Can anyone please advise if they have come across any website whether the new imac can be configured to run dual monitors or we have to software 'crack' the imac as before to have the 'additional' desktop space?
By the way, is this a good iMac (for my needs, for example)? ...
P.s. Do the new iMacs come with matte screen or they're all glossy?
I cannot advise on what is good for your needs, as everyone has different concept of their (or others) computing needs, and what money they are willing to spend for those needs.
Given that many people do have older Macs, and buy used/refurbs it would seem safe to say that older Macs do satisfy many people's computer needs.
On the topic of screens - ALL the new iMacs in the Aluminum generations, including the newest ("Early 2009") models are GLOSSY and REFLECTIVE. -- Just look at the reflections either in actual store, or in the many photos published, esp the 'unboxing' sets - the reflections are quite evident.
There is NO matte or anti-glare screen option from Apple.
If you (or I for that matter) were to get one of the Aluminum iMacs, I would be using and recommending one of the after-market anti-reflective add-ons that can be purchased from a few companies. The product is a thin plastic film that sticks onto the front glass by static, so no damage is done to the display.
As for the 9400M, it might be able to outperform the old discrete ATI card on a number of areas, but certainly not on the memory bandwidth front, so I would call it no improvement.
Can you please explain this in layman's terms.
I'm trying to decide between the previous generation 20" and the current entry level 20" iMac. Will I be losing out on much by chosing an ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT w/128 MB GDDR3 memory over the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M w/256 MB DDR3 shared SDRAM memory?
The cost-saving here where I am will be quite substantial if buying the previous generation entry level 20" iMac, but at the same time I want to be sure it's "future proof" for several years to come.
How does the Imac 24" screen look when compared to the 24" LED Stand alone? Does the LED spec make for an improved color balance?
Has anyone actually gotten an explantion *from apple* as to why they've gone the glossy route in spite of the huge negative customer feedback? Are there any benefits other than esthetics dictated by the marketing dept.?
I was hoping for a quad processor option or a Core i7 Processor as found on the new macpros. (is this to avoid stepping onto the turf of the Macpro)
Would an SSD option make any sense in an Imac?( faster boot up , less mechanical wear & tear etc...)
Anybody feel as though this release is an intermediary step before a short to midterm redesign that would include these options?
How does the Imac 24" screen look when compared to the 24" LED Stand alone? Does the LED spec make for an improved color balance?
Has anyone actually gotten an explantion *from apple* as to why they've gone the glossy route in spite of the huge negative customer feedback? Are there any benefits other than esthetics dictated by the marketing dept.?
I was hoping for a quad processor option or a Core i7 Processor as found on the new macpros. (is this to avoid stepping onto the turf of the Macpro)
Would an SSD option make any sense in an Imac?( faster boot up , less mechanical wear & tear etc...)
Anybody feel as though this release is an intermediary step before a short to midterm redesign that would include these options?
Thanx for any informed thoughts.
Good questions.
I think an in-store visit is needed for that iMac LCD vs Apple LED Monitor. I'll be putting that on my compare list next time I get over to one.
The big question of why Apple (and most models from other computer makers) have gone in a veritable stampede --lemming style-- to the glossy LCD screens is somewhat of a mystery to me.
Back in the CRT days, screen reflectiveness was studied a lot, and eventually, most CRTs either switched to anti-reflective, or had some sort of option to get a anti-reflective, non-glare surface. It was shown in many studies to be better for workers eyes/ ergonomics.
(I worked on both kinds back then. And technically, the anti-reflective screen surface is not really 'matte', a term which applies more to the physical surface of photographs, etc. Though we know what you mean.)
The non-reflective LCD panels I have used seem to be far better ergonomically than the glossy. The glossy ones I have used and tested are, to me, distracting to have to focus away from what is reflected (lights, windows, other people, etc) and onto the screen pixel display. And require a lot of fussing with angles and lights positioning.
