OMG who cares. Obviously a slightly faster version of the same processor will be slightly better.
Why doesn't someone test out the Core 2 EXTREME iMac???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonlar
Come on guys.....
Where are the benchmarks for the 24" iMac 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme?
Hold your horses. They didn't seem to be available yet. MacWorld says that they didn't get theirs yet. I think all the benchmarkers wanted to get their stories out as soon as possible.
I've got the 2.33 GHz 24" white iMac also -- bought it early this year . . .
The new model is such a small improvement, I'll probably skip this generation. Don't get me wrong -- it looks great. It's just not a huge performance improvement. I love the one I've got, and it cranks just fine!
For Pete's sake, your computer is barely over a half year old and you need to find more reasons not to buy the new version?
I really don't understand this type of statement made by fans whenever Apple revs a product. It's not as if Jobs is personally hounding Mac owners to buy every product update that he offers. Not every product update is going to be major leaps over the previous revision. That's just not a realistic expectation to have. These updates are to remain competitive, not so that fans can buy a new machine on every rev.
Quote:
I disagree with the original article's assertion that the extra 1GB of memory might just be enough to convince me to get one. HUH? Is that all it takes?
That statement that you reference was written with regard to a very specific and niche set of uses. If you often use more than 3GB of memory, then your performance may spike.
It's not a Core 2 Duo Extreme in the 2.8GHz iMac. It's just a higher frequency bin of the mobile Merom (Core 2 Duo). It definitely a mobile part to work with the mobile chipset.
Actually, the 2.6GHz and faster Meroms are marketed with the "extreme" label, or that was the plan when I first heard about the 2.6GHz speed being introduced.
I myself had planned to get a new iMac after Apple's revised models came out. But after seeing the stupid looking black border around the screen, and after seeing there was no option for a non-glossy LCD model, I couldn't care less if these machines had the power of a hundred Mac Pros. I refuse to buy something this bad. Of course, I have no budget whatsoever for an expensive Mac Pro setup, even though it would get me a matte LCD and eliminate that frightful black border.
So I will continue to wait until Apple comes out with a reasonable line of iMacs. Hopefully, Apple will sell a very low number of these new models. That will help to drive the point home about the glossy screen and ugly black border! Jonathan Ive, you really screwed up this time!
The new one grows on you, it did me and I was very unimpressed at first. At least until I realized I could get the 2.8 C2E and then I ordered one the night they came out.
I have a 20" 18 G5 and man, a speed jump and screen size improvement with a 24" model is not going to describe your feelings.
Most of the gripes are from those that haven't seen or touched a real iMac and looking a some of their profiles and previous blogs, most haven't bought an new Mac in years (some quite a few years). Certainly none of them has had a real-world experience.
People are debating the black border, glossy vs Matte, etc. Things which all boil down to personal preference. I was really steering towards processor/and GPUs. Areas were benchmarks are concrete. Although I'm happy with my purchase (20in iMac shipped Aug 10th!) I can see where some would question the minor speed bumps (20 inch specifically). We're talking 11 months between models without a speed bump. This is classic Apple at it's best. (Anybody remember when the Mac clones use to kick Apple butt on "meaningful" specs?)
Having said that yes, I bought the new iMac.. LOVE the design. Coming from a G4 iMac my perception of this machine is that it is going to SCREAM. Hey, it's all relative. I'm going to enjoy.
We early adopters are paying a little more for a new design. I'm cool with that. For others, I would expect a much better speed bump early next spring if you can wait that long and still do want an iMac.
People are debating the black border, glossy vs Matte, etc. Things which all boil down to personal preference. I was really steering towards processor/and GPUs. Areas were benchmarks are concrete. Although I'm happy with my purchase (20in iMac shipped Aug 10th!) I can see where some would question the minor speed bumps (20 inch specifically). We're talking 11 months between models without a speed bump. This is classic Apple at it's best. (Anybody remember when the Mac clones use to kick Apple butt on "meaningful" specs?)
Having said that yes, I bought the new iMac.. LOVE the design. Coming from a G4 iMac my perception of this machine is that it is going to SCREAM. Hey, it's all relative. I'm going to enjoy.
