think secret: imac g5 specs!

[windowsblowsass]

think secret claims to have the specs of the new imacs

they will reportatly be sport ing 1.6 and 1.8ghz g5s, be aio and be simalir to the pizzabox design previouslyspeculated
Sources told Think Secret that the new iMac design is "impressive" and "an eye catcher." The new unit will not have a display with adjustable neck as found on the current iMacs, but will feature an all-in-one design with the logic board, optical drive and other components housed on the back of the flat-panel display.


it is also to be announced at the paris expo at the end of the month

original article: http://www.thinksecret.com/news/imacg5specs.html

[drewprops]

go nick!

[curiousuburb]

If the article is true, only the top models pack a GPU that would support Core Image.
The educational model won't.

The educational model not having an optical drive due to customer demand to limit piracy is odd if they still have firewire ports. Maybe more students will buy iPods. :\

Interesting that this 20th Anniversary iMac may echo the design of Spartacus, the "Twentieth Anniversary Mac".

Curious to see how the design has evolved.

[windowsblowsass]

no the geforce5200 is coreimage/video compatible

[curiousuburb]

Yep, my error. edited.

And hey, dig the cool background change button on the right. No reload. Sweet.

[Messiahtosh]

:eek:

[Frank777]

That sound you hear is Matsu going postal. And I'm going to have to agree with him.

When the original iMac debuted in '98, $1299 was a good price point for an entry level computer that connected the masses to Al Gore's new Information Super-Highway.

In 2004, the reality is that the game's moved several notches down and the 'entry level' computers can start at US.$599 and a 'boutique' computer from a brand like Apple has to start at $999 to make the cut.

The eMac is there now. To cut it while introducing a replacement that abandons the $999. price point is curious strategy indeed.

Unless Apple knows it won't be able to satisfy demand if it ships the iMacs with a starting price of $999. But considering the length of time the machine's been delayed, Apple should have a decent stockpile of low-end chips by now.

[Messiahtosh]

256 MB of RAM is sad. :(

[Messiahtosh]

Why not use a 15'' screen with a high resolution? Surely it would be cheaper than going with a 17 or even a 20'' LCD. Wowzers!

[Barto]

Because if you want cheap, use a frickin' eMac. It's what they are there for.

And 15" screens are not acceptable for a desktop, much less a Mac desktop (Apple needs to keep its reputation for quality and completeness).

Barto

[Messiahtosh]

Because if you want cheap, use a frickin' eMac. It's what they are there for.

And 15" screens are not acceptable for a desktop, much less a Mac desktop (Apple needs to keep its reputation for quality and completeness).

BartoWhat if it used the PowerBook's screen?

[applenut]

What if it used the PowerBook's screen?

then it'd be even smaller and dumber

[Messiahtosh]

then it'd be even smaller and dumberHow so?

A lot of people are buying portables, and they do not have large screens. They come with 12 to 17 inch screens, at high resolutions when you're talking about the 15 and 17 ones from Apple.

Why not keep prices down by offering a 15.2 inch LCD, as in the one that is so extremely popular it accounts for twice as much revenue as the low end desktop sales.

[Barto]

I am forced to agree with the 'nut.

Computer buyers aren't buying portables because of the small screen. Nobody says to themselves, "I'm going to find a computer with a small screen, because I love seeing only one or two windows at a time and squinting when I use my computer!"

Portables are popular because of their versatility, a computer buyer who has decided to buy a desktop over a portable has already made a choice to sacrifice versatility for power and sit-down usability. Which is why desktop displays have gone from 9" to 30" in the last 20 years, and the new iMac will not have a 15" option - computer buyers expect a larger screen, it is a PLUS, and lots of pluses and few negatives are important for a "mid-range" computer like the iMac.

[Messiahtosh]

I am forced to agree with the 'nut.Explain?

[applenut]

How so?

A lot of people are buying portables, and they do not have large screens. They come with 12 to 17 inch screens, at high resolutions when you're talking about the 15 and 17 ones from Apple.

Why not keep prices down by offering a 15.2 inch LCD, as in the one that is so extremely popular it accounts for twice as much revenue as the low end desktop sales.

1. 15.1 inch 3"2 screen is less viewable area
2. laptops are portable and used on your LAP. desktops are on a desktop....viewed from further away and stationary. completely different applications
3. Apple doesn't use high resolutions. they use 100dpi across screens. high resolution in a 15 inch screen would not be fun and would serve no purpose on a desktop where screen size is not a hindrance but a desire
4. a 15.2 inch LCD does not account for twice the revenue.....a laptop is. they are not the same thing. and twice the revenue of the craptastic iMac LCD is not saying much
5. ask any person looking to buy a desktop computer if they want a 15 inch screen. doubt you'll get many if any people who say yes. most people think screen size is a bragging right these days.....hence 65 inch HDTVs and 17 inch laptops and 30 inch cinema displays.

[Messiahtosh]

What about 15.2 inches at a resolution of 1280x854?

It is not the same as the old 15'' iMac that had a 1024x768 display.

I bet a 15.2'' LCD would save a lot of people money, and serve them just fine, especially the "I need to spend less than $999 crowd."

Hell, I spent $2700 for a computer with a 15.2'' screen.

[applenut]

What about 15.2 inches at a resolution of 1280x854?

It is not the same as the old 15'' iMac that had a 1024x768 display.

I bet a 15.2'' LCD would save a lot of people money, and serve them just fine, especially the "I need to spend less than $999 crowd."

Hell, I spent $2700 for a computer with a 15.2'' screen.

for a laptop? yes. for a desktop? no.

you're someone with too much money who spends it unwisely. i wouldn't make marketing assessments based on your purchasing behavior. otherwise we'd all have bought cubes right?

[Messiahtosh]

I did not spend it unwisely. I'm a college student, so a PowerBook, with my major, was the perfect choice.

http://images.apple.com/powerbook/images/15indextop04182004.jpg That's a very spacious screen.

I don't see how having too much money plays into this. All I'm saying is, if Apple put that PowerBook screen into an iMac, it would suit the market just fine, and reduce prices.

And AppleNut: Not only do I find it insulting that you say I spend my hard earned money unwisely, I think it unfair that you point it out quite a bit. As a college student, not being able to upgrade my computer during the 4 years I'll be there was a big reason why I chose to get a loaded PowerBook. It will last me through college, without a problem. To me, that's a smart choice.

[applenut]

I did not spend it unwisely. I'm a college student, so a PowerBook, with my major, was the perfect choice.


I don't see how having too much money plays into this. All I'm saying is, if Apple put that PowerBook screen into an iMac, it would suit the market just fine, and reduce prices.

1. it's a spacious screen for a laptop
2. you get practically every apple product you want as soon as it comes out. you're not the norm by far.
3. it would not suit any market fine. that screen is smaller than the current 15 inch LCD on the iMac for christ's sake. and reducing prices does nothing if no one wants it. at this point 17 inch screens have become the norm. accept it.

[N30MATR1X]

Okay first of all Think Secret should do their homework. Apple IS a licensee of Dolby see h**p://www.dolby.com/manufacturers/ you'll see Apple listed (of course) because they use it in DVD Player, DVD Studio Pro, Logic etc. If they weren't a licensee they would be sued wouldn't they!?
My point is: if you write something down do some research first, all reporters do, even if it's a rumor ;-)

[Messiahtosh]

1. it's a spacious screen for a laptop
2. you get practically every apple product you want as soon as it comes out. you're not the norm by far.
3. it would not suit any market fine. that screen is smaller than the current 15 inch LCD on the iMac for christ's sake. and reducing prices does nothing if no one wants it. at this point 17 inch screens have become the norm. accept it.

1. And why has this changed for the desktop so much? A 17'' screen became the desktop standard, only because cheap LCDs are made in that size now.

2. I do not get every Apple product I want, and the ones I do get, I pay for.

3. It would suit the iMac market fine (a 15'' screen), it suited 6 million people fine to have a 1024x768 13.8'' viewable screen iMac.

4. Jesus! :grumble:

[applenut]

1. And why has this changed for the desktop so much? A 17'' screen became the desktop standard, only because cheap LCDs are made in that size now.

2. I do not get every Apple product I want, and the ones I do get, I pay for.

3. It would suit the iMac market fine (a 15'' screen), it suited 6 million people fine to have a 1024x768 13.8'' viewable screen iMac.

4. Jesus! :grumble:

1. the standard has changed for the reasons i listed above that you ignore. and as you say, 17 inch screens are a commodity now.

2. sure you do. i don't care if you pay for em. i would hope you were.

3. um....are we in 1998 or are we in 2004 and soon 2005? welcome to today bud.

[Messiahtosh]

1. the standard has changed for the reasons i listed above that you ignore. and as you say, 17 inch screens are a commodity now.

2. sure you do. i don't care if you pay for em. i would hope you were.

3. um....are we in 1998 or are we in 2004 and soon 2005? welcome to today bud.

1. The cheap 17'' LCD is a commodity...not high quality ones. Apple will only use high quality ones, driving up costs. If Apple wants to use a 17'' display, fine, but they should use "the panels that their competitors reject" if they want actual competitors. Otherwise, they'll price themselves right out of the market again, just like it appears they have done.

2. Yeah, I buy my own Macs. Did you buy all of your Apple products?

3. History has proven that people will pay $1500 for a 13.9'' CRT, yes that was years ago, but still...for the @home consumer, a 15.2" MEGAWIDE SCREEN LCD with a 1280x854 res is damn big enough to do the digital lifestyle.

[applenut]

*snip -alcimedes*

anyways,
weak offering if true. i don't see why they can't up the hard drives more and offer a better graphics chipset. but the thing that sucks the most is the lack of a superdrive on the 1299 machine.

[Messiahtosh]

Nick has been wrong before.

[akamai]

I was flying from San Francisco to Los Angeles in March, where I met an Apple insider on the airplane. First he asked me if I liked my iPod Mini, then he queried if I had another Apple product. At that time I had not purchased my iBook, so I answered truthfully. He asked me what I would like in the new Apple computers. I mentioned a more affordable SuperDrive, better ATI Mobility Graphics (more memory), and G5 integration into the lower end Macs. He acknowledged the SuperDrive and ATI Mobility wishes, saying that those depend on the manufacturer. First reluctantly commenting on the G5 idea (he said he couldn't say anything specific - Apple employees sign NDAs), he said that it would most likely take a long time before G5s meet the lower end Macs, especially the PowerBooks or the iBooks because of size and heat limitations. Understanding the G5 chip, I of course accepted the answer as truthful, keeping in mind that the G5 overheats extremely easily (in a compact environment of a notebook - fatal), and the tromendous size leading back to the 64bit technology, which takes up much more space even when the manufacturing gets down to around 0.8 microns.

wkr Robert

[Messiahtosh]

*snip -alcimedes*

Anyway, I make some good points, so do you.

*snip -alcimedes*

[Frank777]

*snip -alcimedes*

I agree with him. If Apple wants Switchers, then price the line to appeal to Switchers - who by definition are cheap, Wintel surrender monkeys. Build on the iPod's success. Sell them up afterwards with the RAM being conveniently left out.

Use the 15" Powerbook screen if you have to, but the iMac line must start at $999. Period.

[alcimedes]

actually, the iMac line has to start at $750 - $850. anything more than that and there are too many other offerings from competitors. it's hard to get a neutral buyer when you're that much more, you only land people who are specifically looking for a Mac.

not very impressive, IMO.

[applenut]

actually, the iMac line has to start at $750 - $850. anything more than that and there are too many other offerings from competitors. it's hard to get a neutral buyer when you're that much more, you only land people who are specifically looking for a Mac.

not very impressive, IMO.

agreed.

i dont know what apple can do about that either.

i really thought after all their comments that they'd hit 999 with a respectable offering or at least NAIL 1299.

seems like they instead are going to make a decent update.

another reason against the 15 inch (despite all the others) is if the components are behind, the 17 inch probably is the minimum size that provides enough space for all the components.

the design could be the deal breaker....if its sexy, it'll sell despite short comings.....for a while.

[akamai]

(EDIT): This post has been removed due to a reasonable request by a participating party.

With kind regards,
Robert

[Messiahtosh]

*snip* -alcimedes

----

Back on topic. Agreed Aclimedes, agreed. Apple needs to do something about the low cost wave of computer buyers that is just rocking Apple's boat right now.

[Barto]

Apple already has a computer that is low cost with wide appeal - the eMac. Why should Apple marginalise the eMac by making a low cost iMac using very cheap components? How would that be better than just, you know, buying an eMac?

Would you people be happy again if the eMac was renamed the iMac? Because the eMac is the REAL successor to the iMac G3, you can tell that simply by looking at it and at the price points.

Messiahtosh, for the love of my unmolested vision, delete the crap from your last post.

Barto

[Messiahtosh]

Well then something drastic needs to happen with the eMac.

[alcimedes]

the problem is sexy will only sell so far.

one only has to look back to the Cube to see that lesson in big bold letters.

that was a perfect example of Apple having a chance to really make some inroads with people. they had a great machine, pretty decent specs, wonderful design. then they priced it way out of reach for most consumers.

i don't know. i know that apple sells a better machine than Dell, the G5 is a perfect example of that.

but if selling only great machines also means you're only selling high priced machines, it's time for Apple to change something. they need to find a way to really drive prices down on their entry LCD models. the age of the CRT is over, people don't want them. computer sellers are starting to be judged based on their entry level LCD offering, not their entry level CRT offering. and Apple just isn't in a very competitive space there.

a perfect example of them doing the right thing is the 12" iBook. great little machine, a little on the high side price wise when you look at it initially, but when it's stacked up against similar specced machines from other vendors, it's within $100 up or down. thing is, they're pretty easy to sell to people who really don't care one way or another what OS they're going to run. the number of people who just want an e-mail/web type machine that will do a few pictures is staggering. when buying a Mac means you can't buy a digital camera to go with it, the Mac is left behind and the customer walks out with an HP.

this needs to change.

[hmurchison]

I agree with Applenut. Apple stated the sweet spot is 999 so that gives them an extra $300 to devote to design but going chintzy on the GPU and Optical Drive is stupid. It's those things that piss consumers off when they are on the fence. People want to use iLife they want to edit video and then burn a DVD. Telling them they have to spend a likely $1499 for this(actually more because you'll need at least 512MB) is crazy.

Some of us are just getting tired to subsidizing Apple's non agressivness. This has always been their problem. They simply refuse to put a fire under their asses and go get marketshare.

[Barto]

If you don't think Apple products are worth the cost, don't buy them

I'm not saying that no-one should say anything about Apple's pricing, but saying you are tired of "subsidising" them... you don't have an obligation to do so! Just don't buy!

[akamai]

I think Apple products' pricing is not as high as it is always percieved to be. Yes, they are 10-15% more expensive than a comperable product, but you get a great design, impecable quality, and a great OS. What more do you want?

[applenut]

If you don't think Apple products are worth the cost, don't buy them

I'm not saying that no-one should say anything about Apple's pricing, but saying you are tired of "subsidising" them... you don't have an obligation to do so! Just don't buy!

that's not the attitude to have, yet so many seem to.

im in the market for a new desktop. i have been for a while. im in no real rush since i get by with my powerbook but i have begun to hit limits in what i can do with it. i've been waiting for apple to offer the best bang for the buck....and it still hasn't happened. now, I'm a mac user....im going to buy a mac. they have me.... they always will. im still holding out. but what about potential switchers. head to head apple quality compared with someone like dell is a wash. dell is pretty reliable and has good service and good word of mouth. people don't want to spend 1500 on a computer anymore. they want to spend 1000 or less. they are more into using it for photos and dvd burning and cd ripping and burning than ever before. apple should have a HUGE advantage here....yet they put it out of the reach of most people. it's not smart.

I don't doubt the new imac will sell in respectable maybe even impressive numbers, but there is nothing price/performance wise to attract me or switchers.....the design will get the same people who always buy new apple products. that's a given, even the cube had a stellar debut. the original imac was such a success because it had legs, it grew in sales. the same with the iPod. Apple has more recently adopted a dangerous pattern of high initial sales and large drop offs.

[hmurchison]

If you don't think Apple products are worth the cost, don't buy them

I'm not saying that no-one should say anything about Apple's pricing, but saying you are tired of "subsidising" them... you don't have an obligation to do so! Just don't buy!

Looking at the iMac sales numbers It's obvious I'm not alone. And it's "subsidizing" we gotta teach you Aussies correct engrish. LOL

I'm gonna buy the next revision regardless but If I wasn't Apple's harshest critic I wouldn't be doing my job.

I guess my beef really isn't the megahurts or the GPU but rather the total sucktastic thought of Apple shipping a $1300 iMac that can't burn a DVD when iDVD is pre-installed. Someone oughta kick Steve Jobs' ass for that one.

[nowayout11]

I'm not bothered by the pricing so much as I am the features. I will shell out $1300+, but I need to feel like I'm getting my money's worth. At least by Apple standards. And this just seems like a bomb.

A nice 'ol G5... coupled with 256MB RAM and a 5200. Err, I detect a *slight* bottleneck there. They obviously don't even care about gaming on the consumer line. They don't need cutting edge, but at least use something modern with some space for the future. That's good enough to play last year's games... but then you have that 256MB sucking you down further, making those games suffer even more. Thank God you can at least upgrade the RAM.

Actually, I'm not excited about any single processor G5 machine at this point. Macs need DP to perform remotely competitively.

[akamai]

1. You can't fit DP into an iMac
2. G5 is 64Bit, even when you make it smaller (better production) you will have trouble getting to anything more than 4Ghz with a 64Bit. Processors will top out somewhere at 10-15 GHz when the materials can't be produced any smaller (aluminum, silicone, etc. have a certain micron limit)

[Messiahtosh]

that's not the attitude to have, yet so many seem to.

im in the market for a new desktop. i have been for a while. im in no real rush since i get by with my powerbook but i have begun to hit limits in what i can do with it. i've been waiting for apple to offer the best bang for the buck....and it still hasn't happened. now, I'm a mac user....im going to buy a mac. they have me.... they always will. im still holding out. but what about potential switchers. head to head apple quality compared with someone like dell is a wash. dell is pretty reliable and has good service and good word of mouth. people don't want to spend 1500 on a computer anymore. they want to spend 1000 or less. they are more into using it for photos and dvd burning and cd ripping and burning than ever before. apple should have a HUGE advantage here....yet they put it out of the reach of most people. it's not smart.

I don't doubt the new imac will sell in respectable maybe even impressive numbers, but there is nothing price/performance wise to attract me or switchers.....the design will get the same people who always buy new apple products. that's a given, even the cube had a stellar debut. the original imac was such a success because it had legs, it grew in sales. the same with the iPod. Apple has more recently adopted a dangerous pattern of high initial sales and large drop offs.

You are right, Apple has backed itself into a corner with some of its hardware releases as of late. The high selling products are the, "ones with legs" and right now that is the iPod and the portables.

Nobody will want a crippled G5 that costs them $1300, for minimum crippledness!

[nowayout11]

I think Apple products' pricing is not as high as it is always percieved to be. Yes, they are 10-15% more expensive than a comperable product, but you get a great design, impecable quality, and a great OS. What more do you want?

If it were just 10-15% it wouldn't be a problem. Apple's making a killing in their margins, though. They're charging what their loyal customers are apparently willing to pay.

Design is nice, but my system goes under the desk where I never see it anyway. This doesn't totally apply to iMacs since they're all-in-ones, but it's still fleeting. It's impressive for about 15 minutes, until you stop staring and start working.

