Apple brings back the PC jr keyboard to life (or the new iMac thread)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
WRT gaming, how many units of the Geforce 8800GTS/GTX/Ultra do you think nVidia have sold in relation to the 8600GT/GTS?

I'm going to hazard a guess that the latter completely eclipse the much more powerful former. The iMacs have the new Radeon chips which, I'm told, are more or less on a par with the equivalent nVidia mid-range chips. Is the iMac therefore so severely deficient when it comes to gaming?

The HD 2400 XT is actually about on par with the 6600GT in regards to gaming. To put that in perspective, the 6600GT was a midrange card a couple years ago.

The HD 2600 PRO is a better card, you might say it's "mid-ranged", but it's at the low end of that mid-range if you give it that much credit. There's no reason to put it in a $1500 computer. Either you're not worried about performance in games (thus the 2400XT is more than good enough), or you're worried about performance in games, and thus should be getting far more bang for your buck.

Granted you'll have to buy and install a copy of Windows and you may have issues running a modern game at the native resolution of any iMac with a midrange card but the fact is you're not being excluded for the same money as an equivalent PC.

You're right about the native resolutions. The cards just don't have enough juice to power the panels in regards to gaming.

[Whaleboy]

The HD 2400 XT is actually about on par with the 6600GT in regards to gaming. To put that in perspective, the 6600GT was a midrange card a couple years ago.

Well it's funny you say that because on my C2D 2.4Ghz box running Vista Home Premium I can quite happily run Civ IV at 1680x1050 on my passively cooled, overclocked Geforce 6600GT. A brilliant chip .

Nevertheless, the Mac is not, and never was designed to be, a gaming system. It's idiotic to decide that something is deficient if it cannot perform a task for which it was not designed. You might as well criticise it for not making your beans on toast in the morning.

Everyone knows that Apple aren't in the market for gaming systems. That's for people like Voodoo PC or Alienware, or even people who'll build it themselves. On the contrary, Apple's clearly in the market where there's money to be had, and that's not PC gamers.

Given that the cards you've described are likely to prove the true milch cow for AMD/ATI during the current product lifecycle, one might as well say the same for the majority of PC's which aren't capable of playing modern PC games.

You might say that Apple could have simply used Intel's integrated graphics since this should prove sufficient for Exposé, Front Row and all the prettiness of Leopard. However, I suspect Apple have accounted for the odd blast of gaming someone might do.

You're right about the native resolutions. The cards just don't have enough juice to power the panels in regards to gaming.

But what about powering the panels in regards to the tasks for which the iMac was designed?

[Kuciwalker]

Well it's funny you say that because on my C2D 2.4Ghz box running Vista Home Premium I can quite happily run Civ IV at 1680x1050 on my passively cooled, overclocked Geforce 6600GT. A brilliant chip .

So you can run a [graphically undemanding] game from a few years ago well on a midrange card from a few years ago. This is notable?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Well it's funny you say that because on my C2D 2.4Ghz box running Vista Home Premium I can quite happily run Civ IV at 1680x1050 on my passively cooled, overclocked Geforce 6600GT. A brilliant chip .

It was a great (price:performance) card for it's day. That was... a while ago. There are better cards now, regardless of what you're asking them to do.

Nevertheless, the Mac is not, and never was designed to be, a gaming system. It's idiotic to decide that something is deficient if it cannot perform a task for which it was not designed. You might as well criticise it for not making your beans on toast in the morning.

What is idiotic is trying to imply I was arguing against these cards simply from a gaming standpoint. My initial response was not in regards to gaming. I'm opposed to these cards in general terms, and especially in regards to hooking these monitors up to them.

You and Agathon brought gaming into it.

Given that the cards you've described are likely to prove the true milch cow for AMD/ATI during the current product lifecycle, one might as well say the same for the majority of PC's which aren't capable of playing modern PC games.

People overpay all the time for PC crap too. No argument from me there.

But what about powering the panels in regards to the tasks for which the iMac was designed?

These cards just shouldn't be used in a $1k+ machine. That applies to PCs as well.

[Whaleboy]

So you can run a [graphically undemanding] game from a few years ago well on a midrange card from a few years ago. This is notable?