We early adopters are paying a little more for a new design. I'm cool with that. For others, I would expect a much better speed bump early next spring if you can wait that long and still do want an iMac.
"On February 5, 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented a case for military intervention in Iraq to the UN Security Council. Powell presented an array of evidence from satellite images to (alleged) intercepted military communications and computer-generated images depicting mobile biological weapon production systems (the likelihood of these mobile systems have been questioned by experts, notably Hans Blix)."
So, based on blogs and a couple of pics?we are now in a quagmire that could have been avoided if only we verified the sources and their creators. Sounding familiar?
As for performance, Macworld's benchtest results don't seem to bother most of their readers. Sure it would be great if the bumps were more significant, i.e., for those that held out and haven't made a purchase in the past year or so. But for a mid-range product along with the continuous enhancements while maintaining previous or even reducing prices is certainly a bargain that is well worth considering. And imagine how many would ever upgrade knowing that there was a beauty in the wings, as exampled by the guy that hasn't upgraded since he bought a G3 iMac but constantly castigated Adobe for not coming forth with a universal binary sooner, criticized the iPhone/AT&T daily and now has putting off purchasing a new iMac until Apple offers a matte screen.
Buy the way, I had a employee bring and set up a Mac clone in my agency. Piece of crap in every respect. So was his decision.
And seriously, who or what other major manufacturer in the computer, auto, appliance or communication industry satisfies your criteria? Never mind who offers the innovation, service and support that Apple does.
The comparison is simplicity is valid, but you have to admit they seem to have used 10' cables for everything in order to get those giant piles of coiled excess.
The comparison is simplicity is valid, but you have to admit they seem to have used 10' cables for everything in order to get those giant piles of coiled excess.
It does seem that way. It's not that hard to do decent cable management either.
It hasn't grown on me. At least, the longer I look at the new iMac, the more I grow to hate that black border. It literally makes me sick to my stomach. And believe me, I know what the previous models look like because I see it every day at my office.
But thank you for posting those great photos. They clearly show how much nicer the previous generation iMac looks relative to the new, Ugly-Bezel models! Please post a new photo when the Ugly bugger arrives. It will be fun to see comments at that photo. I have no doubts when people see that photo they will say, "Wow, I love those two white ones, but my God, who threw up on that other iMac!"
As for performance, Macworld's benchtest results don't seem to bother most of their readers. Sure it would be great if the bumps were more significant, i.e., for those that held out and haven't made a purchase in the past year or so. But for a mid-range product along with the continuous enhancements while maintaining previous or even reducing prices is certainly a bargain that is well worth considering.
It's not as if the actual performance improvements in Santa Rosa platform was a secret either. I certainly don't expect Mac users to pay attention to the PC world, but Apple's pro notebooks were updated with the same CPU and chipsets only couple months ago and those benchmarks showed the same results.
It hasn't grown on me. At least, the longer I look at the new iMac, the more I grow to hate that black border. It literally makes me sick to my stomach. And believe me, I know what the previous models look like because I see it every day at my office.
But thank you for posting those great photos. They clearly show how much nicer the previous generation iMac looks relative to the new, Ugly-Bezel models! Please post a new photo when the Ugly bugger arrives. It will be fun to see comments at that photo. I have no doubts when people see that photo they will say, "Wow, I love those two white ones, but my God, who threw up on that other iMac!"
I will take one with all 3 together when my black iMac arrives.
It does seem that way. It's not that hard to do decent cable management either.
The iMac cords are also all neatly coiled while the Dell cords are just piled on the table. Also, the fact that the Dell cords are black on a white background vs. the white-on-white for the iMac. They also threw in a couple extra cables just to skew the comparison (the cord going to the mysterious black box on top of the tower case, a network cable [since clearly a Dell couldn't possibly have a wireless network card], possibly a coaxial cable going to a TV Tuner card [that one's the funniest considering how you can't even get an internal TV tuner for a Mac], maybe an audio cable [because the crap speakers in the iMac are good enough and as an iMac owner I can speak to their crap nature]).
