[Praxis]

In reply to:

---

It may be me but I couldn't play Warcraft III well with a 32MB Graphics card on my old PC (1 GHZ) but now I have the G4 iMac 800MHZ and i can play war3 perfectly fine! I can even play most games today with my 32mb Graphics card.

---

The amount of VRAM (MB) doesn't always make the big performance difference. A 64 MB Geforce 4 MX 440 is 80% faster than a 64 MB Geforce 2 MX 400.

In reply to:

---

BUT if you read the specs on the iMac page under "Design":
"Thats a 1.6 or 1.8GHz G5 processor, 533 or 600MHz frontside bus, 256MB DDR SDRAM running at 400MHz and NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB graphics memory. So youll be able to play World of Warcraft, Doom III and other fantastic entertainment"
I've played doom 3 on my friends 3GHZ p4 with a ati radeon 9800 and it was good but he couldn't even push the game to the max.
What do you think? Will it "actually" be able to run it well?

---

At minimum resolution with minimum special effects, yes, a normal Geforce FX 5200 is just powerful enough to run Doom 3 on minimum levels. A Geforce FX 5200 ULTRA like the iMac has should run it. Though not spectacularly, and not with especially high quality.
After all, there is a version of Doom 3 that runs on the XBox, a 700 mhz Pentium 3.

[enb141]

Well I don't consider a MAC even a PowerPC a computer gaming, but that's a good example about what apple should be doing, in my opinion they should create a PowerMac for us the poor people you know, a single processor, PCI, AGP video card of your choise, CDRW/DVD No Keyboard and no mouse if possible at an affordable $1300.00.
Intel does that with their Desktop motherboard in where you need cheaper memory, cheaper hard drives (Serial ATA or PATA), cheap Power Supply, and PCI or PCI Express so maybe mac should create a power mac "Lite" with those specs /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Praxis]

Plus the fact that some people hate All in Ones.
With a Tower, when you get a new one you can transfer your monitor over. Additionally, you can upgrade it with your own parts, and if you want do case modding.
We want a cheap tower!

[Ronaldinho]

Apple seems to think that lower-end users aren't interested in upgradability. Based on how well the iMac/eMac line has sold, it's hard to argue with them.
I think it's a mistake for Apple to cater to gamers because no hardcore gamer would get a Mac anyway. Maybe a third (maybe!) as many games are available on a Mac as on a PC, and they show up from six months to a year later, if not more.
More and more people are calling for a headless iMac? Really? Are you sure? I see a few people asking for it on these forums, but I've ALWAYS seen a few people asking for it on these forums. And the last time Apple actually made a headless consumer Mac -- the Cube -- it sold horribly.
Furthermore, as anybody who remembers the Performa days can attest, there are real problems marketting computers which don't have a clear heirarchy.
I'd love to see an upgradable video card on an iMac, a BTO option for something better. But the desire to upgrade that one part seems like a strange reason for Apple to create a whole new product.

[yikes650]

I'm not asking for Apple to cater to hardcore gamers. Rather, being able to play a modern game like UT2K4, and the upcoming DOOM 3 without turning off every option and setting it to the lowest resolution sure would be nice. The hardcore gamers you speak of already own PC's. All I'm asking is semi-decent performance for the ocassional, casual gamer. Is that too much to ask from a $1300 computer?
[indent]In reply to:

---

And the last time Apple actually made a headless consumer Mac -- the Cube -- it sold horribly.

---

[/indent]
If you don't remember, the Cube was priced HIGHER than the low-end Power Mac. Try explaining the logic in that. It makes no sense at all and is the sole reason why it failed.
[indent]In reply to:

---

I'd love to see an upgradable video card on an iMac, a BTO option for something better. But the desire to upgrade that one part seems like a strange reason for Apple to create a whole new product.

---

[/indent]
I guess you are unaware Apple has ALREADY created a "whole new product" for the education market using a different graphics chip.
Link
Now, where's the BTO option for a decent card?

[Praxis]

I have you say, it WOULD be nice if they reintroduced the cube and priced it well this time.
Say, a 1.6 GHz G5, a Geforce FX 5200 WITH THE OPTION of upgrading up to a Radeon 9800 Pro, a 80 GB hard drive, and Combo drive for $799? A tad overpriced, but it would be the cheapest G5 system available, and it would basicly be an eMac with no monitor and a faster processor...

[enb141]

Well I was thinking in something different, in my opinion a Cube wasn't so successfull because it didn't look so upgradable so probably a case a la G4 would be a better idea.

