New iMac is out today and boy is it crappy looking

SuperMegatron · Post by **SuperMegatron** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:57 am

http://www.apple.com the new iMac looks like a lcd screen with no computer. The bus speed is total crap, and the grfx card is junk. Apple really dropped the ball on this model............but I am still ordering one LOL when I get the cash

Matisfaction · Post by **Matisfaction** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:10 am

That's the sexiest thing ive ever seen!!!!

(i dont get out much)

ninja · Post by **ninja** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:17 am

to be honest, i dont care for it. Ive always liked the "boxxy" style of the imac's. If i wanted something that slimlined, id get an ibook.

perry · Post by **perry** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:49 am

Uhh.. ain't Mac's always just a screen ? I don't think it looks anything worse than most computers out there.

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:49 am

The bus speed is total crap, and the grfx card is junk.

You do know that an iMac is not, nor has it ever been, a high-end machine, right? If you want one of those, you go and get a G5 tower.

Anyway, what do you mean "crap" and "junk"? Admittedly, the graphics card isn't extremely high end, but you have to remember a few things:

1 - An iMac is not a games machine.
2 - There aren't all that many Mac games.
3 - There aren't all that many games at all which need much more than that, and there won't be for a couple of years at least.

So it might not give massively high framerates on Doom 3 with everything cranked up to full detail. So? You could easily spend several hundered dollars on a really high-end video card, but that'd push the cost of the machine up. Not to mention the power requirements, heat dissipation, and size of faster graphics cards. Then consider the size of the iMac...

Anyway, it's better than most PCs come with.

And the bus speed is comparable to Athlon 64/Opteron machines, and P4s, and it's higher than Athlon XPs. Most of the other specs are actually pretty damned good. It certainly beats the hell out of my machine, and my machine is more than enough for everything I do with it.

On the looks... Very nice. Extremely unusual, and pretty much keeping with the development of the previous iMacs.

Post by **Specially Cork** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:34 am

You get more peformance to the dollar with a PC, and thats all that matters.

Good day.

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:25 pm

You get more peformance to the dollar with a PC, and thats all that matters.

Based on what? The numbers? They mean squat. A Mac is a completely different machine to a PC, so you can't compare them directly. You can't even compare different PCs that easily.

Anyway, cheap PCs aren't even remotely near the quality of Apple's hardware.

Just as an example, I went to IBM's site, and did one of their "customize PC" things. I "built" a comparable system, or at least as close as I could get, based on a ThinkCentre A series. It has a 2.8Ghz P4, 256MB RAM, 40GB hard drive, 17" LCD monitor, speakers, CD-RW/DVD-R drive, a Radeon 9200, and it came to $1497. The monitor was one of their cheap deal thingies.

The mid-range iMac is $1499. So they're close enough that it makes virtually no difference. On a machine that's costing you one and a half grand, two bucks ain't a lot.

The mid-range iMac has a 1.8GHz G5, 256MB of RAM, an 80GB hard drive, 17" LCD monitor, CD-RW/DVD-R drive, a GeForceFX 5200.

Ignore for a moment that both systems are starved of RAM. They could both use an upgrade to at least 512MB, because both WinXP and MacOS X are pretty heavy on the RAM usage.

The iMac has twice the hard drive. The monitors are comparable (similar resolution, different aspect ratio). The video cards are of the same class, the same age, and are both "mainstream" video cards, not "gamer" cards. They're both fairly well stocked.

The CPUs are a bit hard to compare. However, the G5 is a really powerful bit of kit. Perhaps the P4 is a bit faster, perhaps it isn't, depending on what you're doing. But that's really an academic point. Neither of these systems have high-end video hardware, so the CPU is hardly going to be the bottleneck. Neither of them are intended as workstations, so they're not expected to do lots of CPU-intensive tasks. The iMac is going to do a much better job on things like video manipulation, photo editing...

One other advantage the Mac has - MacOS X uses hardware accelerated rendering, and a GeForce FX 5200 can do that many times faster than the CPU alone could. So, for doing regular everyday work, the Mac is going to feel faster. Or it would if the system weren't starved of RAM, which it is. But so is the PC, so that kinda makes up for it.

Oh, and the G5 is 64-bit. That's largely academic too, but it'd really be more appropriate to compare the G5 with an Athlon 64. Or, in the case of the PowerMac G5, with a dual Opteron rig. But that's getting off topic.

In this case, it's really too close to call. I dare say you could find a similarly specced PC for a less than that. If you ditched the P4 and went with an Athlon XP you could shave a few hundered bucks off the price. But that's about all you could do without starting to sacrifice functionality. If you're going to do that, or if "price is all that matters", then you aren't the intended buyers for either of these machines.

The whole "Macs are sooo expensive" thing is really old, and isn't true anyway. Unlike PCs, they don't stretch all the way down to the "cheap useless crap" market. But, if you look at comparable systems, there isn't really that much difference.

Matisfaction · Post by **Matisfaction** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:19 pm

Amen to that!

SuperMegatron · Post by **SuperMegatron** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 2:22 pm

Macs are cheaper if you include the software with them. we get iphoto, itunes, imovie, apple works, garage band, iDVD,quicken and a ton of other stuff. that said I wish macs were cheaper but they are worth what they cost.

