Apple releases iMac G5...

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-08-31 11:08am

For all you mac users out there:
...whoa.
http://images.apple.com/imac/images/des ... 312004.jpg
...purdy...

Very cool, I must say

That thing is THIN!
Anyway, I just want an eMac G5 now, so I can get a G5 for cheap...(don't really need to spend the extra money for a flatscreen).

Vohu Manah · Post by **Vohu Manah** » 2004-08-31 11:25am

I WANT ONE!!!!

Not that I can right now. My poor DA, it is so abused with all of the upgrades it's endured.

As for an upgraded eMac, I think that'll be farther out. For some reason, I can see the eMacs going dual-G4 (or dual-core G4) before getting a G5.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-08-31 11:29am

Okay, having looked at it a bit more:
I love it, but have a few complaints.
It's still a teensey weensey bit overpriced...for example, a normal 17" screen costs about $499, sometimes more, sometimes less (Apple's costs $699).

Subtracting $499 from $1299 gives you $800, one dollar more than the eMac at $799. Of course, the eMac has it's CRT so it's not a valid comparison.

At this price you get a fairly fast G5 processor, a fairly big hard drive (80 GB), a DVD/CD-RW, and a Geforce FX 5200 Ultra.

While this is better than some Dell's i've seen (yes, some $799 Dells only have 40 GB hard drives and no graphics cards), it's not exactly Mr. Bargain. Though it's not really THAT bad, a lot better than the previous iMac. Although I could build a computer with that kind of specs for $500 (using an Athlon instead of G5 unfortunately), and throw in a $499 LCD, and save $200, it's always cheaper to build a computer than buy one.

But here is my biggest complaint. You can't upgrade the graphics card! Not even build to order! There's only the FX 5200 Ultra. I want a Radeon 9600XT!

Ah well, still a nice computer. Has a cool software bundle, too (Nanosaur 2 looks like a good game) and the screenshots show KOTOR

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-08-31 11:32am

Vohu Manah wrote:I WANT ONE!!!!

Not that I can right now. My poor DA, it is so abused with all of the upgrades it's endured.

As for an upgraded eMac, I think that'll be farther out. For some reason, I can see the eMacs going dual-G4 (or dual-core G4) before getting a G5.

I know exactly what you mean.

To tell the truth, I'd probably go with a dual core G4 eMac before a single G5. The dual processor will be ultra useful in photoshop work. Though a single G5 would 0wn the dual G4 in gaming

Look at thems gaming benchmarks...it's about twice as fast as the old iMac in Halo and Unreal! (makes sense, since the old iMac had either a Geforce4 or FX 5200 if I remember, plus a slower G4 processor).

Oh, one other complaint. No more 15" model! I want a $1099 15" iMac for cheapo!

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-31 12:19pm

They didn't hit the $999 sweet spot. Not surprising, since they know they're going to get an initial surge in sales from the new form factor regardless of the pricing. But they'd better bring future revisions down around $999 if they want to increase marketshare.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-08-31 12:20pm

That thar's a furny luukin thang. Mah, get me mah Peesee ....

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-31 02:34pm

Looks like a nice upgrade to the iMac. Sure it's a little overpriced, but it's perfect for the upper middle class yuppie types and the fact that it finally has a G5 is good news indeed.

Now if only Apple could put a G5 in their Powerbook they'd have an acceptable lineup. I mean come on, if they can put one in that new iMac, they shouldn't have too much trouble fitting it in the Powerbook.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-08-31 02:38pm

Durandal wrote:They didn't hit the $999 sweet spot. Not surprising, since they know they're going to get an initial surge in sales from the new form factor regardless of the pricing. But they'd better bring future revisions down around $999 if they want to increase marketshare.

Well, if they add a version with a 15" screen...it might hit $999, or $1099.

Now if only Apple could put a G5 in their Powerbook they'd have an acceptable lineup. I mean come on, if they can put one in that new iMac, they shouldn't have too much trouble fitting it in the Powerbook.

