View Full Version : Anyone Seen A Hands-On iMac Review Yet?
...Obvioulsy there have been lots of stories about them in the newspapers etc. but has a website actually reviewed an iMac G5 yet?
I know the chances are slim as they've obviously not started shipping to the public. But you never know...
Powerdoc
2004-09-10, 13:22
The lack of answer, is the answer to your question. Don't expect a review until mid september.
bassplayinMacFiend
2004-09-10, 14:14
Someone somewhere on one of these forums said the Apple stores should have demo models at the beginning of next week.
I'm not buying one (damn vid card) but I'll definitely go check them out once they set some up at Westfarms.
MacRGood4U
2004-09-10, 15:32
Any reviews at this point would be based on the machines at Apple Expo. Being pre-production models, those reviews would not necessarily be accurate. I believe a website published benchmarks on the iMac a day or so after the Expo, but they were asked to remove them by Apple. They did. Reviewing what are basically prototypes doesn't do anybody any good. Expect the Apple stores to have samples of the new iMacs in 10 days or so. The San Fran store did have them on display the day the Expo opened so perhaps they still have them. Expect reviews from Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal fairly soon. He usually gets to test Apple products early.
pscates2.0
2004-09-10, 15:49
Well, don't forget Macworld. They always get the goods too, and only review real, shipping products. I'm sure Breen or Engst or one of those guys is neck-deep in their article/review, as we speak. :)
revolver
2004-09-20, 10:45
Kind of generic review by the Washington Post-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&ncid=1292&e=1&u=/washpost/20040920/tc_washpost/a30813_2004sep18
But. The guy nails one thing- the slowness of the computer at 256MB RAM. I played around with a G5 1.6 iMac at my local Apple store, and I was floored how S-L-O-W it was with stock RAM. It was definitely slower than my 1.5Ghz, 760Mb RAM G4 Powerbook. Apps took seemingly forever to launch when more than one open.
Apple really did their loyal and potential customers a disservice here. I mean, they released a $1300 computer which has to be upgraded right out of the box? Come on.
I was debating whether to get an iMac or a used G5 tower. Now there is no question- I'm getting a tower. Here are my impressions:
Slow with stock memory.
Large reflective white bezel makes screen look smaller than G4 iMac. Bezel on G4 had an incredible optical illusion which made the screen look bigger. On the 17" G5, the screen seems to shrink inside that bezel.
Cable management is going to be a nightmare. If I plugged all of my firewire/USB items I have in to that thing, it would look like jellyfish tentacles hanging down in an unsightly mess.
Tinny sound from speakers.
Overall, I think the G5 iMac is good for a certain niche- not sure what that niche is- College students with $1500 lying around?
bassplayinMacFiend
2004-09-20, 10:53
I checked out the 20" iMac at the Apple store Westfarms last week. Suprise, surprise, surprise; all the demo models had 512MB RAM in them. :err: Still, it was a great little machine. I thought that if I checked it out in person I might want to buy one but nope. Guess I'll stick with my (just today) 1 year old Aluminium PowerBook G4. I'll take another look when Rev B. rolls around.
Ouch, the fan system is probably a lot like the iBook I owned a while back. It was super quiet until I started straining it. If I ran something processor intensive like a game, it would get very hot and the fan would rev up. Yeah, it was super quiet when I wasn't putting a big strain on the computer, but the fan sounded like a hair dryer. Extremely annoying.
Well, there's another reason why I wouldn't buy one. Desktops shouldn't have these issues. :\
revolver
2004-09-20, 11:07
Bassplayer
I feel the same way- I walked into the Apple store wanting to like it. I walked away not impressed, but satisfied that going with a G5 tower, or a used G4 iMac at a deep discount is the smart money here.
