It's comparable to a laptop LCD more than a desktop LCD, but if I were to compare it to one, just pick the cheapest 17" you can find online.
Honestly I don't know if you're a quality freak or not, I may be harping on it more than it deserves. It's fine for general OS X use, but if you want any kind of consistency in full-screen applications or color work, you're not gonna get it. For example, I cannot enjoyably watch movies or play games on this screen, but just surfing the net and using windowed apps is acceptable
I'm probably buying a 20" bluetooth iMac in the next two weeks. Do you guys think that this is wise? I know that it is a Rev. A, but I haven't heard of too many problems with it. I really need this for a videography job I have in early March so I can't wait until April/May for a 200Mhz proc boost (even though I would like a better video card...). Do you think there is any possible way they would do a Feb/March update, or no? Thank you.
It's comparable to a laptop LCD more than a desktop LCD, but if I were to compare it to one, just pick the cheapest 17" you can find online.
Honestly I don't know if you're a quality freak or not, I may be harping on it more than it deserves. It's fine for general OS X use, but if you want any kind of consistency in full-screen applications or color work, you're not gonna get it. For example, I cannot enjoyably watch movies or play games on this screen, but just surfing the net and using windowed apps is acceptable
Well I have no more than $2000 to spend on a new Mac. What would you do in my position knowing what you know now about the iMac? Remember, going the PM and mini route would require me to buy a display.
It's comparable to a laptop LCD more than a desktop LCD, but if I were to compare it to one, just pick the cheapest 17" you can find online.
It is a laptop LCD, which probably explains that. The panel is shared with the 17" PowerBook, if memory serves. I've read widely that the 20" is a significantly better panel than the 17".
As for updates, I'd wager a spec bump (nothing major) and a price drop (nothing major - maybe $100 across the board), and some unadvertised refinement of the designs under the hood (for heat, quiet, etc.). Just like old times.
They're about $200 USD too expensive for what you get.
The eMac really doesn't need to exist in the consumer space any more. To Edu, where it is sold for as little as 599, it can stay. But there's really no reason why an iMac 17 can't be sold for 999.
The mini exists now. You wanna sell some iMac's, get some people walking in to look at a mini for 499, and you can probably get them out of the store with an iMac for 999, even 1099, but not more. A machine that sells for 1300 should include a superdrive.
So, those would be the ideal upgrades. Much was made of the iMac redesign to facilitate a lower production cost -- that over time would lead to the possibility of cheaper iMacs. Something that just couldn't happen with the sunflower. Well, the G5 poses no cost issues, the design is much cleaner and easier to manufacture, ad 17" + LCD panels are dirt cheap.
Also, Apple has a "door crasher" of sorts in the shape of the mini. Now is the time to finally euthanize the eMac and show us the 999USD, 17" widescreen iMac we deserve!
Comments
Honestly I don't know if you're a quality freak or not, I may be harping on it more than it deserves. It's fine for general OS X use, but if you want any kind of consistency in full-screen applications or color work, you're not gonna get it. For example, I cannot enjoyably watch movies or play games on this screen, but just surfing the net and using windowed apps is acceptable
Originally posted by JonE
It's comparable to a laptop LCD more than a desktop LCD, but if I were to compare it to one, just pick the cheapest 17" you can find online.
Honestly I don't know if you're a quality freak or not, I may be harping on it more than it deserves. It's fine for general OS X use, but if you want any kind of consistency in full-screen applications or color work, you're not gonna get it. For example, I cannot enjoyably watch movies or play games on this screen, but just surfing the net and using windowed apps is acceptable
Well I have no more than $2000 to spend on a new Mac. What would you do in my position knowing what you know now about the iMac? Remember, going the PM and mini route would require me to buy a display.
Originally posted by JonE
It's comparable to a laptop LCD more than a desktop LCD, but if I were to compare it to one, just pick the cheapest 17" you can find online.
It is a laptop LCD, which probably explains that. The panel is shared with the 17" PowerBook, if memory serves. I've read widely that the 20" is a significantly better panel than the 17".
As for updates, I'd wager a spec bump (nothing major) and a price drop (nothing major - maybe $100 across the board), and some unadvertised refinement of the designs under the hood (for heat, quiet, etc.). Just like old times.
They're about $200 USD too expensive for what you get.
The eMac really doesn't need to exist in the consumer space any more. To Edu, where it is sold for as little as 599, it can stay. But there's really no reason why an iMac 17 can't be sold for 999.
The mini exists now. You wanna sell some iMac's, get some people walking in to look at a mini for 499, and you can probably get them out of the store with an iMac for 999, even 1099, but not more. A machine that sells for 1300 should include a superdrive.
So, those would be the ideal upgrades. Much was made of the iMac redesign to facilitate a lower production cost -- that over time would lead to the possibility of cheaper iMacs. Something that just couldn't happen with the sunflower. Well, the G5 poses no cost issues, the design is much cleaner and easier to manufacture, ad 17" + LCD panels are dirt cheap.
Also, Apple has a "door crasher" of sorts in the shape of the mini. Now is the time to finally euthanize the eMac and show us the 999USD, 17" widescreen iMac we deserve!