StarDestroyer.Net BBS

At the conference Apple also announced new iMacs...



First of all, the thing has a new app called Front Row that functions somewhat like Windows Media Center Edition, with an iPod-esque interface, iPod syncing, and this iPod Shuffle style remote control bundled with it.


It has a built in iSight camera and microphone.

It also comes with the Mighty Mouse, making this the first Mac to ship with a four button mouse.
Here's the full specs:

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html


and quick overview:

$1,299.00


Ships: 3-5 business days
Free Shipping

Specifications
17-inch widescreen LCD
1.9GHz PowerPC G5
512MB memory (533MHz DDR2 SDRAM)
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Slot-load 8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon X600 Pro with 128MB DDR video memory

This is the low end model.


Faster processor, faster RAM, and faster GPU (up from 1.6 GHz and Radeon 9600 Pro, respectively). The graphics card is PCIe (FINALLY!). Dual layer DVD burner is standard. It's got 802.11g and Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, gigabit ethernet, S-video and composite output, the remote control, etc, and of course everything the iMac had before.


The higher end model:

$1,699.00

Ships: 7-10 business days
Free Shipping
Specifications
20-inch widescreen LCD
2.1GHz PowerPC G5
512MB memory (533MHz DDR2 SDRAM)
250GB Serial ATA hard drive
Slot-load 8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon X600 XT with 128MB DDR video memory

Education discount gets $100 off each.



EDIT: Oh, right. DDR2 RAM.

Me like


Overall, good update, much better than the previous model. Faster GPU, faster RAM,

100 off 1200 or 1700, who-de fuckin' do.

Also, for any machine over 1k, you should be getting a modern graphics card, what's up with the shitty x600?

rar, mac bash!

The 512 ram also seems a little low for a "high end model". Looks your money goes into the monitor more than anything else.

Well, most 17-inch LCD's are $300 or more. Best Buy (standard retail prices, not as cheap as online stores) has a 17-inch LCD for $399. I don't know whether the wide-screens are more or less expensive.

Take away $300-$400 and it's actually a $900 or $1000 machine. $800 or $900 with education discount.

Apple has always skimped on RAM; two months ago it was 256 MB of RAM.

It's pretty good for a PowerPC Mac. A very significant upgrade over the previous iMac for the same price. I wonder what the pricing will be for the Intel Macs.

Praxis wrote:Take away $300-$400 and it's actually a $900 or $1000 machine

You mean take away the monitor that is part of the computer?

Those apple guys are smart, force you into buying one of their overpriced monitors is a great way to make money. So even if I can get a monitor cheaper(Easy), or have one from an older machine, I've still got to pay for this one.

As a consumer, I don't want to be forced into buying shit I don't want. I think we can agree that no one wants an overpriced monitor, eah?

I was trying to compare the actual components of the machine. In your post, you were trying to compare the iMac to a $1299 machine without a 17" LCD


Yeah, you're right for people that already have flatscreens. The iMac is supposed to be an all-in-one. I would like for them to release a low-end tower outside of the PowerMac, but I personally want to buy an iMac not having a LCD screen already.

Praxis wrote:Well, most 17-inch LCD's are $300 or more. Best Buy (standard retail prices, not as cheap as online stores) has a 17-inch LCD for $399. I don't know whether the wide-screens are more or less expensive.

Please, the choice 20-inch widescreen monitor (the Dell 2005FPW) can be found for ~$400, and it is far superior to anything that Apple makes. $400 for a 17" is ridiculous--you can find one for far less.

EDIT: As for the machine itself, it looks fine, but it's certainly not a good deal for the money. For what these things cost, we should see 1GB of RAM standard and a more capable video card (something along the lines of a 6600GT.

Just more proof that aesthetic design has taken over practical design at Apple.

Praxis wrote:I showed the specs in my CS class, the guy next to me was very angry at Apple for making a system that he wants to buy (typical PC guy, you know, couldn't believe he was actually drooling over a Mac ). My teacher (a Linux guru) said, "Ah, but can it play WoW?" - the answer was yes, and he wants to get one too

As an aside. Don't be a dick, those systems won't run WoW well at all. It needs twice the ram and a better graphics card to run WoW well.

Praxis wrote:I was trying to compare the actual components of the machine. In your post, you were trying to compare the iMac to a $1299 machine without a 17" LCD

Look, the monitor is part of the computer; cannot be separated. Saying "Well for 800 bucks it's an okay machine" is pointless, because no matter how you look at it, this machine will cost you more than $800.


Face it bub, this is just a waste of money. For what it has, it should be well under $1000 (cheap varient).

The Kernel wrote:

Praxis wrote:Well, most 17-inch LCD's are $300 or more. Best Buy (standard retail prices, not as cheap as online stores) has a 17-inch LCD for $399. I don't know whether the wide-screens are more or less expensive.

Please, the choice 20-inch widescreen monitor (the Dell 2005FPW) can be found for ~$400, and it is far superior to anything that Apple makes. $400 for a 17" is ridiculous--you can find one for far less.

