or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Review: Apple 24-inch iMac (aluminum)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review: Apple 24-inch iMac (aluminum)

post #1 of 132
Thread Starter 
The mid-2007 overhaul of Apple's iconic desktop is the first true evidence of a switch in Apple's design direction since the company's switch to Intel processors. But while it represents two steps forward in terms of ergonomics and performance, pro users may find the iMac taking one step backward.

Initial Experiences

The crown jewel in Apple's attention to detail since the return of its chief executive Steve Jobs has been the initial unpacking and setup of its devices. Few, if any, of its customers would disagree that the firm is determined to please first-time users before they've ever launched a program or played a song.

On opening the 24-inch iMac's (fairly large) box and setting up the computer for the first time, it's clear this recent tradition has survived well past the Intel transition of 2006. An almost feng shui approach to packing is still on display: Apple meticulously packs the accessories, software, and the computer itself in a layered fashion that lets you get and what you want and also feels like the reward it should be, instead of the bare minimum effort seen with some PC makers.

Setting up the iMac is also just about as trouble-free as it has been for past iMacs, particularly in the era of near-ubiquitous wireless. Were it not for our need to stop and take photos, we would have had our entire review system ready in just minutes. As with any modern Mac, the new iMac may only require as much as a power cable when it sits on your desk. Our first boot was extremely smooth and guided us through choosing languages, configuring our Wi-Fi connection, and setting up both a user account and registration information in just a few minutes -- though as usual, Apple tries to foist .Mac on its customers before the Mac OS X desktop will make its first appearance.



If there were a complaint to level against the company during the first few minutes, it would be the continued need for a FireWire cable to use the Migration Assistant that eases the switchover to a new system. The need to use a special target disk mode, with a cable the user likely doesn't have, isn't very justifiable when Macs have supported gigabit Ethernet and USB 2.0 for years.

Design, the Glossy Display and the Apple Keyboard

Whether or not you believe Apple's claims that the new iMac is more eco-friendly than the white plastic model it replaces, there's little doubt that the all-in-one computer "for the rest of us" has been taken upscale. Both the anodized aluminum and black plastic trim feel and look better-built than before without adding to the overall price -- and, conveniently, draw mental associations between the Mac and the similarly-styled iPhone. Some have already griped that the design is ugly, but in our impressions the new design's habit of polarizing opinions works in its favor; better to either completely love or hate the style than to be indifferent.



And whatever the reaction to the iMac's appearance, the change has done more to help and little to hurt actual usage. Choosing aluminum has lightened the system and makes both carrying it around and tilting its display just that much easier. Those prone to losing their Apple Remote or depending on the sleep light will be disappointed, however. The thick metal prevents the Mac maker from installing either a magnet or a light inside the case, eliminating two minor but appreciated advantages from the past.

Front-and-center in the design is the controversial glossy LCD display. How much you like the display is just as binary as the overall look. Like the 13.3-inch MacBook, the gloss is intended to produce bolder colors compared to the occasionally washed-out look of matte screens. For the average home user more interested in watching movies or presenting a slideshow, the effect is striking and (on a 24-inch model) could fool you into thinking it was a small, high-quality HDTV. In a properly-lit room, reflections are still a fact of life but are seldom distracting enough to overwhelm the positives of the new display. Still, we question the wisdom of a glossy display, especially for the large surface area of our test unit. But it's not the fatal blow some would have expected.



Ask a professional artist or video editor what they think, however, and you'll likely receive a very different opinion. The same vivid colors that make the screen "pop" also distort the perceived colors for producers trying to judge how well the image will translate to someone's print ad or DVD. Reflections play even more havoc with accuracy by hiding detail and blending into the on-screen colors. Using a fixed color profile mitigates the problem but just shouldn't be necessary for a system being marketed to both home users and pro customers alike.



The much-vaunted aluminum keyboard should be less contentious. In addition to being extremely compact -- a virtue in the small spaces where the iMac may sit -- the new design is actually easier to type with in practice. The MacBook-like flat keys have a larger surface area to strike and travel quickly enough that you can move to the next key sooner than you might with the older translucent case. Any doubts that the keyboard might be flimsy have also been erased: the thin slab of metal is absolutely solid. Users might be frustrated by the two extra USB ports, however, as both of them are tucked underneath the metal and require that you lift the keyboard before plugging in a camera or a mouse.

