ThinkSecret has the specs for the new iMacs, while Apple has filed for a European design trademark which may provide a tantalising glimpse of the company’s long-awaited tablet computer.
New G5 iMacs to offer 1.6/1.8GHz; Euro filing reveals Apple Tablet
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Geeze… could Apple possibly be any more skimpy on the RAM? From what was posted, the upcoming iMacs sound nice, but 256 megabytes of RAM? This is 2004, almost 2005, not 2000.
I’d consider buying the 20″ iMac, but the cost of upgrading the RAM would probably cost half as much as the machine itself!
but the cost of upgrading the RAM would probably cost half as much as the machine itself!>>
You’re so not funny.
If it wasn’t for gaming I could get along just fine a 128 MB. Windows 2000 chugs along and I have yet to have a problem with low memory. I don’t used Win XP nor Max OS X so I can’t comment on their memory usage.
you can use standard ram for the upgrade, which cost almost nothing (~$100), sheesh. people just have to complain about something! live with it, Upgrade it yourself! or buy something else!
On a side note, I just bought my first Mac, a G3 Blue and White, from a yard sale of all places! It has 1GB of Ram, a 20GB hard drive and 300MHZ CPU. I just found out it could be upgraded to a 800MHZ or 1GHZ G4. Talk about luck. lol
“The new iMacs will undoubtedly be criticized for their small amount of memory; one industry expert commented that it is time for Apple to include 512MB of memory in all its systems not just because most Windows-equipped PCs ship with that much RAM, but because many Mac applications now need that much memory to run efficiently. Many experts believe that Apple has decided not to jump to 512MB of RAM in an effort to protect profit margins, which are constantly under pressure and are looked at very carefully by market analysts and investors.”
Not sure how they would sacrifice that much profit by upgrading the ram to 512. Also they ought to be including more than 32mb on the video card. Still trying to understand (without trolling) how Mac hardware is superior to pc…
Where the heck are people getting this info!? RAM is cheaper then it has ever been! upgrading RAM for any Apple machine will not put a dent in the pocket book like these people make it to believe.
Even though the high end RAM is always recommended, but it’s not needed. In my 15 inch PowerBook, I pumped it up to 512 with just a standard stick of RAM, and works just as good as the high “expensive” RAM!
On a side note, I would love to see a tablet from Apple. I find tablet PC’s very helpful and see a need in the market for them. Hopefully they are cooking something up in the R&D department.
There is always a trade-off in buying an iMac, but they are great machines.
Still using 5200 Ultra’s and only 256 ram? That is pretty damn weak.
There is more than games that like Ram.
I wonder if they’re going to put a 90 nm G5 in the iMac, because otherwise the enclosure on the back of these new models would have to be pretty big.
Here’s a close up of the heatsink on a PowerMac G5 with a 1.6 GHz G5 at 130 nm.
http://homepage.mac.com/mrbrown2195/PhotoAlbum21.html
That’s for one processor.
> There is more than games that like Ram.
But the target market for an iMac doesn’t run those applications. For most users Office consumes the most memory and the fits easily in 128 mb.
Is that a home user is going to look at an iMac and say, ‘well that looks good enough for home use; and it’s a lot cheaper then those big tower ones.’
Apple needs to get it’s ass in gear; or risk being left out of desktop, outright.
$
> Here’s a close up of the heatsink on a PowerMac G5 with a 1.6 GHz G5 at 130 nm.
Exactly the same size as the heat sinks on my dual 970FX.
Is that a home user is going to look at an iMac and say, ‘well that looks good enough for home use; and it’s a lot cheaper then those big tower ones.’>>
And that’s what Apple wants the home user to do. Buy the computer that suits their needs. My husband’s next business computer will be an iMac. Surfing the web, doing spread sheets, and emailing doesn’t need a PowerMac tower.
BEGIN!!! lol
All-in-Ones are a nice concept but they have issues. The biggest is if they are not going to use mobile parts, they will have heat issues. Secondly, All-in-Ones are not easily upgradable(like notebooks). A third reason is lack of serviceablity by the end user.
To me, the Gateway Profile is the best designed All-in-One out there, but it has major deficiencies such as non-upgrabale graphics(they all use integrated graphics solutions) and weak built-in speakers. Why should some one have to pay for cheap/weak built-in speakers when they need more powerful ones(they same thing applies to monitors with built-ins).
The only way I see Apple dealing with graphics card upgradability is using Nvidia’s MXM(or ATI’s version) tech which would allow for very easy upgradability(and the same cards could be used for upcoming notebooks that use MXM saving Apple money on manufacturing costs). As for the speaker issue, Apple could use upgradable usb based speakers that plug into each side of the monitor.
