Apple unveiled the new G5-based iMac, an all-in-one computer with 17/20″ LCD screens. My Take: The product looks good visually, but I would have preferred if the bottom border of the screen wasn’t as long compared to the other three, slicker, border sides (mockup). To customers, I would recommend the middle model: 17″ LCD, 1.8 GHz G5, Superdrive, for $1499 US (just add Bluetooth). Good value.
The New iMac G5 Unveiled
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSAlert.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
OSAlert beats Slashdot and most Mac sights to the punch. Congrats.
Anybody know if the Graphics chipset is mobo based or in a upgradable format?
It is on-board, not upgradable.
My take:
1) Visually, it’s a great step forward from the last model
2) It looks much better than any other all-in-one – the Sony is poorly worked in comparison
3) The thin enclosure brings the prospect of a Powerbook G5 much closer
4) $400 extra for the 20″ screen (and a bigger HD) may well be worth it for many.
5) The iMac will once again grace every reception in every office – looks like a winner!
N
256 RAM and 64 for the video card, is it enough?
RAM, no, it is not enough. When you buy a Mac, you always buy some memory from Crucial after that anyway. But for a graphics card, yes, it is more than enough. The kinds of games available for the Mac don’t require for more.
It is on-board, not upgradable.
Ouch, 1 step forward(design), 2 steps backwards(non-upgradable GPU and built-in speakers).
I guess Apple never has heard of Nvidia’s MXM(Mobile PCI Express Module). Then again, Apple still has not intergrated PCI Express either.
I looked at the 1 and only image of the inards and it looks like the GPU is between the HD and the DVD up on the top.
What about the pics without cords, are the mouse and keyboard wireless?
Apple do sell wireless peripherals
I agree that the bottom bar looks kind of ugly, but apart from that, I think the machine is great for home users.
While on the topic of buying extra RAM, have any of you had any bad experiences with using third party RAM in your Macs? I was thinking about buying my next machine with less RAM and then immediately buying more RAM from a third party provider. Do you think this is worth doing savings-wise?
You are missing the point. iMacs are not for people who want to upgrade the guts of the computer, it is for people who want an all-in-one solution.
Besides, trust me, you won’t need a faster GPU on the Mac, as except Doom3 none of the other available games require really fast cards. The card included with the Mac is appropriate for its audience.
As for the speakers, you can always add external speakers! My PowerMac G4 has an internal speaker too, but when I plug-in either my USB or my Firewire external speakers, they take control over the internal ones automatically.
Please use the appropriate subject when replying.
Although it is impressive that Apple and IBM have managed to fit an entire 64-bit computer into a two inch screen enclosure, the machine doesn’t seem as innovative as the G4 iMac. To be honest, I think it is fugly.
Also, there really should be more memory.
>Do you think this is worth doing savings-wise?
Yes, just make sure you buy it from good, trusty, well-known providers. I have third party additional RAM for all my 3 Macs, and they all work perfectly.
IIRC the latest Power Macs have PCI Express slots. However, I agree that a non-upgradeable GPU is not a good thing.
But then again, most iMac buyers are people who don’t intend to ever open their computers, let alone to replace parts. The iMac is not meant to be a computer for power users (the Power Mac is).
As for the speakers, the pics on the Apple website show a 3.5mm jack audio out, meaning you can use your own speakers if you want to. The point of the integrated speakers is that to use the iMac you need exactly ONE cable. Besides, Apple integrated speakers usually are quality ones.
> I agree that a non-upgradeable GPU is not a good thing.
If that was an upgradable GPU, there was no chance that the new iMac would be 2.2 inches deep as it is now. Think more of 6 inches if that was the case…
The GPU _has_ to be onboard in order for Apple to deliver such a compact product.
The point of the iMac is that it extensible via USB/FW and the guts are pre-configured. iMacs are good for offices and higher-class plain computer users (middle-class customers and schools would go for the eMac and lower-class customers for cheap PCs). Higher-class power users, hardcore apple-followers and scientific/developers would go for the PowerMac G5.
When Steve Jobs originally announced the iMac G4 he said when going with the LCD, this was the type of design they initially rejected, preferring to innovate. But of a 180, no?
To tell you the truth. I was expecting somethinig a little different, but in the long run its really not that bad.
I would have to admit, I don’t like how wide the bottom of the case is, but now that I look at my old iMac, I notice that it has a large bottom as well (even though there is a CD ROM there…)
I like it.
In the long run, I would even like to buy it.
I just had look on apple website at new Imac G5 and it’s just WOW, the design is just amazing, It’s so silm and lighted. Apple has done it again in design area. One think that one of other people sound before I think ram and video card ram is fair to small to run programs. One of my friends got new powerbook G4 and It come with 256MB of ram and it was so slow at same tasks. This is worry. again this is bad side of apple a lot of computer are really unpower or do not have ram they need. Back when first Imac DV unit come out they come with 64MB and imovie was just out we where trying to edit movies and it keep running out of ram in middle of project. but again I do like apple and I hope they fix there issues
omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg!!
i like it. it’s not the be-all-and-end-all of computing experience, but it should be a reasonable upgrade for those looking for a multi- (but not all-) purpose desktop. if i had the cash, i’d buy one, as it would probably be primarily a multimedia machine. after that, no need to ever buy a video, photo, flash, whatever machine again.
