Advertisement

(1 reply) #1 Posted by chrisnelis on 31 Aug 2004 - 10:43

Wow thats a great reduction £1349 for a 20" I'm ordering!

#1.1 Posted by Callaway on 31 Aug 2004 - 15:31

Cool! An iBook on a stick!!

(10 replies) #2 Posted by Hurmoth on 31 Aug 2004 - 10:43

They are ugly Can't wait to see what the PowerBook G5s will look like!

#2.1 Posted by shao on 31 Aug 2004 - 12:38

agreed. very badly designed.
16:9 screen built into a 4:3 case. Am i missing something, or is that pointless and bad design? It's all very well having a 2" thick case, but when you have a big slab attached to the bottom of the screen it kinda becomes a mute point.

#2.2 Posted by jerry on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:32

There are always going to be whiny b*tches, you both definitely are.

#2.3 Posted by shao on 31 Aug 2004 - 15:16

and so're you. wanna join our club?
it's not called whining, it's called criticism. tbh, i could personally build a thinner pc if i really wanted to, but making it 4* taller and wider does not constitute good design - something apple have usually been acredited with.

#2.4 Posted by jerry on 31 Aug 2004 - 15:24

Nope I am not.

I dont pass my judgement when I'm biased like you guys. Criticism my foot, to be honest you havent seen it in real and dont know what goes inside. That big slab that annoys you is there for a reason, if it could have been eliminated, Apple would have done it.

#2.5 Posted by ev0| on 31 Aug 2004 - 15:41

moot point, not mute point

#2.6 Posted by frod on 31 Aug 2004 - 16:37

while i agree that it doesn't look that great, the white space at the bottom isn't "useless".

it houses the speakers (that point down) and obviously there wasn't much space in general so they had to add some somewhere.

#2.7 Posted by Jstphish on 31 Aug 2004 - 16:56

At first I thought the same as you guys (save the one) until I actually spent time looking at the website. 2" is thin for a desktop and the white space is there for a reason. Apple could've gotten rid of it but the computer would have been more expensive and thus not worth buying. Anyway you look at it, the computer is smaller than you realize and I now like the look of it. The airflow is pretty nifty as well. All comments aside, don't judge it until you've physically played with it yourself. This is the same mistake certain people make with the iPod (you just have no idea how nice it really is until you hold one in your hand).

#2.8 Posted by bogd on 31 Aug 2004 - 21:32

I'm not passing judgment on the design until I see it in person. I wasn't impressed with the iPod 4th Gen or the new cinema displays until I walked into an Apple store and feel in love.

#2.9 Posted by MegaManXcalibur on 31 Aug 2004 - 21:48

I have to agree with the majority of these subposts, the new design is rather ugly. Now don't get me wrong I thought the same of the other iMac but this one is even worse. Here are some gripes I have with the new design...

1. First of all I have never been a fan of these all-in-one systems

2. Although the large chunk of white space on the bottom is most likely unavoidable it does detract from the overall design

3. The base stand looks amazingly chintzy compared to the rest of the unit

4. And that's bad because the entire unit looks chintzy

5. There is just way too much white. Some grey highlights or something to break up the monotony would have been nice

Now before you going saying I'm just a whinny **** you have to understand it's all a matter of personal taste. All of this is just my opinion on the design, there are people who are going to love it, to each his own.

But I will give Apple credit where it's due, they did a fantastic job as cramming everything into something as tiny as that thing (my current monitor is much larger then that whole unit). Hopefully it works as well as it is ugly.

#2.10 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 01 Sep 2004 - 00:01

They look very nice to me.

#3 Posted by amdme3200 on 31 Aug 2004 - 10:48

Your right it look's like a big Ipod. I also want to see the new Powerbook's.

#4 Posted by Snafu on 31 Aug 2004 - 10:49

It looks a lot like the new cinema display's. I don't like where the cd drive is but other then that, I like it.

From the front it looks like a flat emac.

(6 replies) #5 Posted by lunamonkey on 31 Aug 2004 - 10:49

"NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB graphics memory. So you’ll be able to play Worlds of Warcraft, Doom III and other fantastic entertainment."

