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 8

post #281 of 323
By the way, is this a good iMac (for my needs, for example)? >>>

iMac 24" 2.33 C2D
iMac 24" White, upgraded version: 2.33 Ghz Core 2 Duo, 3Gb RAM, 500 Gb HDD, NVidia GeForce 7600 GT (said to be faster than iMac 24" Alu?), MATTE screen.

Seems to be used but 2-2.5x times cheaper than new iMacs (here in LV)..

P.s. Do the new iMacs come with matte screen or they're all glossy?
post #282 of 323
Hi guys,

Can anyone please advise if they have come across any website whether the new imac can be configured to run dual monitors or we have to software 'crack' the imac as before to have the 'additional' desktop space?
post #283 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ defender View Post

By the way, is this a good iMac (for my needs, for example)? ...

P.s. Do the new iMacs come with matte screen or they're all glossy?

I cannot advise on what is good for your needs, as everyone has different concept of their (or others) computing needs, and what money they are willing to spend for those needs.
Given that many people do have older Macs, and buy used/refurbs it would seem safe to say that older Macs do satisfy many people's computer needs.

On the topic of screens - ALL the new iMacs in the Aluminum generations, including the newest ("Early 2009") models are GLOSSY and REFLECTIVE. -- Just look at the reflections either in actual store, or in the many photos published, esp the 'unboxing' sets - the reflections are quite evident.
There is NO matte or anti-glare screen option from Apple.

If you (or I for that matter) were to get one of the Aluminum iMacs, I would be using and recommending one of the after-market anti-reflective add-ons that can be purchased from a few companies. The product is a thin plastic film that sticks onto the front glass by static, so no damage is done to the display.
Hope this helps.
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
post #284 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever00 View Post

As for the 9400M, it might be able to outperform the old discrete ATI card on a number of areas, but certainly not on the memory bandwidth front, so I would call it no improvement.

Can you please explain this in layman's terms.
I'm trying to decide between the previous generation 20" and the current entry level 20" iMac. Will I be losing out on much by chosing an ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT w/128 MB GDDR3 memory over the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M w/256 MB DDR3 shared SDRAM memory?

The cost-saving here where I am will be quite substantial if buying the previous generation entry level 20" iMac, but at the same time I want to be sure it's "future proof" for several years to come.
post #285 of 323
HI
How does the Imac 24" screen look when compared to the 24" LED Stand alone? Does the LED spec make for an improved color balance?
Has anyone actually gotten an explantion *from apple* as to why they've gone the glossy route in spite of the huge negative customer feedback? Are there any benefits other than esthetics dictated by the marketing dept.?
I was hoping for a quad processor option or a Core i7 Processor as found on the new macpros. (is this to avoid stepping onto the turf of the Macpro)
Would an SSD option make any sense in an Imac?( faster boot up , less mechanical wear & tear etc...)
Anybody feel as though this release is an intermediary step before a short to midterm redesign that would include these options?
Thanx for any informed thoughts.
post #286 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcuspablo View Post

HI
How does the Imac 24" screen look when compared to the 24" LED Stand alone? Does the LED spec make for an improved color balance?
Has anyone actually gotten an explantion *from apple* as to why they've gone the glossy route in spite of the huge negative customer feedback? Are there any benefits other than esthetics dictated by the marketing dept.?
I was hoping for a quad processor option or a Core i7 Processor as found on the new macpros. (is this to avoid stepping onto the turf of the Macpro)
Would an SSD option make any sense in an Imac?( faster boot up , less mechanical wear & tear etc...)
Anybody feel as though this release is an intermediary step before a short to midterm redesign that would include these options?
Thanx for any informed thoughts.

Good questions.
I think an in-store visit is needed for that iMac LCD vs Apple LED Monitor. I'll be putting that on my compare list next time I get over to one.

The big question of why Apple (and most models from other computer makers) have gone in a veritable stampede --lemming style-- to the glossy LCD screens is somewhat of a mystery to me.
Back in the CRT days, screen reflectiveness was studied a lot, and eventually, most CRTs either switched to anti-reflective, or had some sort of option to get a anti-reflective, non-glare surface. It was shown in many studies to be better for workers eyes/ ergonomics.
(I worked on both kinds back then. And technically, the anti-reflective screen surface is not really 'matte', a term which applies more to the physical surface of photographs, etc. Though we know what you mean.)

The non-reflective LCD panels I have used seem to be far better ergonomically than the glossy. The glossy ones I have used and tested are, to me, distracting to have to focus away from what is reflected (lights, windows, other people, etc) and onto the screen pixel display. And require a lot of fussing with angles and lights positioning.

