Forget the imac. Get a top-shelf mac mini and an HD monitor. Game over. Unless you're a university.
you are forgetting:
-mac mini has no gpu.
-imac is C2D, whereas mac mini is CD.
-imac has much larger hard drive.
-imac comes with more RAM.
-imac is more expandable.
once you have got the top mac mini model and added a decent lcd (as well as keyboard and mouse) you are paying more than you would for an imac anyway I believe.
You can always have the hard drive upgraded, as well. Snag a 320, 400, or even 500GB drive off some PC parts website or store and it will work. That's the nice thing about universal parts.
Unfortunately, getting it inside is the hard part. The iSight iMacs aren't so simple to get into. It's easy to recommend if you had the original style G5 iMacs, it's just a few screws, the new iMacs aren't user serviceable except for the memory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karelia
Oh, I understand that, all I'm saying is that, pixel-for-pixel, it's not an HD display.
Pixel-for-pixel, it really is the same resolution as the 23" Cinema display which you did call HD. There may be some deficiencies somewhere else in the setup. It will play HD video pixel-for-pixel or better, the only thing they won't do is display HD video from an external source like a PS3.
Any differences you saw when compared against the 23" ACD may have just been a difference in calibration or settings. With poor calibration, weird stuff can be more obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlas
The better video card is not only faster, but it is also brighter. Go into an Apple store and put both the 20" and 24" on its brightest setting and there is a NOTICABLE difference. That was pretty much the kicker for me.
Well, yes, I'm sure it is brighter, but it's entirely unnecessary to be brighter unless you are going to use it in the sun or under caustically bright retail lighting like at the Apple store. I personally would go for the 24" though, for all the little extra features it offers.
I sure hope it is worth the money because I just ordered a 24" yesterday evening. Got the 2GB of Ram, 256MB video card and 500GB hard drive. I've been a PC user all of my life, but decided to take the plunge.
I sure hope it is worth the money because I just ordered a 24" yesterday evening. Got the 2GB of Ram, 256MB video card and 500GB hard drive. I've been a PC user all of my life, but decided to take the plunge.
You're going to love it. There is no such thing as buyer's remorse with a 24" iMac.
i dont know, i absolutally love my imac 24". its fast. its nice i just love it. i love the big screen. i would never go any smaller. great graphics , speed. only cost me 3400 with tax. its got a great screen. after looking at any other computer screen, including some apples tehy look smudgy. this my friend is a nice computer.
One large screen is nicer only if it's 30", IMO. But YMMV.
Well, the game is about screen area, convenience, consistency, and cost. Different people have different priorities.
A. If you have two of the same display, then you don't have to worry at all about consistent color across the two screens, but ultimately having a single display guards against variations in the fading of the backlight, manufacturing, etc.
B. Having one display is often a bit more convenient than having two.
C. One 30" display actually has more screen area than do two 20" displays together.
D. Two 20" displays often cost reasonably together less than one 30" alone.
Two 20" ACDs is $1400 and 360 square inches.
Two 23" ACDs is $2000 and 475 square inches.
One 30" ACD is $2000 and 400 square inches.
If I had to choose between the latter two options, I'd pick the 30" ACD. However, it's tempting to pocket $600 and take the two 20" ACDs even though they have a bit less screen area and are two displays instead of one.
If I had to choose between the latter two options, I'd pick the 30" ACD. However, it's tempting to pocket $600 and take the two 20" ACDs even though they have a bit less screen area and are two displays instead of one.
It's not a simple number crunching problem though. One problem is that two widescreens is a very wide desktop, both on screen and actual width occupied by the displays, without much height in the displayed image. The 30" is taller, allowing for less scrolling if you have a page that is using the screen height. Also, one would have to go to the other screen in order to use the program menu, for a window that's on the secondary display. That part irritates me, not enough commands are accessible through hot keys.
Was it worth it? Oh heck yes. The extra real estate is nice if your going to use it. The better video card is not only faster, but it is also brighter. Go into an Apple store and put both the 20" and 24" on its brightest setting and there is a NOTICABLE difference. That was pretty much the kicker for me.
-kk
I did this today and I agree the 24" is brighter and more vivid never mind being bigger.
I sure hope it is worth the money because I just ordered a 24" yesterday evening. Got the 2GB of Ram, 256MB video card and 500GB hard drive. I've been a PC user all of my life, but decided to take the plunge.
Hey! Thanks for the post. I too am a PC "lifer" looking at an iMac ... and trying to decide on the 20" or 24". From what I read on this discussion, the 24" would better serve the needs of our family. Viewing DVD's would be more enjoyable, and more space for the "spaces" feature of the new Leopard OS.
So, I'd like to get a few responses on this, because I'm still unsure of the general consensus. In everyone's opinion, is the 24" iMac really worth the price jump when compared to it's 20" cousin? The only differences, aside form the obvious screen real-estate increase, are the addition of a FireWire 800 port and an nVidia 7300GT graphics card, rather than an ATI Radeon X1600. Both have the same functional specifications, the same upgrade costs and options, etc. So the question I pose is: is 4 inches of LCD really worth $500?
If you need or want the added screen real estate, it's well worth the price. If you're looking at the 24" iMac because its the most affordable option for either firewire or the chance to upgrade to a better video card (7600GT) than what you're reallying looking at a $500 Apple tax. A 20" is going to be very large for most users and the difference between the x1600 and 7300GT isn't all that great. The upgrade to the 7600GT is pretty substantial though, it's has more than double of the performance of the x1600.
This is coming from a very pleased 20" owner, but if you have the money and are even considering the 24," then I'd recommend purely for the 7600GT. I had this card in my Wintel, and while it's not high-end, it'll play any Windows game at minimum settings of 1280+
While the 24" LCD is nice, another LCD can be added to the 20," while a graphics card cannot.
If you rarely play games, though, the X1600 in the 20" should be more than sufficient. I do play the occasional FPS and would appreciate the 7600GT.
Comments
Forget the imac. Get a top-shelf mac mini and an HD monitor. Game over. Unless you're a university.
you are forgetting:
-mac mini has no gpu.
-imac is C2D, whereas mac mini is CD.
-imac has much larger hard drive.
-imac comes with more RAM.
-imac is more expandable.
once you have got the top mac mini model and added a decent lcd (as well as keyboard and mouse) you are paying more than you would for an imac anyway I believe.
You can always have the hard drive upgraded, as well. Snag a 320, 400, or even 500GB drive off some PC parts website or store and it will work. That's the nice thing about universal parts.
Unfortunately, getting it inside is the hard part. The iSight iMacs aren't so simple to get into. It's easy to recommend if you had the original style G5 iMacs, it's just a few screws, the new iMacs aren't user serviceable except for the memory.
Oh, I understand that, all I'm saying is that, pixel-for-pixel, it's not an HD display.
Pixel-for-pixel, it really is the same resolution as the 23" Cinema display which you did call HD. There may be some deficiencies somewhere else in the setup. It will play HD video pixel-for-pixel or better, the only thing they won't do is display HD video from an external source like a PS3.
Any differences you saw when compared against the 23" ACD may have just been a difference in calibration or settings. With poor calibration, weird stuff can be more obvious.
The better video card is not only faster, but it is also brighter. Go into an Apple store and put both the 20" and 24" on its brightest setting and there is a NOTICABLE difference. That was pretty much the kicker for me.
Well, yes, I'm sure it is brighter, but it's entirely unnecessary to be brighter unless you are going to use it in the sun or under caustically bright retail lighting like at the Apple store. I personally would go for the 24" though, for all the little extra features it offers.
I sure hope it is worth the money because I just ordered a 24" yesterday evening. Got the 2GB of Ram, 256MB video card and 500GB hard drive. I've been a PC user all of my life, but decided to take the plunge.
You're going to love it. There is no such thing as buyer's remorse with a 24" iMac.