At 1680x1050? I'd say it is.

What is idiotic is trying to imply I was arguing against these cards simply from a gaming standpoint. My initial response was not in regards to gaming. I'm opposed to these cards in general terms, and especially in regards to hooking these monitors up to them.

You'd suggest that something more powerful is necessary?

These cards just shouldn't be used in a $1k+ machine. That applies to PCs as well.

You can certainly make the argument that Apple, like any company, would include cheaper products in an upmarket system if they thought they could get away with it but would you really want a full-blown gaming chip inside such a tight chassis? That would present cooling issues and power concerns (if the green argument is one that concerns you).

In other words, it makes more sense to look at these systems from a graphical standpoint in the same way you'd look at a laptop.

With regard to desktops, the top-of-the-range Mac Pro include graphics cards that aren't powerful gaming chips; more or less on a par with what you'll find in an iMac. Again, people who use a Mac Pro aren't going to need anything more powerful - the real value to that system comes from the processing horsepower.

That brings us on to the more powerful cards used in the more expensive iMacs. Granted, it possibly makes little difference to the end use of the system; but people will pay for the capability or at least the impression that they're getting more capability for their money.

Nevertheless, I maintain that this argument is a red-herring. I would argue that an iMac for this price would be good value if it ran a Celeron processor with 512Mb of RAM and a 60Gb hard disk because the whole point of buying a Mac is not paying for hardware, but paying for usability and the experience of using the thing.

This is an idea that runs entirely contrary to the concept of speccing out your own system with hardware that will do what you want it to. You'd no more do that with a Mac than you would with a fridge; but then how many people would buy a "built it yourself" fridge compared to a ready made one?

The fact is that most PC vendors subscribe to the "white box" mentality of buying a system, taking it out the box, plugging it in and go and it is *that* market which Apple competes in, and I dare say completely owns it when it comes to implementation .

[Wiglaf]

The fact is that most PC vendors subscribe to the "white box" mentality of buying a system, taking it out the box, plugging it in and go and it is *that* market which Apple competes in, and I dare say completely owns it when it comes to implementation .

implementation? there really aren't any other steps with PCs. you take the monitor out and plug it in...then you do the same with the tower (which in the case of dell's inspirons, can be quite small).

I think that macs look snazzy and the OS looks snazzy. they also take up little space. any other reasons, honestly, are pushing it.

[Wiglaf]

Nevertheless, I maintain that this argument is a red-herring. I would argue that an iMac for this price would be good value if it ran a Celeron processor with 512Mb of RAM and a 60Gb hard disk because the whole point of buying a Mac is not paying for hardware, but paying for usability and the experience of using the thing.

"the experience of using the thing" ? does your mac pleasure you or something?!?! What is it doing that I am missing?

It has fewer viruses, sure, I guess that is "usability." that is legitimate. also, the designs are great. personally I do not think that is worth $500 extra dollars, considering you lose a lot of program compatibility and speed, but whatever. to each his own.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You'd suggest that something more powerful is necessary?

No. I've already said this a few times... something more suitable for a lesser/same/greater price (depending on your needs).

You can certainly make the argument that Apple, like any company, would include cheaper products in an upmarket system if they thought they could get away with it but would you really want a full-blown gaming chip inside such a tight chassis? That would present cooling issues and power concerns (if the green argument is one that concerns you).

A big LCD is not what I'd call a "green" solution. Especially when it's tied into the computer itself, reducing the likelyhood that it will be reused with other computers and/or that the computer components will be reused with other monitors.

Modern graphics cards do suck a lot of energy when they are being used, but if that's not a consistant use for the computer, the power consumption will be much less.

As for cooling concerns, many laptops include better graphics solutions.

In other words, it makes more sense to look at these systems from a graphical standpoint in the same way you'd look at a laptop.

See above.

Nevertheless, I maintain that this argument is a red-herring. I would argue that an iMac for this price would be good value if it ran a Celeron processor with 512Mb of RAM and a 60Gb hard disk because the whole point of buying a Mac is not paying for hardware, but paying for usability and the experience of using the thing.

