That is not the point. Apple cannot sell products in a vacuum. If we go by your logic ALONE, then Apple will never have to upgrade its computers for another 10 years. And sales will not suffer, because hey there's more than enough power to spare.
The specs aren't a big deal to me either. But I'm surprised that they didn't improve the 20" simply back to the quality of the old 20" screen in the white iMacs, and also integrated graphics in a $1499 24" model is pretty shoddy IMO. That 9400M might be like a gift from heaven in the new Mac Mini considering what used to be in it. But it doesn't cut it in a $1500 computer.
Actually, for me it is exactly the point!
While I do hear what you're saying about not selling in a vacuum... I'm gonna say Bah Humbug and call you on it.
If tomorrow, for argument's sake, Sony and Dell increased the RAM in their machines by 10x, and if Intel issued a release of new processors that were 20x as fast as current chips... would you go buy them?
Actually, if the price was right you might go buy them (LOL), but if the apps/programs you use had no way of fully utilizing the speed, the power, the whole techmology of it (say in Ali G voice), what exactly would be the point in having purchased it?
In the above example you would have paid out money for something you can't take advantage of. Of course, your machine will be fully equipped for when the rest of computing tech catches up, but, well, it is hardly time sensitive.
My point is that if the current specs in Apple's new line-up aren't good enough for you, what the heck are you running on your machine that saps so much of it's processing power????
Really, I am genuinely asking. I want to know what people use, as the programs I use are pretty intensive and my two-year-old iMac works at a very productive pace. Heck, I could probably hook up a monitor to a Mac Mini and it would still do what I need it to do professionally.
With regards the screens, I agree with you fully. The white iMacs' screens were better than the Alu iMacs', and I am surprised this wasn't addressed. Viewing quality interests me more than all the talk about the specs within the machine.
In short, I think the people who have the biggest beef with the new products' specs are either:
a) NASA scientists planning out the complexities of a Mars mission
b) Very heavy gamers (who, quite frankly, should stop playing games for kids)
While I do hear what you're saying about not selling in a vacuum... I'm gonna say Bah Humbug and call you on it.
If tomorrow, for argument's sake, Sony and Dell increased the RAM in their machines by 10x, and if Intel issued a release of new processors that were 20x as fast as current chips... would you go buy them?
Actually, if the price was right you might go buy them (LOL), but if the apps/programs you use had no way of fully utilizing the speed, the power, the whole techmology of it (say in Ali G voice), what exactly would be the point in having purchased it?
In the above example you would have paid out money for something you can't take advantage of. Of course, your machine will be fully equipped for when the rest of computing tech catches up, but, well, it is hardly time sensitive.
My point is that if the current specs in Apple's new line-up aren't good enough for you, what the heck are you running on your machine that saps so much of it's processing power????
Really, I am genuinely asking. I want to know what people use, as the programs I use are pretty intensive and my two-year-old iMac works at a very productive pace. Heck, I could probably hook up a monitor to a Mac Mini and it would still do what I need it to do professionally.
With regards the screens, I agree with you fully. The white iMacs' screens were better than the Alu iMacs', and I am surprised this wasn't addressed. Viewing quality interests me more than all the talk about the specs within the machine.
In short, I think the people who have the biggest beef with the new products' specs are either:
a) NASA scientists planning out the complexities of a Mars mission
b) Very heavy gamers (who, quite frankly, should stop playing games for kids)
Exactly. Apple has always never been on the forefront of the latest technology. It was their different views on how computers should evolve, i.e. to include visual upgrades, design and other innovations. When Apple decided to run to Intel, i believe everybody started to use the same 'yardstick' to determine the value of the Apple computer as compared to the PC. For example, the processor speed, graphics card, ram, bus speed etc. Soon, we may even have people discussing, cooling fans, power supply rating etc.
I always believed that Apple has always marketed their computers using OS X not computer hardware specs. For HP, Dell and other computer manufacturers, they can only survive by differentiating their products with hardware and pricing. That is the name of their game. If Apple today launch a new line of Imacs that comes only preloaded with windows, I believe the sales would bomb immediately. That is the reason they can charge a premium because of OSX. I can understand that most people would want the best of both computing worlds, computers that can be easily manipulated with the latest hardware and running OSX. That is why hackintosh has surfaced.
