or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple introduces new iMacs with more affordable pricing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple introduces new iMacs with more affordable pricing - Page 5

post #161 of 323
Give me a reason to buy, Apple? Really! These aren't affordable. In canada, the 20 inch costs more than its previous model. We're given less models to choose on the low end and 3 model of 24 inch?

The new keyboard without numeric pad is an insult to our intelligence! Take a away ubiquitous feature and force customers to buy a functional replacement. Who are you kidding? Why are you still offering usb peripherals when everyone has gone wireless?

I want to replace my aging g4. I see no reason to. Oh so typical. Take away features and charge more. Apple's pricing were unjustifiable even during good times. I'm pissed and see no reason to stay with apple after my mac dies.
post #162 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstranathan View Post

Go buy this:

http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProdu...duct_Id=164598


-D

The problem isn't just the loss of a FW400 port. Your adapter cable works in such a case.

The bigger issue for some (my dad included) is that this new iMac only comes with ONE (1) FireWire port of any kind. Every iMac since the original iMac G5 has come with TWO (2) FireWire ports. Initially they were both FW400. Then, with the advent of the aluminum bodies, Apple shifted to one FW400 and one FW800.

Now you only get a single FW800 port. Why does this matter? Well, for one, anyone who has multiple FW devices now MUST buy a FW hub. But try to find some decent FW800 hubs. Sure, FW400 hubs exist (my dad uses a Belkin 6-port unit), but if you use that--which implies using a cable like the one you mention to connect the hub to the iMac--you've just effectively killed the entire point of FW800.

So let's say you can get a FW800 hub. And let's say (as I'm not sure this is the case) that connecting a FW400 device to a FW800 hub using a cable such as you mention does NOT cause the entire hub to shift into lowest-common-denominator 400Mbps mode. Even with all that, what happens when most of your devices, such as camcorders, are still FW400? All those FW400 cables you have? Useless. Now you need to buy several of the cables above, one for each device.

And if the hub DOES shift down into FW400 mode if there's a single FW400 device attached, see same note above about making FW800 port useless. For folks like my dad who have a Drobo (I have it connected to his iMac G5 using a cable similar to the one above), so much for finally getting that FW800 performance. He got the 2nd gen Drobo specifically with the idea that when he bought a new iMac, he'd finally get the full performance that its FW800 port offered.

Why did Apple not simply replace the FW400 port with another FW800 port, giving users at least two FW800 ports? It's not like it would take up more real estate on the back of the unit. THIS is one thing that does disappoint me. My dad has been itching to replace his iMac G5 1.9GHz unit. But with all the FW devices he currently has connected, he won't be able to do a simple swap if he bought a new iMac today. If he wants to be able to use the Drobo at full FW800 speed, he'll have to buy a FW800 hub (good luck finding one that offers 6+ ports for less than $100 if at all) and a crapload of the cables above. This, compared to simply buying one such cable to connect to his FW400 hub, then having the Drobo connect directly to the 2nd FW800 port.

So while I applaud the rest of the features (sure, I was hoping Apple would put a quadcore into the iMac, but maybe next time), this to me IS, in fact, taking away functionality that users used to have.
post #163 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by theBigD23 View Post

This is a major recession "upgrade". Drop the prices and make small, incremental changes.

No, this is just an incremental update. It updates the cleanest, prettiest desktop computer there ever was. For all you looking for a NEW iMac, you should have known this was not it. Apple would never introduce a re-design in this way. No fanfare means no new design. It was ever thus.

One big advantage (if you want to call it that) with PC's is that they are infinitely customizable. It really is an undisputed fact and if you fall into the category of people who can't make the Mac options work for you, get a cheaper, better specked PC. The trade off is the OS but it is not the end of the world. Then, when you have your cheaper better specked perfect hardware you can always go back to Mac if the OS doesn't sit well. By that time there may be a 'perfect' Mac available for you. You never know.

For me personally, I live in happy union with both hardware AND software.
post #164 of 323
i just noticed doubling the ram in the iMac adds $1000. thats far too much. if i get one, i'll be making that upgrade myself.

ok, wow. i just checked a dell, to see how much it costs to upgrade the same speed DDR3 ram. if you go from 6GB (standard) it costs $1300 to upgrade to 24GB. Vs. the iMac where you pay $1000 to go from 4GB to 8GB.
post #165 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous.Shyster View Post

All in one desktops? Didn't know they existed, but then again, I don't know PC's.
I see a Dell with an i7 processor and a 24" display (tower) for $2000AU. I guess that's about what the new powermacs are, without a display for about $4500AU +

You want to compare, go ahead, I'm all ears....

You are a tool and this post simply makes you look uninformed, biased and ... stupid.
post #166 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilinGoat View Post

this is the fanboyism that i am talking about. lets just make a list, to sort things out.

1. people buy computers, PC or Mac, to get things done. they buy them to accomplish some kind of task, from finances o video games. some PICK Macs because they look better and they like OSX more than windows. this is stating the obvious. which i need to do with you.

2. Software is not better. while it does have some great apps, its just too limited to say it is "better" as a general statement, maybe you like it more because everything you use is on it, and you like the mac software better, but more than likely you like it because its pretty, and its all you know because you wouldn't touch a PC, which has so many different programs for so many different needs. personally everything i need is available on a mac, which is one reason i am looking for them (i also like them more) but there is a difference between you and i. i think its easy to see that difference.

2.1 "especially for creative people" you are so pretentious.