@ can sar:
yeah, buy 3rd party ram. the good stuff: kingston, ramjet, and the like.
That exact thing was in my mind as I read about the new iMac.
The comment that came to mind specifically was about how vertically mounting an optical drive could result in slower performance and more problems. I’d like to know how they’ve avoided this in the iMac G5.
Steve called this design “Less Than Great” when explaining their Sunflower design. I guess we’ll see.
okay built in bluetooth. Wireless keyboard and mouse are possible.
In fact the machine can be seutp with just ONE cord. The incoming power cord. A very cool feature. The fact that you can do that standard is awesome.
I do agree with other posters here that the border should be even all around the screen. It would look better.
Also This isn’t much thicker than a powerbook. but still has a number of fans so I wonder what the hold up is for the G5 powerbook???
I’m with Eugenia. It’s ugly.
That screen bottom is too big. Would have been better if they had extended the screen backwards by another inch and given a screen with a unified-depth border all round, like one of the new Apple Cinema Displays.
I may yet hunt down a G4 sunflower iMac. I’m disappointed.
The inability to upgrade the graphics card is ridiculous. I would be more understanding of this were it a geforce 6800 Ultra with 256MB RAM, but come on this is a Geforce 5200 Ultra with 64 MB RAM. I have a Geforce 5600 XT with 128MB RAM in my PC, and it’s over clocked like hell, and I can’t run Wolfenstein ET at much over 1024×768 while remaining at a decent fps, and with Doom 3 I run somewhere between 15 and 30 fps(terrible) at 640×480 with medium settings, 8x antialiasing, and vertical sync.
Eugenia, how can you shrug off that it comes with 256MB of RAM and say that everyone gets memory when they get a mac, but then the graphics card is a pos and you say that mac people don’t want to go into the guts of their computer? You are going into the guts of the computer when you add RAM, hell I’d much rather replace a graphics card then RAM, because I don’t have to search out what’s compatible with my board, I just check AGP speed.
I don’t think this is a bad machine for just cruising the internet or anything extremely generic, but I could build a more powerfull PC for half of what this costs easily. Given it’s extremely sexy and it does run OSX, but I think Apple could and should be expected to do a hell of a lot better.
Not _terribly_ liking it – I think I prefer the previous iMac actually. Technically it’s pretty impressive though – cramming everything into that, including the faster processor.
Value for money is still crap of course (other than the bigger screen which is surprisingly good), but that’s not what it’s getting bought for. And you won’t play a game on it, but as has been pointed out there aren’t any anyway…
Of course none of this matters right? It’ll be bought anyway because of it’s looks – which I’d call tolerable enough, but no doubt some will like it.
I was *really* hoping for a headless design <sigh> — i will hold my opinon until i meet this iMac in person .
-greg
I think you’re thinking of the pci-x which is just 64 bit pci not pci-e.
Well the bottom border doesn’t look absolutely fantastic, but it isn’t bad. I guess Ive had to consider some practical limitations, like point of weight (so the screen can tilt and be stable), space for the harddisk, airflow,..
It does seem allot more practical than the imac g4, because you can easily slide your keyboard and mouse under the screen, saving allot of space on your desks. This is especially important in dorms, where desks are pretty small.
The GPU could have been better, although I guess I can understand why they don’t put high-end graphics card. Either way too much heat, or way too much noise from the fan on the graphics card. The default amount of ram should have been higher though, especially on the high-end 20″ model
It’s a tablet PC with a stand. Except for that bevel.
It’s fairly clearly an iPod design steal, and that is fair enough, since they’ve been hyping the iPod to high heaven for the last few years (even though the owners I know are less than inspired by the styling).
I really do fail to see what is revolutionary about this product at all.
If you want a computing solution in a box, with limited memory and limited GPU, you can just get one of those cheap boxes from Walmart for $299. Literally the only thing you are paying the extra $1000 for is styling. That’s something that you need to think really hard about.
Hello Eugenia,
I’m an OS new regular reader, and read with interest the article on the new iMac.
The new iMac looks surprisingly similar to a computer made in the UK by RedTen. http://www.redten.com.
The computer is called “Howie”.
My fiancée is the technical director of the company. I know that Apple affiliates visited RedTen 2 years ago.
I am sure that PC using OS News readers would like to know that they can obtain the “original” iMac running an Intel P4. And OS News would gain yet another scoop!
Regards,
Chris Woods.
Everyone wants to get PCs in homes the same way as televisions, but they sell 20inch towers, that come with an unmanagable amount of cabling.
Apple has always pioneered the all-in-one solutions, and this is the closest I’ve seen to making the PC an appliance. No awkward wires, no special desks to handle all the constituent bits, just one display a keyboard and a mouse.
