New 20" iMac and Dual 1.8GHz PowerMac G5

joekra writes "Today, Apple released a new 20" iMac and a Dual 1.8GHz PowerMac G5. Both were accurately rumored at the last minute by the usual suspects. In fact, the Dual 1.8GHz G5 configuration was rumored back in July to shift demand away from the popular 2.0GHz PowerPC G5s." I'm holding out for a couple rounds of price drops, but I think a G5 is definitely in my future.

Comments

Big screen!

[Ianoo]

The unfortunate thing with the larger iMacs is that because the screen sits on top of the box, rather than directly on the desk, with a screen as big as 20" I'd find myself looking upwards (at least with the two work desks in my house and the one at work). Ergonomically this is not a good thing.

Alternatively you pull the screen down as far as it will go, but then you need a lot of space behind it for the arm and the box.

That said, it does look rather nice, but I don't think I'd spend the extra cash over the 17" given the choice. I'd probably hold out for one of the lower-end G5's. At least this way the case can sit under my desk.

Re:Big screen!

[goober]

If you're still having problems ergomically with a screen that can be manuevered into any position, the problem is not with the computer. It's with your chair!

Re:Big screen!

[Golias]

Still less space than a 20" LCD + desktop PC too, unless you cram the PC tower under your desk to fill up with dust bunnies.

Re:Big screen!

[masonbrown]

Ergonomically this is not a good thing.

Where did you get the idea that it's bad ergonomically to look up at your screen? In fact that's the proper way to do it. At least that's what I learned from SGI's Ergonomics Center. And that says alot from a company that truly cares more about employee comfort and happiness than product development.

Just think about it though. Is it better to be hunched down looking at a monitor, or sitting upright looking straight ahead (or slightly up) at a monitor so you can have proper posture and not bend forward?

Re:Big screen!

[Cujo]

I think Apple would say that if that's the sort of thing you're inclined to do, then the iMac is not for you. It;s for people who aren't too curious about what's under that dome thinggy. OTOH, there is someone who will muck about and hack just about anything.

Re:Big screen!

[ViolentGreen]

I don't use CRTs. They're a dead technology, and IMHO they just generally suck! ;)

Do you have any reasoning behind this? LCDs are flat and easier on the eyes but you can't get anything above 1280X1024 resolution for under $1000. I have seen 19" CRTs with 1600x1200 for just over $100.

A side from the cost, LCDs/plasmas have a huge problem with displaying true black. Anyone concerned with image quality usually goes with a CRT.

You have price, image quality, resolution, better viewing angle vs space, style.

CRTs are far from dead.

Re:Big screen!

[jtrascap]

Yah - but that's why the Gods invented FireWire. Does everything need to be on the insides? Sheesh?!

Re:Big screen!

[javiercero]

Acutally there are two reasons why CRTs are still not dead, and the true black is not one of them.

a) Resolution, i.e. CRTs have an easier time displaying multiple resolutions whereas LCDs can only display properly their native resolution. Plus CRTs have finer dot pitches.

b) Refresh rates, certain LCDs may have great image quality for STATIONARY images, but when displaying moving images your refresh rate may not be high enough due to bandwidth issues.

For those reasons, oh and price, the CRTs will be far from dead for a while.

Oh, and the whole LCD color matching better than CRTs is quite bogus, I take you have not been into a serious print shop ever have you? :)

Re:Big screen!

[BasilBrush]

The first computer I had was a BBC Micro. The "monitor" I used with it was a 12" b&w TV.
When I moved on to an Atari ST, I didn't want to put up with the old low resolution and quality of the TV picture, so I bought a new 12" "hi-res" mono monitor.
When I moved on to my first PC, I wanted colour. So I bought a new 14" colour VGA monitor.
When I moved on to my second PC, the old VGA monitor wasn't capable of more than 800x600, and really only 640x480 if you didn't want a headache. So I bought a new 15" multi-sync monitor.

Then, last year I wanted a Mac. Some people advised me not to get a 17" iMac because I'd have to ditch the monitor when the computer became obsolete. Funnily enough, I didn't take their advice.

Look, the 17" and 20" LCD monitors that are out right now are brilliant. But in 5 years time when the machine needs replacing it won't seem so great, and there will be a new better monitor out that you will want to buy. Trust me.

Not sure about the 20" iMac...

[superdan2k]

The currently Apple 20" flatscreen goes for $1299. You're paying $2199 for that attached to a 1.25GHz iMac... So in 3 years when the iMac is obsolete and the monitor is running fine, you can't attach that 20" flatscreen to anything. Hmm. Not good.

Re:Not sure about the 20" iMac...