Weeell...the new iMac IS twice as thick as the PB, plus has a lot more vertical space.

I'd bet they could fit it though, but there still is the heat issue.

I think it's far more likely we'll have dual core G4's. Motorola is working on them and have said they're aiming for 25W energy consumption, and they will scale to 2 GHz.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-31 03:18pm

Praxis wrote:
Durandal wrote:They didn't hit the $999 sweet spot. Not surprising, since they know they're going to get an initial surge in sales from the new form factor regardless of the pricing. But they'd better bring future revisions down around $999 if they want to increase marketshare.
Well, if they add a version with a 15" screen...it might hit $999, or $1099.

Who wants a 15" LCD anymore? Apple probably wouldn't be able to adequately cool the machine if they only had a 15" LCD to work with anyway. Did you take a look at the pictures of the JayMac's innards? Everything's crammed in there pretty tightly.

I think it's far more likely we'll have dual core G4's. Motorola is working on them and have said they're aiming for 25W energy consumption, and they will scale to 2 GHz.

You mean Freescale.

The Kernel wrote:Now if only Apple could put a G5 in their Powerbook they'd have an acceptable lineup. I mean come on, if they can put one in that new iMac, they shouldn't have too much trouble fitting it in the Powerbook.

In the iMac, they have two inches of thickness to work with. They also have the vertical form factor, which allows the enclosure to more easily suck in cool air. A laptop will sit on a lap or your table. Where are the air intakes and vents supposed to go?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-31 03:29pm

Durandal wrote: In the iMac, they have two inches of thickness to work with. They also have the vertical form factor, which allows the enclosure to more easily suck in cool air. A laptop will sit on a lap or your table. Where are the air intakes and vents supposed to go?

PC laptop manufacturers have had to deal with these problems for some time and there are always solutions (heatpipes being the most obvious answer) and even if Apple doesn't want to increase the thickness of their chassis, they can always downclock the chip slightly (1.2-1.4 Ghz seems like a decent bet) and it would still give 2x the performance of the G4.

Post by **Zaia** » 2004-08-31 03:59pm

The Kernel wrote:Now if only Apple could put a G5 in their Powerbook they'd have an acceptable lineup. I mean come on, if they can put one in that new iMac, they shouldn't have too much trouble fitting it in the Powerbook.

I don't think there's anything unacceptable about my PowerBook.

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2004-08-31 04:01pm

Zaia wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Now if only Apple could put a G5 in their Powerbook they'd have an acceptable lineup. I mean come on, if they can put one in that new iMac, they shouldn't have too much trouble fitting it in the Powerbook.
I don't think there's anything unacceptable about my PowerBook.

Try playing a video game on it. Or running a bunch or high-demand apps at once (ie: Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver, etc.)

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-31 04:05pm

Zaia wrote: I don't think there's anything unacceptable about my PowerBook.

It's processor is roughly equivalent to a five year old Pentium III. That is what is wrong with it. Of course if you aren't a power user, you may not notice but whenever I use a G4 and OSX it is unresponsive as hell.

Post by **Zaia** » 2004-08-31 04:08pm

YT300000 wrote:Try playing a video game on it. Or running a bunch or high-demand apps at once (ie: Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver, etc.)

I'm not a gamer, I use analog cameras, don't make movies, and I don't know or care what Dreamweaver is. It does what I need and want it to do and it does it exceptionally well. Therefore, I find nothing unacceptable about it. Which is what I said originally.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-31 04:11pm

Zaia wrote: I'm not a gamer, I use analog cameras, don't make movies, and I don't know or care what Dreamweaver is. It does what I need and want it to do and it does it exceptionally well. Therefore, I find nothing unacceptable about it. Which is what I said originally.

Fine, but that doesn't make their product line acceptable for Apple's premiere market (content creation), only for the non-power user home market.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-31 04:19pm

And for the non-power users, PC's are cheaper and more convienent.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-31 04:24pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:And for the non-power users, PC's are cheaper and more convienent.

