24-inch iMac: Worth the price?
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?
Comments
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
Ultimately, isn't the decision yours?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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