[Lewisham]

For power users, sure, it's pretty bad losing a 20" screen that you've forked out for. The iMac isn't really geared to us though.

I've had a hell of a time trying to figure out why my friends have been buying awful computers (a Compaq, for example, just one month ago! Wonder how long that brand is going to last...) without consulting me. After some prodding, it turns out they don't like me telling them what isn't and isn't good about the new machine they're getting, they just want what they can see. Like a big screen. Then they buy it, because they make some assumption that all computers are the same nowadays, and treat these things like appliances no more complex than a dishwasher. Once it's had it's day, you throw it all out and buy a new one. Obviously they're ignoring the fact they are on their own when it comes to support. You don't ask me, you don't get my help later on :D

Which is where Apple is with the iMac. It's disposable computing. Every 3-4 years, chuck it out and get a new one. To be fair, it's a very tempting option over the extra outlay of the tower and monitor to begin with. My 3 year old 17" monitor is about to give up on me, but the screen is looking weak in comparison by today's standards anyway. Why not buy it all cheaper now then get a nice spangly 24" iMac with super-bright-no-dead-pixel technology or something down the line? Certainly for most people (the people that double take when I drag a window from my Powerbook to my monitor) having two workareas is crazy enough as it is, let alone paying extra for the privalege! :)

Re:Not sure about the 20" iMac...

[Aqua OS X]

I agree. I think this is wasteful. We can't have people tossing nice 20in LCDs every 3-4 years.

Yet, then again, People do toss laptops every few years. And, Macs usually stay "in action" for a long time if their owners don't try and put unreasonable software on them. Ya can't run Photoshop CS on a 604e machine... but 5 will still run fine and do the job.

Re:Not sure about the 20" iMac...

[lowmagnet]

I really don't forsee a day when my 15" G4 iMac will be obsolete. Seriously, It burns both CDs and DVDs, it connects to the Internet, and currently does everything I ask it to, and it does it well.

My needs won't increase by this magic 3 year point you cite above. No more than my 5 year old web server, running a PII450.

The only people who consider a 3 year old computer 'obsolete' are the same people who compare a slightly 'inferior' completely useless.

Re:Not sure about the 20" iMac...

[Pfhreakaz0id]

right. But if I'm a real estate agent, and my friends buy a house without even asking me about it, wouldn't I be a little miffed? And yet, my family and friends get computers all the time and don't bother asking me.

My policy is the same as the parent poster: You don't ask me before buying an HP with a combo sound/ethernet/modem half-height pci card (i am NOT making this up!), don't bother asking for support.

Re:Not sure about the 20" iMac...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where exactly do you see Compaq going? They're owned by HP now, and they've been in business... well, I'd lay odds on longer than you've been alive.

Re:Not sure about the 20" iMac...

[jmkaza]

No one should have to call a computer expert to buy a PC. My dad's been looking at getting a new PC for a while now. I've offered on numerous occasions to build him a kick ass box, but he called the other day and said he just went out and bought an e-machines. Was I pissed, no. It works. It does for him everything he needs it to do, far better than the 333 celeron he had before. It runs Windows XP, and when he clicks on a video file, it plays. When he tries to run a java app, it works. Imagine that. Everything works, and I didn't have to spend ten hours configuring hacked plugins for Xine/Quicktime, RealPlayer, j2re, etc. If he has a problem with it, I'll fix it. And it'll take me far less of my time to fix whatever problems he'd encounter than it would have for me to build, configure, and support a box myself. I'll also call tech support to report whatever problem he had, and chances are, it'll be fixed next time around. We shouldn't work to make non geeks more geeky, we should just be there to help them out when they run into the ocasional issue where a geek is needed to take care of it.

Re:Ouch.

[rosewood]

If you see it as a good / bad thing, then you miss the whole idea of slashdot or NEWS.

ALl that is being said is "Hey, they did this. Hey, they released that."

Its up to you monkleys and your wallets to decide if it matters. If that appleflix story gets your panties in a wad and you decide not to buy a new 20" iLamp, then go for it. If you are in a majority, the company will suffer and be forced to change its ways.

If everyone is cool or apathetic to it, then buy this new 1.8GHz G5!

30" Cinema Display?

[LoudMusic]

Where's the 30" Cinema Display? I'm still waiting on that rumor (:

This 20" iMac is interesting, but i wonder how long the arm will hold up. And as someone else has pointed out - after the Mac is obsolete you still have a very expensive monitor that can't be moved elsewhere.

Invalid statement = obsolete

[adzoox]

My friend,

I still use a Mac SE30 as a print server and vintage program machine. I use a 20th Annivaersary Mac for financial/database work.