What I have heard from reps is a range from 'oh, eventually, you'll just learn to ignore the reflections' to 'angle it properly to minimize reflections' to 'huh, what reflection' to 'it really makes the colors pop'.

Yeah, well pop this! (ahemm, back to reasonableness... apparently you hit my hot button ... )

All sidestepping the real question of who thinks it is truly "better", why is it "better", for whom, and why are there no options for anti-reflective for the users who wish it.

My guess is that glossy screens are cheaper for the computer manufacturer (Apple included), that LCD manufacturers find glossy easier to make one a single production line for both HDTV and computer LCD monitors, thus cutting their manufacturing variables down. And recall the Apple marketing release of the Aluminum iMacs really pushed terms like 'shiny' and 'pop' -- as if those were good things in and of themselves -- trying to get us to believe.

It all seems to say that they don't really care about ergonomics and eye relief of their customers any more. Basically a sad, arrogant new trend. At least for those of us with eyes to see. (so to speak)

Re. processors and possible earlier next iMac revision... I think most of the discussion and articles I have seen indicate that higher end cpu chips were just too hot for the thin iMac case with its limitations on heat dissipation. SSD certainly cooler than a spinning HD, though way more expensive for now. But I too hope there will be a sooner than later iMac revision with a substantial cpu upgrade, AND with a non-reflective option.
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
post #287 of 323
When Apple launched the MacBook Pro in 2006, they did offer the equal option of glossy or matte. The next major refresh Apple reported that people overwhelmingly chose glossy.

So it is more economical for Apple to offer only glossy if that is truly what most people chose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Young View Post

My guess is that glossy screens are cheaper for the computer manufacturer (Apple included), that LCD manufacturers find glossy easier to make one a single production line for both HDTV and computer LCD monitors, thus cutting their manufacturing variables down. And recall the Apple marketing release of the Aluminum iMacs really pushed terms like 'shiny' and 'pop' -- as if those were good things in and of themselves -- trying to get us to believe.

It all seems to say that they don't really care about ergonomics and eye relief of their customers any more. Basically a sad, arrogant new trend. At least for those of us with eyes to see. (so to speak)
post #288 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

When Apple launched the MacBook Pro in 2006, they did offer the equal option of glossy or matte. The next major refresh Apple reported that people overwhelmingly chose glossy.

So it is more economical for Apple to offer only glossy if that is truly what most people chose.

I had to return a MBP that one of my clients ordered, even after specifying anti-reflective screen model, since the default order option the sales agent took down was 'glossy'. They do seem trained to push glossy.

I cannot say how or what numbers you or Apple refer to in the fairly generalized statement that people overwhelmingly preferred glossy. (as always, particular statistics can be used to support most any position.)

I am not saying that we should have only anti-reflective. Let some folks have glossy screens. Fine by me.

Just saying that I, the clients I work for and with, the other users I talk to, and the many comments I read in posts and articles -- and the further justification provided by products like the TechRestore swap-out-glossy-replace-anti-reflective -- all show there is a significant, non-trivial number of people who actually do prefer anti-reflective.

Call it non-glare, call it matte, whatever, just please give us the option to order it as an in-place, order-time option.

And I continue to wonder where all the ergonomic people and studies are now, why have they gone silent, when years back they were all over the glare-prone CRTs.
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
post #289 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixello View Post

Can you please explain this in layman's terms.
I'm trying to decide between the previous generation 20" and the current entry level 20" iMac. Will I be losing out on much by chosing an ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT w/128 MB GDDR3 memory over the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M w/256 MB DDR3 shared SDRAM memory?

The cost-saving here where I am will be quite substantial if buying the previous generation entry level 20" iMac, but at the same time I want to be sure it's "future proof" for several years to come.

I don't find either the 2400 or 9400 particularly impressive, but as long as you don't plan on running the latest games (or even older ones) at high res and texture quality, there aren't most things you can't run. I run Aperture 2 on my Mini (GMA 950), and the only time I complain about performance, is when running that - everything else is pretty good.

I have a HD 2600 Pro in my PC, and it barely out paces my old 6800 LE, and the only reason I don't care, is that it's DX10, about the last gasp for AGP, and only cost me $25. I think it might be able to run something like CoD 4 at 1024x768 fine, but that's about it. It has 512 MB of vRAM BTW. (for games, I really just use my 360).