What I have heard from reps is a range from 'oh, eventually, you'll just learn to ignore the reflections' to 'angle it properly to minimize reflections' to 'huh, what reflection' to 'it really makes the colors pop'.
Yeah, well pop this! (ahemm, back to reasonableness... apparently you hit my hot button ... )
All sidestepping the real question of who thinks it is truly "better", why is it "better", for whom, and why are there no options for anti-reflective for the users who wish it.
My guess is that glossy screens are cheaper for the computer manufacturer (Apple included), that LCD manufacturers find glossy easier to make one a single production line for both HDTV and computer LCD monitors, thus cutting their manufacturing variables down. And recall the Apple marketing release of the Aluminum iMacs really pushed terms like 'shiny' and 'pop' -- as if those were good things in and of themselves -- trying to get us to believe.
It all seems to say that they don't really care about ergonomics and eye relief of their customers any more. Basically a sad, arrogant new trend. At least for those of us with eyes to see. (so to speak)
Re. processors and possible earlier next iMac revision... I think most of the discussion and articles I have seen indicate that higher end cpu chips were just too hot for the thin iMac case with its limitations on heat dissipation. SSD certainly cooler than a spinning HD, though way more expensive for now. But I too hope there will be a sooner than later iMac revision with a substantial cpu upgrade, AND with a non-reflective option.
When Apple launched the MacBook Pro in 2006, they did offer the equal option of glossy or matte. The next major refresh Apple reported that people overwhelmingly chose glossy.
So it is more economical for Apple to offer only glossy if that is truly what most people chose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Young
My guess is that glossy screens are cheaper for the computer manufacturer (Apple included), that LCD manufacturers find glossy easier to make one a single production line for both HDTV and computer LCD monitors, thus cutting their manufacturing variables down. And recall the Apple marketing release of the Aluminum iMacs really pushed terms like 'shiny' and 'pop' -- as if those were good things in and of themselves -- trying to get us to believe.
It all seems to say that they don't really care about ergonomics and eye relief of their customers any more. Basically a sad, arrogant new trend. At least for those of us with eyes to see. (so to speak)
When Apple launched the MacBook Pro in 2006, they did offer the equal option of glossy or matte. The next major refresh Apple reported that people overwhelmingly chose glossy.
So it is more economical for Apple to offer only glossy if that is truly what most people chose.
I had to return a MBP that one of my clients ordered, even after specifying anti-reflective screen model, since the default order option the sales agent took down was 'glossy'. They do seem trained to push glossy.
I cannot say how or what numbers you or Apple refer to in the fairly generalized statement that people overwhelmingly preferred glossy. (as always, particular statistics can be used to support most any position.)
I am not saying that we should have only anti-reflective. Let some folks have glossy screens. Fine by me.
Just saying that I, the clients I work for and with, the other users I talk to, and the many comments I read in posts and articles -- and the further justification provided by products like the TechRestore swap-out-glossy-replace-anti-reflective -- all show there is a significant, non-trivial number of people who actually do prefer anti-reflective.
Call it non-glare, call it matte, whatever, just please give us the option to order it as an in-place, order-time option.
And I continue to wonder where all the ergonomic people and studies are now, why have they gone silent, when years back they were all over the glare-prone CRTs.
I'm trying to decide between the previous generation 20" and the current entry level 20" iMac. Will I be losing out on much by chosing an ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT w/128 MB GDDR3 memory over the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M w/256 MB DDR3 shared SDRAM memory?
The cost-saving here where I am will be quite substantial if buying the previous generation entry level 20" iMac, but at the same time I want to be sure it's "future proof" for several years to come.
I don't find either the 2400 or 9400 particularly impressive, but as long as you don't plan on running the latest games (or even older ones) at high res and texture quality, there aren't most things you can't run. I run Aperture 2 on my Mini (GMA 950), and the only time I complain about performance, is when running that - everything else is pretty good.
