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 7

post #241 of 323
THe prices in NZ are unfortuantely being influenced by teh exchange rate issues. We appear to win slightly in our favour.

The 20" iMac comes out at 2499$ retail, and using the latest currency exchange off my ipod plus adding tax, comes out at $2712

The last entry level position for the iMac (2.4/20") was around 1899, so its a fairly significant increase.

THe old mini was ~950 for the 1,83ghz intro model. The new intro model using hte exchange rate should be around 1355, but the actual price is $1398

I suspect Apple are going to struggle in the current market mainly becuase their competition is not always US based and having to rely on the US:NZD exchange rate. The other prices may be rising, but not always at hte same rate as Apple.

The mind share may still be up there, especially with their actually advertising their products, a serious change, but then Dell are the only other computer company that appears to do TV adverts.
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #242 of 323
I was asking this in a previous post, but maybe it was missed (or maybe no one cares to answer )

What do people use on their Macs (at home and at work). At work I am using Quark (and sometimes InDesign) and Photoshop. Of course I am also using the web, an office suite and email client.

I find I have so many things running at any one time that I use all four Spaces to organize it all into something that can be managed with some logic.

My iMac is a couple of years old and I have no problems with speed and capacity.

What are others using their Macs for that the new models just don't have enough power for them?
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 #243 of 323
I just remembered something. It's "a long shot" but what if Snow Leopard's development is delayed? Considering this possible, making this "speed bump" and an upgrade later could be their way of getting money in their pockets. After all, people like us, that care more about the hardware on the machine, are a minority. I bet most people will see "NEW" on the Apple Store and will buy it anyway because it's "NEW". And a lot of people don't even know about Snow Leopard (we tech enthusiasts are a minority). Remember, a lot of people get more attracted to Macs because of the looks of them.

Another thing was that Apple made the availability of the high-end iMac (before the "speed bump") even lower than on the low-end. Old iMacs go off for lower prices and I do recall reading that the 24" model was already sold out in some places.
It's like: you can get the OLD 20" model cheaper, but if you want a better graphics card you'll just have to buy the NEW 20" with the 9400M.

I think they were smart, very smart...

---
iMac Early '08- 20", 2.66 Ghz C2D, 320Gb HD, ATI 2600 Pro, 4Gb RAM 800 Mhz DDR2 SDRAM
MBP Mid '10 - 15", 2.4 Ghz i5, 320Gb HD, NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M, 4Gb RAM 1066 Mhz DDR3
4Gen. iPod Nano - 8Gb

Reply

---
iMac Early '08- 20", 2.66 Ghz C2D, 320Gb HD, ATI 2600 Pro, 4Gb RAM 800 Mhz DDR2 SDRAM
MBP Mid '10 - 15", 2.4 Ghz i5, 320Gb HD, NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M, 4Gb RAM 1066 Mhz DDR3
4Gen. iPod Nano - 8Gb

Reply
post #244 of 323
[QUOTE=MacMad;1384709]
My iMac is a couple of years old and I have no problems with speed and capacity.
[/B][/QUOTE

I also run many Apps at the same time, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator etc etc and my system does slow down a little (Mac is 3 years old)

But i think the main issue people are getting at in Europe, but particularly in the UK is, that we are not being offered much in the way of additional/or improved features on the iMac compared to 2 years ago for the money, for instance the price for the 3.06Ghz model has gone up by £440

Why should people pay £440 when they are not being offered anything extra (apart from the usual Ram and hard drive increase)

They expect a 'next generation' machine for that kind of money, not a repackaged 2-3 year old one.
post #245 of 323
"Why should people pay £440 when they are not being offered anything extra (apart from the usual Ram and hard drive increase)"

They shouldn't! If the speed and capacity you have is good, why buy a new Mac just because it is a new Mac?

My Mac at work is a couple of years old and so if the company is wanting to upgrade, well, the new models do offer more ram etc.