If you we were to see the development of the mac mini and the imac, you will see that the differences are getting smaller over the years. The MAC Pro is easy to differentiate, put in the latest and most powerful hardware, charge a bomb and the really professional guys would still buy it for commercial reasons. But for the rest of the people say 90% of mac users, we would never buy a MAC Pro just for games. This is the intention of the desktop lines. The Imac was never marketed for professional use. The mac mini was never marketed as a media centre. I believe the same story is happening for the netbooks. If the keep on making the netbooks more powerful, it may soon replace the low end laptops. If the make the mini more powerful, the imac sales would suffer. Correspondingly, if the make the imac more powerful, their MAC Pro sales would suffer.
I strongly believe that majority of the people buys a computer for specific tasks and needs. Once the hardware reaches their requirements any more 'advance' models/options are only good for benchmarks and discussion. This is what Apple is trying to drive at.
The 'driving force' behind the expansion of the PC market over the years have been the constant demand for bigger CPUs, more advanced graphic cards etc. True, that has stimulated the entire PC landscape. Apple has latched on and found that it is better to be one or two generations behind to increase their profit margins whilst still able to produce computers suitable to the needs of the majority.
Apple has always tried to sell you the computing experience. If you want to play games and wants to have the 'All Powerful' feeling that your computer has the specs that will overkill any tasks you can throw at it, then go for the PC, there is nothing wrong with that. The PC or windows have done quite a fair bit for the computing world and it is still strong and represents value for money. People should stop complaining about the MAC specs and what they can get. The bottom line why people switch or use the MAC is because of the complete computing experience via OSX and not because of specs. Many people would still stick with MAC because of this.
"The Imac was never marketed for professional use."
That may well be the case, but I am a professional and I use an iMac and it works just fine. The specs are good enough for professional use. Certainly, the current iMacs offer more than enough for the average user predominantly running the bundled Mac software (iLife) and the purchased iWorks (which I would like to see Apple bundle free with every Mac).
"Apple has always tried to sell you the computing experience."
Exactly! They are selling ease-of-use, high levels of security, fun, rock-solid performance and great user interface... all wrapped up in gorgeous design. Basically, they offer the things you struggle to find when buying a PC.
PCs are cheaper than Macs. There is a reason why they are cheaper.
The 24'' display is the same as before, i.e. a considerably better display than the dismal 20'' TN LCD. You can see that clearly just looking at the viewing angles in the specs page. The thing is, even the 24'' has been known for frequent lack of uniformity issues (left-right brightness gradient, yellow tinges here and there, and so on...). I will definitely never upgrade my iMac before they switch to LED.
It still puzzles me why most people don't complain about this situation or even refuse to acknowledge it exists. The displays in iMacs are NOT good at all!
Thx for the reply.
I agree, While some in these forums have noted the color variations and off-axis yellowing, it has not been as much discussed as I would have thought also.
I guess for new or casual users, they just accept it as a fact of life and don't complain.
(lord knows I have taken that route on other issues in my life -- but I psycho-analyze-digress... )
These issues with the lower quality TN, and for me, also the problem (for my eyes) of glossy glare, will probably keep me out of the current iMac market.
What it does do is make the new Mac Mini look more attractive than I had heretofore assumed. So I am probably putting the Mini on my wish list, to use with my existing non-glare LCD monitor.
I agree, While some in these forums have noted the color variations and off-axis yellowing, it has not been as much discussed as I would have thought also.
I guess for new or casual users, they just accept it as a fact of life and don't complain.
(lord knows I have taken that route on other issues in my life -- but I psycho-analyze-digress... )
These issues with the lower quality TN, and for me, also the problem (for my eyes) of glossy glare, will probably keep me out of the current iMac market.
What it does do is make the new Mac Mini look more attractive than I had heretofore assumed. So I am probably putting the Mini on my wish list, to use with my existing non-glare LCD monitor.
I actually like the glossy screens, unlike most people around here...