As far as future-proof, they seem to be doing incremental C2D updates, and graphics updates, so the real world differences are probably pretty slight between the old and new iMacs.
post #290 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixello View Post

Can you please explain this in layman's terms.
I'm trying to decide between the previous generation 20" and the current entry level 20" iMac. Will I be losing out on much by chosing an ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT w/128 MB GDDR3 memory over the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M w/256 MB DDR3 shared SDRAM memory?

The cost-saving here where I am will be quite substantial if buying the previous generation entry level 20" iMac, but at the same time I want to be sure it's "future proof" for several years to come.

The 9400M is definitely slower than the 2400XT.

My tests:

Cinebench OpenGL test
MacBook 2ghz 9400M
~4000
iMac 20" 2.4ghz 2400XT
~4900

Xbench
MacBook 2ghz 9400M
Quartz: 157 OpenGL: 138
iMac 20" 2.4ghz 2400XT
Quartz: 170 OpenGL: 180

As for OpenCL and Snow Leopard, I think it's another year before we really see the benefits of that... And we don't know if the 2000-series ATI will be supported or not, it could be, it may not be.

Buy the previous generation 20" iMac with 2400XT.
post #291 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Young View Post

I cannot advise on what is good for your needs, as everyone has different concept of their (or others) computing needs, and what money they are willing to spend for those needs.
Given that many people do have older Macs, and buy used/refurbs it would seem safe to say that older Macs do satisfy many people's computer needs.

On the topic of screens - ALL the new iMacs in the Aluminum generations, including the newest ("Early 2009") models are GLOSSY and REFLECTIVE. -- Just look at the reflections either in actual store, or in the many photos published, esp the 'unboxing' sets - the reflections are quite evident.
There is NO matte or anti-glare screen option from Apple.

If you (or I for that matter) were to get one of the Aluminum iMacs, I would be using and recommending one of the after-market anti-reflective add-ons that can be purchased from a few companies. The product is a thin plastic film that sticks onto the front glass by static, so no damage is done to the display.
Hope this helps.

Thanks!

I am still considering.... The more I read about all these GLOSSY screens (either on iMac or MBP) the more I feel it wouldn't be the worst deal - to get that (2 years old) iMac with improved specs (from the standard version) and MATTE screen...

So, once again, it's used (by a pro photographer in the office, I as got to know), said to be in a good condition (I'd have to see and check out by myself anyway, of course):

iMac 24" 2.33 C2D (this one, I guess)
White, upgraded version
2.33 Ghz Core 2 Duo
3Gb RAM
500 Gb HDD
NVidia GeForce 7600 GT (probably 256 Mb RAM)
MATTE screen

As i said, specs are better than the standard version was back then (2.16 Ghz, 1 Gb RAM, GeForce 7300GT with 128 Mb RAM, 250 Gb HDD)

My main needs are:
- photo editing (now in PS, but then I might try Aperture 2, too)
- video editing (video transfer from MiniDV camcorder, editing, compressing etc., DVD authoring)
- some little gaming maybe (but that's not important if its GPU can't run the latest and "toughest" 3-d shooters or something at the best quality settings - I don't care)

It's price is about half of the new iMac price, maybe even less than a half. The price IS important to me. I'm not sure if I will be able even to afford the new iMac or MPR (with at least the similar specs) in nearest future. But this price (for the 2 years old etc) seems to be much more real to me... and yes, I need the computer ASAP.

So..., should I go for it...?
post #292 of 323
How much warranty does it have left on it?
post #293 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

How much warranty does it have left on it?

I'm not sure if there's any left. I didn't worry about it anyway because the warranty was 2 years. Well, I'll ask if I'll go to take a look at the sale... But an iMac is 2 years, so it might be ended.
post #294 of 323
Apple did not give any specific numbers, they simply stated that an overwhelming number of people chose glossy.

There may be a significant number of people who prefer matte, I don't know. What I do know is if that were true Apple would be risking sales by going all glossy. But the simple truth is that Apple has only sold more computers since using glossy screens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Young View Post

I cannot say how or what numbers you or Apple refer to in the fairly generalized statement that people overwhelmingly preferred glossy. (as always, particular statistics can be used to support most any position.)


Just saying that I, the clients I work for and with, the other users I talk to, and the many comments I read in posts and articles -- and the further justification provided by products like the TechRestore swap-out-glossy-replace-anti-reflective -- all show there is a significant, non-trivial number of people who actually do prefer anti-reflective.
post #295 of 323
None of us can really make the final decision for you. Buying a used machine out of warranty is always somewhat of a gamble. But if the older iMac is what you can afford then yes go for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ defender View Post


So..., should I go for it...?
post #296 of 323
Glossy is better IMO but they should offer a choice of between glossy and matte.
post #297 of 323
I've been reading as much as possible about this topic and figured I would post a question.

