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)
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.
Although I agree 256MB is a bit stingy, what possible use could a home user have for more than 2GB or RAM?
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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...