I've never been sold on the quality issue. It's mostly the same hardware and I/O as any other quality computer OEM, except for the chip.

Great OS, yes. :)

[ElMacintismo]

We also have to look at things this way: you can only make a mid range product half as good as the high end product. In this case, the G5 is even just a little bit weak in some regards. The PowerMac has more standard ammount of RAM, a bigger HD, a faster processor, and a better performing graphics chip, than these alleged iMacs. But these iMacs will come with half of the internal hardware, a large screen that costs $700-$1300 by itself with a PowerMac, and a more consumer-friendly design (apparently).

So, maybe it won't be so bad, but it just isnt the revolution people are hoping for here.

[nowayout11]

1. You can't fit DP into an iMac
2. G5 is 64Bit, even when you make it smaller (better production) you will have trouble getting to anything more than 4Ghz with a 64Bit. Processors will top out somewhere at 10-15 GHz when the materials can't be produced any smaller (aluminum, silicone, etc. have a certain micron limit)

1. That much is obvious, and why I'm not excited.

2. no argument, though I'm not sure what being 64-bit has to do with the production process. Even the 32-bitters are having issues scaling down to allow room for more GHz.

[chipz]

The $1299 model seems to be aimed at the education market. Could Apple be thinking about discontinuing the emac? If so, this is not the way to go. The prices will be too high for the education market and the taxpayers will disapprove even more school budgets.

[stoo]

With a (most likely) soldered GPU and ATA/SATA differences between the educational and regular models, that's 2 different motherboards, which doesn't aid the rumour's beleivability.

[spotcatbug]

The new unit will not have a display with adjustable neck as found on the current iMacs, but will feature an all-in-one design with the logic board, optical drive and other components housed on the back of the flat-panel display.Remember when the last iMac debuted? Apple made a big deal about the the fact that the HD and optical drive weren't mounted vertically. I think Jobs even said that that was one of the main design criteria. Perhaps the price of the new iMacs are (relatively) high because they're using special, Apple-only, go-ahead-and-vertical-mount-me, drives.

:lol:

[revolver]

If true, these specs/price are pathetic.

I own a PC and a PB 1.5Ghz for work. I've desprately wanted to switch to Mac to have a consistent platform, but absolutely nothing in the Mac line is compelling enough to replace my windows desktop. (a quiet, fast, compact cube-like desktop running at G5 speeds- a Shuttle XPC)

How in the world does it make sense to put the same amount of storage in your bread and butter desktop offering as your freakin' music player?

If the specs are true, saving $30 on the bottom line by putting in a 40gig drive instead of 160 is an insult in a $1200+ computer purchase.

[Satchmo]

Any new iMac should have a 17" LCD minimum. But not because 15" is unusable in a desktop environment (as some have suggested). My 15" FP iMac works just fine in all apps, thank you.

But just as 17" had become the defacto standard in CRT's a while back, it has now become the standard on LCD's. In a competitive market, a 15" is perceived as yesterdays product and surely Apple wants to position itself differently.

It may cost Apple a bit more in the long run (although you'd think they could strike a deal with LCD manufacturers), but using the existing 17" iMac display would be ideal. More importantly, drop the prices and generate buzz and excitement that's been sorely lacking in the iMac line. If you want profit margin, make it off a 20" model. Give potential switchers a reason not to switch. Apple, just give us some semblance of value and we'll eat it up.

[utsava]

I was really hoping this new iMac would be something I could justify purchasing... but its looking increasingly less likely that it is. I speak as a PC only user, whom after buying an iPod, took a great affinity to Apples attention to detail in software, hardware and style. I started following Apple about a year ago... and am now in the market for a new computer. I guess you could say I'm a classic case of the "potential switcher" that gets so talked about on these boards... and I'm here to say, Apple is offering very little to persuade people like us into buying thier desktops. I realy like the MacOS, but in the end I can't justify spending waay more for a nice looking OS and a nice looking computer with some neat little apps, while I am forced to give up pretty much all sorts of PC gaming and get about half the speed, half the RAM and a quarter of the HD space..... and NO upgradability to anything but RAM!

I think Steve Jobs needs to yet again re-evaluate the direction of Apples computer line... otherwise they are going to be at 3% marketshare or less forever and eventually become a music company.

[kretara]

Yawn!!!
Were we supposed to be impressed by something in this latest iMac rumor?
Apple is shooting themselves in the foot again.
When will they get off this aio or nothing kick.
I was so hoping that Apple would finally release a lower-end headless box so that I could finally buy a new Mac for home. Oh well, looks like my B&W will keep going for a few more years.
BTW: I want a low-end headless Mac so that I don't have a computer taking up massive amounts of space (the G5) and I can share a monitor with my winblows and linux boxes.

[Frank777]

Wow, Alcimedes has had his work cut out for him in this thread.
IIRC, that's the first time a post of mine has been edited by a mod since the Great Blackout.

Some observations:

1. Given the TS story, I (and a number of others) are assuming the eMac is gone once the new iMac is out. Apple's not likely to keep 2 education offerings around. And the new iMac ed-model lacks an optical and a modem, meaning it can't be repackaged as a consumer model.

If Apple kept the eMac in the product matrix, that would answer some of my concerns.

2. The TS story seems predicated on the fact that Nick has gotten his hands on some marketing material for the machine, which go into detail about the specs but say almost nothing about the form factor.

If so, Apple is taking a big risk by waiting till the end of August. The original iMac was heavily compartmentalized within Cupertino, with only a few knowing the total story. These things are being produced now, marketing materials are being leaked and it's only a matter of time before the product photos escape the nest.

3. That Apple would publicly say the "sweet spot" in computer pricing is $999, and then miss that by almost a third is mind-boggling. My biggest hope right now is that this is a controlled Cupertino leak designed as a trial balloon, in which case the Mac community needs to tell Apple to "Think Different" about this lunacy.

[pscates2.0]

256 MB of RAM is sad. :(

Messiahtosh, you shouldn't even be reading or commenting on all this, after your little stand on the subject a few days ago.

:)

Oh that's right, it was an "experiment" in reverse psychology!

Write Nick back and tell him "good job".

As far as the topic goes, I really think the puddingheads should've listened to me...

I'm not particularly encouraged or torqued up with what I read this morning.

:\

Good thing I'm not in the market for one, huh?

Not a bad machine, but my gosh...is it just me, or does Apple seem to NEVER waver from the tried and untrue?

[Gizzer]

If true, this is the most depressing thing I've read all week! I was genuinely looking forward to Paris Expo just for this announcement. Ok they may not be true, but ThinkSecret has a pretty good track record in pre-announcing product specs. In which case, I now commence my rant:

1. Why is Airport Extreme not built in? This is supposed to be the wireless age - with AirTunes & Airport Express I would have bet money on AE being included as standard. PLEASE say that Bluetooth is now standard.

2. 40Gb HD - WTF?!?! Even 80Gb is too small if you've a (full) 40Gb iPod, a big Photo collection and lots of home movies to edit, plus, erm, those things called software applications. The difference in price between an 80Gb and 120Gb drive is peanuts.

3. Optical drives. Apple were first to ditch floppy drives, they should be first to ditch Combo's & supply Superdrive as standard. Again, if this is the new Digital Hub, you're screwed if you want to create DVD's.

4. Memory. It just doesn't feel right that my digital camera has more memory than my desktop! Seriously - any Garageband user will testify that 256Mb just doesn't cut it.

5. Built-in speakers. Hmmm. Tinny already springs to mind. At least the current iMac (RIP) with vanilla Apple Pro speakers & the built in Bass speaker can at least bang out tunes at a decent volume. I'm always wary of the lack of power in built in ones.

5. Ok this is trivial, but the form-factor. The article says Don't Think Vaio, but whatever: Sony can claim they did it first (in actual fact it was another company whose name escapes - but that makes it even worse anyway! 3rd in line!) That is NOT Apple Innovation.

Right, rant over. I'm feeling better for getting it off my chest, but not for the impending sales slump of the new iMac!!!

[Bofferma]

Those MSRPs are so "off" that it leads me to believe there is some hidden "and one more thing" component they aren't mentioning.

Any chance the new form factor iMacs have upgradable graphics via PCI Express slot or something like that? If you had the flexibility BTO a Doom3 Special Edition iMac, it might justify the price.

More likely these "multiple trusted sources" are really sales/marketing types at Apple Inc. fishing for comments from groups like this, to see if they can get away with the inflated prices. Maybe the numbers aren't set in stone yet.

Or [cynical crackpot theory], this pricing fiasco is just so the recuperating Steve can come to the rescue at a later keynote, and demo the dual-core G5 workstations and e600 (or IBM mobile chip) based powerbooks. Maybe I'm putting too much stock in the reputation of Mr. Jobs ego. I dunno.

[pscates2.0]

You know what? Upon further thinking, I simply have to have faith. And suggest that others do too.

I think there's a lot NOT being talked about or leaked. That could be something really awesome.

And yes, ThinkSecret is better than others when it comes to this stuff, but they're still human and still not 100% in-the-know. That wiggle room is reason for me to be interested.

I shouldn't jump so quickly on the "this sucks" wagon. I shall wait until Paris to deliver a "sucks" or "does not suck" announcement.

:D

[greenamp]

The $1299 model seems to be aimed at the education market. Could Apple be thinking about discontinuing the emac? If so, this is not the way to go. The prices will be too high for the education market and the taxpayers will disapprove even more school budgets.


Edu institutions don't pay retail prices for their Macs, they lease them with the option to buy. Apple wouldn't dare raise prices for them.

[Hobbes]

Gizzer, you're not reading carefully. Half your rants apply to only to the optical-driveless education-targeted model.

As for all this hand-wringing... people here seem to be ignoring that to get a G5 today, you have to spend at *least* $1999... before you even address the display. As the G5 is still relatively new, and the iMac G5 will remain fairly high-end. It'd be great if Apple can get the iMac down to $999 before 2006...

[alcimedes]

except that, at least to many of us, the iMac should be the entry level product. you need to have either a headless, or LCD based entry level product for people to use.

i had a conversation today with a woman who was trying to decide between the 12" iBook and an eMac for photo editing, email and the like. the machine was going to sit on a desk and never move, but she was still considering the iBook. why?

it had an LCD and was the only other offering that was under $1,000. everything else was off the table in her mind to begin with. if apple doesn't have an LCD offering under $1,000 in the desktop space, they're going to see another hefty sales drop, after the initial rush is over.

[rickag]

I can only hope that either the spec's or the pricing are way off. :(

[Gizzer]

Gizzer, you're not reading carefully. Half your rants apply to only to the optical-driveless education-targeted model.

Ok, I admit I was generalising a bit, but I wasn't annoyed at the education version anyway. I just think that the whole "feel" of these specs are sub-par. I'm sure others would agree (especially wireless/RAM/optical drives).

[pscates2.0]

It does feel a bit skimpy, IF they're true. I would think AirPort Express would be included (at least on the non-education models). What about Bluetooth?

And will there be an option to BTO a SuperDrive 17"? According to the report, the 17" comes with a Combo Drive. So you have so shell out MORE for a screen you might not necessarily care for to get DVD burning?

I really hope Apple isn't continuing this "locking you in to features based on arbitrary factors" thing.

:(

[Frank777]

Looking at the iBook/Powerbook divide, it seems clear Apple is using built in Extreme/Bluetooth as a distinguishing Pro feature. I don't really have a problem with this.

It should be pointed out that much of the hand-wringing over price points occurred with the introduction of the iPod mini - and look how that turned out.

However, I think we're on safer ground here since many of us are in the iMac target market and are the defacto tech support help for any number of PC-using family and friends, as opposed to the iPod Mini's topsy-turvy teen world.

[spiff]

OK, I don't see how people aren't making a bigger deal out of the Nvidia 5200 GPU. Is that joke. It's not even a 128 meg version, as if that would make difference really.

That card was a piece of junk back when it was originally put in the iMac, by today's standards it's absolutely pitiful. I'm sorry, but it's incredible that they didn't but something better in this revision. Big upgrade like this, it's going G5 and a new form factor and they're not changing the GPU. AHHHH!!!! I really hope that it's misinformation. I thought for sure that it would be a ATI 9600 XT as a base with an option for a 9800 Pro.

A 5200 Ultra, I'm sorry I can't get over that. If that's actually what they're going to put into the new iMac I'm going to be very sad. That simply has to be wrong. And a Geforce 4 MX 32 meg in the low end. The ATI 9200 in the eMac is better.

[Quagmire]

OK, I don't see how people aren't making a bigger deal out of the Nvidia 5200 GPU. Is that joke. It's not even a 128 meg version, as if that would make difference really.

That card was a piece of junk back when it was originally put in the iMac, by today's standards it's absolutely pitiful. I'm sorry, but it's incredible that they didn't but something better in this revision. Big upgrade like this, it's going G5 and a new form factor and they're not changing the GPU. AHHHH!!!! I really hope that it's misinformation. I thought for sure that it would be a ATI 9600 XT as a base with an option for a 9800 Pro.

A 5200 Ultra, I'm sorry I can't get over that. If that's actually what they're going to put into the new iMac I'm going to be very sad. That simply has to be wrong. And a Geforce 4 MX 32 meg in the low end. The ATI 9200 in the eMac is better.

The Geforce 4 mx 32 meg is in the edu model. The low end has the 80 GB HD and the Geforce MX 5200 64 MB. Since TS is probably not telling us everything it could be upgradeable after you get the imac. I think the 1.6 Ghz speed is not ideal either. I think they should of went to a 1.8 Ghz and 2.0 Ghz G5 speed. But, maybe the heat had to force apple to put the 1.6 Ghz in.

[Bofferma]

Still trying to explain the price points to myself:

What if IBM has the dual core G5s ready, and these 1.6 and 1.8 iMacs will be the debut of the multicore Apple computer? Now that would change the cost/value equation considerably!! They might even be a good deal at $1300-2200 with such a processor. If the new form-factor also permits graphics upgrades (PCI Express debut in an Apple computer), it might be a screaming deal! This iMac would have the pricing and performance to sit nicely just below the Powermacs in Apple's product matrix. And you could make a darn good keynote address around such a system!

We can hope :D ... :) ... :\ ... :o ...

... Ok the madness has passed ... ;)

[k squared]

OK, I don't see how people aren't making a bigger deal out of the Nvidia 5200 GPU. Is that joke. It's not even a 128 meg version, as if that would make difference really.

How many consumers actually understand the difference? My dad doesn't care what kind of graphics card or how fast the optical drive is. He does care about the price, though...

[ElMacintismo]

The iMac will run OS X and the digital hub apps with ease. Why does it need an amazing graphics card?

[jouster]

The iMac will run OS X and the digital hub apps with ease. Why does it need an amazing graphics card?

Because people expect A LOT from a $2200 computer.

And rightly so. This is a 2001 spec at $600 more per model than comps from the Wintel world. And if you think that is unimportant, may I introduce you to Apple's sub 2% market share?

[netsql]

Why does it need an amazing graphics card?

It needs a good board for gaming. I am a Java developer, that's what I will use the Mac for. But.... I also want to play games at home.

Look at the specs for Doom 3 type games. Is there a way to soder of an put in a real card?
.V

[JoshCarter]

Does anyone find it a little fishy that, aside from the G5 part, the specs are exactly the same as the iMac we've had since Sept 8, 2003? (Refer to http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/archives/sep03/090803.html [scroll down a bit]) This would be a travesty if true -- I was planning to buy one of these myself -- but I simply can't imagine Apple changing only the processor and nothing else.

As for why the GPU is important, uhh, have you heard of games? The iMac isn't expected to be a power-gamer machine, but c'mon, a brand new iMac should still be able to play most, if not all, games currently on the market.

In any case, I'm extremely skeptical that these specs are accurate. If TS got a leaked copy of marketing materials, I'm guessing that they have placeholder info in there from the old models.

Best regards,
Josh

[ElMacintismo]

I'm sure there will be BTO options that we dont know about. Also, there is no confirmation of price in that TS article, which means that they could be way off base on their 1300-2200 estimation.

[ElMacintismo]

What will probably happen is this, since think secret has no real price information it is possible that the eMac will be upgraded to a 1.4 GHz G4 and sell for $700. Then the iMac will start off at $999, the education one, that would be amazing... Then the "real" model will sell for $1299.

[jouster]

What will probably happen is this, since think secret has no real price information it is possible that the eMac will be upgraded to a 1.4 GHz G4 and sell for $700. Then the iMac will start off at $999, the education one, that would be amazing... Then the "real" model will sell for $1299.

Hmm...I dunno. TS has had some pretty accurate info in the recent past iirc.

Even if the 'real' model starts at $1299, it climbs steeply, and these are *pitiful* specs for a brand new computer in 2004.

[ElMacintismo]

I wouldnt say pitiful.

[applenut]

How many consumers actually understand the difference? My dad doesn't care what kind of graphics card or how fast the optical drive is. He does care about the price, though...

i'm a consumer. i care about what graphics card and optical drive it has. and i also care about price.

consumer does not mean dumb bastard.

I can't wait for you to tell me to buy a 2000 dollar G5 with a 1300 dollar cinema display.

[ast3r3x]

i'm a consumer. i care about what graphics card and optical drive it has. and i also care about price.

consumer does not mean dumb bastard.

I can't wait for you to tell me to buy a 2000 dollar G5 with a 1300 dollar cinema display.

Your elite, I'd go with the $3k one ;)

[bassplayinMacFiend]

It would be very sad if next month's brand new iMac G5 has a suckier video card than my 1 year old PowerBook G4.

With Apple pushing CoreImage/Video and GPU power as the next big thing, I can't understand why they'd put the bottom of the barrel video card in their latest release. Especially if the iMac3's video card isn't upgradeable.

If TS has the real goods on the iMac3, I can see the rest of the 1.6 G5 PowerMacs (now $1299 at the Apple store) flying off the shelves.

[pscates2.0]

applenut, why don't you go buy a damn $2000 G5 tower and the 20" Cinema Display for $1299. :mad:




;)

You asked...

[ElMacintismo]

TS never says anything about the iMac not being modular, either way? right?

[hmurchison]

Quite honestly I just did a search and it looks like the 5200 fx is the GPU being used in many $1k and over configs for PC. Apple is right where they need to be. Sure it isn't upgradable but it will support Tiger's new tech and it'll play most games fine. I've softened up to this new iMac. I bet it looks good too. I think Apple will do fine here.

[ElMacintismo]

I wonder if there is more to the iMac than we know, well obviously there is but there might be some large features that have not been uncovered as of yet.

[Luca]

Weak.

The CPUs are okay. But Apple's making the exact same mistake again, just changing the form factor to one that is not as good and so you can't justify the extra price using the nice form factor as an excuse. 256 MB of RAM and a GeForce FX5200 is an absolute embarrassment, even for a $999 machine. For a $1299-$1799 machine, it's unthinkable. But we know how Apple enjoys doing that sort of thing, so I think we're right in time for the iMac G4 Fiasco Redux. Enjoy the show people. :rolleyes:

[curiousuburb]

People bitching about how wimpy the 5200 Ultra is for games need to note it does support Core Image.

Tiger may give otherwise average GPU performance a nitro boost (had to sneak a car analogy in :p )

Apple may have tested the 5200Ultra on Tiger and found it equates to a 9700 without Core.
If they could deliver the bang of a pricier card for the bucks of a cheaper one, they might.
Doubly likely if the reason was due to clever Apple software (another sales point for the OS).

