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 6

post #201 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post

Keep in mind OS X runs graphics in a much faster way than windows by almost 3:1.

Oh please, that's hilarious. Post some Crysis benchmarks on PC vs Mac and lets see this 3:1 speed boost.
post #202 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

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...

Yes, I'm well aware that FW is daisy-chainable... assuming that your devices HAVE two FW ports on them. In my dad's case, most of his devices (camcorders and such) do not.

Throw in that not all FW devices are created equal, and some, when daisy chained to slower devices, resort to the slower speed, and you have all kinds of fun to look forward to. Also, though I did not mention it in the original post as it wasn't relevant, in my dad's case, daisy chaining through the Drobo would be a pain due to the cable layout (Drobo all the way to one side, FW hub all the way on the other). Again, more cabling would be required.

My point was simply that Apple removed a port which used to be there, which for some folks can cause some grief. Throw in that, unlike USB, there are no redundant ports, should that one FW port go bad, a user would be SOL until they had their unit fixed. Minor point, but I've had ports die, and it's nice to have a fallback.

As for your final comment about "That's another reason why FW is better than USB", I won't bother getting into the USB vs. FW holy wars. I don't believe either is "better". Rather, I believe each was built to serve a certain purpose, and they each have their advantages/disadvantages.
post #203 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyingSun View Post

So, there you have it... same old display technology... horrendous 20'' TN LCD with narrow viewing angles and brightness gradient and sort of average 24'' LCD with a few problems of its own as well... why on earth didn't they upgrade the displays to LED, like on every other recent Apple product?! It doesn't make any sense...

Definitely an upgrade to ignore... something better will come.



And the resolution on the 24 inch is reduced from 1920 to 1680. WHY??
post #204 of 323
I'm pretty sure that's just an error, Apple wouldn't lower the resolution.

Here's a question: did they get rid of the 9400M in the higher end models? There goes Apple's opportunity to finally offer a Hybrid SLI iMac, that would have made up for the lack of Quad core! What happened to the Core 2 Quads with 65 watt TDP? I want quad core!
post #205 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

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!

Ummm... slightly different case. As you note, it was the "original iMac". So it's not exactly like Apple "dropped" anything relative to a previous iMac, since there wasn't one. You are referring to Apple's hardware shift from making Performas/Quadras/PowerMacs to iMacs, and yes, the loss of legacy ports was rough for certain folks. I recall those days well, and still have a SCSI Iomega ZIP drive laying around somewhere from that time.

[Ironically, it was exactly this "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach that launched USB devices. Ironic considering Intel developed USB and USB ports had been standard on PC motherboards for years, but Intel couldn't do squat to get peripheral makers to jump on board. Then Apple leaves their users without a floppy drive for storage or the ability to print to any pre-existing printer, and voila!]

But that's not the same as a slight bump in specs. I'd say you had a better argument if you went with the PowerMac G3 to PowerMac G4 shift, when Apple did the same there, as in that case the unit looked pretty much the same but suddenly lost its ADB and SCSI ports. But with the iMac product line, from day one those legacy ports were not there.

And my point was solely that Apple removed a port altogether, leaving users with just a single FW port, and what the implications of that might be for some. Nothing more, nothing less.
post #206 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilinGoat View Post

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

With $1200 you can get a Core i7 PC that equals the new $2500 Mac Pro in performance.

Apple must not care that PCs are significantly less expensive than Macs and that, outside the US where Mac prices just increased dramatically, PC prices have not gone up much if at all.

In recent months the Canadian dollar has lost enormous value against the greenback, but the 1TB hard drive that would have cost me $120 last year still costs $120.
post #207 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon View Post

Sorry if it's been mentioned already, but this thread has ballooned, so I won't be looking back through it. Anyway, the new iMac's stand is tapered, unlike the old, rectangular stand

noticed that too
post #208 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Pay attention. The iMac includes the new wired keyboard WITHOUT a numeric pad. That is something new. You can build to oder and get the original aluminum wired keyboard with numeric pad, but retail boxes will have the butchered keyboard without the numeric pad.

