# Apple:  Release the iMac G5 already!



## King Shrek (Jun 28, 2004)

*APPLE!!!*,

It's been rumored for 6 going on 7 months now and it still isn't out!  Grrrrr!  

Don't you realize I've been waiting on this system for 2 years!  I WANT ONE VERY VERY BADLY!!!  Release it very soon!  DON'T WAIT 'TILL CHRISTMAS!!!  Get out in time to gain some momentum before Christmas.  Then it will really sell very well!     JUST RELEASE ONE FAST!!!

Even more furiously,
King Shrek


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 28, 2004)

Apple, release the G7 20Ghz NOW!!!!! I want it soooooo bad! And please, before Christmas cause this way they will sell very well. 
You got my point?


----------



## mi5moav (Jun 28, 2004)

Yeh, we got your point


----------



## kendall (Jun 28, 2004)

and if you had a G5 iMac, what would you benefit from it over a G4?


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 28, 2004)

Since I'm going to be using it to develop multimedia for video games, ABSOLUTELY!!!


----------



## markceltic (Jun 28, 2004)

For the moment I'm quite content with what I have.I could see being anxious for something like a G5 only if I was to use it to it's limits.But thats just me.


----------



## mdnky (Jun 28, 2004)

If you're going to be doing that, buy a Powermac G5.  The iMac is a consumer level product after all.


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 28, 2004)

I can't afford a PowerMac G5.    I'm only going to be developing simple games anyway.


----------



## quiksan (Jun 28, 2004)

lots of products have been rumorred for a long time, some will definitely come to fruition, and some won't.  Apple will release it when they're sure they can put out a quality product.

i think be patient, and you'll get it at some point.

now where the heck are the G5 Powerbooks???????????


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 28, 2004)

quiksan said:
			
		

> lots of products have been rumorred for a long time, some will definitely come to fruition, and some won't.  Apple will release it when they're sure they can put out a quality product.
> 
> i think be patient, and you'll get it at some point.
> 
> now where the heck are the G5 Powerbooks???????????



Yeah, I know, but it just gets really annoying when Apple makes us wait way too long for upgraded products.   ::sleepy::


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 29, 2004)

Why don't you get yourself a Dual G4 powermac? Some ppl are just into new stuff and simply ignor very powerful *available* options. A Dual G4 should still beat any upcoming G5 iMac. You need 64bit? Beside the very debatable benefits, it will still take one more year till tiger and some 64bit applications are available. So, what's the rush for?
And honestly, I don't want apple to release some semi-proved computers just to satisfy some in-patient users needs. I would rather wait one more year for a nice and stable mac than get a rushed one. And right now, you can get a mac for ANY purpose.


----------



## kendall (Jun 29, 2004)

yeah, you definitely need a G5 to develop simple games.


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 29, 2004)

kendall said:
			
		

> yeah, you definitely need a G5 to develop simple games.



That's what I figured.  

You know the BIGGEST reason why I think so many potential switchers don't buy Macs these days?  Because they can't afford a PowerMac and there is no other cheaper alternative that's even worth the price tag that's on it.  

This is why I feel Apple should introduce an iMac with a G5 upgrade very soon.  Heck, Apple could benefit even more by putting a G5 in the Emac, too; think about how many schools would start buying Macs again.  ::angel::


----------



## mdnky (Jun 29, 2004)

Putting a G5 into an eMac wouldn't necessarily make a school buy them.  Schools buy the cheapest computers they can cause their budgets are so small.  Even $900/per computer is a lot of money, especially when you have to buy 30 to 100 of them.  Most schools can find a deal through Dell that'll give then 2 P4s with monitors for the price of 1 eMac.  It's not hard to figure out why they've been embracing the dark side lately, given that.

In fact, chances are we won't see a G5 in an eMac for quite some time.  It would just cost way too much right now to do it.  Maybe in a year or so the costs could be brought down and it'll happen.

BUT...schools buying eMacs aren't grabbing them for big time work (Image editing, Video, Animation, Audio, etc.).  They're grabbing them for general typing and use.  A G4 is more than capable enough for that, even a G3 can do it quite well.

If all you're developing is simple games, then there's no reason a G4 won't work well for you right now.  I don't really see why a 800+ mhz G3 wouldn't work well either, actually.  Buying a G5 would be like buying a tractor trailer to haul your fiberglass canoe around, when a simple small pickup would have done just fine.  <G>


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 29, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> Putting a G5 into an eMac wouldn't necessarily make a school buy them.  Schools buy the cheapest computers they can cause their budgets are so small.  Even $900/per computer is a lot of money, especially when you have to buy 30 to 100 of them.  Most schools can find a deal through Dell that'll give then 2 P4s with monitors for the price of 1 eMac.  It's not hard to figure out why they've been embracing the dark side lately, given that.
> 
> In fact, chances are we won't see a G5 in an eMac for quite some time.  It would just cost way too much right now to do it.  Maybe in a year or so the costs could be brought down and it'll happen.
> 
> ...