I've been working on towers my entire professional career as a computer illustrator (14 years). I work mostly in Photoshop and Illustrator and a lot of my files can get rather large. Up to 2-3gb at times. I currently have a 30" Cinema Display and a 19" LCD. My tower just decided to "fry" this weekend, weird sound and then poof, shut down and a horrible smell came out from the back. So needless to say I'm in the market for a new computer ASAP!

I was all ready to order a new 8-Core Mac Pro with the 8gb of ram (and then order another 8 from an outside vendor) and the upgraded ATI video card. So at those specs we are talking $3600 before adding the additional 8gb of ram and tax. So I started thinking about an iMac. The 24" 3.06 model and upgrading to the ATI video card as well. It's considerably cheaper! But I'd only want to get the 4gb of ram since upgrading to 8 would be way too expensive. (about $700 more)

So I'm concerned that the 4gb of ram will just not be enough for the larger Photoshop files. The wait time for the iMac ATI models is 4-6 weeks and 2-3 weeks for the Mac Pros, which is a really long wait considering I need a computer now. I'm also wondering how big of a speed difference I would be able to feel between the two. I work on a 2x3ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon Mac Tower at work right now and I don't want to feel like I'm working on a slower computer at home. I have the latest edition of Photoshop CS4 as well. I also do a little video stuff and play the occasional game but most of the time is spent in PS & Illustrator.

Well anyway, thanks in advance for any help!

Jamie
post #298 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

None of us can really make the final decision for you. Buying a used machine out of warranty is always somewhat of a gamble. But if the older iMac is what you can afford then yes go for it.

I checked the machine today. It's got some light grey spots under the glass, which are... about 10-15% transparent (if compared to white...black where white is 0% and black ia 100%) . The seller couldn't tell what were those from, when appeared etc. Anyway, he lowered the price by 20-25% (which now is approx. 1/3 of a new iMac with similar specs). So now there's a dilemma - take it or not. The price is great, and those spots are more of a visual defect which wouldn't really affect the actual work... It's just that they are there... Other than that - iMac seemed to work OK. What a choice...
post #299 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Young View Post

Good questions.
I think an in-store visit is needed for that iMac LCD vs Apple LED Monitor. I'll be putting that on my compare list next time I get over to one.

The big question of why Apple (and most models from other computer makers) have gone in a veritable stampede --lemming style-- to the glossy LCD screens is somewhat of a mystery to me.
Back in the CRT days, screen reflectiveness was studied a lot, and eventually, most CRTs either switched to anti-reflective, or had some sort of option to get a anti-reflective, non-glare surface. It was shown in many studies to be better for workers eyes/ ergonomics.
(I worked on both kinds back then. And technically, the anti-reflective screen surface is not really 'matte', a term which applies more to the physical surface of photographs, etc. Though we know what you mean.)

The non-reflective LCD panels I have used seem to be far better ergonomically than the glossy. The glossy ones I have used and tested are, to me, distracting to have to focus away from what is reflected (lights, windows, other people, etc) and onto the screen pixel display. And require a lot of fussing with angles and lights positioning.

What I have heard from reps is a range from 'oh, eventually, you'll just learn to ignore the reflections' to 'angle it properly to minimize reflections' to 'huh, what reflection' to 'it really makes the colors pop'.

Yeah, well pop this! (ahemm, back to reasonableness... apparently you hit my hot button ... )

All sidestepping the real question of who thinks it is truly "better", why is it "better", for whom, and why are there no options for anti-reflective for the users who wish it.

My guess is that glossy screens are cheaper for the computer manufacturer (Apple included), that LCD manufacturers find glossy easier to make one a single production line for both HDTV and computer LCD monitors, thus cutting their manufacturing variables down. And recall the Apple marketing release of the Aluminum iMacs really pushed terms like 'shiny' and 'pop' -- as if those were good things in and of themselves -- trying to get us to believe.

It all seems to say that they don't really care about ergonomics and eye relief of their customers any more. Basically a sad, arrogant new trend. At least for those of us with eyes to see. (so to speak)

Re. processors and possible earlier next iMac revision... I think most of the discussion and articles I have seen indicate that higher end cpu chips were just too hot for the thin iMac case with its limitations on heat dissipation. SSD certainly cooler than a spinning HD, though way more expensive for now. But I too hope there will be a sooner than later iMac revision with a substantial cpu upgrade, AND with a non-reflective option.

thanx
post #300 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarno View Post

I've been reading as much as possible about this topic and figured I would post a question.