Of course. If you think it's a good deal... go ahead. You sound like every computer retailer's wet dream. Go pay $1k+ for crap! 512MB is just silly.

(60GB HD is actually a good option. Not everyone keeps a bunch of stuff on their computer. I consistantly am at < 15GB of HD use myself. This is a good example of where Apple always fails miserably. They just don't give enough options, up or down (and definitely not to the side), to appeal to a wide range of users.)

This is an idea that runs entirely contrary to the concept of speccing out your own system with hardware that will do what you want it to. You'd no more do that with a Mac than you would with a fridge; but then how many people would buy a "built it yourself" fridge compared to a ready made one?

With a fridge, there's no universal modularity, so no easy swapping of components to create a custom configuration. With computer parts there is. It takes me 30 minutes to an hour to put together a PC and have it up and running. If a custom built fridge were so easy and modular, sure, I'd want the option to choose what went into mine, and how it was configured as well.

The fact is that most PC vendors subscribe to the "white box" mentality of buying a system, taking it out the box, plugging it in and go and it is *that* market which Apple competes in, and I dare say completely owns it when it comes to implementation .

And people in that market don't know much about computers and often pay too much for what they get, and/or pay for stuff they don't need. Doesn't mean I have to adapt their perspective to judge the computers they end up buying.

[Agathon]

Aeson, why don't you stop bull****ting and actually answer the question.

Why would someone who owned an iMac need a more powerful graphics card? Which applications that are commonly used on an iMac would require such a card? Remember, it isn't really a gaming machine.

If you can't answer that simple question, just STFU and leave a debate you have no place or competence being in. You've been asked that question already, and you don't

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Master Zen

And yet by your own admission, most people never upgrade their computers. :P

If you mean by opening the case, that's true. Adding RAM to an iMac is about as difficult as plugging a new mouse into it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Master Zen

No, perhaps they're ALL absurdly expensive pieces of sh*t.

That's your argument now...

You've moved from Apple being absurdly expensive to it and all its major competitors being absurdly expensive. Gee whiz... maybe that's what it costs to get a reasonable computer from a reputable manufacturer. But no... it's a conspiracy!!!

Why on earth would I pay $1K just to surf the net or write a document on Word? That's ridiculous, absurd, just plain stupid. Face it: both Apple, Dell, and all the major manufacturers cater to the stupid sheep crowd, the people who are going to walk into any store and go WOW!!! just because the silly overpriced hunk of junk can play a DVD.

I'd say they fail at completely catering to the stupid sheep crowd, since they obviously failed with you.

Y'know... one might actually look at the iMac software bundle before making such obviously stupid pronouncements. You'd see very clearly who it's aimed at.

You say Apple doesn't cater to the gaming crowd. So who does Apple cater to then? How can you think highly of someone who buys a $1K computer which can barely play a top of the line game from 2004? Or who's going to suffer from the eternal wait of loading Photoshop images, etc.?

Um... people who want to use their computer as a digital hub for their photos, movies, sites, created music, etc. That's what it's for. As a consumer grade computer the Macintosh is unsurpassed in that role. That's why it has the software bundle it does. It works quite well, truth be told. I'd hate to sit around encoding my home movies on a $500 Dell.

And the iMac doesn't have any trouble running Final Cut Express, if you want to talk about more than consumer grade apps. The Mac OS is not Windows. It has better graphics than Vista and it doesn't need an absurdly expensive graphics card to make them work, as Vista does.

But of course you'd know this if you'd ever sat down and used one, which is obviously not the case.

If you want to surf the net and watch a DVD, you can do that with a $500 machine. Unless of course, you want a computer that just "looks nice". So it's all about aesthetics. "I need a computer that combines with the furniture, I'm getting a Mac!"

You could have saved yourself all this hot air by simply looking at the standard iMac apps.

At least be honest with yourself and admit that anyone who walks into a Best Buy and gets the latest Dell or HP or adds a $300 stick of 1GB RAM in the Apple site for their iMac deserves a slap in the face.