I have a HD 2600 Pro in my PC, and it barely out paces my old 6800 LE, and the only reason I don't care, is that it's DX10, about the last gasp for AGP, and only cost me $25. I think it might be able to run something like CoD 4 at 1024x768 fine, but that's about it. It has 512 MB of vRAM BTW. (for games, I really just use my 360).
As far as future-proof, they seem to be doing incremental C2D updates, and graphics updates, so the real world differences are probably pretty slight between the old and new iMacs.
I'm trying to decide between the previous generation 20" and the current entry level 20" iMac. Will I be losing out on much by chosing an ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT w/128 MB GDDR3 memory over the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M w/256 MB DDR3 shared SDRAM memory?
The cost-saving here where I am will be quite substantial if buying the previous generation entry level 20" iMac, but at the same time I want to be sure it's "future proof" for several years to come.
The 9400M is definitely slower than the 2400XT.
My tests:
Cinebench OpenGL test
MacBook 2ghz 9400M
~4000
iMac 20" 2.4ghz 2400XT
~4900
Xbench
MacBook 2ghz 9400M
Quartz: 157 OpenGL: 138
iMac 20" 2.4ghz 2400XT
Quartz: 170 OpenGL: 180
As for OpenCL and Snow Leopard, I think it's another year before we really see the benefits of that... And we don't know if the 2000-series ATI will be supported or not, it could be, it may not be.
I cannot advise on what is good for your needs, as everyone has different concept of their (or others) computing needs, and what money they are willing to spend for those needs.
Given that many people do have older Macs, and buy used/refurbs it would seem safe to say that older Macs do satisfy many people's computer needs.
On the topic of screens - ALL the new iMacs in the Aluminum generations, including the newest ("Early 2009") models are GLOSSY and REFLECTIVE. -- Just look at the reflections either in actual store, or in the many photos published, esp the 'unboxing' sets - the reflections are quite evident.
There is NO matte or anti-glare screen option from Apple.
If you (or I for that matter) were to get one of the Aluminum iMacs, I would be using and recommending one of the after-market anti-reflective add-ons that can be purchased from a few companies. The product is a thin plastic film that sticks onto the front glass by static, so no damage is done to the display.
Hope this helps.
Thanks!
I am still considering.... The more I read about all these GLOSSY screens (either on iMac or MBP) the more I feel it wouldn't be the worst deal - to get that (2 years old) iMac with improved specs (from the standard version) and MATTE screen...
So, once again, it's used (by a pro photographer in the office, I as got to know), said to be in a good condition (I'd have to see and check out by myself anyway, of course):
As i said, specs are better than the standard version was back then (2.16 Ghz, 1 Gb RAM, GeForce 7300GT with 128 Mb RAM, 250 Gb HDD)
My main needs are:
- photo editing (now in PS, but then I might try Aperture 2, too)
- video editing (video transfer from MiniDV camcorder, editing, compressing etc., DVD authoring)
- some little gaming maybe (but that's not important if its GPU can't run the latest and "toughest" 3-d shooters or something at the best quality settings - I don't care)
It's price is about half of the new iMac price, maybe even less than a half. The price IS important to me. I'm not sure if I will be able even to afford the new iMac or MPR (with at least the similar specs) in nearest future. But this price (for the 2 years old etc) seems to be much more real to me... and yes, I need the computer ASAP.
I'm not sure if there's any left. I didn't worry about it anyway because the warranty was 2 years. Well, I'll ask if I'll go to take a look at the sale... But an iMac is 2 years, so it might be ended.
Apple did not give any specific numbers, they simply stated that an overwhelming number of people chose glossy.
There may be a significant number of people who prefer matte, I don't know. What I do know is if that were true Apple would be risking sales by going all glossy. But the simple truth is that Apple has only sold more computers since using glossy screens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Young
I cannot say how or what numbers you or Apple refer to in the fairly generalized statement that people overwhelmingly preferred glossy. (as always, particular statistics can be used to support most any position.)