Yeah, you can get a refurb 20" G4 iMac for $1400. Not as fast or future-proof, but it DOES have the same amount of RAM and the same video card as the new iMacs. And seriously - a 20" screen for $100 more than the price of a standalone one! I would be tempted to buy one if I had a need for something like that.
bassplayinMacFiend
2004-09-20, 14:09
Yeah, you can get a refurb 20" G4 iMac for $1400. Not as fast or future-proof, but it DOES have the same amount of RAM and the same video card as the new iMacs. And seriously - a 20" screen for $100 more than the price of a standalone one! I would be tempted to buy one if I had a need for something like that.
Actually I like the sunflower macs more than the new iMac G5. It was much harder not to buy the sunflower mac than it has been for the new G5. Luckily for me, the Westfarms store sold out of 20" models before it wore me down. :)
20inch imac.. who wasnt tempted into getting it.
thats like a perfect imac.
kscherer
2004-09-21, 15:28
How about this treat from PC Magazine. Proof positive that bias has no place when the computer is that awesome!
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1648796,00.asp
curiousuburb
2004-09-21, 16:03
Interesting review, though they don't specify the config of the testing machines.
Probably ran it stock with 256MB RAM.
And the Gateway 'competition' is mentioned, but not compared against. Wonder why.
kscherer
2004-09-21, 16:43
Interesting review, though they don't specify the config of the testing machines.
Probably ran it stock with 256MB RAM.
And the Gateway 'competition' is mentioned, but not compared against. Wonder why.
I would have to agree with you on the stock config. PC Magazine wouldn't want to load a Mac up tight. Might make 'em look bad. ;)
And why WOULD they compare it to the Gateway? That thing is scaring people to death as it is! :lol:
Interesting review, though they don't specify the config of the testing machines.
Probably ran it stock with 256MB RAM.
:confused:
Spec Data:
1.8-GHz PowerPC G5 processor, 512MB DDR SDRAM, 160GB SATA hard drive (7,200-rpm), nVidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra graphics, 20-inch widescreen LCD, DVD-R optical drive, three USB 2.0 ports, two FireWire ports, integrated speakers, AirPort Extreme (802.11g) wireless, Bluetooth, Mac OS X 10.3.5.
curiousuburb
2004-09-21, 22:44
:o :grumble: :\ :D
I've just done a very light review on AppleTalk
http://forums.appletalk.com.au/index.php?showtopic=1537
I walked into the Apple store wanting to like it. I walked away not impressed...
cosign! maybe i'll change my view on this after a while..
bassplayinMacFiend
2004-09-22, 07:59
cosign! maybe i'll change my view on this after a while..
Watch out, it might grow on you like it's doing to me! I went to the Apple store (where's Phil Rizzuto when you need him?) Westfarms and I played around with the 20" iMac. While it was cool, there wasn't any kind of earth-shattering "I must have!" moment like there was when I got my TiBook in 2001. I thought, "this is a good thing that I'm not too impressed" since they had 3 20" models in stock.
Now, I've basically convinced myself to get one, and no one around here has stock and everyone has waiting lists! That'll teach me! :lol:
like others, i'm not that happy about the white slab under the screen. the only reason it is there is cause apple couldn't make it "screen only". no designer in their right mind would want it looking like that. the iMac is a compromise, no doubt.
ah well... it's not that bad.
bassplayinMacFiend
2004-09-22, 14:30
like others, i'm not that happy about the white slab under the screen. the only reason it is there is cause apple couldn't make it "screen only". no designer in their right mind would want it looking like that. the iMac is a compromise, no doubt.
ah well... it's not that bad.
Like many people and sites have mentioned, the chin is a great place for post-it notes! :D
Screw that. It would be a perfect place to stick a couple of AppleNova stickers (http://www.cafepress.com/applenova/386151)!
:p
bassplayinMacFiend
2004-09-22, 17:13
Actually, I could put my 2 year old As the Apple Turns (http://www.appleturns.com) stickers on there! :D
MacRGood4U
2004-09-23, 07:28
Walt Mossbergg at the WSJ has posted his rave review. He's always been an Apple supporter so it doesn't come as a surprise.
http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html
Sup-r-qwik review by Luca:
I had half an hour waiting in front of a mall for a bus transfer yesterday, and that mall just happens to have an Apple store. Lucky me ;).
