24-inch iMac: Worth the price?

[Karelia]

So, I'd like to get a few responses on this, because I'm still unsure of the general consensus. In everyone's opinion, is the 24" iMac really worth the price jump when compared to it's 20" cousin? The only differences, aside form the obvious screen real-estate increase, are the addition of a FireWire 800 port and an nVidia 7300GT graphics card, rather than an ATI Radeon X1600. Both have the same functional specifications, the same upgrade costs and options, etc. So the question I pose is: is 4 inches of LCD really worth $500?

[Dave K.]

So, I'd like to get a few responses on this, because I'm still unsure of the general consensus. In everyone's opinion, is the 24" iMac really worth the price jump when compared to it's 20" cousin? The only differences, aside form the obvious screen real-estate increase, are the addition of a FireWire 800 port and an nVidia 7300GT graphics card, rather than an ATI Radeon X1600. Both have the same functional specifications, the same upgrade costs and options, etc. So the question I pose is: is 4 inches of LCD really worth $500?


No it is not worth the price tag. Maybe if Apple would have put in an Express card slot for some sort of future expandability, I may have a different opinion.

Dave

[mikef]

If you want a 4" larger screen, better video, and FW800, then it's worth it. Otherwise it's not...

Ultimately, isn't the decision yours?

[Kishan]

In my 24" iMac I have my main Mac for the next 3 to 4 years and a pretty decent windows game machine for the types of games I like to play (I'm don't care for 3D 1st person shooters). With FireWire drives I have expanded my hard drive space to 1 TB. It runs all the consumer software I want. I don't regret my decision one bit. I cannot emphasize enough how awesome the giant screen is. While I am sure the computer has its limitations, I haven't run into them yet. My advice would be to buy the best computer you can afford, because you can be sure that in 3-6 months, there will be something better.

[Galley]

FWIW, it's the only iMac with a 1080P display.

[imacFP]

So, I'd like to get a few responses on this, because I'm still unsure of the general consensus. In everyone's opinion, is the 24" iMac really worth the price jump when compared to it's 20" cousin? The only differences, aside form the obvious screen real-estate increase, are the addition of a FireWire 800 port and an nVidia 7300GT graphics card, rather than an ATI Radeon X1600. Both have the same functional specifications, the same upgrade costs and options, etc. So the question I pose is: is 4 inches of LCD really worth $500?
I had to make the same choice since I recently bought a 20". For me it came down to money issue. My wife put me on a budget. :) I love my iMac, and honestly I had to get used to the larger screen. It was a big change going from a 15" screen to a 20". The 24" didn't seem worth the money, but I do miss having the faster FW 800 port. I also regret not getting the largest size hard drive. If you have the money, and you're willing to spend it, get the 24". Otherwise the 20", maxed out, is a great machine. However, I have to admit that I have a bit of envy when I go into the local Apple Store and see the 24" sitting there.

[Karelia]

True. I've really got my eye on the 20, just because it's so much cheaper with, really, no performance decrease. Not to mention I consider the screen on a 17" PowerBook huge, so I can just imagine the 20"...

Although I would love the bigger screen, since I plan on using it as a TV as well by tossing a Miglia TVMicro into the pot, I like the idea of an ATI video card rather than an nVidia. I've just always had more luck with ATI.

FWIW, it's the only iMac with a 1080P display.

Actually, it's regrettably not an HD display.

[Chucker]

Actually, it's regrettably not an HD display.

I'm not quite sure how a display with a resolution of 1920x1200 (therefore, more than 1920x1080, i.e. 1080p) doesn't qualify as HD.

[imacFP]

True. I've really got my eye on the 20, just because it's so much cheaper with, really, no performance decrease. Not to mention I consider the screen on a 17" PowerBook huge, so I can just imagine the 20"...

Although I would love the bigger screen, since I plan on using it as a TV as well by tossing a Miglia TVMicro into the pot, I like the idea of an ATI video card rather than an nVidia. I've just always had more luck with ATI.



Actually, it's regrettably not an HD display.
The 24" video card is better, but I've honestly not felt that I've lost anything by not having it and I push my 20" to the limit or try to. I honestly had to get used to the larger screen and for me it's large enough. Like I said, I do miss the larger 500 GB, although I have an external hard drive where I store my videos and iDVD files. I should have gotten it. If the FW 800 were offered I'd have gotten it. It's a shame it was not a BTO.

[Karelia]

You can always have the hard drive upgraded, as well. Snag a 320, 400, or even 500GB drive off some PC parts website or store and it will work. That's the nice thing about universal parts.