It ever was thus - Macs are more expensive than PCs. We pay more because...

a) they are solid machines that don't break down often
b) they have the best OS (in my opinion)
c) they are wonderful to look and wonderful to work with

People often slate reason 'c'... why? I spend (at home and at work) about 10 hours a day in front of my Mac... why shouldn't I like the hardware and software that takes up so much of my life?

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 #246 of 323
My mistake was in telling my PC neighbor (for years) how much better the Mac is.
He's decided to take the plunge, but, now, he wants me to answer all of his Mac questions. I think I've opened a can of worms. I told him to go to AI for answers, but you guys have scared him away. He's afraid he'll say something dumb, and you'll jump all over him. It happened to me as a new member way back in the olden days, '06.

Anyway, he's looking at a 24" iMac and his main questions are:

1. Does the iMac monitor equal the (@) $900 24" ACD?
2. What is the difference between the two?
3. Is the ACD a better monitor?
4. Which set up would be the most bang for the buck: An iMac or -- a Mini and an ACD.
It seems like the prices (24" iMac vs. Mini w/24" ACD) are not too far apart.

He's all hung up about the two monitors and afraid he'll make a mistake.
He's been using PC's for 20 years, so he's not a computer novice.

I suggested a new Mini and another brand 24" monitor, but am I giving him bad advice?

I haven't read the posts in this thread as I'm only interested in a Mini, so maybe the questions have been answered. If so, please just point them out.
Thanks
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #247 of 323
I was a little disappointed with this update, I must say. The things I value in an iMac are the operating system, iLife and the compact design (just one cable...). However, I also like playing games, and am particularly keen on Empire: Total War and Rise of Flight, the latter of which in particular is apparently hugely helped by a quad core processor (to the tune of 30-40% increase in speed, according to the devs). I'd hoped that the new iMac would sort out my dilemma, but to pay £1900 for a 3.06Ghz 4GB iMac with a 4850 card when for £1500 I can get a quad-core i7 overclocked to 3.8Ghz with 6GB and a 4870X2 just seems such a huge premium for the convenience of an all-in-one and the benefits of OS/X...

I think that if the top iMac had a quad core chip in it I might have just decided to make the plunge and accept that I won't be playing those two games at great quality, but now - I can't make my mind up.

I recognise that it's not fair to compare an all-in-one with a desktop - but Apple leaves me no choice, the only desktop computer they make is the Mac Pro, which is aimed at the professional graphics designer. There I lose the compact design (it's a full tower), I pay £2100 and get the i7 with no overclocking, 3GB instead of 6GB and a 4870 instead of a 4870X2 - so it costs £600 more for significantly less power and OS/X. That's a pretty heft O/S premium. I daresay there are other benefits to the Pro, but not ones I would be utilising.
post #248 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Young View Post

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 24'' display is the same as before, i.e. a considerably better display than the dismal 20'' TN LCD. You can see that clearly just looking at the viewing angles in the specs page. The thing is, even the 24'' has been known for frequent lack of uniformity issues (left-right brightness gradient, yellow tinges here and there, and so on...). I will definitely never upgrade my iMac before they switch to LED.

It still puzzles me why most people don't complain about this situation or even refuse to acknowledge it exists. The displays in iMacs are NOT good at all!
post #249 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLQ View Post

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.

Where did you see that? Here it says otherwise.
post #250 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhypnotoad View Post

Have to say that this update was nothing short of a kick in the teeth for UK users. The price of a new Mac is now far beyond reasonable especially in times of such economic turbulence. I've beena mac user and owner for 10 years and I've been aching to upgrade from a consumer unit to a pro Desktop since I first clapped eyes on the G5 but I can safely say that with Apple jacking the prices up instead of bringing them down I'll be waiting for a long time still. Furthermore it's a complete phallacy that the foreign market prices reflect the "strong" dollar. If you take the prices and convert them back into dollars through XE you'll see what a shocking difference there really is, especially since the Mac Pro is assembled in Ireland for Christ sake. Ireland is a stones throw from us UK mainlanders and the global cost of fuel has fallen dramatically so it's not additional transport costs being factored in. It's Apple screwing it's non domestic user base to offset offering them cheaper at home. Everything that was revised today has gone up in price and I personally won't pay the extra for such marginal improvements.I've been waiting for nine months to upgrade my desktop and I'll quite happily wait till third party distributors get their stock and buy a last gen Pro instead at a reduced price.