And if they’re still doing things the way I remember, the mouse will probably plug into the keyboard which will plug into the unit, which will have only one other cable coming out of it for power. That means only two actual cables if you consider the keyboard and mouse cable to be merged, which they are to all intents and purposes. Very impressive.
As for comments about the shape of the thing, they’re pretty silly. Technically it just wouldn’t have been possible: “double-decking” the components would have been a nightmare to wire and the heating issues in such a compact case would be serious (anyone remember the pyrotechnic powerbooks?).
I agree, it is suspiciously similar – especially the placement of the CD-ROM drive. At the same time though, Apple have done it much, much better, aesthetically, at least.
Please justify the “No Games” comments. Just looking at my collection I have Battlefield 1942, Call of Duty, Spiderman2, Max Payne, Return of the King, Black Hawk Down, Command and Conquer Generals, Sim City 4, Return to Wolfenstein, XIII, Halo, Aliens vs. Predator 1 & 2, Total Immersion Racing, Nascar 2003, Medal of Honour and the Spearhead expansion, Elite Forces 1 and 2, Unreal 2003 and 2004, Undying, Alice, Jedi Knight and Jedi Acadamy, James Bond 007 Nightfire, Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness, Indiana Jones and the Emporers Tomb, Spy Hunter, Surfing, Wakeboarding, Legion, Republic, Soldier of Fortune, Harry Potter 1 & 2 and Shrek 2. And that is only the 3D games in my collection that I can remember.
Well, they look kinda nice (except for that *huge* piece of case below the screen), but the 256 MB is a joke. I really don’t understand why Apple didn’t put at least 512 in, especially since memory isn’t that expensive anymore.
All in all, I prefer my current G4 iMac, I like them better.
Everyone wants to get PCs in homes the same way as televisions, but they sell 20inch towers, that come with an unmanagable amount of cabling.
Apple has always pioneered the all-in-one solutions, and this is the closest I’ve seen to making the PC an appliance. No awkward wires, no special desks to handle all the constituent bits, just one display a keyboard and a mouse.
Eh? Haven’t you ever seen an AMD( http://eu.shuttle.com/sn95g5.htm#sn95g5 ) or P4 ( http://eu.shuttle.com/sb83g5.htm#sb83g5 ) Shuttle PCs then? These little beauties make for excellent media boxes or gaming stations.
20inch towers my arse
*sigh* Here’s the “I can build a better x86 box for half the money” argument.
Firstly, Apple are building the computer, most people can’t put their own computers together. A better comparison would be between Dell’s offerings and Apple’s. Dell aren’t offering 64 bit processors with their desktop range. If you go off and configure a top of the line Dell with all the stuff a mac has, you’ll find the mac to be much cheaper. Also, the macs are way more stylish than most PC retailers’ stuff.
With Apple, you get a stylish looking computer that has up to date technology bundled with a great OS and everything “just works”. It’s a bit of a cliché at this stage but you simply can’t compare macs to x86 PCs. When you do try, you find that macs are cheaper and, well, better than PCs.
http://hip-e.com/index.do
this one was brought to my attention recently. anyone know if the new imac canbe wall mounted?
sure it can be wall mounted, just put it on a shelf!!! problem solved….
The reason the bottom of the case is so big, is probabably because the proccessor is too large to put anywhere else.
Otherwise they would have to make the case a couple inches thicker.
Theres a lot of stuff in that little case.
?
I found a decent replacement for my TV …
20” wallmountable … oh yes. I loooove it.
The low end system which has the same memory and video chipset as the G5 tower and includes an LCD monitor (well, its built in) is $1700 CAN and the G5 is $2700. The difference mainly being the processor. Are the G5’s $1000 each? And why is there an extra $300 surcharge for Canada? In the US its a $1400 vs $2000.
the highest capacity notebook drives i’ve seen top out at 80GB. the drives in the new iMacs are standard 3.5″ SATA drives, and you can get one pre-built with a 250GB one installed…
When the original iMac was introed Steve showed a graphic with the back of a regular iMac cut off, and said they could have done that but they didn’t. Now, that graphic showed a mahcine that was considerably thicker than what we have with this iMac. I don’t consider that a contradictory statement.
This design has been what Steve has been after since the original Mac or the NeXT, at least: a very minimalist design where the keyboard, mouse, and screen (the minimum user equipment) are all there is. Finally, technology has caught up with that dream.
The Canadian dollar is only worth about 75c US.
The middle machine you describe is $1,499.00 ($1,500.00) US, not $1,400.00 US. Assuming the Canadian machine is only $1,700.00 CAN, then the Canadians are getting a hell of a deal. The machine should be $1,900.00 CAN just based on the exchange rate.
I live in Ohio, but I think I will buy my Mac in Canada and save ~12.5% on the price.
Nothing revolutionary design-wise (pretty much just a stationary tablet-pc) but it seems to be well put together. What’s keeping me from buying it is as always the price. I mean it’s a pretty good price but compared to what an x86 equilent costs I don’t think it’s worth the extra money. OSX is indeed pretty sweet, but I can’t justify paying that much for it and get a computer where I can’t even put in my soundcard.