On Page 2: Performance and the Upgrade Question, and Benchmarks.

Performance and the Upgrade Question

Our first temptation in reviewing a new Mac is to compare its performance against the previous generation. But in terms of absolute performance, the new 2.4GHz, 24-inch model is only modestly faster than its 2.33GHz predecessor and gains mostly from the added bandwidth from the 800MHz system bus as well as the expanded 4GB memory cap, up from 3GB. Compared to the outgoing model, the new version is a much better value for money: at $1799, the new system is easier to rationalize than the model it replaces, which could only reach 2.33GHz through a build-to-order upgrade. A 2.8GHz version of the new iMac is also available, but whether its clock speed, 2GB of RAM, and larger 500GB hard drive are worth the $500 premium is outside the scope of this review.

Other changes are helpful but often feel as though they fall short of what could have been. The Radeon HD 2600 Pro is a long, long overdue replacement for the GeForce 7300 GT in the last 24-inch model and an even longer-awaited replacement for the Radeon X1600 in 20-inch models. Informal 3D gaming tests have the iMac providing very playable frame rates in Quake 4 at 1024x768 resolution with all details on; while this may disappoint gamers looking to switch from a Windows PC, it's a definite improvement and should be good enough for semi-serious gameplay. We nonetheless wish Apple had taken absolute performance into account. NVIDIA's GeForce 8600 GT isn't significantly more expensive, but it's known to be significantly faster in most tasks.



Apple's continued insistence on installing 1GB of RAM in a top-end iMac is also baffling. At its price, most equivalent Windows PCs today will easily sell with 2GB or more, even with a 24-inch display in tow. Upgrading that memory is at least easier than for the previous model; the new iMac puts all 1GB in a single slot and frees up the second slot for a quicker and less expensive upgrade.

What may define the new iMac the most is its relation to far older systems than the late 2006 refresh, however. For existing Mac users who follow the typical two- to three-year upgrade cycle -- including your reviewer -- the aluminum model represents the first real opportunity to jump to Intel processors and a test of just how far Mac performance has advanced since the last PowerPC iMacs were on store shelves.

In our benchmark tests against the last 20-inch iMac G5, the new 24-inch Core 2 Duo is simply in a different class of performance. Most tests which focus on the CPU show that just one of the two 2.4GHz Intel cores can nearly double the speed of the 2.1GHz PowerPC chip; in tests aware of multiple cores, the newest Core 2 Duo is well over three times faster. Cinebench was especially impressive and saw 3D models render in just a third of the time. Quite simply, there's no more reason to cling to a PowerPC system except for very old or very specialized software that refuses to run in Apple's Rosetta environment.







On Page 3: Conclusions and Reservations, and Rating.

Conclusions and Reservations

Having to choose computers from only one vendor means that many buyers won't have much choice: for now, the iMac is still Apple's lone choice for a mid-range desktop. That said, most home customers will find a lot to like in what Apple has to offer. The speed-up is undeniable and is by and large competitive with conventional Windows PC desktops that even the lack of RAM is (somewhat) forgivable. Setting up the iMac is as easy as it's ever been, and the pseudo-professional look may help it infiltrate a few businesses where the candy-white plastic may have earmarked the iMac as a "toy" rather than a work system.



It's similarly easy to recommend the new keyboard bundled with the computer, though Mac users eager for that alone will only have to spend $49 at an Apple store for the privilege. That keyboard was used to write this review, and in hours of heavy typing it was at least as comfortable but slightly quicker for high-speed typing.

Unfortunately, there are signs that Apple is headed down a questionable path for its design choices. In his press event announcing the iMac, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs claimed that customers "loved" glossy displays; we respectfully disagree. The benefits it provides are useful primarily under controlled lighting and for marketing the system in a store. If your home has bright spot lighting that can't be moved or you're a professional who has to judge color accuracy on the fly, the gloss could be troublesome and a potential deal-breaker. Apple should have at least offered matte screens on some models or as a custom option.