Ps does anyone know if the new Raedon 4870 card will be backward compatible with older Mac Pro's?

I'm not sure you have done the correct calculations.

The price in the UK for the top spec iMac is £1799 including Taxes.
If you remove the taxes that is £1564.
Convert that to US$ and it is $2206.
The Apple US site has the same model priced at $2199 ex Taxes.
Therefore there is only a $7 difference between the US and UK.

The top spec Mac Mini in the UK is £649.
Remove the Taxes = £564
Convert to US$ = $795
The US Price is $799 ex Taxes.
So in the UK it is $4 cheaper.

Top Spec Mac Pro in UK is £2499
Remove the Taxes = £2173
Convert to US$ = $3065
The US Price is $3299
So in the UK is is $234 cheaper.

What you are seeing here is that Apple are selling at basically the same price in the UK and US. What you have forgotten is that we have in fact been getting a great deal for the past year or so when Apple did not put up prices.

They are not making more money out of us, far from it.

Ian
post #251 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

What? No quad-core? No Core i7?

This is not possible in the current iMac form factor. Even the "low power" quad core CPU's are hotter than an iMac can ideally handle. And then comes the cost. A low cost quad core is usually a high-power desktop part that just cannot go into the iMac.

From all of you complaining about the lack of quad cores in this update, can anyone show me the prices of these chips consuming less than 60 W (if you find anything)? Or even better, can anyone prepare a table with the available quad's (along with power consumption) and their prices?
post #252 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

the exchange rate is a farce! These prices are fucked!

Actually you are. The prices are identical in the UK and the USA if you exclude Taxes.

Do the maths before you shout your mouth off.

Yes the prices went up, BUT they are not more than the US are paying.
post #253 of 323
PS - Was anyone in the UK complaining last week when we could buy Apple Computers at considerably less than the US prices?

I thought not!

Just look at the iPod prices we get compaired to the USA.

iPod Nano 16GB
UK Price excluding Taxes = £126
£126 = $177
US Price excluding Taxes = $199
Saving in the UK $22 (£15.50)

iPod Classic 16GB
UK Price excluding Taxes = £152
£152 = $214
US Price excluding Taxes = $249
Saving in the UK $35 (£25)

iPod Touch 32GB
UK Price excluding Taxes = £246
£246 = $347
US Price excluding Taxes = $399
Saving in the UK $52 (£37)

Now please explain to me how we are being 'Ripped Off'?

Ian
post #254 of 323
Quote:
"Why should people pay £440 extra when they are not being offered anything extra"

Totally agree with your quote MacMad "why buy a new Mac just because it is a new Mac?", there is totally no reason to!!.

In my case i need to update, but now if i have to spend £440 extra, on top of the original £1,359 price to buy the same 3.06Ghz iMac which was available last week
So do i save the money and by a Mac clone that has an ugly PC box (tower) but does everything else just as well or better for a lot less, even when ive bought a monitor im saving £700-800
https://www.pearc.de/product_info.ph...3aa699638ea55c
post #255 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by heresjon View Post

Totally agree with your quote MacMad "why buy a new Mac just because it is a new Mac?", there is totally no reason to!!.

In my case i need to update, but now if i have to spend £440 extra, on top of the original £1,359 price to buy the same 3.06Ghz iMac which was available last week
So do i save the money and by a Mac clone that has an ugly PC box (tower) but does everything else just as well or better for a lot less, even when ive bought a monitor im saving £700-800
https://www.pearc.de/product_info.ph...3aa699638ea55c

While it is true you are paying more for the new machines you are actually only paying the same as US shoppers. Apple have not increased the machines price in $, they have simply applied the current exchange rate to the price, resulting in the big increase.

If you had bought an machine last week then you would have been buying it at a significantly cheaper price to customers in the USA.