Read carefully, I said "option". The original poster though they completely removed the version with the numeric keypad. Personally, I hope they don't drop the one with a numeric keypad.
post #209 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLQ View Post



And the resolution on the 24 inch is reduced from 1920 to 1680. WHY??

I don't know where you're getting that from. From Apple's website:

Resolution
20-inch model: 1680 by 1050 pixels
24-inch models: 1920 by 1200 pixels
post #210 of 323
Too bad for those across the pond from us. I hope you all enjoyed the weak dollar while it lasted. Sucks to be you now.

Here in the US, you get the 24" imac with twice the storage and memory for $300 less than before. Slight drop in cpu clockspeed, but faster memory and updated architecture probably means slightly faster cpu. It looks like the GPU gets slightly worse, at least for games, but not by that much. Basically the update at the $1499 pricepoint went for storage, memory and display size over gpu and cpu speed.
post #211 of 323
While I can understand your frustration, you need to consider that the motherboards which carry all those dandy ports are being manufactured by intel. If intel is no longer producing a board with FW400 and FW800 or two FW800 ports then Apple obviously can't offer it. It sucks, but thats the sad truth. In the case of your dad's old G5, obviously Apple had more control back then working with IBM.

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.
post #212 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

With $1200 you can get a Core i7 PC that equals the new $2500 Mac Pro in performance.

Apple must not care that PCs are significantly less expensive than Macs and that, outside the US where Mac prices just increased dramatically, PC prices have not gone up much if at all.

In recent months the Canadian dollar has lost enormous value against the greenback, but the 1TB hard drive that would have cost me $120 last year still costs $120.


edit...double.
post #213 of 323
edit.
post #214 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by fseesink View Post

Yes, I'm well aware that FW is daisy-chainable... assuming that your devices HAVE two FW ports on them. ...
Throw in that not all FW devices are created equal, and some, when daisy chained to slower devices, resort to the slower speed, and you have all kinds of fun to look forward to...
My point was simply that Apple removed a port which used to be there, which for some folks can cause some grief. Throw in that, unlike USB, there are no redundant ports,...
... each [USB, FW] was built to serve a certain purpose, and they each have their advantages/disadvantages.

ditto ditto ditto.
I also prefer my older Mac's two FW port setup as it allows more user and wire-friendly configurations to my several external FW devices.
Good point that many video FW devices have only one (1) FW port, so that really puts you at a disadvantage with lots of cable swapping and hub-purchasing ahead.

A single FW800 port now means lots of after-market purchase of 800-to-400 adapters and multi-FW hubs.
I wish they would have kept two FW ports - one 400, one 800 - that way lots more users would be able to more simply connect their existing and/or multiple devices.
I mean, how hard would it have been to have two FW ports? They increased the number of USB2 ports... There is space on the machine... the technology exists... other computer makers have more multiple port options (within similar price range).
I point these out not to start a pc vs mac issue, as I really do prefer the Mac over my PC.

I just wish Apple did not make a habit of : we give you a little more here, but at same time, we take away something you used to use there...

My favorite OS and computer company, once more a step or two forward, a step back (or sideways)...
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
post #215 of 323
My opinion is that storage, if it's not direct attached, should be on a network if performance is acceptable.

Firewire is not a network topology so you run out of ports quickly.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #216 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Should be an asterisk on all of that - it's cheaper for the US Customers - all the overseas folks are getting hosed because Apple has adjusted those prices to reflect the rise in the USD.

#'s since July '08
USD up 26.17% vs EUR
USD up 42.31% vs GBP
USD up 50.23% vs AUD

Call it the price of voting in competent leadership.
post #217 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

It's about perceived value for money. Most PC users don't need a Core i7 but why is there so much hype about it?

Upgrade factor for me. I can get 2.66GHz i7 for almost the same money as 3GHz Core 2 Quad... but while that C2Q might be end of the road for DDR2 RAM and Intel 775 socket, I'm sure I'll be able to swap my i7 CPU with faster one (or even one with more cores) in a year or two while keeping same mobo and rest of the system, if I feel like minimizing expenses.