Se30 = almost 17 years old
TAM = 6 years old

If in 3 years this can access the internet, great, if it can photoshop, great, if it can print to USB printers, great, if it can be adapted to new technologies, great.

My SE30 can do most everything this new iMac can, just not in color and not as fast. It's hardly obsolete.

Re:Invalid statement = obsolete

[cgenman]

Ahh... The way computing should be...

We have an old 603e powerbook here used as a web and chat terminal for our exchange students.

There is a win 95 laptop upgraded to Win 98 in the dining room as an MP3 stream player for breakfast music (and settling dinnertable discussions).

A headless P3 functions as a household fileserver.

A shiny new Athalon 2.4 runs the bulk of our recreational programs, with a mobile P4 laptop for work.

I'm looking forward to replacing some of our static picture frames with the old Win 98 laptop when we finally have a replacement for it.

What do you do with old hardware? You keep using it. PDA too slow for anything modern? They make awesome alarm clocks... And great remote controls. An ancient I-mac sitting around? Throw on OS9 and a copy of Icab, use it in the kitchen for finding recipes. Old Laptop doing nothing? Replace that magazine bin in your bathroom.

The only old hardware that is obsolete is the kind that never functioned in the first place. The old Sparc Station sitting in the closet never did much beyond being a mailserver, and those NeXT boxs never got far beyond the industrial appliance phase. But whatever you buy now will continue to function in the future, doing what it does now, or other useful little tasks.

It may not be worth $1,000 to have an MP3 streaming station for your apartment, but it would certainly be worthwhile if you had a spare box lying around.

BTW, don't expect that "investment" in a monitor to retain its value any better than that computer. 21" CRT's can be had used for $100 without much effort, and by the time this Imac is "obsolete" a used 20" LCD will probably be worth about as much... if not less. While I respect Apple's choice of suppliers, at this point of the technology curve LCD's aren't very long lived and don't have as good an image quality as they will in the future. Welding it to a computer might be more of a problem of hobbling the CPU when the LCD finally dies rather than vice versa.

Re:Invalid statement = obsolete

[GlassHeart]

A retired PC doesn't necessarily work well as a file or web server, particularly a low-traffic home server. It probably consumes more power and makes more noise than a "proper" solution, for example.

A kitchen computer ideally should take up little desk space (most kitchens are already cramped, which is why kitchen audio players typically mount under a cabinet), and be protected against a harsh environment. An easily-cleaned touchscreen computer is probably the most ideal solution, not an old CRT iMac.

Your PDA alarm clock is problematic as well. It almost certainly consumes a lot more power than any $10 alarm clock. I can't even remember when I last replaced the batteries to my alarm clock.

While I agree with your general sentiment against the disposable culture, there is a point past which insistence on old technology doesn't make sense either in terms of money, time, comfort, or environmental concerns. Proponents of a counterculture need to use old things better than "just because" for the argument to be convincing.

Re:Invalid statement = obsolete

[cgenman]

Retired PC's generally consume less power than modern ones... P3's under 800 Mhz can be run fanless in winter months. Fileservers are generally built on the latest and greatest computing platform and have little respect for noise. Ever walk into a room populated by rack-mount servers? As for webservers? Unless you are going to co-lo a machine, that is the proper solution.

A CRT iMac may or may not fit in a kitchen, depending upon the configuration. My apartment in the city, for example, would be hard pressed to fit one. However, my mother's house in the suburbs has plenty of counter space... and she would love the ability to catch up on the news while cooking (with a capture card, not included). I'd hardly consider any kitchen with adequate ventilation to be a "harsh environment." Grain milling plants are a harsh environment. Africa is a harsh environment. 6' away from a flame the size of your pinkey is within operating parameters.

A PDA in a cradle won't consume much more power than an alarm clock, and will do so without creating the toxic waste of AA batteries. It will also allow you to set alarms based upon your full day's schedule, can be synchronized with your "real" palm pilot automatically, control your PC to play music remotely, and can program in your own varying alarm sounds (my alarm is loud enough to wake me up, but quiet enough that my girlfriend stays asleep.)

Keeping a machine out of a landfill is a good reason. Serving a purpose in your life that wouldn't be economical through the traditional consumer means is a good reason. As I mentioned, we have retired 2 NeXT slabs, a NeXT cube, and a Sparc Station because they didn't make sense in terms of money, time, noise, or power requirements. However, many old machines can still eek out a profitable life somewhere if you break out of the "throw it in three" mentality. An old P2 Laptop is a perfect e-mail machine for my mother, for example. My work keeps an old Dell around so that guests can surf / check their mail while waiting.