I found an interesting comment on a more recent article where they show the new iMac's unboxing: the new screens are calibrated differently (with a cooler setting). I wonder if it's simply a calibration setting or if there's anything inherently different about the displays... once again, not a single person comments on this. Come on, the display, for me, is the most important part of a computer system - it's where you lay your eyes on the whole time! It's basically the face of your computer, how can these issues be so silently ignored? \
The top end iMac in the UK is £1800. The one it replaced was £1359.
Unbelievable. Currency changes dont explain all of that.
It most certainly is not affordable... its a rip off. So much so that Ive decided not to buy. The specifications of the update are woeful, and the price is massively inflated. That kind of money buys me a top end i7 PC which even kicks a mac pro (also lame update) into the gutter.
Apple have finally priced me out. A sad day indeed.
The new iMacs are cost saving, last year models, with a poor design. Here's what's wrong with these iMacs:
- No quad-core desktop CPU, while quad-core desktop CPUs have been available from Intel since November 2007;
- No quad-core Core i7 (Nehalem) desktop CPU which has been available from Intel since November 17, 2008;
- No quad-core Penryn mobile CPU which has been available from Intel since August or September 2008;
- No quad-core Penryn CPU for all-in-one, small-form factor computers which has been available from Intel since January 2009;
- A glossy display which is more difficult to read, especially for customers with reading glasses;
- An uncompetitive price when compared with either quad-core or dual-core Windows computers offered from large retailers like Staples in the U.S.A, Britain or Canada.
The new iMacs are a big let down from a company which is more focused on its high prices and senior management bonuses than its customers.
Watch out for the upcoming Windows 7 on quad-core Core i7 desktop or mobile computers. Apple will go through another one of its self-imposed blood bath.
1,2,3 The ACD is a better monitor. It is back lit by LED, which offers brighter screen with better color reproduction, and uses less energy. Unless your friend is doing something that requires better color reproduction they won't see much difference between the two.
4. Which offers more for your money depends on what you want to do. If your friend primarily surfs the internet, email, write documents. The Mac mini is perfectly fine. If your friend does anything CPU intensive the iMac would be the better deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur
1. Does the iMac monitor equal the (@) $900 24" ACD?
2. What is the difference between the two?
3. Is the ACD a better monitor?
4. Which set up would be the most bang for the buck: An iMac or -- a Mini and an ACD.
It seems like the prices (24" iMac vs. Mini w/24" ACD) are not too far apart.
I've never had a mac before. Now considering to buy one (mostly for photo & video editing + DVD authoring, maybe a little game-play as well, but generally - for work).
P.s. My current PC is VERY old (MB and CPU Athlon 1700+ from year 2000 (9 years old), video Radeon 7500, audio SB Live! 5.1 Digital). I can do some photo editing on it, but no video. Not going to upgrade it anymore. Sure I could buy a new PC (cheaper), but... I decided to go for a Mac.
Taking into account all the pros and cons of the "new" updated iMacs... Should I spend my $$$ on this current "new" iMac NOW or wait out for the 'real new generation'? (i7, LED etc.)
I mean, if I buy the current iMac - I could be stuck with it for at least 5 years or more.
(like, I bought Pioneer plasma TV 427 back in late 2006, which was HD ready, and now, when screens are 1920x1080p full HD all around - I'm still stuck with 1366x768 HD Ready. Not that I'm really unhappy, but...)
I've never had a mac before. Now considering to buy one (mostly for photo & video editing + DVD authoring, maybe a little game-play as well, but generally - for work).
P.s. My current PC is VERY old (MB and CPU Athlon 1700+ from year 2000 (9 years old), video Radeon 7500, audio SB Live! 5.1 Digital). I can do some photo editing on it, but no video. Not going to upgrade it anymore. Sure I could buy a new PC (cheaper), but... I decided to go for a Mac.
Taking into account all the pros and cons of the "new" updated iMacs... Should I spend my $$$ on this current "new" iMac NOW or wait out for the 'real new generation'? (i7, LED etc.)
I mean, if I buy the current iMac - I could be stuck with it for at least 5 years or more.
(like, I bought Pioneer plasma TV 427 back in late 2006, which was HD ready, and now, when screens are 1920x1080p full HD all around - I'm still stuck with 1366x768 HD Ready. Not that I'm really unhappy, but...)
What do you suggest?
Thanks.