We also wonder if the company is emphasizing CPU speed over a more balanced approach to performance. Most Mac users won't complain about the slightly underwhelming graphics; many will wonder about the low memory on such a large and otherwise fast system. These have both been problems in the past, but Apple today has fewer excuses for its old habits -- especially when the 24-inch iMac is supposed to bridge the gap between everyday consumer machines and the flagship Mac Pro.

Still, for most buyers, the new iMac is still an easy recommendation for Mac veterans and most switchers. It's just that a few key decisions may have robbed Apple of some potential customers who would have otherwise been within close reach.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5


Pros:
Slick new designScreen is gorgeous in specific circumstances.Very fast, especially for converts from PowerPC Macs.Keyboard is a tangible improvement over the old model.One RAM slot is finally free for an upgrade.Less expensive than the old model.
Cons:
Glossy screen can be distracting; no option for matte.Only 1GB of memory standard.Radeon HD 2600 Pro is underpowered versus its NVIDIA alternative.No Apple Remote magnet or sleep light.
post #2 of 132
1 GB of memory... geez, that was standard with others manufactures 2 years ago.
Report employers of illegal aliens at (866) DHS-2ICE
Reply
Report employers of illegal aliens at (866) DHS-2ICE
Reply
post #3 of 132
As for the reviewer's observation on the glossy screen: having seen a 20 inch iMac in two stores on Saturday I do agree that colors are very lively and deep. The screen makes the icon's even more photo-realistic. Photos looked like very good slides, and movie trailers in HD looked stunning. The stores had different and far from ideal lighting circumstances, causing reflections in the screen, but this was not too disturbing. Don't know however how this would work out in a home environment. I'm in for one, anyway.
post #4 of 132
I no doubt will be pleased with my first experience with the iMac. But after seeing some many reviews have some hesitation.

Looking at the 24" with 2 Gig RAM and will up to the 750 gig disk. Still going to have to wait for the wireless keyboard. Debating if I should order now or just wait until Sept when they should be in stock. Perhaps at that time I will get a free upgrade to Leopard. Not sure how close I would need to be for the upgrade.

Question - since many seem to be iffy on the new iMacs would I be just as well off with the previous model considering I will be using it for some movie production. Hope to transfer old movies from VHS/8mm/PC avi files. Don't see the older iMacs dropping much in price....

-----------------------------------------------
ikea is Swedish for "Out of Stock"

24" iMac, 2 MB Pros, iPad Version 1, 2 x (iPhone 4s), Apple TV 3, a Shuffle and a couple of iTouches somewhere in the house. Spot on wall reserved for an Apple TV of some description. Oh yeah..and...

Reply

24" iMac, 2 MB Pros, iPad Version 1, 2 x (iPhone 4s), Apple TV 3, a Shuffle and a couple of iTouches somewhere in the house. Spot on wall reserved for an Apple TV of some description. Oh yeah..and...

Reply
post #5 of 132
<Quote>In his press event announcing the iMac, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs claimed that customers "loved" glossy displays; we respectfully disagree. <Unquote> [Emphasis mine]

(Someone might mistake this for nitpicking, so I want to say that I am posting this comment only because I am concerned there may be some slight symptoms of sycophancy here):

Why don't you just simply/plainly disagree?
post #6 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

If there were a complaint to level against the company during the first few minutes, it would be the continued need for a FireWire cable to use the Migration Assistant that eases the switchover to a new system. The need to use a special target disk mode, with a cable the user likely doesn't have, isn't very justifiable when Macs have supported gigabit Ethernet and USB 2.0 for years.

I beg to differ. Target Disk Mode is still the best and most straight forward way. I doubt you could do it via USB 2.0 at the moment, and gigabit means the older Mac will need to have a working OS that can do file sharing - rather messy.

If TDM supports Firewire 800, even better!
post #7 of 132
Hmm. Those cinebench scores are a bit odd.

The scores are higher than one forum members scores with a 2.4 ghz quad Core 2 machine.

They're out of line in comparison to scores posted here.
post #8 of 132
If you've been making a backup of your HD on an external drive you can use the backup volume as the source for the Migration Assistant-- no firewire target mode necessary.
post #9 of 132
Could it be something silly like the Radeon 2600 HD Pro actually having better OpenGL support in OSX than in Windows, where most of the current benchmarking has taken place?

