or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › New iMacs post modest gains over predecessors (benchmarks)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New iMacs post modest gains over predecessors (benchmarks) - Page 2

post #41 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thataboy View Post

OMG who cares. Obviously a slightly faster version of the same processor will be slightly better.

Why doesn't someone test out the Core 2 EXTREME iMac???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonlar View Post

Come on guys.....
Where are the benchmarks for the 24" iMac 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme?

Hold your horses. They didn't seem to be available yet. MacWorld says that they didn't get theirs yet. I think all the benchmarkers wanted to get their stories out as soon as possible.
post #42 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafe View Post

I've got the 2.33 GHz 24" white iMac also -- bought it early this year . . .

The new model is such a small improvement, I'll probably skip this generation. Don't get me wrong -- it looks great. It's just not a huge performance improvement. I love the one I've got, and it cranks just fine!

For Pete's sake, your computer is barely over a half year old and you need to find more reasons not to buy the new version?

I really don't understand this type of statement made by fans whenever Apple revs a product. It's not as if Jobs is personally hounding Mac owners to buy every product update that he offers. Not every product update is going to be major leaps over the previous revision. That's just not a realistic expectation to have. These updates are to remain competitive, not so that fans can buy a new machine on every rev.

Quote:
I disagree with the original article's assertion that the extra 1GB of memory might just be enough to convince me to get one. HUH? Is that all it takes?

That statement that you reference was written with regard to a very specific and niche set of uses. If you often use more than 3GB of memory, then your performance may spike.
post #43 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by petrokalis View Post

It's not a Core 2 Duo Extreme in the 2.8GHz iMac. It's just a higher frequency bin of the mobile Merom (Core 2 Duo). It definitely a mobile part to work with the mobile chipset.

Actually, the 2.6GHz and faster Meroms are marketed with the "extreme" label, or that was the plan when I first heard about the 2.6GHz speed being introduced.
post #44 of 80
I would've purchased this....the glossy screen killed it for me.
The GPU is less of an importance, but still adds to the dislike of the design choices.

CHOICE please....glossy, or matte.
post #45 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDW View Post

I myself had planned to get a new iMac after Apple's revised models came out. But after seeing the stupid looking black border around the screen, and after seeing there was no option for a non-glossy LCD model, I couldn't care less if these machines had the power of a hundred Mac Pros. I refuse to buy something this bad. Of course, I have no budget whatsoever for an expensive Mac Pro setup, even though it would get me a matte LCD and eliminate that frightful black border.

So I will continue to wait until Apple comes out with a reasonable line of iMacs. Hopefully, Apple will sell a very low number of these new models. That will help to drive the point home about the glossy screen and ugly black border! Jonathan Ive, you really screwed up this time!

The new one grows on you, it did me and I was very unimpressed at first. At least until I realized I could get the 2.8 C2E and then I ordered one the night they came out.

I have a 20" 18 G5 and man, a speed jump and screen size improvement with a 24" model is not going to describe your feelings.

Check out my 24" sitting next to my 1.8 G5.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #46 of 80
these benchmarks really tempt me to try to pick up a discounted previous generation model... i could surely get some serious savings!
post #47 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

What real debate? Screen? Keyboards?

Most of the gripes are from those that haven't seen or touched a real iMac and looking a some of their profiles and previous blogs, most haven't bought an new Mac in years (some quite a few years). Certainly none of them has had a real-world experience.

Perhaps a look a Macworlds just posted benchtest should help reduce the concern. http://www.macworld.com/2007/08/firs...arks/index.php

People are debating the black border, glossy vs Matte, etc. Things which all boil down to personal preference. I was really steering towards processor/and GPUs. Areas were benchmarks are concrete. Although I'm happy with my purchase (20in iMac shipped Aug 10th!) I can see where some would question the minor speed bumps (20 inch specifically). We're talking 11 months between models without a speed bump. This is classic Apple at it's best. (Anybody remember when the Mac clones use to kick Apple butt on "meaningful" specs?)

Having said that yes, I bought the new iMac.. LOVE the design. Coming from a G4 iMac my perception of this machine is that it is going to SCREAM. Hey, it's all relative. I'm going to enjoy.