Based on the PC you currently have buying even an older Mac would be a step up in performance. Even an old iMac would be a benefit, but these new ones do have better GPUs (and iGPs) that would make it, IMO, a better option. Especially since Snow Leopard will reportedly be able to utilize those GPUs more effectively.
There won't be i7 for the iMac anytime soon. They run way too hot. I think the next jump for the iMac will be the low-power Core 2 Quads that Intel has specifically designed for AIOs. I wouldn't figure the next revision to the iMac happening for some time, so I wouldn't hold off if you need a new machine.
I would recommend the 24" model since you are doing image and video-based editing. Besides the obvious screen size the display type is IPS, compared to the 20" iMac's TN display.
PS: You have to be happy with what you get because technology will just keep on keepin' on.
Its fairly difficult to make this choice for someone else, it all depends on what you need and when you need it.
I would suggest you research the benefits of LED screens, quad core processors, and Core i7. Honestly think to yourself if any of those things absolutely necessary for what you need to accomplish. Just because a computer has quad processors does not necessarily those processors are actually offering better performance.
From what you describe (photo,video,light gaming) the current aluminum iMac line is more than capable of accomplishing these tasks. You also have to consider the fact that no matter when you purchase a new computer there will always be the next new hot computer in the near future. That's a game that will never end.
I know several people who own the current aluminum iMac and they are all completely happy with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ defender
Taking into account all the pros and cons of the "new" updated iMacs... Should I spend my $$$ on this current "new" iMac NOW or wait out for the 'real new generation'? (i7, LED etc.)
I mean, if I buy the current iMac - I could be stuck with it for at least 5 years or more.
I know computers get old fast and there will always be the newer one coming. It's just that these "new" iMacs got actually previous year's (outdated) specs, as I see (same CPUs, same old screens). Oh, and still no Blu-ray support. It's like - myabe the last year's 24" iMacs were even better choice (they got additional FW 400 port at least), but hey, the new ones might be cheaper.
Anyway, I got some time to think (still saving the $$$).
I wouldn't get too caught up in that whole last year outdated mentality. From what you describe of your needs the current iMac is more than capable. Look at Dell and HP they sell lots of machines that use less than cutting edge hardware components.
As far a Blu-ray. I think Apple is in not excited about integrating Blu-ray DRM into OS X.
As far as fireWire 400. There are very few peripherals that use fireWire at all. 10 years ago I used to own several peripherals that required firewire, now today my external hard drive is the only one. These days external hard drives with firewire are becoming few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ defender
Thanks, solipsism & TenoBell!
I know computers get old fast and there will always be the newer one coming. It's just that these "new" iMacs got actually previous year's (outdated) specs, as I see (same CPUs, same old screens). Oh, and still no Blu-ray support. It's like - myabe the last year's 24" iMacs were even better choice (they got additional FW 400 port at least), but hey, the new ones might be cheaper.
Anyway, I got some time to think (still saving the $$$).
Yes if you need to use them at the same time without a firewire hub.
I wasn't sure how large the hard drive would be... and thought that, in case if I need to simultaniously work on a few projects (i.e., a few MiniDV tapes transferred to HDD at once) then I might need an additional hard drive... And even if iMacs own HDD is large enough (~ 1 Tb), isn't it better to keep the projects on a separate drive?
It depends. Mostly the reason to keep a project on a separate HD is to keep the project from taking up system storage, and on a external HD is portable. I doubt you will use up a 1TB drive anytime soon, you can partition the drive to separate the system from other projects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ defender
And even if iMacs own HDD is large enough (~ 1 Tb), isn't it better to keep the projects on a separate drive?
Comments
That is not the point. Apple cannot sell products in a vacuum. If we go by your logic ALONE, then Apple will never have to upgrade its computers for another 10 years. And sales will not suffer, because hey there's more than enough power to spare.
The specs aren't a big deal to me either. But I'm surprised that they didn't improve the 20" simply back to the quality of the old 20" screen in the white iMacs, and also integrated graphics in a $1499 24" model is pretty shoddy IMO. That 9400M might be like a gift from heaven in the new Mac Mini considering what used to be in it. But it doesn't cut it in a $1500 computer.
Actually, for me it is exactly the point!