Which might a boon to dedicated mac gaming, while still cutting it short to Bootcamp gaming?

Quick note though, I have very little understanding of what makes games tick well so to speak, hardware and software wise, in OSX.
post #10 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Hmm. Those cinebench scores are a bit odd.

The scores are higher than one forum members scores with a 2.4 ghz quad Core 2 machine.

They're out of line in comparison to scores posted here.

He was using Windows. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that OpenGL on Windows sucks ass whereas the ATi cards on OSX running OpenGL are significantly faster because Apple's OpenGL stack doesn't suck ass.

Apple have been investing a LOT of time in getting OpenGL working superfast on OSX including writing new compilers and re-implementing the OpenGL stack using LLVM.

The ATi card in the iMac seems to be turning in way better scores than that guy's 8800GTS too, which goes to prove it's not just about the hardware. In fact, the previous X1600 on OSX gets pretty close to outclassing the 8800GTS on Windows.
post #11 of 132
Cool Aegis & CPE, I learned something.

I find those cinebench scores to be very impressive now that they are likely legit.

Anyone with a g5 iMac needs to give these a serious look.

I hope someone with a last gen 24" iMac and the 2.33 ghz C2D will take the cinebench 10 test and post their results. I think it'll be interesting to see how they stack up.
post #12 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Quite simply, there's no more reason to cling to a PowerPC system except for very old or very specialized software that refuses to run in Apple's Rosetta environment.

So you're saying that even if you're running under Rosetta, it's worth the upgrade? My wife needs to upgrade her current PowerMac G4 MDD (867Mhz x 2) machine, but uses Photoshop & CS2 extensively - which would run in Rosetta.

I've been trying to work out what kind of speed change she would receive by migrating. Best I can come up with is that if she bought the base model (2.0 Ghz) she'd be slightly faster (20%?). 2.4Ghz would be proportionally faster of course.

(Naturally, when she upgrades to CS3 she'll see a performance jump).
post #13 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by polar315 View Post

I no doubt will be pleased with my first experience with the iMac. But after seeing some many reviews have some hesitation.

Looking at the 24" with 2 Gig RAM and will up to the 750 gig disk. Still going to have to wait for the wireless keyboard. Debating if I should order now or just wait until Sept when they should be in stock. Perhaps at that time I will get a free upgrade to Leopard. Not sure how close I would need to be for the upgrade.

Question - since many seem to be iffy on the new iMacs would I be just as well off with the previous model considering I will be using it for some movie production. Hope to transfer old movies from VHS/8mm/PC avi files. Don't see the older iMacs dropping much in price....

-----------------------------------------------
ikea is Swedish for "Out of Stock"

If you are spending the money, go with the new 24" and upgrade the RAM yourself while ordering the best CPU and HDD you want to afford. Leopard won't cost that much and won't be necessary to wait for.

As far as GPUs go, I am quite displeased with Apple as Jobs touts that Macs are for your digital Life. Well if we are processing this much HD, would not a very powerful GPU be needed? If not for HD, then for the sheer amount of video/photos.

Disclaimer: I am on a G5 at the moment. Things have had to improve, but for the price, why not allow the option to upgrade? Or would this put the iMac too close to the Mac Pro?

Am I upgrading? YES! Does the iMac fall short of expectations? YES! Does iLife 8 fall short of expectations? YES!!

Rich

http://richgetz.com
[CENTER]Diana Rein
Putting the Soul back into Rock 'n Roll
[/CENTER]

[CENTER]"The Back Room"

Diana Rein Available on iTunes for $8[/CENTER]
Reply
[CENTER]Diana Rein
Putting the Soul back into Rock 'n Roll
[/CENTER]

[CENTER]"The Back Room"

Diana Rein Available on iTunes for $8[/CENTER]
Reply
post #14 of 132
FYI: According to another forum, the remote still magnetically sticks to the iMac, but only to the lower front right part.

I think the review was too hard on the iMac - only a 3.5? I agree that the matte screen would be a nice option. But these iMacs start at 1199... and 1 GB of RAM goes a lot further on os x than on the new windows vista.