Now I understand the Apple’s new iMacs will have the highest manufacturing quality out there and that is worth a little extra cash. But It won’t be worth it if they waste your time and money and mine with crappy built-in speakers and non-upgradable graphics.
These issues are the same with notebooks, but at least their portable.
I dont understand Apple.If your are gearing a “home” computer better put a graphics card with at least 128 RAM and that can actually run current games. How does apple plan to sell this to comsumers? Most people that buy machines have kids that play on them and play GAMES which need at least 128 now.
let alone the 256 RAM. Man sometimes I wonder.
BTW the new 1.8 G5 is SWEET. use it at work (Pre Press)
Okay, RAM may be on the low side but it can be upgraded so it’s not a big problem…
1.6 or 1.8Ghz !!! WHAT? I was hoping for a low-end iMac to use 1.8Ghz, Mid iMac 2.0Ghz and Hi-end iMac 2.5Ghz
Since the iMac are all single G5 CPU, even the Hi-end iMac would have been slower than the low-end dual G5 PowerMac (i think..).
It’s safe to say that even the Athlon64 2800+ could be faster… But then again, you don’t have the sweet OS X and the hot iLife apps with WinXP, even in 64bits…
I agree. Thats the achilles heel of the system more so than the small ram. At least you can upgrade the ram. The video card is out of date as it is, and will be even more so with the next generation of games. Games are a part of the home users target market, so a decent video card of an upgradable one should be a key feature… assuming these specs are true, that is.
Are ye DAFT?!? Ther iMacs are NOT meant to be the AIO equals of the G5 towers. Sure, they may end up LOOKING better (I’m not a fan of the G5 design… I much prefer the look of my G4 DA), but they are a lower-class design for those who can’t afford or don’t want/need a maxed out G5 tower system.
The very fact that the iMac is migrating to G5 status, means the eMacs and iBook/PowerBooks are the last of the G4 lineup (are the G4 MDD’s still being made?). Eventually, MacOS X will not accept a G4 systems and we’ll ALL have to upgrade to a G5 design of one type or another.
Anyone “in the know” concerning the G5 roadmap? What systems are being phased out entirely or being kept and upgraded?
Luposian
…shush up people.
You all seem to be looking at the specs of the hardware but overlooking the LCD, which itself is worth as much as half the cost of the machine, depending on which model you get.
Look mast the RAM, video card and clock speed. Count the worth of the display.
Apple machines have always been notorious in forcing the user into buying upgrades right off the bat. Keyboards with cables too short, one button mice, low RAM…
That’s how they get mo’ money from you after paying a premium to begin with.
The one user’s comment about having to upgrade to a G5 in the near future may not be too far off the mark. I mean, setting it up so that G4s are useless in a year or two would not surprise me.
Am I DAFT? Can YOU read? I was not talkking about the LOOK of the new iMac, I was talking about the speed of the G5 that will power them.
I don’t want the new iMac to look like the G5 PowerMac, but I would have hoped for better speed from the CPU.
Read before you reply.
NVIDIA GeForce MX 5200 Ultra graphics processor
Is it 5200 or an MX ???
Buying a Mac at any online store or catalog store usually includes a free RAM upgrade to 512MB.
I can run the iLife apps, Safari, and MS Office in 256MB. OS X manages memory really well. I’m sure I’d need more for creative apps like Photoshop, and some games. And its not a big deal to open and close most apps on OS X; although some apps do have a lengthy startup.
“It’s safe to say that even the Athlon64 2800+ could be faster… But then again, you don’t have the sweet OS X and the hot iLife apps with WinXP, even in 64bits…”
I wonder to, I’m running a 2800+ without the 64, I wonder how this will compare with the 1.6 or 1.8 iMac. But it’s a good step in the right direction for Apple. I bought one of the original iMacs and probably will buy another soon.
I would disagree regarding the upgrading issue. Most people don’t upgrade their video card, the most they do is possibly add a network card for broadband (not an issue since most new computers have built in nic cards) and upgrade the memory. IMHO, the new iMac, IF and only IF it is priced right, will be a hit. If they bring in a low end iMac into the Australian market, the low end 17inch model and price is at around $1900-$2000 AND they have a good supply, unlike what is happening now, if they do that, they will people over.
As for their eMac, what they should be working on is with Freescale, the newly spun off of from Motorolla, which is developing a “system on a chip”, which will scale up and beyond 3Ghz, its 32bit, it has a nice 400Mhz frontside bus, in otherwords, a very competitive product to what is on offer from AMD and Intel.