Just saying that I, the clients I work for and with, the other users I talk to, and the many comments I read in posts and articles -- and the further justification provided by products like the TechRestore swap-out-glossy-replace-anti-reflective -- all show there is a significant, non-trivial number of people who actually do prefer anti-reflective.
None of us can really make the final decision for you. Buying a used machine out of warranty is always somewhat of a gamble. But if the older iMac is what you can afford then yes go for it.
I've been reading as much as possible about this topic and figured I would post a question.
I've been working on towers my entire professional career as a computer illustrator (14 years). I work mostly in Photoshop and Illustrator and a lot of my files can get rather large. Up to 2-3gb at times. I currently have a 30" Cinema Display and a 19" LCD. My tower just decided to "fry" this weekend, weird sound and then poof, shut down and a horrible smell came out from the back. So needless to say I'm in the market for a new computer ASAP!
I was all ready to order a new 8-Core Mac Pro with the 8gb of ram (and then order another 8 from an outside vendor) and the upgraded ATI video card. So at those specs we are talking $3600 before adding the additional 8gb of ram and tax. So I started thinking about an iMac. The 24" 3.06 model and upgrading to the ATI video card as well. It's considerably cheaper! But I'd only want to get the 4gb of ram since upgrading to 8 would be way too expensive. (about $700 more)
So I'm concerned that the 4gb of ram will just not be enough for the larger Photoshop files. The wait time for the iMac ATI models is 4-6 weeks and 2-3 weeks for the Mac Pros, which is a really long wait considering I need a computer now. I'm also wondering how big of a speed difference I would be able to feel between the two. I work on a 2x3ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon Mac Tower at work right now and I don't want to feel like I'm working on a slower computer at home. I have the latest edition of Photoshop CS4 as well. I also do a little video stuff and play the occasional game but most of the time is spent in PS & Illustrator.
None of us can really make the final decision for you. Buying a used machine out of warranty is always somewhat of a gamble. But if the older iMac is what you can afford then yes go for it.
I checked the machine today. It's got some light grey spots under the glass, which are... about 10-15% transparent (if compared to white...black where white is 0% and black ia 100%) . The seller couldn't tell what were those from, when appeared etc. Anyway, he lowered the price by 20-25% (which now is approx. 1/3 of a new iMac with similar specs). So now there's a dilemma - take it or not. The price is great, and those spots are more of a visual defect which wouldn't really affect the actual work... It's just that they are there... Other than that - iMac seemed to work OK. What a choice...
I think an in-store visit is needed for that iMac LCD vs Apple LED Monitor. I'll be putting that on my compare list next time I get over to one.
The big question of why Apple (and most models from other computer makers) have gone in a veritable stampede --lemming style-- to the glossy LCD screens is somewhat of a mystery to me.
Back in the CRT days, screen reflectiveness was studied a lot, and eventually, most CRTs either switched to anti-reflective, or had some sort of option to get a anti-reflective, non-glare surface. It was shown in many studies to be better for workers eyes/ ergonomics.
(I worked on both kinds back then. And technically, the anti-reflective screen surface is not really 'matte', a term which applies more to the physical surface of photographs, etc. Though we know what you mean.)
The non-reflective LCD panels I have used seem to be far better ergonomically than the glossy. The glossy ones I have used and tested are, to me, distracting to have to focus away from what is reflected (lights, windows, other people, etc) and onto the screen pixel display. And require a lot of fussing with angles and lights positioning.
What I have heard from reps is a range from 'oh, eventually, you'll just learn to ignore the reflections' to 'angle it properly to minimize reflections' to 'huh, what reflection' to 'it really makes the colors pop'.
Yeah, well pop this! (ahemm, back to reasonableness... apparently you hit my hot button ... )
All sidestepping the real question of who thinks it is truly "better", why is it "better", for whom, and why are there no options for anti-reflective for the users who wish it.