Not to say it wouldn't be preferable, in the ideal world, to start higher in the first place...

But it wouldn't surprise me if the leak were lowballing expectations and the shipping machine was better.

[applenut]

what kind of upgrade is it if nothing changes after a year other than the processor?

i dont care if the 5200 supports core image. you don't create success by shipping the bare minimum all the time

[ElMacintismo]

what kind of upgrade is it if nothing changes after a year other than the processor?

i dont care if the 5200 supports core image. you don't create success by shipping the bare minimum all the timeSad but true.

We are so optomistic about Apple, but they never seem to hit the nail on the head for us. :(

[jouster]

I wouldnt say pitiful.

Apologies; I did not mean to include the CPU or screen in that description.

But I sure meant to include the GPU, HD, RAM and extras - or lack of them.

Edit: typos

[Luca]

Anyone who says the FX5200 is enough is deluding themselves. Yes, it is supported for full GPU acceleration of CoreImage (rather than just partial GPU acceleration). But the card itself is approximately as fast as the GeForce 4MX. As GeForce 4MX owners know, it's a terrible card. Terrible. The Radeon 9200 is faster than it, but it also isn't a DX9 card and therefore doesn't have the same features of the FX5200 (pixel shaders, etc). So really, Apple should put FX5200s in iBooks and eMacs, because it's the lowest end DX9/CoreImage card available. No one can really complain because iBooks and eMacs are low end machines. Then put Radeon 9600 variants (or GeForce 5600 variants) in the iMacs, PowerBooks, and lower end PowerMacs. Finally, the high end PowerMac should get a high end card (like the Radeon 9800 or GeForce 5900) standard, with a BTO option of the "monster" GeForce 6800 or Radeon X800.

The GeForce 5200 is a $50 video card. It should not be going into any machine that Apple's charging more than $1200 for.

And yes, RAM should increase as well. However, I can at least understand why Apple's skimping on it recently, because it's so expensive. With the video cards, there's no excuse. They're constantly getting cheaper. I'm not saying that everyone NEEDS a better video card than the 5200, but I don't see why not to include a better one if it's cheap. It's like including an 80 GB hard drive. Sure, there are a lot of people who may only use five or six GB, but would Apple include a 10 GB hard drive instead of an 80 GB because of this? No.

[hmurchison]

Weak.

The CPUs are okay. But Apple's making the exact same mistake again, just changing the form factor to one that is not as good and so you can't justify the extra price using the nice form factor as an excuse. 256 MB of RAM and a GeForce FX5200 is an absolute embarrassment, even for a $999 machine. For a $1299-$1799 machine, it's unthinkable. But we know how Apple enjoys doing that sort of thing, so I think we're right in time for the iMac G4 Fiasco Redux. Enjoy the show people. :rolleyes:

Then explain why Dell and Gateway are comforatable with these "embarrasing" cards? Dells Dimension 4600 with a 17" LCD and 5200fx 128 card is $1500+
I'm beginning to notice that Mac users have started drifting of to Lala land regarding specs.

If Dell and Gatway, both purveyors of the "ubiquitous ATX boxen" can't squeeze in a faster GPU than a 5200 fx then why would you expect Apple to?

We are so optomistic about Apple, but they never seem to hit the nail on the head for us

Why should Apple ship anything more? Most of the people looking at iMacs aren't doing a damn thing with their computers to warrant needing a faster GPU. You wanna run DOOM you gotta spend the dough on any platform. It doesn't matter what platform you chose today $1500 on a computer system is only going to comfortably last you about 2 years. Screw all that upgradability talk. People that spend $2500 get upgradability if they want. $1500 is nothing. That's 750 per year or $62.50 per month over a 2yr stretch. My mothers cable bill is higher than that. Or my phone and broadband combined.

We're not talking a lot of money here folks. No reason to get alarmed.

[ElMacintismo]

True, I am one of the computer buying public that spends 1500 every 3 to 4 years or so. If someone is upgrading after 3 years, this new iMac will be killer.

[Bofferma]

The multicore G5s were supposed to sample this summer according to IBM. Could they be ready in quantity by now?! Any chance that the 1.6 and 1.8 gHz G5s the new iMac will be getting will be dual-core?

[hmurchison]

The multicore G5s were supposed to sample this summer according to IBM. Could they be ready in quantity by now?! Any chance that the 1.6 and 1.8 gHz G5s the new iMac will be getting will be dual-core?

No Apple receives sample quantities this month and full scale production doesn't start until January according to Thinksecret. No chance of seeing 970MP systems until Spring.

[Luca]

Well, maybe you're right hmurchison. Looking at Dell's store, it seems like the only video cards available from them are either integrated (bleh!), FX5200s, X300s, and then high end 9800s and X800s. It doesn't change the fact that the FX5200 is a slow video card, but on the other hand, OS X doesn't really benefit from super-fast cards anyway. There's CoreImage and Quartz Extreme, but I think once you hit a certain level, you won't see any added performance in either of these areas. Of course I'm not sure about CoreImage since I haven't seen it in action, but Quartz Extreme seems to be that way. As far as gaming, most Mac games don't make use of the video card anyway, and are instead completely CPU-bound. So a 1.8 GHz iMac with an FX5200 video card will probably run games like UT2k4 faster than my 1.33 GHz PowerMac with a Radeon 9800. And besides, both will run the game (and all other games for that matter) terribly compared to just about any PC you can buy that actually has a real video card.

On the other hand, I think it's still ridiculous to put an FX5200 on a $2000 or $2500 G5.

[ElMacintismo]

Apple is the yellow guy, we are the red.

http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/fighting/1/fighting50.gif

[hmurchison]

On the other hand, I think it's still ridiculous to put an FX5200 on a $2000 or $2500 G5.

No freakin' doubt! I think we don't see new graphics card choices until Apple goes PCI Express. Kinda sucks. I hope this iMac G5 model has only a 6-7 month shelf life before RevB.

2004 has been shite for hardware. Imagine if IBM didn't have problems and the Powermac lineup was 2.2,2.6 and 3Ghz. The iMac could then easily hit 1.8 and 2.2Ghz. We're currently stuck hitting the same damn ceilings because the Powermac line hasn't sped ahead like it should.

[Chinney]

I think that a $999 (U.S.) price point would be about right for a new AIO iMac. I’m not sure I want to see Apple make a super-cheap iMac. Perhaps they could come out with a stripped down monitor-less computer for that. All this being said, the rumoured $1,300 bottom level price point seems a bit high, even for a new G5. If it does start at $1,300, then the specs – especially RAM and the hard-drive capacity – better be a bit more than the rumours indicate, because Apple otherwise will not be in a much better position that it was in the current revision. I don’t think that Apple can rely just on the G5 as the selling point.

[nowayout11]

Then explain why Dell and Gateway are comforatable with these "embarrasing" cards? Dells Dimension 4600 with a 17" LCD and 5200fx 128 card is $1500+

What's your BTO config? Because the only way I seem to be able to reach $1500+ is if I have at least a 3GHz processor, 512MB of RAM, 160GB HD, 2 optical drives (DVD and CD-RW), and Dell's version of the 5200 has 128 MB, while Apple's has 64 MB.

I might add that that price is also before the advertised $125 in mail-in-rebates ($50 and $75) and offers a free printer.

All that together adds up to a value that is far superior to the proposed iMac price/performance points.

If I do nothing but increase the monitor to a 20" LCD, the price is $2077 before MIR, and still offers stronger features than the proposed $2200 high-end iMac.

That 5200 is still weak, regardless of the OEM's wide use of it. While you're not getting a better graphics card out of the box, you are certainly still getting more bang for the buck all around.

[Messiahtosh]

I don’t think that Apple can rely just on the G5 as the selling point.Sadly enough, that's probably what they will do. Apple will pump up and promote the G5 as the greatest thing to happen to the lowER cost desktop, since well, the original iMac. :\

[porter]

Here are my worries with the iMac, assuming the Think Secret article is correct

1) if the insider can say the iMac looks like another computer, then I'm worried about the design, they're supposed to be orignial!

2) the built in speakers- they better be good or Apple will never hear the end of it. It doesn't have to be an audiophile's wet dream, but it should satisfy the casual user.

3) the price- it's expensive! $1300-$2200? If you already have a monitor, why not spend the $600 and get the G5? I think that the most expensive iMac price should never surpass the cheapest G5. In fact, there should be at least a couple hundred dollar difference between the two. I think the pricing for the iBook & PowerBook is spot on. Which probably explains why their laptops sell so well.

But then again, we'll see what happens.

[Luca]

Yeah, PCs are always cheaper. Plus if you look at the options for building your own... well, you could build a PC similar in specs to the rumored 1.8 GHz iMac for under $1000 (probably). But it's still not the same. Apple is still going to charge a bit extra for their systems, and I can't really blame them. If you look at IBM, they charge a bit extra for their ThinkPads, but that's because they have a reputation for excellent quality and people are willing to pay extra to get a ThinkPad, because they know they're getting a great computer. Same goes for Macs. Apple has kind of resigned itself to knowing that they won't be getting a huge amount of switchers, and even so, there's no way they can possibly compete with the super high volume, low quality PC makers like Dell and HP. If they know they can't compete with the big companies, then they may as well put that little extra bit of quality and attention to detail into their systems, at the expense of not having a terribly low price. Switchers who really want a Mac, as well as Mac faithful, will still buy a Mac anyway. People who are completely on the fence wouldn't buy a Mac whether Apple pulls out all the stops to lower price or not, because they still won't be able to compete with Dell/HPaq/etc on price.

[zenarcade]

Quite honestly I just did a search and it looks like the 5200 fx is the GPU being used in many $1k and over configs for PC. Apple is right where they need to be. Sure it isn't upgradable but it will support Tiger's new tech and it'll play most games fine. I've softened up to this new iMac. I bet it looks good too. I think Apple will do fine here.

Well said. I have, as yourself, softened up for the last hours. In fact, when my son and I throw a linkparty in my apartment, playing Medal of Honor, TrueCombat(QuakeIIIMod), our setup is :

1. imac 450DV+ (2000)
2. Powermac 500DP (2000)
3.G4 Cube 450(2000) with a geforce2 mx
4.iBook 700

And it works. Obviously, the settings are pretty low, but the experience is still pretty enjoyable.

[Luca]

Sadly enough, that's probably what they will do. Apple will pump up and promote the G5 as the greatest thing to happen to the lowER cost desktop, since well, the original iMac. :\
You're spot on there, Messiahtosh. While the eMac represents a pretty good value, for a lot less money than the original iMac sold for. Still, Apple has not managed to break through the $799 lower price barrier that has been there since 2000. Four years later, with computers being a lot cheaper, it would be nice if Apple could at least have a $699 or even a $599 computer (though $699 seems more reasonable). Meanwhile, the so-called "iMac" is now firmly entrenched in the premium price category, with Apple refusing to pull it down from there at all. The good news is at least the low end will be faster and have a larger screen than the eMac. The bad news is that they'll still start at $1299, which is just too high IMHO.

[BenRoethig]

Things that I like
1. G5
2. Sure to look cool
3. Considering it includes a high end 17" LCD display, the price isn't that bad.

Things I don't like:
1. 256mb RAM. Should be 512 minimum.
2. Graphics. The 5200 ultra is better than the 5200 or 5200LE that most computers come with. However, like the system RAM, the card has half of what it should.

Things that concern me but are not clear.
1. The chipset. From the specs it looks like Apple is using the previous iMac's southbridge with the G5's northbridge. We'll find out when is the AGP bus is listed as 4x or 8x.
2. Optical drive. Is it using a notebook drive or a standard sized slot loading drive. If it's the former, you might as well get a firewire optical drive with it.
3. Pricing: Which is the $1299 model? The ed model or the low end consumer model. If the consumer model starts at $1500, I think you can write this off as a sales success
4. The fate of the eMac.

Lastly, something to think about. If Apple can sell a computer with a 17" LCD display for $1300, imagine what they could sell something like a shuttle xpc cube with the same chipset but with 1 8x AGP and 1 32-bit PCI slot for. $999 expandable G5 mac. It could be very popular.

[MacUsers]

It's going to suck... not adjustable... pfff... it will have some big hump on the back... come on... the current design rocks, this will be a step backwards just because it will have a G5 in it.

[nowayout11]

It's going to suck... not adjustable... pfff... it will have some big hump on the back... come on... the current design rocks, this will be a step backwards just because it will have a G5 in it.

I wouldn't exaggerate the size so much. To me the iMac sounds like an inside-out notebook with legs. Granted it would have to be a little thicker for desktop parts and CPU cooling, but it'd hardly be the second coming of Quasimodo.

[hmurchison]

What's your BTO config? Because the only way I seem to be able to reach $1500+ is if I have at least a 3GHz processor, 512MB of RAM, 160GB HD, 2 optical drives (DVD and CD-RW), and Dell's version of the 5200 has 128 MB, while Apple's has 64 MB.

Dual Optical drives are useless. Same PC strategy..overwhelm people with junk. 128MB graphics versus 64MB is good for games that texture a lot. People don't buy Macs for gaming really.

I might add that that price is also before the advertised $125 in mail-in-rebates ($50 and $75) and offers a free printer.

Yet another reason why I hate shopping for PCs. I want to buy a computer..I don't want to clip coupons and mail you shit. If you're giving me $125 take it off the damn price. God I hate PC mentality....making me jump through hoops to get a better deal. No wonder spyware is so pervasive.

And it works. Obviously, the settings are pretty low, but the experience is still pretty enjoyable.

Yeah man. When in a Fragfest you don't have time to look at the beautiful scenery. Turn the bells and whistles off and get the redrum going on. .

Let us not forget what is important. Running OSX and not having to deal with virus and crappy PC software. Yes ..I'm willing to pay more for that. I've always recognized the value in better designed things.

[spiff]

The 5200 is an outdated card by quite a ways. You can argue the point that most people don't need the power and that it's good enough but it just doesn't make any sense to do a major upgrade to the iMac and not give it a decent GPU. Really, this card is not even decent, not by a long shot, it is outright horrible. It can do core image, but barely. It won't have any life in it. There needs to be a BTO option for something better or make it upgradeable. There are a lot of people out there that want a decent graphics card in their computer, even if it's just some light gaming, and they want something that will be at least OK a year down the road.

As for PC's in the same price range having that card - that's complete nonsense. I bought a Dell last year for $1400 with a 9800 Pro. That was last year, it was a $130 option to put it in there. Maybe if you go with a pre-configured option from Dell or Gateway they might try to screw you over with a 5200, but there's always an option for something better.

I still say this is a mistake. Maybe they have the 5200 as base, which is still sad, but they must have a BTO option for something better. Nvidia and ATI just released their new cards, so 9600 XT's and 5700 ultra's are dirt cheap now. This just doesn't make any sense that Apple would make such a major revision and not even at least give an option for a better GPU.

[Luca]

Yes, I have no problem with the stock card being a 5200, but a BTO option for a better one would be good. In fact, I think that's what I was getting at with the "embarrassingly bad" statement. Although Dell's low-mid systems have a 5200, they also have a $150 or $200 option to upgrade to a 9800 Pro. Boom, $600 computer + $200 for a 9800 = $800 for a computer with a good processor and a fast enough graphics card to run even Doom III on nice settings. I'd like to see an $800 Mac that can do that. In fact, I'd like to see a $1600 Mac do that. None of the iMacs will, because they'll all be stuck with non-upgradable (not even prior to purchase) 5200s. And PowerMacs are too expensive. I bet the only way will be to get a used PowerMac G4 and upgrade it.

Or just buy a PC for games and resign yourself to a game-free Mac.

[nowayout11]

Dual Optical drives are useless. Same PC strategy..overwhelm people with junk. 128MB graphics versus 64MB is good for games that texture a lot. People don't buy Macs for gaming really.

Funny, because I hear from people all the time wanting more than one optical drive on their Mac. You don't have to find it useful, but plenty of people do.

As for gaming, you're correct. Apple's apparent disinterest and weak GPUs doesn't lend themselves to the cause either. They were certainly *trying* at one point, even bringing Carmack on stage for demos.

Yet another reason why I hate shopping for PCs. I want to buy a computer..I don't want to clip coupons and mail you shit. If you're giving me $125 take it off the damn price. God I hate PC mentality....making me jump through hoops to get a better deal. No wonder spyware is so pervasive.

Yes, signing a slip of paper, licking an envelope, and getting a stamp can be quite the massive undertaking. Then again, I had to do that to get a $99 MIR for an Apple Store purchase. I'd rather go through that hassle and get the $99 than not get it at all. They obviously didn't want to give it outright either. So I guess they're not really any better.

[hmurchison]

Funny, because I hear from people all the time wanting more than one optical drive on their Mac. You don't have to find it useful, but plenty of people do.

I know. They're not as smart as me.

Yes, signing a slip of paper, licking an envelope, and getting a stamp can be quite the massive undertaking.

Neither would just hacking $125 off at the register no?

I'd rather go through that hassle and get the $99 than not get it at all.

So you like being treated like a "Dog and Pony" show? What's next will you have to jump on one leg rubbing your stomach and patting your head.

When I buy something I expect to be treated with respect. PC buying is low class walmart stuff. If that sounds snobby it's because that's the way I like it. Money comes and goes. I'm not selling my soul for a pittance.

[ElMacintismo]

I wonder what the education prices will be. :|

[nowayout11]

I know. They're not as smart as me.

Neither is apple apparently. They also had the option for dual opticals at one point.

Neither would just hacking $125 off at the register no?

Ask the Apple Store. They wouldn't do it either.


So you like being treated like a "Dog and Pony" show? What's next will you have to jump on one leg rubbing your stomach and patting your head.

When I buy something I expect to be treated with respect. PC buying is low class walmart stuff. If that sounds snobby it's because that's the way I like it. Money comes and goes. I'm not selling my soul for a pittance.

Yes, that is exactly what I'll do. I might even do it on a unicycle just so I can get my precious MIR. Even by your own examples, Apple is no better because they've done the same thing you criticize PC OEMs for. And despite the tunnel vision on the MIR, the point was the obviously better value proposition of the hardware, with or without the MIR.

As for sounding snobby, lots of Mac users have unwarranted elitist attitudes. Join the club.

[applenut]

Dual Optical drives are useless. Same PC strategy..overwhelm people with junk. 128MB graphics versus 64MB is good for games that texture a lot. People don't buy Macs for gaming really.


apple was all about the dual optical drives when they had no other gimmicks left.

dual optical drives are nice when you burn a lot of material, especially for distribution, or when a new drive technology comes out. far from useless

64MB is alright. the 20 inch, pushes 64 MB too much and should have 128MB, when Apple offers 128MB on a laptop they should at least offer the same on desktop. textures will continue to get larger and with the high native resolutions of the lcds, and OS X pumping practically everything into the GPU and VRAM 128 MB would not be overkill.

[Luca]

Dual optical drives are not useful if you get a Combo drive or DVD burner. No one gets just plain CD-RWs or DVD-ROMs anymore anyway. DVD burners are $60.

[bborofka]

128MB graphics versus 64MB is good for games that texture a lot. People don't buy Macs for gaming really.


People do play games on the Mac. $2500+ for a system with a decent (upgradable) video card isn't an option for most people. Apple always somehow intentionally cripples the OEM video on their Macs but taking off VRAM, I don't get it. If I could remove the card and put a better one in, it wouldn't be so bad, but that's not how it is.


