Slashdot Mirror
Apple Introduces New G5 iMac
peatbakke writes "Well, here it is. Looks like the rumors of computer+monitor combined into a sleek little case were true." It's mostly what you'd expect both design-wise and specwise. And I want it.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
While I never really liked the look of previous iMacs, I must give Apple kudos on this one.
It looks *extremely* slick, and I these would look so much better as the terminals in librarys and what have you, although probably way overkill.
And the one cord in the back is a far cry from my desk, lol.
The new iMac design is pretty similar to the "spy shots" that popped up on the net a few days back (which itself turned out to be a hoax). I wonder if the person who took those picturew knew how close he actually was......
There's never enough when you have too little
Wow!! They made a dell desktop that's only 2 inches thick?!?!?
In order to be vaguely comparable in terms of components (the Dell's RAM/FSB is slower but the iMac's CPU is slower, so whatever), you need to look at upgrading the Dell to have a DVD writer when compared to the Superdrive models, to replace the video card in the Dell with something remotely sane, and to replace the hard drive with something of a larger capacity.
As for the 2GB limit, this prevents the low end machines from cutting into the high end machines.
The 256Mb of RAM is my major beef with the machine (not that I particularly like the pricing either.) OS X really needs much more than that to run smoothly running anything but the most trivial applications. Even "modern" games have problems in half a gig.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I agree with the TV tuner lacking quip.
I mean, Apple advertises it as being widscreen (almost 16:9). So, why don't they go the extra step to put a tuner and video inputs (S-Video and Component).
If this thing had that, I could ditch my 17" LCD TV.
Political correctness is the newest form of slavery.
Apple always seems to do this on their low-end machines as a cost-savings measure, and yes, it is somewhat annoying. BUT, if you really need more than 2GB of RAM, you may as well just spend a little extra money and get one of the dual G5 desktops, where you can get 4 or 8GB. Let's be honest, I can't imagine most home users are going to be craving 2GB+ of memory in their ~$1500 iMac.
I'd be willing to bet the FSB thing is also a cost saving measure, and perhaps a way to better differentiate their "pro" desktop line from the iMacs.
Although I agree 256MB is a bit stingy, what possible use could a home user have for more than 2GB or RAM?
Looks like the iMacs are a very comparable value :). Much better video card and hard drive, slightly to somewhat worse processor (G5s are a lot more MHz-efficient than P4s - last I checked, a 2GHz G5 was comparable to a 2GHz Opteron/A64, which is in turn somewhere around a 3GHz P4, so these should be comparable to 2.4-2.8GHz ones) - though this is very hard to compare directly as it's an entirely different platform/architecture. Especially the video card cannot be overestimated -- integrated Intel "Extreme" Graphics is so bad, it's awful. (The 5200 Ultra isn't too good in the realm of discrete cards, but it's pretty decent, and magnitudes better than integrated.) :/.
Speaking of which... doesn't the integrated video eat up 64MB of main system memory, meaning the Dell actually only has 192MB? Given that, and the iMac's better aesthetics and OS, and -- leaving PC/Mac partisanship aside -- I'd even call the iMac a better buy. The 20-incher should've gotten 512MB memory, though
Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
How many people do you know who have more than 1GB of RAM in their home or office PCs? I could probably count them on one hand.
Your objection is noted, but pointless.
Also just wondering, does anyone else think this is ugly? Now, I normally think Apple does a great job of product design, but this thing looks like a total lapse in judgement. Also, it looks like the screen on this one isn't adjustable like it is on the iLamp, which, though easily ridiculed, was a nice feature.
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
The only way an iMac is going to run some particular game as well as a "gaming PC" is if they stick a GF6800 in it and a 2.5GHz G5. Such an iMac would obliderate sales of the PowerMacs. So they come out with this model which will play games pretty well, especially the ones currently available for the Mac and even future games like Doom 3. For the hardcore corporate client I don't see how this doesn't work. It is small and thin and takes up less desk real estate than even the lampshades and their 10" base. They're also reasonably powerful with a lot of screen real estate.
I think this iMac is going to be a huge seller this year. They're as powerful as last year's G5 PowerMacs for a thousand dollar price difference. They also come bolted to nice LCD screens and have enough I/O (including optical audio out) to suit just about anybody.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I agree with you on the hardware prices but I agree with the parent of the thread that it's got more value.
You don't get the iApps with the Dell. Nor OS-X. Nor quality support.
You get XP Home and the rest is left up to you.
Get paid to code OSS
Priced a new TV lately? The manufacturers are opting out of including tuners in most cases, because for a lot of customers a built-in ATSC tuner would be a waste of money. Those folks get their programming via a cable TV or satellite set-top box.