That being said, I'm still on AMD X2 and that system is still doing OK for me... so yeah, future upgrades aside, C2D or C2Q would fill all my needs today without any need for i7.
post #218 of 323
I gave up reading after Page 1.

What a pathetic bunch of whiners on this thread (at least, on Page 1).

S.T.F.U.
post #219 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcw5002 View Post

Wow I was really hoping/expecting they would have LED displays. Big disappointment!!! Although, the specs and pricing look pretty decent for the low-end 24" model.

First decent and useful comment on this thread. Thank you.
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
post #220 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTL215 View Post

Let's put the intangible value of OS X off the table. Let's just look at straight up hardware. Can somebody please configure a comparable machine from Dell, HP, or whoever? Make something comparable to the new iMacs, and post the specs right here. Don't talk about making your own box, I'm talking about commercially available consumer desktops. I guarantee you'll find comparable prices on hardware. THEN we can throw in the intangible value of the OS (and bundled software) and the hardware design Apple is known for.

I'm sick of people complaining about a lack of value and things being overpriced. You'd think people on this site actually knew a thing or two about Apple computers besides their sticker price.

I've run through HP's on-line configuration and came up with this as a system I'd go for if I'd be bying right now:

HP d5200t

Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Quad processor Q9550 [2.83GHz]
6GB DDR2-800MHz dual channel SDRAM
1TB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive
1GB ATI Radeon HD 4850 [2 DVI, HDMI and VGA adapters]
HP w2558hc 25-inch Vivid Color widescreen flat panel monitor
Blu-ray player & SuperMulti DVD burner
LAN port on system board (10/100/1000Base-T), no wireless LAN
15-in-1 memory card reader, 2 USB, 1394, audio
Integrated 7.1 channel sound with front audio ports
Logitech X-540 speakers (5.1)
HP multimedia keyboard and HP optical mouse
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit
Microsoft(R) Office Home and Student Edition 2007 - Includes Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote

$2099.98

Or, if you feel like saving some money... same platform, lower specs:

HP d5200t

Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Quad processor Q9400 [2.66GHz]
4 GB DDR2-800MHz dual channel SDRAM [4x1024]
500GB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive
768MB NVIDIA GeForce 9600GS [DVI, VGA, HDMI]
HP w2207h 22 -inch widescreen flat panel monitor more info
LightScribe 16X max. DVD+/-R/RW SuperMulti drive
LAN port on system board (10/100/1000Base-T), no wireless LAN
15-in-1 memory card reader, 2 USB, 1394, audio
Integrated 7.1 channel sound with front audio ports
HP stereo speakers with subwoofer and remote (2.1) 30W
HP multimedia keyboard and HP optical mouse
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit
Microsoft(R) Office Home and Student Edition 2007 - Includes Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote

$1249.98
post #221 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by italiankid View Post

NO JOBS = NO APPLES!

WHAT A HORRIBLE UPDATE!

NO LED? NO BLU RAY? WHAT IS APPLE DOING?

the price of 2199$ US is 2599$ CDN LOL

NO THANKS!

Ps The exchange rate difference is not 40%

APPLE WANTS TO HOSE CUSTOMERS!


I'd pay a 10 to 15% difference not 40% for these specs.

Somehow I both doubt that "Apple wants to Hose customers!? and that this is a "horrible update" I think it is a surprise about the LED issue, so I'm not buying just to replace my present iMac 24, but if you were going to buy the old one yesterday, you're getting a better one today...
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
post #222 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I gave up reading after Page 1.

What a pathetic bunch of whiners on this thread (at least, on Page 1).

S.T.F.U.

I've been on this site and others long enough that if the same whiners were happy with an Apple update that I'd think Apple over extended themselves and that something must be wrong with the company.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #223 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Do you sit on it?

