Wait, I dont get it, you still dont think our demand is justified ?
Look, im out of steam - just...just read the thread.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
somebody's head has swelled!
- Thread starter Trout74
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wait, I dont get it, you still dont think our demand is justified ?
Look, im out of steam - just...just read the thread.
The 7600GT will outperform the HD2600 Pro.
The 7300GT GDDR2 will usually outperform the HD2400XT.
Poorer no, but its on par with the 7600GT. In some tests the 7600 even outperforms the 2600 Pro.
And thats the issue - we are getting really old technology, again.
I believe I speak for many on this thread when I say we LOVE the all-in-one simplicity of the iMac and we are not saying the GPU should be upgraded across all iMac models. Just make an upgraded GPU an OPTION for a built-to-order iMac purchase. Plain and simply.
Broaden the iMacs appeal just a little bit to what I believe is a sizable contingent of Mac gamers. Apple is the one out there with all the Mac versus PC advertisements trying to gain converts. Apple is the one inviting EA and Carmack to WWDC for what I can only imagine is an attempt to win even more converts. Well, a lot of PC owners are gamers, so step up to the plate and give them an OPTION with the iMac.
Apple is even using a picture of a new iMac with a 3D Harry Potter game on the screen on their website at: http://www.apple.com/imac/technology/graphics.html
Apple goes on to describe the new iMac/GPU as "offering great gaming performance and then mentions 3D gaming specifically in the next paragraph.
Odd things to advertise if Apple has a "completely different philosophy" that is "certainly not about gaming"
I sometimes get the impression some Mac fans believe it would be sacrilege for Apple to offer a gaming friendly Mac. If you're not a gamer that is great, but don't expect everyone to fit into your mold. Macs are great machines and the new iMac is no exception, but it could be even better with a improved GPU as an OPTION.
Great post! They also state on that page, "...while the 2.4GHz 20-inch model and the 24-inch model offers extreme graphics power with an ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB of GDDR3 dedicated video memory."
I chuckled
I am scratching my head a little with Jobs' decision to NOT have an iMac under $1000, and why the video cards can't be upgraded to something super-duper.
It seems like he lost sight of some of the initial ideas behind the iMac. Odd.
Maybe in a year the 20" will go beneath $1000 again, but why there couldn't be a cheapo $899 17" is disappointing. I am curious what the profits would or wouldn't be if they left the mini and iMac lower ends to slip down in price and use the older tech, but made higher end models that cost what they do now.
It seems like he lost sight of some of the initial ideas behind the iMac. Odd.
Maybe in a year the 20" will go beneath $1000 again, but why there couldn't be a cheapo $899 17" is disappointing. I am curious what the profits would or wouldn't be if they left the mini and iMac lower ends to slip down in price and use the older tech, but made higher end models that cost what they do now.
Well honestly, last year when I almost bought a 24" iMac, I would have got a 2.33, 2GB RAM, 500GB HDD, 7600GT 256 GPU b/c I always max out or close to specs so that I get longevity, etc.
I would have taken a $75-$125 GPU upgrade option on the new iMac, but since there wasn't one I have no problem with the specs as is. I have no gaming needs and it shoud handle all my iPhoto and FCE HD.
I would have taken a $75-$125 GPU upgrade option on the new iMac, but since there wasn't one I have no problem with the specs as is. I have no gaming needs and it shoud handle all my iPhoto and FCE HD.
See, I could understand the criticism if Apple's standards in providing graphics cards in consumer machines had dropped... but it hasn't. They've been doing this for many many years. Same old Apple, nothing new here.
So, no news is no news really... nothing will satisfy you guys. Your computing needs are at the margin of things, I'm afraid. It's like moaning about why the iPod doesn't support Ogg.
So, no news is no news really... nothing will satisfy you guys. Your computing needs are at the margin of things, I'm afraid. It's like moaning about why the iPod doesn't support Ogg.
I have to agree that it would be really nice to see a more powerful GPU offered as an option. It's the only thing stopping me from buying one today. I'm sure heat and size limited their choices.
However, I am looking forward to seeing some real test results and benchmarks. I'm hoping it performs a bit better than everyone is expecting. I don't need a great GPU, just a good one. For the money I would be spending this computer, I want it to be well rounded.
However, I am looking forward to seeing some real test results and benchmarks. I'm hoping it performs a bit better than everyone is expecting. I don't need a great GPU, just a good one. For the money I would be spending this computer, I want it to be well rounded.
I'm sure many would be happy if you did...how about providing some useful information instead of name-calling. I don't need an imac and am more than happy with my MBP for what it needs. People want a desktop that isn't a macpro beast that has a decent vid card. The last imac had a version of that, why not the new one? That's the question here, simple as that. provide us with your useless post.
