backtop


Print 66 comment(s) - last by KoolAidMan1.. on Jan 26 at 7:09 PM


Demand, and possibly quality issues, have caused Apple to delay shipments of the bestselling new 27-inch iMac (right) 3 weeks.  (Source: Apple)
Delay puts a damper on the best-selling desktop

The new Apple iMacs, released in October 2009 have been much maligned for quality control issues, including broken screens, failure to boot, graphical glitches, and, most recently, yellowed screens.  However, it's important to note that they've also been a terrific sales success story for Apple, topping desktop sales charts in Q4 2009.  Customers who haven't suffered problems have fallen in love with the improved hardware, seamless aluminum enclosure, and edge-to-edge glass design.

That said, Apple seems to be enduring more struggles with the popular model.  About a week ago, Apple had said that it was shipping iMacs within less than a week from the order time.  Now it says the delay on 27-inch units has been pushed to three weeks according to Apple Insider.  The 27-inch unit features a better GPU (ATI Radeon HD 4850) and offers the 2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor as a customization option (these options are not available for the 21-inch unit.

Demand likely is playing a heavy factor.  Apple may also be trying to weed out "lemons" -- iMacs with screen yellowing that are reportedly quite abundant.  Apple in December pushed the delay window for 2 weeks, following reports of graphical issues, chiefly affecting the new 27-inch iMac.  Apple has released a patch to fix this problem, and since has been delivering on a quicker timeframe.

Those problems may actually be playing a role in the delay, in addition to the demand and yellowing issues.  Many users on the Apple's customer support forums [1] [2] say that the graphics patch did not fix their issues.

Apple is constantly trying innovative case designs and packing hardware in tight spaces, but recent issues with the MacBook Pros and iMac series have illustrated that quality issues can bedevil such unproven efforts.  Apple has not officially addressed these recent quality slippages on a whole, but its surely a major concern for the company, which has built a small, but significant market share based largely on a strong brand image.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Wow
By KoolAidMan1 on 1/24/2010 6:27:07 AM , Rating: 2
BTW, I checked out benchmarks with the Radeon 4850 on 30" 2560x1600 displays, a higher res than the 2560x1440 on the iMac. The CPUs in the tests were Core 2 Duos at a little under 3ghz, slower than the i7 860 in the 27" iMac, which in my machines automatically ramp up to 3.5ghz without me manually overclocking them (yay Turbo mode).

At that 2560x1600 resolution it averaged at around 30fps in Crysis. Drop down to 1920 and you're at around 40fps. That's the worst case scenario you're going to see with games. With Modern Warfare 2 or Team Fortress 2 or Left 4 Dead 2 you're looking at much higher framerates, and more than playable if you drop down to 1920 res. I played TF2 for a year on my prior gaming rig with an 8800GT and it ran great. Blame lower system requirements because of consoles lowering the performance ceiling, but there you go. A 4850 at 1920 or 2560 res will run games fine. Not GTX 285 levels like I'm playing with now, but fine.

It'll do way better than run games at "single digit framerates".

In any case, I use a 27" iMac for my main desktop, work, and Final Cut Studio for my portfolio, not gaming. The GPU drives the full desktop with multiple uncompressed HD video windows running and everything with no issues whatsoever. I have a multiple computers (I haven't quite shaken the DIY habit and never will) so the toy PC that my Mac pays for is what I play games on. If I had to though, it'd be fine firing up L4D2 or Dawn Of War 2 on the iMac, the biggest hassle would be rebooting between OS X and Windows. As it stands its a waste of buying another Windows license.

The thing you should ask is why can't other PC manufacturers get comparable GPUs into their own all-in-ones. The best Dell or HP could manage for the longest time are Intel integrated graphics and have just bumped up to G200 and 9400M GPUs. Now those are poor for driving games at the 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 those desktops come in...


RE: Wow
By Smilin on 1/26/2010 10:02:28 AM , Rating: 2
Dude.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics...

It's pulling 39fps at 19x12 on a year old game.

It's going to run like sh*t at 2560x1600 and if you stick with 19x12 it's going to look like big greasy sh*t on that monitor.

If you're going to run a 2560 monitor you need a top end video card or a pair.


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki