New iMac G5's video card

Rage chips got the boot from Apple desktop designs eons ago, likely related to the incident where someone at ATI preannounced a Mac design win and pissed off Steve Jobs. It was GF4MX nearly across the board after that.

 

I know the gory details of Jobs' tantrum, I didn't want to mention them here - people think I'm biased enough already.

Haven't really followed Mac's closely since then though. Didn't think they used GF4 MX's though (though it makes sense once GF2 MX production stopped). I thought Apple still used some very low end ATi products occasionaly.

 

Well, there are certainly loads of blind apple users (if you could call the people who truly couldn't care less about gfx that), yet don't be an idiot and assume that all users are the same. That's just dumb. And it's also dumb that no pc company can touch the design that apple has, regardless of function. So yes....don't buy one if you want to play Half Life 2, ok? That won't even run on OSX .

 

TiBooks used 9600s, no? Don't know if they still do.

I do think the recent iMacs used GF4MXs. That wouldn't be so bad if you could upgrade them. Why not just make iMacs out of Powerbook parts, and use nV's or ATi's new GPU modules to allow for at least some upgrades? That's probably dreaming, considering they didn't even use a 2.5" HD for the new iMacs.

As for design on the PC side, I think Sony has some nice notebooks. I don't think anyone's going to copy Apple's white motif anytime soon, though.

Pity, b/c I think the 12" iBook looks much better than the 12" Powerbook, and it felt surprisingly responsive when I played with it in an Apple store. I'd be interested in an PC iBook (or, heck, new iMac--the point is, white with slot-load optical and DVI, as long as I'm dreaming) look-alike with a 19x10 15" widescreen and A64 or P-M in the trunk.

 

You're forgetting "proprietary hardware."

OHWAIT, that's the reason to hate them. Hell, I hate Apple far more for preventing you from dicking with hardware than I hate Microsoft for being bastards.

 

ok my boss is an MD. not only is he a hell of a doctor, but he also setup, ran, and managed the (PC) network here for a very long time. that included an NT4 proxy server, a coupple of W2K servers running Lotus Domino, an NT-based telephone routing system, and about 25 workstations. he also owns at least 1 PC laptop for personal use, as well as uses a PC here at work. The guy is obviously brilliant and knows a fair bit about computers (oh yeah did I mention he used to be a consultant for IBM?). What does he use at home? A Mac G4. Not all Mac users are stupid, and apparently they really can be as good as some Macheads say.

 

^^ Yes...provided that you know hat you're getting into. Unless you get a tower, limited upgradeability, and limited apps. But if what you do requires a mac, usually there's no problems.

 

IMHO they made 3 big mistakes or were just a little bit too greedy.

1. CPU. Why only an 1.8GHz in the 20" model? This top-of-the-line model should have received at least an 2.4GHz G5.

2. Memory. 256MB is just plain stupid. You already need 1GB to play the Sims2 (according to an review). So the 256MB are by far not good enough even for an casual gamer. Remember, Sims was/is an hugh success. So Sims2 will certainly be an success too. If you cannot even play this game with your top of the line iMAC out of the box then a lot of people will cry fool rather fast.

3. GPU. An Geforce 6600 would have been far better here. This would have been an really good solution with a long lifetime (for Apple-standards).

With all this modifications the 20" iMac would have been an really nice computer.

 

loool I just noticed:
1680 x 1050

Good f'ing luck trying to play any games on that machine in native res.

I used macs back in 96-97 when they were a better alternative for video and image editing. Nowadays they don't amount to much except their pretty looks in my opinion.

Apple should stop making silly computers and concentrate on their iPods instead...

 

Computers didn't exist when digi went to school. :runsandhides:

 

aren't there 5 million 5200's clogging up a warehouse somewhere in the far east? Maybe that's why we see them in the macs. Special deal anyone?

 

Top of the line air cooled G5 is at 2.0 GHz. (2.5GHz ones are highly overclocked and liquid cooled) Blame IBM for that. considering the form factor I would say 1.8 is better than expected.

Have you checked what they charge for plain ddr sticks? I would buy it with 128 and add the memory myself.

It doesn't have a video card. The GPU is soldered on the MB. How many 6600 have you seen in stores? do you really think Apple had the time to design around a 6600? yet a 9600 or even a x600 would have been a better choice but you have to realize that Mac games run OpenGL.

people should compare iMacs with lifestyle PC's: how many have decent or upgradable video card or a 64bit CPU?