If they really push the pedal to the metal and pump these machines out without delay, with this new chip and sell the eMac for around $599, the volume created will create not exactly create a huge profit, but what it will create is a larger market for software vendors, a larger market for Apple to sell its addons to, and heck, if I were Apple, I would buy out Belkin, a networking and gizmo, rebrand the stuff Apple, and use that to make money off the cheap products. Get the customers buying the el-cheapo low end model, and make the money selling upgrades, software subscriptions, extra gizmos etc. etc.
The $1900-$2000 is Australian Dollars; $599 for the eMac is American dollars.
> still trying to understand (without trolling) how Mac hardware is superior to pc…
My Mac:
Power Mac Dual 1.8 GHz G5:
2x 1800 MHz 64 bit PPC970FX, 256MB Radeon 9800 XT, 2GB RAM, 160 GB SATA HDD, Bluetooth, Wireless, Modem, 1000/100/10 Lan.
Not many off the shelf PCs come with specs like that, and no off the shelf PCs come with OS X. OS X is the main reason to use a Mac over a Windows/Linux PC IMHO. It’s an amazing OS, fast, uberstable, it’s a UNIX. With Macintosh it’s not just the hardware, it’s the great integration of hardware and software that you never see with a PC. Everything just works!
Feel free to flame me I’m use to it after using Linux/BSD as my OSes of choice over the last 9+ years, OS X is the best desktop UNIX I’ve ever used, I’ve switched and I’m not coming back!
There is the PowerMac tower. You want superbadass speed? PowerMac tower.
But really, now much does the average home user know what the inside of a computer look like. My husband hasn’t cracked the side of his PC in 3 years.
If you’re really in to gaming, get a frikken X-box or nintendo or sony.
I know quite a few people who are very unhappy upgrading computers. One of my friends has stuck with 96Mb of RAM in his Window XP system for a couple of years even though it’s painfully slow. I can’t convince him to risk opening it up and adding more, the idea of going inside the computer is alien to him. I imagine that a lot of the target market for an iMac would feel the same way.
If Apple are going to push these iMacs as multimedia systems for home video editing and graphics then 256Mb really isn’t enough. RAM is cheap and going from 256Mb to 512Mb can make a huge difference to the overall speed of the system.
It seems like false economy for Apple to cripple their systems like this, it’s not like they have a CPU speed advantage to make up for it.
i think you nailed it right on.
“Apple machines have always been notorious in forcing the user into buying upgrades right off the bat. Keyboards with cables too short, one button mice, low RAM…
That’s how they get mo’ money from you after paying a premium to begin with.
The one user’s comment about having to upgrade to a G5 in the near future may not be too far off the mark. I mean, setting it up so that G4s are useless in a year or two would not surprise me”
I think also to notice one thing is that is info came from Rumor Sites. So maybe some of this info is false or just from someone looking at the systems fast without asorbing all the specs.
These “all in one” computers are a consumer trap. As a previous poster mentioned, upgrading these types of machines is very difficult. This, of course, is what the industry wants. If people can’t upgrade their systems, they’ll have to buy new ones to run newer, more memory hungry software.
Ideally, these companies want computers to be like any other consumer device on the market. You can’t open up your t.v. or dvd player and put in newer components; to get the latest features you have to buy a new one. This is the only way to ensure long term profitability in consumer electronics: keep people on the upgrade treadmill.
Just like our newer cars!
Interested in the tablet if that comes out. I’m sure if Apple’s team is working on one, it will be pretty cool.
I’ve used PC tablets, and even though I love the concept, the implementation up to now has been very ordinary to say the least.
I’d be interested to see how Apple does this. I’ve used Inkwell on my TiBook with a Wacom tablet, and was impressed, but not so I’d use it all the time. I’m sure/hope the new tablet will work a lot better than this…
I personally think mobile phones are the future of mobile computing, but a table would be an interesting interum step I guess…
I think some people are forgetting the iMac is marketed towards the typical computer user and not professionals that would use Shake, FCP HD or Motion in production. Those professionals actually need the additional power while typical Joe or Jane user do not. As long as the iMac allows the end user to upgrade then most should be satisfied with the base unit. Besides OSX only needs 128 MB of RAM to run so what applications would a typical user need? 512 MB actually seems sufficient for most common tasks even for a designer/illustrator. It’s nice to see they continued to offer a 20″ wide screen model for the iMac so illustrators and designers can have a low cost system with out going for the higher cost of purchasing a tower G5 and an additional monitor. After all those types of users don’t have applications that require the latest graphics cards or dual processors.
Are the Tablet PC popular on the Windows side? I own farly new compaq and spend most of my time on my mac.
I’ve never used Inkwell, but I think its a cool concept. Wasn’t that a technoly in the Newton? or did it come from the Newton team? ken