New iMacs

[Durandal]

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.

How many Joe Averages do you know that actually bother upgrading their machines? Most computer semi-literates I know just buy a brand new machine after 3 or 4 years, never even touching the one they have except when it breaks. (By the way, considering that Tiger is the baseline Mac OS X version for the foreseeable future, the X600 will be plenty adequate for basic tasks for years to come.)

For things like Q2DE, the X600 is more than enough for the average user. I think you're underestimating the computational power of even low-end GPUs when applied to pixel shaders. Sure, the X600 isn't going to be running Doom 3 at 90 fps, but what iMac buyers want that? Even if the iMac had an X800 or 6600GT, would you seriously consider one? Of course not.

In the iMac, the GPU is something to assist UI drawing, not to play games with.

This is the problem with computer geeks. They assume that everyone has the same needs and priorities they do and that if a machine doesn't cater to those needs, it sucks. Sure, you could build an equivalent PC for cheaper, but would it fit on the kitchen counter? No, and even if it did, it'd look ugly as fuck. I can tell you right now that my mom would love an iMac in the kitchen. Space and aesthetics are two very important factors. Why do you think people bought LCDs when they were initially introduced? In the beginning, LCDs were more expensive than a larger CRT and had inferior color accuracy compared to CRTs.

But people bought them anyway. Know why? Because they were easier on the eyes and took up a fuckload less space. Technical and functional advantages are not always equivalent.

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.

IBM didn't dump money into the G5 just for Apple. Do you really think that Apple is IBM's only customer for the PowerPC 970? Apple is a drop in the bucket as far as the revenue from the 970 goes. Development on that series will continue long after Apple completes its Intel transition.

Seriously, why would a mega-corporation like IBM throw billions into a brand new chip and brand new fab just for a computer maker whose marketshare is less than 10%?

[Master of Ossus]

How many Joe Averages do you know that actually bother upgrading their machines? Most computer semi-literates I know just buy a brand new machine after 3 or 4 years, never even touching the one they have except when it breaks. (By the way, considering that Tiger is the baseline Mac OS X version for the foreseeable future, the X600 will be plenty adequate for basic tasks for years to come.)

Nonetheless, it severely limits the appeal of the iMac, since anyone in the know will understand that the thing is not a capable machine when compared with an equivalent PC. Furthermore, the lack of upgradeability is a serious issue for a baseline product.

For things like Q2DE, the X600 is more than enough for the average user. I think you're underestimating the computational power of even low-end GPUs when applied to pixel shaders. Sure, the X600 isn't going to be running Doom 3 at 90 fps, but what iMac buyers want that? Even if the iMac had an X800 or 6600GT, would you seriously consider one? Of course not.

That's true, but I'd assume that iMac users would appreciate SOME gaming capability. The 512 RAM really restricts even moderate users, too.

In the iMac, the GPU is something to assist UI drawing, not to play games with.

And you don't see that as a problem for the iMac? Out of the box the thing would have trouble with World of Warcraft, and I'm not even sure it could handle a game like Quake III.

This is the problem with computer geeks. They assume that everyone has the same needs and priorities they do and that if a machine doesn't cater to those needs, it sucks. Sure, you could build an equivalent PC for cheaper, but would it fit on the kitchen counter? No, and even if it did, it'd look ugly as fuck. I can tell you right now that my mom would love an iMac in the kitchen. Space and aesthetics are two very important factors. Why do you think people bought LCDs when they were initially introduced? In the beginning, LCDs were more expensive than a larger CRT and had inferior color accuracy compared to CRTs.

This is a false analogy since comparable LAPTOPS sell for in the same range as the iMac. I also dispute the idea that an Apple machine looks better than a PC. It looks cheap and dumb, IMO, although even I will admit that the new iMac is better than the "Moen faucet" version of yesteryear.

But people bought them anyway. Know why? Because they were easier on the eyes and took up a fuckload less space. Technical and functional advantages are not always equivalent.

Except when comparing a laptop to an iMac.

IBM didn't dump money into the G5 just for Apple. Do you really think that Apple is IBM's only customer for the PowerPC 970? Apple is a drop in the bucket as far as the revenue from the 970 goes. Development on that series will continue long after Apple completes its Intel transition.

Seriously, why would a mega-corporation like IBM throw billions into a brand new chip and brand new fab just for a computer maker whose marketshare is less than 10%?

Precisely the point. Now, what makes you think that they're willing to go into R&D for dual-core chips that Apple won't use and their consoles won't use?

[phongn]

Precisely the point. Now, what makes you think that they're willing to go into R&D for dual-core chips that Apple won't use and their consoles won't use?

I think Durandal's point is that the 970MP will be developed for other markets (servers, clusters and whatnot) and Apple will simply buy them when available. Consoles are not IBM's only microprocessor market, with or without Apple.

[Hamel]

If space is a concern, you always have the small form factor x86 systems to consider. In that case you have two pieces of hardware compared to the iMac's one, but that isn't a huge deal.