I’d really like a lowcost headless machine. I think it would sell a lot. Something equilent to the eMac but without the screen would be enough for me.
Well don’t be so sad about the price.
I’ve done some currency conversion with the base config and the final result is :
USA : 1072 Euros (don’t know VAT)
Canada : 1128 Euros (VAT is 7,5% to 15% depending on state)
Australia : 1200 Euros (VAT is quite low, around 5% I Think)
France : 1399 Euros
Even if I include French Taxes (19,6%), I just can’t understand the 300 extra Euros I’ll have to pay in France.
May be people at Apple think that French People are either Dumb or rich. I invite them to low the price quickly if they want to continue to sell products in France …
Cheers.
The prices in Canada are 1750$ for the small one, 1999$ for the middle one and 2499$ for the big one.
Yanik
I’m with Eugenia. It’s ugly.
That screen bottom is too big. Would have been better if they had extended the screen backwards by another inch and given a screen with a unified-depth border all round, like one of the new Apple Cinema Displays
Well, I wouldn’t say it is ugly, just unbalanced in regards to the screen and the border. The large Apple at the bottom reminds me of the eMac, with the eMac is suites it because there is a purpose to have a large bit at the bottom – for the CD/DVD and Speakers.
Regarding this iMac, they should have cleaned off the bottom, have a consistant sized boarder, and for the speakers, bundle a the Harmon Kardon Speakers + Sub Woofer. Heck, if they wanted to do something *really* radical, why not have wireless speakers? use something like Wi-fi or Blue Tooth.
This looks suspiciously like the Athens PC concept designed by HP about a year or so ago. The Athens PC wasn’t “THX 1138 white” but it was a flat panel with the PC guts behind it design and a wireless keyboard.
Here’s a smart guy.
I live in Winnipeg Manitoba, and I bought a couple Macs over the phone from a place called Microwarehouse/Macwarehouse, in Mississauga Ontario.
Be warned, if you do call them, be patient, because they are not that knowledgeable abot Macs. The last person that sold me a Mac had never used one, and I got a pretty good deal because of it.
If you do buy in Canada you may be able to avoid a tax of some kind along the way.
But you should check with US customs first, to inquire aboot duties and taxes on imports.
Good Luck.
A correction.
“Here is a smart person.”
Sorry for assuming.
Instead of using a last generation budget part they should have gone for a current generation part. A 9550 or FX5700 would have been much better choice and have better longevity.
I knew of several people who bought 5200’s thinking they could use them as holdover cards until other cards came down in price. They were sorely dissapointed.
But it may be that Apple felt the 5200 offered enough power and features to last through several releases of quartz. That or Apple is still up playing the game of rapid obsolescence of their own hardware.
Pretty.
Id get one and install Linux.
-Nx
I know others think its ugly, and I agree with Eugenia that it should have a smaller bottom part, but overall I still like it. If you take off the stand it reminds me of a tablet pc. Lighten up the weight, add handwriting recogniztion, and you have an Apple tablet pc. I know about the Newton too.
This one seems to have a smaller form factor, but the iLamps looked to be a little more flexible in the way you could move the screen.
I’ve seen the shuttles in web-cafés, they’re pretty neat, but you still have the cabling and multiple boxes (unit, monitor) problem.
Have a look at the insides of it
http://nermal.org/misc/mirror/inside_low.jpg
(mirrored from http://www.danamania.com/temp/inside_low.jpg)
but you still have the cabling and multiple boxes (unit, monitor) problem.
To me it’s a blessing and not a problem. It’s good to have a choice.
Integrating everything into one small box can be practical, but it can just as well be a nightmare.
For the same reason I rather buy a seperate DVD and TV than a TV with a built in DVD-player. If one goes, the other one is useless.
@Chris Woods
Actually, your “Howie” is NOT the first computer to use that formfactor.
I suggest you do some research on a Pentium Based Computer in 1997-98 called the “Monorail”.
While it was black, it looked a LOT more like the new iMac than the “Howie” does…
Which is not to say the Howie isn’t a nice idea…
It’s just not original…
It’s a bit of a cliché at this stage but you simply can’t compare macs to x86 PCs. When you do try, you find that macs are cheaper and, well, better than PCs.
Cheaper and better. L.O.L.
Buying those things is not even an option for myself and the people I know. 14000SEK is way too much money to spend just to get a nice looking, underpowered computer. I would get laughed at.
its style is a copy of previously done work by many others. apple has not raised the bar this time. they have cloned others.
space saving design until you add all the peripherals that cant go in case so you have a desk full of gadgets. no space saved. and all that talk about wires is silly as you still have wires for keyboard, mouse, scanner, printer, camera, etc. one less wire to a tower means little.
repairing the imac will be expensive as few will be able to do anything to it other than a certified apple repair center.
internal parts will be nonexistant short of add in memory dimms.
it has fewer ports than many laptops.
wireless and bluetooth are not built in and cost extra. the 802.11g card costs $79 from apple and that normally costs as little as $19 for a PC…if not built in already for a PC in that price range if buying new. the bluetoothe module is $50 for something that on a PC normally costs $20-$30.