A 3.5 seems too low.
post #15 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiMiC View Post


As far as GPUs go, I am quite displeased with Apple as Jobs touts that Macs are for your digital Life. Well if we are processing this much HD, would not a very powerful GPU be needed? If not for HD, then for the sheer amount of video/photos.

Disclaimer: I am on a G5 at the moment. Things have had to improve, but for the price, why not allow the option to upgrade? Or would this put the iMac too close to the Mac Pro?

Am I upgrading? YES! Does the iMac fall short of expectations? YES! Does iLife 8 fall short of expectations? YES!!

Rich

Have you seen the cinebench scores? I think the iMac performs very well, if those scores are legit.

It outclassed a 2.4 ghz quad C2 windows machine in open gl and single cpu render.

I was unimpressed by the gpu pick initially but am having a change of heart.
post #16 of 132
As long as Apple makes mac minis it won't matter,, as they will buy, or have the screen they want. If they want a matte finish or upgrade bigger, or use existing products it will attract more customers if given more options,,,this is just one more option thank goodness, don't get uptight yet. their store in Towson md. was swarming with people Saturday while i was there for 6 hours on and off. i had an i pod fixed,, and 3 laptops worked on, all for free . Forgot to call ahead for appointment at genius bar .. nice store ,, people very helpful . Thanks Apple .
post #17 of 132
As you noted, this is for home users and I would add up to normal to low high end business users. Meaning PhotoShop and other programs like that.

With that in mind, 4gb of RAM is extremely reasonable. Sure more would have been better and there is that highest end version that comes with 2 gb of RAM and a bigger hard drive. People doing this kind of job either know about the internet or know someone that supports them that knows about the internet and Kingston or Cruicial's websites where they can buy more RAM for their iMac.

I have a 5 month old 24" 2.16 ghz iMac and really like it and friends and co-workers (I've brought it into work quite a few times for people to see) who are Windows users have been very impressed with the speed and what it can do. And some of those people do graphics work all day long and unfortunately don't get to use a Mac.

I went into the Apple store in Seattle (just north of UW) and looked at the new screens and keyboards. I'm not sure about the glossy screen either. But if it is either that OR a Windows computer? I'll by the Mac every time.

The keyboard is very cool. I wasn't sure about that until I started typing on it. I like the feel of it more than I like my current keyboard that came with my 24" iMac five months ago. Not to say that keyboard sucks. It's pretty good but the flat one feels more solid and I agree, I think I could type faster on it too.

I also tried out the iphone and found that I can also type fast on that. But then I never like the Blackberry they gave me at work or the Treo my wife has. I was able to type pretty quickly on the iphone with VERY few typing errors. I was very surprised. My wife's phone contract runs out before mine does. We maybe switching contracts so that I can get an iPhone. She doesn't want to give up her Treo. That's ok with me.
post #18 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by macfanboy View Post

FYI: According to another forum, the remote still magnetically sticks to the iMac, but only to the lower front right part.

Yes, AI gets it wrong yet again...

[B]There IS a magnet exactly where macfanboy says it is; please correct your article.[B]

EDIT: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306284 says there is none. Sorry! I was basing my knowledge from other discussions.

-=|Mgkwho
post #19 of 132
Quote:
Setting up the iMac is as easy as it's ever been, and the pseudo-professional look may help it infiltrate a few businesses where the candy-white plastic may have earmarked the iMac as a "toy" rather than a work system.

That may be true, but businesses may change their mind once support staff sees how difficult it is to take apart and replace even basic components like a hard drive. Then the iMac will just be seen as a Sharper Image catalog showpiece rather than something that can be supported.
post #20 of 132
I haven't seen the new iMac in life, i will keep my thoughts about the gloss and the black band to myself.
But people keep coming back to the same point. In designing new computers apple has a total approach, very different from other companies. They make design choices from the start with far going implications for the hardware possibilities in the end. Ordering options are limited, even worse some product classes don't even show up (midtower). As design choices in the (near) past has been very succesfull (iPod, iMac, Macbook), it's strange to see such a limited product line. It has been pointed out that limited models mean limited factory lines and less general costs and more profit per unit. But who will guarantee apple will keep on guessing right and deliver the next best thing? Isn't it very dangerous for future profit to rely on such a small product choice? And will this arrogant (we'll decide for you) attitude not fire back? If they really want to be ahead of the pack, why don't they put blue ray drives in their new imacs? And why don't they compare themselves with true competition instead of Dell's low budget model?
post #21 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadbean View Post

I beg to differ. Target Disk Mode is still the best and most straight forward way. I doubt you could do it via USB 2.0 at the moment, and gigabit means the older Mac will need to have a working OS that can do file sharing - rather messy.

