Apple quietly refreshes iMac line, now up to 3.06GHz - Page 6

Ok is anyone else getting tired of gross exaggerations? I have a MacBook... glossy screen as you know. I can't remember ONE time I had difficulty reading text or browsing websites because I was being blinded by reflections. In fact the ONLY time I ever see reflections is if light is coming in from a window and shining directly on my screen and even then it's not that bad at ALL. I have yet to use my MacBook outdoors after nearly 2 years of ownership so that has not been a problem either. Look, I understand the complaints from video editors and others, but the people that are suggesting these screens are unusable for anyone because of all the glare just don't know what they are talking about. I am a consumer, but I would not consider myself to be "suffering" from reflections, nor do I consider myself to not "recognize what the problem is" as you say, because for me there is no problem. It's a personal preference, and in some cases for certain people, a necessity to have a matte screen. I understand that, but if you are not one of these people, and you are ranting and raving about the horrible glare problem, just stop because there is very little if any truth to it.

As for your number 3, there is no screen option on the MacBook! Only the pro...

Edit: I will add one thing... I have noticed that when you look at the glossy screens in the Apple Store, the reflections are much more apparent, but that has to do with the bright fluorescent lighting in the store. In normal home lighting, the experience is much different.

Actually, the unelected banking cartel known as the "Federal" Reserve controls the money without any congressional accountability...

I pulled the trigger too. Default 3.0 with more RAM coming from Newegg. I'm worried a bit about the fan noise with that overclocked Penryn and the 8800 GS in there (I had a Rev A G5 iMac and that fan was annoying), but we'll see what happens.

I do a lot of photography too so I'm a bit scared about the screen, but I've got a second screen I'll have hooked up so I can just use that one if it's a problem. I just couldn't see buying a Mac Proverkill when the cost difference is the same as a plasma TV for the living room...

Should be a nice upgrade from my 1.66 Core Duo Mini.

As they say, "Ignorance is bliss.'

My apologies for interrupting you karma.

I would appreciate if you didn't bother to thank me.

for Price conscious (not so spec conscious) buyers apple online store now with clearance of previous generation iMacs with 200 bucks off, oh well amazon also has some good deal...

why macbook pro not clearing for almost three months (apple online store clearance section)? are we really in recession? really?

Or MacMall Save $100 to $195, plus free Parallels Desktop and Epson Stylus Printer for the New iMac!

http://www.macmall.com/macmall/famil...wt.mc_id=22699

yeah they have good deals for close-out models too

Lack of understanding here, in a big way.

At the end of the week, after I see that there aren't any problems that would affect us, Im planning in buying two 3.06 GHz models from them.

It's just too bad they do that mail in rebate crap.

But, we sure can use two really shitty printers to go with our other five printers!

Not really. The Federal Reserve is not federal, that is a fact. We do not elect the board of governors, that is also a fact. They also do not technically answer to the government since they aren't really a branch of the federal government and only pose as such, also a fact. They are not accountable to the public since no policy meetings are televised or made public in any way. If you would like to tell me how I lack understanding in a big way when I made ONE statement, then lose the arrogance and tell me what you are referring to. Whatever, this is off topic anyway.

mel, do tell us how is the performance once you got one...

cannot wait to see the internals (tear down photos) what CPU and GPU, mobo it uses...

I thought they were one of the two major Mac retailers known to renege on their rebates.

While you have your basic facts about what it is, you don't have the understanding of why.

The entire concept of the Fed is to insulate it from political interference. Both from the President, and Congress. That's why the terms are long, and they can do what they have to do away from the public, and governmental eyes.

While the system isn't perfect, it works pretty well.

That's why the Treasury department exists as a separate department.

You might have noticed that most countries have copied the concept of the Fed. Europe has their own version, which is also independent.

Sure, I'll be doing the tests anyway.

But I don't plan on tearing them apart. Both my wife and daughter would get real upset real fast.

I don't know. I've bought stuff from them in the past without problems, but none had rebates. Which is the other?