Yet another reason why I hate shopping for PCs. I want to buy a computer..I don't want to clip coupons and mail you shit. If you're giving me $125 take it off the damn price. God I hate PC mentality....making me jump through hoops to get a better deal. No wonder spyware is so pervasive.


Settle down there, you're over-generalizing. There are numerous sales tactics to help sell computers that Apple never tries, while the PC industry thrives. Rebates are just one of them.


Yeah man. When in a Fragfest you don't have time to look at the beautiful scenery. Turn the bells and whistles off and get the redrum going on. .


This is such a pathetic argument, right up there with "the eye can only see 24 frames per second" nonsense. My 12" G4 PowerBook that I bought brand new last spring still can't play Q3A on full quality settings and native resolution (1024x768) at a decent speed. Games were not meant to be played on low quality settings.


Let us not forget what is important. Running OSX and not having to deal with virus and crappy PC software. Yes ..I'm willing to pay more for that.

We all are, or else we wouldn't be here. It's no secret that Apple is far ahead of the rest of industry with respect to their software, we're not complaining about that. Their hardware, in contrast, is nowhere nearly as great as their software. If I could run OS X on a PC I would have nothing to complain about. But I can't, so I am forced into Apple's underwhelming, overpriced hardware.

[ElMacintismo]

Do we know for a fact that the new iMac won't have upgradeable graphics?

[nowayout11]

Dual optical drives are not useful if you get a Combo drive or DVD burner. No one gets just plain CD-RWs or DVD-ROMs anymore anyway. DVD burners are $60.

Depends. Standalone CD-RW drives are still faster at burning CDs than most combos and DVD burners. If your priority is speed, you'll want a separate CD-RW burner. Dual setups are useful for applenut's reasons, and direct copying specifically.

[bborofka]

Do we know for a fact that the new iMac won't have upgradeable graphics?

No, but history tends to repeat itself. Based on what I've read at ThinkSecret, it doesn't look like Apple has learned a damn thing about the $1000-$2000 personal computer market.

[spiff]

I don't think this information is concrete from TS. They've always been accurate in the past for the most part but the details get messed up from time to time. For one, I simply refuse to believe the specs on the GPU. They don't mention any BTO options. They don't say that there isn't any, they just don't mention it.

This probably doesn't mean anything, but they refer to the GPU as the NVIDIA GeForce MX 5200 when it's really an FX 5200. I thought it was a miss-type but they do it more than once.

[JoshCarter]

For this product to have any lifespan at all it needs to have a better GPU. Given the similarities between these specs and the specs of the current iMac G4, I remain skeptical that these specs are accurate. (FWIW, macosrumors.com has a report that's worth looking at.)

As for nobody buying a Mac for games, I think that's accurate, but also consider: a ton of people buy Macs for other reasons (like MacOS X), but also want to play games on it. I mean, if you're going to drop that kind of money on a computer, you damn well better be able to play games on it.

[stoo]

Ok this is trivial, but the form-factor. The article says Don't Think Vaio, but whatever: Sony can claim they did it first (in actual fact it was another company whose name escapes - but that makes it even worse anyway! 3rd in line!)

Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh? (A $10K Mac).

If TS got a leaked copy of marketing materials, I'm guessing that they have placeholder info in there from the old models.

Sounds plausible.

[qrun]

With the cost of the 6800LE chip being as cheap as it is, I am suprised Apple did not go with that. The 6800LE actualy out preforms the 5900 in most cases and costs about as much as the 5200 did when Apple first started to use them. If the new iMac is using the 5200 and is going to cost that much for one with a superdrive then I am just going to spend the extra for a G5 tower and a new display (I could care less if it is an Apple display or not). The only thing the new iMac has going for it according to these specs is the G5 CPU and the display.
Honistly, if the system has a G5 CPU, a next gen GPU such as a 6600-6800, and a DVD-R, I could care less about the size or type of display because they always have external display plugs :)
Here is a question that is kinda off topic but why does the G5 produce so much more heat than an AMD 64 and are there any benchmarks comparing the two?

[Messiahtosh]

There is something missing with all of this information, and the missing piece is the design of this thing. We have a vague description with a reference to a Sony thing, but TS even says that it is not a fair comparisson.

This is all getting very interesting.

Am I correct or not, but in the TS article, does it say that the iMacs have DVI I/O?

[LudwigVan]

Am I correct or not, but in the TS article, does it say that the iMacs have DVI I/O?

Uh, it says: "One interesting addition to the entire lineup will be an optical digital audio output, just as is found on the Power Mac G5 towers. The optical output will support 5.1 digital surround sound, but will not include Dolby support, as Apple is not a licensee of the technology found on similar Windows-based PCs."

But, as others have pointed out, Apple is a licensee (http://www.dolby.com/manufacturers/).

[Messiahtosh]

It is interesting that this has been brought up, I too was thinking that if the iMac had DVI, then the computer may not really be an AIO. It may be designed to fit an attachable display...

[applenut]

It is interesting that this has been brought up, I too was thinking that if the iMac had DVI, then the computer may not really be an AIO. It may be designed to fit an attachable display...

why? they currently have VGA. DVI is a natural progression. doesn't mean the screen is seperate.

[Commodus]

My opinion: it doesn't sound like they'll have the $999 iMac people were hoping for, but it could still be a good deal.

I also think that some people may be interpreting the descriptions improperly. For example, I think the educational model will likely cost considerably less, more like $1099 or even $999. To get a 17" LCD and a G5 from Apple at that price would be perfect for a lot of places where a thin profile and/or a decent CPU are more important than graphics acceleration or media storage. I would hope that Apple will also try to make the stripped-down model available to businesses; it would make a perfect client system for places that want employees to have some decent performance but also don't need to waste money on storage that employees will never use.

And regarding the price for the regular versions? I don't know about you, but $1299 for a 17" iMac G5 would be a pretty good deal. Even when the last generation of iMac G4s was brand-new, $1299 for a 15" LCD and 1 GHz G4 wasn't exactly a red-hot bargain. And if Apple can offer a 20" model for less than $2200 (even if it's through offering a Combo drive version), then so much the better!

[Robo]

The specs are pretty underwhelming (I could buy a $599 eMachine with 17" monitor, throw in a $200 graphics card, and play Doom III better then on the iMac, which would cost twice as much. Hell, the iMac wouldn't even run Doom III (384 MB RAM requirement). Sad but true...) You can argue all you want that the iMac isn't a gaming machine, but that's just sad.

Like I said, I'll wait until Paris to be sure, but the way it's looking, I'll probably buy an iMac G4 on September 1 - that's right, G4. They'll be on sale - if there's any left at any store near me, I hope - and I like the design much, much better. I'll even be able to get an iGo for like an eight the price, since it'd be completely useless for the new iMac ;)

[hmurchison]

The specs are pretty underwhelming (I could buy a $599 eMachine with 17" monitor, throw in a $200 graphics card, and play Doom III better then on the iMac, which would cost twice as much. Hell, the iMac wouldn't even run Doom III (384 MB RAM requirement). Sad but true...) You can argue all you want that the iMac isn't a gaming machine, but that's just sad.

Like I said, I'll wait until Paris to be sure, but the way it's looking, I'll probably buy an iMac G4 on September 1 - that's right, G4. They'll be on sale - if there's any left at any store near me, I hope - and I like the design much, much better. I'll even be able to get an iGo for like an eight the price, since it'd be completely useless for the new iMac ;)


Sorry Monitor Sold Seperately (http://www.emachines.com/products/products.html?prod=eMachines_T3092) the smaller other emachines desktops have integrated graphics and no AGP

So you're looking at

599 +
110+
200
= $909

You'll be playing doom III but in the end...it's still an emachines.

[marischal]

If what Think Secret says is anywhere near the truth then the new iMac will be completely underwhelming.

The thing is lacking in every area with the exception of the display and (no-doubt) the industrial design.

I know that Apple have all but given up chasing the games market, but to release a machine incapable of playing one of the most eagerly awaited games ever (Doom 3) is ridiculous. More RAM and more VRAM coupled with a better GPU are essential, and not just for the dwindling number of Mac gamers.

Apple should at least try to approach the specification of a $999 PC and then charge a premium for the user experience and the design. They more or less managed this with the first two or three generations of iMac and we all remember how they sold.

[hmurchison]

Apple should at least try to approach the specification of a $999 PC and then charge a premium for the user experience and the design. They more or less managed this with the first two or three generations of iMac and we all remember how they sold.

Are you sure you want that? Here's Gateway's $999 'puters (http://www.gateway.com/home/products/hm_dtp_510.shtml) 510S Pro

Proc- Pentium 4 3Ghz
OS- XP Pro
RAM- 512MB
HD- 120GB
Monitor- 17" CRT
Optical- DVD R/W
Video - Intel Integrated Graphics
Audio- Integrated Audio

So let's see. No 17" Digital LCD display and Integrated Graphics. ATX commodity Box, No firewire.

Yet somehow by magic of Mac fan RDF Apple is supposed to walk on water and ship a 17" LCD system with a decent GPU for $999. I'm beginning to think Mac users have been drinking too much PC koolaid.

[bborofka]

I'm beginning to think Mac users have been drinking too much PC koolaid.

Yeah. Everything is fine at Apple. They sell lots of computers. Macs are flying off the shelves. They have no problem selling a computer that consumers want. Their unit growth and refresh cycles are astounding. They have no need to look at their competitor's offerings because their lineup is perfect.

Give me a break.

Apple's in a hole and keep digging themselves deeper with every delayed, constrained, underwhelming, overpriced Mac announcement. Apple's only offering at the $999 price-point is the eMac. I tell you right now, lots of people won't even consider it because of the physical marriage of the CPU and the CRT. I don't need to explain this.

For those that are ok with AIO designs (which I am for very baseline, CRT PCs), they then need to compare that Gateway you listed (which does have Firewire btw, look at the full specs). The Gateway has twice the RAM, twice the HD size, a processor that will run circles around the puny G4, and lots of flexibility and expandability, which the eMac has none, unless you count that RAM slot...

Apple has to get with the program and sell a computer at a price/performance ratio that people want. Well-designed hardware is not as important as well-designed software. Apple has a true gem with OS X, but they don't allow it to fully compete with Windows in the consumer space because of their dismal hardware offerings. Lot's of people (including potential switchers) just want an affordable/powerful box to run OS X. People are willing to pay a premium for a well designed product, but they will not pay a premium for an aged, overpriced, non-flexible product. Apple just doesn't get this and seemingly doesn't care about their delimma.

[hmurchison]

Apple's in a hole and keep digging themselves deeper with every delayed, constrained, underwhelming, overpriced Mac announcement.

Qui Gon ...the RDF is strong in this one. His levels of pessimisticleans is off the charts. We must take him with us and train him in the art of the Redeye.

The Gateway has twice the RAM, twice the HD size, a processor that will run circles around the puny G4

In OSX? ;)

People are willing to pay a premium for a well designed product, but they will not pay a premium for an aged, overpriced, non-flexible product. Apple just doesn't get this and seemingly doesn't care about their delimma.

Evidently they will pay. Q3 180k eMacs were sold despite the "superior" expandability and configuration of the Gateway or other PC. Mac users that grip about specs fail to grok the whole reason why people choose Macs. They are too busy "lookin' in the neighbors window causing them to neglect their own home.

Apple's iMac G5 will sell like hotcakes. It will taper off next year and then a referesh will come and sales will pick up again. Apple has outlasted every single one of you windbags spewing doom and gloom...I find it rather comical to hear people rant about a debt free Apple with 5 billion in the bank. Yeah I know I'm spending more money...so what. When people see my iMac ...they'll want it but they may not have the stones to go get it like I have. C'est la guerre.

[bborofka]

Qui Gon ...the RDF is strong in this one. His levels of pessimisticleans is off the charts. We must take him with us and train him in the art of the Redeye.


RDF? What RDF? I'm not spewing doom and gloom, I'm spewing reality. Apple's unit sales consistently stay below 1 million units/quarter with no real growth. Their marketshare hovers around 3% and will likely always stay in single digits as long as Steve Jobs is CEO. There are many reasons for this, and right now we're talking in the context of the iMac.


In OSX? ;)


Your point is moot. OS X is a premium we all here pay for. OS X is what keeps Mac users continue to buy Macs, thus keeping Apple alive. OS X is not a premium most people will justify when looking at the price/performance ratio of various computers. Apple does not address either of these: advocating the premium of OS X or creating hardware that is closer to the price/performance ratio of its competitors.


Evidently they will pay. Q3 180k eMacs were sold despite the "superior" expandability and configuration of the Gateway or other PC. Mac users that grip about specs fail to grok the whole reason why people choose Macs. They are too busy "lookin' in the neighbors window causing them to neglect their own home.


Where did you get 180k eMacs? Why do you consider that number so huge? Apple's reports show 243k iMacs+eMacs sold in Q3'04, a far cry from the 400k-500k iMacs alone that were sold 5 years ago per quarter, when they were barely cracking 1 million units/quarter.

I know why Mac users choose Macs, I am one. I also know why PC users don't choose Macs, I know many and look at numbers. I'm concerned about Apple's Mac offerings and their ignorance to their dwindling marketshare.


Apple's iMac G5 will sell like hotcakes. It will taper off next year and then a referesh will come and sales will pick up again. Apple has outlasted every single one of you windbags spewing doom and gloom...I find it rather comical to hear people rant about a debt free Apple with 5 billion in the bank. Yeah I know I'm spending more money...so what. When people see my iMac ...they'll want it but they may not have the stones to go get it like I have. C'est la guerre.

I don't see any reason the iMac G5 won't be a repeat of the iMac G4, provided ThinkSecret's reports are real. They don't appear to have learned why the iMac G4 was such a failure. Perhaps they won't wait 13 months before updating it this time, or hike up the price right after it's introduced.

Apple's business model (low unit sales, high margins) is certainly serving them well in terms of revenue growth and profitability, but it is not serving them well in the PC industry. Your elitist attitude toward Macs and Apple, which is shared by many, guarantees Apple will always have a market to sell to: their own. But it's not doing anything to help improve Apple's position as a prominent PC maker, which is a shame because I'd really like to see OS X compete with Windows head on.

[BenRoethig]

With the cost of the 6800LE chip being as cheap as it is, I am suprised Apple did not go with that. The 6800LE actualy out preforms the 5900 in most cases and costs about as much as the 5200 did when Apple first started to use them. If the new iMac is using the 5200 and is going to cost that much for one with a superdrive then I am just going to spend the extra for a G5 tower and a new display (I could care less if it is an Apple display or not). The only thing the new iMac has going for it according to these specs is the G5 CPU and the display.
Honistly, if the system has a G5 CPU, a next gen GPU such as a 6600-6800, and a DVD-R, I could care less about the size or type of display because they always have external display plugs :)
Here is a question that is kinda off topic but why does the G5 produce so much more heat than an AMD 64 and are there any benchmarks comparing the two?

Then again, we're talking about a company that uses bargain bin 32x combo drives which have been obsolete for 2 years now just to save a buck. You can get a name brand 52x combo drive for less than $50 these days.

[Messiahtosh]

It's a bit sad that I can already just see the marketing hype now. It's just going to be about the G5, when in fact, the G5 should be the afterthought in all of this. In all actuality the speed boost from the ancient 2G iMac at 1.25 GHz G4 to 1.6 and 1.8 G5 is decent, but not nearly revolutionary, and not really a great reason to NOT sell any iMacs for 2 and a half months.

I'm just kind of pissed off at these specs, it just shows a general misunderstanding that Apple has about the market. There is no reason to build that machine, none. Just make a powerful, expandable box (doesnt even need multiple PCI) for the GPU, RAM, and maybe one PCI slot. And no attached display. Why can't Apple do that?

If anything else, why not drop the price of the eMac to what it should be selling for, $599.

:no:

[Luca]

It's a bit sad that I can already just see the marketing hype now. It's just going to be about the G5, when in fact, the G5 should be the afterthought in all of this. In all actuality the speed boost from the ancient 2G iMac at 1.25 GHz G4 to 1.6 and 1.8 G5 is decent, but not nearly revolutionary, and not really a great reason to NOT sell any iMacs for 2 and a half months.

I'm just kind of pissed off at these specs, it just shows a general misunderstanding that Apple has about the market. There is no reason to build that machine, none. Just make a powerful, expandable box (doesnt even need multiple PCI) for the GPU, RAM, and maybe one PCI slot. And no attached display. Why can't Apple do that?

If anything else, why not drop the price of the eMac to what it should be selling for, $599.

:no:

Another great post. I see you're living up to your user title ;).

I think that if we look beyond the exact specifications and quit arguing about the GPU or the exact price point, you see that the new iMac package, as a whole, is essentially unchanged from the old one. Apple's strategy is not changing one bit, and that is what bothers me more than any individual specification. The old iMacs did not sell well. How do they expect the new ones to sell well if they won't change their strategy?

[hmurchison]

RDF? What RDF? I'm not spewing doom and gloom, I'm spewing reality. Apple's unit sales consistently stay below 1 million units/quarter with no real growth. Their marketshare hovers around 3%

No your RDF is strong. You're just used it. Apple will begin to hit 1million a qtr. Why?

1. Transitions are almost complete. OSX is finally mature and we've transistioned to a new CPU.

2. Apple Retail stores are coming and generating profit.

3. Economy is improving.

4. Awarness, the iPod is generating tons of free marketing for Apple. iPods don't mean that people run out and buy a Mac but with the stores and iPod being popular their next machine could be a Mac.

Your point is moot. OS X is a premium we all here pay for. OS X is what keeps Mac users continue to buy Macs, thus keeping Apple alive. OS X is not a premium most people will justify when looking at the price/performance ratio of various computers.

You're talking out your ass and it stinks. The OS is the very reason why people buy platforms. You buy Windows because it runs Office. You buy OSX because it runs X app. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining Man. I've been on the front lines for years talking to computer customers I'm not falling for your "pie in the sky" idealism.

Where did you get 180k eMacs? Why do you consider that number so huge? Apple's reports show 243k iMacs+eMacs sold in Q3'04, a far cry from the 400k-500k iMacs alone that were sold 5 years ago per quarter, when they were barely cracking 1 million units/quarter.

5 years ago? Not a valid comparison at all. 5 years ago is the dot.com craze and pre 9/11 hence a far different economy. We've had a downturn in the economy ..why should anyone expect Apple to have gonzo sales unless they were tying to make their point based on tenous and weak arguements.

I don't see any reason the iMac G5 won't be a repeat of the iMac G4, provided ThinkSecret's reports are real. They don't appear to have learned why the iMac G4 was such a failure. Perhaps they won't wait 13 months before updating it this time, or hike up the price right after it's introduced.

Then this is a testament to your lack of vision. The reason why the iMac G4 wasn't popular was for a variety of reason.

1. Monitor size. 17" CRTs are cheap. LCDs are in demand but the $1299 iMac G4 had a 15" LCD. People value larger screens. If Apple ships an iMac G5 with a 17" LCD for 1299 it'll sell like hotcakes even with an average GPU.

