Review: Apple 24-inch iMac (aluminum)

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 137
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PBG4 Dude View Post


    I think it would be more likely for people to have a 6pin to 6pin Firewire cable than it would be to have an A to A USB 2.0 cable. Most people have A to B or A to mini USB cables.



    The USB spec was not designed to allow straight A-A connections. Last I heard, there needs to be an interface chip between the two, and special software too.



    I think that TDM works fine on FW800, but the only previous cause I had to try it allowed me to just move the drive between the computers, so that might have been 500GB moved in a few minutes and not an hour or two.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    Anyone with a g5 iMac needs to give these a serious look.



    I don't think so. Only those that need the extra power should consider it. For most owners, I bet that the G5 iMacs are fine.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post


    Now if you ask me how do Macbook users get way with 64mg of video that one I have no clue...



    Because it's not necessary for most non-game, non-pro uses? They have a tiny screen and it's plenty to store copies of all the windows, do Exposé and so on. From what I remember, going above 256MB doesn't do much for most games, and those GPUs are supposed to be hammering that memory during game play.
  • Reply 82 of 137
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    For those of you who just HATE the glossy glass, as it seems that it's just held on with magnets, it's possible that someone will offer matte glass to replace the one that came with the machine.



    I'd love to see a proper AR coated glass to be made available, first or third party, I just don't want a matte surface at all.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by homeboy87 View Post


    Depends on who you ask. A 17 years old sorority girl will say it is while 23 years old university student working with 3D software won't. The only thing that's pro about it is the big 24 inch screen and nothing else.



    A 24" screen isn't necessarily "pro". It's just high end for the moment.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PB View Post


    What does this means? Every GPU from the last 4-5 years is capable to forward to the display the decoded HD content, but it does not decode it by itself. This happens in the CPU.



    I think all Radeons 9500 and newer can decode MPEG-2 in HD, in the GPU. It takes almost no CPU power to do so. I think h.264 was added later. On-GPU decoding does not seem to be available in OS X though.
  • Reply 83 of 137
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    The USB spec was not designed to allow straight A-A connections. Last I heard, there needs to be an interface chip between the two, and special software too.



    There are special USB cables for that. They have what's needed in the cable itself. They cost about $20 to $30.
  • Reply 84 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Why wait. Things have changed. Even having to use Photoshop CS2 under Rosetta since OS X 10.4.8 is faster yet.

    http://www.macworld.com/2006/11/firs...etta/index.php



    Interesting. So a C2D at 2Ghz would be just slower (in Photoshop, Rosetta) than an iMac G5 at 2GHz. Which compared with a dual G4 at 867Mhz... would mean the iMac would provide an increase in speed overall (though not a big one).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aplnub View Post


    If you edit large files in PS, then either get a intel mac with CS3 or not at all. Performance is not that great on my 24" iMac 2.33 GHz 1st gen with 3 GB ram and adobe cs.



    One person for it, one against... damn



    Oh, is that performance of CS2 or CS3?

    (Private message me if you like since I'm taking the thread off topic).
  • Reply 85 of 137
    Quote:

    The Radeon HD 2600 Pro is a long, long overdue replacement for the X1600 which has been present in the iMac since its switch to Intel in January 2006.



    The first generation 24" iMacs did not ship with ATI cards; you got an nVidia 7300GT if you bought off the shelf and could BTO with the 7600GT.



    --JV
  • Reply 86 of 137
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I don't think so. Only those that need the extra power should consider it. For most owners, I bet that the G5 iMacs are fine.



    I should be more specific. Those users who have a g5 iMac who are considering a new machine should give these a serious look. I don't think there's any doubt that they'll see a dramatic difference in speed. If someone is happy with their g5 iMac then they have no reason to change.
  • Reply 87 of 137
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    I should be more specific. Those users who have a g5 iMac who are considering a new machine should give these a serious look. I don't think there's any doubt that they'll see a dramatic difference in speed. If someone is happy with their g5 iMac then they have no reason to change.



    The question that started all this was whether to upgrade to this model, and stay with CS2 through Rosetta, or whether it would pay to hold on a bit longer and get a more powerful machine that could either run CS2 better, or end up with CS3 now, with this, or wait and get both later.