Doom III Runs like a bitch on the 128mb version of that card. I'm sure it'll run Doom III fine. :/

#5.1 Posted by roadwarrior on 31 Aug 2004 - 11:13

Yeah, but remember that you will also have a 64-bit processor feeding the video card, which may help things some.

#5.2 Posted by shao on 31 Aug 2004 - 12:37

not really. 5200 is about as high end as a low geforce3, but with some better shader support. I certainly wouldn't want a £1k computer which promises to be able to play doom3 when it's certainly going to suck at that, and with a rather uninspiring 64mb at that. Also doom3 doesn't properly support widescreen yet, so it's gonna look even worse. oh well..

#5.3 Posted by DjmUK on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:04

True, a 64-bit CPU will help - but it will NOT help the graphics chip (GPU). I agree, this GeForce 5 on the iMac won't run Doom 3 to it's best capabilities at highest settings. But, at medium > low settings it will run smoothly.

Obviously nothing compared to the GeForce 6 (Shader Model 3.0 enabled).

64MB no way in hell!
128MB is pushing it.
256MB is recommended.
512MB would be superb (for all those textures) - although these are rare at the moment (GF6 range that is).

P.S.
This time Apple is telling the truth (and not bending it)...they state that it will 'run' Doom 3 - they didn't say anything about quality/resolution/settings, so that's a good move on their part - because otherwise we'd all be having a go at them.

#5.4 Posted by shao on 31 Aug 2004 - 15:45

if i remember correctly carmac publically stated a long time ago that the gf4mx/5200 series would be a bad choice for doom3, and a bad card for nvidia to market given how it lures people into thinking it's a good / new card, when it's quite simply not. At least when you buy it as a separate component your get a sense of it's [lack of] power by the cost, which is exceptionally cheap.

to me it seems very odd that apple chose to publically state this imac would play doom, despite the awful hardware accelleration it ships with when doom3 was unveiled at mac world all those years ago. It's been stated that the game will run okay in 640x480 resolution on this card, although i know of people that found the game didn't run, or ran very badly on the same card (slowe cpu).

apple are quite good at bending the truth. Fastest Computer being a good example. LittlePC being a prime example of smaller / thinner pc's.. http://www.littlepc.com/products_p3littlepc.htm

#5.5 Posted by Jstphish on 31 Aug 2004 - 17:10

Hello, this isn't an x86 machine and I garauntee it will run faster than you'd expect especially since all of the subsystems (memory, graphics, etc.) don't have to talk to each other through a centralized area, aka a bottleneck. Although, not even I think the G5 iMac will run Doom 3 at max resolution and graphics to the hilt due to the constraints of the card. I just think it will run fast at a higher than 640x480 resolution on the GeForce FX 5200.

#5.6 Posted by guppydrop on 03 Sep 2004 - 01:37

You mean the subsystems that were purposefully crippled in order to prevent it from dancing into Powermac territory?

(2 replies) #6 Posted by StuRReaL on 31 Aug 2004 - 10:59

hehe a laptop on a stand classy

#6.1 Posted by daimon on 31 Aug 2004 - 16:14

yeah, it is just that. true, it takes little space but somehow it feels too cornered. apple just wanted to enlarge ipod " in a computer as fun and useful as an iPod". but ipod does not look cool when it is that big.

#6.2 Posted by Fagutish on 31 Aug 2004 - 18:43

yeah, imagine how big the scroll wheel would have to be!

lol

#7 Posted by Huezo on 31 Aug 2004 - 11:04

One word: AWESOME.

(2 replies) #8 Posted by MPH on 31 Aug 2004 - 11:12

Looks like Samsung 172X to me.

#8.1 Posted by Deviate_X on 01 Sep 2004 - 03:12

SAMSUNG's Digital World - LCD Monitor 172X

#8.2 Posted by TrekXP on 01 Sep 2004 - 06:23

thats insulting to my 172X.

#9 Posted by WooHoo!!! on 31 Aug 2004 - 11:13

Amazing. I'll wait for a laptop though. Only reason I would buy an Apple.

#10 Posted by roadwarrior on 31 Aug 2004 - 11:20

The pricing is really good when you consider that the base G5 iMac is exactly the same price as the 14" iBook!

(6 replies) #11 Posted by a_witko on 31 Aug 2004 - 11:23

OMG... I can't believe Apple. It is absolutely HIDEOUS. Everyone will like it because there is nothing out there that is better looking, but it doesn't make it beautiful... I know the OS is good and it's a good machine and all, but it is UGLY! The old iMac is so much sexier. Awwww.... I feel jibbed.

I mean, the whole idea was totally expected, and it is a good idea, but I'm sure they could've realeased a better designed iMac than that THING.

#11.1 Posted by Jstphish on 31 Aug 2004 - 17:13

I agree with you about the older iMac. It was beautiful. The difference with this iMac is Apple wanted it to be able to hang on a wall. You just couldn't do that without making it flat and having the computer behind the LCD. It isn't bad and I bet it looks better in person.

#11.2 Posted by nogoon on 31 Aug 2004 - 17:33

im not sure if u can hang it on a wall, when all the plugs and slots are in the back.

#11.3 Posted by dp123 on 31 Aug 2004 - 18:00

A standard VESA mount provides the necessary space for wall mounting.

#11.4 Posted by GT on 31 Aug 2004 - 20:30

People complaining about the design when they havent even seen it in personally.

#11.5 Posted by guppydrop on 01 Sep 2004 - 00:15

Yeah, I mean, not like they are looking at pictures of exactly what it looks like or anything.

#11.6 Posted by noyb on 01 Sep 2004 - 01:54

Bah to that way of that way of thinking. I still think my iPod looks horrible and chunky in pictures, but in person its a lovely looking piece of kit.

(2 replies) #12 Posted by HawkMan on 31 Aug 2004 - 11:27

So, Now the MAc guys have a tablet PC too...

oh except for a few minor details...
No battery
No built in Wacom cintiq tablet for the display...


so basically it's a neutered tablet"Mac" without any of the features to make a tablet pc a tabletpc.

I just love the people on news comments on other sites who go "ooh look at that PC users, you ain't got nothign like that"....

#12.1 Posted by Byron_Hinson on 31 Aug 2004 - 14:09

Yeah, probably won't sell as badly as those tablet pc's though, even though its an apple product.

#12.2 Posted by Jstphish on 31 Aug 2004 - 17:19

Yeah, it's Apple's answer to the TabletPC alright. *Whatever*

Apple does sell Notebook computers you know ... or maybe you didn't.

(1 reply) #13 Posted by Zeni on 31 Aug 2004 - 11:30

Another exciting product for grandparents, delivered by apple.

#13.1 Posted by jerry on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:36

buy one then, you're getting old.

stop trolling

(1 reply) #14 Posted by a_witko on 31 Aug 2004 - 11:31

DOESthisMEANtheG4imacWILLgoDOWNinPRICE??????

#14.1 Posted by roadwarrior on 31 Aug 2004 - 11:37

I'm hoping to start seeing a bunch on eBay in the next month or so as people replace their older iMacs with the new ones. I'm going to be in the market for one in about a month. It's either going to be a new eMac or a used G4 iMac, depending on what I can find for the money I'll have available. I'm going to be a few hundred short of getting the low end G5 iMac

#15 Posted by guppydrop on 31 Aug 2004 - 11:32

That thing is horrid looking. Not to mention that little base doesn't look that stable.

Last edited by 69249 on 31 Aug 2004 - 12:14

(3 replies) #16 Posted by Huezo on 31 Aug 2004 - 11:35

Everyone's reaction reminds me of what happened when the iPod mini was announced. Everyone said it was ugly, overpriced, etc and it sold extremely well.

In the end, you'll end up liking it.

#16.1 Posted by Zeni on 31 Aug 2004 - 11:55

It's still ugly. It may not be overpriced but I still wouldn't buy one. There's just a lot of folks who would buy one, simply because they owned an iPod before, and were loyal to Apple.

That being said, I'm not one of those folks.

#16.2 Posted by jerry on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:38

Its almost always like that.

First stage: They whine and b*tch & dont accept their desire for the new product
Second stage: They try to look for design flaws
Third stage: They give up as who the hell are they trying to kid and go buy it.

#16.3 Posted by Zeni on 01 Sep 2004 - 02:17

Lather, Rinse, Repeat?

