[owenink]

Quote:

---

The article was helpful, but did not mention the noise output of the new iMacs - are they as quiet running as the previous generation iMacs? Quieter? Louder? Can anyone with a new iMac comment on this?

---

I have a new 20-inch low-end model and find it much quieter than the original 20-inch iMac G5 it replaced. I barely hear any fan activity at all.

[owenink]

Quote:

---

I have read that the new iMacs do not have a light indicating Sleep. Is this true? Not a big deal, but certainly a change to a signature feature on the level of the Apple on the Command key.

---

Yup, that's the case. No sleep light indicator. I must say, I miss that from my original iMac G5, but I don't miss how damn bright that thing was. Even after Apple rev'ed the firmware, my pulsing sleep light was more like a night light in my office.

[sjmagy]

I agree with previous comments; dump Unreal 2004 as the game that's being tested. It's years out of date and doesn't provide an adequate comparison of video card performance, which is often the most likely spot that the Mac will fall down on.

[Neil_Anderson]

I'm sure the new iMac will be a step up from my old PowerBook G4.

[MacBrogdon]

Quote:

---

The problem we face is that for any meaningful comparison between systems, you need to keep as many variables the same as possible. Changing games and/or resolutions means you can't see how well one system does against the rest.

---

Well, you can incorporate a few newer games into the mix. With newer games added every so often it means that after awhile you can drop the comparison with the older machines and still have a history of relevant games to compare to.

But, it might be better to start a separate test just for games. After the review you guys just did, have the Mac loaded up with games that will push the hardware and OS in a variety of ways. Everything from frame rate, to intensity of graphics, to number of objects on the screen, to heat buildup, to multiplayer networking, etc. And, the newer the better. If we want Apple to see that Mac users like to play high-end games as much as we like our photos and movies then you guys got to do reviews like this.
And even include a virtualization test. Take a few games that have native Windows and Mac games (like World of Warcraft), and get Parallels, VMFusion, and Crossover. Then just compare how the machine handles the Mac native of the game compared to the Windows native running through virtualization.

On a side note: I would love to see an Apple that put innovation into games as it has everything else. It would be great to see Apple make a "Garage Game/ iGame" suite. Make your own "simple" 2D, 3D, RPG, First Person, 3rd Person, single player, multi player games. And have the games setup so that people with experience in game programing can dig into the game's insides to expand the content. Oh, and include the ability to import models and armature rigs from other 3D editing software. And, have a way to share your games with others. . . I think that would be fun.

[Peter Cohen]

Quote:

---

It would be great to see Apple make a "Garage Game/ iGame" suite.

---

I think that's a tremendous idea. And Apple wouldn't really have to start from scratch -- there are certainly technologies out there that they could tap on to do this really effectively.

[swokm]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If you are going to run some 3-4 year old game, one that is basically CPU limited, could you at least run it at the native resolutions? The game can run at those resolutions. You might have to make the change in the ini file, but it will run at that resolution.

---

The problem we face is that for any meaningful comparison between systems, you need to keep as many variables the same as possible. Changing games and/or resolutions means you can't see how well one system does against the rest.

---

I know there is a risk of a "pile on" with this line of thinking. I guess I've stated that I find Macworld's current methodology valid and very useful for comparison. I've also stated elsewhere that I think it should be updated. I don't mean to sound contradictory.
I guess the question on everyone's mind could be: what is the next new "standard" resolution? When do Macworld's testing procedures "take the hit" to upgrade? IMHO, a more useful way to think of it.
Personally, I think now is a good time. 1920x1200 is in the Macbook Pro, iMac, and Mac Pro. I don't think it will ever be in the Macbook, of course. It is also (basically) the upper limit video standard. As such I think that we have a number, and a time.
As far as the new game I really don't know. WOW seems popular, however, I would think that while you are "taking the hit" to start a new chapter of that metric, an engine with a longer life expectancy (or just more recent) might be desirable. I guess QW:ET is confirmed for the end of September... Windows anyway.
Oh well, maybe for the next gen of Macs. Thanks for the hard work!
/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[figaro410]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If you are going to run some 3-4 year old game, one that is basically CPU limited, could you at least run it at the native resolutions? The game can run at those resolutions. You might have to make the change in the ini file, but it will run at that resolution.

---

The problem we face is that for any meaningful comparison between systems, you need to keep as many variables the same as possible. Changing games and/or resolutions means you can't see how well one system does against the rest.