Don't look for ways that old machines can replace other old machines... If all you want is the exact functionality provided by a traditional alarm clock you're welcome to it. Look for ways that old machines can improve your situation. Thinking of spending $400 dollars + $10 per month on a tivo? Buy a huge HDD and a video capture card for your old machine and roll your own for $200. That's economical, easy, and makes the world a cleaner place.

Learn marketing, people.

[Gannoc]

Too many comments along the lines of "That there is a big monitor to just throw away when the iMac is obsolete!"

People who buy iMacs don't want to upgrade them every year. They're home users who expect to buy a computer, and keep it until it breaks or some amazing reason comes out to get a new one. They upgrade only when new applications require it, which is why Apple focuses a lot on new features and software innovation to motivate people to upgrade.

Take a look on eBay at used Mac prices sometime, then rethink the "wasting a monitor" idea.

Re:Learn marketing, people.

[djtack]

My point? Even for people who keep their computers forever, even for old retired folks who only check their email on Sunday, even for the iMac's target demographic, the iMac doesn't make sense.

Well, my parents' last computer was an all-in-one Mac LC520. They used it for eight years, at which point it was replaced by an iMac (the only reason it was replaced at all is because Netscape 4 on a 68030 was starting to suck). And we were not crying over the loss of the integrated display, because it only has 480x640 resolution! Even if it wasn't integrated we would not have kept it.

Your point seems to be that my parents should have bought a Mac IIsi with a 21" CRT. In 1992 that probably would have cost $5000, when we paid just $1600 for the Mac LC. Now who's making sense?

Mid-Line Best-Deal

[Soong]

Ah, now the middle of the desktop is again clearly the best deal. I always buy from the middle of the line. The boost over the low end model is worth the price, but the difference between mid and high end is always a more severe premium.

Also, if you're going to buy the dual 1.8 GHz Mac, BUY IT NOW. You'll be happier this way. See, if the worst time to buy is just before a revision comes out, then you get further and further from that to the happiest point just after a revision comes out.

Re:Mid-Line Best-Deal

[cfish]

Marketing people call your way of thinking "comprose effect" which is already taken into consideration when the pricing of the line is done.

In other words, you have fallen into marketers' expectations and calculations.

Usually, middle of the line aren't really awesome deals, but you feel they are. Common practice is to raise the price of the middle of the line product in order to decrease the differential to sell higher end high margin products while boosting price differential to lower end (less margin) products to make them look like better deals.

But what if?

[Popadopolis]

Sure, you may want to hold out until the price drops, but what if it ends up like the Cube? An awsome machine that was only on the market for several months.

Re:But what if?

[bojan]

if the machine does the task I need to do, what difference does it make how long it's on the market for, as long as it works for years to come.

most cubes are still selling for 80%-90% of their original price. No PC can claim that after being disconinuted, and not being sold for years.

In fact, nothing else can really compare to that.

Re:Lack of ports/RAM on iMac...

[NetCurl]

The idea behind the iMac is to fill in the middle niche in their product line. The Firewire 800 and all the fancier jazz, comes on the higher-end models (G5, Powerbook). The iBook and iMac are in the middle, and you can still pick up OS 9 compat. G4s and the eMac at the low end. So the idea is to appeal to people who probably will be completely happy with Firewire 400. If you're doing something that really needs 800, they want you in the G5 line or Powerbook.

It might sound crazy, but that's how they operate. Apple isn't just selling the hardware though. They tend to cut fewer corners in their hardware designs, and they are aware their hardware is more expensive. They are selling the OS, the reliability, and the longetivity.

I have two windows boxes, a linux, a BSD, and six Macs. I use OS X daily, but I can tell you all my old Macs are still in service, and going strong. I cant say that about my older Windows machines (linux has this sort of survivability though). Apple has an interesting market strategy, but I don't think that the computers are dead in 3-4 years. It's a facinating thing to watch.

But the arm is fabulous

[daviddennis]

I'm going to be in the market for the big Cinema Display pretty soon, and the one thing I would love to see in the next model is an iMac style arm so it's easy to position anywhere I want it.

That seems like such an obvious idea I'm surprised Apple hasn't done it.

Anyone know why not?

D

Re:G5 mania

[bpbond]

which is fine if you're a artsy kinda person

Or if you're a science kinda person...a lot of people in the sciences are giving this *nix-running-MS Office-with-no-viruses combination a pretty hard look.

If you're a bizness kinda person, however, particularly in a large organization, using a Mac is much more problematic. (Sometimes technically, usually bureaucratically.)

Re:No thanks, Ill stick to my Cheap Linux Box.