I've been working on towers my entire professional career as a computer illustrator (14 years). I work mostly in Photoshop and Illustrator and a lot of my files can get rather large. Up to 2-3gb at times. I currently have a 30" Cinema Display and a 19" LCD. My tower just decided to "fry" this weekend, weird sound and then poof, shut down and a horrible smell came out from the back. So needless to say I'm in the market for a new computer ASAP!

I was all ready to order a new 8-Core Mac Pro with the 8gb of ram (and then order another 8 from an outside vendor) and the upgraded ATI video card. So at those specs we are talking $3600 before adding the additional 8gb of ram and tax. So I started thinking about an iMac. The 24" 3.06 model and upgrading to the ATI video card as well. It's considerably cheaper! But I'd only want to get the 4gb of ram since upgrading to 8 would be way too expensive. (about $700 more)

So I'm concerned that the 4gb of ram will just not be enough for the larger Photoshop files. The wait time for the iMac ATI models is 4-6 weeks and 2-3 weeks for the Mac Pros, which is a really long wait considering I need a computer now. I'm also wondering how big of a speed difference I would be able to feel between the two. I work on a 2x3ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon Mac Tower at work right now and I don't want to feel like I'm working on a slower computer at home. I have the latest edition of Photoshop CS4 as well. I also do a little video stuff and play the occasional game but most of the time is spent in PS & Illustrator.

Well anyway, thanks in advance for any help!

Jamie

Just sounds like the power supply has gone. No idea if these are easily replacable in Apple computers, but a typical PC one would set you back about $100, so certainly a lot cheaper than a new computer!
post #301 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ defender View Post

I checked the machine today. It's got some light grey spots under the glass...

Upd:
Decided not to buy that one. Those "spots" doesn't look good at all - a bad sign for a used screen, IMHO... (and you can't just replace the screen in iMac)

Will have to hold on for a while. \
post #302 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Just sounds like the power supply has gone. No idea if these are easily replacable in Apple computers, but a typical PC one would set you back about $100, so certainly a lot cheaper than a new computer!

Hmmmm power supply huh? Before this happen I took into an Apple "Genius" and he said it was the processor or the motherboard that was going bad and would be at least $1200 to fix. I think I'll take it into another Apple dealer and see if maybe it's the power supply.

Thanks for the info!
post #303 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ defender View Post

Upd:
Decided not to buy that one. Those "spots" doesn't look good at all - a bad sign for a used screen, IMHO... (and you can't just replace the screen in iMac)

Will have to hold on for a while. \

White spots may be a defect in the LCD that appears after a year or so of usage. You can Google "Apple iBook white spot on LCD" and find something related to it... This was from quite a few years back... Not sure if this is the same defect appearing on that iMac screen.

Anyway, yeah, out of warranty as well, better pass on it.
post #304 of 323
The previous model Mac Pros should be going for a good price, and I'm sure there's some available right now. Maybe consider finding that discounted previous-model Mac Pro at your nearest Apple Store/ Apple reseller...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarno View Post

I've been reading as much as possible about this topic and figured I would post a question.

I've been working on towers my entire professional career as a computer illustrator (14 years). I work mostly in Photoshop and Illustrator and a lot of my files can get rather large. Up to 2-3gb at times. I currently have a 30" Cinema Display and a 19" LCD. My tower just decided to "fry" this weekend, weird sound and then poof, shut down and a horrible smell came out from the back. So needless to say I'm in the market for a new computer ASAP!

I was all ready to order a new 8-Core Mac Pro with the 8gb of ram (and then order another 8 from an outside vendor) and the upgraded ATI video card. So at those specs we are talking $3600 before adding the additional 8gb of ram and tax. So I started thinking about an iMac. The 24" 3.06 model and upgrading to the ATI video card as well. It's considerably cheaper! But I'd only want to get the 4gb of ram since upgrading to 8 would be way too expensive. (about $700 more)

So I'm concerned that the 4gb of ram will just not be enough for the larger Photoshop files. The wait time for the iMac ATI models is 4-6 weeks and 2-3 weeks for the Mac Pros, which is a really long wait considering I need a computer now. I'm also wondering how big of a speed difference I would be able to feel between the two. I work on a 2x3ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon Mac Tower at work right now and I don't want to feel like I'm working on a slower computer at home. I have the latest edition of Photoshop CS4 as well. I also do a little video stuff and play the occasional game but most of the time is spent in PS & Illustrator.

Well anyway, thanks in advance for any help!