3. Specs count. its as simple as that. i would gladly pay a few bills more for a computer that i felt looked nice and was of high quality. but when you get to the point where you can have an all-in-one with the same sized screen with things like blu-ray drives, desktop graphics cards, and quad core CPU's included in a price slightly lower than the iMac? then a person starts to realize exactly what they are losing by getting the one that looks nicer on the desk.

4. I come here because i like the Apple iPhone, the iPod Touch, and i want to replace my old mac with a new iMac. I come here because i want to learn everything i can about the future products before i make my purchase. unlike you i come here with an open mind to things outside of the Apple Empire, and i will not blindly buy a new Apple product because it has been upgraded and the price dropped. i will continue to compare it to other products, and when these products continue to advance on the iMac, i will not ignore it and pretend that the products are worse than they are.

5. Most people do not blindly buy apple computers because they look nice. OSX users that i know tend to be far more knowledgeable about what their computer is capable of, than the average PC user i run into, that suggests that these people buy it for those functions more than they buy it for a pretty computer. sure it helps, but that is not why most people put their money down for it.

6. you stick with Apple because it is what you know, youve cornered yourself because you fear that a PC could not do what your Mac does, they can, for your information, but i understand why you stick with them nonetheless.

7. you've said i am claiming that specs alone matter, more times than i care to count. this is false, i have been one of the people that have stated they would spend more money on a computer that has the same specs if it means the computer looks a little nicer, but go back to the top and see what i said about the dell all in one that costs slightly less and offers a quad core/better graphics card/and blu-ray, thats not a small difference. if it was something like the apple having a 2.66 Quad core vs a 2.93 Quad in a dell? i'd stick with the mac. if the dell had a 8800gtx and the mac had 8800gt, id go with the mac... but these are HUGE leaps past the mac, i cant simply blindly ignore it, simply because i WISH the Mac was more comparable.

8. i'll state this one last time, and others will agree, the screen on iMacs are not GREAT, in fact they are average at best. glossy or not they are still average at best. they are old, outdated, and worse than what even apple was using years ago! finding a better screen is cheap and easy. it needs replacing. again, this is a case of a person that likes the design, likes everything about the computer, so they assume everything about it is GREAT when compared to everything else. in reality, this is not the case.

9. how about tossing in an alaskan joke. Members tend to revert to that on this forum. i like macs, ive made that clear, just because im not a blind follower of a company does not mean that i should not be on a forum talking about products i like... i think if anything people like me add a lot more to this forum than people like you.



First off your need to list things off is an indication of you teckyness. I use windows computers at work all day long, I am a professional graphic designer but my employer does not supply Macs mostly because the I.T. department is incompetent and incapable of supporting macs. So actually I use windows computes more than Macs, so guess what youre wrong on that point.

Many times my employer asks me to produce video work, I have to do this work at home on my Mac because my windows based Dell computer at work comes with absolutely no software for video editing (or for photo editing and organization, or for DVD burning, or for...etc) and my IT department refuses to supply any. So no, I dont use a Mac because the software is pretty. I use my Mac because it gets the job done, out of the box, unlike my Dell at work, and thats the point Im making! Out of the Box, Macs are more useful and easier to use. To equip a windowz computer with all that a mac can do in terms of software will cost several hundred dollars, if not more than a thousand, thus offsetting the extra cost of a Mac.

Macs are more suited for creative people, yes, that is not pretentious. Go into any news paper, graphic design house, high end art professionals all use Macs. Thats reality!

No Im not afraid of PCs, I use them more than Macs actually and I hate them because of my experience with them, not because Im misinformed.
post #167 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Yes, they are. MacBooks/PowerBooks don't count because they never had a dedicated numeric keypad. However, the keyboards have always had numeric keypads, all the way back to the late 80's with the first ADB keyboard. Once Apple cut the keypad from the wireless model, the biggest complaint and request has been to offer a wireless keyboard with the keypad. Now Apple has two wired options, they should also have two wireless options.

I guess you don't work with numbers. If you did, you would find it impossible to work with such a limited keyboard.

So there aren't external keypads you could buy for laptops if you needed one?

You realize those who care enough about a dedicated keypad for their iMac can opt for a free keypad-sporting keyboard during online checkout, right?


Anyway, I think everyone would be a little happier about today's announcements had the iMac moved to LED backlighting. Perhaps those will come later this fall or even this summer at Snow Leopard's launch.

Which reminds me, when's that Snow Leopard demo?
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
post #168 of 323
my mother makes grocery lists, but cant figure out how to play scrabble on facebook. is she "teckyness"?

Its a work computer. its not going to be nice, its not a representation of what is available on the market.

that was more simple than it should have been.

you have to purchase software to use on a desktop, just as you do with a mac, if you are happy with iLife then great, but if you think its the only option, your mistaken.

they are great right out of the box, i agree.

No they are not more suited for created people, this statement is absurd. that would be like me saying that windows is the best operating system for everyone because by far the majority of people use them. macs are good, but they are also hip.

you are misinformed. you use a worktop. a bare bones system. blah...
post #169 of 323
The longer i think about the more i'm generally disappointed here ....

I read somewhere either earlier on this page or the previous someone saying "The iMac is a good mid-spec desktop computer" ..... that it may be ... but at the prices they're asking for a notebook with a stand....