To me, what the picture points out is that Dell actually provides a lot of choices that Apple thinks the consumer doesn't want or need.
The iMac cords are also all neatly coiled while the Dell cords are just piled on the table. Also, the fact that the Dell cords are black on a white background vs. the white-on-white for the iMac. They also threw in a couple extra cables just to skew the comparison (the cord going to the mysterious black box on top of the tower case, a network cable [since clearly a Dell couldn't possibly have a wireless network card], possibly a coaxial cable going to a TV Tuner card [that one's the funniest considering how you can't even get an internal TV tuner for a Mac], maybe an audio cable [because the crap speakers in the iMac are good enough and as an iMac owner I can speak to their crap nature]).
Good points.
I wonder if the black box at the top is the IR receiver. It's a little bigger than I've usually seen, but I've had a TV tuner with an optional IR box like that.
I've never really witnessed anyone actually doing video conferencing on a computer. For the typical user, the video camera wouldn't be used and could be stored or just not bought in the first place.
I wouldn't expect a Dell speaker set to be any good though. Most computer speakers really aren't as good as I'd like, so that's why I just stick to a receiver and a couple Paradigm bookshelf speakers.
I wonder if the black box at the top is the IR receiver. It's a little bigger than I've usually seen, but I've had a TV tuner with an optional IR box like that.
this makes sense. in order for a fair comparison they should be showing a dell with equivalent functionality, but with the extra cable spaghetti.
of course i'd wager that dell has more usb ports and therefore is not as likely to require hubs like the imac \
The comparison is simplicity is valid, but you have to admit they seem to have used 10' cables for everything in order to get those giant piles of coiled excess.
And also you don't usually look at your computer from the side, so a more realistic comparison would show the two front on.
Comments
OMG who cares. Obviously a slightly faster version of the same processor will be slightly better.
Why doesn't someone test out the Core 2 EXTREME iMac???
Come on guys.....
Where are the benchmarks for the 24" iMac 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme?
Hold your horses. They didn't seem to be available yet. MacWorld says that they didn't get theirs yet. I think all the benchmarkers wanted to get their stories out as soon as possible.
I've got the 2.33 GHz 24" white iMac also -- bought it early this year . . .
The new model is such a small improvement, I'll probably skip this generation. Don't get me wrong -- it looks great. It's just not a huge performance improvement. I love the one I've got, and it cranks just fine!
For Pete's sake, your computer is barely over a half year old and you need to find more reasons not to buy the new version?
I really don't understand this type of statement made by fans whenever Apple revs a product. It's not as if Jobs is personally hounding Mac owners to buy every product update that he offers. Not every product update is going to be major leaps over the previous revision. That's just not a realistic expectation to have. These updates are to remain competitive, not so that fans can buy a new machine on every rev.
I disagree with the original article's assertion that the extra 1GB of memory might just be enough to convince me to get one. HUH? Is that all it takes?
That statement that you reference was written with regard to a very specific and niche set of uses. If you often use more than 3GB of memory, then your performance may spike.
It's not a Core 2 Duo Extreme in the 2.8GHz iMac. It's just a higher frequency bin of the mobile Merom (Core 2 Duo). It definitely a mobile part to work with the mobile chipset.
Actually, the 2.6GHz and faster Meroms are marketed with the "extreme" label, or that was the plan when I first heard about the 2.6GHz speed being introduced.
The GPU is less of an importance, but still adds to the dislike of the design choices.
CHOICE please....glossy, or matte.
I myself had planned to get a new iMac after Apple's revised models came out. But after seeing the stupid looking black border around the screen, and after seeing there was no option for a non-glossy LCD model, I couldn't care less if these machines had the power of a hundred Mac Pros. I refuse to buy something this bad. Of course, I have no budget whatsoever for an expensive Mac Pro setup, even though it would get me a matte LCD and eliminate that frightful black border.
So I will continue to wait until Apple comes out with a reasonable line of iMacs. Hopefully, Apple will sell a very low number of these new models. That will help to drive the point home about the glossy screen and ugly black border! Jonathan Ive, you really screwed up this time!
The new one grows on you, it did me and I was very unimpressed at first. At least until I realized I could get the 2.8 C2E and then I ordered one the night they came out.