Jamie
post #305 of 323
I just picked up the 24" iMac, just the basic 1499 with no upgrades (I love apple, but not 1000 dollars more for 4GB of ram love), and I lllllooooooovvvvveeeeeeeeee it! Do wish I had a little more money to get the 3.06 GHz.. but one day =\\. I did just pick up this though: http://www.speckproducts.com/product...ru/imac-24/144 (25 bucks off! Need all the savings I can get...). Brings color to my iMac Nonetheless, love it.
post #306 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by speckster View Post

I did just pick up this though: ...

What is it for?
post #307 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ defender View Post

What is it for?

A kind of plastic casing... Not as tacky as you would imagine.
post #308 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

A kind of plastic casing... Not as tacky as you would imagine.

But what does it do? Some kind of anti-reflective casing for 'glossy' screens?
post #309 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ defender View Post

But what does it do? Some kind of anti-reflective casing for 'glossy' screens?

No it just goes around the front frame, covering the aluminium parts of the front, top and side of the iMac. The screen is not covered.
post #310 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

No it just goes around the front frame, covering the aluminium parts of the front, top and side of the iMac. The screen is not covered.

Oh, ok... \ (can't see the point of it then)
post #311 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ defender View Post

Oh, ok... \ (can't see the point of it then)

Yeah, it's a matter of taste.
post #312 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

The new iMac lineup, especially the $1,799 model, is a great upgrade especially if you are moving up from an iMac G5 or an iMac G4. I use my Macs for about 5-6 years before I need to upgrade. My PowerBook G4 is 7 years old, still in mint condition, and does everything I need it to do just fine, even with Leopard installed. For those of you that claim to buy a new Mac every year, then I think you are spoiled.

I don't know why so many people are complaining about the speed bump, which is what Apple always does with a minor refresh, but that is the nature of AppleInsider. All people do here is complain. If you bought an iMac within the last 1-2 years, there is no reason to complain because you probably aren't planning to upgrade for another few years.

I have to agree, I am using an eMac G4 1.25 Mhz from 2004 and prior to that I had a iMac from summer 2001 (500mhz G3) So this new model will be a HUGE update for me. I will be buying a 24" ($1799) model in April or May. I think this hardware update will be sufficient to keep me another 4-5 years. I'm not really interested in a laptop, so the 24" iMac will a nice upgrade from a 17" eMac. I believe some people just get hung up on specs and hardware comparisons, there is more to a Mac than that.
Mac user since 1990 - System 6.0.7 through OS X 10.6 - Mac Mini (2009) - 4/320 - Snow Leopard
Reply
Mac user since 1990 - System 6.0.7 through OS X 10.6 - Mac Mini (2009) - 4/320 - Snow Leopard
Reply
post #313 of 323
Quote:
I was all ready to order a new 8-Core Mac Pro with the 8gb of ram (and then order another 8 from an outside vendor) and the upgraded ATI video card. So at those specs we are talking $3600 before adding the additional 8gb of ram and tax. So I started thinking about an iMac. The 24" 3.06 model and upgrading to the ATI video card as well. It's considerably cheaper! But I'd only want to get the 4gb of ram since upgrading to 8 would be way too expensive. (about $700 more)

So I'm concerned that the 4gb of ram will just not be enough for the larger Photoshop files. The wait time for the iMac ATI models is 4-6 weeks and 2-3 weeks for the Mac Pros, which is a really long wait considering I need a computer now. I'm also wondering how big of a speed difference I would be able to feel between the two. I work on a 2x3ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon Mac Tower at work right now and I don't want to feel like I'm working on a slower computer at home. I have the latest edition of Photoshop CS4 as well. I also do a little video stuff and play the occasional game but most of the time is spent in PS & Illustrator.

Well anyway, thanks in advance for any help!

Jamie

Well. You already have two screens? For the price of a high end iMac with Radeon 4850...you should pay the extra and get the quad core Pro 2.66. Add extra ram to 6 gigs and the Radeon 4870. And you're set to go for £2170. That's a good balance. If you were working on a dual 3 gigger Xeon you should notice the difference. And that 4870 should drive your monitors ok.

Still...labour and parts for a new power supply should be cheaper?

You just want to buy a new computer, don't you?

You're circumstances are similar to mine. In that...much of what I want to do currently can be done by a high end iMac with Radeon 4850 and 4 gigs of ram. That's about £1650 ish? Dual 3 gig. And it has a 24 inch screen. And it has a small desktop footprint. Take away the price of the 24 inch monitor? Eg 400£ and you're left with a slightly expensive £1250-ish dual core computer with a 'low end' gpu...but handy 4 gigs of ram.