I think the other's name ends in the word "Connection"

Wow! You seem reticent.

I've had the same experience with them, so I don't know there either.

I just hope it's not a problem. I don't mind saving $200 if it doesn't take any work.

Yes, yes, and yes.

I couldn't agree more.

sure

ifixit or macnn or anandtech will do that

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate your answer, however, I made one statement... how do you know what I lack in understanding about how it came to be based on that? I understand the concept of the Fed and how it is protected from political and public scrutiny. It IS beneficial.. but for who? For the bankers or for the people? That is rhetorical btw... this probably isn't the place for this type of debate but thanks for taking the time to expand on what you meant in your reply to me.

Am I the only one who doesn't see any sort of point to the 3.06GHz model? A 13% clockspeed difference isn't going to be visible with anything other than an artificial benchmark. It remains to be seen if the faster processor results in increased noise, but even if it doesn't, $200 for an imperceptible difference sounds like a lot. I understand there is such a thing as wanting all the power you can get, but then you have no business buying an iMac.

While we're at it, why does Apple announce GHz to second desimal now? Those who care about 0.09 GHz are going to be people who'd really prefer to know the exact model of the processor, maybe graphics chip clockspeeds - neither of which Apple publishes.

Because 2,66 GHz is too much to label it as 2,6 from Apple's marketing point of view, but not enough to warrant a 2,7 label without getting sued.

Engadget has XBench numbers for the 3,06 btw

Actually, the reason I went for the 3.0 was because I wanted everything else, and the 2.8 with added 8800, 500GB HD, and 4GB of RAM (from Apple) was only $60 less than the default 3.0 and RAM from Newegg.

You make a good point about the noise - I'm sort of questioning whether I shouldn't have just stuck with the 2.8 (I would think that 20 watts in that iMac enclosure could make the fans run more).

Any difference is better than no difference. 13% isn't all that small, though it isn't a world beater.

With all of the other little improvements, it should help.

Even home users are doing work that takes some time. Cutting 13% off that time can be considerable. If you're making a home movie, and it takes 120 minutes to render, even that 16 minutes cut from it makes a difference. That's down to 104 minutes.

As for the numbering, that's how it's done in the industry. Apple is using whatever the numbers are. Why does that bother you?

I think the 13% difference would be noticeable if you use Handbrake to encode videos.

That still takes a while on my 2.16 ghz C2D MBP.

I've got my eye on the 2.6 ghz 20" iMac and ATV.

It would be an unusual consumer who trades up each model to the next one, so for most people it is a distinct increase in speed from a much slower machine. Each increase in speed just takes us closer to the ultimate Mac which completes the task before you thought you might want to do it.

There is a lot to be said for the iMac form factor, even if you disregarded its undoubted power. The last 3 Macs I have purchased have all been iMacs and my number one favorite thing about them is no more large power hungry box cluttering under my desk.

I just worry about the day these models need replacing, because no way will I buy a glossy computer screen unless they can eliminate the reflections.

Or apply a liberal dose of spit. Perhaps that would just be expressing an opinion?

As long as you're happy with that !!

Handbrake is a "fire and forget" kind of operation though, requiring no interactivity, and you can just walk away from the computer and it will still be chugging away. I don't think most people would notice the difference between 2.8 and 3.06 on "hands on" type operations. If you do have overnight, all-night kind of tasks, then maybe it would be worthwhile, get a project rendered quicker.

How about we just appreciate the speed increase and allow those that value their time enjoy the option of buying Apple's 'extreme' models.

Every time there is a CPU speed increase, dozens of negative posts litter this site. It's comical, really. I support (with my dollars) each and every improvement Apple makes to their hardware. It all adds up.

I've had the luxury of buying dozens of iMacs over the years for our firm. Oftentimes you'll read a review that states there is such a small difference between model X and model Y that it's not worth the money. This is short sighted and also rarely true. Using iMacs with faster CPUs feels faster and throughout a long day of pushing the machine hard, saves a lot of time.

I do agree that sometimes the price differential is too high, but that's another issue.