I really want an iMac.... i was ready to drop £1500 on one today ... i was sat refreshing the store page .... but now they've come .... i'm struggling to justify spending almost £1600 on a computer with mediocre graphics and a non-LED backlit display

I'm genuinely stuck now ... i have a previous gen MacMini ... but i need more power .... i know i could get a kick-ass PC based system inc. good 24" monitor for the same price but i HATE windows more and more

My other problem is that i didn't really want a 24" display but the spec on the 20" means i might as well get a new mini and use my (slightly) old monitor..... i'm feeling pretty disappointed and i was hoping for at least LED or C2Q cpu's and maybe the 4870x2 mobility graphics
post #170 of 323
Wow. Can we have 5 more pages of complaints on the new models?

I have a couple of questions and I'm interested in thoughtful responses. Why no LED backlighting on the new iMac displays? I really thought that was a given for these new models.

It's now clear that all the new models are basically speed bumps (not complaining, just commenting). Why haven't we seen them sooner? The fact that they have been so long overdue gave the illusion that we would see all new external designs. Desktop sales have languished of late, due no doubt in part to the fact that they have been somewhat long in the tooth. It seems odd that the waited this long to do a speed bump.

Along these lines, the new models don't seem to be ideal for the OpenCL in SL either. I thought there was a possibility that the delay had something to do with that, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
post #171 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill View Post

Wow. Can we have 5 more pages of complaints on the new models?

I have a couple of questions and I'm interested in thoughtful responses. Why no LED backlighting on the new iMac displays? I really thought that was a given for these new models.

It's now clear that all the new models are basically speed bumps (not complaining, just commenting). Why haven't we seen them sooner? The fact that they have been so long overdue gave the illusion that we would see all new external designs. Desktop sales have languished of late, due no doubt in part to the fact that they have been somewhat long in the tooth. It seems odd that the waited this long to do a speed bump.

Along these lines, the new models don't seem to be ideal for the OpenCL in SL either. I thought there was a possibility that the delay had something to do with that, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

you basically hit the nail on the head for why there is 5 pages of complaining.

no LED because apple didnt completely redesign the computer, they will likely save that for the all new iMac, for one more reason to get people to upgrade to it. but if that doesnt come out in 6-8 months, they will be seeing a lot of mac people go to PC... sad as it may be. (including myslef)
post #172 of 323
What a let down, same specs, higher prices. Way to suck it up Apple.

They are really going down a horribly self righteous path to hell right now. Go Psystar!
post #173 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

What a let down, same specs, higher prices. Way to suck it up Apple.

They are really going down a horribly self righteous path to hell right now. Go Psystar!

The specs aren't the same. Try again.
post #174 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilinGoat View Post

but if that doesnt come out in 6-8 months, they will be seeing a lot of mac people go to PC... sad as it may be. (including myslef)

While I agree I find Apple's current hardware offerings a bit lackluster, I can't say I'll ever go back to Windows. OSX is just too good from my point of view, and Snow Leopard will probably only make it better.

When I bought my 1st gen Alu iMac in the summer of 07, there was simply nothing in the PC world that could compare, so it was good value for me anyhow, because it was unique. My Early 08 MacBook with 2.4GHz Penryn is something similar, since at that time, such a bleeding edge processor in a 13 inch enclosure at that price was damn nice.

Nowdays... Dell, HP and Sony are definately catching up from a hardware point of view if you ask me. But Apple MUST have something up its sleeve. The unibodies are an example of being ahead of the competition, but those are out the door now so I'm sure Apple's huge R&D team is working on something "insanely great".
post #175 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplePi View Post

Seems decent, but is the 9400M a good enough chip for a $1200 machine? I'm asking.

Yes. Keep in mind electronic company's are going to have the same pressure as auto's soon when it comes to the environment. This iMac should run in the GOLD standards maybe better, in real life it means your looking at an entire computer system consuming less than 60 watts.

As for the naysayers above and below. The 9400M is a VERY GOOD CHIP! You know it is! It's not 3 yr old junk that PC users create the illusion around being better ("oh I got 512mb memory, that means your 256mb is worse than mine... he he...") rather it's total output. Look at it this way... The specs... 1066mhz memory at 256mb is MORE than enough to run a 30" at it's highest resolution above 50fps (we humans only see at 32fps, not sure about the bionic geek gamers). It uses very little power and also runs your north and south bridge thus making the entire computer faster and more efficient. So is it decent? YES. Will you outgrow it? YES, but how long is the real question. Compared to the outgoing model this is better, faster and less power hungry while providing more overall computing power. So YES. You have to keep in mind the design constraints in building the thinnest all-in-one full power desktop on the market. There's only so much room, space, heat dissipation.

This upgrade should run much cooler than the outgoing units too.
post #176 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorre View Post

While I agree I find Apple's current hardware offerings a bit lackluster, I can't say I'll ever go back to Windows. OSX is just too good from my point of view, and Snow Leopard will probably only make it better.

When I bought my 1st gen Alu iMac in the summer of 07, there was simply nothing in the PC world that could compare, so it was good value for me anyhow, because it was unique. My Early 08 MacBook with 2.4GHz Penryn is something similar, since at that time, such a bleeding edge processor in a 13 inch enclosure at that price was damn nice.

Nowdays... Dell, HP and Sony are definately catching up from a hardware point of view if you ask me. But Apple MUST have something up its sleeve. The unibodies are an example of being ahead of the competition, but those are out the door now so I'm sure Apple's huge R&D team is working on something "insanely great".

Keep in mind OS X runs graphics in a much faster way than windows by almost 3:1.
post #177 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by breeze View Post

I'd like to know how many of you whiners use your Macs for anything more than social networking, browsing and email downloading porn etc...???

I'd like to know how much PURCHASED professional software you use on a full time basis that requires more than a Macbook...I'd like to know if you've ever in your pathetic whining lives ever needed more computing power than any of the new Macs offer....

I'd be willing to bet that most of the whiners here haven't even a clue, but will complain anyway, just because the internet affords every dog a throne ...

This is complete BS on Apple's part, they have the hardware capabilities that all the other PC makers have access to so why couldn't they make a core i7 iMac with LED screen or at least given us the option of a bigger and bad ASS - iMac system - i guess the absence of SJ is really starting to show, given that they made us wait extra time for this crappy upgrade and i resent your whiner comments- i am a music producer and i work with video as well and i'm in IT field.

I have been begging my clients to wait for this update because of the expectations of all the 'new' chips and technology that most of us were waiting for.... WTF??!@#
PLEASE STEVE JOBS get well soon - APPLE NEEDS HELP!!!!
post #178 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisTheXIV View Post

Well...c'est la vie as they say. You want Apple to subsidize currency depreciation? Then don't ask for price cuts when they appreciate. It's a two way street.

Actually, the prices in Europe where never "lowered" when the US dollar was weak i.e. various European currencies were strong. This had the perverted effect that because you could get more dollars for the same amount of your own currency, it was cheaper to buy the Mac's in the states, That's why, in the summer of 2006 I went to New York, bought a bunch of Ipods. Added a 25% mark-up and sold 'em to my friends. I made a profit (per ipod of 25%) and my friends saved about 10% on buying them in Sweden.

What Apple has done know is to raise prices for us here in Europe.

Yes, Apple is NOT responsible for currency fluctuations, but they do not apply their policies equally pending what way the currencies swing - that's what's messed up.

Yes, I get it, Apple doesn't care and they make more money. I think that's great for them, but not for us.

Prices went up by about 30% on the entry level iMac. 30%!!!
The mini went up a staggering 40% compared to the old one AND the new high level mini is the SAME price as the old entry iMac.

Yes, Apple has better design, I LOVE it, and MUCH better OS, but in THESE times, regardless if you have the cash or not, who spend it on such hikes. At the end of the day, the average man cares about Mhz, GB, etc. They will let a bit extra for stability, security and design. That's why I didn't mind spending about 40% extra on a powerbook (compared to a comparable PC). but NOW, you can get a PC for 50% of the cost of an entry level imac and still have better performance.

Yes, Vista isin't great, but it sure beats a bit of cash on shit than a hole lot of cash on nothing. And that's what we are doing, with the new price hicks, we are spending our money on nothing,
post #179 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisTheXIV View Post

Well...c'est la vie as they say. You want Apple to subsidize currency depreciation? Then don't ask for price cuts when they appreciate. It's a two way street.

the exchange rate is a farce! These prices are fucked!
post #180 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitzandbitez View Post

This is complete BS on Apple's part, they have the hardware capabilities that all the other PC makers have access to so why couldn't they make a core i7 iMac with LED screen or at least given us the option of a bigger and bad ASS - iMac system - i guess the absence of SJ is really starting to show, given that they made us wait extra time for this crappy upgrade and i resent your whiner comments- i am a music producer and i work with video as well and i'm in IT field.

I have been begging my clients to wait for this update because of the expectations of all the 'new' chips and technology that most of us were waiting for.... WTF??!@#
PLEASE STEVE JOBS get well soon - APPLE NEEDS HELP!!!!

They are tied to Intel's roadmap which has been pushed forward nearly 6months due to economy... and....

The economy is failing because consumers and business's cut spending, oops. Housing market only started it (created the consious effort to cut spending, reduce waste, eliminate jobs, etc), what we are in now is less housing problem more spending, futures, options, market problems. If the market continued it's 3.4% growth from 06-07 we wouldn't have had a 62b right off from AIG who insured market calls, puts, options, xxxbacked securitys, interests, etc... that tanked because spending is off nearly 40% overall. We are also loosing jobs because in the US more jobs are service/customer direct then back in the 80's let alone the 20-30's where 4:10 jobs were direct, today it's more 6.5:1, so reduced spending from consumers/business has a faster impact on the economy.

You want to fix the economy? There are 300m US people. 170m with full-time work. Spend $1 a day extra and the economy will revive 2x's faster. Tip $1 extra. Buy one thing extra a week (I prefer you purchase something that helps the environment, LED Lightbulbs are a good start - 1 a week at $5 each).

Take out the middle man they said. Go direct they said. Where's the buffer now Mr. consumer?

Fix the economy, boost spending and Intel's inventory will get lower faster and newer units can be put into production quicker which means more R&D, faster design, quicker turnaround.

So, class, how do we get faster Mac's sooner?
A: Spend $1 a day more, tip $1 more. Buy one thing extra a week. If all 170m full-time emp's did this we would fix the economy twice as fast.
post #181 of 323
Why can't i have discrete graphics for gaming without having to pay for the 24 inch screen?
post #182 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by fseesink View Post

The problem isn't just the loss of a FW400 port. Your adapter cable works in such a case.

The bigger issue for some (my dad included) is that this new iMac only comes with ONE (1) FireWire port of any kind. Every iMac since the original iMac G5 has come with TWO (2) FireWire ports. Initially they were both FW400. Then, with the advent of the aluminum bodies, Apple shifted to one FW400 and one FW800.