The lack of quad core is a bummer. But I guess I could keep it or ebay it if I went the iMac route...if they consumer i7 chip hits the iMac later this year?

Where we differ is that you have two good monitors already. And having gone from 30 inches...I can't see you going to 24 inches on an iMac and being happy?

If I buy the quad core 2.66 Nehalem...then it's £2170 inc 6 gigs of ram and the Ati card. And then I've got to fork out for a monitor. 24 inch LED. And to be honest. If I'm having that kind of rig? I want more than 24 inches of LED. I want 30. And Apple doesn't have it yet. And I hate plastic in my monitor screens. I like glass. So no cheapo PC monitor for me. *Shrugs. Plus Apple's prices are outrageous this time. It limits our options.

For me to go the tower route? LED 24 incher Apple's...with apple care...takes the price up to roughly £3000. Personally, I'm not that impressed by the Nehalem's lower clocking absorbing much of its improvement over the Core 2s. The 4870s aren't that much better than the 8xxx series of cards...eg running games 2500x1600 is still an issue for anything that isn't last generation. And Apple kindly gave us less vram on this 4870 than most retail versions.

My conclusion. I'd rather take the £1300-ish and put it towards a better Mac Pro in 2-3 years time when a. Apple has a 30 inch LED out by then. b. Nehalems are clocking much higher, with more cores as standard and c. Sterling might have sorted itself out by then.

For the comping work (PShop...), for the typing a manuscript work I have to do (iWorks/scrivener...), for the light 3D work I need to do (Lightwave) and for the odd bit of casual gaming (champions online when it arrives...) I can't see the Mac Pro giving me significant day to day computing speed or in the apps above for the significant extra investment.

IF(!) I already had the 30 inch or 24 inch LED display. Different story. I'd reach for the Mac Pro 2.66.

For once, I'd like Melgross and others to chime in and elaborate my thinking? Am I right? Wrong?

I've got less than a week now. Then I'm pulling the trigger.

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 #314 of 323
Quote:
Stop the whining, stop the madness!

Apple started it. They jacked prices up in the UK by several hundred pounds, four hundred in some cases. Who wouldn't whine? Especially when the same PC spec or same performing PC spec is half the price. If they can do it...why can't Apple. 28 billion and getting greedier.

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 #315 of 323
[QUOTE=UltimateKylie;1383801]You can get a Dell XPS One 24" for $1599 with includes an Intel QUAD core processor and 4GB of ram.

But it doesn't run/include (legally) OSX, and to me, that is the whole point of Apple Hardware, to run the Apple OS, isn't it?

Sure, you can buy cheaper hardware, but is it any "better?" I mean a Chevy costs less than a Lexus or Toyota for that matter, but is either any "better?"

It's all about choice...your choice, not necessarily mine though.
Mac user since 1990 - System 6.0.7 through OS X 10.6 - Mac Mini (2009) - 4/320 - Snow Leopard
Reply
Mac user since 1990 - System 6.0.7 through OS X 10.6 - Mac Mini (2009) - 4/320 - Snow Leopard
Reply
post #316 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoFoT9
to us it may be a hole, to apple - there is a thing called the iMac.

...which is essentially a gargantuan laptop, not just technology-wise but Apple themselves apparently don't think it qualifies for a "desktop".

My iMac 24" broke down a few weeks ago and I thought I'd make use of the ludicrously expensive AppleCare plan for the first time. Since I'm used to Dell doing on-site repairs the next business day for less money than AppleCare costs, I expected the same from Apple except that the repair dude would have a pin-striped suit and white gloves, like the famed Rolls-Royce mechanics. So I call up Apple Support and talk to this snooty chick who explained that they don't do on-site repairs on iMacs. "But the AppleCare contract says on-site repairs of desktop computers, and that's what I paid for, or so I thought", I said. "Yes, but the iMac isn't a desktop model". "Well", I said, "let's see. It weighs like 30 pounds, it's huge, it has no battery, no built-in keyboard or trackpad, and it's got a non-detachable desktop stand, so it sure as **** can't be a laptop now can it?" But the girl just kept going on about how Mac Pro is the only thing they repair on location and that I have to drag the iMac about 60 miles, where the nearest authorized Apple service center is. I guess that's the "care" part of AppleCare...

Anyway... the iMac is non-expandable which defeats the purpose of a desktop computer as far as most users are concerned. What people want is simply a decently priced Apple desktop machine that you can stick a couple of cards in. Apple has completely skipped over the consumer desktop line of processors from Intel. The style of processor that the lion's share of Dell's product lineup is based on... XPS gaming machines, Dimension/Studio/Vostro desktops and so forth. Apple have the iMacs, Macbooks and Mac Minis with portable-grade processors, then nothing, then the full-blown Xeon line for business users and professionals, which is a huge jump in price, moreso than performance. And by their own admittance (see my AppleCare story above) they don't have a consumer desktop model, period.

