MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative

Brian Says:

This may be just my opinion, but it seems that Apple (His Steveness) doesn’t really have much interest in gaming.  Granted, I think the heavy focus on video games is pretty juvenile, only existing because of quick profits.  Apple computers have always focused on creativity, something that just doesn’t exist in a game.

Posted on August 09, 2007

Peter Says:

Wow...although I wouldn’t consider myself a real gamer, to say that creativity doesn’t exist in games is one of the most ridiculous statements in a long time.

Posted on August 09, 2007

bp Says:

I’m sorry, but you have to realize that gaming is not the object of the Apple consumer line and never was. This was in part due to the old Apple Corp issues that kept Apple from upgrading audio to keep up with gaming for years.

The only system that would be lauded by gamers is a minitower with easily upgradeable CPU and graphics cards with a monitor and keyboard at less than $1000. Even if you had graphics cards near the top of the list, these would move down the list a few months later anyway.

The Mac Pro’s are predominantly used for high level graphics/video and putting better graphics in the iMac would steal from the upper level computers, which will actually need to be revised soon, most likely within the next few weeks, to no fanfare. I foresee an increase in the base memory, CPU speed, harddrive, and possibly but not necessarily the graphics card.

Posted on August 09, 2007

Kevin Says:

Does anyone know if the graphics cards will run Apertue well? I looked at the specs for Aperture and could not find these graphics cards listed.

Posted on August 09, 2007

rogerr Says:

Have to agree with BP. Games are not what the iMac is for. I went to the Apple store yesterday and played with the new 24” iMac. Seems plenty peppy enough. Gamers want any box that you can swap out components with--and they will never be happy with any production unit, because production takes a while and new cards come out in the meantime. That’s not what an All-in-One is designed for, and surely that’s no surprise. 99% of iMac buyers never change a thing in their units (maybe RAM). There’s also the issue of what cards will work with the current OS X.
Would a mini-tower/midi tower be the answer? Don’t know, but that’s not the function of an iMac.

Posted on August 09, 2007

David Says:

It was disappointing to see Apple put such weak video chips into the new iMacs. I’m also disappointed with the new displays in the 20” model. They’re 6-bit panels with a gloss finish which ensure poor viewing angles (move your head even slightly and brightness/contrast/color all change) and poor color reproduction (gloss screens oversaturate images and 6-bit panels rely on dithering to create most colors). Most glossy screens also suffer from excessive glare and distracting reflections.

I disagree with bp on the gamers only on price. I believe a $999 Mac tower with upgradeable parts would sell very well. There are two things preventing that: the chicken and egg dilemma of there being no gaming quality video cards with Mac drivers, and the fact that his Steveness will never allow such a machine to be sold. In his mind a computer is an appliance that end users never need or want to open. I, however, don’t want to be stuck with his choice of display, video chip, CPU, RAM, HD, etc.

One final sad note is that Apple is still calling 667MHz RAM fast when 1066MHz desktop RAM is dirt cheap and even faster DDR3 RAM is available. Of course his Steveness doesn’t really care all that much about desktops anymore, Apple is really all about portable computers now.

Posted on August 09, 2007

James Says:

Brian, bp and rogerr,
I agree that Jobs and Apple have traditionally had no interest in gaming.

Then why the heck bring out John Carmack to talk games and a brand new extremely high end game engine (MW2007)? Not once, but twice (some previous MW)? Why the heck talk about EA games “coming back to the Mac” (MW 2007)?

Gaming can drive hardware sales. Look at some of the niche PC makers, i.e. Alienware. They were very successful building high end gaming PCs until being bought by Dell.

Now that I can run XP or Vista for games (if Apple doesn’t want to make an effort to court game developers with native support), why not offer me a machine that has the graphics horsepower to run Call of Duty 4 when it comes out? The CPU is certainly powerful enough, but the GPU is definitely mis-matched.

I would be willing to pay for a machine with the capabilites between an iMac and a Mac Pro. Or even the 24”, 2.8 GHz iMac with closer to top end graphics card. This is a 1920X1200 display. There needs to be some serious horsepower to drive a 30-60 fps game at that resolution.

I guess I would close with this: Apple and Steve Jobs shouldn’t talk about games coming to the Mac if they aren’t going to back it up with some reasonably affordable hardware to play them on.

Posted on August 09, 2007

Walt French Says:

The iMac is all about smooth, “it just works” and being drop-dead-gorgeous; I’d say that it’s actually OVER-powered for its intended audience. Great performance on converting audio, recoding video and other iLife-type apps that take real time.

Gamers—given what I see on the websites—actually PREFER to be over-clocking their chips for every possible extra frame/sec, possibly installing customized cooling systems with banshee fans to keep from frying the chip, updating drivers for video cards, etc. My hobby interests lie elsewhere, even if they’re similar. But I think it’s a fine pursuit.

Apple could make an iGamer machine; his Steveness has made it clear that TV doesn’t do anything for his personal tastes but there’s plenty of product there. But it’s hard to see how any “real” gamers would actually buy into any of Apple’s strengths, and it would merely invite disdain & bad press, while not selling any boxes.