Now you only get a single FW800 port. Why does this matter? Well, for one, anyone who has multiple FW devices now MUST buy a FW hub. But try to find some decent FW800 hubs. Sure, FW400 hubs exist (my dad uses a Belkin 6-port unit), but if you use that--which implies using a cable like the one you mention to connect the hub to the iMac--you've just effectively killed the entire point of FW800.

So let's say you can get a FW800 hub. And let's say (as I'm not sure this is the case) that connecting a FW400 device to a FW800 hub using a cable such as you mention does NOT cause the entire hub to shift into lowest-common-denominator 400Mbps mode. Even with all that, what happens when most of your devices, such as camcorders, are still FW400? All those FW400 cables you have? Useless. Now you need to buy several of the cables above, one for each device.

And if the hub DOES shift down into FW400 mode if there's a single FW400 device attached, see same note above about making FW800 port useless. For folks like my dad who have a Drobo (I have it connected to his iMac G5 using a cable similar to the one above), so much for finally getting that FW800 performance. He got the 2nd gen Drobo specifically with the idea that when he bought a new iMac, he'd finally get the full performance that its FW800 port offered.

Why did Apple not simply replace the FW400 port with another FW800 port, giving users at least two FW800 ports? It's not like it would take up more real estate on the back of the unit. THIS is one thing that does disappoint me. My dad has been itching to replace his iMac G5 1.9GHz unit. But with all the FW devices he currently has connected, he won't be able to do a simple swap if he bought a new iMac today. If he wants to be able to use the Drobo at full FW800 speed, he'll have to buy a FW800 hub (good luck finding one that offers 6+ ports for less than $100 if at all) and a crapload of the cables above. This, compared to simply buying one such cable to connect to his FW400 hub, then having the Drobo connect directly to the 2nd FW800 port.

So while I applaud the rest of the features (sure, I was hoping Apple would put a quadcore into the iMac, but maybe next time), this to me IS, in fact, taking away functionality that users used to have.

You do know that FW is daisy-chainable right? I.E. if you have an external HD it's got 2 FW ports - that's not to connect it to 2 seperate computers - that's to connect another HD to it. That's another reason why FW is better than USB...
post #183 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous.Shyster View Post

So is there any advantage of paying the extra money for this new 'update'? Or would one be wise to buy an old stock iMac at a reduced price or a refurbished one? Are the improvements actually worth the extra $$$?

This new "update" looks pretty damned good to me. Obviously if you currently own the previous models, you're not going to be as tempted to upgrade, but my iMac is three years old now and I am very tempted to finally upgrade. So from my point of view these iMacs look fantastic! Especially the entry level 24" iMac. Although I must also say that my current iMac is still chugging along just fine, so I'm not in any dire need to buy a new one. In fact, I may just wait for the next update.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #184 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorre View Post

While I agree I find Apple's current hardware offerings a bit lackluster, I can't say I'll ever go back to Windows. OSX is just too good from my point of view, and Snow Leopard will probably only make it better.

When I bought my 1st gen Alu iMac in the summer of 07, there was simply nothing in the PC world that could compare, so it was good value for me anyhow, because it was unique. My Early 08 MacBook with 2.4GHz Penryn is something similar, since at that time, such a bleeding edge processor in a 13 inch enclosure at that price was damn nice.

Nowdays... Dell, HP and Sony are definately catching up from a hardware point of view if you ask me. But Apple MUST have something up its sleeve. The unibodies are an example of being ahead of the competition, but those are out the door now so I'm sure Apple's huge R&D team is working on something "insanely great".

im keeping a lot of hope for this as well, apple has always been a company that looks forward, and tends to stay ahead. the other companies are also catching up in design and quality of their hardware too (which wasnt hard because catching up only means they are better than that hard plastic they were pushing on us just 2 years go)

however even if they do catch up in quality, and in style, apple does still have a few things that could convince me to buy their product (for the premium they ask me to pay)

first they need to catch up a bit with hardware, i know a lot of people are complaining saying its just fine, but its not, they are too far behind right now... but thats fixable.

second, i think they could do some really awesome things if they made it a touchscreen computer. they have a lot of experience with it now considering the time they have had with the iPhone. it will mean they will have to keep a glossy display, but they, touchscreens are nice for some things, and i think apple is capable of making a touchscreen all-in-one that would really make it stand out, all they need is to be working on the software (Which they probably are)

aside from that... they could make the iMac bigger, so it can fit in cheaper/more powerful hardware, maybe go back to how the G4 was, with the screen being a separate part than the computer, if anyone could make it look nice, it would be apple. i dont know, there are other things they could work on as well, im just afraid that they feel that the future is completely in portable, so they are starting to forget about the desktops, and feel they will eventually be something that is mostly niche.
post #185 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilinGoat View Post

my mother makes grocery lists, but cant figure out how to play scrabble on facebook. is she "teckyness"?

Its a work computer. its not going to be nice, its not a representation of what is available on the market.

that was more simple than it should have been.

you have to purchase software to use on a desktop, just as you do with a mac, if you are happy with iLife then great, but if you think its the only option, your mistaken.

they are great right out of the box, i agree.

No they are not more suited for created people, this statement is absurd. that would be like me saying that windows is the best operating system for everyone because by far the majority of people use them. macs are good, but they are also hip.

you are misinformed. you use a worktop. a bare bones system. blah...