[mikef]

I'm not quite sure how a display with a resolution of 1920x1200 (therefore, more than 1920x1080, i.e. 1080p) doesn't qualify as HD.

Yes, please explain! I'm dying to hear this...

[Atlas]

I bought my 24" iMac with no upgrades at the end of last month. I don't believe the extra real estate space is too worth it. It makes watching movies fun, it makes PhotoShop WAY easier and working with multiple windows (Finder windows, Safari windows, etc.) is not a pain in the butt anymore. I always hated having more then 1-2 windows open, but now I can multitask better.

With games and just internet browsing, I feel like I might have made a mistake. I don't believe you'll even care about the extra space. I just got into Age Of Empires III and I could play it on a 20" and not care.

Was it worth it? Oh heck yes. The extra real estate is nice if your going to use it. The better video card is not only faster, but it is also brighter. Go into an Apple store and put both the 20" and 24" on its brightest setting and there is a NOTICABLE difference. That was pretty much the kicker for me.

-kk

[Karelia]

FWIW, it's the only iMac with a 1080P display.

Yes, please explain! I'm dying to hear this...

I'm not quite sure how a display with a resolution of 1920x1200 (therefore, more than 1920x1080, i.e. 1080p) doesn't qualify as HD.

Because 1920x1200 is just that, 1920 pixels by 1200 pixels. It doesn't take into account the progressive scan function of 1080p. The 24" iMac may have the pixel rating to run HD, but it doesn't do progressive scan.

[vinea]

Because 1920x1200 is just that, 1920 pixels by 1200 pixels. It doesn't take into account the progressive scan function of 1080p. The 24" iMac may have the pixel rating to run HD, but it doesn't do progressive scan.


Um...LCD displays are by their nature progressive vs interlaced...

Personally, I'd get the 20" and debate getting a Dell 24" WS for $600 more if I wanted the extra screen real-estate or a 23" HDTV (probably from Costcos or BJs) if I wanted a HDMI/HDCP support for around $500 and tack on an Apple TV.

Vinea

[Karelia]

I worded it wrong, that didn't help much. The standard-definition signal is compressed to about a fifth of the bandwidth, so it's less taxing on the video card (or in the case of an TV broadcast, they can send more channels through one transmission). I'm no pro at HDTV trivia, but I am 100% sure that the only HD displays in Apple's arsenal as of now are the 23" and 30" Cinemas. That much I know from the specifications.

[Trendannoyer]

I worded it wrong, that didn't help much. The standard-definition signal is compressed to about a fifth of the bandwidth, so it's less taxing on the video card (or in the case of an TV broadcast, they can send more channels through one transmission). I'm no pro at HDTV trivia, but I am 100% sure that the only HD displays in Apple's arsenal as of now are the 23" and 30" Cinemas. That much I know from the specifications.

????? well according to Because 1920x1200 is just that, 1920 pixels by 1200 pixels. It doesn't take into account the progressive scan function of 1080p. The 24" iMac may have the pixel rating to run HD, but it doesn't do progressive scan.

23-inch (viewable)
1920 x 1200 optimal resolution wouldnt be HD either

nor would

30-inch (29.7-inch viewable)
2560 x 1600 optimal resolution


i think in this case... comparing the resolution on the 20" to the 24" the 24" is the only screen capable of displaying HDs necessary 1920x1080, where as the 20" display IS NOT capable of displaying the 1080 part.... or for that matter the 1920... being as it is "only" 1680 x 1050

[Mac Voyer]

It is the best computer for the money I ever owned. The screen size is more than worth the scratch. put 2GB ram and that puppy and you will chuckle at the notion of comparing it to the 20'. You will never regret that purchase.

[Marvin]

I'd go for the 20" personally. I think the 24" is too big. It is brighter and has a better GPU but if you don't need it, don't spend the money on it. Even with the screen being HD resolution, that only really matters if you are editing HD. Watching HD will be fine because it's scaling it down not up so you won't lose out much at all.

[Karelia]

I won't lie here, I have very little idea what the true definition and requisites for HD are, but I can assure you, the 24" is NOT an HD display. I have seen the difference, we hooked a 23" HD Cinema to a 24" in extended desktop mode. Playing a piece of HD content, we saw a noticble, albeit small (HD's not that much better) decrease when we moved the content from the 23" to the main 24". Even though the resolution sounds like it fits into the definition of HD, it's not. I've had multiple people tell me this as well. People have bought 24-inchers, assuming it was because it was bigger than the 23", but came back saying it was not HD quality. They still loved thair machines, nonetheless, but were a bit dispayed to find that out.