256MB ram is the same amount sold in $350 PCs. totally unacceptable for computers that cost $1300 to $1900.
fx5200 with just 64MB is a $49 video card and is not acceptable on a computer in that price range.
superdrive is only 4x and only the minus (-) standard for dvd burning when 12x dual +/- is now normal and is available on store shelves for just $69.
to make matters worse, the superdrive only burns cds at 16x!
no built in card reader.
no firewire 800 ports.
apple intentionally has lowered the bus speed on the imacs compared to what the g5 cpu motherboards have in their towers: 533 and 600mhz instead of the tower’s 800 and 900mhz when used with the 1.6 and 1.8ghz g5.
though resolutions are good for an lcd, they are still lower than comparable and less expensive crts. likewise resolution changing on an lcd remains troublesome for gaming and/or specific program use. crts still rule in resolution adjustability.
the lcds in the imacs are not the same as the cinema displays. they have lower brightness and contrast ratios.
weak 90 days of phone support and just 1 yr limited warranty.
so bottom line for a computer design that has been done before and actually done better, we will now see the apple marketing machine kick into over drive and promote their new imac as if it is unique and without compare.
we all get to hear the apple loving media blare out “hey someone has made an all-in-one lcd computer” when in fact it has been done for years.
all smoke and mirrors….overpriced mirrors and weak smoke at that.
In comments to the press, Steve Jobs remarked, “but I like pizza.”
never mind the G5 part, when are they (or someone else), going to release a 17″ widscreen capable of 1440×900@16ms?
apple Cinema Screens are lovely, but i can’t afford to drop a grand on the 20″, and the other 17″ widescreens on the market are only capable of 1280×800@25ms.
this sounds like a marvellous prospect for the take-off of good and cheap PC widescreen.
Nobody has yet really commented on Apple’s overall aim – the digitial hub. With the huge success of the iPod, Apple now hopes its sales will drive the sale of iMacs, not the other way around. What you’re supposed to do with your iMac is hook your iPod to it, hook up your AirPort Express module and play iTunes and iPod playlists through your stereo. Play your home movies you edited with iMovie and burned with iDVD. Make slide shows with your iPhoto library and your .Mac (or other web space). Playback the music you created with Garageband. Use your Garageband music as a soundtrack for those home movies mentioned above. This is the package you get with an iMac and that’s what people do with iMacs.
I agree, because of OS X, the standard RAM should be 512 MB. I don’t know why Apple, who wants their products to be classy, skimps on this to the point where you pretty much *have* to add RAM.
As Eugenia said, 64 MB graphics is fine for iMac users.
Despite the more limited speeds compared to a G5 tower 1.6 or 1.8, this will certainly be a huge speed upgrade compared to the G4 1.25.
Apple has run out of ideas.
I don’t see any Firewire 2 ports????
tv tuner….
The only reason I can think of for Apple only including 256mb of RAM is that _everyone_ knows that you need at least 512mb of RAM so Apple is banking on people making such an upgrade. There must be amazing margins on RAM for Apple to only include 256mb.
Just a quick note on your digital hub comment, I think Apple is making some really good moves here. But where Apple is lacking, and everyone seems to be anticipating their next move, is digital video. Can we expect a TiVOesque device next? Perhaps some AirTunes type device that connects at the line-in (Sorry, I don’t know the proper term) for ones Satellite TV or Cable TV and beams the signal to ones computers wirelessly? Hell, Steve Jobs, if you’re reading this, sign me up! I’d go for one of those!
I think what people are missing is that style _is_ important as Apple tries this “digital hub” idea. People with expendable monies to integrate devices into their entertainment experiences will not want to integrate a fugly Dell box in the middle of their livings spaces. Honestly, if money wasn’t a factor, would you rather have an iMac, or one of Dell’s lower end offerings?
Where does everyone else see Apple moving next in this “digital hub” idea?
Why don’t we let them buy want they people want. If they want an overpriced underpowered incredibly sexy computer, that’s fine with me. At least they won’t run WinXP. It’ll be more people using *nix based OS.
I think cords will be a mess. Sure you could go mostly Bluetooth, but that’s even pricier. And you still have a camera, scanner, iPod, etc. to attach. And they plug into the *back* of your *monitor*!!! Could there be a more annoying place? A moveable monitor at that, so while plugged in they will interfere with its motion.
Second, this design leaves me wondering what kind of obnoxious design flaw will cause consumer complaints this time. My bet is on display degredation over time due to overheating. LCD’s aren’t too heat resistant. Apple cannot have run one of these 24/7 for a year, so let me warn you that they *have no clue* what will happen when you do!
A TV tuner would have been a great addition. Also this thing makes you wonder why you can’t pick it up and use it as a tablet PC. Generally Apple products let you do things you couldn’t imagine, not preclude you from doing things you *can* imagine. There are some tantilizing aspects, but I fear the reality is that this is a design that has already failed commercially many times when sold to consumers, and that this will be far from a wild success for Apple.