Hmmm, I really don't agree. We are asking for an AVERAGE, mediocre video card. How is that at the margin? We don't want a rubbish card, we don't want a superb card, we want AVERAGE.
Blue I value your input, and you have been here for a long time and are level headed.
Did you not think that when this was revealed that there would be a better GPU than the one we got? Were you not a little surprised, did your eyebrows not raise a bit?
The gamers really are a vocal minority. They fail to see that the vast majority of people don't care about these graphics cards. I can't think of anything I've ever done on any of my Macs that was hindered by a weak card.
These threads are absolute silliness. If you were that concerned about gaming you'd be running a PC.
These threads are absolute silliness. If you were that concerned about gaming you'd be running a PC.
Just for reference, the first Intel iMac had the following specs:
- Up to 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo
- Mighty Mouse
- 17" and 20"
- ATI Radeon X1600
- iSight Built in
- Front Row and Apple Remote
The new iMac has these specs:
-Up to 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme Processor
-Up to 4 GB Memory
-ATI Radeon HD Graphics
-Up to 1 TB Hard Disk
-Wireless 802.11n and Bluetooth 2.0
Last time I checked, 2.8 GHz is more powerful the 2.0 GHz.
Apple isn't going to deck out every product they have, and still price them the way they do. There has to be some difference in between the product lines, other wise people would buy the $500 Mac Mini with the same specs as the $2500 Mac Pro.
If that iMac doesn't suit your needs, quit complaining and buy the Mac Pro. That is the iMac, nothing is going to change for a while. Even with Rev B, it might not change a whole lot.
Thanks for the compliment although it's not entirely warranted.
I must admit to being off the boards for most of yesterday and haven't really followed the news about the iMacs. There are only two types of machine that interest me: Mac Pros and MBPs.
I'm also not really a hardcore gamer... so all things considered, I'm not that fussed about it. I can understand if you would be, but the iMac, in all its incarnations has never had fantastic cards in them. That's the point I was making.
When I bought my dual 1.4, the little book that came with it said it was a super-computer and it had a blistering 64mb something in it... it was OK for Castle Wolfenstein. This is marketing, pure and simple.
A leopard doesn't change its spots overnight.
QFT!
Of all the people I know who own computers, only one is a hare-core gamer. The rest are a 50/50 split between those who don't game at all and those who only play casual/shareware/freeware-type stuff.
As for myself, I stopped gaming years ago. The cost of entry is simply too high for me. Not just in terms of monetary investment, but time investment as well. Plus I found that most games had become too complex and/or too boring to be any fun at all.
Ugh...
I am sooooo tired of hearing the same thing from the people arguing that the gpu is fine. "Get a Mac Pro, buy Alienware".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jobs mention yesterday he was borrowing some of the aesthetics from the professional lineup of Macs for the new iMac? Now you say, sure that doesn't mean anything and only pertains to aesthetics, well why has the 17" model been axed then? If this is a PURE CONSUMER desktop and the vast majority don't CARE about the gpu why is the baseline model 1199?
I'm in no way saying the iMac should be a professional machine, I'm just refuting all the crap I hear about this EVERYDAY CONSUMER machine. The Mac Mini is a consumer machine...
This dude actually made my point for me. We aren't ASKING for it to change a whole lot. I don't think anyone on here who is complaining about the card ever said they wanted a 8800 GTX in this machine. All we're saying is that the equivalant of this ATI card (the 8600 GT) is far superior and should be an option, there's really no excuse why it shouldn't. It doesn't cost significantly more than the ATI card and it's also what we consider mid range. Please, stop telling us to buy quad core machines, we don't want quad core machines, we're fine with mid-range stuff, we just quality mid-range stuff.
I am sooooo tired of hearing the same thing from the people arguing that the gpu is fine. "Get a Mac Pro, buy Alienware".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jobs mention yesterday he was borrowing some of the aesthetics from the professional lineup of Macs for the new iMac? Now you say, sure that doesn't mean anything and only pertains to aesthetics, well why has the 17" model been axed then? If this is a PURE CONSUMER desktop and the vast majority don't CARE about the gpu why is the baseline model 1199?
I'm in no way saying the iMac should be a professional machine, I'm just refuting all the crap I hear about this EVERYDAY CONSUMER machine. The Mac Mini is a consumer machine...
