The New iMac G5

[GameMaster]

http://www.apple.com/imac/

I'm at school during a 5 minute break, but I'll post my excitement later!

[manasecret]

This isn't a new design at all.

My boss has a PC so similar that it's uncanny, and he's had it for probably four years. And the design is fairly nice, but it ain't anything compared to the previous iMac.

I've used that PC quite a lot, and here's why the design is bad -

Despite everything being in the monitor, it makes things even more clunky than if you had a small desktop and a regular flatscreen LCD. Instead of having a light, floating screen that can gyrate any which way you want smoothly and easily like the previous iMac, you have a heavy, clunky thing that is hard to move even up and down (let alone even be able to move any other direction).

I don't like it. I prefer the last one much much more.

[Typhoid]

So all it is is the screen? Meaning everything is compacted into the space behind the screen?

Why the hell are macs the only cmputer that does that? I would way rather have a smaller compacter computer. But not a mac. I had a mac back in the day...i still do..its 15 years old, and has my all time favourite games on it.

Like "Bonk" and "4D boxing" yes, 4D....the game claims to have 4 dimensions. Those games bring me back to the days of being 5....*sigh*....


*Runs off to play 4D boxing*

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

So all it is is the screen? Meaning everything is compacted into the space behind the screen?

Why the hell are macs the only cmputer that does that? I would way rather have a smaller compacter computer. But not a mac. I had a mac back in the day...i still do..its 15 years old, and has my all time favourite games on it.

Like "Bonk" and "4D boxing" yes, 4D....the game claims to have 4 dimensions. Those games bring me back to the days of being 5....*sigh*....


*Runs off to play 4D boxing*

TADAA! Apple went back to the past to find it's futuristic design! Behold, the Gateway Profile 3, released in the year, two-thousand..





Only four years old!

Or we can go back even further, to Profile 2 -



And the original futuristic beast -



Anyway, point is, you can buy a similarly designed PC.

Here's the current Gateway Profile -- Profile 5.

http://www.gateway.com/home/products/hm_dtp_aio.shtml

[GameMaster]

Originally Posted by Manasecret

Instead of having a light, floating screen that can gyrate any which way you want smoothly and easily like the previous iMac, you have a heavy, clunky thing that is hard to move even up and down (let alone even be able to move any other direction).

Well I compared the specs and the new iMac weighs less than the current Gateway Profile you're comparing it too. And the Profile 5 has it's hard drive at the base of the monitor stand, while the iMac's drive is encased in the back of the display, so they're not the same design. Between the Profile 5 and new iMac, the iMac is better I'd say.

And while the iMac's monitor can't be swiveled left or right, it can easily be tilted up or down for optimal view. There's not really a need to swivel the display sideways anyway, and in the case that you did need to, it's not that hard to move it by turning the base.

The only negative issue you might encounter with the Profile 5 or new iMac is expandility/upgrade issues since there's less space.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by GameMaster

Well I compared the specs and the new iMac weighs less than the current Gateway Profile you're comparing it too. And the Profile 5 has it's hard drive at the base of the monitor stand, while the iMac's drive is encased in the back of the display, so they're not the same design. Between the Profile 5 and new iMac, the iMac is better I'd say.

And while the iMac's monitor can't be swiveled left or right, it can easily be tilted up or down for optimal view. There's not really a need to swivel the display sideways anyway, and in the case that you did need to, it's not that hard to move it by turning the base.

The only negative issue you might encounter with the Profile 5 or new iMac is expandility/upgrade issues since there's less space.

I may have been a little harsh or negative.

It's not that it's a bad design on it's own. It's just that, to me, relative to the previous iMac this new one isn't as good.

And I also wanted to point out that this isn't a new design. The Profile 3 looks almost exactly like this new iMac.

[Happydude]

hmm, that looks pretty nice, i like the way Profile 5 loks more than the G5 because it doesn't have the wire stand thing, which, IMO, looks bad. either way i would get the Profile 5 because i don't like the mac interface.

[Rubber Kitty]

I'd set my testicles on fire if I spent $1299 on a computer that only came with an FX5200

[Jonbo298]

Exactly what I was thinking. All that and you only get a 5200

[thatmariolover]

[rant]You know it's really funny. This is pretty much the first time that Apple hasn't come up with a design that's completely innovative and people blame Apple for copying.