(2 replies) #17 Posted by thefunkymunky on 31 Aug 2004 - 11:46

It amazes me that some people consider the iMac ugly. It's basically a cinema display in white housing and some speakers at the bottom. When you consider how hard it is to cool a G5, this is some engineering. It is not perfect however, this is only the first revision dont forget. I still think its an awesome machine though and the pricing seems cool considering your getting a G5 and a cinema display for that price.

#17.1 Posted by guppydrop on 31 Aug 2004 - 15:21

People consider it ugly because it's a relative term based on personal opinion. I consider it ugly, because I don't find it asthetically pleasing. I can do that, because it is my opinion, as can anyone else. For a company that prides themselves on nice looking machines, this is a not an acceptable design IMHO.

#17.2 Posted by Jstphish on 31 Aug 2004 - 17:23

QUOTE

People consider it ugly because it's a relative term based on personal opinion. I consider it ugly, because I don't find it asthetically pleasing. I can do that, because it is my opinion, as can anyone else. For a company that prides themselves on nice looking machines, this is a not an acceptable design IMHO.

I don't agree but nicely said ... and without trolling. I think we have another intelligent Neowinian here!

#18 Posted by macster on 31 Aug 2004 - 11:50

The new prices are nice

#19 Posted by aboi on 31 Aug 2004 - 12:01

whoa baby this thing is sexy. if only i had the $$$$ to buy it. stuck with my gateway laptop. oh well... they should of add a touch screen feature. well its just a thought.

#20 Posted by SVT on 31 Aug 2004 - 12:23

They should hook up with Nintendo, and offer a 64-bit dual screen iMac with a touch screen. That would be the ultimate PC.

(6 replies) #21 Posted by Bryan000 on 31 Aug 2004 - 12:29

brilliant. we need something similar in the PC world. I love Apple's "simplistic" approach. The only concern I would have is upgradability, which is very important to me.

#21.1 Posted by ev0| on 31 Aug 2004 - 15:44

you upgrade a mac by throwing it out and getting a new one

#21.2 Posted by Zepolcire on 31 Aug 2004 - 17:05

Hahahahahaha!

#21.3 Posted by Jstphish on 31 Aug 2004 - 17:26

Nice Red vs. Blue quote ev0|.

The iMac's were never meant to have massive upgradability. That is the purpose of the Power Mac line.

#21.4 Posted by dp123 on 31 Aug 2004 - 18:04

QUOTE

you upgrade a mac by throwing it out and getting a new one

Strange, I upgrade by selling it at more than I bought it, the same price, or the slightest of losses, and then buy the newest model at the same price...

Current bid on 1 Ghz G4 flat panel iMac is $1,275.00

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...5118487932&rd=1

#21.5 Posted by guppydrop on 01 Sep 2004 - 00:18

Proof once again that you can sell anything on eBay.

#21.6 Posted by dp123 on 01 Sep 2004 - 00:25

Sell anything? Think again. Try to do the same with an old Dell.

Proof once again that Apple computers have huge resale value, and that baloney claims that all you can do with a Mac when you want to upgrade it is throw it away are just that, baloney. Yes.

I just auctioned my second generation iPod for more than the cost of my soon to be new 4th gen. i.e. I essentially made money on the purchase.

#22 Posted by Phillip on 31 Aug 2004 - 12:39

i think i will say with my imac g4... until the day comes when i finally say "i want a imac g5" just like i said with the ipod mini.

the only think i don't like about it, is the think white empty white space (what a name)at the button of the screen. or else, i would have loved it.

ah well... theres always the next imac

#23 Posted by dmbandfan22 on 31 Aug 2004 - 12:50

I liked the look of the old iMac better.

(4 replies) #24 Posted by b0b on 31 Aug 2004 - 12:55

I can bet any sub $1500 PC will triple the frame rates of the fastest G5 system in any OpenGL game...Doom III maybe.

#24.1 Posted by jerry on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:31

Gaming has never been a strong point of Mac computing, stop beating a dead horse.

#24.2 Posted by NeoReader on 31 Aug 2004 - 17:18

*poke* *poke* Is it dead yet?

