New iMac G5 on Apple.com

[mooojojojo]

http://www.apple.com/

I like the old lamp-like iMac MUCH better. This one looks uninspired. Lacks the character.
And 256MB standard for all the models (even the 20") + FX5200 with no upgrade option? What's up with that? Disappointing if you ask me. :|

Edit: Yea... Maybe I was a bit harsh. It does not lack character. Just not as strong as the previous iMac.

 

[0roo0roo]

i think u miss the point of imac. its an appliance. upgrade that? heh... bah. ifu want upgrades u get a plain g5 obviously.

 

[mooojojojo]

Oroo - yes, you're right, but the could've bumped the standard graphics card option from the FX5200 Ultra to say an FX5700, or a Radeon 9600.. I don't know - seems like a pretty low-end card for a brand-spanking-new PC. + I feel that the 20" iMac should come with at least 512MB. Maybe it's just me but I expected more. I mean even the design - it's not bad at all - but it's just not on par with the previous iMac design.

 

[0roo0roo]

i don't use macs much, how does osx run on 256? the specs do say its upgradable to 2gb though. btw where does it say its not upgradable though? says agp 8x.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
Oroo - yes, you're right, but the could've bumped the standard graphics card option from the FX5200 Ultra to say an FX5700, or a Radeon 9600.. I don't know - seems like a pretty low-end card for a brand-spanking-new PC. + I feel that the 20" iMac should come with at least 512MB. Maybe it's just me but I expected more. I mean even the design - it's not bad at all - but it's just not on par with the previous iMac design.

With a design like that, their thermal budget is probably extremely small.

 

[Schadenfroh]

i like "from the creators of iPod, the iMac" slogan

 

[Trente]

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
http://www.apple.com/

I like the old lamp-like iMac MUCH better. This one looks uninspired. Lacks the character.
And 256MB standard for all the models (even the 20") + FX5200 with no upgrade option? What's up with that? Disappointing if you ask me. :|

My thoughts exactly.

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i don't use macs much, how does osx run on 256? the specs do say its upgradable to 2gb though. btw where does it say its not upgradable though? says agp 8x.

Well I checked out the store and there is no option to upgrade the video card, so I'm thinking.. maybe you can't? Could be wrong though.
About OSX on 256MB - I've never used OSX either, but I would imagine that you would want more than that. Especially seeing how only the browser on my PC eats 100MB - should be comparable on Mac I guess.

 

[Deadtrees]

When it comes down to design, everybody have different opnions. It's no wonder you don't like the design but I LOVE the design of this one; I think it's far better than the previous one.

 

[mooojojojo]

Deadtrees - you think it has the same strong character as the previous?
I see advantages like the footprint being more compact and stuff.. but overall I think the previous was better.

 

[JackBurton]

I like it.

 

[mooojojojo]

BTW - that applele.com guy was quite close with this one:
http://www.applele.com/home/picture_b_himac_r14a.html

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
This one looks uninspired. Lacks the character. And 256MB standard for all the models (even the 20") + FX5200 with no upgrade option? What's up with that? Disappointing if you ask me. :|

If you think that is uninspired and lacks character, look at what Dell has been selling for a few months. Going by looks alone, the new iMac is far better even though the design concept was similar. Of course put a mouse, keyboard, and printer attached to either computer and the whole design concept is ruined.

The memory is an easy and relatively cheap upgrade. There is no problem with 256 MB for many users. Think people who just want email and a couple basic office programs. The FX5200 though could really use an upgrade for some users (of course it is perfect for those who are fine with 256 MB).

I still think Apple is ignoring the major trend to have $500 computers. They need a new eMac that addresses that demand.

 

[mooojojojo]

Dullard - it by no means lacks character. It's just that the previous iMac had a so much stronger presence IMO. I've been looking at the new one more thoroughly for the last half-hour and it does grow on you. On one of the pages there's even a picutre of it in a staged workspace surrounding and it does look very cool. And I wouldn't compare the iMac to that Optiplex.. I mean Dell has a lot of catching up to do to be even remotely comparable to Apple in the looks department.

About the 256MB - Apple is targeting the iMac as a media hub, which I think means photos, music and movies. Especially for movies I imagine 256MB will be a bit tight.

 

[kaizersose]

i think they are using the 5200 because they are passively cooled very easily. i agree, even as a pc guy, the old imac looked much better.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
I mean Dell has a lot of catching up to do to be even remotely comparable to Apple in the looks department.

I'm just saying the looks aren't that bad on the new iMac. The idea of an LCD with computer on the LCD isn't new, but the new iMac is one of the best designs I've seen of that idea. I just gave Dell as the worst design based around that idea that I've seen.

As for memory, the more options the better in my opinion. Some users will need more (and can buy more easilly), but why force those who don't need it to buy it?

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
I mean Dell has a lot of catching up to do to be even remotely comparable to Apple in the looks department.

I'm just saying the looks aren't that bad on the new iMac. The idea of an LCD with computer on the LCD isn't new, but the new iMac is one of the best designs I've seen of that idea. I just gave Dell as the worst design based around that idea that I've seen.

As for memory, the more options the better in my opinion. Some users will need more (and can buy more easilly), but why force those who don't need it to buy it?