I don't remember seeing people shouting from the roof tops over the last few months when Apple machines have been significantly cheaper here than in the USA.

Right now we are paying the same in the UK and the USA.
Just price the same machine on the USA Apple Store (remember their prices do NOT include taxes), then price the same machine on the UK store and deduct the VAT. You will see that the prices are more or less identical (as I demonstrated above).

We are still getting great deals on iPods, much cheaper here than in the USA.
Maybe US shoppers should be flying to the UK to buy iPods and then take them back to the USA and sell them for a profit! We save £35 on the price of a 32GB iPod touch.

Yes Apple did not drop prices with the strong pound in the past, but they are running a business not a charity, did you see ANY manufacturer drop prices due to the srong £ - NO.

This is the reality of business, at the moment Imports are going to get more expensive, get over it. If it is too much then don't buy one.
post #256 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by heresjon View Post

Totally agree with your quote MacMad "why buy a new Mac just because it is a new Mac?", there is totally no reason to!!.

In my case i need to update, but now if i have to spend £440 extra, on top of the original £1,359 price to buy the same 3.06Ghz iMac which was available last week
So do i save the money and by a Mac clone that has an ugly PC box (tower) but does everything else just as well or better for a lot less, even when ive bought a monitor im saving £700-800
https://www.pearc.de/product_info.ph...3aa699638ea55c

Well, it's a personal decision that's for sure. If you were willing to pay £1,359 last week and you love the experience of using a Mac, then I would say bite the bullet and pay the extra £440. Just save up a little longer to do so.

If you really, really want to save the £700-800 and can live with using a clone of OS X in a PC body... well, that's the best choice for you.

All I know, based on my own experience, is that I hate using PC hardware because 10 hours per day spent in front of fugly equipment is a depressing thing. I, personally, would rather pay more for the Mac OS running on a real Mac machine.... at heart, all Mac users are in love with their hardware, how could we not be?



Judging from the apps you said you use, you are a designer. As an editor, design is very important to me too. I've got to love what I'm using from a design perspective.

As a silly example... I have loads of fountain pens at home. They all write well, but I love using the Mont Blanc best. Love the look and feel of it as much as I do the writing quality of the nib.

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 #257 of 323
post #258 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by italiankid View Post

NO JOBS = NO APPLES!

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%

Where do you get 40%? 2599 - 2199 = 400 / 2199 = 18%, which is less than the current exchange rate. They are pricing at an $0.85 dollar, which is way better than the current exchange rate (now below 80).

Apple's Canada-US spread has always been very fair (except for .Mac, which was fixed when they moved to MobileMe)
post #259 of 323
Quote:
Love the look and feel of it as much as I do the writing quality of the nib

Interesting perspective MacMad.
I am as you say, a designer, and therefore do like an aesthetically designed machine. I also have a PC

However, we have an OLD saying in the UK (which mainly pertains to women)
"You don't notice the mantlepiece while you poking the fire"

It will be interesting to see if, or indeed, how many designers decide to jump ship, or stick with what they have because of this pricing structure/poor upgrade

As for me i'm on the fence, and im waiting for a small breeze to push me one way or the other
post #260 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMad View Post

What are others using their Macs for that the new models just don't have enough power for them?

That is not the point. Apple cannot sell products in a vacuum. If we go by your logic ALONE, then Apple will never have to upgrade its computers for another 10 years. And sales will not suffer, because hey there's more than enough power to spare.

The specs aren't a big deal to me either. But I'm surprised that they didn't improve the 20" simply back to the quality of the old 20" screen in the white iMacs, and also integrated graphics in a $1499 24" model is pretty shoddy IMO. That 9400M might be like a gift from heaven in the new Mac Mini considering what used to be in it. But it doesn't cut it in a $1500 computer.
post #261 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by parky View Post

They are not making more money out of us, far from it.

Ian


That would ultimately depend on their margin... and we all know that it is not small.
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #262 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmaxmedia View Post

That is not the point. Apple cannot sell products in a vacuum. If we go by your logic ALONE, then Apple will never have to upgrade its computers for another 10 years. And sales will not suffer, because hey there's more than enough power to spare.