#24.3 Posted by jerry on 31 Aug 2004 - 19:01

Yep. Its dead. Call the CSI team.

#24.4 Posted by frod on 31 Aug 2004 - 19:17

OMG)!@#0R 4LL I BUY COMPUT0RZ 4 IZ 2 Pl4Y G4mEz!@(*!@&#()@*$^!#!!!!!!!!!!!

#25 Posted by Dayon on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:01

Ok, It's definetly one of the ugliest computers I've ever seen.

(3 replies) #26 Posted by antsy on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:04

£920 for a comp with a 1.6 GHz 17" LMAO

#26.1 Posted by absolutemaxpayne.co.uk on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:13

Don't start this.

#26.2 Posted by Aeonandromere on 31 Aug 2004 - 14:56

^^ What he said.

#26.3 Posted by bogd on 31 Aug 2004 - 21:54

a 1.6 GHz 64 bit computer housed behind the 17" LCD you mean?

(2 replies) #27 Posted by DjmUK on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:08

Agreed, the G4 iMac is still beautiful - if I had the choice between them it would have to be the G4. This G5 is sooo ugly, and so square - it no longer retains the round-ish look 'n' feel

#27.1 Posted by Jstphish on 31 Aug 2004 - 17:39

I agree but you can mount this to your wall!

#27.2 Posted by DjmUK on 01 Sep 2004 - 10:27

Really? - I missed that sentence (not that I read all of it).

Wall mounting sounds interesting...but that means you'll need a tiny desk (just for keyboard and mouse) and sitting very closely to the wall - but still a nice idea.

What would make this case even more ugly (IMO) is the wires trailing from behind it > under it > to user (unless using USB peripherals in which you can hide the hub behind the iMac).

But I do admit that this iMac is starting to grow on me (but for now I'll stick with a PC).

#28 Posted by TruckWEB on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:12

WOW.... 2500$CAN for 1.8Ghz, 256Mb RAM and FX 5200 Ultra, 160gb, superdrive and 20 inch LCD....

The only good thing going for this iMac is the screen.... I can get a much much better AMD Athlon64 PC for this money. Another let down from Apple. And the design is nothing more than a laptop on a stand.

(6 replies) #29 Posted by jamatfu on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:23

2" thick and Apple is notorious for the heat output of it's hardware - why does this sound like trouble to me? The All-in-One designs are smart appliances [Sony & Samsung were first, though] for light-duty applications - what my brother calls "kitchen computers" - but with a lack of upgradability and a design that you either love or hate, I don't see this as a real, viable desktop option. As someone pointed out, though, it's a perfect computer for your grandparents and for people who are blindly loyal to Apple's design mantra. A good idea, but not the best implementation. The upside is that other manufacturers will also be tending towards streamlining their designs and we should have a new launch of more efficient & powerful computers in aesthetically pleasing wrappers. :-)

#29.1 Posted by NinjaMonkey82 on 31 Aug 2004 - 14:34

Sony was first with all-in-ones? You could have fooled me. I remember Apple made a machine back in 1984 called the Macintosh and that was all-in-one. Then around 1996-97 there was the 20th Anniversary Mac which had an LCD display. Then there was the iMac. You sure Sony and Samsung were first?

So the new iMac is only good for light duty apps? Well you can certainly run Final Cut and DVD Studio Pro on this machine, as well as Photoshop. If you buy a new machine from Apple you can get Final Cut Express for only $99. That isn't really an application I'd run in my kitchen. You must upgrade the RAM of course but that is cheap if you order from Crucial.

The only thing you can't upgrade that is of any inportance is the vid card. Which only gamers would do anyway. And I'll say it again, gaming is not the only reson to use a computer.

#29.2 Posted by jamatfu on 31 Aug 2004 - 16:22

Yup, I'm sure Sony & Samsung had this design first - all of Apple's previous one-box-wonders were much bigger than the thinline Sonys that came out last year [or earlier?] and the Samsung.

Screw gaming - you can't upgrade the soundcard should you want to try any serious GarageBand usage, you can't add a tuner should you wish to watch or record tv, you can't add additional internal storage - and when the thing overheats, you can't add additional cooling fans inside. So within those limitations, you can drop more memory in and try your hand at some DVD-creation, but any serious user of Final Cut isn't going to be doing their work on a digital picture frame.