We early adopters are paying a little more for a new design. I'm cool with that. For others, I would expect a much better speed bump early next spring if you can wait that long and still do want an iMac.
post #48 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by cygnusrk727 View Post

People are debating the black border, glossy vs Matte, etc. Things which all boil down to personal preference. I was really steering towards processor/and GPUs. Areas were benchmarks are concrete. Although I'm happy with my purchase (20in iMac shipped Aug 10th!) I can see where some would question the minor speed bumps (20 inch specifically). We're talking 11 months between models without a speed bump. This is classic Apple at it's best. (Anybody remember when the Mac clones use to kick Apple butt on "meaningful" specs?)

Having said that yes, I bought the new iMac.. LOVE the design. Coming from a G4 iMac my perception of this machine is that it is going to SCREAM. Hey, it's all relative. I'm going to enjoy.

We early adopters are paying a little more for a new design. I'm cool with that. For others, I would expect a much better speed bump early next spring if you can wait that long and still do want an iMac.

"On February 5, 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented a case for military intervention in Iraq to the UN Security Council. Powell presented an array of evidence from satellite images to (alleged) intercepted military communications and computer-generated images depicting mobile biological weapon production systems (the likelihood of these mobile systems have been questioned by experts, notably Hans Blix)."

So, based on blogs and a couple of picswe are now in a quagmire that could have been avoided if only we verified the sources and their creators. Sounding familiar?

As for performance, Macworld's benchtest results don't seem to bother most of their readers. Sure it would be great if the bumps were more significant, i.e., for those that held out and haven't made a purchase in the past year or so. But for a mid-range product along with the continuous enhancements while maintaining previous or even reducing prices is certainly a bargain that is well worth considering. And imagine how many would ever upgrade knowing that there was a beauty in the wings, as exampled by the guy that hasn't upgraded since he bought a G3 iMac but constantly castigated Adobe for not coming forth with a universal binary sooner, criticized the iPhone/AT&T daily and now has putting off purchasing a new iMac until Apple offers a matte screen.

Buy the way, I had a employee bring and set up a Mac clone in my agency. Piece of crap in every respect. So was his decision.

And seriously, who or what other major manufacturer in the computer, auto, appliance or communication industry satisfies your criteria? Never mind who offers the innovation, service and support that Apple does.
post #49 of 80
I was hoping that Apple would have switched from ATi to nVIDIA GPU's!
post #50 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Ha... I don't know if anyone noticed this yet but the picture of the Dell from Steve's keynote is up on Apple's website
http://www.apple.com/imac/design.html

The comparison is simplicity is valid, but you have to admit they seem to have used 10' cables for everything in order to get those giant piles of coiled excess.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #51 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnhood View Post

I was hoping that Apple would have switched from ATi to nVIDIA GPU's!

Why?

The previous 24s had nVidia chips, so in a sense they switched to ATI for those.
post #52 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The comparison is simplicity is valid, but you have to admit they seem to have used 10' cables for everything in order to get those giant piles of coiled excess.

It does seem that way. It's not that hard to do decent cable management either.
post #53 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

The new one grows on you...
Check out my 24" sitting next to my 1.8 G5.

It hasn't grown on me. At least, the longer I look at the new iMac, the more I grow to hate that black border. It literally makes me sick to my stomach. And believe me, I know what the previous models look like because I see it every day at my office.

But thank you for posting those great photos. They clearly show how much nicer the previous generation iMac looks relative to the new, Ugly-Bezel models! Please post a new photo when the Ugly bugger arrives. It will be fun to see comments at that photo. I have no doubts when people see that photo they will say, "Wow, I love those two white ones, but my God, who threw up on that other iMac!"
post #54 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

As for performance, Macworld's benchtest results don't seem to bother most of their readers. Sure it would be great if the bumps were more significant, i.e., for those that held out and haven't made a purchase in the past year or so. But for a mid-range product along with the continuous enhancements while maintaining previous or even reducing prices is certainly a bargain that is well worth considering.

It's not as if the actual performance improvements in Santa Rosa platform was a secret either. I certainly don't expect Mac users to pay attention to the PC world, but Apple's pro notebooks were updated with the same CPU and chipsets only couple months ago and those benchmarks showed the same results.
post #55 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDW View Post

It hasn't grown on me. At least, the longer I look at the new iMac, the more I grow to hate that black border. It literally makes me sick to my stomach. And believe me, I know what the previous models look like because I see it every day at my office.