FW800 is nice to have if you're using an external firewire drive that is FW800 capable, Much faster than FW400.
However, instead of getting the 24" I'd get the 20" and use the money saved for another 20" LCD. Once you use dual screens there's no going back.
Back to the original question.
FW800 is nice to have if you're using an external firewire drive that is FW800 capable, Much faster than FW400.
However, instead of getting the 24" I'd get the 20" and use the money saved for another 20" LCD. Once you use dual screens there's no going back.
To tell you the truth, there is: going to one really large screen is actually nicer.
To tell you the truth, there is: going to one really large screen is actually nicer.
One large screen is nicer only if it's 30", IMO. But YMMV.
One large screen is nicer only if it's 30", IMO. But YMMV.
Well, the game is about screen area, convenience, consistency, and cost. Different people have different priorities.
A. If you have two of the same display, then you don't have to worry at all about consistent color across the two screens, but ultimately having a single display guards against variations in the fading of the backlight, manufacturing, etc.
B. Having one display is often a bit more convenient than having two.
C. One 30" display actually has more screen area than do two 20" displays together.
D. Two 20" displays often cost reasonably together less than one 30" alone.
Two 20" ACDs is $1400 and 360 square inches.
Two 23" ACDs is $2000 and 475 square inches.
One 30" ACD is $2000 and 400 square inches.
If I had to choose between the latter two options, I'd pick the 30" ACD. However, it's tempting to pocket $600 and take the two 20" ACDs even though they have a bit less screen area and are two displays instead of one.
If I had to choose between the latter two options, I'd pick the 30" ACD. However, it's tempting to pocket $600 and take the two 20" ACDs even though they have a bit less screen area and are two displays instead of one.
It's not a simple number crunching problem though. One problem is that two widescreens is a very wide desktop, both on screen and actual width occupied by the displays, without much height in the displayed image. The 30" is taller, allowing for less scrolling if you have a page that is using the screen height. Also, one would have to go to the other screen in order to use the program menu, for a window that's on the secondary display. That part irritates me, not enough commands are accessible through hot keys.
Was it worth it? Oh heck yes. The extra real estate is nice if your going to use it. The better video card is not only faster, but it is also brighter. Go into an Apple store and put both the 20" and 24" on its brightest setting and there is a NOTICABLE difference. That was pretty much the kicker for me.
-kk
I did this today and I agree the 24" is brighter and more vivid never mind being bigger.
I sure hope it is worth the money because I just ordered a 24" yesterday evening. Got the 2GB of Ram, 256MB video card and 500GB hard drive. I've been a PC user all of my life, but decided to take the plunge.
Hey! Thanks for the post. I too am a PC "lifer" looking at an iMac ... and trying to decide on the 20" or 24". From what I read on this discussion, the 24" would better serve the needs of our family. Viewing DVD's would be more enjoyable, and more space for the "spaces" feature of the new Leopard OS.
So, I'd like to get a few responses on this, because I'm still unsure of the general consensus. In everyone's opinion, is the 24" iMac really worth the price jump when compared to it's 20" cousin? The only differences, aside form the obvious screen real-estate increase, are the addition of a FireWire 800 port and an nVidia 7300GT graphics card, rather than an ATI Radeon X1600. Both have the same functional specifications, the same upgrade costs and options, etc. So the question I pose is: is 4 inches of LCD really worth $500?
If you need or want the added screen real estate, it's well worth the price. If you're looking at the 24" iMac because its the most affordable option for either firewire or the chance to upgrade to a better video card (7600GT) than what you're reallying looking at a $500 Apple tax. A 20" is going to be very large for most users and the difference between the x1600 and 7300GT isn't all that great. The upgrade to the 7600GT is pretty substantial though, it's has more than double of the performance of the x1600.
While the 24" LCD is nice, another LCD can be added to the 20," while a graphics card cannot.
If you rarely play games, though, the X1600 in the 20" should be more than sufficient. I do play the occasional FPS and would appreciate the 7600GT.