If TDM supports Firewire 800, even better!

I think it would be more likely for people to have a 6pin to 6pin Firewire cable than it would be to have an A to A USB 2.0 cable. Most people have A to B or A to mini USB cables.
post #22 of 132
I always crack up at the reviews about iMacs that mention professionals being disappointed with them for some reason or another. Any professional knows that the iMac line is for consumers and will be going the obvious Mac Pro route.

roog
post #23 of 132
The 24" iMac is really seen as a prosumer device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

Being an Apple basher means you never, ever have to acknowledge success.
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

Being an Apple basher means you never, ever have to acknowledge success.
Reply
post #24 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

So you're saying that even if you're running under Rosetta, it's worth the upgrade? My wife needs to upgrade her current PowerMac G4 MDD (867Mhz x 2) machine, but uses Photoshop & CS2 extensively - which would run in Rosetta.

I've been trying to work out what kind of speed change she would receive by migrating. Best I can come up with is that if she bought the base model (2.0 Ghz) she'd be slightly faster (20%?). 2.4Ghz would be proportionally faster of course.

(Naturally, when she upgrades to CS3 she'll see a performance jump).

If she runs CS2 under Rosetta, she will find a slowdown with a number of operations.

I'd recommend waiting until MacWorld in January, if she can, depending on her other uses for the machine.

I would imagine that we might see Penyrn then, as well as a better gpu.

Penyrn will be out in a couple of months, possibly three at most. By the time Apple intro's machines in January, it could be in them

We may have some surprises then.
post #25 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

I'm trying it right now and it just isn't happening.

One reviewer found that theirs didn't stick either. They called Apple who said it should and is sending them another remote. So ... go to an Apple store and try it there and see what happens. Of course you'll have to convince them to help you since I'm sure they won't let a remote out of their sight.
post #26 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiMiC View Post

If you are spending the money, go with the new 24" and upgrade the RAM yourself while ordering the best CPU and HDD you want to afford. Leopard won't cost that much and won't be necessary to wait for.

As far as GPUs go, I am quite displeased with Apple as Jobs touts that Macs are for your digital Life. Well if we are processing this much HD, would not a very powerful GPU be needed? If not for HD, then for the sheer amount of video/photos.

Disclaimer: I am on a G5 at the moment. Things have had to improve, but for the price, why not allow the option to upgrade? Or would this put the iMac too close to the Mac Pro?

Am I upgrading? YES! Does the iMac fall short of expectations? YES! Does iLife 8 fall short of expectations? YES!!

Rich

http://richgetz.com

The gpu is perfectly fine for HD.

Even the built-in graphics of the 950 in the Mini and MacBook is perfectly fine for HD.

Better cards are only required for playing higher end 3D games, or running polygon intensive 3D programs such as Shake, etc.
post #27 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Design, the Glossy Display and the Apple Keyboard
... For the average home user more interested in watching movies or presenting a slideshow, the effect is striking ... In a properly-lit room, reflections are still a fact of life ...

Unfortunately, there are signs that Apple is headed down a questionable path for its design choices. In his press event announcing the iMac, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs claimed that customers "loved" glossy displays; we respectfully disagree. The benefits it provides are useful primarily under controlled lighting and for marketing the system in a store. If your home has bright spot lighting that can't be moved or you're a professional who has to judge color accuracy on the fly, the gloss could be troublesome and a potential deal-breaker. Apple should have at least offered matte screens on some models or as a custom option.

I do not think the average home user is primarily or only using their iMac to watch movies in a dark room. Office and classroom situations (I have taken several classes which used iMacs and had large windows directly behind the students -- can we say Major Light Reflection Source) have windows and lights and this new GLOSSY only likely will cause issues and problems.

But I do agree, thankyou, as you go on to say that the glossy design decision is "questionable". I'd go further and say they made the wrong choice. What Were They Thinking!
Reflections cause eye-strain, and attention loss, at least in my case.