But thank you for posting those great photos. They clearly show how much nicer the previous generation iMac looks relative to the new, Ugly-Bezel models! Please post a new photo when the Ugly bugger arrives. It will be fun to see comments at that photo. I have no doubts when people see that photo they will say, "Wow, I love those two white ones, but my God, who threw up on that other iMac!"

I will take one with all 3 together when my black  iMac arrives.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #56 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

I will take one with all 3 together when my black  iMac arrives.

It looks like it should be easier to get a black iMac now. The chassis can be re-anodized, but colored black.
post #57 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It does seem that way. It's not that hard to do decent cable management either.

The iMac cords are also all neatly coiled while the Dell cords are just piled on the table. Also, the fact that the Dell cords are black on a white background vs. the white-on-white for the iMac. They also threw in a couple extra cables just to skew the comparison (the cord going to the mysterious black box on top of the tower case, a network cable [since clearly a Dell couldn't possibly have a wireless network card], possibly a coaxial cable going to a TV Tuner card [that one's the funniest considering how you can't even get an internal TV tuner for a Mac], maybe an audio cable [because the crap speakers in the iMac are good enough and as an iMac owner I can speak to their crap nature]).

To me, what the picture points out is that Dell actually provides a lot of choices that Apple thinks the consumer doesn't want or need.
post #58 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

The iMac cords are also all neatly coiled while the Dell cords are just piled on the table. Also, the fact that the Dell cords are black on a white background vs. the white-on-white for the iMac. They also threw in a couple extra cables just to skew the comparison (the cord going to the mysterious black box on top of the tower case, a network cable [since clearly a Dell couldn't possibly have a wireless network card], possibly a coaxial cable going to a TV Tuner card [that one's the funniest considering how you can't even get an internal TV tuner for a Mac], maybe an audio cable [because the crap speakers in the iMac are good enough and as an iMac owner I can speak to their crap nature]).

Good points.

I wonder if the black box at the top is the IR receiver. It's a little bigger than I've usually seen, but I've had a TV tuner with an optional IR box like that.

I've never really witnessed anyone actually doing video conferencing on a computer. For the typical user, the video camera wouldn't be used and could be stored or just not bought in the first place.

I wouldn't expect a Dell speaker set to be any good though. Most computer speakers really aren't as good as I'd like, so that's why I just stick to a receiver and a couple Paradigm bookshelf speakers.
post #59 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Good points.
I wonder if the black box at the top is the IR receiver. It's a little bigger than I've usually seen, but I've had a TV tuner with an optional IR box like that.

this makes sense. in order for a fair comparison they should be showing a dell with equivalent functionality, but with the extra cable spaghetti.

of course i'd wager that dell has more usb ports and therefore is not as likely to require hubs like the imac \
post #60 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The comparison is simplicity is valid, but you have to admit they seem to have used 10' cables for everything in order to get those giant piles of coiled excess.

And also you don't usually look at your computer from the side, so a more realistic comparison would show the two front on.
post #61 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyboy View Post

this makes sense. in order for a fair comparison they should be showing a dell with equivalent functionality, but with the extra cable spaghetti.

The iMac has a built in IR reciever, so it is fair to show a separate IR reciever for the Dell.

Looking at the pic, the Dell has cables for:
- Monitor (built in to iMac)
- Speakers (built in to iMac)
- Webcam (built in to iMac)
- IR Receiver (built in to iMac)
- Keyboard
- Mouse (plugs in to iMac keyboard)
- Power
post #62 of 80
of course with all things "design" there is no one single correct concept... but my take on the iMac design is that it is not as clean as one would expect from Apple. if I had to submit a design, it would have a very thin bezel... as thin as possible if it was impossible to have "zero" (or at least a couple of mm) profile bezel and would get rid of the "chin".