This looks like an awesome machine. I do think it was a mistake not to put 512MB RAM in as standard (at the same prices). Other than that I think it is the right machine at the right price.
Looks like a great value to me.
Especially the 20″ screen for 2100 with bluetooth and extra memory. 64 bit processor and Unix.
Come on. That’s Fantastic.
Per the usual comparisons. A Dell Dimension 2400 with similar features goes for around $1100. I say similar because you can’t put a Serial ATA drive in the Dell and the video card isn’t comparable. The Dell is also a mini-tower + monitor rather all in one. The bottom line however is that we are talking about similar bang for the buck here.
Looks very cool! I didn’t like the last iMac model, but this one is very cool and it supports 2gig of ram. Like I would ever need that much anyways. 64 bit graphics……well I have that in my compaq here. Looks like the G5 Powerbook is on its way!
i don’t think this thing is going to sell.
$1499 is too much for an all in one combo which lacks the expansion options of a tower.
Yes i know it is a good value for what it gives you. Its just a poor value for something that lacks flexibility of expansion.
If they offered a headless G5 at for just $200 less then it would fly off the shelves but we all know that won’t happen.
weak nvidia fx5200 $49 budget card the standard in all three models, its the only option!
build to order and you cant even choose to get a better card.
simply incredible.
I think you bring up some good points. By the time you do all the essential upgrades (eg – a usable amount of RAM), you’ll probably be up close to the $2,000 price tag for a 20 inch. Once again, style over substance is the rule of the day for Apple.
For that price, you can get a decked out PC with twice the amount of extras. So, for that amount of money, these iMacs would have to offer something I just couldn’t get with a PC. And don’t give me the ‘it just works’ argument – my PC is rock solid and runs smoother than a baby’s ass. That argument might be a good one to use on Joe Sixpack, but doesn’t do much for the power user.
BTW: Just out of curiosity, where can you get an fx5200 card for $49 ?
“i don’t think this thing is going to sell.”
Yeah, that’s why Apple is going bust – oh, wait…
http://www.arc.cc/product.php?pid=167 $44
MSI MS8917 rev 2.1 GeForce FX5200 64M DDR AGP8x w/ TV-out
* nVidia GeForce FX5200 Graphic Core
* 64 MB DDR RAM
* AGP 8X
* Video Out
* TV Out (S-video connector)
SPECIFICATIONS
CineFX Shading Architecture
o Support for DX 9.0 Pixel/Vertex Shader 2.0+.
o Very long pixel programs up to 1024 instructions.
o Very long vertex programs with up to 256 static instructions and up to 65536 instructions
executed before termination.
o Looping and subroutines with up to 256 loops per vertex program.
o Subroutines in shader programs.
o Dynamic flow control.
o Conditional write masking.
o Conditional execution.
o Procedural shading.
o Full instruction set for vertex and pixel programs.
o Z-correct bump-mapping.
o Hardware-accelerated shadow effects with shadow buffers.
o Two-sided stencil.
o Programmable matrix palette skinning.
o Keyframe animation.
o Custom lens effects: fish eye, wide angle, fresnel effects, water refraction.
High-Performance, High-Precision, 3D Rendering Engine
o 4 pixels per clock rendering engine.
o 128-bit, studio-quality floating point precision through the entire graphics pipeline.
o Native support for 128-bit floating point, 64-bit floating point and 32-bit integer rendering
modes.
o Up to 16 textures per pass.
o Support for sRGB texture format for gamma textures.
o DirectX and S3TC texture compression.
High-Performance 2D Rendering Engine
o Optimized for 32-, 24-, 16-, 15- and 8-bpp modes.
o True-color, 64×64 hardware cursor with alpha.
o Multi-buffering (double, triple or quad) for smooth animation and video playback.
Advanced Display Pipeline with Full nView Capabilities
o Dual, 400MHz RAMDACs for display resolutions up to and including 2048×1536@85Hz.
o Integrated NTSC/PAL TV encoder support resolutions up to 1024×768 without the need for
panning with built-in Macrovision copy protection.
o Video Mixing Renderer (VMR) supports multiple video windows with full quality and features
in each window.
Digital Vibrance control (DVC) 3.0
o DVC color controls.
o DVC image sharpening controls.
Operation Systems and API support
o Windows(R) XP / 2000
o Complete DirectX support, including DirectX 9.0 and lower.
o Full OpenGL 1.4 and lower.
Compatibility
o NVIDIA Unified Driver Architecture (UDA)
o Fully compliant professional OpenGL 1.4 API with NVIDIA extensions, on all Windows
operating systems.
o WHQL-certified for Windows(R) XP, Windows(R) 2000.