#29.3 Posted by NinjaMonkey82 on 31 Aug 2004 - 17:05

While the design isn't original at all it is thin, have you seen some of the Sony W's and that huge bulge that comes out the back?

First off, GarageBand isn't for serious use, it is a consumer app. There is optical audio out on it and you can get an iMic from Griffin to add audio in through USB if you want. There are lots of other options out there. M Audio makes a few too I believe.

El Gato makes the eyeTV which is a pretty good tuner/DVR which will work with this machine.

Why bother with internal storage? Most consumers who buy an iMac aren't going to crack open a case and upgrade a HD anyway. Firewire drives are fantastic, they are fast and portable.

Why would you add more fans? If it overheats then that is Apple's problem to fix, though I highly doubt this will happen.

You are correct on one point, no serious (pro) is going to do Final Cut work on this machine. But the fact is that this machine can run it. You need more RAM but it supports up to two gigs, thats not bad. If I can run Final Cut Express on my 1GHz G4 PowerBook with 512MB of RAM, I am sure that this iMac is a more than capable machine.

#29.4 Posted by Jstphish on 31 Aug 2004 - 17:44

I'll say it again. If you want upgradability buy a Power Mac. The iMac isn't the only computer Apple sells folks.

#29.5 Posted by NinjaMonkey82 on 31 Aug 2004 - 20:20

Agreed that if you want to upgrade a PowerMac is what you buy. But there are many external upgrades you can buy these days. Personally I prefer them more since if you have multiple computers devices can be swapped back and forth.

#29.6 Posted by tRr on 01 Sep 2004 - 04:37

Well 20th Anniversary Mac came out in '97, and it looks pretty slim to me:


What Apple product has had trouble with overheating?

(3 replies) #30 Posted by jagedEdge on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:31

This is very reminiscent of the iPod mini fiasco. One, the renderings don't do Apple a bit of good. It's normally much better-looking in real life. Two, this thing will probably start selling like hot-cakes at the price of $1299 (and less on an educational discount).

#30.1 Posted by Phillip on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:50

agreed. i really need to see this myself. i remember how much i hated the mini and now i love it over the ipod

#30.2 Posted by Test Zero on 31 Aug 2004 - 14:30

Yeah, it looks much better in this photo: Click.

#30.3 Posted by Jstphish on 31 Aug 2004 - 17:48

Finally someone else sees it the way I do. Most people who don't like certain Apple products haven't ever seen them in person and used them. They simply don't know what they are talking about.

#31 Posted by Panorama on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:33

Not the prettiest of machines but it's awesome. The design of the new iMac G5 grew on me - looks okay.

(12 replies) #32 Posted by raid517 on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:36

Interesting but uderfeatured and overpriced - and not much use for anything more than home use. That big bar at the bottom of the screen is really horrible. It seems a big price to pay to maintain such a flat screen. It really looks out of proportion. I mean a 64MB Gforce 5200 might be 'enough' - but enough for who and what? Certainly not for hard core graphic designers - and deninately not for gamers - so who is it aimed at? Is this really Apple's next main stream offering?

Anyway I thought Apple were supposed to innovate? I've seen several examples of this kind of 'all in one' design before (several of them using mini-itx type motherboards). This seems more like copying than innovation.

Apple have had a good reputation in the past for taking our breath away with innovative design. To my eyes they really seem to have dropped the ball on this one.

GJ

#32.1 Posted by jerry on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:41

QUOTE

Certainly not for hard core graphic designers - and deninately not for gamers - so who is it aimed at? Is this really Apple's next main stream offering?

Yes, obviously you dont have a clue of what you are talking about.

#32.2 Posted by jagedEdge on 31 Aug 2004 - 13:58

Since when was the iMac ever a gaming machine? That's always been left to the towers. This is for home users people who aren't hardcore gamers. For people that actually use their computers for something a bit more productive than killing hellspawn.

#32.3 Posted by NinjaMonkey82 on 31 Aug 2004 - 14:25

You answered your own question.

It is for Home use. Anyone running pro apps is going to be using a PowerMac not an iMac. This is a great machine for general use. You can edit vidoes, surf the web, make DVDs, organize photos, run Office applications, etc. You can even play a few games.