I'd rather have a thicker computer that had a less bulky front profile. now we have aluminum, glass, some of it covering a black backing, some of it over an LCD, and then the back with another black plastic surface. that's 4 different visual finishes.

also, the keyboard does not match its color coordination with the computer either. it is aluminum and white.

i don't think that the iMac is "ugly" per se, but is a generational oddity given an evolutionary perspective. if they really wanted to use the iPhone design paradigm excuse, then where is the chrome trim around the bezel?

24" iMac physical specs...
20.5" height 22.4" width 8.1" depth 25.4 pounds

30" Cinema display physical specs...
21.3" height 27.2" width 8.46" depth 27.5 pounds

with the large surface areas of extruded aluminum, I would have rather found more use put to the front surface area of the machine for a larger display. not saying that a 30" iMac makes THAT much sense (I'm sure there would be a few takers), but a 24" that was a bit less metal/plastic/glass at the exposure at the expense of some of its "slim"ness.... their add campaign - "you can't be too thin, or too powerful." sounds sickeningly like some Californian based CEO's mantra, but hey, put on some pounds and make it more useable and attractive, dare I say "athletic" vs "anorexic". yeah, that's right... now our computers are wearing black to try and slim down. yep, Apple has some non-technical designers at the helm now.
post #63 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDW View Post

I couldn't care less if these machines had the power of a hundred Mac Pros. I refuse to buy something this bad.

Well that's all very subjective!

If Apple started selling a Mac 100 times faster than a MacPro I'd buy it in a heartbeat!

Who gives a crap about fashion!
post #64 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

your complaint here doesn't make sense to me - desktop components of course would be faster than laptop ones. however the previous imac used laptop components as well, so naturally the gains wouldn't mirror a laptop/desktop comparison...

why should it be a "desktop computer" (ie a box and a monitor)? the imac obviously trades performance for form factor, footprint and quiet operation.

had apple used desktop components, it would have needed a hellava lot bigger box behind that screen.


A desktop computer is a computer that you can put on a desk or a computer that rests partly on a desk, for the monitor, and partly under the desk, for the body of the computer.

A desktop computer is the opposite of a mobile computer which is carried around easily with just one hand. The iMac weighs 25 pounds, whereas a mobile computer weighs between 4 and 6 pounds.

Most buyers who were used to the heavy 17 inches CRT computer monitors would not mind a bit if the iMac were 1 or 2 inches thicker behinf the LCD screen. I don't get to see what is behind the LCD screen (and couldn't care less if the iMac had to be twice as thick to house a Core 2 Quad CPU and faster desktop motherboard).

With regard to cooling, I believe that a silent fan is a possibility.

All in all, innovative design should serve the function, and the specs of an iMac should not be reduced to allow Apple to make more money from every iMac it sells and/or, as you contend, fit some arbitrary design that Apple marketing says is so elegant, etc.

post #65 of 80
let's face it, i liked the serviceability the 1.8 GHz G5 gave where opening it up as no problem. My biggest problem with iMac since going slim. Opening one up today sucks compared to back then and the extra thinner it got didnt really make a hoot to me. I want a quad core silient AIO anyhow. Currently, at least 8% of all intel chips sold are quad core chips and for pretty dang cheap too I might add. I imagine we will see quad cores in 6 months with the eight core being the defacto standard chip used in both sockets on the mac pro by then. When iMacs get the quads the notebooks will too.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #66 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

let's face it, i liked the serviceability the 1.8 GHz G5 gave where opening it up as no problem. My biggest problem with iMac since going slim. Opening one up today sucks compared to back then and the extra thinner it got didnt really make a hoot to me. I want a quad core silient AIO anyhow. Currently, at least 8% of all intel chips sold are quad core chips and for pretty dang cheap too I might add. I imagine we will see quad cores in 6 months with the eight core being the defacto standard chip used in both sockets on the mac pro by then. When iMacs get the quads the notebooks will too.

I was hoping the thiner iMac would be lighter. Obviously glass and aluminum are heavier materials then plastic. Does anyone know how much last years 20 inch iMac weighed? Which one is heavier?
post #67 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by badNameErr View Post

Who gives a crap about fashion!


iMac buyers ?
post #68 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

iMac buyers ?

We don't know the answer to this as there is no other option for Mac buyers in this segment (not to get this into the xMac debate )
post #69 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It's not as if the actual performance improvements in Santa Rosa platform was a secret either. I certainly don't expect Mac users to pay attention to the PC world, but Apple's pro notebooks were updated with the same CPU and chipsets only couple months ago and those benchmarks showed the same results.