I have a 20" 18 G5 and man, a speed jump and screen size improvement with a 24" model is not going to describe your feelings.
Check out my 24" sitting next to my 1.8 G5.
What real debate? Screen? Keyboards?
Most of the gripes are from those that haven't seen or touched a real iMac and looking a some of their profiles and previous blogs, most haven't bought an new Mac in years (some quite a few years). Certainly none of them has had a real-world experience.
Perhaps a look a Macworlds just posted benchtest should help reduce the concern. http://www.macworld.com/2007/08/firs...arks/index.php
People are debating the black border, glossy vs Matte, etc. Things which all boil down to personal preference. I was really steering towards processor/and GPUs. Areas were benchmarks are concrete. Although I'm happy with my purchase (20in iMac shipped Aug 10th!) I can see where some would question the minor speed bumps (20 inch specifically). We're talking 11 months between models without a speed bump. This is classic Apple at it's best. (Anybody remember when the Mac clones use to kick Apple butt on "meaningful" specs?)
Having said that yes, I bought the new iMac.. LOVE the design. Coming from a G4 iMac my perception of this machine is that it is going to SCREAM.
We early adopters are paying a little more for a new design. I'm cool with that. For others, I would expect a much better speed bump early next spring if you can wait that long and still do want an iMac.
People are debating the black border, glossy vs Matte, etc. Things which all boil down to personal preference. I was really steering towards processor/and GPUs. Areas were benchmarks are concrete. Although I'm happy with my purchase (20in iMac shipped Aug 10th!) I can see where some would question the minor speed bumps (20 inch specifically). We're talking 11 months between models without a speed bump. This is classic Apple at it's best. (Anybody remember when the Mac clones use to kick Apple butt on "meaningful" specs?)
Having said that yes, I bought the new iMac.. LOVE the design. Coming from a G4 iMac my perception of this machine is that it is going to SCREAM.
We early adopters are paying a little more for a new design. I'm cool with that. For others, I would expect a much better speed bump early next spring if you can wait that long and still do want an iMac.
"On February 5, 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented a case for military intervention in Iraq to the UN Security Council. Powell presented an array of evidence from satellite images to (alleged) intercepted military communications and computer-generated images depicting mobile biological weapon production systems (the likelihood of these mobile systems have been questioned by experts, notably Hans Blix)."
So, based on blogs and a couple of pics?we are now in a quagmire that could have been avoided if only we verified the sources and their creators. Sounding familiar?
As for performance, Macworld's benchtest results don't seem to bother most of their readers. Sure it would be great if the bumps were more significant, i.e., for those that held out and haven't made a purchase in the past year or so. But for a mid-range product along with the continuous enhancements while maintaining previous or even reducing prices is certainly a bargain that is well worth considering. And imagine how many would ever upgrade knowing that there was a beauty in the wings, as exampled by the guy that hasn't upgraded since he bought a G3 iMac but constantly castigated Adobe for not coming forth with a universal binary sooner, criticized the iPhone/AT&T daily and now has putting off purchasing a new iMac until Apple offers a matte screen.
Buy the way, I had a employee bring and set up a Mac clone in my agency. Piece of crap in every respect. So was his decision.
And seriously, who or what other major manufacturer in the computer, auto, appliance or communication industry satisfies your criteria? Never mind who offers the innovation, service and support that Apple does.
Ha... I don't know if anyone noticed this yet but the picture of the Dell from Steve's keynote is up on Apple's website
http://www.apple.com/imac/design.html
The comparison is simplicity is valid, but you have to admit they seem to have used 10' cables for everything in order to get those giant piles of coiled excess.
I was hoping that Apple would have switched from ATi to nVIDIA GPU's!
Why?
The previous 24s had nVidia chips, so in a sense they switched to ATI for those.
The comparison is simplicity is valid, but you have to admit they seem to have used 10' cables for everything in order to get those giant piles of coiled excess.
It does seem that way. It's not that hard to do decent cable management either.
The new one grows on you...
Check out my 24" sitting next to my 1.8 G5.