Apple's business model (low unit sales, high margins) is certainly serving them well in terms of revenue growth and profitability, but it is not serving them well in the PC industry. Your elitist attitude toward Macs and Apple,

Agreed. Things must change but Apple is still not in a position to do so. I liken it to a large ship that must turn around and head off in the opposite direction. Apple is almost at a full 180 degrees. They are ready to start moving in the right direction now. I realize that I have to invest more money into Apple. I must do this because I cannot stand the windows environment with its rogue developers and virus, trojans and worms. I feel like Windows is a room full of bratty kids that I must chase out.

The next 5 years are critical. Apple must

1. Continue to grow their product line and revenues. More aquisitions will be needed to shore up DCC and Enterprise product portfolio. Cheap headless Macs will only come when Apple can use them to sell Apple workflows.

2. Parlay the iPod and supporting products into a 4-5 billion a year business by expanding licensing and moving into the home.

3. Reclaim edu with a vengeance. Students need to have access to Macs.

4. Align with Linux. Deliver Quicktime for Linux and continue to add as much linux support in OSX.

5. Endeavor to increase licensing of Software. Apple needs 4.5 billion a year in software licensing alone.

Apple will be a different company once they have revenues of 15-20 billion a year. Sadly right now they are small potatoes still. Much more work to be done and they have to face their biggest fear which is confronting Microsoft. But they must get stronger first.

[spiff]

I just checked Dell's website to compare prices. On an $800 dimension's 4600 they have an option for an ATI 9800 Pro as a $200 upgrade. Kind of pricey actually. The funny thing is with Dell is they're always having special offers and things like that, so you have to wait till the right time to buy, a little while back I got the same option for $130.

Point is, for $1050 (2.8 ghz P4, 512 RAM) you can get a computer that is quite capable for graphics. Obviously, Apple can't compete with this price point. But it would actually do quite well if they just offered a better GPU. A $200 option is all that's needed. The exclusive specs that TS posted didn't say anything against this, they didn't say that there wouldn't be any BTO options such as the GPU, so I haven't given up hope.

It's funny if you take a look at apple's game website (apple.com/games) because the new iMac wouldn't be able to play any of the new ones very well at all. Especially Homeworld 2 and Myst 4. And, other games are going to coming out such as Doom III. Please, if you pay $2200 for an iMac, I want to be able to play Myst at full settings, it's not even that demanding of a game.

[applenut]

I just checked Dell's website to compare prices. On an $800 dimension's 4600 they have an option for an ATI 9800 Pro as a $200 upgrade. Kind of pricey actually. The funny thing is with Dell is they're always having special offers and things like that, so you have to wait till the right time to buy, a little while back I got the same option for $130.

Point is, for $1050 (2.8 ghz P4, 512 RAM) you can get a computer that is quite capable for graphics. Obviously, Apple can't compete with this price point. But it would actually do quite well if they just offered a better GPU. A $200 option is all that's needed. The exclusive specs that TS posted didn't say anything against this, they didn't say that there wouldn't be any BTO options such as the GPU, so I haven't given up hope..

add in 17 inch display and you are near 1600 from dell.

[Frank777]

Look, anybody who's known Apple for a while knows it's a company that always has its eye on the bigger picture.

Today, Apple's a company in transition. They managed the transition from 68k to PowerPC well and they managed the transition from OS 9 to OS X well.

Though they would never admit it publicly, Apple is in the process of taking back the sales channel for themselves. In seven or eight years, newbies will come onto messageboards and ask about the good ole days when Macs were sold by companies other than Apple.

At that point, the company can use its online store to match Dell dollar for dollar. Until that day arrives, the 'Mac premium' will continue to exist.

Back in the day when I was on my original LC, we used to beg for Apple to open their own retail stores. So I'm thankful where we're going, even if the Canadian rollout is MIA.

But until the transition's complete, it's not too much to ask that Apple stay as close as possible to the competition. Jobs pointed out on the MacWorld stage that Apple has priced portables to match Dell's prices, and it was Apple's own financial wiz who pointed out that $999 is the new sweet spot for entry-level consumer purchases.

Apple understands psychological barriers. Their whole iTunes/iPod 99¢ a song business is predicated on it. All I'm doing is pointing out what Apple already knows, and that is that $999. is the price that tells most consumers to take a second look.

[spiff]

add in 17 inch display and you are near 1600 from dell.

Umm... a 17 inch flat panel display is $300. I guess I forgot that. But, it would make it $1350 not $1600. That's a 2.8 ghz P4, 512 RAM, and a 9800 Pro. Honestly that's more expensive than usual. If you wait till the right time when they're giving good offers you could get the same set up for $200 or $300 less.

I'm not trying to make a PC is better than Mac statement here. This actually goes to show my point that the new G5 iMac could be very competitive with with even dell if they just offered an option for a 9800 Pro or a 5900 Ultra. You'd still be paying more of course, probably $300 more but it would be worth it because you have a mac.

I think this is important to quite a few people. Not so much here maybe, because everyone here is a mac user and has given up gaming or just don't care about what GPU they have. But a lot of PC users do and I think Apple would be attracting a bigger following if they offered these options. Putting such a lousy graphics card in what could be a great design I think is completely ruining it and a potential market base.

[pscates2.0]

Another great post. I see you're living up to your user title ;).

I think that if we look beyond the exact specifications and quit arguing about the GPU or the exact price point, you see that the new iMac package, as a whole, is essentially unchanged from the old one. Apple's strategy is not changing one bit, and that is what bothers me more than any individual specification. The old iMacs did not sell well. How do they expect the new ones to sell well if they won't change their strategy?

It's going to be odd, watching this rollout. Most of us have strongly formed opinions - one way or the other - on the iMac G4, the good and the bad. We know, in our hearts (and heads) would probably WOULD appeal to so many, but if TS is correct on their rough specs, it looks to be a further extension of the "AIO or bust!" school of thought.

But if all the old complaints or gripes (however shaky they might seem to some of you) still aren't addressed, I see another strong opening and initial "flurry of buying"...then I see us sitting here, in early spring 2005, lamenting the lack of success and appeal of this new model.

I'd hate for it to be the iMac G4 all over again.

If it's ego or arrogance merely clogging the ramp, I'd love to see it done away with. I've come to believe that forcing a "mid-range" prosumer model to be an AIO with less than current specs and features no recipe for success.

I truly believe - at this point - nearly seven years into the "iEra", that the ONLY AIO desktop product in Apple's lineup should be the eMac. Call it whatever the hell you want, eMac or iMac. But I get this sense of "Apple hasn't really learned much about much in the previous years...".

Apple seems to span the bridge between dictating to their customers and setting the agenda (and when it works, in the case of iTunes, iPod, iTMS, the notebooks, etc.) it's quite remarkable. On other things, they seem to beat a dead horse and force an issue than no one seems to be asking for. In fact, all I really see is this huge demand for an ass-kicking, no-compromise headless unit that people can get into for $799-1299 (give or take) and use either with Apple's displays or other third-party ones.

Just seems like such a no-brainer, when you set aside history, preconceived notions about "what makes an iMac", etc.

Seems really foolish to tie that mid-range $1000-2000 segment into something that was novel and cutting edge in 1998 or so. And for all the arguments some of you will give about "the iMac is an all-in-one...", where, exactly, is that written? Are things not allowed to change and evolve? An eMac can't fill that bill nicely, leaving those mid-range, prosumer to "deal with" hooking a single f***ing cable to a display? Why coddle and dumb down this particular segment.

If the eMac is filling the role that the jellybean iMac did years ago (and I tend to think it does: an affordable, AIO, easy-as-pie to set-up computer with everything you need to get online or do the digital hub thing), then shouldn't the iMac be viewed more as a proper mid-range machine and cater itself accordingly?

I think so.

But it won't, I suppose. And I can already predict - six months from now - the tone and vibe around this, and other, Mac-centric message boards.

:(

I don't think Apple truly listens, on a lot of fronts. Some, yes, they do. It shows. But it also shows, greatly, that they don't in other areas. That irks me sometimes, because I can imagine something so much better and crisp and would stake my life on its appeal...but I can't do anything about it.

You can't tell me that you wouldn't love to walk into an Apple Store and lay down $800-1300 (again, give or take...not sure on pricing components, so allow for wiggle) for a 1.8GHz G5 cube, mini tower or pizza box with a no-bullshit set of specs? And if you buy an Apple display, you get a really sweet bundle discount? OR, if you have a Sony or Viewsonic display you really, really like, you can just take the unit home, hook it to your display and you're off and running. Most people, with proper incentives and realize how damn cool it all looks, would probably opt for the Apple display anyway (I would). But you can then get a more affordable AND powerful unit without shoving a display down the throat of people who simply may not need or want one. That's the eMac's role.

I just think Apple is mis-reading and totally approaching this whole mid-range, $1000-2000 segment completely wrong. And if we're back here in 6-12 months, talking about the iMac G5 the same way we've spend the past year or so talking about the iMac G4, some of you are going to have to concede "well, he might be an idiot in a lot of ways, but ol' Paul DID have a damn good point last summer in that post of his...the guy was right after all!".

:D

Cool thing is, I won't even make you acknowledge it out loud. It'll just be or little secret... :p

[Dave Hagan]

My what if - if you will allow me to

What if the new iMac will replace the eMac and all this bitching about the pricing is all wrong and it is cheaper than expected? I mean as reliable and eerily accurate as think Secret has been in the past, they have been wrong on minor little details before. Here's to hoping!

[bborofka]

1. Transitions are almost complete. OSX is finally mature and we've transistioned to a new CPU.

OS X transition has been done for a while. Obviously people don't hop on the Mac bandwagon when that was done, just existing Mac users.

The new CPU was a must in order to get caught up with the rest of the industry. The G5 has been in the PowerMac for over a year now, and their sales have not been great, I don't see your point.


2. Apple Retail stores are coming and generating profit.

Retail stores have come and when combined with the switch campain, nothing happened.


3. Economy is improving.

True, but that doesn't mean Apple can't work on making inroads to PC sales.


4. Awarness, the iPod is generating tons of free marketing for Apple. iPods don't mean that people run out and buy a Mac but with the stores and iPod being popular their next machine could be a Mac.


Sheer speculation. The G5 iMac described by TS surely won't be it.


You're talking out your ass and it stinks. The OS is the very reason why people buy platforms. You buy Windows because it runs Office. You buy OSX because it runs X app. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining Man. I've been on the front lines for years talking to computer customers I'm not falling for your "pie in the sky" idealism.


People don't buy PCs because of Office. People buy PCs because they are cheap, powerful, ubiquitous, and Windows comes on about 95% of 'em.


5 years ago? Not a valid comparison at all. 5 years ago is the dot.com craze and pre 9/11 hence a far different economy. We've had a downturn in the economy ..why should anyone expect Apple to have gonzo sales unless they were tying to make their point based on tenous and weak arguements.


Ok, here's a weak tenuos argument: Apple's switch campaign failed horribly. Apple sits on 3% marketshare and can't make inroads to PC buyers. Actually, that's not really an argument, that's just a fact. Apple had a hit computer 5 years ago, now they don't.


Then this is a testament to your lack of vision. The reason why the iMac G4 wasn't popular was for a variety of reason.

1. Monitor size. 17" CRTs are cheap. LCDs are in demand but the $1299 iMac G4 had a 15" LCD. People value larger screens. If Apple ships an iMac G5 with a 17" LCD for 1299 it'll sell like hotcakes even with an average GPU.


You obviously didn't listen to the plethora of complaints about the iMac G4. Screen size wasn't the main reason why people didn't buy an iMac.


Agreed. Things must change but Apple is still not in a position to do so. I liken it to a large ship that must turn around and head off in the opposite direction. Apple is almost at a full 180 degrees. They are ready to start moving in the right direction now. I realize that I have to invest more money into Apple. I must do this because I cannot stand the windows environment with its rogue developers and virus, trojans and worms. I feel like Windows is a room full of bratty kids that I must chase out.

The next 5 years are critical. Apple must

1. Continue to grow their product line and revenues. More aquisitions will be needed to shore up DCC and Enterprise product portfolio. Cheap headless Macs will only come when Apple can use them to sell Apple workflows.

2. Parlay the iPod and supporting products into a 4-5 billion a year business by expanding licensing and moving into the home.

3. Reclaim edu with a vengeance. Students need to have access to Macs.

4. Align with Linux. Deliver Quicktime for Linux and continue to add as much linux support in OSX.

5. Endeavor to increase licensing of Software. Apple needs 4.5 billion a year in software licensing alone.

Apple will be a different company once they have revenues of 15-20 billion a year. Sadly right now they are small potatoes still. Much more work to be done and they have to face their biggest fear which is confronting Microsoft. But they must get stronger first.

#1: Cheap headless Macs will only come when Steve Jobs leaves or hell freezes over. But I agree then need to grow their product lines.

#2: This takes away from Apple's core market: the personal computer. While the iPod is great and doing very well, let's not forget that this is Apple Computer, inc.

#3: Couldn't agree more.

#4: Why? Linux has a smaller marketshare than OS X.

#5: This would mean Apple would have to develop proprietary technologies to sell to companies. I'd rather they just embrace open standards.

[Messiahtosh]

If this next iMac fails or does not meet expectations in the way that this flat panel iMac didnt, then Steve Jobs should hang it up. I'm saying it right now, he's on his last chance to get this company moving in the direction that it COULD and SHOULD be moving. Sure, the user base has expanded since he's been at Apple, but the market share has dwindled in comparisson to the rest of the industry.

Put Danika Cleary in charge because she has proven her ability to drive consumer success with the iPod lines, and her iChat innovations are coming along too. But mostly, yeah, the iPod. She is in touch with what people want.

Jobs better have more than this iMac to show if he doesnt want to get bood off the stage.

[Zodiac]

Jobs better have more than this iMac to show if he doesnt want to get bood off the stage.

Maybe apple stores in Canada and a preview of commercials for the macs and not the iPod for once?

[alcimedes]

People don't buy PCs because of Office. People buy PCs because they are cheap, powerful, ubiquitous, and Windows comes on about 95% of 'em.

although, if that were true, then we could expect Lindows machines to be selling like hotcakes, which they aren't. why? they don't have the software they have to have. namely, Office.

[Messiahtosh]

double post

[Messiahtosh]

I think if we see something like this, specs may not matter! :lol:

http://www.spymac.com/upload/gallery/f_0/user_3765/medium/upload_203494.jpg

http://www.spymac.com/gallery/show_photo.php?picid=203494

[qrun]

although, if that were true, then we could expect Lindows machines to be selling like hotcakes, which they aren't. why? they don't have the software they have to have. namely, Office.

People don't buy PCs for Office and the reason Lindows machines do not sale well is because they are underpowered and there are not many games. A large portion of the PC market are gamers so they need more power and , unfortunately, Windows. If Apple put out a headless iMac with an upgradable video card and an AIO version with out the upgrade, what one would sell faster?

[MacUsers]

I think if we see something like this, specs may not matter! :lol:

http://www.spymac.com/upload/gallery/f_0/user_3765/medium/upload_203494.jpg

http://www.spymac.com/gallery/show_photo.php?picid=203494

That isn't a cooler or more original design than the sunflower iMac.

[Messiahtosh]

People don't buy PCs for Office and the reason Lindows machines do not sale well is because they are underpowered and there are not many games. A large portion of the PC market are gamers so they need more power and , unfortunately, Windows. If Apple put out a headless iMac with an upgradable video card and an AIO version with out the upgrade, what one would sell faster?What kind of PC buyer looks at Apple as a gaming platform anyway?

People that want to manage their digital content will consider the Mac, hardly any gamer ever would.

[Messiahtosh]

That isn't a cooler or more original design than the sunflower iMac.I own a sunflower iMac, I know which one I'd rather have...and it would be that concept right there, dressed in white.

[Luca]

I can't see that image. It is replaced with some doofy "Spymac 3 Trailer" animated GIF.

[spiff]

What kind of PC buyer looks at Apple as a gaming platform anyway?

People that want to manage their digital content will consider the Mac, hardly any gamer ever would.

No one looks to the mac as a gaming PC but if they throw down the 2 grand then you should be able to play the few games that are out there.

When you think of Apple you usually think of quality. Looking at those specs of the new iMac, I think everything but that.

[pscates2.0]

I own a sunflower iMac, I know which one I'd rather have...and it would be that concept right there, dressed in white.

Regardless of what you or anyone else (myself included) may have or want, this is too derivative, feeling like a bit of a cop-out and a ham-handed revisit to the previous generation Cinema Display.

And the screen isn't mobile, quite a step backwards from the iMac G4. Much like the lighted keyboard on the PowerBooks, once you get used to the iMac G4's "go anywhere" display, it's hard to let it go. It's wonderful.

The above is a neat design, no doubt. And pretty snazzy. But I just don't see it coming from Apple.

[qrun]

What kind of PC buyer looks at Apple as a gaming platform anyway?

People that want to manage their digital content will consider the Mac, hardly any gamer ever would.

And that is why the PC/Windows market is so large, because of games.
The next Mac I get is going to be a G5 because I am tired of spending so much just to upgrade my iMac for todays games (buying a new one). I own a G3 iMac, along with a 17" G4 iMac but unless the new one has a 66/6800 or an upgradable video card (PC laptops have them now so there is no reason they can't do it with an iMac) then I am going to just spend the extra money on a G5 tower so I have that option. I am a gamer and I buy my Macs mostly for games and the only reason I have PCs is for games.

[Robo]

Sorry Monitor Sold Seperately (http://www.emachines.com/products/products.html?prod=eMachines_T3092) the smaller other emachines desktops have integrated graphics and no AGP

So you're looking at

599 +
110+
200
= $909

You'll be playing doom III but in the end...it's still an emachines.

eMachines sells a lot of their machines in bundles with monitors in retail stores. $599 would get me a 17" display, a 2.8 GHz processor, 512 MB of RAM, and guess what? No rebates. (It doesn't have AGP, you're right, but I could probably buy a PCI graphics card that performs better then the 5200SE.) If I went to Best Buy, I could probably get the machine you mentioned for $589 with a monitor (and a crappy printer!) after rebates. I could use the remaining $70 to buy a GPU as good as the iMac's (in reality, I'd buy a better one) and I'd have a $650 computer that would outperform the twice as expensive iMac. (Admittedly, the latter example is after a couple hundred dollars in rebates, and neither example includes an LCD monitor, which isn't a huge plus for gaming anyway.)

You're right, it's still an eMachines, and it's not a Mac. Yes, I'll have to deal with Windows. But I don't have $650 to pay for MacOS X.

Sometimes I think the people who tell themselves that Macs cost 10% more then their PC counterparts are in denial. Apple's high margins would be more bearable if they had a lower-end and possibly headless model, though...I hope we see something like that at Paris. We probably won't, but it'd make the iMac lose it's aftertaste. I'm holding off my eMachines purchase until September...just in case...;_

[Luca]

And that is why the PC/Windows market is so large, because of games.
The next Mac I get is going to be a G5 because I am tired of spending so much just to upgrade my iMac for todays games (buying a new one). I own a G3 iMac, along with a 17" G4 iMac but unless the new one has a 66/6800 or an upgradable video card (PC laptops have them now so there is no reason they can't do it with an iMac) then I am going to just spend the extra money on a G5 tower so I have that option. I am a gamer and I buy my Macs mostly for games and the only reason I have PCs is for games.