I don't understand the relevance.
post #70 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

What real debate? Screen? Keyboards?

Most of the gripes are from those that haven't seen or touched a real iMac and looking a some of their profiles and previous blogs, most haven't bought an new Mac in years (some quite a few years). Certainly none of them has had a real-world experience.

Perhaps a look a Macworlds just posted benchtest should help reduce the concern. http://www.macworld.com/2007/08/firs...arks/index.php

It has been a long wait and one I was eagerly awaiting. I have had the money set aside for a 24" iMac since October last year.

I welcome the price drop. Could have been more but hey this is Apple, I'm used to having my testicles in a vise!

The reasons why I am NOT going ahead with my purchase, after trying the new models, are:

1. The glare and reflections on the screen - this is a real killer not just because I am a designer but because it is uncomfortable to read the screen.

2. The wimpy graphics card and memory that doesn't take advantage of the faster frontside bus. 12 months to essentially go nowhere speedwise, they are barely different to the previous models, in some cases slower.

3. The sad upgrades (in some cases retrogrades) to the iLife suite and iWork suite. Doesn't bode well for what we are going to get served with Leopard.

Looks like Apple doesn't really care about any of this.

It is all so desultory. Steve has got his new toy, the iPhone, and the Macs are just the discarded children from a previous marriage in a previous life, that won't go away and he can't abandon without everybody noticing.
post #71 of 80
Well said, gastroboy!

I can only hope thousands of other prospective iMac buyers feel the same as you and I, resulting in disappointing sales numbers for Apple. Jobs will only respond when the numbers demand it. He has no incentive to "do the right thing" when the numbers are good. When a product is selling well, he simply is willing to offer the least bang for the buck and then hype it up big time during his keynotes so we all "think" its better than it actually is. Thankfully, some of us can see through the hype this time. And honestly, had I too not been saving and waiting for this "major update," I would probably not give a care. But it was very disappointing indeed. The only machine available now that fits my requirements is a Mac Pro, but that is out of budget and it takes up too much space too. Ack!
post #72 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

What would be cool is if the frame was a USB device, and the computer could flash it red when new email arrives, so even if you are in a full screen game you still know.

haha! would be especially good if it was lined with flashing red bulbs!
post #73 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post

The reasons why I am NOT going ahead with my purchase, after trying the new models, are:

3. The sad upgrades (in some cases retrogrades) to the iLife suite and iWork suite. Doesn't bode well for what we are going to get served with Leopard.

Looks like Apple doesn't really care about any of this.

INTERESTING
We can accept your opinions or consider some from the experts, e.g.,

From Macworld

IPHOTO
“Overall, it appears that Apple has struck a good balance between keeping iPhoto simple, and adding the right level of features to make it more useful. If you have a .Mac account, the Web Gallery feature alone is a stunning addition, but there are enough other enhancements that make iPhoto a great application, even if all you want to do is manage your images on your Mac.”

KEYNOTE
“From what I’ve seen so far, Keynote ’08 is a winner that fills in many of the gaps in previous versions.”

GARAGE BAND 4
“At first glance, this is a nicely-refined, if not earth-shaking, update.”

NUMBERS
“I think Apple’s new approach to spreadsheets is going to be quite successful, at least based on my initial hands-on time. The program is fast, the features are well thought out, and the new paradigm that Apple has applied to the staid old spreadsheet application solve many of the frustrations that we’ve come to accept with those traditional programs.”
-----------------------------------------------------
From CNET

iMac 20” 2.4 GHz
Editors’s Choice Award
“Because this new iMac is so fully-featured, especially compared to other systems on the market, we have to give it an Editor’s Choice,…

Apple did a really good job in putting a fast PC together

With its super-elegant new design and a strong configuration, Apple’s new iMac competes with the PC desktop market better than perhaps any previous Mac to date.”

APPLE KEYBOARD
“…key mechanics also have a smooth response that make it a pleasure to type on.”