    At least, that's the concept as I remember.



    The question wasn't whether this would run CS3 better.
  • Reply 88 of 137
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The question that started all this was whether to upgrade to this model, and stay with CS2 through Rosetta, or whether it would pay to hold on a bit longer and get a more powerful machine that could either run CS2 better, or end up with CS3 now, with this, or wait and get both later.



    At least, that's the concept as I remember.



    The question wasn't whether this would run CS3 better.



    You're late to the discussion.



    Prior to that, the cs2 thing, I was commenting on how cinebench scores of the new iMacs vs. th old g5 iMacs.
  • Reply 89 of 137
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    You're late to the discussion.



    Prior to that, the cs2 thing, I was commenting on how cinebench scores of the new iMacs vs. th old g5 iMacs.



    It wasn't in response to your original post.



    This started when someone asked if his wife should hold the G5 iMac with CS2 for a while longer, or run it under Rosetta with these new models.



    I was the first to answer that question, and then people seem to have forgotten where it started as it wandered all over 'till we got here with it.
  • Reply 90 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    There's many professions that don't need a Mac Pro and the whole attitude from some people that you're somehow unprofessional using anything less than a MacPro is silly. The iMac is faster than the MacBook Pro. Are users of that laptop also unprofessional?



    So this is confusing, why would an imac necessarily be faster than a Mac Book Pro? Off the shelf mine has a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo, 256MB Graphics Memory and 2 GB of RAM. That beats all bar one of the iMac's anyday, the only thing you can say is that the high end iMac has a faster processor than is found in the MBP but that is all.
  • Reply 91 of 137
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post


    So this is confusing, why would an imac necessarily be faster than a Mac Book Pro? Off the shelf mine has a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo, 256MB Graphics Memory and 2 GB of RAM. That beats all bar one of the iMac's anyday, the only thing you can say is that the high end iMac has a faster processor than is found in the MBP but that is all.



    Testing the 2.4 GHz iMac has shown it to be faster.



    The 2.8 GHz model will be a fair amount faster.



    Will Apple introduce the 2.8 for the MBP, or will it require too much power and run too hot?



    Good question, eh?



    And the iMac, even with the 2.8 is still substantially cheaper.
  • Reply 92 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Testing the 2.4 GHz iMac has shown it to be faster.



    The 2.8 GHz model will be a fair amount faster.



    Will Apple introduce the 2.8 for the MBP, or will it require too much power and run too hot?



    Good question, eh?



    And the iMac, even with the 2.8 is still substantially cheaper.





    Mel, is that right? even with only 1GB memory in the iMac??



    I do not understand that then, maybe someone with more knowledge can explain how a machine can be slower than a machine with identical processor and half the amount of RAM. Am i missing something that would make the iMac run faster than the MBP??
  • Reply 93 of 137
    shanmugamshanmugam Posts: 1,200member
    7200 RPM HDD always makes it (iMac) faster than 5400 RPM HDD (MBP), unless they compared with 7200 RPM HDD in MacBook Pro
  • Reply 94 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post


    7200 RPM HDD always makes it (iMac) faster than 5400 RPM HDD (MBP), unless they compared with 7200 RPM HDD in MacBook Pro



    Good point,



    Mel, i have found the benchmark tests and indeed you are right (haha i don't say that often ;-)

    Blow me down well that has disapointed me somewhat, i only bought my MBP thinking that was as fast as an iMac so the better choice. Maybe i should have hung on then, wonder if a month old MBP will sell for enough to buy a 2.8GHZ iMac? (only half joking!!)
  • Reply 95 of 137
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post


    Mel, is that right? even with only 1GB memory in the iMac??



    I do not understand that then, maybe someone with more knowledge can explain how a machine can be slower than a machine with identical processor and half the amount of RAM. Am i missing something that would make the iMac run faster than the MBP??



    Shanmugam is correct about the HHD. But, the computers are not the same. Even with the same chips, the circuitry is slightly different, as is the video subsystem.