Just for reference, the first Intel iMac had the following specs:
- Up to 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo
- Mighty Mouse
- 17" and 20"
- ATI Radeon X1600
- iSight Built in
- Front Row and Apple Remote
The new iMac has these specs:
-Up to 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme Processor
-Up to 4 GB Memory
-ATI Radeon HD Graphics
-Up to 1 TB Hard Disk
-Wireless 802.11n and Bluetooth 2.0
Last time I checked, 2.8 GHz is more powerful the 2.0 GHz.
Apple isn't going to deck out every product they have, and still price them the way they do. There has to be some difference in between the product lines, other wise people would buy the $500 Mac Mini with the same specs as the $2500 Mac Pro.
If that iMac doesn't suit your needs, quit complaining and buy the Mac Pro. That is the iMac, nothing is going to change for a while. Even with Rev B, it might not change a whole lot.
This dude actually made my point for me. We aren't ASKING for it to change a whole lot. I don't think anyone on here who is complaining about the card ever said they wanted a 8800 GTX in this machine. All we're saying is that the equivalant of this ATI card (the 8600 GT) is far superior and should be an option, there's really no excuse why it shouldn't. It doesn't cost significantly more than the ATI card and it's also what we consider mid range. Please, stop telling us to buy quad core machines, we don't want quad core machines, we're fine with mid-range stuff, we just quality mid-range stuff.
Fair enough. Not like I'm the only one with a "useless post" whatever that means. The point is that there are certain sacrifices that happen on consumer models to get the price down. And a lot of this complaining that I'm bothered by is the non-stop "I'm so disappointed" kind of threads that occur after a new release. I think there are many options out there regarding what Mac to buy that would more than be satisfying to most people and this new iMac has been priced to do just that.
Its priced nicely for what it has. And would Apple really supply a machine that won't be powered sufficiently for the upcoming Leopard eye-candy, let alone Tiger or a decent amount of gaming or illustration work? Most likely not. I get by with my iBook G4 still and it handles all my needs very well (I'll admit I don't stretch it too often anymore). So the complaining has got to be based on everyone not being please, which will never happen. Let's just get along, give some time and go try one out.
Keep faith in Apple, they have done and will continue to do great things for their customers.
(and I wasn't serious about buying a PC, I'm typing this on Vista at work and I am worse off for it).
Agreed. I'm guessing for probably 99% of people the current imac will fit the bill nicely. My previous mobile computer was a dell P3 1.1GHZ with 32mb of vram on the GeForce2Go, so I know about stretching things! I played WoW on that and for people that say it would be unplayable I'll ask them how I got to level 60 before the expansion! I even had to download some drivers from a website because the nvidia mobile drivers were so outdated. Computers are lasting even longer now and I'm sure this imac will be able to run most of the software for a long time. There are some people who expect apple to take them to some holy nirvana and fulfill their every desire with each release....
Unfortunately for every decent discussion there are 10 complaining threads but I think the discussion about why there isn't a BTO better vid card, or a higher performance headless mac between the mini and pro are good ones. Maybe there are very good reasons...problem is we won't ever know what they are.
I think swollen is the word you are looking for.
yes Tom, you are correct! My apologies, being from England, I am sure your grasp of the English language is better than mine
cheers!
Trout
Mac Pro Lite
I don't understand why Apple won't allow people the make decisions. Why can't we have the option of choosing between GPUs and Glossy/Matte? Is Apple really going to go bankrupt if that happens? I understand that Apple likes simplicity and the like, but come on, at this point it has become insulting.
Why can't people understand that the Mac Pro is aimed at Professionals? No sane person is going to buy a TWO THOUSAND+ dollar behemoth to play games. And why does Apple hate the Core 2 Duo Conroe? WHY?! I would die in a state of euphoria if Apple just released a consumer product with a real desktop processor.
Apple is a big company and the Mac market share is increasing so Apple shouldn't be afraid to diversify the product line. It is well overdue.
I don't understand why Apple won't allow people the make decisions. Why can't we have the option of choosing between GPUs and Glossy/Matte? Is Apple really going to go bankrupt if that happens? I understand that Apple likes simplicity and the like, but come on, at this point it has become insulting.
Why can't people understand that the Mac Pro is aimed at Professionals? No sane person is going to buy a TWO THOUSAND+ dollar behemoth to play games. And why does Apple hate the Core 2 Duo Conroe? WHY?! I would die in a state of euphoria if Apple just released a consumer product with a real desktop processor.
Apple is a big company and the Mac market share is increasing so Apple shouldn't be afraid to diversify the product line. It is well overdue.
^Well said. A choice between the 8600 GT and maybe the 2600 XT. I dont need a monster for a computer thats why i dont get an alienware or mac pro. I just want something that can run my stuff. a 2600 would struggle to run that damn Flurry screensaver.