My guess is that glossy screens are cheaper for the computer manufacturer (Apple included), that LCD manufacturers find glossy easier to make one a single production line for both HDTV and computer LCD monitors, thus cutting their manufacturing variables down. And recall the Apple marketing release of the Aluminum iMacs really pushed terms like 'shiny' and 'pop' -- as if those were good things in and of themselves -- trying to get us to believe.
It all seems to say that they don't really care about ergonomics and eye relief of their customers any more. Basically a sad, arrogant new trend. At least for those of us with eyes to see. (so to speak)
Re. processors and possible earlier next iMac revision... I think most of the discussion and articles I have seen indicate that higher end cpu chips were just too hot for the thin iMac case with its limitations on heat dissipation. SSD certainly cooler than a spinning HD, though way more expensive for now. But I too hope there will be a sooner than later iMac revision with a substantial cpu upgrade, AND with a non-reflective option.
I've been reading as much as possible about this topic and figured I would post a question.
I've been working on towers my entire professional career as a computer illustrator (14 years). I work mostly in Photoshop and Illustrator and a lot of my files can get rather large. Up to 2-3gb at times. I currently have a 30" Cinema Display and a 19" LCD. My tower just decided to "fry" this weekend, weird sound and then poof, shut down and a horrible smell came out from the back. So needless to say I'm in the market for a new computer ASAP!
I was all ready to order a new 8-Core Mac Pro with the 8gb of ram (and then order another 8 from an outside vendor) and the upgraded ATI video card. So at those specs we are talking $3600 before adding the additional 8gb of ram and tax. So I started thinking about an iMac. The 24" 3.06 model and upgrading to the ATI video card as well. It's considerably cheaper! But I'd only want to get the 4gb of ram since upgrading to 8 would be way too expensive. (about $700 more)
So I'm concerned that the 4gb of ram will just not be enough for the larger Photoshop files. The wait time for the iMac ATI models is 4-6 weeks and 2-3 weeks for the Mac Pros, which is a really long wait considering I need a computer now. I'm also wondering how big of a speed difference I would be able to feel between the two. I work on a 2x3ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon Mac Tower at work right now and I don't want to feel like I'm working on a slower computer at home. I have the latest edition of Photoshop CS4 as well. I also do a little video stuff and play the occasional game but most of the time is spent in PS & Illustrator.
Well anyway, thanks in advance for any help!
Jamie
Just sounds like the power supply has gone. No idea if these are easily replacable in Apple computers, but a typical PC one would set you back about $100, so certainly a lot cheaper than a new computer!
I checked the machine today. It's got some light grey spots under the glass...
Upd:
Decided not to buy that one. Those "spots" doesn't look good at all - a bad sign for a used screen, IMHO... (and you can't just replace the screen in iMac)
Comments
Can anyone please advise if they have come across any website whether the new imac can be configured to run dual monitors or we have to software 'crack' the imac as before to have the 'additional' desktop space?
By the way, is this a good iMac (for my needs, for example)? ...
P.s. Do the new iMacs come with matte screen or they're all glossy?
I cannot advise on what is good for your needs, as everyone has different concept of their (or others) computing needs, and what money they are willing to spend for those needs.
Given that many people do have older Macs, and buy used/refurbs it would seem safe to say that older Macs do satisfy many people's computer needs.
On the topic of screens - ALL the new iMacs in the Aluminum generations, including the newest ("Early 2009") models are GLOSSY and REFLECTIVE. -- Just look at the reflections either in actual store, or in the many photos published, esp the 'unboxing' sets - the reflections are quite evident.
There is NO matte or anti-glare screen option from Apple.
If you (or I for that matter) were to get one of the Aluminum iMacs, I would be using and recommending one of the after-market anti-reflective add-ons that can be purchased from a few companies. The product is a thin plastic film that sticks onto the front glass by static, so no damage is done to the display.
Hope this helps.
As for the 9400M, it might be able to outperform the old discrete ATI card on a number of areas, but certainly not on the memory bandwidth front, so I would call it no improvement.