EDIT: As for the machine itself, it looks fine, but it's certainly not a good deal for the money. For what these things cost, we should see 1GB of RAM standard and a more capable video card (something along the lines of a 6600GT.

ROFL, sorry, this gives me a good laugh. "Far superior" my foot; the LCD screens inside the Dell and Apple monitors are the EXACT SAME MODEL last time I checked. I know both Dell and Apple's 20" are LG.Philips LCD LM201W01, forgot the number for the 17". They're actually exactly the same Although the Dell is admittedly cheaper and the Apple more aesthetic, as Anantech puts it.


Some fanboys at Macrumors ran around screaming that the Apple monitors were better because Dell products suck and the general response was, "They're the same thing you moron." Gotta say the same thing to someone that thinks the Dell monitor is superior.

As an aside. Don't be a dick, those systems won't run WoW well at all. It needs twice the ram and a better graphics card to run WoW well.

WoW is so demanding that it won't run on a X600 Pro? I find that hard to believe. In fact, checking the specs, I think you're just plain making that up.

Actually, I wasn't the one who chimed in "Yes", that was another guy that was walking by at that moment (also a Linux guru, but with experience with Macs). So it wasn't me.

Look, the monitor is part of the computer; cannot be separated. Saying "Well for 800 bucks it's an okay machine" is pointless, because no matter how you look at it, this machine will cost you more than $800.

You're misrepresenting the position entirely, but whatever.

I frankly don't care about a Mac vs PC pricing debate and don't intend to argue the point to death. This is a MUCH better deal than the previous iMac model that had a slower processor, a Radeon 9600 Pro, no built in video camera, no media center software, no built in microphone, a one-button mouse, a combo drive instead of a dual layer DVD burner, etc, etc, etc.


Comparing it to the Mac lineup, it is a pretty good deal. I'll leave it at that. I'm NOT saying it's a steal in comparison to normal PC's. I'm saying its a steal compared to Apple's past offerings, and I think most can agree on that, right?

Dude, this looks pretty bad. Apple's "upgrading" to an only slightly less-ancient video card and sticking with 512MB's RAM, and ships with a 160GB HDD. The dual-layer DVD drive is nice, as are the built-in wireless functions, but one can get a comparable LAPTOP for that price. Compared to a comparably priced laptop, the higher end model will have a larger screen and a significantly larger hard drive, but will significantly lag in RAM and possibly even in the video card department. That's really not that good.

It's dramatically better than the old iMac, but it's tough to make an argument for this thing against a PC.

*shrug* I really have no intention of comparing dollar-for-dollar to a PC; I'm not going to pay less and deal with Windows, or bang my head finding replacement software for Linux.

In comparison with Macs, this is pretty good. Apple is finally putting dual layer DVD-RW's standard, plus cameras, and more importantly, this is the first Mac with PCIe. In comparison with normal PC's, it has OS X, with which I'll deal with slightly inferior specs.

Anyway, I'm holding off buying any Macs till the Intel ones come out anyway. Cedega on OS X. *drools*

Praxis wrote: ROFL, sorry, this gives me a good laugh. "Far superior" my foot; the LCD screens inside the Dell and Apple monitors are the EXACT SAME MODEL last time I checked. I know both Dell and Apple's 20" are LG.Philips LCD LM201W01, forgot the number for the 17". They're actually exactly the same Although the Dell is admittedly cheaper and the Apple more aesthetic, as Anantech puts it.

It's far superior because it's half the price and it comes with better options (a slick adjustment mechanism for not just the panel but the arm, a VGA input, 4 USB ports instead of 2, better cable management system, video inputs) which the Apple doesn't have. There is more to a screen then just the panel.

EDIT: And BTW, even the panels are slightly different. Dell uses a slightly stronger backlight giving it a minor edge in brightness.

Some fanboys at Macrumors ran around screaming that the Apple monitors were better because Dell products suck and the general response was, "They're the same thing you moron." Gotta say the same thing to someone that thinks the Dell monitor is superior.

They are not the same thing as even a cursory look at the price tag and the features charts will tell you. About the only advantage the Apple screen has is two firewire ports which is damn near useless in my opinion compared to two extra USB ports considering that firewire is usually only good for an iPod and perhaps a video camera whereas USB is for far more devices.

The Kernel wrote:EDIT: As for the machine itself, it looks fine, but it's certainly not a good deal for the money. For what these things cost, we should see 1GB of RAM standard and a more capable video card (something along the lines of a 6600GT.

Considering the software package that comes bundled with Macs, this is a pretty good deal. The iLife package alone is worth $80. And sorry, but Mac OS X remains, as of this minute, completely virus-free. Apple's marketshare last quarter was 6.6% and has been growing consistently, so people are obviously willing to pay a premium for an overall better computing experience. The iPod's insane success should have taught us that much.

Does it appeal to geeks? No. Do any of Apple's products appeal to geeks? No.

Durandal wrote: Considering the software package that comes bundled with Macs, this is a pretty good deal. The iLife package alone is worth $80. And sorry, but Mac OS X remains, as of this minute, completely virus-free. Apple's marketshare last quarter was 6.6% and has been growing consistently, so people are obviously willing to pay a premium for an overall better computing experience. The iPod's insane success should have taught us that much.