Yes, they should offer a non-glare option. I have posted to Apple Feedback asking for that.

BTW, do you notice if the 24" has better color and viewing angle than the 20", as it allegedly uses a different higher quality screen type.
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
post #28 of 132
I believe the remote will only stick in the black frame area surrounding the screen. It definitely won't stick to aluminum.
post #29 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

I'm trying it right now and it just isn't happening.

I agree. Who has a USB A to A cord?!? Consumers are more likely to have a firewire cord from an external hard drive. Or if they are forced to buy a cord, a firewire cord is far more likely to be utilized in the future than a USB A-A. Gigabit Ethernet would be a resonable option however. My original Quicksilver PowerMac circa 2001 even has Gigabit. Even 100Mb eithernet would work relatively well. If it works well enough to stream content to an AppleTV, it should be able to transfer a user profile profile in a fair amount of time.
post #30 of 132
I've owned one for almost a week now and the new iMac is great. Really great.

The glossy screen makes pictures and videos look fantasic. Super clear and crisp.

Glare is no issue either. I don't have any lights shining toward the screen but direct sunlight hits mine for a short time around mid day and it still looks fine. Much better than my old matte iMac in fact, that used to sit in the same spot.

I was a little puzzled by the black band around the screen at first, but it actually makes the screen look brighter and hides the rest of the machine from view.

I think once people actually get a chance to see it they are going to want it. Everyone that has seen mine, which includes many PC owners, does.
post #31 of 132
Quote:
Choosing aluminum has lightened the system

Uh, no it has not.

Previous 24-inch iMac -- "Weight: 24.7 pounds (11.2 kg)"
New 24-inch iMac -- "Weight: 25.4 pounds (11.5 kg)"

The new one is HEAVIER.
post #32 of 132
I understand the new iMac slightly disappoints ├╝bergeeks but is still an amazing improvement over anything from the PC world and better than the one it replaces ?
Can't quite grasp why the tone of the reviewer reads somewhat picky, then...
post #33 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galley View Post

I believe the remote will only stick in the black frame area surrounding the screen. It definitely won't stick to aluminum.

This has been hashed out at some length on various discussion sites.

The official Apple word is that the remote isn't designed to stick-- the guy who said he had an Apple employee tell him otherwise is either mistaken or was talking to an Apple employee who was misinformed.

With a lot of careful poking around, it is possible to get the remote to stick to the screen bezel. That's because the glass is held in place with magnets, one of which is in the lower right hand corner.

You could also get your remote to stick to a desktop speaker, if you tried hard enough, since that also has a magnet in it, but that doesn't mean that's what Apple had in mind.
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 #34 of 132
I don't miss the sleep light one bit and I never understood the point of it aside from looking cool. If the computer is asleep, it's asleep and you can tell that by the screen being off. Why do we need a glowing reminder? I don't need a Tamagotchi pulsing in front of my computer making my bedroom glow at night.
post #35 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan King View Post

I understand the new iMac slightly disappoints ├╝bergeeks but is still an amazing improvement over anything from the PC world and better than the one it replaces ?
Can't quite grasp why the tone of the reviewer reads somewhat picky, then...

I actually think the review is pretty dead-on, and that 3.5/5 is a fair score.

The fact that there is not an option for a matte display is reason enough to knock one full point off, especially considering that this design decision alone is enough to be a deal-breaker for many users who would've otherwise purchased one. Regardless of the positives that the new iMac has going for it, glossy is not an option for folks who rely on true-color accuracy, and/or those who will be in rooms with windows or overhead lighting.

The other cons mentioned warrant at least another .5 point to be taken from the score..

5 stars would mean a perfect machine, and though the iMac is "good," it is by no means "perfect."

Personally, I am one who falls into the category of the glossy display being a deal-breaker.. Other than that, the iMac is perfect for my needs and I was all set to buy.. I really hope that a future revision will begin offering matte as a BTO option.
post #36 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by davebarnes View Post

Uh, no it has not.

Previous 24-inch iMac -- "Weight: 24.7 pounds (11.2 kg)"
New 24-inch iMac -- "Weight: 25.4 pounds (11.5 kg)"

The new one is HEAVIER.