 

It's not a gaming machine.
That a computers main purpose is not gaming does not make it "silly", unless you belong to a very...special...part of the computer using populace. And it is possible to own more than one device as well, if 3D-gaming is very important to you. The iMacs have never claimed to be optimal for everything, they just provide a very neat solution for the subset of tasks that they are suitable to. Which includes a lot of things, but not running DOOM3.

Isn't crummy resolution/screen geometry support a problem of the game though, rather than the hardware? Wide aspect screens aren't as exotic as all that, and id software engines have supported all kinds of aspect ratios for a long long time, it's not as if it's terribly challenging. And it will only get more relevant with time, given what we see in the LCD monitor/TV market.

(Macs still have some small advantages in image editing and in their system wide pdf support. Although, I'd say that their effective immunity to virii, worms and malware is more important even for graphics pros.)

BTW, Baron, you can mess with macs just fine provided you do not balk at resoldering tiny surface mount resistors, and sinking your hands deep into the dark waters of Open Firmware. Beware the piranhas. Takes a bit more than changing settings in the BIOS, but - that was only ever for the kids anyway, wasn't it?

 

So he uses PCs when he needs to get work done, and the Mac when he wants to relax?



No doubt he has the money to burn, so I can see him choosing a nicer-looking machine for home use. But the biggest arguments against Macs are still price and expandability, no? I don't see i/eMac combatting that. Whereas a cheaper and uglier (on the outside, anyway) eMachine can be upgraded to a decent gaming PC with just a new video card. Not everyone wants to own multiple computers to do everything they want.

That said, I think the new iBook looks like a nice alternative to a PC laptop for office work, both in terms of aesthetics and price.

 

yhea. im hoping they'll move to ATi's X700 w/ the 2nd revision of this model.

Apple has a habit of going back and forth w/ nVIDIA & ATi. & the X700 would seem to be a better choice since it runs cool, doesnt use much power, & is helluva fast. only real barrier is cost. G5s aren't cheap to begin w/ can they add a X700 and keep the price w/in $150 of where it is now?

 

I rather meant dealing with the 5200 Ultra's limited fillrate and general performance in that resolution.
And of course it's not a gaming rig, but not "being a gaming rig" doesn't (or shouldn't) mean that it's utter crap at anything 3D either right?

And for the record I think it's equally stupid when I see PCs with crappy videocards using 20 inch TFTs, stuck in 1600x1200.

 

The iMacs have always had limitations. Even among Apples customers, iMac users are a minority, because the All-in-One machines are wedged between the portables (which add true on-the-go use) and the powermacs (which allow for free expansion/customization).

But what is nice with the iMacs is that they aren't just cut-down powermacs - they actually use their limitations, to allow for innovative design and ergonomics that is pretty much unarguably superior to what other deskbound computers offer. So while you (probably) can't upgrade either the gfx-card or the CPU, this means that the space constraints and the thermal characteristics are well defined, and Apple is free to design the whole computer without having to allow for a lot of unknowns. And they do so, very well. Thus those limitations actually represent quite a bit of value to the customer.
If, that is, their needs fit within the limitations imposed on the iMac.

To me, who would have more than one computer anyway, the iMacs are great. I had one of the fanless gumdrops that still serves as an ultra quiet internet client/iTunes server for my elderly parents. I now use a 17" FP iMac that is just fine for most everything I do, and looks great. (And I love the screen suspension. It's truly brilliant. I would like it to be just a little more quiet though. Most people would say that it is very quiet as it is, but I'm shooting for silent.)

My PC box does 3D-gaming, connects to SCSI peripherals, allows me to tear my hair out over the constantly malfunctioning TV-software, runs some speciality software that I really should leave at work, and lets my wife check stuff on PCs when that is called for. Not a lot really, but the mac and the PC also serve as backups to each other since the functional overlap is large. The mac serves as the "serious" computer since OS-X has been incredibly stable for me, the iMac has seen no reinstalls, just upgrades on top of old versions, does its own housekeeping, and is typically on 24/7. Never crashed, all systems healthy.

The iMac serves a niche. And what is disconcerting to many potential buyers (apart from the lack of Microsoft Windows ) is that you have to know your usage well enough to feel comfortable accepting the limitations imposed by the system.
Within those limitations though, it is a really nice computer.

PS. But yes, I think everyone would have been more happy if the new iMac had featured a 9600XT. I'm not sure it would have added enough in-use value to offset the extra cost.

Edit: Had to add this link. Created by a guy who might buy one of the new iMacs. spoof

 

Well said Entropy. It's a niche product, and there's nothing wrong with that. If I had the disposable income, I would probably pick one up for kicks.