[RedImperator]

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

I've had my iBook running virtually nonstop since I bought it. No crashes. No viruses. No spyware. The thing is as stable as the antique Royal typewriter in the family room. I'll pay extra for that every fucking time.

[Durandal]

Nonetheless, it severely limits the appeal of the iMac, since anyone in the know will understand that the thing is not a capable machine when compared with an equivalent PC. Furthermore, the lack of upgradeability is a serious issue for a baseline product.

It limits the appeal to people in the know. How many "people in the know" actually consider a machine like the iMac?

That's true, but I'd assume that iMac users would appreciate SOME gaming capability. The 512 RAM really restricts even moderate users, too.

And that's a stupid assumption, frankly. Do you know what percentage of the PC user base plays games that aren't Solitaire? Less than 1%. And 512 MB of RAM is just fine for casual use of OS X.

And you don't see that as a problem for the iMac? Out of the box the thing would have trouble with World of Warcraft, and I'm not even sure it could handle a game like Quake III.

Oh puh-leeze. My old 733 MHz G4 with a Radeon 8500 could play Quake 3 at 1024x768 with everything turned up to the max without any problems at all.

This is a false analogy since comparable LAPTOPS sell for in the same range as the iMac. I also dispute the idea that an Apple machine looks better than a PC. It looks cheap and dumb, IMO, although even I will admit that the new iMac is better than the "Moen faucet" version of yesteryear.

So what if laptops sell for the same range? People bought CRTs because they were easier on the eyes and more space efficient. They buy iMacs for the same reason.

Precisely the point. Now, what makes you think that they're willing to go into R&D for dual-core chips that Apple won't use and their consoles won't use?

The point sailed completely over your head. IBM will invest in the 970 regardless of whether Apple is a customer because Apple is only a small percentage of their overall market. Development of the 970 didn't just stop when Apple announced the transition. IBM had a roadmap with dual cores included a year ago. Do you really think they just abandoned all those plans because Apple moved over to Intel?

[Praxis]

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.

ThinkSecret and AppleInsider are both claiming PowerMacs with dual dual-cores, PCIe and DDR2, on October 19th.

Shortly after Apple announced a conference on October 19th.

Also, IBM announced dual core PowerPC 970MP's a month or two ago.

And you don't see that as a problem for the iMac? Out of the box the thing would have trouble with World of Warcraft, and I'm not even sure it could handle a game like Quake III.

Is that a joke? I used to play games based off the Q3 engine on a 900 MHz Celeron with a 16 MB S3 card (15 measly FPS, I got good with it anyway). I later upgraded the card to a Geforce 2 MX 400, with which my framerate shot to above 60 FPS.

[Jack Bauer]

I've had my iBook running virtually nonstop since I bought it. No crashes. No viruses. No spyware. The thing is as stable as the antique Royal typewriter in the family room. I'll pay extra for that every fucking time.

I hear that brother. I've had my iBook almost for a year now and its been running for about 95% of that time. How many crashes? Zero. Can't say the same for anyone who's running WinBlows.

[Jack Bauer]

I've had my iBook running virtually nonstop since I bought it. No crashes. No viruses. No spyware. The thing is as stable as the antique Royal typewriter in the family room. I'll pay extra for that every fucking time.

I hear that brother. I've had my iBook almost for a year now and its been running for about 95% of that time. How many crashes? Zero. Can't say the same for anyone who's running WinBlows.

[LordShaithis]

Apple releases overpriced underpowered piece of crap. Internet says "LOL!"

Don't we repeat this story every couple years? Anyway, I've been running XP for years and can't remember the last time it crashed. And bragging that your platform is so unpopular that nobody writes spyware/viruses for it doesn't impress me.

[Durandal]

Don't we repeat this story every couple years? Anyway, I've been running XP for years and can't remember the last time it crashed. And bragging that your platform is so unpopular that nobody writes spyware/viruses for it doesn't impress me.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Windows has the position of being the most popular and least secure operating system on the market. This combination is what has led to the malware epidemic, not just the fact that it's popular. Half of the most damaging Windows worms would have been impossible to propagate on default Mac OS X installations because they have no services turned on.

[Durandal]

Lo and behold, quad-processor PowerMacs.

[InnocentBystander]

Don't we repeat this story every couple years? Anyway, I've been running XP for years and can't remember the last time it crashed. And bragging that your platform is so unpopular that nobody writes spyware/viruses for it doesn't impress me.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Windows has the position of being the most popular and least secure operating system on the market. This combination is what has led to the malware epidemic, not just the fact that it's popular. Half of the most damaging Windows worms would have been impossible to propagate on default Mac OS X installations because they have no services turned on.

I'm not so opposed to malware; there are many people who would be out of a job if not for all this evil that's out there. I fear the day when corporations are no longer afraid, and stop paying for network security, anti-virus, and the like. That which you consider a hassle is someone's way of making a living.

[phongn]

I'm not so opposed to malware; there are many people who would be out of a job if not for all this evil that's out there. I fear the day when corporations are no longer afraid, and stop paying for network security, anti-virus, and the like. That which you consider a hassle is someone's way of making a living.