[AppleCoder]

Not to post any new specs or defend the gamer or non mac gamer line of macs, I would like to mention my feelings about mac prices. We owned 6 here at home, which has recently gone down to 4, as we had two clones which no longer are used due to the fact that they cannot do OSX, we have an early iMac, and lamp iMac, a B&W g3 tower, and a 17" 1.33 PB, soon will have a G5 tower and G5 iMac, bringing us back to 6, but the older iMac will go into a museum somewhere.
my point, although we have saved for these purchases, it would be nice if Apple did drop their entire line of products by 20%--I thought we were in a budget crises and many jobs are lost--it would be nice for a company to help out their consumer base and sell more units really. ( i know many, many people that do not buy because it is $500 - $1000 more for an Apple then a windows based machine and most would like to get into an Apple, but do not see the price worth it--and I am tired of trying to explain the reasons they are so much higher).
just a 20% drop on everything, it is not much, the new imac would be $360 less.40 gig iPod would be $100 less. Oh man we would buy 2 here--let us see: $1000 OR 800--$200 is a big difference when money is tight.
- peace

[Praxis]

[indent]In reply to:

---

Well I was thinking in something different, in my opinion a Cube wasn't so successfull because it didn't look so upgradable so probably a case a la G4 would be a better idea.

---

[/indent]
True, that'd be even cooler. If it was well priced.

Applecoder- you're right, except for one thing- the iPod. The 40 GB has a pretty good price- most other 40 GB players are no less than $250, sometimes the same price as the iPod (at $300).

[Ronaldinho]

Well sure, is anybody going to say, "Gee, I hope Apple doesn't lower their prices 20%?"
I with Ford would lower their prices 20%, too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Apple's margins are higher than most other hardware manufacturers, but not so much so that they could cut their prices 20%.

[lkalliance]

At the risk of veering this topic towards a critique of Apple Computer, I sometimes think that wishing for Apple to compete on price is a concurrent wish to change the very nature of the offering. Apple is in a niche of the market where it operates with low customer base and high margins. We, as consumers of their products, expect of them a high level of polish and luxury.
It's often said that if only Apple would sell their products for less money then more people would use them. Perhaps, and I'm not the one to support or to sink that argument. But would making that kind of move guarantee that Apple's level of quality would stay high? Is the Macintosh a computer for the mass market (putting aside the "for the rest of us" marketing)? Perhaps Apple as a company is best served at this point by continuing to cater to a smaller market at a higher margin, but also continuing to provide value for that high margin. Certainly most of us here find the value worth the price.
I don't know if any of this makes sense (after all, if it can make 100,000 high-quality computers then why should making 100,000,000 of them be any different? Economies of scale, right?)...but there's this nagging voice in my head that worries that Apple would be fundamentally different (and less fun, and lower quality) if it felt it had to broaden its reach by competing on price. That priorities shift from developing a great product to developing an inexpensive one.
Don't get me wrong: Ronaldhino is right, I would LOVE to see prices drop! And when I go to buy a computer, the high end is right out for me. I've got to scrimp and save and make hard choices about how much I can afford to buy. And sometimes, Apple loses out (not to PCs, but perhaps to other electronics or less important things like food).
If Apple could increase its sales by 25% or 50%, it would be huge for them. Wall Street would love them to death, and I'd guess it would put to rest (at least for a while) any concerns about the fate of the company (inasmuch as the concerns still exist). But they'd still be an ink spot on the market report for computer sales. Would they have to lower prices to get that 25-50%? It might help, but so might continuing to strive for the ultimate computing experience.

[Praxis]

[indent]In reply to:

---

Well sure, is anybody going to say, "Gee, I hope Apple doesn't lower their prices 20%?"
I with Ford would lower their prices 20%, too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Apple's margins are higher than most other hardware manufacturers, but not so much so that they could cut their prices 20%.

---

[/indent]
While 20% on EVERYTHING is a bit extreme (PowerBooks and iBooks are at very nice prices), the eMac could use a $100 or even $200 price drop. Considering the fact that I could buy a PC with a much faster processor (2.5 GHz, which, even with the MHz myth is faster than a 1.25 G4), hard drive twice as big, and better graphics card for $400 from ibuypower.com. Throw in a $100 monitor and it hits $500.
The eMac could at least drop to $699...at best, $599, though that's a big extreme. But anything more than $699 is a bit ridiculous for a system with a 40 GB hard drive, weak graphics card, and CRT monitor.

[enb141]

Yeah, I think that too, but the PowerPCs are the most expensive line of Mac so probably they will need to reduce their PowerPC or create a line called (Single Processor PowerPC)

[Grant_G]

For clarity's sake only, I'm going to be nit-picky about the last post. "PowerPC" refers to the post-680X0 line of processors employed by Apple, i.e., the 601-604 series, and the G3 through G5 so far. "PowerMac" is the professional line of Macintosh computers.
G