“Yeah, that’s why Apple is going bust – oh, wait…”
for the record i never said apple is going bust and i own stock in apple. I am not flaming them. I just don’t think that product is going to sell well for the reasons i mentioned.
the imac is traditionally a consumer product and , though the feature set and value are impressive, i think it is priced outside of the sweet spot for consumers who want that type of combo device. Sometimes absolute price is more important than value.
all of a sudden, a 1.6 and 1.8 GHz G5 is under powered.
the low end Video card sucks and there should be a BTO option for it, but please, these systems are 64 bit systems in a super thing form factor and are built with a decent processor that has the muscle to do any home user and prosumer job as well as a PC, and even better because OS X is much better at Multitasking than XP.
If you’re grousing about the video card, you’re an enthusiast. The iMac really isn’t designed for you.
What you want is a Powermac. Tears right down: change whatever you want (start with the graphic card there, too!).
The iMac is targeted to home users with a sense of style. At $1299, the base iMac is a pretty good deal. If Apple can get these into the retail channel before Christmas, they may find their iPod base would like a cool matching computer under the tree.
Look how thin that thing is. The G5 Powerbooks must not be too far up the pipeline if they’ve gotten the new chips into such a low profile casing.
The inability to upgrade the graphics card is ridiculous. I would be more understanding of this were it a geforce 6800 Ultra with 256MB RAM, but come on this is a Geforce 5200 Ultra with 64 MB RAM. I have a Geforce 5600 XT with 128MB RAM in my PC, and it’s over clocked like hell, and I can’t run Wolfenstein ET at much over 1024×768 while remaining at a decent fps, and with Doom 3 I run somewhere between 15 and 30 fps(terrible) at 640×480 with medium settings, 8x antialiasing, and vertical sync.
You’re assuming that games are the crux of every computer user’s experience. While my main computer is a G5 dual 2.0, I also have a G3-350 (which I am upgrading to a G4-800) with a 16-32 MB ATI some such card. The lower end Mac does quite well for most applications like Safari, Word, Excel, and so forth. The quality of a computer is not necessarily determined by how well it plays games, rather by how well it suits the need of the consumer who is going to use it.
I can put a higher end video card into my G5 and I will outperform your Wintel machine no matter how much neon you have or how spooky your alien case looks in the dark.
Buying those things is not even an option for myself and the people I know. 14000SEK is way too much money to spend just to get a nice looking, underpowered computer. I would get laughed at.
How the hell is the new iMac underpowered? If you consider a 1.6GHz 64 bit CPU with 80GB SATA HD etc. etc. underpowered you are clearly misguided. It sounds like you’re one of those gamers who thinks they’re l33t and they think that clock speed is the only measure of computer speed.
No personal computer company on the x86 side of the fence mass produces stylish looking and well designed computers and also designs the OS. Apple are not comparable at all to these computer manufacturers, if you do and try, you find that similarly configured computers cost about the same as macs.
Saying that macs are underpowered and too pricey is laughable.
and this is in a government office, buy computers in the 1000 dollar to 1500 dollar range.
and Hank, the point of buying this computer is that you have if you get bluetooth, one cable and you get to keep your entire desk for work space. the foot print of this thing is super tiny compared to what that computer from Dell would take up. I mean, a computer that takes up the space on a desk that an LCD monitor or TV takes up is worth 300 dollars more to me.
Buying those things is not even an option for myself and the people I know. 14000SEK is way too much money to spend just to get a nice looking, underpowered computer. I would get laughed at.
A little therapy will help you with your insecurities.
If you fear people laughing at your computer you have deeper issues that need addressing.
64 bit athlons have been out a yr. they have been in laptops for 11 months or so.
64 bit opterons have been out 18 months.
64 bit intel itanium cpus have been out several years.
64 bit intel xeon and pentium 4 cpus have been out a month now.
sun and others have shipped 64 bit hardware for many more years.
linux is fully 64 bit today for the itanium, the opteron, the athlon, the pentium 4, and the xeon.
windows xp pro 64 bit is in its second beta release and free to download today. will be gold in first half of 2005.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/upgrade.mspx
windows server 2003 is fully 64 bit for the itanium and has been since its release 18 months ago.
windows server 2003 will be 64 bit on the opteron and xeon in the first half of 2005.
apples 64 bit capable hardware is nothing special.
Y’know, I have the nVidia with 64 mb of ram that came in my PowerMac tower 2 years ago and … guess what?
It’s fine for FCE, DVD playback, surfing the web, and anything else I do with the machine. I have several friends who are digital artists and the new iMac is what they plan to get.
If you want to game, get a PM tower and slap a badass video card in it. Although I can tell you right now that if you go to http://www.apple.com/game, the set up in the iMac will handle almost every game listed at their site.
If you want to open the case and expand, get a PowerMac.
If you want something to plug in and do office/house/certain kinds of graphics work, get an i/eMac.
Me personally, I’m tired of scrubbing the crap off of my husband’s x86 at his business (W98se). I’m tired of trying to lock down. I’m tired of all the security holes in IE and Outlook express. He surfs the web, types letters, downloads his camera, and runs excel spreadsheets. An iMac would be perfect for his needs. It’s fast, has a secure OS, and runs all the software he needs for business.