Can you please explain this in layman's terms.
I'm trying to decide between the previous generation 20" and the current entry level 20" iMac. Will I be losing out on much by chosing an ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT w/128 MB GDDR3 memory over the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M w/256 MB DDR3 shared SDRAM memory?
The cost-saving here where I am will be quite substantial if buying the previous generation entry level 20" iMac, but at the same time I want to be sure it's "future proof" for several years to come.
How does the Imac 24" screen look when compared to the 24" LED Stand alone? Does the LED spec make for an improved color balance?
Has anyone actually gotten an explantion *from apple* as to why they've gone the glossy route in spite of the huge negative customer feedback? Are there any benefits other than esthetics dictated by the marketing dept.?
I was hoping for a quad processor option or a Core i7 Processor as found on the new macpros. (is this to avoid stepping onto the turf of the Macpro)
Would an SSD option make any sense in an Imac?( faster boot up , less mechanical wear & tear etc...)
Anybody feel as though this release is an intermediary step before a short to midterm redesign that would include these options?
Thanx for any informed thoughts.
HI
How does the Imac 24" screen look when compared to the 24" LED Stand alone? Does the LED spec make for an improved color balance?
Has anyone actually gotten an explantion *from apple* as to why they've gone the glossy route in spite of the huge negative customer feedback? Are there any benefits other than esthetics dictated by the marketing dept.?
I was hoping for a quad processor option or a Core i7 Processor as found on the new macpros. (is this to avoid stepping onto the turf of the Macpro)
Would an SSD option make any sense in an Imac?( faster boot up , less mechanical wear & tear etc...)
Anybody feel as though this release is an intermediary step before a short to midterm redesign that would include these options?
Thanx for any informed thoughts.
Good questions.
I think an in-store visit is needed for that iMac LCD vs Apple LED Monitor. I'll be putting that on my compare list next time I get over to one.
The big question of why Apple (and most models from other computer makers) have gone in a veritable stampede --lemming style-- to the glossy LCD screens is somewhat of a mystery to me.
Back in the CRT days, screen reflectiveness was studied a lot, and eventually, most CRTs either switched to anti-reflective, or had some sort of option to get a anti-reflective, non-glare surface. It was shown in many studies to be better for workers eyes/ ergonomics.
(I worked on both kinds back then. And technically, the anti-reflective screen surface is not really 'matte', a term which applies more to the physical surface of photographs, etc. Though we know what you mean.)
The non-reflective LCD panels I have used seem to be far better ergonomically than the glossy. The glossy ones I have used and tested are, to me, distracting to have to focus away from what is reflected (lights, windows, other people, etc) and onto the screen pixel display. And require a lot of fussing with angles and lights positioning.
What I have heard from reps is a range from 'oh, eventually, you'll just learn to ignore the reflections' to 'angle it properly to minimize reflections' to 'huh, what reflection' to 'it really makes the colors pop'.
Yeah, well pop this! (ahemm, back to reasonableness... apparently you hit my hot button ...
All sidestepping the real question of who thinks it is truly "better", why is it "better", for whom, and why are there no options for anti-reflective for the users who wish it.
My guess is that glossy screens are cheaper for the computer manufacturer (Apple included), that LCD manufacturers find glossy easier to make one a single production line for both HDTV and computer LCD monitors, thus cutting their manufacturing variables down. And recall the Apple marketing release of the Aluminum iMacs really pushed terms like 'shiny' and 'pop' -- as if those were good things in and of themselves -- trying to get us to believe.
It all seems to say that they don't really care about ergonomics and eye relief of their customers any more. Basically a sad, arrogant new trend. At least for those of us with eyes to see. (so to speak)
Re. processors and possible earlier next iMac revision... I think most of the discussion and articles I have seen indicate that higher end cpu chips were just too hot for the thin iMac case with its limitations on heat dissipation. SSD certainly cooler than a spinning HD, though way more expensive for now. But I too hope there will be a sooner than later iMac revision with a substantial cpu upgrade, AND with a non-reflective option.