:no:

I learned (the hard way, after spending nearly $300 for a Radeon 9800 Pro) that Macs are bad at games and CANNOT BE good at them. My graphics card alone cost nearly as much as a complete PC that can waste my Mac at any game you try. Don't buy a Mac for games. Buy a Mac for everything else, and think about maybe putting a game or two on it. Generally it's best to stick with games that were developed for both platforms simultaneously, rather than ported. Warcraft III runs extremely well as long as you have a 64 MB video card. Quake III runs extremely well on most recent Macs (it was designed to be playable on an iMac). Doom III should run pretty well even on low end Macs. Sure, you'll have to use the minimum settings, but it should be playable. And minimum settings on Doom III still looks amazing, from what I've heard. Compare that to Unreal Tournament 2004. It runs like crap on my computer (1.33 GHz G4, Radeon 9800, 1 GB of RAM). I tried it on a dual 2.0 GHz G5 and it ran like crap. It's a poorly ported game and no matter what Mac hardware you throw at it, it'll simply suck. It doesn't even use the video card at all. I saw no difference between an original Radeon (32 MB), a GeForce 3 (64 MB), and a Radeon 9800 Pro (128 MB). With the same 1.33 GHz CPU, it runs equally poorly on all three video cards.

What I don't understand, qrun, is why you use your Mac for games when you already have a PC? Why don't you just use that and use your Mac for everything else? That's what I'm planning on doing - in a couple weeks I'll be building a PC for games and connecting it to the same keyboard, mouse, and monitor as my Mac via a KVM switch.

[Luca]

(It doesn't have AGP, you're right, but I could probably buy a PCI graphics card that performs better then the 5200SE.)

FYI, PCI has a bandwidth too low to accommodate fast cards. About the best video card you can put in a PCI slot is a GeForce 5200, and I think it performs a bit worse than the AGP version.

I think people are beating the graphics issue to death. Yeah, the 5200 (in all of its iterations) sucks. We know that. However, as I pointed out above, Macs suck at games anyway! Anyone who wants to use their computer specifically for gaming will buy a PC in the first place. They wouldn't even consider a Mac. Meanwhile, what I think is the bread and butter of PC sales - not gamers, but parents buying a computer for their family - will not care about gaming performance. They are the ones who may actually consider a Mac, and given that most companies don't even list the video card in a prominent place when comparing models, they will not care if they get an FX5200 or a 9600XT. The only people who will even notice the difference in that situation would be the kids.

[applenut]

Umm... a 17 inch flat panel display is $300. I guess I forgot that. But, it would make it $1350 not $1600. That's a 2.8 ghz P4, 512 RAM, and a 9800 Pro. Honestly that's more expensive than usual. If you wait till the right time when they're giving good offers you could get the same set up for $200 or $300 less.

I'm not trying to make a PC is better than Mac statement here. This actually goes to show my point that the new G5 iMac could be very competitive with with even dell if they just offered an option for a 9800 Pro or a 5900 Ultra. You'd still be paying more of course, probably $300 more but it would be worth it because you have a mac.

I think this is important to quite a few people. Not so much here maybe, because everyone here is a mac user and has given up gaming or just don't care about what GPU they have. But a lot of PC users do and I think Apple would be attracting a bigger following if they offered these options. Putting such a lousy graphics card in what could be a great design I think is completely ruining it and a potential market base.

Ummm.....I have a Dell Catalog right here on my table next to me. Their 17 inch LCD is 469 dollars. try again

[Robo]

I know...so fine, change "performs better" to "performs about the same, and maybe a teeny bit less, although double the RAM more then makes up for the GPU's shortcomings." :D I could find a GF4 PCI card that might even be better then the 5200...and remember, the iMac uses the low-end 5200.

But yeah, the whole graphics issue is getting old. There's so much else about the new iMac to complain about!!! I officially decree that we shall henceforth complain about the RAM.

(OK, I am exaggurating somewhat, and I'm not passing final judgement on the iMac until we know the specs and design for sure, but I'm cosmically unimpressed. This is quite possibly Apple's most anticipated product ever - and I don't want to see them screw it up...:()

[Luca]

I know...so fine, change "performs better" to "performs about the same, and maybe a teeny bit less, although double the RAM more then makes up for the GPU's shortcomings." :D I could find a GF4 PCI card that might even be better then the 5200...and remember, the iMac uses the low-end 5200.

Oh, even a PCI GeForce 5200 will perform better than most Macs if you couple it with a moderately fast processor and 512 MB of RAM in a low-end PC. You can't compare Macs and PCs on that front - a Mac with a 5200 will be much slower than a PC with one, even in a PCI slot.

(OK, I am exaggurating somewhat, and I'm not passing final judgement on the iMac until we know the specs and design for sure, but I'm cosmically unimpressed. This is quite possibly Apple's most anticipated product ever - and I don't want to see them screw it up...:()

You mean they haven't announced it yet!!????!??!??!?!?? :eek: ;)

[LudwigVan]

And that is why the PC/Windows market is so large, because of games.

Huh? :confused:

[alcimedes]

well, i think everyone has worked themselves up pretty well by now, but it should be repeated that this is just a rumor. it's not like when the specs were leaked on their own web page.

this is just a rumor, and you should keep that in mind when bothering to put this much effort in your posts. :)

[spiff]

Ummm.....I have a Dell Catalog right here on my table next to me. Their 17 inch LCD is 469 dollars. try again

I think that's their ultrasharp display. Their regular LCD is $300 which is what I have and it's quite nice. Check their website.

I just checked again because I was questioning myself, but I know I'm right. And their ultrasharp display is $400. Your catalogue is old or something.

The eMachine has an 8x AGP slot and comes with a GeForce 4 MX card as standard. Check their website.

[applenut]

[QUOTE=spiff]I think that's their ultrasharp display. Their regular LCD is $300 which is what I have and it's quite nice. Check their website.

I just checked again because I was questioning myself, but I know I'm right. And their ultrasharp display is $400. Your catalogue is old or something.

The eMachine has an 8x AGP slot and comes with a GeForce 4 MX card as standard. Check their website.[/QUOTE

catalog came yesterday

[Messiahtosh]

Paul, just because that concept design is not as good as the current iMac, doesnt mean it cant happen. Apple might have had to make cost-cuts in the design aspect of this new iMac, just because of the G5 processor. A design like the one that I've posted is "snazzy" as you say, and looks quite nice. It may not be as functional or as ergonomic as the current iMac, but if this new iMac is going to have an educational model, it's design will be less glitz and more shits. :p

[spiff]

Well, Applenut, I just don't what to tell you. I'm pretty sure I can read, and I think their website is accurate. Maybe the ultrasharp is $469 if you don't buy it with a computer and you get some deal if you do. I don't know.

It's a moot point anyway. Doesn't really matter. I was originally talking about graphics cards.

I'm right about the eMachine too though. Or does somebody have a magazine at their house that says that doesn't have an AGP slot also?

[ElMacintismo]

I agree with Mess that the next iMac might sacrifice form and instead rely more on function, in order to keep prices even in-line with what they are now.

[pscates2.0]

Are the two genuinely mutually exclusive? I don't know, I'm asking. :confused:

Do we honestly have to make a choice between "looking cool" vs. "being worth a shit"? I'd like to think not.

[ElMacintismo]

All anyone is saying here is that the next iMac should be less form and more function, right? And based on the ThinkSecret rumorings, that's what will happen.

[qrun]

Games on the Mac all depends on who ports them and how much work they put into them. When Apple gets around to putting in the new OpenGL 2.0 standard I think we will see a big improvement in games.

. Meanwhile, what I think is the bread and butter of PC sales - not gamers, but parents buying a computer for their family - will not care about gaming performance.
Who are the parents these days? People my age that grew up playing Nintendo and Sega, the people who fuel most of the PS2 and XBox sales. I get asked all of the time about what computer should they get and can it play games really good, and most of these people are parents. Most of the parents you are thinking about are now grandparents.

Now about the E-machine, some do come with AGP and some don't. The one that I got my wife did.

Why do I play games on the Mac? I have no idea but I do. My wet dream is that one of these card companies wake up and realize that the Mac market is wide open and start putting out some real video cards, along with Microsoft porting over DirectX so games could be developed at the same time for both platforms a lot easier. A G5 cube done right fits in there somewhere as well :)

[applenut]

Well, Applenut, I just don't what to tell you. I'm pretty sure I can read, and I think their website is accurate. Maybe the ultrasharp is $469 if you don't buy it with a computer and you get some deal if you do. I don't know.

It's a moot point anyway. Doesn't really matter. I was originally talking about graphics cards.

I'm right about the eMachine too though. Or does somebody have a magazine at their house that says that doesn't have an AGP slot also?

the point is...you made a comparison and it lacked any form of LCD whatsover. When this was pointed out you did what most complaining mac users do and came out with an absurb price for a 17 inch LCD. now when caught twice..."it doesn't matter" "it's a moot point" :rolleyes:



as for games on the mac.....you people who are telling everyone to get a console or pay for a powermac starting at 2000 dollars is ridiculous. I rarely play games on my computer..... but occasionally I do. Occassionally I'll see a game in the store that catches my attention and I'll pick it up. I don't care about frame rates I don't care about numbers. I care that it runs well and that I'm able to walk into a store and buy a game a year after i buy my computer and run it, and hopefully two years down the road. With the lack of an upgrade path it's important that Apple includes a card that will play games now and in the 1-2 year future. I'm not saying play them at the highest frame rates or with the highest settings. Too often I have gone into Apple and saw a game only to realize I can't play it because they screwed me on the graphics card, or, more commonly screwed me with the amount of video ram. If the ram were 128MB id be fine with the 5200 for the low end iMacs. I think 64 will be limiting, especially on the 20 inch model with higher resolution.

[Barto]

The VRAM is used by textures and the frame buffer, but the 5200 isn't be powerful enough for high resolution textures or anti-aliasing on most games.

So 64MB of VRAM seems about right for the graphics chip - unfortunately :(

Barto

[Messiahtosh]

You know what, I'm calling BS on the ThinkSickly article.

Fred Anderson said, flat-out that the price point on the iMac needs to be $999. TS claims that the price range is 1300-2200, which is no different than the current line of extinctMacs. The specs do not fall in line with the pricing, unless somehow the addition of the G5 keeps the prices high, but I just don't see it. The consumers would be horrified immediately by the reported specs, and I just think that the comment someone had about the interim spec sheet being included with marketing materials, may be on to something.

Apple will release a $999 G5 iMac, for consumers. ThinkSecret may be off on this one, at least, I hope so.

And on a side note: they don't even have an inkling of what the design will be. They point to a pathetic Sony "glommed on the back" design. :no:

[BenRoethig]

All anyone is saying here is that the next iMac should be less form and more function, right? And based on the ThinkSecret rumorings, that's what will happen.

The iMac G5 would a very good machine if Apple were to release a true mid-level consumer machine; something like the iCube design that's been floating around the last week or so. As the mid-level machine, it really does not meet a lot of peoples' needs. Putting the iMac G5 in the slot that it's in is going to cause a lot of tough decisions.

[nowayout11]

Apple will begin to hit 1million a qtr. Why?

1. Transitions are almost complete. OSX is finally mature and we've transistioned to a new CPU.

2. Apple Retail stores are coming and generating profit.

3. Economy is improving.

4. Awarness, the iPod is generating tons of free marketing for Apple. iPods don't mean that people run out and buy a Mac but with the stores and iPod being popular their next machine could be a Mac.

You're "talking out of your ass" as much as you claim others to be. How do you quantify than any of these things, together or separately, will increase Apple's sales almost ten-fold (128K to 1 mil a quarter)? You can't. That is ridiculous.


The OS is the very reason why people buy platforms. You buy Windows because it runs Office. You buy OSX because it runs X app. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining Man. I've been on the front lines for years talking to computer customers I'm not falling for your "pie in the sky" idealism.

You're not the expert you think you are. I hardly ever use Office, thanks, and don't paint everybody with a same brush. Last I checked, Mac had Office too, and arguably a better version. Office alone isn't *that* much of a killer app that it gave PCs greater than 95% of the market. Otherwise Apple's share would have gone up by now too, not down.

People buy PCs because that is what they are familiar with, that is what is in front of them when they go to a store selling computers, it's a more versatile platform, and they are priced *competitively* with respectable hardware even at moderate prices. These reasons and others.

Far be it for you to judge others for their choices.

[dvh]

My two cents... My guess is we've all basically seen what the new imac will look like. Look at the new Cinema displays with the brushed aluminum bezels. The imac will be pretty darn close with a slot-loading drive on the right edge of the display. The display will be a little wider to accommodate integrated speakers. I have a 20" LCD TV with integrated DVD and the whole thing is about 2" thick and a nice package. The new imac will look extremely sharp and IMHO be a much better form factor than the G4 imac which I never really liked.

It's all about hitting the target price point with the best technology that can be afforded at a given point in time. As the cost of the better graphics chips comes down - Apple will do rev updates and incorporate them.

A 1.6 or 1.8 GHz G5 Imac will run 95% of what most people do perfectly well. If you are obsessed about gaming graphics performance and/or cost - get one of the dual G5s - or get a windoze machine. If you want a rock solid PC that works and have essentially zero worries about virus problems - the Imac will be a superb choice. (btw - been a mac user since the 128K in 1984)

dvh

[BenRoethig]

My two cents... My guess is we've all basically seen what the new imac will look like. Look at the new Cinema displays with the brushed aluminum bezels. The imac will be pretty darn close with a slot-loading drive on the right edge of the display. The display will be a little wider to accommodate integrated speakers. I have a 20" LCD TV with integrated DVD and the whole thing is about 2" thick and a nice package. The new imac will look extremely sharp and IMHO be a much better form factor than the G4 imac which I never really liked.

It's all about hitting the target price point with the best technology that can be afforded at a given point in time. As the cost of the better graphics chips comes down - Apple will do rev updates and incorporate them.

A 1.6 or 1.8 GHz G5 Imac will run 95% of what most people do perfectly well. If you are obsessed about gaming graphics performance and/or cost - get one of the dual G5s - or get a windoze machine. If you want a rock solid PC that works and have essentially zero worries about virus problems - the Imac will be a superb choice. (btw - been a mac user since the 128K in 1984)

dvh

Games are consumer applications. Why should you have to buy a dual processor professional machine (which only one processor will only ever be used anyway) for a minimum $2 grand price tag to play them? Getting the G5, you don't even get a software bundle and half to spend more money on software. The PowerMac G5 is not a consumer machine, but is being used in that role since there is no real consumer mid-range Mac. The "get in line or go to windows" attitude isn't working becuase given the choice, most will choose the later. With the iPod, Apple's popularity is high. If we want to increase market share, now would be the time to do it. Intead, Apple releases niche products that the vast majority of its own users don't even want. The G4 iMac selling 60k units last quarter wasn't a fluke. There is just not a very big market for an expensive all in one machine.

[spiff]

the point is...you made a comparison and it lacked any form of LCD whatsover. When this was pointed out you did what most complaining mac users do and came out with an absurb price for a 17 inch LCD. now when caught twice..."it doesn't matter" "it's a moot point" :rolleyes:

This is just insulting. "you did what most complaining mac users do and came out with an absurb price for a 17 inch LCD" That's the stupid price of the LCD. I didn't make it up. Have you even checked the website yet, I'm not wrong. The price is $300. I don't know why that's an absurd price. It's not a great LCD, that's most likely why, but it's still decent.

I said it was a moot point because I was done talking about. You're also wrong and I'm right about the price so I wanted to just drop the subject. Saying it doesn't matter was my way of not rubbing it in. Instead though, I get insulted, thanks.

OK, so, one more time here. The price is $300 for an LCD. It's the price I paid when I bought my dell 4600 a few months ago and it's the price that's still on their website when you customize and build computer.

[applenut]

This is just insulting. "you did what most complaining mac users do and came out with an absurb price for a 17 inch LCD" That's the stupid price of the LCD. I didn't make it up. Have you even checked the website yet, I'm not wrong. The price is $300. I don't know why that's an absurd price. It's not a great LCD, that's most likely why, but it's still decent.

I said it was a moot point because I was done talking about. You're also wrong and I'm right about the price so I wanted to just drop the subject. Saying it doesn't matter was my way of not rubbing it in. Instead though, I get insulted, thanks.

OK, so, one more time here. The price is $300 for an LCD. It's the price I paid when I bought my dell 4600 a few months ago and it's the price that's still on their website when you customize and build computer.

if you're insulted than so be it. I'm staring at their web site right now and dont see a 17 inch for anywhere near 300. In fact, the Dell displays I see are 404.10, 449.10, and all the other third party displays are above or around those prices. and the only reason why the dell displays are that cheap is because they just started a 10% sale on displays on their web site. Sorting by price, the lowest price I get is 382.46 on the Dell store. For an AOC display that is absolute shit.

So, I'm not wrong. You are. You continue to ignore that. You're way of not rubbing it in? What would you rub in? Non existent prices?

[Luca]

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~resc0030/d_separate.jpg

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~resc0030/d_bundle.jpg

It's $404 to buy the cheap 17" LCD separately, and a $299 option to REPLACE the bundled 17" CRT in a system with that same cheaper 17" LCD. You can remove the 17" CRT entirely and knock $50 off the price, so the bundle deal saves you $55 on the 17" LCD.

Now quit arguing and act like adults.

[spiff]

Thanks for solving that Luca, sorry for the immaturity. I mentioned that before, applenut was looking at standalone LCD's where I was talking about bundling it with a computer.

I've completely forgotten why I was even arguing about this.

[Luca]

By the way, if you want to compare the rumored new iMac to a Dell, you better give that Dell an UltraSharp screen. They are significantly better than the standard flat panels Dell supplies, and probably about on par with Apple's LCDs.

I went to Dell and configured a Dimension 4600 (cheapest with AGP slot) as close to the iMac as possible. XP Pro (Home has neutered home networking, unlike OS X), 17" UltraSharp LCD, FX5200 video, 256 MB RAM, 80 GB hard drive, DVD burner, Firewire card, and optical mouse. It ended up being $1400 after rebates.

As I've said before, a $1300 iMac with a 17" LCD and 1.6 GHz G5 would not really be that bad. In fact, it would be great. However, there are a few things going against it:

- The Dell has a 2.8 GHz P4. Yeah, I know the P4 sucks, but people will still say it's 1.2 GHz "faster" than the iMac.
- The Dell has more options than the iMac. You can choose to save $100 and get the not-as-good 17" LCD. Or save $400 to get a 17" CRT instead. Or not get a monitor because you already have one. And you can upgrade the graphics to a Radeon 9800 Pro for $200 (even though it's $50 just to escape the integrated graphics and go to the FX5200).
- The Dell is upgradable. If you don't like the way you initially configured it, you can change it. The iMac is stuck the way you bought it. Other than RAM, there is no way to upgrade.

Despite these limitations, I still think the rumored iMacs will be good. People will buy them. The real problem lies in the lack of options available to consumers, the stubbornness of Apple in staying with their previous (non-working) strategy, and the fact that they probably won't be updated for a good 8-10 months. Within a couple months of coming out, they'll go from pretty good to pretty bad, and be in dire need of an upgrade.

[marischal]

There is one thing that strikes me about the rumoured specs - the only mentioned difference between the mid-range and top "consumer" model is the size of the HD. This seems very unlikely.

Hopefully the top machine will offer a GPU and VRAM spec to keep gamers happy. It would be totally irresponsible for Apple to offer a range of iMacs that can't deal with games or their own Core Image/Video technology. Those that say the G5 professional range is a good option for gamers really need to get out of the Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field more often.

By the way, maybe the video card will be upgradable - no-one says it won't be. If you can get laptops with swappable cards, then why not iMacs. Apple managed it with the Cube.

