About the new iMac....

macgp · February 2, 2002 10:11AM

I like everything about it. Except that the Graphics card is soldered on to the mobo or apart of it. Do you think apple had any real option to make it interchangeable, or do they just want us to buy a new iMac ever year or two? I imagine it would have been difficult to make it interchangeable and hard to swap But it would have been nice.

corvette · February 2, 2002 11:04AM

I don't think it would be possible.

Apple woul want you to just buy a new iMac.

PowerMacs are meant to be the upgradeable ones.

neomac · February 3, 2002 11:03AM

The graphic system is fixed, because the target market is not hardcore gamers. You really have to understand that to understand why Apple designs these things this way.

FYI, the graphics system in the LiMac is a GeF2mx-400! Frankly, I'm amazed. WTG Apple!

junkyard dawg · February 3, 2002 12:09PM

[quote]I like everything about it. Except that the Graphics card is soldered on to the mobo or apart of it. Do you think apple had any real option to make it interchangeable <hr></blockquote>

No. Like you said, Apple expects you to throw out your iMac and buy a new one in 2-3 years. It's a disposable computer.

Since the video card is usually the first component to become obsolete, it's key for Apple to fix it so that you cannot upgrade it. RAM can be upgraded, thankfully, and Airport as well (since Apple makes money off Airport). The iMac is the ultimate computer from a corporate perspective, because it has its obsolescence designed into it. You can bet that an AGP slot was discussed at some high level meeting, and they probably went over how an AGP slot would affect the lifespan of iMacs, and it made them last too long, so Apple won't put it in.

And yes, gamers do use iMacs. The iMac is targeted at consumers, and consumers play games. They are not hardcore gamers, but they do play. Peruse the mac gaming websites and you'll see that many, many iMac users play games.

dhunter · February 7, 2002 12:38PM

All of Apple's computers have built in obselence, just look at the AppleCare Protection Plans - they go for three years. By the time it has run out, it would be time to buy a new computer. Look at the Power Macs 3 years ago. Look how far they have come.

asahitoro · February 7, 2002 7:14PM

[quote]Originally posted by MacGP:

I like everything about it. Except that the Graphics card is soldered on to the mobo or apart of it. Do you think apple had any real option to make it interchangeable, or do they just want us to buy a new iMac ever year or two? I imagine it would have been difficult to make it interchangeable and hard to swap But it would have been nice.

<hr></blockquote>

I agree. In fact that's why I'm not buying one. The lack of PCI slots doesn't bother me and the HD and RAM can be maxed out sufficiently. If the CPU was an interchangeable zif type and there was an option to upgrade the video card, I would snag the top model up quickly, maybe even two of them. Heck, even if it was just the video card being upgradeable(even if we had to buy them through Apple) it would have been more appealing. Like everyone else said though, Apple wants us to buy a new one every two years or so. That may be fine for an $800-1200 model but at $1800, I have to opt for a tower with a little more life in it *if I want*. You can get a 733 tower and 15" flat screen for about the same. You don't get the Superdrive but you get a faster bus, an upgradeable video card @4X AGP, some PCI slots if needed and at least some glimmer of hope that the CPU may be upgradeable someday.

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: AsahiToro ]

bauman · February 7, 2002 7:23PM

But really how big of a deal is this? It runs Quake at 50-60 FPS, but I don't even think that an LCD can display that fast.

I have an old iMac, and even though I don't play any hardcore games, some of the ones I do want to play are so slow. I'm Thrilled that it's a GeForce2

~bauman

koffedrnkr · February 8, 2002 2:43AM

the upgrade treadmill isn't all it's cracked up to be. i recently took the plunge on my girlfriend's PC. she needed RAM...but the RAM for her old machine cost more than a new 3rd party motherboard, so we replaced the whole board and got 128megs of RAM with that. then we discovered her old CPU wasn't compatible with the new board, so we upgraded with a faster celeron. then we discovered that the motherboard's built-in soundchip wasn't fully compatible with the software her mother wanted to run, so we ended up resurrecting the old sound card to get it running. then the modem was slow, so we got a new card and when everything was done we had spent about $500 and still had a crappy video card, a very small and fuzzy monitor and a slow little small hard drive. the speed difference was measurable, but hardly impressive. we would have been much better off buying a new $800 pc that had a big monitor, cd burner, fast hard drive, etc.

upgradeability sounds great in theory, but once you start mismatching components, it can quickly become a nightmare. apple is wise to limit how much hardware you can swap out in their consumer machines. an older mac with matched components would have easily wiped the floor with our $500 "laboratory experiment".

live an learn. caveat emptor.

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: koffedrnkr ]

bauman · February 8, 2002 11:22AM

Yeah, that is part of the Mac experience. You don't worry about things like that. No complications with mobos, etc. Either there is an upgrade that fits, or there isn't.

But I still do agree that it tends to be cheaper to get a new computer than upgrading again, again, and again. And there tends to be better performance because you CAN'T upgrade some things like bus, etc.

Just my muddled 2¢

~bauman

agent302 · February 9, 2002 12:28AM

I would think that the new iMac probably has a weird/complicated means of connecting the monitor to the graphics card. Seems like that would make upgrading the graphics card very challenging, and thus not an option.

pismeov · February 9, 2002 1:14AM

Well, if any of you remember, you must recognize the fact that the imac was meant to be a consumer (people who just use their computer as is...except maybe for more ram) computer. it's aim is not to be the most expandable, but rather simplistic. in that basis, the imac is successful. although, i am dismayed that the price kinda sky-rocketed. but as for expandibility, its targeted market is not often concerned with it.

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: pismeov ]

applegrazia · February 13, 2002 10:13AM

Consumer computer or not they should have made it a 64mb card not a 32mb card. Especially since there is no way to switch it.

outsider · February 13, 2002 10:24AM

They should just eliminate SDRAM slots altogether and solder in the whole 1GB. It's dirt cheap and you'll save some extra buck in slots and what not.

eman · February 13, 2002 3:14PM

[quote]Originally posted by applegrazia:

Consumer computer or not they should have made it a 64mb card not a 32mb card. Especially since there is no way to switch it.<hr></blockquote>

At MWSF the G4 towers only had 32MB cards, so why would the iMac have better?

ijerry · February 15, 2002 12:03PM

That is my main concern also..the 32mb should definately be 64 in all systems. I am holding out till fall. hopefully by then, that is the upgrade that we see. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

eman · February 15, 2002 2:04PM

[quote]Originally posted by ijerry:

That is my main concern also..the 32mb should definately be 64 in all systems. I am holding out till fall. hopefully by then, that is the upgrade that we see. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <hr></blockquote>

I wouldn't wait. How long did the old iMacs have the 16MB Rage128? A loooong time.

About the new iMac....

Comments