---

I know there is a risk of a "pile on" with this line of thinking. I guess I've stated that I find Macworld's current methodology valid and very useful for comparison. I've also stated elsewhere that I think it should be updated. I don't mean to sound contradictory.
I guess the question on everyone's mind could be: what is the next new "standard" resolution? When do Macworld's testing procedures "take the hit" to upgrade? IMHO, a more useful way to think of it.
Personally, I think now is a good time. 1920x1200 is in the Macbook Pro, iMac, and Mac Pro. I don't think it will ever be in the Macbook, of course. It is also (basically) the upper limit video standard. As such I think that we have a number, and a time.
As far as the new game I really don't know. WOW seems popular, however, I would think that while you are "taking the hit" to start a new chapter of that metric, an engine with a longer life expectancy (or just more recent) might be desirable. I guess QW:ET is confirmed for the end of September... Windows anyway.
Oh well, maybe for the next gen of Macs. Thanks for the hard work!
/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

---

It's not a matter of piling on, it's a matter of their performance test being flawed. They want to test the GPU. To do that they choose a CPU bound resolution while running a CPU bound benchmark. If you want to benchmark the GPU with UT2k4 you use a flyby benchmark not a botmatch. If they are concerned about how it will be a real world case for the user then run both the botmatch and the flyby.
If they want to say here is how this brand new computer runs a rather long in the tooth game then stick with the current benchmark. It juts doesn't jibe for me when they are using newer apps to test everything else. Crikey at least use Doom 3, yeah it's old too but at least it has more high end graphics features.

[palane]

Quote:

---

On a side note: I would love to see an Apple that put innovation into games as it has everything else. It would be great to see Apple make a "Garage Game/ iGame" suite. Make your own "simple" 2D, 3D, RPG, First Person, 3rd Person, single player, multi player games. And have the games setup so that people with experience in game programing can dig into the game's insides to expand the content. Oh, and include the ability to import models and armature rigs from other 3D editing software. And, have a way to share your games with others. . . I think that would be fun.

---

You take me back to one of my all time favorite games--Lode Runner. A group of friends and I played the game a lot and we all had our own sets of levels. It was almost as much fun designing them as playing them.
BB

[figaro410]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It would be great to see Apple make a "Garage Game/ iGame" suite.

---

I think that's a tremendous idea. And Apple wouldn't really have to start from scratch -- there are certainly technologies out there that they could tap on to do this really effectively.

---

That is an awesome idea. Apple are you listening?

[alansky]

"This is one of my keyboard pet peeves, and probably my biggest criticism of the new Apple keyboards." Dan Frakes
I don't get it. All the F keys run together on most keyboards. It makes no sense to criticize the new Apple keyboard for a design feature that it shares with virtually every other keyboard in the universe.

[d00d]

I don't get it. All the F keys run together on most keyboards.
They do? Nearly every keyboard I've used clumps them four at a time.

[bigpics]

Quote:

---

All models include 1GB of RAM in a single slot. For many people, that will be enough. But as a system thats now geared to appeal to both consumers and pros alike, Apple makes it easy to add RAM in the free slot.

---

I will never go willingly back to Windows, but some of the quirks in the Apple Way are as continually maddening as they have become wholly predictable... ...as is, unfortunately, MacWorld's long apparent tendency to let these practices slide without taking Jobs and Co. to task.
1 GB of RAM on a 2007 "prosumer" machine -- and the only one engineered to easily run dual operating systems -- is a joke. What "pro" is going to force all this beautiful tech to run with all those calls to virtual RAM??
Apple positions itself as the BMW of computing and then offers no standard iMac configs with any engine more powerful than a semi-crippled fuel injection system. And since most folks do NOT get any BTO options, especially if they buy through the Apple Stores, their experience is compromised by the inevitable sluggishness -- and that does not impress their fence-sitting friends.
So sexy-looking and good for the short term bottom line/gross margin percentages, but partly self-defeating in the longer strategic war -- even though those in the know will certainly buy more RAM. And even many of those who aren't will notice that commodity competitors routinely offer 2GB in much cheaper computers and will raise a quizzical eyebrow, since that is one of the few remaining stats tyros can easily compare between machines.
And in this regard at least, a shame on MacWorld fanboy level review....
My verdict: a nice machine (when outfitted with 2-4 GB) that will sell well or very well partly because of the iPod/iPhone halo currently hovering over Cupertino, but in terms of what they could have easily offered, a trifle underwhelming -- especially in Apple's continuing, chronic and puzzling neglect of being able to run high-end graphics cards. (Yeah, yeah, heat issues, blah, blah, whatever: BS! I've got another half inch of depth on MY desk.)
Also a box that does little, or next to nothing, to address the long-suffering clamorings of the xMac wanters, who could have been mollified a bit with a few more options.
Biz freaks inside baseball: the implicit logic behind this (and a few other design decisions), especially since Apple is a company which now watches its stock price as closely as it sales, may run something like this: "Sure, we could throw in an extra gig into the 24" base config at cost ($50?) and still cut the price by $150 without losing a penny. However that would lower our gross margins by a few percent and the Wall St. analysts would be all over our valuations."

[xen]

All is well, but can anyoone tell me, why in Europe the 1199 Us$ iMac costs 1199 Euros (excluding tax) when at the current rate it should cost 948 Euros??.