Yes you said it, I use a bare bones windowz system at work, yes I agree. You have to purchase software to make a windowz system work, yes I agree. But a Mac is not a bare bones system so stop comparing it to bare bones windowz systems, youre comparing apples to oranges. Go ahead and buy a windowz system for a few hundred dollars cheaper than a mac and when you want to edit a video, or edit photos, make a photo album, record music, make your own website, or make a DVD, as creative people do, you can go buy a bunch of crappy windows software that is buggy and gives inferior results that a Mac, but you can be comfortable knowing that you originally paid less for your now more expensive windowz computer.

Yes, many people may not need these types of features on their computer, and that's what windowz computers are for, the great masses who only need web access and a video game from their computers. Many mac users want more from their computer and OSX and iLife delivers that in spades.

People on these boards keep complaining that a dell or other windowz computers are so much cheaper than a Mac and Im sick of it, because if you use your mac as intended, to easily create photos, albums, videos, websites, music... its actually cheaper than a windowz system, and thats what Apple understands. I would hate to try and configure a windowz computer to do what a mac does out of the box because quite frankly there is no windowz equivalent to OSX and iLife. If youre not using you mac for those 2 things you are missing the point of a mac, like using a race car to plow a field.
post #186 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

Why can't i have discrete graphics for gaming without having to pay for the 24 inch screen?

The NVidia 9400M may give the same performance as the previous model iMacs. The 20" is the entry level iMac, so integrated graphics makes sense, especially for a lower cost. Look for a prior model 20" if you feel you need dedicated graphics. It is too bad Apple switched to a lower quality 20" panel after the white iMacs were phased out, but it is all about cost and savings.
post #187 of 323
Many people are saying they are so disappointed and will, as a result, go to using a PC running Windows. How many, I wonder, will make the switch and then regret it based purely on Microsoft's OS and all the trouble they will run into with bugs, viruses, spyware etc.

One of my Mac user friends is a designer and he uses both a Mac and a PC for work (he works freelance from home). Once every two or three months he calls in an IT guy to work through his PC system and iron-out its problems, viruses etc.

Each time it costs him money, despite his security etc, and each time he begs for the day when he can work for clients using only his Macs.

All of those who switch to Windows will... come back home. :-)
Addabox: "But, you know, if you have to invoke a free OS on a free tablet on a free internet to "prove" that any possible Apple branded tablet would be a poor value, then knock yourself out."
Reply
Addabox: "But, you know, if you have to invoke a free OS on a free tablet on a free internet to "prove" that any possible Apple branded tablet would be a poor value, then knock yourself out."
Reply
post #188 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by fseesink View Post

The problem isn't just the loss of a FW400 port. Your adapter cable works in such a case.

The bigger issue for some (my dad included) is that this new iMac only comes with ONE (1) FireWire port of any kind. Every iMac since the original iMac G5 has come with TWO (2) FireWire ports. Initially they were both FW400. Then, with the advent of the aluminum bodies, Apple shifted to one FW400 and one FW800.

Now you only get a single FW800 port. Why does this matter? Well, for one, anyone who has multiple FW devices now MUST buy a FW hub. But try to find some decent FW800 hubs. Sure, FW400 hubs exist (my dad uses a Belkin 6-port unit), but if you use that--which implies using a cable like the one you mention to connect the hub to the iMac--you've just effectively killed the entire point of FW800.

So let's say you can get a FW800 hub. And let's say (as I'm not sure this is the case) that connecting a FW400 device to a FW800 hub using a cable such as you mention does NOT cause the entire hub to shift into lowest-common-denominator 400Mbps mode. Even with all that, what happens when most of your devices, such as camcorders, are still FW400? All those FW400 cables you have? Useless. Now you need to buy several of the cables above, one for each device.

And if the hub DOES shift down into FW400 mode if there's a single FW400 device attached, see same note above about making FW800 port useless. For folks like my dad who have a Drobo (I have it connected to his iMac G5 using a cable similar to the one above), so much for finally getting that FW800 performance. He got the 2nd gen Drobo specifically with the idea that when he bought a new iMac, he'd finally get the full performance that its FW800 port offered.

Why did Apple not simply replace the FW400 port with another FW800 port, giving users at least two FW800 ports? It's not like it would take up more real estate on the back of the unit. THIS is one thing that does disappoint me. My dad has been itching to replace his iMac G5 1.9GHz unit. But with all the FW devices he currently has connected, he won't be able to do a simple swap if he bought a new iMac today. If he wants to be able to use the Drobo at full FW800 speed, he'll have to buy a FW800 hub (good luck finding one that offers 6+ ports for less than $100 if at all) and a crapload of the cables above. This, compared to simply buying one such cable to connect to his FW400 hub, then having the Drobo connect directly to the 2nd FW800 port.

So while I applaud the rest of the features (sure, I was hoping Apple would put a quadcore into the iMac, but maybe next time), this to me IS, in fact, taking away functionality that users used to have.

Man! If you were around when the original iMac came out, you would've gone ape-shit! They dropped ALL legacy ports (ADB, serial and SCSI) off that sucker. But people still bought them, including me. I had keyboards, a trackball, a few external hard drives and a printer that wouldn't work with the iMac. I chose to buy it, so I just had to deal with it. I ended up getting an ethernet card for my Mac SE and used it as a file and print server - but damn was it slow!
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #189 of 323
Affordable pricing ?


Who on earth wrote the title of that news story ?

The top end iMac in the UK is £1800. The one it replaced was £1359.

Unbelievable. Currency changes dont explain all of that.