I was wondering, too... I bet my armchair is much more comfortable anyway
post #224 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilinGoat View Post

lol. seriously, i like macs, but some of the poeple on this board are in need of some help, who buys a computer *just* because it looks good. hell i can find a pertty good looking dell now days, as good as an iMac? no, but good enough that people would ask where i got it (their all in one is a decent looking machine, not quite my style, but it looks nice)

there have been more than a few days that i question why i even come to these boards, because there are so many that bash on plastics and design, but when it comes down to it, thats not what a computer is about, i understanding wanting it to look good (as ive mentioned before, i feel the same way) but that should not be your main selling point.

also, no, the screens on the iMacs are NOT very good looking screens. you may think it looks good because of the whole package, but the quality is not as good as what you might get from a host of other monitors...

So it's not only me.

I was honestly wondering if I'm missing something just by reading all those people saying that iMac is such beautiful machine and such a joy to use just because it is so pleasing to one's eyes.

At the end of a day, there are machines like HP Touchsmart, good design, touch screen, all that jazz... but I would not get that one either just because it works with my sofa, if the price/performance value is not there.

post #225 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilinGoat View Post

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.

So why do you come to boards like these and complain about Mac computers when you're such a window(s) (sorry do offend your considerable maturity) fan? Go use Windows computers and be happy! For the rest of us we would rather buy a mac and not worry about any of the other stuff.

Oh and I either have or have used all the software that you mentioned and it doesn't come close to the integration and functionality of iLife and iWork. And what lay-person or inexperienced amateur will be able to use the professional or semi-professional software you mention? iLife is so easy to use, so intuitive, so polished, why use an inferior substitue just to save a buck?

I'm not ignorant about windows, my extensive experience with windows has formed my opinion. last year I used my sister-in-laws windows laptop, in only 1/2 hour on the web it got hack so bad with malware that the HD had to be erased completely. Guess what my sister-in-law bought last week...a macbook.

Why come here and tout the benefits of windows? You just don't make any sense.
post #226 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyingSun View Post

Better than the one on the 20'', but certainly not great! Coming from a photography professional, I find it hard to believe that you consider iMac displays as anything but average.

I'm also wondering about iLife (and pro photography). Is iLife really good for anything over creative home use? I'd expect most/all pro photographers would do Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop...?
post #227 of 323
Not sure what all the fuss is about, now if you were like me and just bought your first mac 3 weeks ago, the 20 inch with 2.66 cpu, and now the 24 inch is available, well you might well feel like committing sepaku.

as for the price difference, if I am not mistaken, the european prices usually include sales tax, which in europe can get pretty high, I lived in norway and the sales tax was 24% on everything, even food. I guess that is how they pay for their "free" health care. In the US, sales tax is not included in the price so the fellow who was saying 18% difference was too much may be a bit mistaken. US sales tax typically ranges from 5 to 8% depending on the state you reside in.

I can say that after 3 weeks with my new mac, I will probably not buy another windows machine again. when you add up the total cost of everything, I dont think you can get a pc that comes close, because you are still stuck with windows.

last week I decided to upgrade my mac from 2 to 4 gigs of ram. I had my 6 month old windows vista pc next to my mac. I clicked restart on my pc and shutdown on the mac at the same time,

I had the mac's ram changed and booted back up before the windows vista machine was finished restarting. I figure I will save 2 hours a year on boot time alone. ;-)
post #228 of 323
Tough times and I think Apple is sticking to what work for them in the past, basic spec upgrades. They want customers that wants upgrades but not necessarily a brand new product.

As most people argue, new specs aren't impressive for the dollar. Apple's main selling point is still their OS. Although if they are not careful and continues to play it safe... Windows 7 might hand them a good smack down when full version is released. I hope S. Jobs is planning something to counter while he is resting.
post #229 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by webhead View Post

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.

I don't get you. Your employer can get software like Pinnacle Studio for less than $100, I think. It is home video editing package, but decent features. There are many others for the same money. so you're saying your employer wants videos but is not willing to shed a few bucks for a software? What happens if you refuse to work at home?