Apple couldn't include just an analog tuner. That would be a terrible idea. We're already in the second half of 2004; analog tuners will be junk in less than 30 months, well within the life-span of a computer like this.
I write in my journal
If they can fit a G5 inside that box we should be seeing powerbook G5's soon. The heat issue with the G5 seems to be solved.
I differ in opinion. This is a beautiful machine. Its one where people will be looking for the cable that hooks the "monitor" up to the computer. It will be especially perfect looking with the bluetooth keyboard and mouse. Then you will have a single cable to the power outlet and that is it. This is the first computer from apple in ages that actually has me thinking "man I wish I had that". I'm not a super apple fan (nothing against them just no reasons to buy them) but its about time that someone builds a computer with that form factor and those lines and it sounds like this one will even perform decently.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
I'm sorry, I can't find a all in one 64 bit LCD desktop computer at Dell? What one are you looking at? You need to compare Apples to apples, not Apples to cans of soda.
The above is not worth reading.
Just look at the iPod for your answer. How much smaller/standardized/simplified can you get. It competes with other cheaper HD based players with the same basic features. And who is winning? Apple. Why? Better design. And not just physical but design of every aspect of use and functionality. This will hold true in the desktop market as well.
Really? Since when did Dell start selling G5 machines running OSX?
It's easy to come out with any old crap when you pick and choose some specs (and completely ignore others). I'd like to see you come up with a comparable box from a top brand (which basically means IBM: I don't think anyone could mistake Dell for a quality brand!)
Try again if you like:
Up for the challenge?
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Base 20-inch iMac, with 256 megs of RAM: $1899.
20-inch Apple Cinema Display: $1299.
From where I'm standing, it sounds like you're valuing the non-display parts of the iMac at $600 or less. Plenty of folks think Apple's stuff is overpriced, but that's pushing it a little bit, I think.
Greg, you've made a great point. At some point the computer will disappear, just like the flat screen TV: All that will remain is the experience of using it. I don't think such a development is so bad for Apple, as they have always been about the fusion of hardware and software into a unified experience.
I enjoy working with my PowerBook, and I enjoy using OS X. When I think about them. But most of the time, I'm not thinking about them; I'm simply being productive. I think that's what Apple products are about: getting stuff done, thinking about the problem at hand, not the computer that you're using to solve the problem. The drool-inducing industrial and UI design is there to as much to draw the attention of non-users as it is to enhance the experience of using -- and justify the purchase of -- Apple products.
But does it become more difficult to sell an experience when it has a less-tangible physical manifestation? This may be a problem for Apple, but it may also solve one of their problems: When there's less physicality to the experience of owning a Mac, perhaps there will be less resistance to purchasing one. The more invisible the hardware, the less difficult it may be for Apple to convince people to replace their invisible Gateway computer with an invisible Mac that works better.
Apple's been pushing the "widescreen" aspect ratio for displays, so this is the shape they wanted, and designed around. It's the same shape as the 17" G4 iMac's.
If they made it a more traditional aspect ratio, there'd probably still be 3" along the bottom. They need that to fit some of the thicker components inside without making the whole enclosure more than 2" thick.
I find this design reminiscent of the original Macs, which had a similar screen-above-the-blank-area face.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Sure but you need twice as many support/OS-reinstaller/virus&spyware-remover people for those Dells.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Apple explains the one mouse button in its HI Guidelines. The idea is simple: there are people who can only use one mouse button, for reasons of disability or what have you. Coding for one mouse button allows you to avoid having to program especially for these people, while allowing those who want a second mouse button to use it however they like. You don't lose any functionality, because you can just modify mouse drags and clicks with meta kets. Four meta keys = 4 additional actions by a single meta and a further 6 actions adding two meta keys. Ctrl-Click is generally used to pull down context menus a-la Windows, and this is the default functionality of the second mouse button.
Apple does not ship computers with more than one mouse button mostly because of this philosophical choice, but partly because doing so would give developers justification to require the use of more than one mouse button for their target market.
Incidentally, I hadn't realized how confusing the two button paradigm was until I got a mac and tried to learn Blender. Blender is a mess of multiple mouse clicks, metas, rolls, etc. It's a good program, but you really need the tutorial before you can even figure out where you are. This isn't good design...an interface that does not lend itself to exploration will go unexplored, and you might as well write for the command line at that point.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Whatever anybody says about the price one thing is for sure. There is no PC on the planet that will hold its value better than a Mac.
Take a look at a 1 year old Dell or IBM anything even servers and then take a look at a 1 year old Mac. The PC will be at least 50% less and the Mac will have dropped about $100.