The specs aren't a big deal to me either. But I'm surprised that they didn't improve the 20" simply back to the quality of the old 20" screen in the white iMacs, and also integrated graphics in a $1499 24" model is pretty shoddy IMO. That 9400M might be like a gift from heaven in the new Mac Mini considering what used to be in it. But it doesn't cut it in a $1500 computer.

Actually, for me it is exactly the point!

While I do hear what you're saying about not selling in a vacuum... I'm gonna say Bah Humbug and call you on it.

If tomorrow, for argument's sake, Sony and Dell increased the RAM in their machines by 10x, and if Intel issued a release of new processors that were 20x as fast as current chips... would you go buy them?

Actually, if the price was right you might go buy them (LOL), but if the apps/programs you use had no way of fully utilizing the speed, the power, the whole techmology of it (say in Ali G voice), what exactly would be the point in having purchased it?

In the above example you would have paid out money for something you can't take advantage of. Of course, your machine will be fully equipped for when the rest of computing tech catches up, but, well, it is hardly time sensitive.

My point is that if the current specs in Apple's new line-up aren't good enough for you, what the heck are you running on your machine that saps so much of it's processing power????

Really, I am genuinely asking. I want to know what people use, as the programs I use are pretty intensive and my two-year-old iMac works at a very productive pace. Heck, I could probably hook up a monitor to a Mac Mini and it would still do what I need it to do professionally.

With regards the screens, I agree with you fully. The white iMacs' screens were better than the Alu iMacs', and I am surprised this wasn't addressed. Viewing quality interests me more than all the talk about the specs within the machine.

In short, I think the people who have the biggest beef with the new products' specs are either:
a) NASA scientists planning out the complexities of a Mars mission
b) Very heavy gamers (who, quite frankly, should stop playing games for kids)
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 #263 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMad View Post

Actually, for me it is exactly the point!

While I do hear what you're saying about not selling in a vacuum... I'm gonna say Bah Humbug and call you on it.

If tomorrow, for argument's sake, Sony and Dell increased the RAM in their machines by 10x, and if Intel issued a release of new processors that were 20x as fast as current chips... would you go buy them?

Actually, if the price was right you might go buy them (LOL), but if the apps/programs you use had no way of fully utilizing the speed, the power, the whole techmology of it (say in Ali G voice), what exactly would be the point in having purchased it?

In the above example you would have paid out money for something you can't take advantage of. Of course, your machine will be fully equipped for when the rest of computing tech catches up, but, well, it is hardly time sensitive.

My point is that if the current specs in Apple's new line-up aren't good enough for you, what the heck are you running on your machine that saps so much of it's processing power????

Really, I am genuinely asking. I want to know what people use, as the programs I use are pretty intensive and my two-year-old iMac works at a very productive pace. Heck, I could probably hook up a monitor to a Mac Mini and it would still do what I need it to do professionally.

With regards the screens, I agree with you fully. The white iMacs' screens were better than the Alu iMacs', and I am surprised this wasn't addressed. Viewing quality interests me more than all the talk about the specs within the machine.

In short, I think the people who have the biggest beef with the new products' specs are either:
a) NASA scientists planning out the complexities of a Mars mission
b) Very heavy gamers (who, quite frankly, should stop playing games for kids)

Exactly. Apple has always never been on the forefront of the latest technology. It was their different views on how computers should evolve, i.e. to include visual upgrades, design and other innovations. When Apple decided to run to Intel, i believe everybody started to use the same 'yardstick' to determine the value of the Apple computer as compared to the PC. For example, the processor speed, graphics card, ram, bus speed etc. Soon, we may even have people discussing, cooling fans, power supply rating etc.


I always believed that Apple has always marketed their computers using OS X not computer hardware specs. For HP, Dell and other computer manufacturers, they can only survive by differentiating their products with hardware and pricing. That is the name of their game. If Apple today launch a new line of Imacs that comes only preloaded with windows, I believe the sales would bomb immediately. That is the reason they can charge a premium because of OSX. I can understand that most people would want the best of both computing worlds, computers that can be easily manipulated with the latest hardware and running OSX. That is why hackintosh has surfaced.