They finally got the iMac G5s in stock there, on display. I first used a dual 2.5 they had set up and then moved to a 20" iMac. I have to say, mechanically, it's pretty nice. Same sort of finish as the white G3 iBooks (before they went opaque), but less concern about scratches since it's a desktop, not a laptop. Mount is very smooth and sturdy, and my concern about the cords pulling on the computer was debunked upon using it. It stays in one place but it's still easy to move. Excellent engineering, that.
Actual usage was... underwhelming. The energy saver settings were locked so I couldn't crank the processor performance up to "maximum." Also, the large screen bezel made the screen look smaller. I was using a 20" model, which has about 3.5" more viewable area than my 17" monitor at home, yet it didn't really seem any bigger. Maybe it's because it's a wide screen (no taller than my monitor, just wider), maybe it's because the dual 2.5 I was using earlier had a 23", but it didn't seem to be the overwhelmingly large screen I originally imagined for the 20". Still gorgeous and very bright and sharp.
I ran XBench pretty quick and saw an interesting phenomenon. First of all, it didn't get a very good score, just 109. A lot of that has to do with the disk test and the lower processor performance. The interesting phenomenon is that when running the OpenGL graphics test (spinning squares), it started quite slowly and within half a second I could see that the CPU performance had throttled up to the maximum, as the squares started turning about twice as fast. Personally, I would not be fond of this "turbo lag."
Anyway, there's no comparison to the dual 2.5 I used. Whoa nelly. That thing was so incredibly fast at everything. Even though OS X is snappy on pretty much any 1 GHz+ G4, I swear the 2.5 was noticeably faster just in general use. It felt like it was doing things about as quickly as I could think them. By comparison, the iMac felt about the same as my 1.33 GHz G4 tower - pretty fast, but not knock-your-socks-off performance. Personally I don't think there will be much of a difference for general use between the 1.25 GHz G4 iMac and the G5 iMacs (especially the 1.6 GHz). Replace the hard drive with a high-performance model (WD Raptor, Maxtor Diamondmax 10), set performance to highest, and try overclocking the video card a bit with ATIcelerator, and it would probably improve quite a bit over the G4.
BuonRotto
2004-09-23, 08:13
Actually, I remember when Mossberg would slam Apple's products and management back in the Bad Old Days(tm). Apple's has earned his praise back in recent years.
Actually, I remember when Mossberg would slam Apple's products and management back in the Bad Old Days(tm). Apple's has earned his praise back in recent years.
Definitely remember Mossberg being pro-PC for many years. Wasn't it the Titanium PowerBook that brought him back to the Mac fold?
Escher
After 4.5 years with my B&W I decided to get a new computer. While my first impressions of the iMac (photos) was pretty poor I decided to give it another chance.
I spent ~30 minutes with the new iMac at the local CompUSA the other day and I was completely underwhelmed by it. Its a nice piece of engineering and is decent looking but it holds absolutely no love for me.
Instead of spending my money on a new iMac (or even and old iMac -- I am not an AIO supporter) I spent $450 on a 733 Quicksilver (and I saved quite a bit of money and desk space since the QS will work with my old monitor and my KVM switch).
Uh, kretara, you already posted that:
http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?p=31803#post31803
Well, let's be fair Luca, of course you felt underwhelmed by the iMac.
You had just been drooling over the speed and beauty of a $5000 dream machine. After wowing yourself at its speed and power, you move over to $1900 worth of consumer AIO iMac.
If you didn't feel underwhelmed by a single 1.8GHz G5, after just using a machine with dual 2.5GHz G5 processors, there would be something very wrong.
:)
Oh, I know what you're saying. But I mean it wasn't really any better than my 1.33 GHz tower. Not much difference at all. In fact it was slightly worse, because until the processor goes to the higher speed, it's quite slow. The dock stutters, for instance, until it speeds up and makes it smooth.