After a year the PC becomes worthless and the Mac still has a good value. 2 yr old iMacs are still worth quite a bit of their original price, especially if they have the SuperDrive. How much is a 2 year old Dell worth?
When ever a person asks about buying a PC vs. a Mac that is the first thing I try to explane to them.
Uh, because the price of a computer is only a little bit of the total cost of ownership, and Macs have been shown to have much lower requirements for support, more resistance to virii, less user time to do tasks, etc, etc.
Take your basic Dimension 2400 ($680) and upgrade the OS from XP Home to Professional, upgrade the HD from 40 to 80GB, and the monitor to a basic 17" LCD and that computer costs $947.
The price is looking a lot closer now. And that's just to get the computer to a sensible corporate starter spec, I'm not even trying to match the iMac's superdrive or graphics card, or quality of components.
But the G5 is pound-for-pound faster than the PC chips out today.
Maybe on a benchmark, but games (or any performance intensive app) are all about optimization.
Any game that comes out for the Mac will be at least somewhat optimized for what's currently available. For the casual gamer, the Mac has a reasonable selection of games and the new iMac will provide reasonable performance.
However, for the hardcore gamer, there's no arguing that you need a PC. That's where most of the game optimization goes (regardless of theoretical hardware performance), and that's where the bleeding edge graphics cards are available first.
With that in mind, I don't think the hardcore gaming market would be very profitable to Apple. Aside from convincing the game and graphics card developers to give Apple equal development (not gonna happen), then they would have to sell systems optimized for gaming. They already optimize for other high-end applications like video and audio production, and making the systems gamer-ready would just push the price higher. The alternative would be to offer gamer-specific models, but that would cost a lot more R&D for the hardware AND all the software (more hardware to support), and for what? A very small market that already has a bad impression of Macs.
Much better to go after the casual gamers. They may buy a Playstation instead, but any customers it gains will come 'for free' without a lot of extra development dollars.
No, you just need to lock down the config tight enough so that can't happen
And who do you think is going to lock down the config for you, the security fairies? No, an expensive team of hardworking IT staff who are going to take away your admin rights to stop you from screwing up their company network with the latest virus ridden screen saver. You can't even connect a new MS PC to the internet these days without being 0wned in the time it takes you to make a coffee. Do we get these problems with Mac OS X, not in the 2 years I've been running it. And I've not had to lock it down, the default settings are already secure.
Btw, your sig is very offensive. Python & Ruby are excellent programming languages.
Mac OS 10.4 (tiger) will be the first truely 64 bit OS from Apple.
True, but that just means individual processes will be able to see a 64-bit address space. It won't actually make the G5 run any faster (in fact, 64-bit apps will probably be slightly slower because pointers will take up twice as much space in the caches).
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Yes, it's all about market share! That's why all the web server worms and virii are written for Apache!
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
Why does your secretary need 1.8 GHz instead of 1.6 GHz?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Of these support calls how many were "how do I change my wall paper", "Where is 'My Computer'", "How do I make a short cut", "I can't eject the cdrom", and other such requests that would normaly come from a person that has used nothing but MicroCrap there whole computing life. I work for a school district with 75% mac, we have 2 admins, one for our legacy OS 9 stuff and the other for OSX, we have two full time mac repair techs and 2 that that do both pc and mac. We have 16 techs for PC repair and 4 people for the Administration. This is for over 5000 computers total both mac and PC.
Where is the TCO savings? Lets see 6 people to support 3750 Macs and 20 people to Support 1250 PC's With the average cost of 166k/yr (three admins for 500k/yr) per employee from the Parent post, the cost per unit to support is
Mac is $265.60 per year
PC is $2656.00 per year
Support for the macs is one tenth the cost of the PCs. There is your cost savings. This is based on real numbers of employees and Computers. You do the math and prove me wrong.
Side note, I started of in PC only support and moved to Mac only. Mac is much easier to learn and to support. Yes Macs crach but a hell of lot less often the PC's do.
Ahh.. The mind what a wonderful trap!
"Less exposure due to lack of viruses being written != more resistance."
Ignoring the apache/iis argument for a minute (Apache is really good software, but not all non-Microsoft software is so good), why haven't we seen 2-5% of viruses written for the Mac? People successfully write viruses for *Amigas* for goodness' sake, and where is their 95% market share?
When Oracle claimed that their system was unbreakable, it took less than a day for 3 different people to publish a score of exploits against it. Each new DRM system or web-application or console is cracked, just for the challenge of beating a security puzzle. Yet Apple-users have been claiming for years that they're invulnerable. That's not obscurity, that's red-rag-to-a-bull...
Apple's operating system seems to be shrugging-off all the attacks thrown at it, just as BSD itself is famous for doing...