What software do you use at work as a professional graphics designer, anyway? Did your employer purchase any graphic design software for you..?

Also DVD burning wise... I honestly have never ever seen PC with DVD burner and no burning software. Honestly! At least NERO Express or Essentials... so..?

No, I definitely don't get you, mate.
post #230 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by webhead View Post

So why do you come to boards like these and complain about Mac computers when you're such a window(s) (sorry do offend your considerable maturity) fan? Go use Windows computers and be happy! For the rest of us we would rather buy a mac and not worry about any of the other stuff.

Oh and I either have or have used all the software that you mentioned and it doesn't come close to the integration and functionality of iLife and iWork. And what lay-person or inexperienced amateur will be able to use the professional or semi-professional software you mention? iLife is so easy to use, so intuitive, so polished, why use an inferior substitue just to save a buck?

I'm not ignorant about windows, my extensive experience with windows has formed my opinion. last year I used my sister-in-laws windows laptop, in only 1/2 hour on the web it got hack so bad with malware that the HD had to be erased completely. Guess what my sister-in-law bought last week...a macbook.

Why come here and tout the benefits of windows? You just don't make any sense.

LOL wow. ok. wow.

now i know you aren't serious. 1/2 hour? my current PC is 3 years old, it has blue screened one time (when i had an HP printer plugged in at the same time as my iPhone, go figure, turns out it was a problem with windows 64 bit and the iPhone, a problem on apples side) anyway, i have never once had it reformatted(thats what they call deleting the entire hard drive) and it still runs just fine. i have had a PC as long as i have had a Mac and because i offer my experience i am a windows drone?

iLife is not nearly as deep as the software i posted, to pretend it is just kind of sad. same with calling it more "polished". however easier to use? ilife is. obviously, this is why it is used by armatures, its easy to use, not too complex.

again, i like Macs, just because i also like Windows for certain things, does not mean that i dont like like Macs. so cut out the immature babble.

it makes sense to say that windows is fine (even if most of use prefer to use OSX) when Apple is starting to ask for over double the cash for a comparative computer. when that is the case, then you need to contemplate getting a PC to save some money...
post #231 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMad View Post

Well said! I work as an editor of magazines in Europe and, on any given day at work, I am running Quark and Photoshop (downloading and processing large photo files) and at the same time have all the usual applications open (Microsoft Office for Mac), numerous websites, my email client etc, and have open access to my company's FTP site...

... I use an iMac that is about two years old and the speed is, well, speedy. I'd love to know what apps people on this forum are running that they find the new hardware too slow for their daily use!

Edit: And regarding bang for buck, I have never had a problem paying more for:
a) A rock-solid machine that hardly ever fooks up on me
b) The best operating system I've come across
c) A desktop computer (and my new MacBook) that is beautiful to look at and thus a joy to use each day

Nice post, many of the whine-train skipped over it to complain more over nothing.

I for one ordered the top level iMac today, and I'm anxiously excited for it to arrive this week. I used to use macs back in the late 90s, but Apple canned the group I was working with, eWorld, and they started an internet company that I joined and made it a no Mac-zone. Many jobs later, I switched back to Mac a year ago with the early 08 MacBook Pro update, and I'm completely in love. I play World of Warcraft from time to time and I have been eyeing an iMac for a few months. My MBP sounds like a jet engine that is going to take off when I'm running WoW on it. Today's update left me no pause but to logon to apple.com and order one right away.

This update was perfect for me and I hope a lot of other people waiting to upgrade or switch fall in love with iMac as I have.

-K
MBP 15.4" Early 2008
ARRIVES THURSDAY: 24" iMac 3.06ghz
iPhone 3G 16gb
PowerBook 2400 (RIP)
PowerBook G4 (Moth-balled)
Reply
MBP 15.4" Early 2008
ARRIVES THURSDAY: 24" iMac 3.06ghz
iPhone 3G 16gb
PowerBook 2400 (RIP)
PowerBook G4 (Moth-balled)
Reply
post #232 of 323
Not sure if anyone has time to answer some questions or if they just want to complain. i've been watching this site for a looong time in anticipation of changing my home desktop from a pc to an imac for the first time. been limping along for 6 months waiting for an update. yes i'm a bit disappointed there isn't more to it but i think it still has what i need. anyway, back to the questions- this is probably not the place but here goes anyway....