The only person who deserves a slap in the face here is you, for offering such a complete toilet of an argument. Your performance here is shameful.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Take a look at this one, a random computer I found on the first e-shop I looked at:

*Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz Socket LGA775, 8MB, BOXED m/vifte

*Corsair TWIN2X 5400 DDR2, 2048MB PC5400 Kit w/two matched CM2X1024-5400C4 Dimm's

*Western Digital Caviar SE16 500GB SATA2 16MB 7200RPM

* XFX GeForce 8600GT 620M 256MB XXX GDDR3, PCI-Express, 2xDVI, 620/1600Mhz

*USB2 multi card reader 3.5" sort, for CF I/II,SM,MMC/SD,MS,xD (bulk)

*Creative SBS380, (Sub,2 monitorer) Retail

*Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Norsk

*LG 19" LCD L1918S-SN TCO-03 Silver 1280x1024, 5ms, 700:1, LightView

Price: ~10.000 NOK, included 25% taxes and such. $1 = ~6 NOK. Which means ~1600 USD. Much more than the equivalent from Apple, and I'm sure I can find better trades if I look harder.

Similar spec to my home system - mine is a little bit faster mind you Still looks pretty good and probably cheaper than that Mac "triumph of style over substance" (in)tosh...

[Provost Harrison]

I think we should bring Asher back but allow him access to this thread only

He is needed a bit like myxomatosis...not at all nice nor pleasant, but when Agathon is running rampant like a wild rabbit population, well, time to bite the bullet methinks...

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's your argument now...

You've moved from Apple being absurdly expensive to it and all its major competitors being absurdly expensive. Gee whiz... maybe that's what it costs to get a reasonable computer from a reputable manufacturer. But no... it's a conspiracy!!!

It's not a conspiracy, it's business. Dell, HP, Apple, you name it, are overpriced. I have never claimed otherwise.

I'd say they fail at completely catering to the stupid sheep crowd, since they obviously failed with you.

Oh spare us the banal trash talk Agathon, it only makes you look stupid...er.

Y'know... one might actually look at the iMac software bundle before making such obviously stupid pronouncements. You'd see very clearly who it's aimed at.

Um... people who want to use their computer as a digital hub for their photos, movies, sites, created music, etc. That's what it's for. As a consumer grade computer the Macintosh is unsurpassed in that role. That's why it has the software bundle it does. It works quite well, truth be told. I'd hate to sit around encoding my home movies on a $500 Dell.

You need to spend $1000 or more to store photos, movies, web sites and music?

I think with that point you pretty much proved everything I said.

And the iMac doesn't have any trouble running Final Cut Express, if you want to talk about more than consumer grade apps. The Mac OS is not Windows. It has better graphics than Vista and it doesn't need an absurdly expensive graphics card to make them work, as Vista does.

/me looks around to find out who's defending Microsoft... sees nobody.

But of course you'd know this if you'd ever sat down and used one, which is obviously not the case.

You could have saved yourself all this hot air by simply looking at the standard iMac apps.

You mean the crappy movie making and photo organizing stuff? Yeah, that's some real professional sh*t you got bundled

The only person who deserves a slap in the face here is you, for offering such a complete toilet of an argument. Your performance here is shameful.

Oh my, Agathon called my performance shameful... wait while I find a gun and shoot myself.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Agathon
Aeson, why don't you stop bull****ting and actually answer the question.

Why would someone who owned an iMac need a more powerful graphics card? Which applications that are commonly used on an iMac would require such a card? Remember, it isn't really a gaming machine.

Quote me where I said an iMac owner needs a more powerful graphics card.

These cards are ****ty if you're going to surf the web and watch movies. And as you have pointed out, they're not for gamers.

So who are they for?

The only perspective from which these cards could be considered non-****ty (and this is really only for the 2600XT even then) is for those on a very tight budget who want HD capacity, and as much gaming performance as they can get on the side... while pairing it up with a smaller monitor. Even then though, there are better choices out on the market.

These cards really have nothing to offer other than "HD" and "DX10". They'll do HD fine, as will plenty of other cheaper cards. They'll do "DX10" very ****ty... and as you say, most iMac owners probably don't even care... but you're still paying for that "capacity". That's why they're ****ty. You're paying for something you won't use and/or not getting the performance you're paying for.