You really think a G5 would cost more to put in an eMac or an iMac (or even a PowerBook or iBook)?  I beg to differ.  Know why?  Did you notice that when Apple upgraded it's G4 PowerMac lineup to G5s the price of a high-end PowerMac went from $3,799 to $2,999--*A $1,800 PRICE DROP!!!*  Knowing this, I actually believe that if a G5 went into the iMac and the eMac the prices on these systems would actually plunge, not go up.

BTW, how much does a G5 processor, motherboard and memory cost?  How about a G4 processor, motherboard and memory?  If you find an answer, please post it here so we can compare the difference.   

BTW, by buying a G5 system I would certainly get much more longevity out of it than with a G3 or G4 system, that's for sure.  And right now, that's seems like the most financially responsible thing for me to do because I don't plan on buying another computer for quite a while.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 30, 2004)

[repeat] get a Dual G4 [/repeat]


----------



## Randman (Jun 30, 2004)

[repeat] get a life [/repeat] ::angel::


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 30, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> [repeat] get a Dual G4 [/repeat]



[repeat] NO! [/repeat]


----------



## cfleck (Jun 30, 2004)

man, you are going to give yourself a headache with all these desires.  3799 - 2999 = 800 not 1800.  

>>>Knowing this, I actually believe that if a G5 went into the iMac and the eMac the prices on these systems would actually plunge, not go up.<<<<

revelations!  there is so much more to this than meets the eye.  business for one.  ibm vs motorolla.  lots lots lots.  in fact, i dont know for sure, but i question your 3799 quote.  fact is, you want an awful lot for not much.  a g5 for smallish games?  be serious.  you want a new computer.  you can afford an imac.  hence apple should release a new g5 imac.  thats what it comes down to.  

how bout a little cheese with that whine


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 30, 2004)

cfleck said:
			
		

> man, you are going to give yourself a headache with all these desires.  3799 - 2999 = 800 not 1800.
> 
> >>>Knowing this, I actually believe that if a G5 went into the iMac and the eMac the prices on these systems would actually plunge, not go up.<<<<
> 
> ...



Of course I never said that I expect iMacs and eMacs to drop $1800 in price,  but I do believe that they will drop to more reasonable prices and will be more closely comparable in specs/prices with their PC counterparts.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 30, 2004)

Hmmm, King Shrek, I really don't get your point. What makes you look for a G5 iMac finally? Performance? Price? Both? If both, why not the dual G4? Considering your other thread, it looks like you are not buying the hardware by its purpose but by the level of new technologies inside. Well, for that you will always have to wait 
And then your "desperate" comparisons to the pc world..
Giving you one example: I am very much into sequence alignment tools such as BLAST. On my G4 1Ghz I am outperforming our Dell P4 3.2 HT which has 2gb of ram and a very powerful gpu. You see, you can't just go for clock speeds and cache sizes or the generation of the cpu. Just take a look at the software you need the most and check on which system it runs better. If the pc box offers you more speed at a lower price even, then get one. For me it would be really stupid to get a windows box. But generalizing the comparison between mac and pc is a big mistake.


----------



## mdnky (Jun 30, 2004)

$3799???  You talking Canadian vs. US dollars here?  After looking back at some old Mac magazines (Mac Design, early 01) I can assure you base systems were never that expensive for the G4s.  Highest I found was from an ad for Mac Zone for their "Ultimate" model (on a scale of Fast, Faster, Faster Yet, Really Fast, Ultimate), a 733mhz, for $3294.  

Of course at the release of the G5's (middle of line model was in the $2000 range) you could buy a DP G4 (old mid line model) for $1800.  When they added another processor to the mid G5 (DP 1.8), the price jumped to $2500.


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 30, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Hmmm, King Shrek, I really don't get your point. What makes you look for a G5 iMac finally? Performance? Price? Both? If both, why not the dual G4? Considering your other thread, it looks like you are not buying the hardware by its purpose but by the level of new technologies inside. Well, for that you will always have to wait
> And then your "desperate" comparisons to the pc world..
> Giving you one example: I am very much into sequence alignment tools such as BLAST. On my G4 1Ghz I am outperforming our Dell P4 3.2 HT which has 2gb of ram and a very powerful gpu. You see, you can't just go for clock speeds and cache sizes or the generation of the cpu. Just take a look at the software you need the most and check on which system it runs better. If the pc box offers you more speed at a lower price even, then get one. For me it would be really stupid to get a windows box. But generalizing the comparison between mac and pc is a big mistake.