It most certainly is not affordable... its a rip off. So much so that Ive decided not to buy. The specifications of the update are woeful, and the price is massively inflated. That kind of money buys me a top end i7 PC which even kicks a mac pro (also lame update) into the gutter.

Apple have finally priced me out. A sad day indeed.
post #190 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilinGoat View Post

but if that doesnt come out in 6-8 months, they will be seeing a lot of mac people go to PC... sad as it may be. (including myslef)

LOL. You're kidding right? Like I mentioned above, my iMac is 3 years old and still runs just fine. If a newer model iMac doesn't come out in 6-8 months, most of us will just continue to use the Mac we currently own. Also, given the speculation that with Snow Leopard most of us may experience a performance bump, that will only increase the lifespan of my iMac.

I'd rather run a ten year old Mac than switch to using Windows!
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #191 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post


So, class, how do we get faster Mac's sooner?
A: Spend $1 a day more, tip $1 more. Buy one thing extra a week. If all 170m full-time emp's did this we would fix the economy twice as fast.


Stop buying cheap imports from China and keep buying US made products... that might also do the trick! I really admire your president's view about 'Buy America'..

In the UK we have a lame duck 'non elected' prime minister who keeps telling us not to buy British as protectionism ultimately fails. I wish someone would shoot him.
post #192 of 323
Very little mention is made of the fact that the 24 inch iMac has gone from 1900 pixels to 1680, e.g. same resolution as the 20 inch model.

Lack of LEDs is a disappointment for those of us who us it with photos and are serious about it.

And Blu-Ray would be very good to store data on, like all the photos made.

And what happened to the Quad core CPUs?

I guess my decision is to postpone until the next version of the OS is out (2nd or 3rd Q??) and see what the landscape looks like then, and the OS will be on the box.
post #193 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post

As for the naysayers above and below. The 9400M is a VERY GOOD CHIP! You know it is! It's not 3 yr old junk that PC users create the illusion around being better ("oh I got 512mb memory, that means your 256mb is worse than mine... he he...") rather it's total output. Look at it this way... The specs... 1066mhz memory at 256mb is MORE than enough to run a 30" at it's highest resolution above 50fps (we humans only see at 32fps, not sure about the bionic geek gamers). It uses very little power and also runs your north and south bridge thus making the entire computer faster and more efficient. So is it decent? YES. Will you outgrow it? YES, but how long is the real question. Compared to the outgoing model this is better, faster and less power hungry while providing more overall computing power. So YES. You have to keep in mind the design constraints in building the thinnest all-in-one full power desktop on the market. There's only so much room, space, heat dissipation.

This upgrade should run much cooler than the outgoing units too.

My target machine is the entry level 24" iMac. Compared to the outgoing model it has:
- more RAM
- RAM with higher sustained speed, but with higher latency
- bigger HD
- same bus speed
- slower processor
- graphics running in shared memory
- no separate FW400 bus for legacy peripherals (FW800 bus gets dragged down to 400 speed)

I don't see much there that qualifies as better and faster and it's still a nightmare to upgrade the hard drive, something I do on an annual basis.

Your comment about the iMac being the thinnest all-in-one full power desktop is false. The iMac is a notebook computer with a big display. It's NOT a full power desktop by any stretch of the imagination. By making it so thin, a feature no customer in the world actually cares about because people look at the front of their display not the edge, Apple is forced to use under powered components.

The 9400 is very efficient, but as a 3D display engine it is crap.

I am horribly disappointed that there's still no quad core Mac under US$2499. There are quad core PCs under $600 and Nehalem based PCs under $1000. Apple must think it's still 2007.
post #194 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by webhead View Post

Yes you said it, I use a bare bones windowz system at work, yes I agree. You have to purchase software to make a windowz system work, yes I agree. But a Mac is not a bare bones system so stop comparing it to bare bones windowz systems, youre comparing apples to oranges. Go ahead and buy a windowz system for a few hundred dollars cheaper than a mac and when you want to edit a video, or edit photos, make a photo album, record music, make your own website, or make a DVD, as creative people do, you can go buy a bunch of crappy windows software that is buggy and gives inferior results that a Mac, but you can be comfortable knowing that you originally paid less for your now more expensive windowz computer.

Yes, many people may not need these types of features on their computer, and that's what windowz computers are for, the great masses who only need web access and a video game from their computers. Many mac users want more from their computer and OSX and iLife delivers that in spades.

People on these boards keep complaining that a dell or other windowz computers are so much cheaper than a Mac and Im sick of it, because if you use your mac as intended, to easily create photos, albums, videos, websites, music... its actually cheaper than a windowz system, and thats what Apple understands. I would hate to try and configure a windowz computer to do what a mac does out of the box because quite frankly there is no windowz equivalent to OSX and iLife. If youre not using you mac for those 2 things you are missing the point of a mac, like using a race car to plow a field.

ok this "windowz" thing is childish, you are childish, so much that im having a hard time believing that you are even a professional. further more, not all windows PC's are bare bones, just the ones they sell in bulk to companies.

with $1200 you can get a more powerful computer than any iMac.

you now have $1000 to spend on software.

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopelwin/ (adobe photoshop elements 7) $99 and its a more in depth program.