Does it appeal to geeks? No. Do any of Apple's products appeal to geeks? No.

Oh I'm not saying it doesn't have a market. But considering Apple's reliance on 3D for their UI, I'd like to see more oomph in this model. We both know the only reason they don't put something better in is to protect the G5 tower line anyway.

And I wouldn't say that none of Apple's products appeal to geeks. The Mac Mini certainly has its geek fans, and I'm sure a lot of people have thought of the render farm possibilities once Yonah (or Conroe) finds its way in there.

A card's 3-D capabilities aren't the real issue for hardware GUI acceleration; its shader performance is. Honestly, a Radeon 9600 is more than sufficient to accelerate Aqua in OS X at this point, for an average user at least. An X600 is plenty.

What really makes the difference is VRAM. The primary cause of slowdowns in things like Exposé is when the textures for each window have to be stored in main memory rather than in the VRAM. Because even a GeForce FX 5200 has the horsepower to move a couple dozen polygons around at full framerate. It's storing the textures in a measly 64 MB of VRAM that kills it. 128 MB is what I'd call the recommended amount of VRAM, but you'd still see a noticeable improvement from going to 256 MB.

With Quartz 2D Extreme drawing every UI element through the GPU, you're going to need even more VRAM to store the objects. (Although Q2DE hasn't been "activated" yet; there are still some drawing errors which are rumored to be resolved in 10.4.3.)

As for the G5 tower line, expect to see a bump within a week or two. You can bet they'll be PCI-Express and have the dual-core PowerPC 970MP (possibly dual dual-cores) with DDR2 memory.

As for the G5 tower line, expect to see a bump within a week or two. You can bet they'll be PCI-Express and have the dual-core PowerPC 970MP (possibly dual dual-cores) with DDR2 memory.

According to ThinkSecret, Apple didn't want the updates to distract from the new iPod and iMac, so the PowerMac and PowerBook will be quietly updated in the next week.

I'm hoping for dual 970MP's with PCIe very badly


Thanks for the Quartz Extreme info BTW.

Durandal wrote:Does it appeal to geeks? No. Do any of Apple's products appeal to geeks? No.

Surely you jest. Apple products get talked up something fierce at Slashdot. (Not that Slashdot is the most elite of geek hangouts, but it is a big one.)

In any case, Apple products appeal to me as a self-described geek. I bought a Mac mini because it's small, quiet, cool, and not ugly. I'd spent far too much time and effort trying to make my PCs run cool and quiet. The money spent on the Mac mini was worth it to me. (I'm not a gamer, but of course gamers already know the Mac mini is not for them.)

I like the Mac mini. My biggest complaint is it has no USB ports on the front. All the USB ports are on the back, which preserves the aesthetic design but sucks for usability. Who wants to reach back behind the computer to plug in a flash drive?

Also, while OS X is nice I do sometimes miss my precious Linux. I suppose I should go download Yellow Dog or buy a copy of Mandriva for PPC.

Don't forget that iPods can appeal to geeks. How do you make an iPod appeal to a geek? Why, install Linux on it, of course!

What the hell would Linux actually do on an iPod?

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:What the hell would Linux actually do on an iPod?

Anything! Its Linux! It can cure Ebola
It can humidify your air! Or De-humidify it!
It can ionize your air!
It can interface with the internet!
It can block harmful UV rays!
It will help protect aginst Scurvy, Tax Audits and Lawyers!
and who can forget..
You can now play Zork, Pacman and Minesweeper and Quake III on your iPOD!

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:What the hell would Linux actually do on an iPod?

Eh, games, sound recording, more file formats.

Durandal wrote:A card's 3-D capabilities aren't the real issue for hardware GUI acceleration; its shader performance is. Honestly, a Radeon 9600 is more than sufficient to accelerate Aqua in OS X at this point, for an average user at least. An X600 is plenty.

Not to get into a Mac's vs. PC's discussion, but honestly the X600 is a decent card but it could easily be better. Even a 6600GT is a better card, and it's not very expensive. The fact that iMacs are NOT upgradeable means that you really need to start with the hardware you're going to end with, and IMO an X600 is severely limiting because even if it's adequate today it's not likely to be adequate two years from now. A 6600GT would give you slightly better life on the computer.

As for the G5 tower line, expect to see a bump within a week or two. You can bet they'll be PCI-Express and have the dual-core PowerPC 970MP (possibly dual dual-cores) with DDR2 memory.

I don't know why IBM would put all this money into researching for the Mac line which just dumped them, particularly since it's not like they're hurting for customers right now. I'd personally be VERY surprised to see dual-cores, since they've already got presumably working dual-processor solutions ready for the upcoming consoles.

Sidenote: X600 = 9600XT(or was it Pro). Only the X700 line built to replace the X600 was something new.

blah. Overpriced crap for humanities majors who are painfully lacking in computer skills.

Col. Crackpot wrote:blah. Overpriced crap for humanities majors who are painfully lacking in computer skills.

Bwahaha!