[nowayout11]

There are 2 ways to play. Match the specs, or match the price.

I just configured a Dimension 4600 to as close to the iMac specs as I could:

- 2.8GHz P4
- 256 MB RAM
- 40GB HD
- 48X Combo
- 17" LCD
- GeForce FX 5200 (128 MB)
- 5.1 Audio, Speakers, Optical Mouse, FireWire

Subtotal: $1218 before $125 in mail-in-rebates.

Final Price: $1093 with free printer

I did not use the Ultrasharp monitor config because there was nothing to suggest it was more in line with Apple's display, based on readily available published specs. Dell's cheaper 17" LCD even had higher brightness and contrast than Apple's... at least on the G4 iMac. But if it really matters, just add $100 to the above price.

Dell is 15% cheaper (or 9% cheaper if you want to argue the display), includes the printer, and has the option for a free 2nd optical drive if I want a faster CD burner (which I did not configure).


The other way: Match the Price

- 3.0 GHz
- 512 MB RAM
- 160 GB HD
- 3.5" floppy (I couldn't remove it)
- 48x Combo Drive
- 17" flat panel
- GeForce 5200 (128 MB)
- 5.1 audio, optical mouse, speakers with woofer, firewire, etc.
- free printer

Price: $1487 before MIR, $1362 after with free printer

Even faster processor, 2x the RAM, 4x the HD space, etc.

Draw your own conclusions. The point has been debated ad nauseam. The Apple platform comes at a premium. That is obvious. Whether it's worth it to you is your choice. Far be it for anybody to judge value on anybody else (Apple elitists onto PC users, or vise versa). Just don't ignore what's right in front of you.

My own conclusions are twofold: I don't want to have to buy a new monitor with every new computer purchase. I upgrade/replace my systems every 2 years, and I have a great 17" Samsung LCD monitor that should last me at least 5 years. If one or the other breaks on the Apple, I am simply screwed. And yes, Apple hardware can break just as easily as PCs.

Second: The premium is a few hundred dollars on the consumer line, but it seems to get worse in the Pro line. $2000 gets you no monitor, a GPU that shouldn't even be in the consumer line (there's a friggin' 5200 in a PowerMac even!), only 256 MB of RAM, and there are ridiculous prices for BTO upgrades that discourage using BTO, as if the $1999 wasn't discouraging enough.

It, to me, is simply not a formula for growth. The 25 million faithful will continue to be faithful. But I just don't see them building any momentum to pull out of their little spot.

[Luca]

The iMac will have an 80 GB hard drive, not a 40 GB. But that's just a $20 option.

The reason the UltraSharp is a better comparison to the iMac is not because of contrast ratios or response times, but because it is a digital display as opposed to an analog one. There are a lot of specifications that don't have a whole lot of bearing on the actual usability - for example, when looking at headphones, you'll be sorely disappointed if you buy them on the basis of frequency response alone. There's an intangible factor that has a lot to do with the overall quality, and it can't be reduced into any specification. Anyway, if the iMac is using a digital LCD, then the comparable Dell should be too.

[akamai]

Here's a fairly kewl illustration of an iMac G5... I like it...

http://www.c4des.com/galeria/imagenes/1003g.jpg

(The work is that of the author cited above. The picture is only shown for demonstration and non-profit purposes.)

[Luca]

(The work is that of the author cited above. The picture is only shown for demonstration and non-profit purposes.)

(void where prohibited. may cause blood clots, nausea, dry mouth, and rabies).

[MacUsers]

There are 2 ways to play. Match the specs, or match the price.

I just configured a Dimension 4600 to as close to the iMac specs as I could:

- 2.8GHz P4
- 256 MB RAM
- 40GB HD
- 48X Combo
- 17" LCD
- GeForce FX 5200 (128 MB)
- 5.1 Audio, Speakers, Optical Mouse, FireWire

Subtotal: $1218 before $125 in mail-in-rebates.

Final Price: $1093 with free printer

I did not use the Ultrasharp monitor config because there was nothing to suggest it was more in line with Apple's display, based on readily available published specs. Dell's cheaper 17" LCD even had higher brightness and contrast than Apple's... at least on the G4 iMac. But if it really matters, just add $100 to the above price.

Dell is 15% cheaper (or 9% cheaper if you want to argue the display), includes the printer, and has the option for a free 2nd optical drive if I want a faster CD burner (which I did not configure).


The other way: Match the Price

- 3.0 GHz
- 512 MB RAM
- 160MB RAM
- 3.5" floppy (I couldn't remove it)
- 48x Combo Drive
- 17" flat panel
- GeForce 5200 (128 MB)
- 5.1 audio, optical mouse, speakers with woofer, firewire, etc.
- free printer

Price: $1487 before MIR, $1362 after with free printer

Even faster processor, 2x the RAM, 4x the HD space, etc.

Draw your own conclusions. The point has been debated ad nauseam. The Apple platform comes at a premium. That is obvious. Whether it's worth it to you is your choice. Far be it for anybody to judge value on anybody else (Apple elitists onto PC users, or vise versa). Just don't ignore what's right in front of you.

My own conclusions are twofold: I don't want to have to buy a new monitor with every new computer purchase. I upgrade/replace my systems every 2 years, and I have a great 17" Samsung LCD monitor that should last me at least 5 years. If one or the other breaks on the Apple, I am simply screwed. And yes, Apple hardware can break just as easily as PCs.

Second: The premium is a few hundred dollars on the consumer line, but it seems to get worse in the Pro line. $2000 gets you no monitor, a GPU that shouldn't even be in the consumer line (there's a friggin' 5200 in a PowerMac even!), only 256 MB of RAM, and there are ridiculous prices for BTO upgrades that discourage using BTO, as if the $1999 wasn't discouraging enough.

It, to me, is simply not a formula for growth. The 25 million faithful will continue to be faithful. But I just don't see them building any momentum to pull out of their little spot.

You forgot to add that the Dell will only last a year. :p

[akamai]

Dell sux... Just look at their design... If you want a good Intel box, get an IBM... Simplicity and stability - besides it's great for linux...

[nowayout11]

Dell sux... Just look at their design... If you want a good Intel box, get an IBM... Simplicity and stability - besides it's great for linux...

Meh... I'd rather build my own rock-solid system than get a Dell or IBM, which is what I do. But I didn't feel like doing that much research for a post. :)

[Robo]

Remember when the iMac went to the G4, and then soon after, Apple introduced the eMac, which was like the old iMac, only improved and with a G4? Does anybody think that will happen again? The iMac goes to G5, and maybe next year, we see a New eMac, that would look like an iMac G4, only changed a bit, perhaps, and with a G5?

I hope so. The way it's sounding, I prefer the looks of the iMG4 to the iMG5. If I'm lucky, maybe I'll be able to find a iMG4 shoved in the back corner of a Fry's somewhere by accident, and the iMG5 would have just arrived, and so nobody would want to buy it, so they'd sell it to me for like the price of an eMac or something (fitting, because by then, the eMac would perform better). Hey! I can imagine!! :D

[bborofka]

Remember when the iMac went to the G4, and then soon after, Apple introduced the eMac, which was like the old iMac, only improved and with a G4? Does anybody think that will happen again? The iMac goes to G5, and maybe next year, we see a New eMac, that would look like an iMac G4, only changed a bit, perhaps, and with a G5?

I hope so. The way it's sounding, I prefer the looks of the iMG4 to the iMG5. If I'm lucky, maybe I'll be able to find a iMG4 shoved in the back corner of a Fry's somewhere by accident, and the iMG5 would have just arrived, and so nobody would want to buy it, so they'd sell it to me for like the price of an eMac or something (fitting, because by then, the eMac would perform better). Hey! I can imagine!! :D

CRTs are still the best for bottom line, entry-level systems. It keeps the prices low, which is the primary goal of the eMac. The all-in-one LCD design is a dead-end concept that doesn't sell and Apple doesn't understand this. It would raise the cost too much. I wish Apple would continue to drop the price of the eMac to get it to $599 and keep giving nice little speed bumps. It's a nice machine, but sadly no one knows about it. Cheap deals from Dell, Gateway, HP are advertised everywhere.

[BenRoethig]

Remember when the iMac went to the G4, and then soon after, Apple introduced the eMac, which was like the old iMac, only improved and with a G4? Does anybody think that will happen again? The iMac goes to G5, and maybe next year, we see a New eMac, that would look like an iMac G4, only changed a bit, perhaps, and with a G5?

I hope so. The way it's sounding, I prefer the looks of the iMG4 to the iMG5. If I'm lucky, maybe I'll be able to find a iMG4 shoved in the back corner of a Fry's somewhere by accident, and the iMG5 would have just arrived, and so nobody would want to buy it, so they'd sell it to me for like the price of an eMac or something (fitting, because by then, the eMac would perform better). Hey! I can imagine!! :D

If Apple can sell a 17" G5 iMac for $1299, I see no reason they can't sell a G5 eMac with similar specs to the ed model iMac for the same price as the current eMacs.

[Messiahtosh]

I already know that this iMac will sell wildly, it just has that vibe. :smokey:

Anyhow, I'm going to save my money, as of right now I have a top of the line 15'' PowerBook. I am going to get a good 2 to 2 and a half years out of it, as my lone computer. Around the beginning of my junior year in college, I'll spring for an iMac of some kind, probably spending around $1,500. I'll still have a nice portable, but my speed at the desktop will be greatly improved.

That's my plan. ;)

[g4tom]

You guys keep talking about peecees as an option to compare. There is nothing to compare. The machines run on windoze, a really bad OS. But I did buy my daughter one. I personally keep an eye on the Gateway site. With them being on the verge of bankruptcy all the time, they keep dropping thier prices. You have to act fast though because the good prices don't last long. This is the peecee I bought for my daughter. They were on sale for 799$. Combo drive, 2.6ghz P4, 6pin firewire, 512mb, 120gb. 64mb video card, wireless KB and mouse, Tivo video recorder, 17 wide screen.
http://homepage.mac.com/g4tom/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2004-07-12%2000.02.32%20-0700/gatewayAIO.jpg

[BenRoethig]

I already know that this iMac will sell wildly, it just has that vibe. :smokey:

Anyhow, I'm going to save my money, as of right now I have a top of the line 15'' PowerBook. I am going to get a good 2 to 2 and a half years out of it, as my lone computer. Around the beginning of my junior year in college, I'll spring for an iMac of some kind, probably spending around $1,500. I'll still have a nice portable, but my speed at the desktop will be greatly improved.

That's my plan. ;)

On the flip side I'm sure the iMac G4 had that vibe too and was the biggest flop since the cube. I'm cautiously optimistic, but I think it's too much of a niche machine to be real successful.

[Messiahtosh]

The flat panel iMac was not a flop, just not a home run. It was on the market for 2.5 years, correct? The Cube was available for a far shorter time period, maybe 18 months or less.

The G5 gives this thing legs.

[qrun]

Other than the fact that I could not upgrade my video and that Apple updated the G4 iMac 2-4 months after I bought mine, I love it. It has been a great system and the only thing that I have had go bad was the superdrive.
Like I said, I got it for games and the dvd burner more than anything. It has played Diablo2, the Sims, and WC3 great along with EQ alright (would have been better if it was the 5200 and not the 4MX)

[spiff]

The G5 is the only thing this has going for it. Besides that it's all the same mistakes over again, unless it's more upgradable or the TS specs are wrong. The specs are terrible, so what do have? It's just a G5 instead of a G4, with a different form factor. Still all in one with inadequate RAM and a lousy video card.

I'm sure there will be an initial buzz because of the new looks and a G5, even at 1.6 and 1.8 ghz it's a big performance boost, but it's still the same strategy from Apple and nothing that's going to have any interest from me.

I've owned two iMacs now and I regret having bought both of them. 2 years down the road they are horribly outdated and I can hardly run any apps that I want and of course there's nothing that I can do about it except throw it away and buy a new one. And what about my nice 15 inch LCD monitor attached to it, well that's useless, I'll just have to buy a new monitor with the next iMac.

I wanted something headless that would last. If Apple had come out with something like that, I would serious think about another iMac as my next purchase. I can't afford a tower but I want a decent set of features. There's nothing for the middle of the road $2000 range.

I really hope these specs are wrong, or TS just didn't report on certain features.

[Messiahtosh]

Spiff, I think we may be in for a surprise and Nick may be off-base this time.

However, I do not think that the graphics card is pitiful, it basically serves the Mac market well. And as you said, we don't know about BTO options or if the specs are accurate.

[Messiahtosh]

The philosophy of the original iMac can be summed up so wonderfully, right here.

http://www.cupertino.de/pages/filme/mov_01/imac.html

I just remembered this concept, I think it's rather cool. An old Apple prototype, with an adjustable LCD screen, which is sort of like the precursor to the flat panel iMac...anyway, it's neat.

http://www.cupertino.de/pages/archiv/proto/images/Proto13.jpg

[applenut]

The flat panel iMac was not a flop, just not a home run. It was on the market for 2.5 years, correct? The Cube was available for a far shorter time period, maybe 18 months or less.

The G5 gives this thing legs.

it was a total flop.


the only reason why it wasn't taken off the market was because they basically had no choice. what do you do? stop selling your consumer product until you come up with something better? oh wait, they just did that. :\



spiff,
sorry for being an ass when it was really just a misunderstanding. didnt realize CRT came bundled as standard



the big problem with the iMac to me is the attached display. The display costs more than the computer itself, and will last much longer and be useful down the road. Only, you can't reuse it. It's tied down. Price may be on par with the competition give or take a couple hundred but in 3 years, the PC user can save 600 and use their old display while you have to pay for another one. It just doesn't make sense. Bundle a display, but make it seperate somehow.

[bborofka]

the big problem with the iMac to me is the attached display. The display costs more than the computer itself, and will last much longer and be useful down the road. Only, you can't reuse it. It's tied down. Price may be on par with the competition give or take a couple hundred but in 3 years, the PC user can save 600 and use their old display while you have to pay for another one. It just doesn't make sense. Bundle a display, but make it seperate somehow.

You aren't alone in your frustration. This is why PC buyers don't buy hardly any LCD AIOs.

[FallenFromTheTree]

I can't imagine why Apple would hold off to announce the final design and specs of the new iMac lineup unless they have something quite worth waiting for.



To miss the back to school market and then not even seed those who are waiting with "what's coming soon" so please wait, just seems ridiculous.

The only explanation would be if they are trying to dump the rest of the G4
PB's before they release the new G5 lineup.

I could be way wrong here, but no one has addressed the issue of the current 1.6 and 1.8 air-cooled processors still using 9 cooling fans.

IF in fact, the new iMac is going to use these processors, then something
must have changed.

My guess would be a cooler running G5 processor.

This would also mean that the G5 PB's are just around the corner.
So dumping the G4's now makes sense.


My hope would be a truly expandable modular design.
This would allow easy conversion for an entry or mid level user to add
a second CPU module thus converting a single CPU machine to a dually or better. :-)

`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````

I've read SO many comments about Apple not being a true gamer's machine.
FINE!

Why not simply provide an input for an external Play-station, XBox or Nintendo? This would certainly solve the game availability issue once and for all.

[Luca]

Re: your first points -

The reason the iMac G5 is being delayed is so when they announce it, it'll be ready to ship. It's not ready to ship yet, because IBM is having a difficult time making enough processors. These 1.6 and 1.8 GHz G5s are in fact different - they are the 970fx, which uses a 90nm process instead of a 130nm process, reducing heat. It shouldn't require nine fans.

As far as the gaming machine angle... I agree completely. Macs will never be gaming machines, nor will anyone ever buy them specifically to play games. But there have been many times when I wished I didn't have to buy a separate (fuzzy) TV with crappy speakers in order to play console games. Imagine how great it would look to run the newest games on a 20" widescreen LCD! Fluid motion, excellent sound via your computer's speakers, and high resolution. As far as I know, all the new systems support at least a few high-definition resolutions, and will thus look excellent on any computer monitor. The problem might lie in the cost of a fast enough video input - unlike a TV, the computer has to actually receive all the data and display it on the screen, which takes a lot of bandwidth. Devices offering video input like the EyeTV are laggy and only support low resolutions. The Formac Firewire/DV Bridge is better, but I haven't actually used it. Full-speed HDTV input could be very expensive. But I don't know much about it.

[FallenFromTheTree]

I understand that Apple may want to wait till they have something ready to go, but I think they might also benefit from a sneak peek to keep those
inbetweeners from giving up and settling for somthing in a P/C only weeks before the real deal is available.

I realize that it would be nice to include all the bells and whistles that gamers want in one unit, but that still does not address the issue of game availability and additional cost to run hi end graphics.

Even the top of the line 2.5 dually can't play many of the most popular games without installing VPC, so why bother at all.
Simply run the game module direct to the monitor via the graphics card input and put the availability issue to rest.
This would finally end the strongest argument for those with large games collections needing to buy another M$ based machine.

One has to admit that it would be way cool to run any game you want through that new 20",23" or 30" HD display.

[qrun]

Even the top of the line 2.5 dually can't play many of the most popular games without installing VPC, so why bother at all.

What are you talking about? Knights of the Old Republic - popular and is on the Mac, Doom 3 - popular and will be out on the Mac soon. The majority of the popular games that are on the PC are ported over to the Mac.
Have you ever heard of inside mac games (http://www.insidemacgames.com) ? It is a Mac gaming sight (imagine that, a site for gaming on the Mac) The iMac is a consumer level system so it should be set up to run all consumer level programs including games.
The Gforce FX 5xxx chipset is dead. Including that in this new iMac would be like leaving out the G5 and keeping in the G4.

[FallenFromTheTree]

What are you talking about? Knights of the Old Republic - popular and is on the Mac, Doom 3 - popular and will be out on the Mac soon. The majority of the popular games that are on the PC are ported over to the Mac.
Have you ever heard of inside mac games (http://www.insidemacgames.com) ? It is a Mac gaming sight (imagine that, a site for gaming on the Mac) The iMac is a consumer level system so it should be set up to run all consumer level programs including games.
The Gforce FX 5xxx chipset is dead. Including that in this new iMac would be like leaving out the G5 and keeping in the G4.

What I meant was ANY current or future
XBox, Play-Station or Nintendo game.

An external game port would keep the toys and associated grung confined to the gaming module while reducing wear and tear on your computer's optical drive.
IF the new optical drives are slot loaded, then replacing one could prove rather costly.

[Messiahtosh]

The Gforce FX 5xxx chipset is dead. Including that in this new iMac would be like leaving out the G5 and keeping in the G4.Yeah, and we don't know for sure if that's what is happening.

[marischal]

Sure, the Mac gets some of the best games that come out on PC, but by no means all or even as much as "most". When they do come out on Mac we have often had to wait anything up to one year and had to pay 25%-50% more.

That's why I gave up on using my Mac for games long ago. It's much more economical to buy games consoles.

So far I've managed to get my gaming fix without having to buy a PC, but with the imminent arrival of Half Life 2 I am sorely tempted. Unfortunately it looks like HL2 won't be coming to Mac, this is a game that the hardcore are more excited about than Doom 3.

However, back on topic ...

I'm with those that want to see an iMac model with the option to take or leave the display. I think it's time to move away from the all-in-one fixation, it's OK for a "bargain" machine like the e-Mac, but not for something that costs $2,000.

[pscates2.0]

Exactly.