Mac's have their place, hell I think they are probably better for most home users since they won't have to deal with things like viruses and, more importantly, spyware. Windows rot will also inevitably lead to a home user throwing out a perfectly good PC (something I see all the time) which doesn't happen with OSX.

I use Windows. I like it. But it takes a lot of upkeep to make it work properly and non-power users don't have the will or knowledge to take care of it. For them, I think OSX is a great alternative.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-31 04:40pm

But Macs are incompatible with the majority of software on hte market.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-31 04:50pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:But Macs are incompatible with the majority of software on hte market.

They have good enough software support to provide functionality for just about any need a home user or content creation artist might want. Mac's don't have the volume of software support true, but it is sufficient for anyone but a gamer really.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-08-31 05:21pm

The Kernel wrote:
Durandal wrote: In the iMac, they have two inches of thickness to work with. They also have the vertical form factor, which allows the enclosure to more easily suck in cool air. A laptop will sit on a lap or your table. Where are the air intakes and vents supposed to go?
PC laptop manufacturers have had to deal with these problems for some time and there are always solutions (heatpipes being the most obvious answer) and even if Apple doesn't want to increase the thickness of their chassis, they can always downclock the chip slightly (1.2-1.4 Ghz seems like a decent bet) and it would still give 2x the performance of the G4.

The 12" PB is 1.33 GHz, the 15" is 1.5. Why would they underclock to 1.2?

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-08-31 05:27pm

The Kernel wrote:
Zaia wrote: I don't think there's anything unacceptable about my PowerBook.
It's processor is roughly equivalent to a five year old Pentium III. That is what is wrong with it. Of course if you aren't a power user, you may not notice but whenever I use a G4 and OSX it is unresponsive as hell.

Actually, that's because most Macs ship with only 256 MB of RAM, when 512 is what you need for fluid performance.

A G4- even a G3- with enough RAM is EXTREMELY responsive. I've seen 500 mhz G3 iMacs with enough RAM running Photoshop at colleges perfectly.
G4's are extremely responsive with enough RAM.
A 1 GHz G4 about as fast as than a 1.5 GHz P3 or 4 in my experience.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-08-31 05:46pm

Praxis wrote: Actually, that's because most Macs ship with only 256 MB of RAM, when 512 is what you need for fluid performance.

/me laughs at the poor Mac lusers with < 256MB, and points to my 5 year old PeeCee with 512MB...

...Then sulks because I still have a Pentium II and a Riva TNT2 GPU.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-31 06:11pm

Praxis wrote: The 12" PB is 1.33 GHz, the 15" is 1.5. Why would they underclock to 1.2?

You think that clockspeed is the absolute indicator of performace?

Sorry to break this to you but clockspeed only matters within a range of identical chips. For example, a 1.5 Ghz Itanium II still has 50%+ more FP performance then a 3.4 Ghz Pentium 4, and a 1.2 Ghz G5 will still cream a 1.5 Ghz G4.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-31 06:12pm

Praxis wrote: Actually, that's because most Macs ship with only 256 MB of RAM, when 512 is what you need for fluid performance.

A G4- even a G3- with enough RAM is EXTREMELY responsive. I've seen 500 mhz G3 iMacs with enough RAM running Photoshop at colleges perfectly.
G4's are extremely responsive with enough RAM.
A 1 GHz G4 about as fast as than a 1.5 GHz P3 or 4 in my experience.

What version of OSX are you using? 10.3 has a serious problem with anything short of dual G4's and a G5 is recommended for smooth performance.

BTW, the G4 I was using had 1GB of Ram in it.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-08-31 06:24pm

Pu-239 wrote:
Praxis wrote: Actually, that's because most Macs ship with only 256 MB of RAM, when 512 is what you need for fluid performance.
/me laughs at the poor Mac lusers with < 256MB, and points to my 5 year old PeeCee with 512MB...

...Then sulks because I still have a Pentium II and a Riva TNT2 GPU.

Actually, I agree. Apple should have shipped it with 512.

Few mac users have less than 256, since they ALL ship with 256, but they *should* ship with 512 for good performance.