Posted on August 09, 2007

Jeff Says:

Comments about graphics shortcomings being OK because the Mac is not a game machine fall flat.

It reminds me of similar arguments when big money was needed to get high color video cards on a Mac. The arguments were that only pofessionals needed the pricey high end cards. This was at a time when PC video cards were much cheaper. My thought at the time was that Grandma wouldn’t mind seeing pictures of the grandkids in color.

Posted on August 09, 2007

Marty Says:

I can’t believe all of the lame gamer stereo-types I’m reading about on here… “PREFER to be over-clocking their chips for every possible extra frame/sec.”

Baloney.  You are talking about a TINY percentage of the hardcore market. Most gamers just want to buy a mid-range video card that will play Call of Duty #, Battlefield #, Unreal # or similar with a decent frame-rate. Unfortunately, the new iMac won’t.

These new iMacs absolutely #### for 3D. The new video cards are actually a DOWNGRADE from the previos iMac generation. The 7600 GT is faster than these craptacular Radeons, and it’s likely that the 7300 and 8600m (in the current MacBook Pros) will also score better in 3D graphics.

It’s not just “hard core” gamers that want to play the occasional shoorter once in a while. To call video gaming on a Mac “juvenile” is nothing more than fan-boy rationalization, especially when millions are on line playing World of Warcraft, Halo and any number of immersive games. Gaming may not be the focus of the Macintosh, but if the Mac is supposed to be our “entertainment hub”, gaming needs to be a part of that.

Aoole made a huge deal about EA, id and Epic continuing to support the Mac gaming market and then they release another machine with a low-end video card… They don’t even give the option of a BTO upgrade like the 7600 GT on the last iMacs.

Gaming *is* important to the consumer… and the iMac is the flagship consumer model Macintosh.  It’s not too much to ask for a half-decent video card. It would add little, if anything, to the cost seeing as how they did it with the last iMac generation. We’re not asking for a high end gaming machine here… just something that will give us more than 20 fps.

Posted on August 09, 2007

Jason Says:

Game technology is five years in front of everyday app and os technology. Games are not just good for their demographic, they are good for make sure innovation remains at a steady pace. Machines that are setup for games today will last an average of two years longer in abilities to run apps two years down the road.

The things user take for granted are the ways things are handled with graphics, and how by having cards capable of playing these higher-end games, allow OS and app developers far, far more options, extensibility and longevity over the long term.

That said, there is a vested interest in making sure customers continue to purchase new hardware and software at at least the current rate, if not more frequently. If consumers were not so open to purchasing new hardware so often, hardware and software developers would have to make sure their technologies were more advanced.

Posted on August 09, 2007

Rogre Says:

I do not know for sure, But I suspect heat issues in the tight spaced iMac may limit some of the high end video cards.

There have never been really high end video cards for Macs, and mostly we have only a few cards available at any time.

Posted on August 09, 2007

nogamer Says:

Im no gamer- but have a better gaming experience then many pc users have today. Not all PC gamers have the latest and the greatest. They buy PC for the amount of games available on the PC. With Cider technology that will all change. I have a Imac with x1600 256 MB, is that such a bad card? really? i can play all games i come in contact with including all PC games when rebooting into windows. So where is the imac not enough? People should try and imac even if they enjoy games. They might end up surprised. The thing i would like to up to date is the mac mini but with upgradeable graphics card. that would be a gamers dream machine. smal and fast. 1 TB disk would be possible and a faster graphics chip and a good enogh cpu. of course fans to cool it, but still, wouldnt that be a killer gamer machine?

Posted on August 09, 2007

etype Says:

I’m a professional mac user and I think games are a waste of valuable time. However, I have to agree to most everything Marty and others here say - ‘ if the imac is supposed to be the entertainment hub....etc.’

i hope Apple listens to their customers on this obvious shortcoming.,,,it would propel the imac into many more homes and create that many more satisfied customers.

Posted on August 09, 2007

pixu Says:

The new iMac is pretty darn hot as it is, even with small loads. With the EA hype and all, maybe they were planning on better cards but were forced to stick with a cooler one… But then again Apple is known for its margins and graphics cards are expensive.

Posted on August 22, 2007

watchdog Says:

I have bee seriously considering a new 24” iMac for over a month.. Its a sleek piece of machinery with good specs… apart from the low end graphic card. I’m a current older generation G5 user who likes to customise my Mac to suit my needs. Like many other Mac users I like to play the odd game. Games as we all know demand a lot from your system, in particular they prefer a graphic card with a bit of horsepower. The new ATI Radeon card in the new iMac’s definitely does not meet these requirements. The obvious answer would be - upgrade to a better card, or have a superior card installed at time of purchase. Both these options are not possible with the latest iMac..
For that reason alone I have not at this time committed myself to buying a great looking Mac that has a bare bones graphics card.
It looks like I may have to get myself a MacPro with a ATI Radeon X1900XT card installed. All I really want is a iMac with the Radeon X1900XT as an option..

Posted on November 26, 2007