HA HA HA HA!!!  A 1 GHz G4 outperforming a P4 3.2 HT!!!  HA HA HA HA!!!  LOL!!!  ROTFL!!!  YEAH, RIGHT!!!  I ALREADY KNOW BETTER THAN TO BELIEVE THAT SILLINESS!!!


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 30, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> $3799???  You talking Canadian vs. US dollars here?  After looking back at some old Mac magazines (Mac Design, early 01) I can assure you base systems were never that expensive for the G4s.  Highest I found was from an ad for Mac Zone for their "Ultimate" model (on a scale of Fast, Faster, Faster Yet, Really Fast, Ultimate), a 733mhz, for $3294.
> 
> Of course at the release of the G5's (middle of line model was in the $2000 range) you could buy a DP G4 (old mid line model) for $1800.  When they added another processor to the mid G5 (DP 1.8), the price jumped to $2500.



$3,799?  That price was for the high-end DP 1.42 GHz PowerMac, just before the PowerMac G5 was released and it was in American dollars.


----------



## mdnky (Jun 30, 2004)

Not in anything I can find here (Macworld, Mac Design, Mac Mall mailers, etc.).  Maybe a few specific suppliers ordered some with advanced options, but the base high-end model was never that high.


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 30, 2004)

Oh, it was that high on Apple's website.  Are you sure you're looking at a catalog dated around May-June 2003?  Are you sure you're looking at a catalog with prices in U.S. dollars?


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 1, 2004)

King Shrek, you don't have so much experiences in Macs, don't you? Our workgroup is going to shift to mac because of this. I know, truth can hurt. You should do a little more research on application performances on different os. It will surprise you how much those big numbers of AMD and Intel boxes are worth.


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> King Shrek, you don't have so much experiences in Macs, don't you? Our workgroup is going to shift to mac because of this. I know, truth can hurt. You should do a little more research on application performances on different os. It will surprise you how much those big numbers of AMD and Intel boxes are worth.



I've spent two years doing the research already.  I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 1, 2004)

Obviously your research was very much focused on games. I have a 2.6Ghz at home as well and there is not even one application that performs better than my G4 1Ghz (am talking about those I use: web browsing, movie playback, office applications..). And the BLAST tool: download the best blast tool for mac and the best for windows (use versiontracker) and you will see how much faster G4 processors handle this kind of tasks. You will see your research wasn't broad enough


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Obviously your research was very much focused on games. I have a 2.6Ghz at home as well and there is not even one application that performs better than my G4 1Ghz (am talking about those I use: web browsing, movie playback, office applications..). And the BLAST tool: download the best blast tool for mac and the best for windows (use versiontracker) and you will see how much faster G4 processors handle this kind of tasks. You will see your research wasn't broad enough



No, my research was NOT ENTIRELY focused on games.  My research was as broad as it gets and very little of it was actually focused on games.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 1, 2004)

let me guess: you used the intel compiler on the mac and compared it to the intel box 
No, seriously, how did your research look like and what were your results in detail? I am very interested since I have absolute the opposite opinion about mac vs. pc.


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> let me guess: you used the intel compiler on the mac and compared it to the intel box
> No, seriously, how did your research look like and what were your results in detail? I am very interested since I have absolute the opposite opinion about mac vs. pc.



No, I looked at benchmarks from trusted Internet sources.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 1, 2004)

this is what you call research?


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> this is what you call research?



Yep, especially when I have no Macintosh to test with.


----------



## Randman (Jul 1, 2004)

Here's his "trusted Internet sources".


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

Randman said:
			
		

> Here's his "trusted Internet sources".



Ha ha ha.  You still think I'm biased in basing my decision on game performance.  Get real.  The Mac I plan to buy will be used to develop video game multimedia, but a PC will still be used to develop the code and play them.  ::ha::


----------



## Randman (Jul 1, 2004)

Dude, I never thought I'd say this, but stick with Dell or an alienware or whatever. I think they're more your speed.


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

Randman said:
			
		

> Dude, I never thought I'd say this, but stick with Dell or an alienware or whatever. I think they're more your speed.



No, there is one reason why I can't do that:  The superiority of Mac OS X over Microsucks Winblows!!!  ::evil::


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 1, 2004)

King Shrek, your biased point is:
asking for a G5 iMac because a G5 powermac is too expensive. If performance is what you want to have, why refusing a Dual G4? 
This is why I believe you are just into new technology having no clue what it actually brings you. Your so_great game development won't work any better with a G5. And making a general statement out of it, that apple is just too expensive is the next biased point in your arguments.


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> King Shrek, your biased point is:
> asking for a G5 iMac because a G5 powermac is too expensive. If performance is what you want to have, why refusing a Dual G4?
> This is why I believe you are just into new technology having no clue what it actually brings you. Your so_great game development won't work any better with a G5. And making a general statement out of it, that apple is just too expensive is the next biased point in your arguments.



Please read my reply in the other forum concerning your assumptions.

