[thegelding]

yes


g

well, it will be if i can BTO up to 128 mb video card (hope TS is wrong about the iMac only going to 2.0....2.0 is fine, just hoping for a couple more updates or BTO options--if a 128 video card makes the iMac too hot, make the power source a brick and add another fan to the chin area)


PS....how often does a company release an OS early??

damn, apple making MS look bad again and again

[Brad]

Originally Posted by thegelding PS....how often does a company release an OS early??

Who said Tiger would be released early?

Steve-o said it would be released in the first half of 2005.

*checks calendar*

Yup, it's definitely 2005 already.

[oldmacfan]

And April 1st is a perfect day for it too

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by thegelding yes g well, it will be if i can BTO up to 128 mb video card (hope TS is wrong about the iMac only going to 2.0....2.0 is fine, just hoping for a couple more updates or BTO options--if a 128 video card makes the iMac too hot, make the power source a brick and add another fan to the chin area) PS....how often does a company release an OS early?? damn, apple making MS look bad again and again

Damn, I hoped the "yes" would link me to the Apple Store ordering page. I am waiting for rev. b to buy just like you are. Good thing that it did not link me, because we are completely out of money...again (the perils of buying a wonderful wreck of an old house).

As for an April release, I'll see it when I believe it.

[staph]

Originally Posted by Chinney I'll see it when I believe it.

Is that what you really meant to say? It puts a whole new spin on the power of faith…

[defaultmike]

lol... Staph, that's evil!

back on topic. Def. another vid card would be a nice option. a 2.0 processor speed is fine *if* they don't release a PMac at the same time. But if they do, then they should try to get up to 2.2 or 2.3. I hope the iMac has a better graphics card though, that's its biggest "flaw".

[MCQ]

I assume that the iMac could get a modest bump to the AGP version of the Geforce FX 6200, though I'm not sure if they'd make it a 128MB version.

[FireDancer]

A 20" screen, 2.0 to 2.2GHz G5, a better GPU, 200GB HD and an 8X SuperDrive at the current price would get me to buy

[sith_lord]

Would it be beneficial for Apple to implement dual monitor capability instead of mirrowing to the upcoming iMac? Assuming the graphics card is ample enough to push a 30" monitor. I don't think it would cannibilize the PowerMac or even the Powerbook lineup. Each model has it's unique ability to fit the consumers' need and having a dual monitor setup for their most sought after products will greatly benefit the user for expandibilty and the maker for complimenting more products for that potential market.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by staph Is that what you really meant to say? It puts a whole new spin on the power of faith…

Build it and they will come.....

[flounder]

Well, I hope it's a little bit more than a 200Mhz bump and a 8x superdrive.
Would that really result in more sales?
If that's all they did it seems like they might as well leave it the same.
I suppose I'm forgetting about 512 standard ram.

I really hope they give some sort of GPU bump. I mean, this card has been in the iMac since September of 2003! It's time for a new card.

[FireDancer]

Well, I hope it's a little bit more than a 200Mhz bump and a 8x superdrive.


I wouldn't hold your breath for all that much more. CPU power I consider less of an issue than GPU performance with the current iMacs. The current lineup with a significant GPU upgrade and 512MB ram across all units at the same price would make it much more worth it for me.

2GHz in a consumer machine is not too bad...a 400Mhz bump to 2.2GHz would be even better. I run a 2.0 GHz Athlon 64 with a GeForce 6800GT for a gaming machine and it's pretty dam fast. I know it's apples to oranges but it does keep me grounded and reminds me that 2.0GHz is nothing to turn your nose up at....