Please tell me you're kidding. Please.

Lo and behold, quad-processor PowerMacs.

And PowerBooks with reasonable resolution!

[Durandal]

I'm not so opposed to malware; there are many people who would be out of a job if not for all this evil that's out there. I fear the day when corporations are no longer afraid, and stop paying for network security, anti-virus, and the like. That which you consider a hassle is someone's way of making a living.

I take it that you're "not so opposed" to murder, as well?

[InnocentBystander]

I'm not so opposed to malware; there are many people who would be out of a job if not for all this evil that's out there. I fear the day when corporations are no longer afraid, and stop paying for network security, anti-virus, and the like. That which you consider a hassle is someone's way of making a living.

Please tell me you're kidding. Please.

Nope, security is, in fact, employing a great many people. Get as huffy as you like, Microsoft has created whole new fields of employment. Vast armies of tech support, security, third party hardware manufacturers for starters... hmmm

[InnocentBystander]

I'm not so opposed to malware; there are many people who would be out of a job if not for all this evil that's out there. I fear the day when corporations are no longer afraid, and stop paying for network security, anti-virus, and the like. That which you consider a hassle is someone's way of making a living.

I take it that you're "not so opposed" to murder, as well?

Forgive me, I'm a bit tired, but I'm not seeing a connection...

[phongn]

Nope, security is, in fact, employing a great many people. Get as huffy as you like, Microsoft has created whole new fields of employment. Vast armies of tech support, security, third party hardware manufacturers for starters... hmmm

Yes, and how much of that money could be invested into other areas if we didn't have to spend so much on this type of thing? You make it sound as if these companies and jobs have an inherent right to exist simply because they currently exist.

[Master of Ossus]

Lo and behold, quad-processor PowerMacs.

Wow. You were right. I'm truly surprised: for a company switching to an entirely different line of processors soon, Apple's sure spending money developing for the G5.

[InnocentBystander]

Nope, security is, in fact, employing a great many people. Get as huffy as you like, Microsoft has created whole new fields of employment. Vast armies of tech support, security, third party hardware manufacturers for starters... hmmm

Yes, and how much of that money could be invested into other areas if we didn't have to spend so much on this type of thing? You make it sound as if these companies and jobs have an inherent right to exist simply because they currently exist.

The money could have gone into plenty of things, be are we guaranteed they'd be jobs? Maybe, maybe not.

The point is that the jobs do exist, and if they go away, people will no longer have them. Is it possible they would be replaced with different jobs, perhaps even better jobs? Possible, ouf course! But we have no guarantee of this. I'll stick with what works, I'm not terribly adventurous.

Do they have the right to exist forever and anon because they do now? No, nothing has the "right" to exist, but isn't it better that they do? I think so.

[RedImperator]

I'm not so opposed to malware; there are many people who would be out of a job if not for all this evil that's out there. I fear the day when corporations are no longer afraid, and stop paying for network security, anti-virus, and the like. That which you consider a hassle is someone's way of making a living.

Broken window fallacy, and an egregiously stupid one at that. The resources--including the time and effort of talented programmers--being wasted fighting malware could otherwise be spent on genuinely constructive activities. At the end of the day, assuming your fight against malware goes perfectly, all you've done is spent a lot of money to bring the system back to where it should have been the whole time. By your logic, we should be glad for arsonists because they give jobs to all the construction workers who have to rebuild the buildings they burn down.

And besides all that, the malware epidemic which in your universe is putting food on table for thousands of programmers who would otherwise be pushing a broom because there could be no other possible use for their talents is costing the rest of the economy billions of dollars. Money that could be reinvested is being just plain wasted. Not to mention all the time lost, all the frustration, and all the damage to indivuduals' and companies' business. For that matter, since you're so concerned about the plight of the working man, think of all the people who might have been hired but weren't because the IT budget for malware control is growing faster than the personnel budget.

[Durandal]

Lo and behold, quad-processor PowerMacs.

Wow. You were right. I'm truly surprised: for a company switching to an entirely different line of processors soon, Apple's sure spending money developing for the G5.

Again, Apple are not the ones developing the 970. IBM are, and they're not doing it just for Apple. In the grand scheme of things, Apple are not really huge customers.

Aside from that, Apple probably still have contracts with IBM for a certain amount of investment in the 970. Why waste that money?

[Praxis]

I'm not so opposed to malware; there are many people who would be out of a job if not for all this evil that's out there. I fear the day when corporations are no longer afraid, and stop paying for network security, anti-virus, and the like. That which you consider a hassle is someone's way of making a living.

I take it that you're "not so opposed" to murder, as well?

I'm not so opposed to murder; there are many people who would be out of a job if not for all this evil that's out there. I fear the day when the government is no longer afraid, and stops paying for forensic scientists, police, and the like. That which you consider a hassle is someone's way of making a living.

[/sarcasm]

[Thunderfire]

I hope these will be more reliable than the current brand of iMacs. A 10 - 15% failture rate is a way to high.