Thanks for the weight comparison. I was looking for that on another thread.

The new one has a glass panel which is adding some weight.
post #37 of 132
Regardless of specs, the new all aluminum case is beautiful and the article writer is wrong.
The thinner lighter frame is high tech, up to date and outstanding.

I think the price, considering the monitor in included, is fine but I would like to see it dropped $200 on the line for school purchases by parents, not in school that want to buy at scholastic discounts for their kids.
G
Reply
G
Reply
post #38 of 132
Adjust the white balance on that camera
post #39 of 132
Thx for the responses. Looking forward to the new machine but, going to hold off until the wireless keyboard is available on the 3-5 business day delivery.

Thought that the old machines would drop by some reasonable amount but have only seen a drop of $50 so not worth it by any means.

24" iMac, 2 MB Pros, iPad Version 1, 2 x (iPhone 4s), Apple TV 3, a Shuffle and a couple of iTouches somewhere in the house. Spot on wall reserved for an Apple TV of some description. Oh yeah..and...

Reply

24" iMac, 2 MB Pros, iPad Version 1, 2 x (iPhone 4s), Apple TV 3, a Shuffle and a couple of iTouches somewhere in the house. Spot on wall reserved for an Apple TV of some description. Oh yeah..and...

Reply
post #40 of 132
One thing that bothers me about this review, and a couple of others, is that they don't compare like to like.

Why compare the old special order, and more expensive 2.33 GHz model with the now much less expensive standard 2.4 GHz model?

If this is going to be properly done, then it should have been the $1995 2.16 GHz model it was compared to. Or they should have gotten (or waited for) the high end 2.8 GHz model. The pricing would have been closer are well, in addition to having the extra 1 GB memory, and larger, slightly faster HHD.

This gives the wrong impression of what this upgraded model actually does when compared to its ancestor, particularly when considering that it's $200 cheaper as well.

And as far as the statements about the glossy screen goes, it's wrong as well.

Color and contrast is more correct on glossy models, everything else being equal. The very last monitors to go matte were the $5,000 and $10,000 color correction models. Why? Because matte surfaces distort color and contrast. It is also, contrary to common opinion, more difficult to remove reflections which DO occur on matte screens. The reflections are not as bright, or as sharp, but they are there nonetheless, and are spread out over a larger area of the screen.

Reflections were much harder to get rid of when screens were curved. A flat screen can be turned just a bit, most of the time, and the reflections will disappear, whereas with the curved screens, matte or not, that was not the case.

While I'm not saying that it's perfect for everyone, it's not nearly as much of a problem as some say either.

This is so wrong, it's hard to know where to begin:

Quote:
The same vivid colors that make the screen "pop" also distort the perceived colors for producers trying to judge how well the image will translate to someone's print ad or DVD. Reflections play even more havoc with accuracy by hiding detail and blending into the on-screen colors. Using a fixed color profile mitigates the problem but just shouldn't be necessary for a system being marketed to both home users and pro customers alike.

He obviously knows little about high end color work or he wouldn't have said that.

PS has, for as long as I remember, had the ability to lower the saturation of the images you are working with, to enable one to see how that image, on screen, would look at print, without changing the actual color of the image itself. That is because EVERY monitor distorts the color compared to CMYK, and some other print technologies (but not for other technologies).

It's simple to do. If you do this kind of print work you know about this (you'd damn well better!).

Go to Color Settings. Click on More Options. Go to the bottom of the dialog box. It will have a box saying Advanced Controls. Go to the first one which is called Desaturate Monitor Color By:. You can then take a sample print standard for the kind of job you are doing. With that print under the proper lighting, click on the selection box in front of the control, you can then adjust the desaturate level until it matches the print.

Of course, first you will have set PS up properly.

Doing this gives you the correct color level you need.

This works better with a glossy screen, as you don't get the slight haze over your image that matte tends to give (more on some screens than others).

I don't know what he means by saying that a "fixed color profile" shouldn't be necessary.

In order to have ANY hope that your color is correct, even for home use, a color profile for your monitor is REQUIRED! SRGB is standard for most monitors, but Apple usually supplies one for their own models.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Review: Apple 24-inch iMac (aluminum)