I really hope they give some sort of GPU bump. I mean, this card has been in the iMac since September of 2003! It's time for a new card

agreed....the GeForce 5200 Ultra you can snub all you want....It's that machines major weakness.....it was from the beginning in Sept 03

[Luca]

Just as important as the GPU core is the amount of VRAM. I don't think those purty graphical effects OS X has are really using such a huge percentage of the graphics card's performance - they do, however, need a lot of VRAM so they can double-buffer (or is it triple-buffer?) the screen. I mean, graphics cards are really powerful. Even the low-end ones aren't really being used to their potential by things like Quartz Extreme and whatever. Maybe CoreImage will change that, but I still think 32 MB is just way too little for the low end, and 64 MB is borderline. I'm glad Apple's using real GPUs with dedicated VRAM instead of integrated graphics with shared memory, but throw iBook/eMac/mini owners a bone! Going from 32 MB to 64 MB on those machines would cost next to nothing and significantly improve performance. Going from 64 MB to 128 MB on the iMac would be helpful and inexpensive as well, though not quite as helpful or as inexpensive as bumping the lower end machines to 64 MB.

[gar]

Originally Posted by s_i_t_h_l_o_r_d Would it be beneficial for Apple to implement dual monitor capability instead of mirrowing to the upcoming iMac? Assuming the graphics card is ample enough to push a 30" monitor. I don't think it would cannibilize the PowerMac or even the Powerbook lineup. Each model has it's unique ability to fit the consumers' need and having a dual monitor setup for their most sought after products will greatly benefit the user for expandibilty and the maker for complimenting more products for that potential market.

it isn't beneficial for apple. the iMac as it is, already cannibilizes the powermac lineup, especially the 20"iMacG5. i know a lot of graphicdesignstudios who bought 20"iMacG5s instead of powermacG5s for dtp and design use.

[MCQ]

Originally Posted by Luca Just as important as the GPU core is the amount of VRAM. I don't think those purty graphical effects OS X has are really using such a huge percentage of the graphics card's performance - they do, however, need a lot of VRAM so they can double-buffer (or is it triple-buffer?) the screen. I mean, graphics cards are really powerful. Even the low-end ones aren't really being used to their potential by things like Quartz Extreme and whatever. Maybe CoreImage will change that, but I still think 32 MB is just way too little for the low end, and 64 MB is borderline. I'm glad Apple's using real GPUs with dedicated VRAM instead of integrated graphics with shared memory, but throw iBook/eMac/mini owners a bone! Going from 32 MB to 64 MB on those machines would cost next to nothing and significantly improve performance. Going from 64 MB to 128 MB on the iMac would be helpful and inexpensive as well, though not quite as helpful or as inexpensive as bumping the lower end machines to 64 MB.

Doubled buffered windows, IIRC. I do think they will move all lines to 64MB VRAM on the next iteration, but I'm not as convinced on the iMac getting 128 (though I think it would be a smart move). Let's just say I don't see the iMac getting 128 until the baseline PM gets 128, so I'll guess we're two revs away.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by FireDancer I wouldn't hold your breath for all that much more. CPU power I consider less of an issue than GPU performance with the current iMacs. The current lineup with a significant GPU upgrade and 512MB ram across all units at the same price would make it much more worth it for me.

You misunderstood me. When I said I hope there is more I meant things like the GPU and the HD size. 2.0Ghz is fine with me!
In fact, I agree with your post entirely

[FireDancer]

You misunderstood me.

My wife told me that I do sound a little grumpy today..... :smokey:

[FireDancer]

i know a lot of graphicdesignstudios who bought 20"iMacG5s instead of powermacG5s for dtp and design use.

Does anyone know what the difference in gross margins is between the 20" iMac and the Dual 1.8GHz PM?

I think that's more of a testament to the G5 iMac than anything else....Apple’s consumer level machine being bought for prosumer duties. I also think that's why we won't see a hugely upgraded iMac in the near future.....it's pretty solid machine with some minor problems.

Matter of fact, across all of Apples lines I think they have been heading in the right direction for the past 1.5 years....and more recently they have seemed to shift to a more value conscious game plan (adding ram).

This has left me more optimistic than I have been for Apple in years. I think if
Apple can give a descent bump to the CPUs for the PM and iMac and give a bump to the GPUs in the iMac and mac mini...their in good shape. A G5 in the PB would really solidify Apple's offerings.