So it is more economical for Apple to offer only glossy if that is truly what most people chose.
My guess is that glossy screens are cheaper for the computer manufacturer (Apple included), that LCD manufacturers find glossy easier to make one a single production line for both HDTV and computer LCD monitors, thus cutting their manufacturing variables down. And recall the Apple marketing release of the Aluminum iMacs really pushed terms like 'shiny' and 'pop' -- as if those were good things in and of themselves -- trying to get us to believe.
It all seems to say that they don't really care about ergonomics and eye relief of their customers any more. Basically a sad, arrogant new trend. At least for those of us with eyes to see. (so to speak)
When Apple launched the MacBook Pro in 2006, they did offer the equal option of glossy or matte. The next major refresh Apple reported that people overwhelmingly chose glossy.
So it is more economical for Apple to offer only glossy if that is truly what most people chose.
I had to return a MBP that one of my clients ordered, even after specifying anti-reflective screen model, since the default order option the sales agent took down was 'glossy'. They do seem trained to push glossy.
I cannot say how or what numbers you or Apple refer to in the fairly generalized statement that people overwhelmingly preferred glossy. (as always, particular statistics can be used to support most any position.)
I am not saying that we should have only anti-reflective. Let some folks have glossy screens. Fine by me.
Just saying that I, the clients I work for and with, the other users I talk to, and the many comments I read in posts and articles -- and the further justification provided by products like the TechRestore swap-out-glossy-replace-anti-reflective -- all show there is a significant, non-trivial number of people who actually do prefer anti-reflective.
Call it non-glare, call it matte, whatever, just please give us the option to order it as an in-place, order-time option.
And I continue to wonder where all the ergonomic people and studies are now, why have they gone silent, when years back they were all over the glare-prone CRTs.
Can you please explain this in layman's terms.
I'm trying to decide between the previous generation 20" and the current entry level 20" iMac. Will I be losing out on much by chosing an ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT w/128 MB GDDR3 memory over the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M w/256 MB DDR3 shared SDRAM memory?
The cost-saving here where I am will be quite substantial if buying the previous generation entry level 20" iMac, but at the same time I want to be sure it's "future proof" for several years to come.
I don't find either the 2400 or 9400 particularly impressive, but as long as you don't plan on running the latest games (or even older ones) at high res and texture quality, there aren't most things you can't run. I run Aperture 2 on my Mini (GMA 950), and the only time I complain about performance, is when running that - everything else is pretty good.
I have a HD 2600 Pro in my PC, and it barely out paces my old 6800 LE, and the only reason I don't care, is that it's DX10, about the last gasp for AGP, and only cost me $25. I think it might be able to run something like CoD 4 at 1024x768 fine, but that's about it. It has 512 MB of vRAM BTW. (for games, I really just use my 360).
As far as future-proof, they seem to be doing incremental C2D updates, and graphics updates, so the real world differences are probably pretty slight between the old and new iMacs.
Can you please explain this in layman's terms.
I'm trying to decide between the previous generation 20" and the current entry level 20" iMac. Will I be losing out on much by chosing an ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT w/128 MB GDDR3 memory over the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M w/256 MB DDR3 shared SDRAM memory?
The cost-saving here where I am will be quite substantial if buying the previous generation entry level 20" iMac, but at the same time I want to be sure it's "future proof" for several years to come.
The 9400M is definitely slower than the 2400XT.
My tests:
Cinebench OpenGL test
MacBook 2ghz 9400M
~4000
iMac 20" 2.4ghz 2400XT
~4900
Xbench
MacBook 2ghz 9400M
Quartz: 157 OpenGL: 138
iMac 20" 2.4ghz 2400XT
Quartz: 170 OpenGL: 180
As for OpenCL and Snow Leopard, I think it's another year before we really see the benefits of that... And we don't know if the 2000-series ATI will be supported or not, it could be, it may not be.