You buy every revision? Sure, that adds up. What do you do with it that justifies replacing the entire machine for a 15% (in this case) speedup?

Oops.. should have read "(Sometimes with my dollars)"

Obviously I don't purchase every revision. But between our firm and our clients (and friends and family), I get hands-on with many models. Some people spring for the best, some prefer to save. Whatever works for ya. I'm just saying the speed differences are often more pronounced than reviewers would have you believe.

Unless you use a watch, you aren't going to actually perceive a difference. Obviously you can always grow a job to be large enough that the time delta of when that job and the original job complete, the difference sounds large. But let's look at the options if your jobs *really* are so large that it'd be valuable for you to squeeze them out faster.

$1800 iMac = baseline
+ $200 for 3GHz processor = 13% performance improvement -> 15$ for 1% improvement
+$500 to switch to quadcore Mac Pro = +100% performance -> 5$ for 1% improvement
+ $1000 to switch to octocore Mac Pro = +300% performance -> 3.3$ for 1% improvement

These are all best cases. The first option assumes the job is entirely CPU bound, which is rarely the case. In addition, the second and third options assume perfect concurrency, which is also rarely the case, but long-running jobs tend to be very concurrent nevertheless.

The option to switch to a Mac Pro beats the iMac processor upgrade so completely that even if the job only utilized three cores of the quadcore, the quadcore would *still* be a better deal by far.

This is not rocket science. iMacs are fine in general. I still see no point in paying $200 extra for the 3.0. If you get it for $60 like Pie Man's internal accounting says, *that* is a price that makes sense.

Maybe it is. I've not owned or used different speeds of Macs of the same revision, so that puts a limit on the most applicable kind of experience.

However, I have owned two different speeds of the same x86 workstation, the same with RISC workstations, and I couldn't tell the difference when the only thing changed is a 15% higher chip speed. That's why I lend credence to the review impressions.

Yeahbut, that takes away the ability of some here to tell others what they need, especially if they don't know what is needed!


Personally, I would never buy an iMac without AppleCare, but, I wouldn't buy AppleCare for a Mac Pro. IF, you spec out a new 8 core Mac Pro, going with the 2.8GHz processor, decent video card, wireless card, wireless keyboard, and wireless mouse, AND a 23" Cinema Display, you've nearly doubled the iMac pricing. In the end, the Mac Pro will still be going strong when the iMac bites the dust. So, cipher that into the equation, mon ami.

I NEVER buy Apple RAM or hard drives, thank you very much!

You make some good points.

I only used handbrake as an example because its an app that I use that seems to actually stress the cpu.

Everything else is really is pretty easily handled by my 2.16 ghz C2D cpu. Perhaps an app like Aperture would benefit from the better cpu (3.0 vs. 2.8). I know it also depends upon the gpu.

I look forward to MacWorld testing.

Believe me, you'll notice 16 minutes. Sometimes even five minutes can make a difference.

The cost isn't what you think it is.

We're talking about home use here.

People will pay got a faster cpu, bigger HDD, and a much faster gpu for $400, but not to switch to a Mac Pro. That's a far greater cost when a 24" monitor is factored in. Then you would have to get the faster card as well.

Maybe a stupid question,

So you guys think the difference in performance between the new 24" iMac and
the 24" 2.4 Ghz is "somewhat" negligible?

I'll be using it mostly for Audio and light video editing.


I'm asking because I can get a Brand NEW 24" 2.4Ghz iMac from a friend for $1,300.


thanks for your help
regards,
Charles

My friend decided to go with a 8 core Mac Pro so he's basically giving this iMac away.
What you guys think?

regards,
Charles

I don't think it'll be negligible.

The new 24" iMac comes with a 2.8 ghz cpu more L-2 cache and a better gpu. I think it'll wind up being 15% faster than the older 2.4 ghz 24" iMac.

That's an extrapolation. I look forward to MacWorld testing. The previous debate was whether the 3.0 ghz iMac was going to be noticeably faster than the 2.8 ghz version and whether it was worth the premium price.