Simple across the board bumps in ram and hds while keeping current price points would be a simple and effective way to increase their value to be competitive with Wintels.

If timed correctly (after updating the PMs, iMacs and PBs) it might be a good time to slash some of the margins and try to increase sales volume.

[JayReding]

The other big change Apple should make is following their PowerBook bump and make 512MB of RAM standard. 256MB is simply not enough for even day-to-day tasks these days. A bump to 2.0gHz, 512MB of RAM standard, and an 8x SuperDrive would make the iMac an even better value.

And why the PowerMacs only have 256MB is completely beyond me... at least 512MB or possibly 1GB should be the standard option for a pro-level system these days.

[TerryG]

Apple might offer a better graphics card as a BTO option on the new iMac. The problem might not be a heat issue, upgrading the Nvida 5200 with a 128K card might be a cost problem, if they are trying to keep the retail price points the same. If so, it would be an excellent extra cost option & that would be fine with me. I can't believe Apple would have painted themselves into a corner by building a computer that could not be upgraded because of heat.
If true this new design has reached a dead end, which is hard to believe. No one had mentioned adding Firewire 800.
I want to buy a new iMac, but if they don't offer a way around that outdated Nvida 5200 card I guess I will have to wait till the 2006 update to make my purchase. Its annoying to see a computer that's 90% perfect!

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by TerryG I can't believe Apple would have painted themselves into a corner by building a computer that could not be upgraded because of heat. If true this new design has reached a dead end, which is hard to believe.

Why not? They have done this exact thing several times in recent history.

[berner]

Originally Posted by TerryG I can't believe Apple would have painted themselves into a corner by building a computer that could not be upgraded because of heat. If true this new design has reached a dead end, which is hard to believe.

there is some room in the design, the revision A iMac has the original 970 g5 chip in it, the first g5's are somewhat hotter than the newer 970fx chip in the current power g5 linup(the newer chips are manufactured with some more advanced SOI technology and a smaller process/smaller transistors).
So i am hoping that among other bumps that we get to see the 970fx in the rev. B, this would mean less heat, or hopefully more room to allow for a slightly hotter running GPU in the enclosure.

Originally Posted by TerryG Apple might offer a better graphics card as a BTO option on the new iMac.

it likely won't be a BTO option since the graphics "chip" is an integrated part of the iMac motherboard, so maybe standard on the 20" since it is more expensive and has a slightly bigger/different motherboard than the 17"

i too have been putting off buying an iMac since they were announced, because of the awful graphics card. Please throw us a bone, apple.

[MacGregor]

I think your are spot on thegelding!! This machine with the OS will be one of those SWEET SPOTS of hardware and software that comes along once every 5 or so years!

Remember the first graphite/ice G4 and the PowerPC 7500!

[The Return of the 'nut]

you mean the power pc 7400?

Originally Posted by FireDancer A 20" screen, 2.0 to 2.2GHz G5, a better GPU, 200GB HD and an 8X SuperDrive at the current price would get me to buy

jees, you're as insane as I am.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by macgeek2004 jees, you're as insane as I am.

those specs really are not that extravagant. the only thing that will likely not happen is the 200GB HD simply because Apple is stingy.

[bostongeek]

Seeing as though Tiger and the iMac revision are rumored to be occuring around my birthday in April, I will be sure to drop some megahints as to what is high atop my list.

<hint>iMac</hint>

[torifile]

Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut Why not? They have done this exact thing several times in recent history.

I can't think of more than, possibly, the Cube. Are there others I'm missing?

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by torifile I can't think of more than, possibly, the Cube. Are there others I'm missing?

really the entire history of the iMac line has been plagued by this, especially LCD iMacs.

[TerryG]

Check out this new post on Mac Rumors that Apple may offer a HD iMac, this would be the machine that would get me to open my wallet, if its true.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=973