CyberLink PowerDirector 7 Ultra $120, rated higher than ilife.

http://www.adobe.com/products/audition/ Adobe Audition 3, without a doubt the best audio editor you can buy, $350 (can be upgraded from an old version for $99, and you'll be able to upgrade later to newer versions for that same price)

you can actually do a lot of this stuff for free, like make photo albums win windows media center. anyway you'll notice with this software it all adds up to be about $570 still $430 cheaper than the iMac, and you get seriously professional applications, not the easy to use armature iLife (yes its brilliant for armatures, but for a serious professional? it just doesn't stack up, its a jack of all trades if you will)

plus, you dont have to get MS office or Apple iWork, so you save money (on a PC you can get open office, which is what i use, which is just about as good as the MS office stuff, and 100% freeware)

there is a reason to complain right now. im not saying *you* or anyone should go out and get a windows PC, but i am saying your claims are pure BS. your ignorant about windows, and use that to justify the high expense of a iMac.
post #195 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMad View Post

Many people are saying they are so disappointed and will, as a result, go to using a PC running Windows. How many, I wonder, will make the switch and then regret it based purely on Microsoft's OS and all the trouble they will run into with bugs, viruses, spyware etc.

One of my Mac user friends is a designer and he uses both a Mac and a PC for work (he works freelance from home). Once every two or three months he calls in an IT guy to work through his PC system and iron-out its problems, viruses etc.

Each time it costs him money, despite his security etc, and each time he begs for the day when he can work for clients using only his Macs.

All of those who switch to Windows will... come back home. :-)

If I buy a PC I'm going to install Leopard. There's no way I'll run Windows.
post #196 of 323
What? No quad-core? No Core i7?

The new iMacs are cost saving, last year models, with a poor design. Here's what's wrong with these iMacs:

- No quad-core desktop CPU, while quad-core desktop CPUs have been available from Intel since November 2007;

- No quad-core Core i7 (Nehalem) desktop CPU which has been available from Intel since November 17, 2008;

- No quad-core Penryn mobile CPU which has been available from Intel since August or September 2008;

- No quad-core Penryn CPU for all-in-one, small-form factor computers which has been available from Intel since January 2009;

- A glossy display which is more difficult to read, especially for customers with reading glasses;

- An uncompetitive price when compared with either quad-core or dual-core Windows computers offered from large retailers like Staples in the U.S.A, Britain or Canada.

The new iMacs are a big let down from a company which is more focused on its high prices and senior management bonuses than its customers.

Watch out for the upcoming Windows 7 on quad-core Core i7 desktop or mobile computers. Apple will go through another one of its self-imposed blood bath.


For more info on the Core i7, see:

- Intel unleashes Core i7, beats itself @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40213/135/

- Core i7 PCs launch with prices from $1250 to $13,000 @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40227/135/

- Intel Core i7 processor pricing @ http://www.intc.com/common/download/..._1ku_Price.pdf


The Penryn Core 2 Quad Q6600 65 nm CPU has been available from Intel for $266 since November 2007, and $224 since April 20, 2008. See:

- Intel releases sixteen new Penryn processors for servers and high-end @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34800/118/

- Intel to cut 65 nm quad-core processor prices for 45 nm @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36136/139/

- Intel drops second quad-core CPU into the mainstream @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37038/135/

- Have quad-core processors arrived in the mainstream? @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36548/135/

- Intel adds cheap dual-core, quad-core @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39135/135/

- Intel lowers CPU prices up to 48% on server, quads, duals and mobile @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41092/135/

- Intel to launch 65W desktop CPUs for all-in-one PCs @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40267/139/


Apple, what have you done?


post #197 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

If I buy a PC I'm going to install Leopard. There's no way I'll run Windows.

Michael Dell saw these *upgrades* and if you listen, listen really hard you can almost hear him cheering!!!

..its that or Ballmer sighing with relief.

Apple, we are in a recession. Get a clue.
post #198 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

What? No quad-core? No Core i7?



well you really didnt expect the i7 did you? that was never goign to make it, too hot from what i hear.

but i did see that it will be in a laptop soon... so im not sure how that works.

either way, that should be out with the mobile versions at the end of the year... i guess we should just hope that when they add those they completely redesign the thing from the ground up... would that be too much to hope for?
post #199 of 323
There is a lot to say here, but I can only be brief right now. This board, and other similar, are showing clearly that outside of the US the Apple faithful are feeling hurt and angry, outraged even. Apple have seriously damaged their good name in Europe with their arrogant, almost contemptuous pricing decisions with this update. It takes a long time to build up goodwill, but it can be destroyed in an instant, and they have done that today for a good segment of their loyal customer base with this crass strategic blunder. What the hell were they thinking? One very safe prediction - UK Mac desktop sales are going to plummet this year, and as there is such a thing as an 'anti-halo' effect, that may well adversely affect other areas of their business as well. Terrible, terrible move Apple, shocking.

And to AppleInsider: if you are going to use a direct quotation from the Apple PR Dept as part of your headline you should put quotation marks around it, otherwise it reads as a fact. On a day when they put the price of iMacs up by nearly a third for a good proportion of your readers, a headline stating 'more affordable pricing' adds insult to injury and makes you look like ridiculous shills.
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #200 of 323
I love Macs and all but.....

iMac 24inch- AU$2499
2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
640GB Serial ATA Drive
8x DL Superdrive
NIVIDIA GeForce 9400M Graphics

compared to something like...

Dell Studio XPS Desktop- AU$2519.30
Dell S2409WFP 24" Flat Panel Monitor
2.66 Ghz Intel Core i7-920
6GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
1TB Serial ATA Drive
16x DVD+/-RW with Dual Layer Write capabilities
512MB ATI Radeon HD 4850

Seems pretty good value for an extra AU$20...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple introduces new iMacs with more affordable pricing