What is the deal with the $1000 for the upgrade in memory to 8 gb? Is there a way to do it cheaper? i see 4gb modules at ddr2 but not 3 for sale on different sites, so is it even possible to do it cheaper?

any thoughts on the upgrade on the graphics card for the high end model and which is truly better? is the RAdeon better than the nvidia gt 130? (yes i looked at the learn more graphics performance area). it seems to be obvious but can't hurt to ask....
post #233 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyingSun View Post

So, there you have it... same old display technology... horrendous 20'' TN LCD with narrow viewing angles and brightness gradient and sort of average 24'' LCD with a few problems of its own as well... why on earth didn't they upgrade the displays to LED, like on every other recent Apple product?! It doesn't make any sense...

Definitely an upgrade to ignore... something better will come.

I am wondering if the 24" is the higher quality LCD - the IPS kind with true 'millions' and better color rendition, not dithered as in TN LCD, and without the yellow color-shifting that happens off-axis left and right in the TN.

I know there was considerable discussion of the LCD diffs in the original Alum iMacs between the TN in lowerend iMac and apparent IPS in higher end iMac.
Back then, my in-store checking showed lots of yellow cast just slightly off axis on the previous gen lowerend iMac.
(Guess I will have to get over to an Apple store sometime to check.)

Does anyone know if the LED type of display that Steve stated will eventually come to all Apple displays -and the iMac someday we presume...- is in the IPS 'better' category?
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
post #234 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever00 View Post

It is overpriced and I am quoting Dell's REGULAR prices... places to hide the mid-tower.

He asked for comparable to the iMac. That means the Dell XPS One, not some tower+monitor.
Yes, tower+monitor is less. That is NOT the point. The honest comparison is all-in-one vs all-in-one.
post #235 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltDoc View Post

Not sure if anyone has time to answer some questions or if they just want to complain. i've been watching this site for a looong time in anticipation of changing my home desktop from a pc to an imac for the first time. been limping along for 6 months waiting for an update. yes i'm a bit disappointed there isn't more to it but i think it still has what i need. anyway, back to the questions- this is probably not the place but here goes anyway....

What is the deal with the $1000 for the upgrade in memory to 8 gb? Is there a way to do it cheaper? i see 4gb modules at ddr2 but not 3 for sale on different sites, so is it even possible to do it cheaper?

any thoughts on the upgrade on the graphics card for the high end model and which is truly better? is the RAdeon better than the nvidia gt 130? (yes i looked at the learn more graphics performance area). it seems to be obvious but can't hurt to ask....

yes you can do it for about $600. dont buy the the upgrade (besides, you probably dont need 8gb's yet anyway, so you can wait until prices go down even more)

cant help with the graphics cards, i stopped paying attention a year ago, too many levels, too many numbers :P
post #236 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What a pathetic bunch of whiners on this thread (at least, on Page 1).

No kidding.
post #237 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltDoc View Post

What is the deal with the $1000 for the upgrade in memory to 8 gb?
Any thoughts on the upgrade on the graphics card for the high end model and which is truly better?

1. Don't get 8GB of memory. You don't need it. 4GB is plenty for now. In a year or so, 8GB will be affordable (Meaning $200 instead of $700 at MacSales.com)

2. Don't fret about the graphics card. It is "good enough". Unless you are a gamer, then you should not even consider a Mac.

I understand what you are doing as I did it when I moved from Windows to Mac OS X in 2005. You are over-analyzing. "Don't worry, be happy."