While I do hear what you're saying about not selling in a vacuum... I'm gonna say Bah Humbug and call you on it.
If tomorrow, for argument's sake, Sony and Dell increased the RAM in their machines by 10x, and if Intel issued a release of new processors that were 20x as fast as current chips... would you go buy them?
Actually, if the price was right you might go buy them (LOL), but if the apps/programs you use had no way of fully utilizing the speed, the power, the whole techmology of it (say in Ali G voice), what exactly would be the point in having purchased it?
In the above example you would have paid out money for something you can't take advantage of. Of course, your machine will be fully equipped for when the rest of computing tech catches up, but, well, it is hardly time sensitive.
My point is that if the current specs in Apple's new line-up aren't good enough for you, what the heck are you running on your machine that saps so much of it's processing power????
Really, I am genuinely asking. I want to know what people use, as the programs I use are pretty intensive and my two-year-old iMac works at a very productive pace. Heck, I could probably hook up a monitor to a Mac Mini and it would still do what I need it to do professionally.
With regards the screens, I agree with you fully. The white iMacs' screens were better than the Alu iMacs', and I am surprised this wasn't addressed. Viewing quality interests me more than all the talk about the specs within the machine.
In short, I think the people who have the biggest beef with the new products' specs are either:
a) NASA scientists planning out the complexities of a Mars mission
b) Very heavy gamers (who, quite frankly, should stop playing games for kids)
Actually, for me it is exactly the point!
While I do hear what you're saying about not selling in a vacuum... I'm gonna say Bah Humbug and call you on it.
If tomorrow, for argument's sake, Sony and Dell increased the RAM in their machines by 10x, and if Intel issued a release of new processors that were 20x as fast as current chips... would you go buy them?
Actually, if the price was right you might go buy them (LOL), but if the apps/programs you use had no way of fully utilizing the speed, the power, the whole techmology of it (say in Ali G voice), what exactly would be the point in having purchased it?
In the above example you would have paid out money for something you can't take advantage of. Of course, your machine will be fully equipped for when the rest of computing tech catches up, but, well, it is hardly time sensitive.
My point is that if the current specs in Apple's new line-up aren't good enough for you, what the heck are you running on your machine that saps so much of it's processing power????
Really, I am genuinely asking. I want to know what people use, as the programs I use are pretty intensive and my two-year-old iMac works at a very productive pace. Heck, I could probably hook up a monitor to a Mac Mini and it would still do what I need it to do professionally.
With regards the screens, I agree with you fully. The white iMacs' screens were better than the Alu iMacs', and I am surprised this wasn't addressed. Viewing quality interests me more than all the talk about the specs within the machine.
In short, I think the people who have the biggest beef with the new products' specs are either:
a) NASA scientists planning out the complexities of a Mars mission
b) Very heavy gamers (who, quite frankly, should stop playing games for kids)
Exactly. Apple has always never been on the forefront of the latest technology. It was their different views on how computers should evolve, i.e. to include visual upgrades, design and other innovations. When Apple decided to run to Intel, i believe everybody started to use the same 'yardstick' to determine the value of the Apple computer as compared to the PC. For example, the processor speed, graphics card, ram, bus speed etc. Soon, we may even have people discussing, cooling fans, power supply rating etc.
I always believed that Apple has always marketed their computers using OS X not computer hardware specs. For HP, Dell and other computer manufacturers, they can only survive by differentiating their products with hardware and pricing. That is the name of their game. If Apple today launch a new line of Imacs that comes only preloaded with windows, I believe the sales would bomb immediately. That is the reason they can charge a premium because of OSX. I can understand that most people would want the best of both computing worlds, computers that can be easily manipulated with the latest hardware and running OSX. That is why hackintosh has surfaced.
If you we were to see the development of the mac mini and the imac, you will see that the differences are getting smaller over the years. The MAC Pro is easy to differentiate, put in the latest and most powerful hardware, charge a bomb and the really professional guys would still buy it for commercial reasons. But for the rest of the people say 90% of mac users, we would never buy a MAC Pro just for games. This is the intention of the desktop lines. The Imac was never marketed for professional use. The mac mini was never marketed as a media centre. I believe the same story is happening for the netbooks. If the keep on making the netbooks more powerful, it may soon replace the low end laptops. If the make the mini more powerful, the imac sales would suffer. Correspondingly, if the make the imac more powerful, their MAC Pro sales would suffer.