This is a great all around machine. Just because it isn't the greatest game machine doesn't mean it is for grandparents. Gaming is not the end all be all of using a computer. They actually have other uses.

#32.4 Posted by guppydrop on 31 Aug 2004 - 15:33

So to play games on the Mac platform a person must buy a $3000 dual-G5 workstation? You guys need to make up your mind...half the time you say gaming is fine on the Apple platform, half the time you say it doesn't matter and there are better uses. Which is it?

#32.5 Posted by jerry on 31 Aug 2004 - 15:44

^

Mac users who can afford a G5 will say gaming is fine on Macs and those who cant afford say it doesnt matter and there are better uses. Either way it is correct. Unless you want to prove someone wrong and want them to bow to you.

#32.6 Posted by guppydrop on 31 Aug 2004 - 16:24

Well, it doesn't make sense though. I mean, the iMac is meant for home users, yet is (honestly) underpowered in comparison to most home PCs when dealing with games, which, like it or not, is a viable passtime for home users. But the G5 Powermac, which is designed for professionals to be used as a workstation is comparable to an average gaming PC. It just doesn't evenly balance out, unless you completely remove gaming from the equation altogether...but that's negating a *huge* number of potential customers. Tech users typically play *some* type of game sometimes...and most of them love OSX...so...who exactly is Apple's target audience other than the uber-professionals and the run-of-the-mill grandparent or the "I just want to check my email" crowd?

#32.7 Posted by NinjaMonkey82 on 31 Aug 2004 - 17:24

Whoever said gaming on the Mac was great is a liar. Gaming on the Mac is just okay. It is fine for the occasional game and we do get ports of the most popular games.

I wouldn't say the new iMac is underpowered. The G5 is a great chip, the only weak points to the system are RAM (OS X runs okay on 256 but 512 really makes it smoother) and video card (but again this isn't so much of a big deal unless you want the latest greatest games).

I'm a 22 year old Mac user that isn't a design professional or grandparent or parent for that matter. I use my computer for lots of things, more than just checking email. I love editing video and making DVD's, making pages with Dreamweaver, ect. If I want ot play games, I have an XBox, Gamecube, SNES, Genesis, PS1 for that.

The iMac is for home users as I said in my previous post, see the reasons listed there.

#32.8 Posted by aristotle-dude on 31 Aug 2004 - 18:33

For crying out loud. Do you guys have your heads in the sand? There is a huge console market world wide. A lot of people in countries outside of North America and Europe cannot afford an ubergamer PC with a monitor due to tarrifs and taxes. Some of those poor people can afford a console like the GC however.

If you have a hankering for games, get a game cube/PS2 or Xbox and stop your whining. Average people and well adjusted kids like to do social gaming with friends around a TV. Pimple faced geeks with no life play online games with their PCs.

Doom III is overhyped crap. Most PC games are overpriced/overhyped crap with "cool gfx" but crappy game play. Don't give me that online gaming crap. A game should be able to stand on its own without an online gaming component. If it's not fun to play solo, it's a crap game.

Probably the best FPS games would be the UT series (also available on the mac) and Halo for the XBox (the PC and Mac versions are crap and I'm almost tempted to get an Xbox just for Halo and Halo 2).

The Rogue squadron series on the GC are great vehicle shooters.

#32.9 Posted by TruckWEB on 31 Aug 2004 - 21:32

HEY Aristotle-dude..... Poor people CAN'T afford a iMac..... So let them play with their GC and use their 500$ PC .....

#32.10 Posted by aristotle-dude on 31 Aug 2004 - 22:05

Your right, they can't but you certainly can't get anything good for gaming with 500USD even if you build it yourself. Poor people work two jobs so they don't have time to build a PC and go without and just have a "used" console and TV. Extremely poor people do without an sort of gaming machines or computer as for them food and shelter are higher priorities.

I'm just trying too point out that all the people who complain about mac prices are rich enough to be able to afford to either buy or build a new PC whereas many people in the world can only afford a used console from a pawn shop or the asian blackmarket. If you can afford to blow a few hundred buck on a component of a PC you are building, then macs are not out of reach