[Leroy_Brown242]

"Why Spend $2199 on a Propreitry hardware when I can get a Cheap $600 Linux box"

Linux requires skill to keep running correctly. No matter how easy you think it is, it's not. Compiling software, dependencies, kernel tweaks to get functionality you want, and of course, less than easy to learn GUIs.

When you buy a mac you get BSD stability, famously awesome hardware, and an awesome intuitivly easy GUI. Aside from an isolated problem, I have never had any issues with Apple computers. Although, in my wasted days of Linux, I had more issues than I could shake a stick at.

That being said, my desktop is running FreeBSD on a P3-1.2Ghz. Cheap, reliable, and perfectly set up for productivity. The hardware for this box cost me about $300 USD at the time. My TiBook cost me $1200. But, my TiBook was nearly ready to use straight out of the box. Do the dock shuffle, configure my shell, and away I went. My FreeBSD box on the other hand, is the culmination of years of learning. Even at my current level of knowledge, it take me an evening of downloading, configuring, compiling, and beating my head against my desk to arive at a workable unit.

Point being, time is money. My time is worth money anyways, if yours is not, I am sorry to hear it.

Missing the point

[zpok]

The configuration you speak about - if I read correctly - is single processor.

And it's not designed to do what a Mac does without blinking. It doesn't run PSD, i-apps, FCP, ... It runs Linux. Fine for you, totally inapropriate for me and many more people.

Ripping people off would be trying to offer all that hardware without any added value. Apple's added value is huge.

The whole point of buying a Mac instead of something else is you get OS X and really worthwile goodies.

When Jobs gave that cute speach about the digital hub I thought "Yeah, right. I just bought my Cube and now he wants me to buy another mac to do all this?"

I still work solely on my Cube.

But now I have over 5000 family pictures in iPhoto, the best I export to web on a regular basis so that friends and family in Europe can share our joy. iTunes? Wow! iMovie same here. And I start my day clicking my News bookmark in Safari which loads 15 tabs simultaneously of US-, Belgian and Peruvian news-sites. There's a lot more I enjoy daily, but you get the point.

We don't look for the same in Computers, so much is clear, but even knowing Apple takes a big bite out of my budget, I don't agree with your statement: they're not ripping me off, they're offering extreme value.

Re:IBM's deal is better

[gerardrj]

Yea, the BLADE may be $1,700, but the chassis to put it in costs $12,000, and the modular power supply costs another $2,000. These are not the real prices, but guesses based on my previous experience with purchasing blade based components.

So Fucking What?

[zpok]

I'm still using my Cube. It's fully supported and looks like it still has some years in it.

If they discontinue a model it's always a good moment to buy end of stocks.

And afterwards it keeps resell values up. I can still sell my machine for more than half it's initial value.

Pray they discontinue the mac you bought :-)

Re:No kidding...

[BasilBrush]

You never see them posting about the latest Dell models do you? You missed the Slashdot tag line: "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."

Re:No thanks, Ill stick to my Cheap Linux Box.

[carlfish]

"Why Spend $2199 on a Propreitry hardware when I can get a Cheap $600 Linux box running Mandrake."

When you first get into Linux, everything is cool and exciting. Linux's inconsistencies, the plethora of weird and wonderful configuration files, the ever-changing procession of desktop environments, all of this is a challenge. It's something new to learn. You feel you're expanding your horizons.

Skip to about ten years after my first Linux installation, and the novelty has decidedly worn off. I just don't find it very interesting any more to have to think too much about my computer. The time I spend thinking about my computer is time I could be spending thinking about the things I want to do with that computer. I think JWZ summed it up when he said: 'If you made a Venn diagram, there would be two non-overlapping circles, one of which was labeled, "Times when I am truly happy" and the other of which was labeled, "Times when I am logged in as root, holding a cable, or have the case open."'

My 17" flat-panel iMac was the second-best computer investment I've ever made (with the best being my 15" TiBook). The iMac doesn't waste any space, it's incredibly quiet, it looks great, and it's several orders of magnitude less frustrating to deal with every day than my succession of Linux boxen. As someone who works with computers, I spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the damn things every day, and I consider the "luxury" spending to make that a more enjoyable and productive experience to be very, very well worth it.

If you want to save the money, if it's not a priority for you, that's entirely your prerogative. Just don't stand outside the window of the restaurant, munching your cheeseburger and muttering "Fillet steak? Who'd waste money on that?"

Charles Miller

Re:20in of goodness

[Ohreally_factor]

According to the specs, it's almost 18 pounds heavier than the 17" model. Some of that must be ballast, to keep it from tipping over.