I strongly believe that majority of the people buys a computer for specific tasks and needs. Once the hardware reaches their requirements any more 'advance' models/options are only good for benchmarks and discussion. This is what Apple is trying to drive at.
The 'driving force' behind the expansion of the PC market over the years have been the constant demand for bigger CPUs, more advanced graphic cards etc. True, that has stimulated the entire PC landscape. Apple has latched on and found that it is better to be one or two generations behind to increase their profit margins whilst still able to produce computers suitable to the needs of the majority.
Apple has always tried to sell you the computing experience. If you want to play games and wants to have the 'All Powerful' feeling that your computer has the specs that will overkill any tasks you can throw at it, then go for the PC, there is nothing wrong with that. The PC or windows have done quite a fair bit for the computing world and it is still strong and represents value for money. People should stop complaining about the MAC specs and what they can get. The bottom line why people switch or use the MAC is because of the complete computing experience via OSX and not because of specs. Many people would still stick with MAC because of this.
That would ultimately depend on their margin... and we all know that it is not small.
I meant they are not making any more money out of customers in the UK than they are of customers in the USA, as the computers are priced the same.
That may well be the case, but I am a professional and I use an iMac and it works just fine. The specs are good enough for professional use. Certainly, the current iMacs offer more than enough for the average user predominantly running the bundled Mac software (iLife) and the purchased iWorks (which I would like to see Apple bundle free with every Mac).
"Apple has always tried to sell you the computing experience."
Exactly! They are selling ease-of-use, high levels of security, fun, rock-solid performance and great user interface... all wrapped up in gorgeous design. Basically, they offer the things you struggle to find when buying a PC.
PCs are cheaper than Macs. There is a reason why they are cheaper.
The 24'' display is the same as before, i.e. a considerably better display than the dismal 20'' TN LCD. You can see that clearly just looking at the viewing angles in the specs page. The thing is, even the 24'' has been known for frequent lack of uniformity issues (left-right brightness gradient, yellow tinges here and there, and so on...). I will definitely never upgrade my iMac before they switch to LED.
It still puzzles me why most people don't complain about this situation or even refuse to acknowledge it exists. The displays in iMacs are NOT good at all!
Thx for the reply.
I agree, While some in these forums have noted the color variations and off-axis yellowing, it has not been as much discussed as I would have thought also.
I guess for new or casual users, they just accept it as a fact of life and don't complain.
(lord knows I have taken that route on other issues in my life -- but I psycho-analyze-digress... )
These issues with the lower quality TN, and for me, also the problem (for my eyes) of glossy glare, will probably keep me out of the current iMac market.
What it does do is make the new Mac Mini look more attractive than I had heretofore assumed. So I am probably putting the Mini on my wish list, to use with my existing non-glare LCD monitor.
Thx for the reply.
I agree, While some in these forums have noted the color variations and off-axis yellowing, it has not been as much discussed as I would have thought also.
I guess for new or casual users, they just accept it as a fact of life and don't complain.
(lord knows I have taken that route on other issues in my life -- but I psycho-analyze-digress... )
These issues with the lower quality TN, and for me, also the problem (for my eyes) of glossy glare, will probably keep me out of the current iMac market.
What it does do is make the new Mac Mini look more attractive than I had heretofore assumed. So I am probably putting the Mini on my wish list, to use with my existing non-glare LCD monitor.
I actually like the glossy screens, unlike most people around here...
I found an interesting comment on a more recent article where they show the new iMac's unboxing: the new screens are calibrated differently (with a cooler setting). I wonder if it's simply a calibration setting or if there's anything inherently different about the displays... once again, not a single person comments on this. Come on, the display, for me, is the most important part of a computer system - it's where you lay your eyes on the whole time! It's basically the face of your computer, how can these issues be so silently ignored?
http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/First-Lo...-20-Inch/658/2
and this link:
http://auo.com/auoDEV/products.php?s...111&items_id=1
There.
Affordable pricing ?