Uh, kretara, you already posted that:
http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?p=31803#post31803
So. This was my review of the new iMac. I doubt that everyone is going to that thread for reviews. :)
Had a chance to see the 17" in person today at my local store. To say that it borrows on the iPod look is an understatement. It actually has the same clear lucite(?) finish as the original 5gb model.
But my overall impression is that it's "okay". It may still take time before we grow to love it (as many including myself did with the sunflower design).
Everything is relative. The iMac G5 next to an AIO Gateway looks amazing. But as it stood next to the new Apple 23" displays (I know it has no CPU), the iMac looked extremely clunky and heavy. :)
IVIIVI4ck3y27
2004-09-24, 05:06
For what it's worth I tested one at the Micro Center in Woodridge, IL. Design-wise the machine is quite impressive, but then again most any Mac built in recent memory is. To me it's really hard for Apple to revolutionize the industry anymore other than packaging, which is exactly what the iMac G5 is pretty much about. Tactile feel, Apple's had it nailed for quite sometime and the iMac is no exception. Yet after the Cube's engineering marvel, it's not really Earth-shattering to see a compact computer, especially with super slim laptops a "known" for quite awhile. The G4's used in the Cube back then were pretty hot and they found a way to get the convection cooling to work, the G5 obviously is hotter but the low speed fan technology already showed that the G5 could be whisper quiet compared to previous G4 machines. In other words... nothing new to see here really.
The iMac G5 does have a coolness factor obviously, but it's just not the homerun of design the Cube was as a fetish item, as the "Jay Leno" chin people refer to is there (not really a sticking point but I do tend to agree it'd been nice to see something done with that blank space), plus I'm not sold on having all of the ports outback and out of reach, which also hurts the idea of hanging the unit on the wall like Apple announced in the keynote (poor design in that regard). Granted having the cables somewhat hidden looks better, but it's form over function in that regard; which is seldom good design; as form should always follow function as I was taught in design school. At the very least, give the consumer a USB 2 or Firewire port on the side for hooking a digital camera or camcorder without having to slide the machine around to get access (not that it's hard but you shouldn't have to). I do commend Apple for the VESA mount though. That was a great move on their part and I'd much rather have an iMac on a VESA than have an iMac as a wall picture IMHO, but the port issue still bugs me, although with a VESA you can flip it around, plug-in, and flip it back. Good design though would limit that need though.
I will give the iMac G5 more credit than the Cube though, the pricepoint is definitely a few magnitudes superior. The Cube was awesome but waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overpriced... the iMac isn't quite the homerun in design and it's obviously not quite Pro-level in performance like the Cube was (they cut a few corners to make this form-factor work, hence the bus, slower optical drive, all elements that cripple it's maximum potential) but it's priced much better to where it has some value. The Cube lacked value for it's cost vs. expandability when compared to the pro-level desktops. Therefore I see it outselling the Cube easily. It's also much easier to gain access to the innards for a consumer machine, which is a major plus. As far as seeing the iMac G5 sell in greater volumes over the Sunflower iMac much less the fruit-color CRT iMac's, or even the old Apple LC lines? That remains to be seen.
Performance:
I wasn't really all that blown away by it for being a G5, which is a MAJOR problem since to me the really major advantage of this new machine over the previous *IS* the processor, as design-wise it's a matter of preference (and I'm sort of torn between the 2, almost preferring the G4 iMac for it's ability to not make compromises as a result of packaging; i.e. the non-horizontal optical drive; the easy swivel LCD was also eye candy and a joy to use). The Powerbook and iBook have eaten into the iMac's sales because they hold a dimunitive form factor with portability and ability to go anywhere with very limited compromises (I don't care for laptops much either but I prefer them to AIO LCD's as they make more sense to me). So really the iMac having a G5 is the one and only way to take an AIO LCD and try to push it past the 'books. I'm not sure it's enough myself though, and I'm admittedly not an iMac or iBook/Powerbook target buyer, but that's just my objective analysis.