I actually think it is going to do as well as the lamp style imacs. I say this because the Mac buyer for my college has already put in an order for 100 units to replace our eMacs. Most people are probably going to buy the bluetooth mouse and keyboard. It is only $69 (US) If you go to a local retailer and buy a Logitec wireless combo it runs around 70 to 80 dollars. So it isn’t like it is EXPENSIVE to get the combo with it. Anyway, I think that I like the lamp style better, but won’t really judge it till I can see it in person and get to use it. Anyway, just my 2 cents.
“Me personally, I’m tired of scrubbing the crap off of my husband’s x86 at his business (W98se). I’m tired of trying to lock down. I’m tired of all the security holes in IE and Outlook express. He surfs the web, types letters, downloads his camera, and runs excel spreadsheets. An iMac would be perfect for his needs. It’s fast, has a secure OS, and runs all the software he needs for business.”
if you dont know how to set up security to begin with than yes you will keep dealing with your inability to use your computer properly. ever thought you might be doing something wrong if you have to do the same thing over and over again?
yep the imac will meet all his needs perfectly. only problem is it costs two times too much. so if you have 2x the money to blow and wouldnt rather go on a weekend getaway or buy yourself some other nice product, then waste your money on a mac to surf the web and do spreadsheets.
sure do need a $1300 to $1900 computer to do email, surf the web, type word documents, and run excel.
I’m sure if you go back to these comments when the last imac model was introduced,
you’d find similar comments on how ugly and under powered, expensive, etc. they were.
Nothing changes.
I also like how Pavlovian truthseeker aka anonymous (IP: —.chvlva.adelphia.net now) is here.
For that price, you can get a decked out PC with twice the amount of extras.
Except that the PC
– doesn’t run OS-X
– is noisier
– looks ugly
– has a larger footprint
And even if you find a zero-price resolution on the last three points, the PC still doesn’t run OS-X.
Eugenia:
Obviously your mockup looks better… but it is also impossible. If you look at the guts of the computer (as posted by Bryan Feeney), you will notice that the case is filled to capacity. Of course Apple would have preferred to have a symmetrical screen… but in reality, sometimes sacrifices have to be made. I mean, I’d prefer a Mac that has an LCD, no border, and a depth of one inch, but is it possible?
-Mark
Why should we have to know how to “setup security?” Shouldn’t that be apart of the os? I know how to setup security on everything since NT. Not everyone KNOWS proper security! OS X specifically tells you not to run the computer as admin for everyday use. Windows, to make it easier on the user, makes a new user with full Admin rights enabled by default. And apparently they aren’t changing that.
One more point, if all your going to do is surf the web, email, and spreadsheets, you can always get an eMac. Still smaller form factor than a pc, and MOST people NEVER upgrade their machines. I work at a repair shop and I almost always see the stock parts!
Its really tiresome and irksome to read all these endless tales of ” I can do it cheaper with blank blank (insert Intel or AMD here)”. I’ve been there, done that. If you value your time at all, it ain’t cheaper. The first one or two times, you’re trading your time for the learning experience and fun, after that it’s purely drudge work, getting the hardware and software together working reasonably well. What Apple does is eliminate all this crap by doing the whole widget at a better price than even your non-kit setup from the likes of Dell and your kit setup from the likes of Hell.
How much is your time worth? Suppose you spend two days (16 hours). Your crap box cost an extra $200-$800 more ($12.50/hr to $50/hr). With the iMac you are up and running smoothly in an half-hour.
– is noisier
Actually, my Dell PC is quiet as a tomb. In fact, if the monitor is off, I have to look at the keyboard lights in order to tell if its on.
– looks ugly
So, put it under your desk .. who gives a shit? You want to spend twice a much for pretty?
– has a larger footprint
I swear, most people must live in a cardboard box if they’re that concerned about space. I guess people buying PowerMac towers have the same problem, no?
And even if you find a zero-price resolution on the last three points, the PC still doesn’t run OS-X.
No arguments here, although anyone who’s never used it is not going to care.
Macsters, please stop bashing Windows/PCs just because *most* people don’t want to spend more money on a iMac compared to a PC equivalent.
If Apple makes such “superior” products, then people will buy them, right?
If you want to make a price comparison here is a good article at linuxinsider named ‘Macs Are More Expensive, Right?’: http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html
To me i86 hardware doesn’t run OSX that makes any price comparising obsolete!
What is it with people who claim that they could get a similar spec PC for $300? The only things approaching that price have half the RAM, half the hard drive, half the operating system (ie. either Lindows or XP Home), and NO MONITOR.
Sure, Macs are going to be a bit more expensive. This is particularly true for people who buy exactly what they need (rather than a stock model). Yet it is nowhere near the difference that some PC advocates would suggest.
Everyone keeps on saying the new iMac has the FX 5200 video card, but the iMac tech spec page clearly stats that all models come equipeed with the GeForce FX 5200 ULTRA. Forgive me for being clueless, but what’s the performance difference between the stock FX 5200 and the FX 5200 Ultra?
That’s it. It’s a freakin’ iOpener…except it won’t run BeOS. ;-p