You are quite right - the looks of it are quite good. And for a 2" LCD-integrated-PC it's superb. As I said - I was a bit too harsh with my first comment.

Memory - my thinking is that for $1899 they could've included that extra 256MB instead of the users having to upgrade. Then again - maybe the costs of cramming all that power and hardware into a 2" thick frame are not that low and that's why it's only 256.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
Memory - my thinking is that for $1899 they could've included that extra 256MB instead of the users having to upgrade. Then again - maybe the costs of cramming all that power and hardware into a 2" thick frame are not that low and that's why it's only 256.

I'm a stickler for accuracy. So I have to point out that the $1899 iMac is 2.2" thick. The cheaper ones with the smaller LCD are ~2" thick. So there is a little more physical room to play with in the $1899.

And the day Apple doesn't charge for simple things like sufficient memory is the day hell freezes over.

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: dullard
And the day Apple doesn't charge for simple things like sufficient memory is the day hell freezes over.

Hehe. This reminds me of the day apple released iTunes for Windows.
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/okoto/apple.com.gif

 

[Eug]

Yeah, the 5200 in the 20" iMac is lame. It's fine for the slower machines IMO though. I guess they stuck with the 5200 because it's cheap, cool, and it is the minimum requirement for Tiger's Core Image/Core Video, which adds 3D functionality to the OS.

One interesting thing is the venting. There is a vent near the top where heat escapes. Slick design.

Also, this thing is wall mountable. I think I might get one for our conference room at work. We already have a desktop PC in there, and this machine should satisfy the Mac types in the group.

 

[gnumantsc]

Ugh if you remember when the first IMacs came out (now Emac) people were buying it for the artsy look because it was not a beige box anymore.

I kinda like the previous Imac design well what can be said. The problem here is that the specs are too dodgy with an FX5200 they should've put an ATi 9200 with 128 instead on the 17" models.

I think it would be possible to get an Emac ~$500 if they can do a celeron version of the G5 where its less the cache or maybe a slower bus speed. IBM is supposedly the makers of these G5s and not Motorola so maybe they can increase production of the cpus to help cut costs.

And 256MB for 10.3 is kinda slow, just like Windows XP, Panther loves Ram

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
This one looks uninspired. Lacks the character. And 256MB standard for all the models (even the 20") + FX5200 with no upgrade option? What's up with that? Disappointing if you ask me. :|

If you think that is uninspired and lacks character, look at what Dell has been selling for a few months. Going by looks alone, the new iMac is far better even though the design concept was similar. Of course put a mouse, keyboard, and printer attached to either computer and the whole design concept is ruined.

The memory is an easy and relatively cheap upgrade. There is no problem with 256 MB for many users. Think people who just want email and a couple basic office programs. The FX5200 though could really use an upgrade for some users (of course it is perfect for those who are fine with 256 MB).

I still think Apple is ignoring the major trend to have $500 computers. They need a new eMac that addresses that demand.

 

[RussianSensation]

The look of it is not so bad. I think it certainly is better than the old one since it takes up less room and has a much better LCD display.

But...Apple is still THE biggest ripoff there is.

For $1899, you can get Dell 2001 LCd screen - Roughly $800
Then for $1000 you can get A64 3200+, a nice Thermaltake Tsunami case, 6800GT and 1 gig of ram.

So why do people buy apple again? I just dont get it.

Couldn't resist linking this quote from Apple's website:

"NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra graphics processor with 64MB of DDR SDRAM. It?s a combination that delivers unparalleled 2D and 3D graphics performance and an immersive, photorealistic gaming experience with three times the frame rate of previous-generation processors."

Then they go on to show UT2k4 and Halo performance increases. So when they mean 3x the performance, are they referring to 30FPS at 1024x768 for those 2 games? Last time I checked the previous generation was Ti4200-4600 series which whoops 5200 Ultra.....hmmmm...maybe they were thinking Geforce 2 MX.

 

[mooojojojo]

Eug - yeah, the cooling is pretty slick. You did not mention the intake on the bottom though. Seems pretty straight forward but I'm not sure anyone else uses the bottom>top cooling approach?

Russian - you're comapring the iMac to a 30 pound computer with a separate monitor.. that's just not right. Also - how is the new LCD better than the old one? I would guess they use the exact same panel.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
The look of it is not so bad. I think it certainly is better than the old one since it takes up less room and has a much better LCD display.

But...Apple is still THE biggest ripoff there is.

For $1899, you can get Dell 2001 LCd screen - Roughly $800
Then for $1000 you can get A64 3200+, a nice Thermaltake Tsunami case, 6800GT and 1 gig of ram.

So why do people buy apple again? I just dont get it.

So you're trying to compare a 2" think wall-mountable iMac G5 with a machine that uses the monster Thermaltake Tsunami case?

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
Eug - yeah, the cooling is pretty slick. You did not mention the intake on the bottom though. Seems pretty straight forward but I'm not sure anyone else uses the bottom>top cooling approach?

Apple did, with their original Cube.

 

[mooojojojo]

Eug - yes.. that's just what I was wondering, whether they did it in the cube. So does that mean that the new iMac is a fanless design as well? I haven't read through all the texts yet..