Yes, a G4 may fulfill my needs for a short time, but a G5 will bring me much more longevity.


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

WOOOOOHOOOOO!!!

Cheers to the iMac G5!!!  Well, I hope it's an iMac G5.  Heck, it better be!


----------



## dreamscape (Jul 2, 2004)

hey skrek, have you tried getting Apple to give you a G5 powermac since you develop for games?

The developers of the popular windows/linux teamspeak application were able to get some powermacs from Apple so they could port teamspeak to OS X (which never happened.  they seemed to just take the Macs and run).

I think Apple is generally pretty good about helping developers out.


----------



## Randman (Jul 2, 2004)

dreamscape said:
			
		

> hey skrek, have you tried getting Apple to give you a G5 powermac since you develop for games?


 I would think you need to be an established developer. Anyone who plans to create games is going to get squat. And an established developer wouldn't be going on and on and on about the need for an iMac, or the silly number games with PCs.
   Just watch, come September, there'll be complaints about "It's not what I wanted" and it's "not the specs I wanted" and "it's not the price I want it at".


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 2, 2004)

I agree to Randman. It will be funny to see the Dual G4 still outperform the new - IF - G5 iMac. G5 doesn't stand for superior performance even though it's a very good processor.


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 2, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> I agree to Randman. It will be funny to see the Dual G4 still outperform the new - IF - G5 iMac. G5 doesn't stand for superior performance even though it's a very good processor.



HA HA HA HA HA!!!  And you'd best have some solid proof on that if it does because I won't just take your word for it.


----------



## chevy (Jul 2, 2004)

2x1.45 GHz is probably better than 1x2 GHz for some applications, and not better for others...
we also have no idea about the selected memory scheme, the selected harddisk technology, the available graphic cards....


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 2, 2004)

King Shrek said:
			
		

> HA HA HA HA HA!!!  And you'd best have some solid proof on that if it does because I won't just take your word for it.


It's time for you to start with serious research instead of just reading macrumors. You seem (as I got by some of your previous posts) to miss some information about macs..


----------



## mi5moav (Jul 2, 2004)

I have a feeling all we will be seeing is 20" inch imacs come the next round... no 17 inchers anymore. Apple has done a strange thing on their site. The only imac they now make reference to is the 20" its' like the other two never existed... or Apple will keep the 20" in supply while bringin in some new ones...this is getting very confusing. Apple may keep the old imac design with a slight change so we have 4 lines not three this may be very good.

Imac $599-$999
Imac G4 $999-1299 (or will this become the new imac (doubtful)
Imac G5 $1799-2199
Powermac G5  $1999-3999

If the new imacs actually do look nicer then the current imacs I will be shocked. I hope they don't do a stupid flat panel on the stand...if they don't sell the design anymore I wonder if some other computer company will pay them say $20million for the right to copy that design.


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 2, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> It's time for you to start with serious research instead of just reading macrumors. You seem (as I got by some of your previous posts) to miss some information about macs..





Prove it!  Prove your own arguments!


----------



## Randman (Jul 3, 2004)

Tiresome thread. Time to move on folks, nothing going on here.


----------



## mdnky (Jul 3, 2004)

mi5moav said:
			
		

> I have a feeling all we will be seeing is 20" inch imacs come the next round... no 17 inchers anymore. Apple has done a strange thing on their site. The only imac they now make reference to is the 20" its' like the other two never existed... or Apple will keep the 20" in supply while bringin in some new ones...this is getting very confusing.



Maybe a 23" or 30" iMac???  Talk about a heavy screen...<G>


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 3, 2004)

King Shrek said:
			
		

> Prove it!  Prove your own arguments!


Use search, King Shrek. We discussed these things long time ago when the G5 was out and the question was: Dual G4 or single G5? I am not your teacher but trying to give you useful advices. If this is bulls*** to you, alright..


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 3, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Use search



Been there, done that.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 3, 2004)

King Shrek said:
			
		

> Been there, done that.



http://macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37393


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 3, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> http://macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37393



That thread only helped strengthen MY point-of-view.  Thanks!  ::angel::


----------



## Randman (Jul 3, 2004)

Please, someone lock this thread and put us all out of misery.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 4, 2004)

reading is a skill not everyone has


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 4, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> reading is a skill not everyone has



Ok, that was an insult.

Zammy-Sam, you are the most extreme Machead I've ever met online.

And yes, Randman, I think this is a good idea:  Would a mod please close this thread and put us out of our misery?  We'd all appreciate it.  ::angel::


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 4, 2004)

why insult? I was talking about myself. You were right with that thread. 
And somehow I got the feeling you want to insult me with Machead, but I kinda like to be one. 
Yeah, let's really give up on this thread. Got so tired of it..


----------



## chevy (Jul 4, 2004)

So it shall be closed


----------