If you we were to see the development of the mac mini and the imac, you will see that the differences are getting smaller over the years. The MAC Pro is easy to differentiate, put in the latest and most powerful hardware, charge a bomb and the really professional guys would still buy it for commercial reasons. But for the rest of the people say 90% of mac users, we would never buy a MAC Pro just for games. This is the intention of the desktop lines. The Imac was never marketed for professional use. The mac mini was never marketed as a media centre. I believe the same story is happening for the netbooks. If the keep on making the netbooks more powerful, it may soon replace the low end laptops. If the make the mini more powerful, the imac sales would suffer. Correspondingly, if the make the imac more powerful, their MAC Pro sales would suffer.

I strongly believe that majority of the people buys a computer for specific tasks and needs. Once the hardware reaches their requirements any more 'advance' models/options are only good for benchmarks and discussion. This is what Apple is trying to drive at.

The 'driving force' behind the expansion of the PC market over the years have been the constant demand for bigger CPUs, more advanced graphic cards etc. True, that has stimulated the entire PC landscape. Apple has latched on and found that it is better to be one or two generations behind to increase their profit margins whilst still able to produce computers suitable to the needs of the majority.

Apple has always tried to sell you the computing experience. If you want to play games and wants to have the 'All Powerful' feeling that your computer has the specs that will overkill any tasks you can throw at it, then go for the PC, there is nothing wrong with that. The PC or windows have done quite a fair bit for the computing world and it is still strong and represents value for money. People should stop complaining about the MAC specs and what they can get. The bottom line why people switch or use the MAC is because of the complete computing experience via OSX and not because of specs. Many people would still stick with MAC because of this.
post #264 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

That would ultimately depend on their margin... and we all know that it is not small.

I meant they are not making any more money out of customers in the UK than they are of customers in the USA, as the computers are priced the same.
post #265 of 323
"The Imac was never marketed for professional use."

That may well be the case, but I am a professional and I use an iMac and it works just fine. The specs are good enough for professional use. Certainly, the current iMacs offer more than enough for the average user predominantly running the bundled Mac software (iLife) and the purchased iWorks (which I would like to see Apple bundle free with every Mac).


"Apple has always tried to sell you the computing experience."

Exactly! They are selling ease-of-use, high levels of security, fun, rock-solid performance and great user interface... all wrapped up in gorgeous design. Basically, they offer the things you struggle to find when buying a PC.

PCs are cheaper than Macs. There is a reason why they are cheaper.
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 #266 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyingSun View Post

The 24'' display is the same as before, i.e. a considerably better display than the dismal 20'' TN LCD. You can see that clearly just looking at the viewing angles in the specs page. The thing is, even the 24'' has been known for frequent lack of uniformity issues (left-right brightness gradient, yellow tinges here and there, and so on...). I will definitely never upgrade my iMac before they switch to LED.

It still puzzles me why most people don't complain about this situation or even refuse to acknowledge it exists. The displays in iMacs are NOT good at all!

Thx for the reply.

I agree, While some in these forums have noted the color variations and off-axis yellowing, it has not been as much discussed as I would have thought also.
I guess for new or casual users, they just accept it as a fact of life and don't complain.
(lord knows I have taken that route on other issues in my life -- but I psycho-analyze-digress... )

These issues with the lower quality TN, and for me, also the problem (for my eyes) of glossy glare, will probably keep me out of the current iMac market.

What it does do is make the new Mac Mini look more attractive than I had heretofore assumed. So I am probably putting the Mini on my wish list, to use with my existing non-glare LCD monitor.
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
post #267 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Young View Post

Thx for the reply.

I agree, While some in these forums have noted the color variations and off-axis yellowing, it has not been as much discussed as I would have thought also.
I guess for new or casual users, they just accept it as a fact of life and don't complain.
(lord knows I have taken that route on other issues in my life -- but I psycho-analyze-digress... )

These issues with the lower quality TN, and for me, also the problem (for my eyes) of glossy glare, will probably keep me out of the current iMac market.