I mean, people have been copying Apple for two decades and I haven't heard any of you bitching about that. What do you call the iPaq? Gee, that could be used to mislead people into buying it instead of the iMac that came out shortly before the first iPaq. Or the Mac OS that has been copied by pretty much every other OS.[/rant]

At any rate, I agree an FX 5200 is kind of lame, but you have to keep in mind that you're not going to be doing any serious gaming on your Mac. It's not designed for that. You're going to be making/editing music, digital video, and everything you do on a computer other than game. And for that, an FX 5200 is just fine.

[Rubber Kitty]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

At any rate, I agree an FX 5200 is kind of lame, but you have to keep in mind that you're not going to be doing any serious gaming on your Mac. It's not designed for that. You're going to be making/editing music, digital video, and everything you do on a computer other than game. And for that, an FX 5200 is just fine.

This of course is presuming that you get the higher-end stuff like the 160gig drive vs. the 80gig. God knows how much RAM the thing comes with too, plus lots of the old presumptions about Macs being better at things like music and video editing are severly outdated. And if you think you're gonna escape OS problems by going Mac then you're sorely mistaken.

Macs are expensive ornaments. Sorry to all the Mac-heads

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by Rubber Kitty

This of course is presuming that you get the higher-end stuff like the 160gig drive vs. the 80gig. God knows how much RAM the thing comes with too, plus lots of the old presumptions about Macs being better at things like music and video editing are severly outdated. And if you think you're gonna escape OS problems by going Mac then you're sorely mistaken.

Macs are expensive ornaments. Sorry to all the Mac-heads

Yeah. Somehow I doubt you've used OS X, but if you have I'd inquire what you didn't like about it. And an 80 gig hard drive is going to be fine for people doing video editing. I got along on 12GB just fine for years. You're not going to have a slew of games taking up a gig a piece on you're Mac (for better or worse), so space isn't such an issue.

I agree, it could use a RAM upgrade, but Mac OS X is generally very efficient when it comes to RAM allocations (*ix systems in general).

As for the Mac's not being better for music and video editing is completely bogus. The software Mac's come with are awesome - iLife comes with GarageBand. Some of the best music arranging software ever created. Not to mention Final Cut isn't available for PC, and I personally hate working with anything else.

But whatever. To each his/her own.

[Rubber Kitty]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

Yeah. Somehow I doubt you've used OS X, but if you have I'd inquire what you didn't like about it. And an 80 gig hard drive is going to be fine for people doing video editing. I got along on 12GB just fine for years. You're not going to have a slew of games taking up a gig a piece on you're Mac (for better or worse), so space isn't such an issue.

I agree, it could use a RAM upgrade, but Mac OS X is generally very efficient when it comes to RAM allocations (*ix systems in general).

As for the Mac's not being better for music and video editing is completely bogus. The software Mac's come with are awesome - iLife comes with GarageBand. Some of the best music arranging software ever created. Not to mention Final Cut isn't available for PC, and I personally hate working with anything else.

But whatever. To each his/her own.

I ain't even gonna get started on a discussion about this or it'll go on for months

I'll just say that I've used plenty of PC software and I've used plenty of Mac software but the number of options available on the PC side on its own is more than enough to keep me there. Macs are, for the most part, nice if you want sheer simplicity, but try to go any farther and you hit a ceiling pretty quick. Just my experience, though

[GameMaster]

Originally Posted by Rubber Kitty

Macs are, for the most part, nice if you want sheer simplicity, but try to go any farther and you hit a ceiling pretty quick. Just my experience, though

Final Cut Pro, Shake, and Logic Pro are some of the most complex and powerful applications in existance. They're used by some of Hollywood's biggest hot shots. But if I put you behind one of those applications, you wouldn't be able to find your way out of a paper bag. So you just sit down now.

[Rubber Kitty]

Originally Posted by GameMaster

Final Cut Pro, Shake, and Logic Pro are some of the most complex and powerful applications in existance. They're used by some of Hollywood's biggest hot shots. But if I put you behind one of those applications, you wouldn't be able to find your way out of a paper bag. So you just sit down now.

You'd be pretty mistaken to assume that I've never used them before. And quite extensively