They had a last gen. Mirror Door G4 model on the floor hooked to a last gen 23" display that actually seemed almost as fast as the new iMac (confirming the previous poster's claim that it wasn't substantially faster than his 1.4+ Ghz. G4) and as a non-AIO nut I think it was a far better value to me. Now whether I could've bought the G4 and monitor for the price of a G5 iMac is highly doubtful (as old Apple hardware retains it's value almost better than a Ferrari, even well past it's usefulness LoL), but the CPU itself seemed as fast to me, which was quite shocking. Whether that was a lack of RAM (it was a stock config, only 256) in the iMac G5, less performance-oriented hard drive, the video card's shortcomings, a combination of the above, or something else is a big question. I could live with a 17" LCD, hell even if it was the Apple-look-a-like NEC models (stylish, and I like the glass protective coating), as a widescreen display isn't a necessity to me. It's nice but not for the premium cost. If I'm going to watch a DVD, I'd likely do it on a TV anyhow. So to me the Mirror-door G4 might even be a better machine for the $. Much less a 1.6 Ghz. single processor G5 tower.
Honestly unless you're an AIO fanatic or a space-saver nut (which the iMac does very well), the better value is to shop around for a new in-box 1.6 Ghz. G5 (still around if you shop, for the near-term). Monitor-wise you're obviously going to have to pay a bit more but the performance of the 1.6 Mhz. G5 that I ran before was noticeably faster than the last gen Mirror Door G4 I tried at an Apple store awhile back. If you can spring for the 1.6 Ghz. G5 though, the 1.8 single processor was even better, yet the 1.6 Ghz. is still plenty of machine and it costs a bit less. Unless you need that extra bit of speed and PCI-X, the 1.6 is plenty enough for many users and it's snappier than the iMac G5 and previous/current G4 machines. If I had the $ I'd be in a 1.6 easily, if not a 1.8. I think it all comes down to the bus speed and trying to throttle the machine down so it doesn't melt down that cripples the iMac G5 some. iPhoto seemed woefully slow to me on launch, as it almost reminded me of 10.1 on a mid-range G4 back in the day with the "Beach ball" spinning for over a minute. :err:
Conclusion:
It's a pretty good consumer machine and conversation piece for the money, but it's not for me (obviously, I'm not an AIO guy). I'm not sure it addresses many of the shortcomings of the iMac G4 (compared to the similarly featured laptops that cannibalized it's sales), other than getting a G5 inside it (marketing?), and at that I'm not sure it's that substantial of a deal with the slower bus speed to warrant giving up on a Powerbook for one, nor do I think it'd entice anyone to give up a G4 iMac for one unless they're smitten by the design to where it's "Gotta have it!" as the performance isn't like, groundbreaking. Now if you're in an older candy iMac (G3), then anything could be a substantial improvement and the iMac might be just what the Dr. ordered. That's my analysis. Give it a whirl though and see what you come up with as your own interpretation. :)
SonOfSylvanus
2004-09-25, 16:34
Thanks for your review IVIIVI4ck3y27 (can I call you "icky"?). Thought it was a bit rude that no-one else said so.
Messiahtosh
2004-09-25, 16:37
That's true Icky, I hadn't thought of it that way. Maybe the new iMac was created not just for switchers, but for G3 upgraders. :)
InactionMan
2004-09-26, 09:20
That's true Icky, I hadn't thought of it that way. Maybe the new iMac was created not just for switchers, but for G3 upgraders. :)
Yeah, that's me. I'm upgrading from a iMac DV+. So that it only performs marginally better than an old PowerMac is irrelevant. I played with the low-end 1.6 in a store yesterday and it made me a tad giddy to use a Mac that felt so zippy (compared to my aged iMac). Though I wonder if there are any concerns with running the processor at full speed the whole time. It really had an extra kick when I switched from automatic to full speed.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.