What it does do is make the new Mac Mini look more attractive than I had heretofore assumed. So I am probably putting the Mini on my wish list, to use with my existing non-glare LCD monitor.

I actually like the glossy screens, unlike most people around here...

I found an interesting comment on a more recent article where they show the new iMac's unboxing: the new screens are calibrated differently (with a cooler setting). I wonder if it's simply a calibration setting or if there's anything inherently different about the displays... once again, not a single person comments on this. Come on, the display, for me, is the most important part of a computer system - it's where you lay your eyes on the whole time! It's basically the face of your computer, how can these issues be so silently ignored? \
post #268 of 323
So, it's finally confirmed, thanks to this site:

http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/First-Lo...-20-Inch/658/2

and this link:

http://auo.com/auoDEV/products.php?s...111&items_id=1

There.
post #269 of 323
Quote:
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.

*Nods.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #270 of 323
Quote:
What? No quad-core? No Core i7?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?


You wrote it. I agreed with it. Amen.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #271 of 323
1,2,3 The ACD is a better monitor. It is back lit by LED, which offers brighter screen with better color reproduction, and uses less energy. Unless your friend is doing something that requires better color reproduction they won't see much difference between the two.

4. Which offers more for your money depends on what you want to do. If your friend primarily surfs the internet, email, write documents. The Mac mini is perfectly fine. If your friend does anything CPU intensive the iMac would be the better deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

1. Does the iMac monitor equal the (@) $900 24" ACD?
2. What is the difference between the two?
3. Is the ACD a better monitor?
4. Which set up would be the most bang for the buck: An iMac or -- a Mini and an ACD.
It seems like the prices (24" iMac vs. Mini w/24" ACD) are not too far apart.
post #272 of 323
I've never had a mac before. Now considering to buy one (mostly for photo & video editing + DVD authoring, maybe a little game-play as well, but generally - for work).

P.s. My current PC is VERY old (MB and CPU Athlon 1700+ from year 2000 (9 years old), video Radeon 7500, audio SB Live! 5.1 Digital). I can do some photo editing on it, but no video. Not going to upgrade it anymore. Sure I could buy a new PC (cheaper), but... I decided to go for a Mac.

Taking into account all the pros and cons of the "new" updated iMacs... Should I spend my $$$ on this current "new" iMac NOW or wait out for the 'real new generation'? (i7, LED etc.)

I mean, if I buy the current iMac - I could be stuck with it for at least 5 years or more.

(like, I bought Pioneer plasma TV 427 back in late 2006, which was HD ready, and now, when screens are 1920x1080p full HD all around - I'm still stuck with 1366x768 HD Ready. Not that I'm really unhappy, but...)

What do you suggest?

Thanks.
post #273 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ defender View Post

I've never had a mac before. Now considering to buy one (mostly for photo & video editing + DVD authoring, maybe a little game-play as well, but generally - for work).

P.s. My current PC is VERY old (MB and CPU Athlon 1700+ from year 2000 (9 years old), video Radeon 7500, audio SB Live! 5.1 Digital). I can do some photo editing on it, but no video. Not going to upgrade it anymore. Sure I could buy a new PC (cheaper), but... I decided to go for a Mac.

Taking into account all the pros and cons of the "new" updated iMacs... Should I spend my $$$ on this current "new" iMac NOW or wait out for the 'real new generation'? (i7, LED etc.)

I mean, if I buy the current iMac - I could be stuck with it for at least 5 years or more.

(like, I bought Pioneer plasma TV 427 back in late 2006, which was HD ready, and now, when screens are 1920x1080p full HD all around - I'm still stuck with 1366x768 HD Ready. Not that I'm really unhappy, but...)

What do you suggest?

Thanks.

Based on the PC you currently have buying even an older Mac would be a step up in performance. Even an old iMac would be a benefit, but these new ones do have better GPUs (and iGPs) that would make it, IMO, a better option. Especially since Snow Leopard will reportedly be able to utilize those GPUs more effectively.