    Don't believe people when they say this is the MBP in a bigger case. It isn't. It's similar.
  • Reply 96 of 137
    sequitursequitur Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    As I said in my previous post, that's a magnet, not the magnet. The difference being, a magnet that just happens to be part of the design (which the magnets beneath the bezel that hold the screen in place are) isn't the same as a magnet Apple intended to be used as a remote dock (as the side magnet on the previous iMac was).



    The practical difference is that you can just get the remote to hang there if you try hard enough and it can be knocked off very easily and it is awkwardly positioned, which is quite a bit different from the previous design.



    Somebody got the official word from Apple (as in "no, we don't expect you to stick the remote to the machine") somewhere, I'll try to find the link.



    I agree. However, IF someone really needs to hang the remote on the computer, I have a suggestion. At times,

    some adverts come with a magnet backing. Cut a small piece and glue it on the computer where ever you want it. If it's small enough, it won't be obtrusive. Personally, I wouldn't want a magnet on or near my desk or computer because of the USB drives and other media I use and are usually on my desk. Even a magnetized paper clip can cause a problem.
  • Reply 97 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sequitur View Post


    I agree. However, IF someone really needs to hang the remote on the computer, I have a suggestion. At times,

    some adverts come with a magnet backing. Cut a small piece and glue it on the computer where ever you want it. If it's small enough, it won't be obtrusive. Personally, I wouldn't want a magnet on or near my desk or computer because of the USB drives and other media I use and are usually on my desk. Even a magnetized paper clip can cause a problem.





    I will never ever undestand why anyone would feel the need to hang a remote control from the front of their PC, exactly what use does it serve having a remote control there? How many people have you ever heard complaining that they cannot stick their TV remote to the front of their 40" samsung?? None!



    A quick count tells me i have got 5 Apple remotes in my front room (how sad does that sound?) and not once have i ever felt the urge to stick any of them to anything, they can be found in draws, on bookshelves, on the coffee table - i once even found one in the fridge trying to get cosy with half a cabbage!!



    I remember my grandfather years ago when he got his very first TV with a remote control, he would leave it on the top of the TV so it would not get lost. If you wanted to change the channel he would have to get up, walk over the TV, change channel with the remote and walk back to his chair, he never understood why i used to laugh at him! Same thing really.
  • Reply 98 of 137
    techboytechboy Posts: 183member
    Like many here, I have been a long time Mac user... so amid the hype, last Friday, I stop by the Soho Apple store to take a look at the new iMac and judge for myself.



    The glossy display with reflections is annoying to say the least. One can argue store lighting is bad but that isn't the complete truth. I suspect one need to dim lighting or turn it off completely to stop the reflection. The new iMac is just as responsive as the previous (I compare the new against my bro's old one from last year), but it's not noticeably faster.



    Personally, this redesign is a major disappointment for me. As I stated in a different thread, it took Apple over a year to release this update neither the redesign nor hardware live up to the long expectation... this is merely a repackaging job for Apple. I will still be using Macs at work and still look forward to Mac OS 10.5 release... but as a home user, they lost me as a customer for now. If Apple prides themselves for leading the computing world for industrial design, this is not a step forward, but merely more eye candy.





    p.s. on that day, Apple store's traffic mainly composed of people hugging up mac-stations to check their emails during lunch break was a lame sight.
  • Reply 99 of 137
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The 950 can do this in hardware, just as most gpus can.



    Sure, but that's the problem. Apple leaves this GPU power dormant. It has probably a good reason to do so, but probably not. I don't know.
  • Reply 100 of 137
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I think all Radeons 9500 and newer can decode MPEG-2 in HD, in the GPU. It takes almost no CPU power to do so. I think h.264 was added later. On-GPU decoding does not seem to be available in OS X though.



    Yes, hardware MPEG-2 on the GPU is an old story, though Apple never used this feature. This is a mystery to me. Probably the decoding on the GPU was/is not standardized and Apple was/is not willing to adapt the algorithms each time a GPU change happens.



    The last and only hardware decoding I can remember from Apple is from the OS 9 days, when there were available specialized PCMCIA decoders for the Powerbooks. I cannot remember what was the situation in the desktops.
Sign In or Register to comment.