Who on earth wrote the title of that news story ?
The top end iMac in the UK is £1800. The one it replaced was £1359.
Unbelievable. Currency changes dont explain all of that.
It most certainly is not affordable... its a rip off. So much so that Ive decided not to buy. The specifications of the update are woeful, and the price is massively inflated. That kind of money buys me a top end i7 PC which even kicks a mac pro (also lame update) into the gutter.
Apple have finally priced me out. A sad day indeed.
*Nods.
Lemon Bon Bon.
What? No quad-core? No Core i7?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What? No quad-core? No Core i7?
The new iMacs are cost saving, last year models, with a poor design. Here's what's wrong with these iMacs:
- No quad-core desktop CPU, while quad-core desktop CPUs have been available from Intel since November 2007;
- No quad-core Core i7 (Nehalem) desktop CPU which has been available from Intel since November 17, 2008;
- No quad-core Penryn mobile CPU which has been available from Intel since August or September 2008;
- No quad-core Penryn CPU for all-in-one, small-form factor computers which has been available from Intel since January 2009;
- A glossy display which is more difficult to read, especially for customers with reading glasses;
- An uncompetitive price when compared with either quad-core or dual-core Windows computers offered from large retailers like Staples in the U.S.A, Britain or Canada.
The new iMacs are a big let down from a company which is more focused on its high prices and senior management bonuses than its customers.
Watch out for the upcoming Windows 7 on quad-core Core i7 desktop or mobile computers. Apple will go through another one of its self-imposed blood bath.
For more info on the Core i7, see:
- Intel unleashes Core i7, beats itself @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40213/135/
- Core i7 PCs launch with prices from $1250 to $13,000 @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40227/135/
- Intel Core i7 processor pricing @ http://www.intc.com/common/download/..._1ku_Price.pdf
The Penryn Core 2 Quad Q6600 65 nm CPU has been available from Intel for $266 since November 2007, and $224 since April 20, 2008. See:
- Intel releases sixteen new Penryn processors for servers and high-end @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34800/118/
- Intel to cut 65 nm quad-core processor prices for 45 nm @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36136/139/
- Intel drops second quad-core CPU into the mainstream @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37038/135/
- Have quad-core processors arrived in the mainstream? @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36548/135/
- Intel adds cheap dual-core, quad-core @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39135/135/
- Intel lowers CPU prices up to 48% on server, quads, duals and mobile @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41092/135/
- Intel to launch 65W desktop CPUs for all-in-one PCs @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40267/139/
Apple, what have you done?
You wrote it. I agreed with it. Amen.
Lemon Bon Bon.
4. Which offers more for your money depends on what you want to do. If your friend primarily surfs the internet, email, write documents. The Mac mini is perfectly fine. If your friend does anything CPU intensive the iMac would be the better deal.
1. Does the iMac monitor equal the (@) $900 24" ACD?
2. What is the difference between the two?
3. Is the ACD a better monitor?
4. Which set up would be the most bang for the buck: An iMac or -- a Mini and an ACD.
It seems like the prices (24" iMac vs. Mini w/24" ACD) are not too far apart.
P.s. My current PC is VERY old (MB and CPU Athlon 1700+ from year 2000 (9 years old), video Radeon 7500, audio SB Live! 5.1 Digital). I can do some photo editing on it, but no video. Not going to upgrade it anymore. Sure I could buy a new PC (cheaper), but... I decided to go for a Mac.
Taking into account all the pros and cons of the "new" updated iMacs... Should I spend my $$$ on this current "new" iMac NOW or wait out for the 'real new generation'? (i7, LED etc.)
I mean, if I buy the current iMac - I could be stuck with it for at least 5 years or more.
(like, I bought Pioneer plasma TV 427 back in late 2006, which was HD ready, and now, when screens are 1920x1080p full HD all around - I'm still stuck with 1366x768 HD Ready. Not that I'm really unhappy, but...)
What do you suggest?
Thanks.
I've never had a mac before. Now considering to buy one (mostly for photo & video editing + DVD authoring, maybe a little game-play as well, but generally - for work).