Of course, to most people, whether it's HD or not will not matter or even be very noticiable. I'm just trying to warn those out there that are considering getting the 24" over the 20" specifically for the HD screen, it's not HD. Besides, if it was, you'd think Apple would mention it at lease once in the specs and boasts of the iMac, at least somewhere on their website.

[Marvin]

I won't lie here, I have very little idea what the true definition and requisites for HD are, but I can assure you, the 24" is NOT an HD display. I have seen the difference, we hooked a 23" HD Cinema to a 24" in extended desktop mode. Playing a piece of HD content, we saw a noticble, albeit small (HD's not that much better) decrease when we moved the content from the 23" to the main 24". Even though the resolution sounds like it fits into the definition of HD, it's not. I've had multiple people tell me this as well. People have bought 24-inchers, assuming it was because it was bigger than the 23", but came back saying it was not HD quality. They still loved thair machines, nonetheless, but were a bit dispayed to find that out.

It is HD. The quality difference can be a number of things. I hooked up an old CRT in extended mode next to the iMac screen and the CRT was visibly better quality with far better colors. All this means is that the iMac screens are not very good quality and it's one big reason why I don't own one.

I still think Apple should get rid of the iMac and replace it with a mini + Cinema Display. They just have to make the mini good value and they'd cost the same.

Top Mini = £529, 23" Cinema = £779, total = £1308
24" iMac = £1349

So add a £50 GPU to the Mini and give it Core 2 Duo CPUs.

Of course few people would buy Apple's displays at that price so it won't happen.

[Trendannoyer]

I won't lie here, I have very little idea what the true definition and requisites for HD are....

that sort of says it all

HD SPEC. has nothing to do with QUALITY... quality is subjective, spec is a REQUIREMNET and that requirment is the ability to playback "movies" at a rez of 1920 x 1080 which the 24"iMac CAN do and the 20" iMac CANT do....

THAT is the point we were making, which you seem unable to understand...

im not saying i know much more than you, but its not THAT hard to grasp

[Karelia]

Oh, I understand that, all I'm saying is that, pixel-for-pixel, it's not an HD display.

[blingem]

Forget the imac. Get a top-shelf mac mini and an HD monitor. Game over. Unless you're a university.

[Archstudent]

Forget the imac. Get a top-shelf mac mini and an HD monitor. Game over. Unless you're a university.

you are forgetting:
-mac mini has no gpu.
-imac is C2D, whereas mac mini is CD.
-imac has much larger hard drive.
-imac comes with more RAM.
-imac is more expandable.

once you have got the top mac mini model and added a decent lcd (as well as keyboard and mouse) you are paying more than you would for an imac anyway I believe.

[JeffDM]

You can always have the hard drive upgraded, as well. Snag a 320, 400, or even 500GB drive off some PC parts website or store and it will work. That's the nice thing about universal parts.

Unfortunately, getting it inside is the hard part. The iSight iMacs aren't so simple to get into. It's easy to recommend if you had the original style G5 iMacs, it's just a few screws, the new iMacs aren't user serviceable except for the memory.

Oh, I understand that, all I'm saying is that, pixel-for-pixel, it's not an HD display.

Pixel-for-pixel, it really is the same resolution as the 23" Cinema display which you did call HD. There may be some deficiencies somewhere else in the setup. It will play HD video pixel-for-pixel or better, the only thing they won't do is display HD video from an external source like a PS3.

Any differences you saw when compared against the 23" ACD may have just been a difference in calibration or settings. With poor calibration, weird stuff can be more obvious.

The better video card is not only faster, but it is also brighter. Go into an Apple store and put both the 20" and 24" on its brightest setting and there is a NOTICABLE difference. That was pretty much the kicker for me.

Well, yes, I'm sure it is brighter, but it's entirely unnecessary to be brighter unless you are going to use it in the sun or under caustically bright retail lighting like at the Apple store. I personally would go for the 24" though, for all the little extra features it offers.

[bigdon]

I sure hope it is worth the money because I just ordered a 24" yesterday evening. Got the 2GB of Ram, 256MB video card and 500GB hard drive. I've been a PC user all of my life, but decided to take the plunge.

[Mac Voyer]

I sure hope it is worth the money because I just ordered a 24" yesterday evening. Got the 2GB of Ram, 256MB video card and 500GB hard drive. I've been a PC user all of my life, but decided to take the plunge.

You're going to love it. There is no such thing as buyer's remorse with a 24" iMac.

[OldCodger73]

Back to the original question.

FW800 is nice to have if you're using an external firewire drive that is FW800 capable, Much faster than FW400.