And another from Macworld
"And much, much more
Beyond these major features Apple has included many minor changes which should bolster Pages’ versatility and usefulness as a day-to-day word processing and page layout program…"
post #74 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

The iMac cords are also all neatly coiled while the Dell cords are just piled on the table. Also, the fact that the Dell cords are black on a white background vs. the white-on-white for the iMac. They also threw in a couple extra cables just to skew the comparison (the cord going to the mysterious black box on top of the tower case, a network cable [since clearly a Dell couldn't possibly have a wireless network card], possibly a coaxial cable going to a TV Tuner card [that one's the funniest considering how you can't even get an internal TV tuner for a Mac], maybe an audio cable [because the crap speakers in the iMac are good enough and as an iMac owner I can speak to their crap nature]).

To me, what the picture points out is that Dell actually provides a lot of choices that Apple thinks the consumer doesn't want or need.

You might not want them, but a lot of people do. It is not the place of Apple or the Mac community to tell everyone what hardware they need or how they should be using their computer.
post #75 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyboy View Post

this makes sense. in order for a fair comparison they should be showing a dell with equivalent functionality, but with the extra cable spaghetti.

of course i'd wager that dell has more usb ports and therefore is not as likely to require hubs like the imac \

If you want to see cable spaghetti, want until I get my new AL iMac with the functionality I want. With a full tower like the Dell, the cable spaghetti is underneath my desk and makes use of its internal power supply for the second optical, hard drive, and card reader/hub. With the iMac, they're on top of my desk and clogging up my surge protector.
post #76 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

The iMac has a built in IR reciever, so it is fair to show a separate IR reciever for the Dell.

Looking at the pic, the Dell has cables for:
- Monitor (built in to iMac)
- Speakers (built in to iMac)
- Webcam (built in to iMac)
- IR Receiver (built in to iMac)
- Keyboard
- Mouse (plugs in to iMac keyboard)
- Power

that's what i said! i said it makes sense to show a dell with equivalent functionality \
post #77 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

INTERESTING
We can accept your opinions or consider some from the experts, e.g.,

From Macworld...

Experts?

I've yet to see Macworld ever anounce even the most glaringly obvious Mac failures. I still remember the spin they put on the years of desultory improvements and wildly overpriced Macs of the 90's and early 00's.

They have one golden rule, "Is Apple? ...is Good".

Why bite the hand that feeds them? After years of doing Steve Jobs' bidding, their ex-editor, transfered to PCworld and scotched a mildly critical article; "10 things we hate about Apple", that was modeled on a similar critical article published on Microsoft.

I have seen their forums censored repeatedly. One ludicrous example was where non-American readers simply asked that measurements be given in metric as well as US measures. The whole thread was repeatedly squashed before finally being deleted. I saw that happened over and over again.

They are particularly sensitive about criticisms that they soft serve Apple in their reviews despite odd examples of "comparisons" to dated PC competitive products, pronouncements that minor improvements are "worthy", slip backs in performance are "anomalies" etc.

Even the examples you site are wonderful examples of non-statements that you can read almost anything into.

Macworld articles are just paid opinion pieces for Apple and any other influential advertisers. The only vaguely honest criticisms that actually take their reader's side, are reserved for uninfluential and non-financially rewarding small developers.

You could try examining the products for yourself and forming your own view but perhaps you are uncomfortable with that.
post #78 of 80
primatelabs Geekbenched the new 2.8GHz 24" iMac.

overall score:
iMac (24" Mid 2007) 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme = 3791
iMac (24" Mid 2007) 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo = 3243

If you read through the test you'll understand the $250 premium of the 2.8Ghz only pays off if you intend to do a lot of processor intensive tasks.
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #79 of 80
i'm starting to lean towards getting the standard 24 inch 2.4ghz configuration. i was thinking about the BTO options, but i can already get a $120 discount on that configuration from a non-apple retailer. this would be enough to get a 2gb ram stick and i already have an external RAID case with fw800 connection that ought to make up for only have a 320gb hd inside the machine.

does my logic seem sound?
post #80 of 80
I checked the thickness of my 6 month old Viewsonic display, and it appears to be the same as the new iMacs.
That got me to wondering about any new Apple displays. Except for the chin, the iMac and display might look about the same. You'll have to look for the chin to tell them apart.
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › New iMacs post modest gains over predecessors (benchmarks)