It hasn't grown on me. At least, the longer I look at the new iMac, the more I grow to hate that black border. It literally makes me sick to my stomach. And believe me, I know what the previous models look like because I see it every day at my office.
But thank you for posting those great photos. They clearly show how much nicer the previous generation iMac looks relative to the new, Ugly-Bezel models! Please post a new photo when the Ugly bugger arrives. It will be fun to see comments at that photo. I have no doubts when people see that photo they will say, "Wow, I love those two white ones, but my God, who threw up on that other iMac!"
As for performance, Macworld's benchtest results don't seem to bother most of their readers. Sure it would be great if the bumps were more significant, i.e., for those that held out and haven't made a purchase in the past year or so. But for a mid-range product along with the continuous enhancements while maintaining previous or even reducing prices is certainly a bargain that is well worth considering.
It's not as if the actual performance improvements in Santa Rosa platform was a secret either. I certainly don't expect Mac users to pay attention to the PC world, but Apple's pro notebooks were updated with the same CPU and chipsets only couple months ago and those benchmarks showed the same results.
It hasn't grown on me. At least, the longer I look at the new iMac, the more I grow to hate that black border. It literally makes me sick to my stomach. And believe me, I know what the previous models look like because I see it every day at my office.
But thank you for posting those great photos. They clearly show how much nicer the previous generation iMac looks relative to the new, Ugly-Bezel models! Please post a new photo when the Ugly bugger arrives. It will be fun to see comments at that photo. I have no doubts when people see that photo they will say, "Wow, I love those two white ones, but my God, who threw up on that other iMac!"
I will take one with all 3 together when my black iMac arrives.
I will take one with all 3 together when my black iMac arrives.
It looks like it should be easier to get a black iMac now. The chassis can be re-anodized, but colored black.
It does seem that way. It's not that hard to do decent cable management either.
The iMac cords are also all neatly coiled while the Dell cords are just piled on the table. Also, the fact that the Dell cords are black on a white background vs. the white-on-white for the iMac. They also threw in a couple extra cables just to skew the comparison (the cord going to the mysterious black box on top of the tower case, a network cable [since clearly a Dell couldn't possibly have a wireless network card], possibly a coaxial cable going to a TV Tuner card [that one's the funniest considering how you can't even get an internal TV tuner for a Mac], maybe an audio cable [because the crap speakers in the iMac are good enough and as an iMac owner I can speak to their crap nature]).
To me, what the picture points out is that Dell actually provides a lot of choices that Apple thinks the consumer doesn't want or need.
The iMac cords are also all neatly coiled while the Dell cords are just piled on the table. Also, the fact that the Dell cords are black on a white background vs. the white-on-white for the iMac. They also threw in a couple extra cables just to skew the comparison (the cord going to the mysterious black box on top of the tower case, a network cable [since clearly a Dell couldn't possibly have a wireless network card], possibly a coaxial cable going to a TV Tuner card [that one's the funniest considering how you can't even get an internal TV tuner for a Mac], maybe an audio cable [because the crap speakers in the iMac are good enough and as an iMac owner I can speak to their crap nature]).
Good points.
I wonder if the black box at the top is the IR receiver. It's a little bigger than I've usually seen, but I've had a TV tuner with an optional IR box like that.
I've never really witnessed anyone actually doing video conferencing on a computer. For the typical user, the video camera wouldn't be used and could be stored or just not bought in the first place.
I wouldn't expect a Dell speaker set to be any good though. Most computer speakers really aren't as good as I'd like, so that's why I just stick to a receiver and a couple Paradigm bookshelf speakers.
Good points.
I wonder if the black box at the top is the IR receiver. It's a little bigger than I've usually seen, but I've had a TV tuner with an optional IR box like that.
this makes sense. in order for a fair comparison they should be showing a dell with equivalent functionality, but with the extra cable spaghetti.
of course i'd wager that dell has more usb ports and therefore is not as likely to require hubs like the imac
The comparison is simplicity is valid, but you have to admit they seem to have used 10' cables for everything in order to get those giant piles of coiled excess.
And also you don't usually look at your computer from the side, so a more realistic comparison would show the two front on.