However, instead of getting the 24" I'd get the 20" and use the money saved for another 20" LCD. Once you use dual screens there's no going back.

[Splinemodel]

Back to the original question.

FW800 is nice to have if you're using an external firewire drive that is FW800 capable, Much faster than FW400.

However, instead of getting the 24" I'd get the 20" and use the money saved for another 20" LCD. Once you use dual screens there's no going back.

To tell you the truth, there is: going to one really large screen is actually nicer.

[polarissucks]

i dont know, i absolutally love my imac 24". its fast. its nice i just love it. i love the big screen. i would never go any smaller. great graphics , speed. only cost me 3400 with tax. its got a great screen. after looking at any other computer screen, including some apples tehy look smudgy. this my friend is a nice computer.

[OldCodger73]

To tell you the truth, there is: going to one really large screen is actually nicer.

One large screen is nicer only if it's 30", IMO. But YMMV.

[Splinemodel]

One large screen is nicer only if it's 30", IMO. But YMMV.

Well, the game is about screen area, convenience, consistency, and cost. Different people have different priorities.

A. If you have two of the same display, then you don't have to worry at all about consistent color across the two screens, but ultimately having a single display guards against variations in the fading of the backlight, manufacturing, etc.

B. Having one display is often a bit more convenient than having two.

C. One 30" display actually has more screen area than do two 20" displays together.

D. Two 20" displays often cost reasonably together less than one 30" alone.


Two 20" ACDs is $1400 and 360 square inches.
Two 23" ACDs is $2000 and 475 square inches.
One 30" ACD is $2000 and 400 square inches.

If I had to choose between the latter two options, I'd pick the 30" ACD. However, it's tempting to pocket $600 and take the two 20" ACDs even though they have a bit less screen area and are two displays instead of one.

[JeffDM]

If I had to choose between the latter two options, I'd pick the 30" ACD. However, it's tempting to pocket $600 and take the two 20" ACDs even though they have a bit less screen area and are two displays instead of one.

It's not a simple number crunching problem though. One problem is that two widescreens is a very wide desktop, both on screen and actual width occupied by the displays, without much height in the displayed image. The 30" is taller, allowing for less scrolling if you have a page that is using the screen height. Also, one would have to go to the other screen in order to use the program menu, for a window that's on the secondary display. That part irritates me, not enough commands are accessible through hot keys.

[TekMate]

Was it worth it? Oh heck yes. The extra real estate is nice if your going to use it. The better video card is not only faster, but it is also brighter. Go into an Apple store and put both the 20" and 24" on its brightest setting and there is a NOTICABLE difference. That was pretty much the kicker for me.

-kk


I did this today and I agree the 24" is brighter and more vivid never mind being bigger.

[AndyRu]

I sure hope it is worth the money because I just ordered a 24" yesterday evening. Got the 2GB of Ram, 256MB video card and 500GB hard drive. I've been a PC user all of my life, but decided to take the plunge.

Hey! Thanks for the post. I too am a PC "lifer" looking at an iMac ... and trying to decide on the 20" or 24". From what I read on this discussion, the 24" would better serve the needs of our family. Viewing DVD's would be more enjoyable, and more space for the "spaces" feature of the new Leopard OS.

[BenRoethig]

So, I'd like to get a few responses on this, because I'm still unsure of the general consensus. In everyone's opinion, is the 24" iMac really worth the price jump when compared to it's 20" cousin? The only differences, aside form the obvious screen real-estate increase, are the addition of a FireWire 800 port and an nVidia 7300GT graphics card, rather than an ATI Radeon X1600. Both have the same functional specifications, the same upgrade costs and options, etc. So the question I pose is: is 4 inches of LCD really worth $500?

If you need or want the added screen real estate, it's well worth the price. If you're looking at the 24" iMac because its the most affordable option for either firewire or the chance to upgrade to a better video card (7600GT) than what you're reallying looking at a $500 Apple tax. A 20" is going to be very large for most users and the difference between the x1600 and 7300GT isn't all that great. The upgrade to the 7600GT is pretty substantial though, it's has more than double of the performance of the x1600.

[applebook]

This is coming from a very pleased 20" owner, but if you have the money and are even considering the 24," then I'd recommend purely for the 7600GT. I had this card in my Wintel, and while it's not high-end, it'll play any Windows game at minimum settings of 1280+

While the 24" LCD is nice, another LCD can be added to the 20," while a graphics card cannot.

If you rarely play games, though, the X1600 in the 20" should be more than sufficient. I do play the occasional FPS and would appreciate the 7600GT.