P.s. My current PC is VERY old (MB and CPU Athlon 1700+ from year 2000 (9 years old), video Radeon 7500, audio SB Live! 5.1 Digital). I can do some photo editing on it, but no video. Not going to upgrade it anymore. Sure I could buy a new PC (cheaper), but... I decided to go for a Mac.
Taking into account all the pros and cons of the "new" updated iMacs... Should I spend my $$$ on this current "new" iMac NOW or wait out for the 'real new generation'? (i7, LED etc.)
I mean, if I buy the current iMac - I could be stuck with it for at least 5 years or more.
(like, I bought Pioneer plasma TV 427 back in late 2006, which was HD ready, and now, when screens are 1920x1080p full HD all around - I'm still stuck with 1366x768 HD Ready. Not that I'm really unhappy, but...)
What do you suggest?
Thanks.
Based on the PC you currently have buying even an older Mac would be a step up in performance. Even an old iMac would be a benefit, but these new ones do have better GPUs (and iGPs) that would make it, IMO, a better option. Especially since Snow Leopard will reportedly be able to utilize those GPUs more effectively.
There won't be i7 for the iMac anytime soon. They run way too hot. I think the next jump for the iMac will be the low-power Core 2 Quads that Intel has specifically designed for AIOs. I wouldn't figure the next revision to the iMac happening for some time, so I wouldn't hold off if you need a new machine.
I would recommend the 24" model since you are doing image and video-based editing. Besides the obvious screen size the display type is IPS, compared to the 20" iMac's TN display.
PS: You have to be happy with what you get because technology will just keep on keepin' on.
I would suggest you research the benefits of LED screens, quad core processors, and Core i7. Honestly think to yourself if any of those things absolutely necessary for what you need to accomplish. Just because a computer has quad processors does not necessarily those processors are actually offering better performance.
From what you describe (photo,video,light gaming) the current aluminum iMac line is more than capable of accomplishing these tasks. You also have to consider the fact that no matter when you purchase a new computer there will always be the next new hot computer in the near future. That's a game that will never end.
I know several people who own the current aluminum iMac and they are all completely happy with it.
Taking into account all the pros and cons of the "new" updated iMacs... Should I spend my $$$ on this current "new" iMac NOW or wait out for the 'real new generation'? (i7, LED etc.)
I mean, if I buy the current iMac - I could be stuck with it for at least 5 years or more.
What do you suggest?
Thanks.
I know computers get old fast and there will always be the newer one coming. It's just that these "new" iMacs got actually previous year's (outdated) specs, as I see (same CPUs, same old screens). Oh, and still no Blu-ray support. It's like - myabe the last year's 24" iMacs were even better choice (they got additional FW 400 port at least), but hey, the new ones might be cheaper.
Anyway, I got some time to think (still saving the $$$).
As far a Blu-ray. I think Apple is in not excited about integrating Blu-ray DRM into OS X.
As far as fireWire 400. There are very few peripherals that use fireWire at all. 10 years ago I used to own several peripherals that required firewire, now today my external hard drive is the only one. These days external hard drives with firewire are becoming few.
Thanks, solipsism & TenoBell!
I know computers get old fast and there will always be the newer one coming. It's just that these "new" iMacs got actually previous year's (outdated) specs, as I see (same CPUs, same old screens). Oh, and still no Blu-ray support. It's like - myabe the last year's 24" iMacs were even better choice (they got additional FW 400 port at least), but hey, the new ones might be cheaper.
Anyway, I got some time to think (still saving the $$$).
As far as fireWire 400. There are very few peripherals that use fireWire at all ... These days external hard drives with firewire are becoming few.
Well, my MiniDV camcorder will be connected via fireWire. That means - an external hard drive will have to be connected via USB, right?
Well, my MiniDV camcorder will be connected via fireWire. That means - an external hard drive will have to be connected via USB, right?
Yes if you need to use them at the same time without a firewire hub.
I wasn't sure how large the hard drive would be... and thought that, in case if I need to simultaniously work on a few projects (i.e., a few MiniDV tapes transferred to HDD at once) then I might need an additional hard drive... And even if iMacs own HDD is large enough (~ 1 Tb), isn't it better to keep the projects on a separate drive?
And even if iMacs own HDD is large enough (~ 1 Tb), isn't it better to keep the projects on a separate drive?
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?