Well, there's one thing that's possibly wrong with it: Sales. iMac sales have been tanking after the initial sales surge of selling to the Mac faithful, and Apple has been commenting on the "$999" barrier for some time now, leading many to believe the next iMac would be more affordable and revitalize the iMac line. Unfortunately, I don't think this will be the case with this model, it does little to break the iMac out of its niche. Just add RAM to an acceptable minimum of 512megs and 3-year Applecare, and you're looking at $1500 for a unit with a combo drive (!). To get a Superdrive - which is Apple's term for "crippled single-layer 4X DVD burner", you have to go to the 1.8ghz model, no substituting allowed.

Naturally, these are compromises Apple makes to get into the form factor; I just believe they're a little egregious. The 64 meg 5200 is rather pathetic, the 20" model would have been far more attractive if the GPU was beefed up as well. Even if it added $100 to the price, a mobility Radeon 9800 128meg would have been far more preferable. Hard to tell from Apple's marketing that they don't think it's good for gaming, they wax on about playing Doom3 (while the Mac port has no release date in sight, and there's no way you'll get acceptable performance even on the 17" at its native resolution). Apple's routinely dropped the ball here to put acceptable 3D video performance in its consumer devices to at least give casual gamers a decent experience. Frankly it's stunning the Mac game market is as "large" as it is considering the hardware.

It should be noted as well that the FSB of the G5's in these iMacs has been crippled - 533 from 800 on the 1.6, 600 from 900 on the 1.8. The G5 needs that bandwidth, so the benchmark numbers will be interesting - the non-crippled 1.6 G5 Pmac wasn't exactly putting up excellent numbers in comparison to its PC counterparts, and that was a while ago. Depending on the results, the Powerbooks may cannibalize sales of the iMac3 - which is likely what happened with the iMac2 (Powerbook sales surged, iMac plummeted). It's one thing to be a niche in the huge PC market, it's another thing to be a niche product in Apple's already diminutive lineup.

Without the iPod, Apple's quarterly reports would have been quite dire over the past couple of years, which likely explains why their going to try and leverage the iPod with the iMac3. I'm not convinced that will work, especially when a large portion of iPod sales are going to Windows users who are enjoying their iPod with iTunes Windows just fine. Accessorizing is a tried and true market strategy, but a $1500 accessory to a ~$300 device? Er...

I'm sure initial sales will be great, but as has been said time and time again, Apple really needs to break out of consistently selling to the converted.

And again, as per usual for Apple - widespread availability is not expected until December. Add that to the likely pent-up demand and Apple's typical over-optimistic availability estimates (unless they're finally being conservative now), and I wouldn't be surprised if many can't lay their hands on one until 2005.

 

Well, we just don't know about sales yet. With this iteration of the iMac, I can see a lot of people picking it up. On the other hand, it depends a lot on marketing, and Apple doesn't spend a marketing dollar outside the USA, except possibly a little in France.

Lack of marketing and lack of Microsoft Windows is realistically what will mostly limit iMac sales. Sure it would have helped if it had been $300 less, but I really don't think that's the main sticking point.

Two reasons, as I see it.
The first is that piracy doesn't seem to be nearly as rampant in Mac space as in PC space.
The second is that Apple has actually provided at least semi-decent 3D video performance on all their computers, including the portables. All systems, including portables, have decent discrete gfx chips, as opposed to the PC market where Intels cheesy integrated video dominates the market together with truly horrid 64-bit cheapo cards. That means that all macs can do a reasonable job on titles such as Wolfenstein or WarCraft. Cutting edge it's assuredly not. But the baseline is higher than in PC space, which helps with sales to occasional gamers.

Maybe. Or maybe not. That 20" wide-screen model is hard to match for the Powerbooks, as is the G5 memory subsystem. Not to mention that the iMac is still lower in price. But the all-in-ones and the laptops are natural competitors, so I agree that it will be interesting to see how this will play out sales wise.

Worked with the LaserWriter back in 1985, didnt it?

Hell, I don't know if the sales of this iMac will be big or small. I just appreciate that Apple makes the effort to produce ergonomically good computers - they deserve a little success if only to encourage the Wintel world that considering those aspects might be a good idea.

 

oh pleaze. for the very few peope who need a computer to look "metro" there are millions more who just have the box under the desk and will play sims2 10x better on there $399 dell. Get a clue, this is the end of apple , the slow decline to well below sub linux desktops.