There won't be i7 for the iMac anytime soon. They run way too hot. I think the next jump for the iMac will be the low-power Core 2 Quads that Intel has specifically designed for AIOs. I wouldn't figure the next revision to the iMac happening for some time, so I wouldn't hold off if you need a new machine.

I would recommend the 24" model since you are doing image and video-based editing. Besides the obvious screen size the display type is IPS, compared to the 20" iMac's TN display.

PS: You have to be happy with what you get because technology will just keep on keepin' on.
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 #274 of 323
Its fairly difficult to make this choice for someone else, it all depends on what you need and when you need it.

I would suggest you research the benefits of LED screens, quad core processors, and Core i7. Honestly think to yourself if any of those things absolutely necessary for what you need to accomplish. Just because a computer has quad processors does not necessarily those processors are actually offering better performance.

From what you describe (photo,video,light gaming) the current aluminum iMac line is more than capable of accomplishing these tasks. You also have to consider the fact that no matter when you purchase a new computer there will always be the next new hot computer in the near future. That's a game that will never end.

I know several people who own the current aluminum iMac and they are all completely happy with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ defender View Post

Taking into account all the pros and cons of the "new" updated iMacs... Should I spend my $$$ on this current "new" iMac NOW or wait out for the 'real new generation'? (i7, LED etc.)

I mean, if I buy the current iMac - I could be stuck with it for at least 5 years or more.

What do you suggest?

Thanks.
post #275 of 323
Thanks, solipsism & TenoBell!

I know computers get old fast and there will always be the newer one coming. It's just that these "new" iMacs got actually previous year's (outdated) specs, as I see (same CPUs, same old screens). Oh, and still no Blu-ray support. It's like - myabe the last year's 24" iMacs were even better choice (they got additional FW 400 port at least), but hey, the new ones might be cheaper.

Anyway, I got some time to think (still saving the $$$).
post #276 of 323
I wouldn't get too caught up in that whole last year outdated mentality. From what you describe of your needs the current iMac is more than capable. Look at Dell and HP they sell lots of machines that use less than cutting edge hardware components.

As far a Blu-ray. I think Apple is in not excited about integrating Blu-ray DRM into OS X.

As far as fireWire 400. There are very few peripherals that use fireWire at all. 10 years ago I used to own several peripherals that required firewire, now today my external hard drive is the only one. These days external hard drives with firewire are becoming few.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ defender View Post

Thanks, solipsism & TenoBell!

I know computers get old fast and there will always be the newer one coming. It's just that these "new" iMacs got actually previous year's (outdated) specs, as I see (same CPUs, same old screens). Oh, and still no Blu-ray support. It's like - myabe the last year's 24" iMacs were even better choice (they got additional FW 400 port at least), but hey, the new ones might be cheaper.

Anyway, I got some time to think (still saving the $$$).
post #277 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

As far as fireWire 400. There are very few peripherals that use fireWire at all ... These days external hard drives with firewire are becoming few.

Well, my MiniDV camcorder will be connected via fireWire. That means - an external hard drive will have to be connected via USB, right?
post #278 of 323
Yes if you need to use them at the same time without a firewire hub.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ defender View Post

Well, my MiniDV camcorder will be connected via fireWire. That means - an external hard drive will have to be connected via USB, right?
post #279 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Yes if you need to use them at the same time without a firewire hub.

I wasn't sure how large the hard drive would be... and thought that, in case if I need to simultaniously work on a few projects (i.e., a few MiniDV tapes transferred to HDD at once) then I might need an additional hard drive... And even if iMacs own HDD is large enough (~ 1 Tb), isn't it better to keep the projects on a separate drive?
post #280 of 323
It depends. Mostly the reason to keep a project on a separate HD is to keep the project from taking up system storage, and on a external HD is portable. I doubt you will use up a 1TB drive anytime soon, you can partition the drive to separate the system from other projects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ defender View Post

And even if iMacs own HDD is large enough (~ 1 Tb), isn't it better to keep the projects on a separate drive?
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