomaz
Ps2 blows vs a cheap pc for gamming.My god i almost cry when I hear that.Ps2 can't do vertext and pixil shading,no aniotopic filtering,I no even sure trilinar filtering,Enveromental bump mapping (make shiny surfaces like light reflecting off a marble floor and making textures not look flat,Dot3 bumpmapping and way more.Ps2 hardware in grafix is about the same a working with DX5/6 or whatever version of opengl was when quake3 came out or before.I can't even do t&l the major feat of dx7.
When I'm busy shooting the bad guys I often exclaim "My God this thing can't do vertext!" and "Where the hell is the aniotopic filtering damnit!?" and get so distracted that I get blown to pieces. I blame the lack of of Dot3 bumpmapping for my demise.
HD 1920 x 1080 on the iMac 23". Ha, Ha.
Try $2999.95 That would be closer.
I don't game on the fastest comp in the world.
athlon xp1800 @1.16ghz,768mb sdram@100mhz cas 2,2,2 and a gf4ti4400.cost to me was 250cdn +150cdn for my gf4ti4400 over a year ago and no its not a dell its all retail parts and a enermax 350 watt ps. I just moved my hdd,cdrw,sound card over from my old celeron 366 that i have got in 2000.So pretty much i am saying even if your a part time gammer u don't need to spend a crap load for the fastest just to game on a pc.Still have way more choices for great games than what a ps2/xbox,game cube.
Here kicker my system ran doom 3 at 800x600 @high setting's and i got between 25 to 40 fps