Wagh · Post by **Wagh** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 3:02 pm

it looks sexy. And to all the mac bashing comments. Get a life. Macs rock.

pyroguyperson · Post by **pyroguyperson** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 3:31 pm

Great post BlackAura, mind if I quote that for the 4,000 more times this year I'll hear the bullshit argument "PCs are cheaper than Macs"?

But also I'm on a G4 1ghz eMac here. I run AIM, Safari, Bit Torrent, Neo-Modus, aMSN (messenger), iTunes, Shorten or MacFlac (depending on what I'm decompressing), and my address book all at the same time and they all work as fast as if none of the others were on. When I was at my dad's house on my bro's 2.80 or whatever ghz P4 eMachine with Windows XP running, programs would crash or go slow as hell when I only had AIM, FireFox, DC++, and MSN running.

Post by **|darc|** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:01 pm

Meh. Why not just get an iBook or a PowerBook? It's practically the same.

Genezis · Post by **Genezis** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:17 pm

i love where the dvd are positionated! crazy!

sixteen-bit · Post by **sixteen-bit** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:38 pm

|darc| wrote:Meh. Why not just get an iBook or a PowerBook? It's practically the same.

If I had the money, I'd opt for a powerbook over this. I despise the "shiny white" look Apple has got going on.

Post by **pixel** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:40 pm

Wow... that's flippin crazy

ninja · Post by **ninja** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:03 pm

You also need to keep in mind that even in speed comparisons, a p4 at 2.5 ghz versus an imac at 2.5 ghz are 2 entirely different beasts. From personal experience, the mac will (in most cases) run faster than a 2.5 ghz p4.

mkjones · Post by **mkjones** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:52 pm

Looks nice but will be crap..

Then again that sums up all macs since around 1996

MulletMan13 · Post by **MulletMan13** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:36 pm

The white is the consumer line whereas Aluminum is Pro-line.

Why get this instead of a powerbook? Because you want a desktop machine that will do anything a normal user will do. I'm sick and tired of all the mac bashing around here, Using Macs in school is one thing, owning a Mac is another. Until you actually own one you won't know how much more simpler and easier things are. Everything runs smoothly, plug and play actually *works* and you can do *anything* you can do on a Windows PC albeit play real good games.

Another point-- this graphics card still will run Doom 3 and all the latest games just fine... I don't see why any consumer should be complaining. Most people in here would be considered 'pro' PC users, so comparing this to what you have is really apples to oranges. If you want to compare your 'pro' pc, compare it to a PowerMac. Megahertz mean nothing... numbers/benchmarks mean nothing-- people can't get this out of their heads. Plus the extra milliseconds it may take to do something are VERY worth it when you make up all the time with configurations and other problems with a PC.

I don't understand why everyone bashes them, I had Virtual PC thinking that I'd need it to run all the windows applications I miss..... then i realized just now how I've never used VPC unless for Marble Drop (old game). Macs of today are far surpassing macs of yesteryear. Yes , you pay for quality. Just as I'd rather own an IBM instead of an eMachine. If all you do is look at numbers and always say how wonderful your PC is.... that's fine, stay on the security hole filled and non efficient PC platform, it's quite all right.

Mac users don't bash PC users, but PC users bash Mac users.... why is this? I really don't get it. I respect somebody who has a Win PC.... and people who have Macs. Why can't it be the other way around? Please, refrain from ignorance such as the above post (by mkjones), and actually respect us. All of these 'switches' as it were, most of them are pro users. Notice the above posts by pro-mac people. I was definately a Mac hater because I thought things were incompatible and I was basing all my opinions of OS 9 and the past. Things have truly come a long way in the Mac world.... maybe some people should bite their tongue and try to read up on it. Just please, next time you're around a Mac store or anything like that just try and look around without past prejudices. But as I said you don't really notice the large difference until it's at home and on your desk (or your lap for that matter).

[/rant]

Okay now about the new iMac. This would be a great machine for anybody looking to use a computer for video editing, photo editing, anything, and while wanting almost 0 desk space used. For somebody like my parents, sister, or family it would be perfect for a family computer, hell I'd even be fine using it, considering I don't run Motion, or Final Cut (hell the iMac could even handle it). Also it eliminates the need for an additional LCD monitor, it really isn't a bad machine, considering it'll last at least five years... and after that will still retain it's resale value. Hell my PowerMac G4 Dual 867 was bought new for $1500 ... 2 and a half years ago(I didn't buy it)... but these machines sell on ebay for $1100.

Overall I'd say the design took a while, but it grew on me, and while I personally wouldnt get one (my next upgrade will be a G5 tower), it is a great computer for anybody looking for a powerful and easy to use OS with a great suite of free programs.

Edit: http://www.apple.com/imac/video/480.html <--- that explains well the 'consumer'ness of the new imac and what it's for.

Wagh · Post by **Wagh** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:50 pm

well said mm13. Macs just.. work. Anyways. If I hadn't gotten this g5 I would prolly have gotten one of those.

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:33 pm

pyroguyperson wrote:Great post BlackAura, mind if I quote that for the 4,000 more times this year I'll hear the poop argument "PCs are cheaper than Macs"?

Feel free.

Actually, I saw a similar argument on Slashdot about half an hour later, except this time comparing a Dell with one of these iMacs. Different specs, but more or less the same findings.