[Messiahtosh]

I have a design that I will share with you later today. I think it's pretty exciting.

[BenRoethig]

Sure, the Mac gets some of the best games that come out on PC, but by no means all or even as much as "most". When they do come out on Mac we have often had to wait anything up to one year and had to pay 25%-50% more.

That's why I gave up on using my Mac for games long ago. It's much more economical to buy games consoles.

So far I've managed to get my gaming fix without having to buy a PC, but with the imminent arrival of Half Life 2 I am sorely tempted. Unfortunately it looks like HL2 won't be coming to Mac, this is a game that the hardcore are more excited about than Doom 3.

However, back on topic ...

I'm with those that want to see an iMac model with the option to take or leave the display. I think it's time to move away from the all-in-one fixation, it's OK for a "bargain" machine like the e-Mac, but not for something that costs $2,000.

There's a big difference between PC gaming and console gaming.

[Chinney]

The discussion in this thread has been very interesting. Good arguments have been made on both sides of the many questions raised. AppleNova is really growing as a good place for intelligent commentary and debate about Apple products.

A couple of personal observations:

- All the talk about “gaming” and what is necessary for “gaming” is fascinating, but most of it just goes right on by me. I suspect – but don’t statistically know – that it also goes right on by a considerable portion of the general computer-using community. For many of us, “gaming” is the few half-hour stretches we have spent playing “Nanosaur” or “Cro-Mag Rally” that came with our Macs, and seem to run pretty well. Real gamers are a dedicated and interesting bunch, but I think that most of us are putting our computers to other uses. I would imagine that real dedicated gamers would want to buy specialty machines to fill their special needs. Should Apple also fill this specialty niche? Perhaps Apple should try, but it really seems to me that even if Apple did, that this would not solve the real problem: based on what I have read here, the real problem is that not enough of the cutting edge gaming software is developed for OS X or, if it is, it is late and is poorly ported over to the platform. I.e. the problem is more gaming software than Apple hardware.

- For all the interesting talk about hardware specs generally, it might be kept in mind that lots of us are running older machines – me on my iMac G3 500 – and are running OS X (10.3), and plenty of other software, and running it very nicely. Apple has done a freaking awesome job on making OS X flexible enough to run well on older machines. (IMO, the same can’t be said with XP on PCs: I tried to run XP at work on an older machine, with sorry, sorry results.) In fact, Apple has done an awesome job with OS X in general. I do think that Apple should address the price/performance ratio in its newest hardware offerings – if only to keep the spec conscious buyers satisfied and to increase market share – but let's not forget that even older machines are humming along nicely on Apple’s incredible OS.

[FallenFromTheTree]

There's a big difference between PC gaming and console gaming.

Exactly!

So why waste time and money porting p/c games over to OSX
when you can simply run the best console games direct through your Apple
HD display?

From what I've read ( ever so briefly ) the new gaming consoles are likely to sport
64 bit G5 processors anyway and I can only imagine that they will also provide the necessary graphics support for output to your favorite HD display.

[nowayout11]

If you look hard enough, you can probably find component-to-DVI converter cables to use the Apple displays already.

Doesn't make the Mac any better at gaming, though. ;)

[FallenFromTheTree]

Chinney,

Personally I agree with you totally.

I'm also currently on a Beige 300 MHz G3 Tower just waiting a bit longer
for that G5 dream machine sporting them shweet 970MP dual cores.
I am far more interested in a professional workstation for multitrack
sound recording.

I doubt that I will load any games on that new machine.


However, the G5 iMac should have a broader consumer appeal
without pricing itself out of the market.
Providing an external gaming console input would put the game availability
issue to rest while providing a very reliable system for the entry and mid level users.

[qrun]

The G5 iMac would make a great system for gamers if they go with a current generation of GPU, even if it is a low end GPU. They done it with original iMac up to the G4 iMac but if these specs are right then this will be the first time they take a step back in technology.
There is nothing wrong with using a Mac with gaming. Other than web, email, and iTunes, I don't do anything else with my Mac other than gaming (maybe play with movies and photoshop here and there but not much). The Mac gaming community is seeing games being ported over faster than before thanks to Apple's Xcode and a couple of other companies that have made libraries to help port DirectX over to OpenGL. The thing that is slowing things down now are the PC developers. Some are reluctant about handing over the source code to Mac porters but more are opening up to the idea as well as some codeveloping on both platforms.
My point is that a lot of people think about games when they buy a system, right along with other functions.

[spiff]

I think the whole putting a port on the monitor thing so you can run a component signal into it to play games is a rather silly idea. That wouldn't solve anything. You're not playing games on your mac, you're playing games on your console just using the monitor. I don't see any point to that.

One of the big things with console gaming is the setting of sitting on your couch and playing the game. The picture isn't as good I suppose, but there's more to it than that.

You play a game on the computer so you can use the mouse and keyboard. It's a preference thing really. That, and there's a lot of other reasons why some choose PC gaming to console gaming. No point into really getting into it. Any gamer will know what I'm talking about.

I own an xbox (and am a harcore gamer on both that and my PC) and if Apple did what you purposed with the monitor I don't think I would ever use it, and I would still want to play games on my mac, you wouldn't have solved anything or put anything to rest.

Apple simply needs to put decent upgradable cards in their consumer line of computers. What would be neat is if they put an all-in-wonder ATI card in there so you could tune TV signal on your mac. That would have much more value and you could use it for gaming if you wanted to.

I have given up gaming on my mac, I own a decent PC rig now for my gaming, but I didn't think I should have had to give to.

Besides gaming though, the whole GPU is more than that. Apple and other companies are releasing more software that's dependent on the GPU and is even building it into the operating system, such as with core image. It's important to have a decent card so it will last. The 5200 that TS's report said would be going in the new iMac is the bear minimum for core image. It might be just good enough for now, but wouldn't you expect something that would last a little while. New technology is bound to come out down the road and that card is not going to be up to par.

[Koodari]

Okay, what will be the tagline?

"iMac. Now with a processor that doesn't suck."

T_T

It's (marginally) better than last time around. Of course, it could still be a winner for home and office with the right price, but we're not going to see right price. Not even for the edu model. Certainly not for the real bottom end model. I'm with Luca on this one: replaying a failing strategy won't cut it. Unless there is a catch we don't know about, I expect bad bad bad sales, only a little better than the sunflower's. Only a sub-$1000 non AIO machine will make decent headway into offices and such for Apple.

In case anyone wants to torment themselves by checking out PC hardware prices, here's Anandtech's mid-range PC buyers recommendation (shipping included, about $1000 with screen): linky (http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=2122&p=9)

[Messiahtosh]

In case anyone wants to torment themselves by checking out PC hardware prices, here's Anandtech's mid-range PC buyers recommendation (shipping included, about $1000 with screen): linky (http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=2122&p=9)$1028 is the final price of this week's mid-range system, not including any money that you'll spend on software (Windows XP Home or Professional, Office, etc.) or a keyboard and mouse.
:rolleyes:

[Luca]

1.8 GHz AMD64 processor
MSI motherboard w/ Firewire, Gigabit ethernet, SATA and ATA RAID, and 8-channel sound
512 MB of RAM
128 MB Radeon 9600 Pro
19" CRT
Logitech 5.1 speakers
120 GB hard drive
52x Combo drive
Good quality case w/ 360W power supply
$1028

Sounds pretty damn good to me. The G5s of course have dual processors, DVD burners standard (though moving from a Combo to a DVD-R is cheap), an OS, and an included keyboard and mouse... but this one balances out most of those advantages because speakers and a monitor are included in the price. Plus the video card is much better than the stock one offered with G5s. Windows XP Pro can be purchased as an OEM copy for a little over $100, so it's not quite as expensive as people think ($200 for a retail boxed copy of Home, $300 for retail Pro). You can always run Linux too, for free. As for the keyboard and mouse... well, who doesn't end up replacing theirs when they get a Mac anyway? The only reason they didn't include a set was because it's the sort of thing that is too subjective to rate.

Yeah, it's not a Mac, and you have to build it yourself. But I don't see why you are rolling your eyes at it. Then again, I don't see why it was brought up in the first place. BTW, ArsTechnica has a bit more of a budget system they configure for usually $700-$800. It's similar to Anand's system except it has a less expensive motherboard, a cheaper Athlon XP processor, and a smaller monitor.

[Koodari]

I think the whole putting a port on the monitor thing so you can run a component signal into it to play games is a rather silly idea. That wouldn't solve anything. You're not playing games on your mac, you're playing games on your console just using the monitor. I don't see any point to that.

One of the big things with console gaming is the setting of sitting on your couch and playing the game. The picture isn't as good I suppose, but there's more to it than that.

You play a game on the computer so you can use the mouse and keyboard. It's a preference thing really. That, and there's a lot of other reasons why some choose PC gaming to console gaming. No point into really getting into it. Any gamer will know what I'm talking about.

I own an xbox (and am a harcore gamer on both that and my PC) and if Apple did what you purposed with the monitor I don't think I would ever use it, and I would still want to play games on my mac, you wouldn't have solved anything or put anything to rest.

Apple simply needs to put decent upgradable cards in their consumer line of computers. What would be neat is if they put an all-in-wonder ATI card in there so you could tune TV signal on your mac. That would have much more value and you could use it for gaming if you wanted to.

I have given up gaming on my mac, I own a decent PC rig now for my gaming, but I didn't think I should have had to give to.

Besides gaming though, the whole GPU is more than that. Apple and other companies are releasing more software that's dependent on the GPU and is even building it into the operating system, such as with core image. It's important to have a decent card so it will last. The 5200 that TS's report said would be going in the new iMac is the bear minimum for core image. It might be just good enough for now, but wouldn't you expect something that would last a little while. New technology is bound to come out down the road and that card is not going to be up to par.Where to begin...

First, yes, people want to use their monitors for console gaming. I know I do, I just got a PS2-VGA adapter for 50EUR even though I only have a crappy 19" CRT. The point? I have a cramped student apartment. No space for a couch. I've never had a TV and do not want one. This can't be a price question - Dell has sold the 2001FP with 20.1", 16ms and composite for around $750 in the US. The 23" 's direct competition from HP and Benq also have full inputs, and features for HDTV use.

I have three friends with consoles, only one has rigged his into a regular couch/TV combination, the rest are using various adapters, monitor inputs and TV cards. I know the couch is good for some things, but it *isn't* good for serious arcade-style gaming (stick or controller, neither good on couch), nor racing with a wheel. For those you want a table or at least a stable, hard chair.

I think at this marketshare point Apple can't and doesn't expect the gaming to be a selling point. They need a few games released once in a while, so they can say "there are games released on the Mac" but really, it's too small a platform to make proper ports, which in turn means substandard experience, which in turn forces all the hardcore gamers out of the platform.. and the rest don't care as much. A veritable circle of despair, that IMHO can't be patched with putting in good graphics cards (because the problem is in the coding), so the only way to defeat it is to have a larger platform, larger userbase. And that means selling cheap computers. Apple hasn't been able to stomach that yet but maybe they will.

[FallenFromTheTree]

I say FINE!

If a Microsoft based computer suites your needs and your budget
then by all means buy one.
It might hold you till they release Longhorn in 2006.


:eek:

Otherwise, before you compare bang for the buck on a really good system
take a look at the top end Alienware machines.

The top of the line G5's blow them away for less.

[BenRoethig]

Exactly!

So why waste time and money porting p/c games over to OSX
when you can simply run the best console games direct through your Apple
HD display?

From what I've read ( ever so briefly ) the new gaming consoles are likely to sport
64 bit G5 processors anyway and I can only imagine that they will also provide the necessary graphics support for output to your favorite HD display.

Computers are generally better for certain types of games and consoles are better for others. There's a good reason why I buy the computer versions of first person shooters and strategy. If I want to play Silent Hill, Madden, or Final Fantasy, then I'll fire up the PS2. The difference between computer games and console games is a lot like the difference between a car and a pickup.

[Messiahtosh]

OK, just finished scanning in my friend's sketches of the iMac concept I had. He did a pretty good job of taking my idea and getting into a real form. Let me know what you think.

http://homepage.mac.com/untitled5/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2004-08-16%2019.37.40%20-0700/Image-34538298EFF611D8.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/untitled5/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2004-08-16%2019.37.40%20-0700/Image-34539876EFF611D8.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/untitled5/PhotoAlbum50.html

[applenut]

that's really dumb.


even i know you can do better

[Messiahtosh]

that's really dumb.


even i know you can do betterWhat's wrong with the design? It has expandability, an adjustable screen, an iPod dock, a G5, and it can be an AIO or a modular stand-alone computer.

What's missing?

[pscates2.0]

It's kinda gawky and odd-looking. Top-heavy, maybe? Like E.T. when he sticks his head/neck way out?

And I thought part of the expense of the current design was the chrome articulating arm? Now you have a double-jointed one! THAT'LL save on production costs...

:eek: ;)

It's not Apple-y. Neither is most of my crap, which is why I can say this. I've earned my stripes, and have taken my rips.

:)

The thinking behind it is nice, I just wouldn't buy something so gawky-looking and lacking flow or elegance.

Again, that's coming from a guy who's churned out many a gawky, elegance-lacking mockup or two so don't take it as anything more than one guy's opinion. Others here may dig it to no end!

[Maciej]

Its not shockingly new or anything out of the ordinary. Would not be very Apple, nor Thinking Differently.

[Messiahtosh]

Maybe if the arm were slightly shorter, it might look more appealing and proportional?

[spiff]

Where to begin...

First, yes, people want to use their monitors for console gaming. I know I do, I just got a PS2-VGA adapter for 50EUR even though I only have a crappy 19" CRT. The point? I have a cramped student apartment. No space for a couch. I've never had a TV and do not want one. This can't be a price question - Dell has sold the 2001FP with 20.1", 16ms and composite for around $750 in the US. The 23" 's direct competition from HP and Benq also have full inputs, and features for HDTV use.

I have three friends with consoles, only one has rigged his into a regular couch/TV combination, the rest are using various adapters, monitor inputs and TV cards. I know the couch is good for some things, but it *isn't* good for serious arcade-style gaming (stick or controller, neither good on couch), nor racing with a wheel. For those you want a table or at least a stable, hard chair.

I think at this marketshare point Apple can't and doesn't expect the gaming to be a selling point. They need a few games released once in a while, so they can say "there are games released on the Mac" but really, it's too small a platform to make proper ports, which in turn means substandard experience, which in turn forces all the hardcore gamers out of the platform.. and the rest don't care as much. A veritable circle of despair, that IMHO can't be patched with putting in good graphics cards (because the problem is in the coding), so the only way to defeat it is to have a larger platform, larger userbase. And that means selling cheap computers. Apple hasn't been able to stomach that yet but maybe they will.

OK, good points. I don't want to get into "well I have this many friends that sit on their couch to play console games" thing, but I have many, many friends that do. At least 10 or 15, I actually don't know anybody who has their console hooked up to their monitor. But, that could be coincidence.

Anyway, I wasn't saying it was a bad feature and that no one would use it, but I really don't think many would, despite your three friends that do. It would actually be rather nice and I would probably find a use for it at some point. I was just saying that it doesn't solve the video game problem.

The video game problem on the Mac has to do with many problems. Now, as you said, gaming can't be a selling point with Apple right now, of course that's true. But there are a lot of big titles out there for the mac and as Apple's market share grows it will only get better, along with how well they're coded. People should be able to play these games on Apple's mid level consumer machine.

[Quagmire]

OK, just finished scanning in my friend's sketches of the iMac concept I had. He did a pretty good job of taking my idea and getting into a real form. Let me know what you think.

http://homepage.mac.com/untitled5/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2004-08-16%2019.37.40%20-0700/Image-34538298EFF611D8.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/untitled5/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2004-08-16%2019.37.40%20-0700/Image-34539876EFF611D8.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/untitled5/PhotoAlbum50.html

Those images look like the current imac G4 but, the half dome base was
pounded flat.

[Messiahtosh]

The thinking behind it is nice, I just wouldn't buy something so gawky-looking and lacking flow or elegance.

Again, that's coming from a guy who's churned out many a gawky, elegance-lacking mockup or two so don't take it as anything more than one guy's opinion. Others here may dig it to no end!That thinking belongs to me! The drawing "skills" belong to my friend.

What is so bad about it, if it were made shorter and not so "E.T.-Like?"

[FallenFromTheTree]

Trying to put an idea on paper is not all that easy, so be nice.


So far from what I've seen, I still kinda like this concept from
theapplecollection.com

http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/images/iMac-G5-headless.jpg

[Maciej]

It reminds me of R2-D2.... ;)

[FallenFromTheTree]

It's hard to tell what design will actually be released, but the concept drawings here are quite good.

The new G5 PB concepts look great too.

h**p://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/index.html

[curiousuburb]

Maybe Messiahtosh's flat version was pounded by Steve's Evil Apple iRobot (still not shipping).

Dollars to donuts there's a concept sketch for the iMac G4 that looked like that.

The Chrome Dome Roomba/R2 Unit above would be an interesting evolution.
Dockable to eliminate wiring and a mounting unit that could support the 20" ACDs.

[FallenFromTheTree]

That thinking belongs to me! The drawing "skills" belong to my friend.

What is so bad about it, if it were made shorter and not so "E.T.-Like?"

Me thinks this one comes a bit closer to reality

http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/images/iMacG5-4-1.jpg

[curiousuburb]

Me thinks this one comes a bit closer to reality

http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/images/iMacG5-4-1.jpg

or maybe

http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/images/554920th_a.jpg
http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/images/554920th_a.jpg

[pscates2.0]

Trying to put an idea on paper is not all that easy, so be nice.

I really, really hope that wasn't directed at me, because if being straightforward and honest - when someone has ASKED for our opinions - equals "not being nice", then I don't know what to say.

I was nothing but nice, but if I don't dig something am I supposed to lie and pretend I do?

In the past 4-5 years, I've done this type of thing more than everyone here, combined, so I know exactly what it's like putting "an idea to paper" (or vector)...and facing the ensuing reaction, good or otherwise.

:)

I was very straight with my reasons, and there was nothing personal. AND, I didn't slam his buddy's skills. That never even factored in, truthfully. I just didn't think the design itself was all that unique or something that looked to be from Apple.

[Messiahtosh]

That's fair, I never thought you were being critical of anyone's skills. It's all good pscates. ;)

[bassplayinMacFiend]

OK, good points. I don't want to get into "well I have this many friends that sit on their couch to play console games" thing, but I have many, many friends that do. At least 10 or 15, I actually don't know anybody who has their console hooked up to their monitor. But, that could be coincidence.

Anyway, I wasn't saying it was a bad feature and that no one would use it, but I really don't think many would, despite your three friends that do. It would actually be rather nice and I would probably find a use for it at some point. I was just saying that it doesn't solve the video game problem.

The video game problem on the Mac has to do with many problems. Now, as you said, gaming can't be a selling point with Apple right now, of course that's true. But there are a lot of big titles out there for the mac and as Apple's market share grows it will only get better, along with how well they're coded. People should be able to play these games on Apple's mid level consumer machine.

If the new displays had component or some kind of input so I could hook up my Xbox and play at 480p or better I'd be there! I have an older 27" TV that isn't that sharp and it'll be some time before an HDTV adorns my living room so if I could get that experience through an Apple display (when I'm not using it with the Apple), that'd be right up my alley.

But, we all know how Jobs' feels about TV and this probably would get lumped in the same bucket.