Buy a new iMac and be happy. Which one? The most expensive you can afford. Be sure to buy additional memory and AppleCare from a 3rd-party.
post #238 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by davebarnes View Post

1. Don't get 8GB of memory. You don't need it. 4GB is plenty for now. In a year or so, 8GB will be affordable (Meaning $200 instead of $700 at MacSales.com)

2. Don't fret about the graphics card. It is "good enough". Unless you are a gamer, then you should not even consider a Mac.

I understand what you are doing as I did it when I moved from Windows to Mac OS X in 2005. You are over-analyzing. "Don't worry, be happy."

Buy a new iMac and be happy. Which one? The most expensive you can afford. Be sure to buy additional memory and AppleCare from a 3rd-party.

Thanks for the replies..... I'm not a serious computer gamer (use ps3 for that) but i do occasionally play games like company of heroes online, and want to be able to do that and other games with at least basic graphics card requirement (still need to get a copy of xp i guess) so that is a bit of the issue. If it can play COD4 then though then it should be more than adequate for quite awhile. And it has to be better than my 5 year old Pentium4 dell with 512 mb of ram i've been limping along with waiting for an update.

i'm holding on the memory - thanks for the advice to you and ... smilingoat

btw if there is somewhere better to get basic questions answered about macs feel free to direct me there - haven't been on a mac much since graduated college in 1996.
post #239 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by davebarnes View Post

He asked for comparable to the iMac. That means the Dell XPS One, not some tower+monitor.
Yes, tower+monitor is less. That is NOT the point. The honest comparison is all-in-one vs all-in-one.

If value for your money is the point, and I believe it is, then a tower+monitor is a fair comparison. It's not our fault that Apple refuses to make a tower or that PC manufacturers charge premium prices for their all-in-ones.

All-in-one computers have nice integration and fewer cables so they look nicer when they're turned off. In every other way they are inferior to a separate computer + monitor.

Even if all-in-ones were as powerful as towers, which they're not, the tower + monitor would still be a better deal because you can upgrade the storage in the tower without paying a technician to dismantle your all-in-one and you can replace the tower when it gets outdated without having to buy a new display. Apple knows this and it's one of major reasons they don't sell towers. They know people would replace the computer every 4 years and buy their display from someone else. Instead they sell an iMac that they know isn't going to last any serious customer more than 3 years. Faster obsolescence = more profit.

Actually I take it back about the all-in-one looking better. Because it can only take one hard drive that's impossible for the average consumer to upgrade herself, the all-in-one must have at least one external hard drive cluttering the desk or connected to your wireless network where its performance is severely crippled. This secondary storage also removes any energy efficiency benefits of having an all-in-one.

Anyone choosing an all-in-one is choosing to spend more than they need to. I think it's foolish, but it's your choice.
post #240 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by webhead View Post

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.

Thanks for taking the words right outa my ...uh... keyboard.

On another thread a couple of months ago, I mentioned how I helped move one of my client's group of secretaries to iMacs. I followed up with a post, how enthusiastic and motivated they were to come to work. My client's, and inherently my productivity, has increased roughly 50%(!), to the point that we haven't even missed the 2 people that jumped ship to our competitor at the beginning of the year (not because of Macs).

They'll be rehiring 2 new people, and be giving them new iMacs. At this point, and due to our productivity, they could recover their investment in less than half a year, even if the iMac was twice as expensive! So is it the specs of the machine? No. It's the OS and the iLife suite... plus a few utility aps. Uptime + Productivity + Easy... and FUN... to use = Happy employees and money in the bank = Mac OS X.

And by all means... you may call ME a FanBoy with results like that!

Privately, I'm purchasing today 3 MacMinis: for a girlfriend, my accountant, and myself as an entertainment center. The accountant keeps his beaten-to-a-pulp LogiTech though. I wouldn't dare suggest a delicate Apple KB.... without a 10-key. Although just as a joke... could be funny

PS: a BT Apple KB with TrackPad would have been absolutely fantastic. Gawd how I HATE Apple (sarcasm... but isn't it a rule that you have to use "HATE" somewhere in every post at AI or you'll get kicked of the boards?)
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
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