Found it on macrumors. Heh.

He doesn't sound happy with his 'care'.

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 #317 of 323
This hurts kind of???? my birthday was on march 9th of this month. My mom surprised me with a mac...obviously I was happy.

I have the 24" 2.8g processor stock 320g harddrive 2g ddr3 ram upgradable to 4g max.

On the apple website they just came out on march 3 4days before my birthday, and I guess my machine was picked up on march the seventh.

I had just found out from a friend couple four days after my birthday that they had posted the new o9's very close to my purchase date.

The 2.9g nvidea gcard 640gharddrive and 4g of ram upgradeable to 8g.

Everything else is the same....my mac was purchased a future shop... now my mom got me a package deal with a nice printer and some speakers, I love it! The guy who sold my mac to my mom I've talked to about this and he says for exactly 200$ I can bring back the o8 and pic up an 09 wow!'


Here's the thing members of my family herd I was going to do this and it really bothered them that maybe I was ungreatful... I not really if the new imacs came out 2week later or 2 months later I wouldn't care.... but it was just six days and I have a 14 day grace period to return the product with questions unasked.......:


My mom wasn't the family member that came down on me hard.....my mom was mad but after cooling of she saw it as I did better......


once my other family members calmed down and understood as well, they saw my side....but still disagreed on the fact that it's not just the specs that came into play IT WAS THE WHOLE EXPERIENCE OF THE EXCITEMENT ON MY FACE THAT I GOT A MAC FOR MY 30TH BIRTHDAY AND MY BROTHER INLAW SETTING UP MY DESK FROM COSTCO AND THE FACT IT WAS A GIFT HE FELT TOOK PRECIDENCE OVER SPECS I MAY NEVER USE....I JUST THOUGHT IT'S O9 GET AN 09 IN 09 AND WHATEVER COMES OUT AFTER THAT WHATEVER....BUT IT'S 200DOLLARS ON THE DOT AND MY SPECS WOULD BE DOUBLED.....

Am I greedy should not push the isssue be happy with what greatness I was given shut and enjoy? cause I know right now to upgrade to 4g of ram is more than 200 dollars Plus hardrive doubled and the four G of ram for only 200 more dollars.....

PLEASE IF ANYONE HAS HAD THE PATIENCE TO READ THIS PLEASE GET BACK TO ME.....BUT DON'T POST IT CAUSE I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS SITE YET...I'LL LEAVE MY EMAIL ADDRESS AND PLEASE GIVE ME SOME FEEDBACK....if it were you in this sich would you be bother? would except and be greatful? or would you anoy some close close family members WHO WOULD THINK I WAS AN UNGREATFUL BRAT????? cause I do love this machine but for a couple bills more I could be better prepared for the future????

MY email is anypeden@yahoo.com Please please give me your Opinions.....


thanks Andy.
post #318 of 323
So, for £100 you get at least twice the gpu performance if you get an imac with Nvidia 120.

I'd take that I guess.

Hey, if it was a gift, just enjoy. But £100 gets you extra 2 gigs of ram and extra gpu.

At the end of the day: you pay £100 and get an 09 imac. I wish I could do that.



Lemon Bon Bon.

PS. Go for it. Your family will still love you afterwards...and you'll have an 09 iMac.

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 #319 of 323
Also. The thread title is ridiculous.

They jacked the price up in the Uk by hundreds. They are not more affordable. Apple are about twice the price of a similar specced PC. You can get a quad core Nehalem with a 4850 for around £1000. Check out overclockers.co.uk.

Computer for the 'rest of us'? What? Rich people? Middle Class people? People with Steve Jobs billions in the bank?

Apple's stupid and greedy pricing couldn't have come at a worse time for UK consumers.

And Steve wonders where they get the 'US centric' tag from.

It's getting to the point where I hope Apple do lose control of the OS...and and it can be installed on most PC hardware.

That way, they can concentrate on their iPhone. Because their desktop strategy looked in tatters as of early March. Fleece the faithful and unwitting. Maybe good for shareholders...but not for the consumer. Anybody who thought pricing would become reasonable with the transition to Intel got that wrong. It's as bad or as worse as the PPC days.

Rant over.

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 #320 of 323
I'm looking at the 3 gig iMac with Radeon having said that...

*Mutters... greedy eye-gauging...**&(&((&((&(.!

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
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