Buy the previous generation 20" iMac with 2400XT.
I cannot advise on what is good for your needs, as everyone has different concept of their (or others) computing needs, and what money they are willing to spend for those needs.
Given that many people do have older Macs, and buy used/refurbs it would seem safe to say that older Macs do satisfy many people's computer needs.
On the topic of screens - ALL the new iMacs in the Aluminum generations, including the newest ("Early 2009") models are GLOSSY and REFLECTIVE. -- Just look at the reflections either in actual store, or in the many photos published, esp the 'unboxing' sets - the reflections are quite evident.
There is NO matte or anti-glare screen option from Apple.
If you (or I for that matter) were to get one of the Aluminum iMacs, I would be using and recommending one of the after-market anti-reflective add-ons that can be purchased from a few companies. The product is a thin plastic film that sticks onto the front glass by static, so no damage is done to the display.
Hope this helps.
Thanks!
I am still considering.... The more I read about all these GLOSSY screens (either on iMac or MBP) the more I feel it wouldn't be the worst deal - to get that (2 years old) iMac with improved specs (from the standard version) and MATTE screen...
So, once again, it's used (by a pro photographer in the office, I as got to know), said to be in a good condition (I'd have to see and check out by myself anyway, of course):
iMac 24" 2.33 C2D (this one, I guess)
White, upgraded version
2.33 Ghz Core 2 Duo
3Gb RAM
500 Gb HDD
NVidia GeForce 7600 GT (probably 256 Mb RAM)
MATTE screen
As i said, specs are better than the standard version was back then (2.16 Ghz, 1 Gb RAM, GeForce 7300GT with 128 Mb RAM, 250 Gb HDD)
My main needs are:
- photo editing (now in PS, but then I might try Aperture 2, too)
- video editing (video transfer from MiniDV camcorder, editing, compressing etc., DVD authoring)
- some little gaming maybe (but that's not important if its GPU can't run the latest and "toughest" 3-d shooters or something at the best quality settings - I don't care)
It's price is about half of the new iMac price, maybe even less than a half. The price IS important to me. I'm not sure if I will be able even to afford the new iMac or MPR (with at least the similar specs) in nearest future. But this price (for the 2 years old etc) seems to be much more real to me... and yes, I need the computer ASAP.
So..., should I go for it...?
How much warranty does it have left on it?
I'm not sure if there's any left. I didn't worry about it anyway because the warranty was 2 years. Well, I'll ask if I'll go to take a look at the sale... But an iMac is 2 years, so it might be ended.
There may be a significant number of people who prefer matte, I don't know. What I do know is if that were true Apple would be risking sales by going all glossy. But the simple truth is that Apple has only sold more computers since using glossy screens.
I cannot say how or what numbers you or Apple refer to in the fairly generalized statement that people overwhelmingly preferred glossy. (as always, particular statistics can be used to support most any position.)
Just saying that I, the clients I work for and with, the other users I talk to, and the many comments I read in posts and articles -- and the further justification provided by products like the TechRestore swap-out-glossy-replace-anti-reflective -- all show there is a significant, non-trivial number of people who actually do prefer anti-reflective.
So..., should I go for it...?
I've been working on towers my entire professional career as a computer illustrator (14 years). I work mostly in Photoshop and Illustrator and a lot of my files can get rather large. Up to 2-3gb at times. I currently have a 30" Cinema Display and a 19" LCD. My tower just decided to "fry" this weekend, weird sound and then poof, shut down and a horrible smell came out from the back. So needless to say I'm in the market for a new computer ASAP!
I was all ready to order a new 8-Core Mac Pro with the 8gb of ram (and then order another 8 from an outside vendor) and the upgraded ATI video card. So at those specs we are talking $3600 before adding the additional 8gb of ram and tax. So I started thinking about an iMac. The 24" 3.06 model and upgrading to the ATI video card as well. It's considerably cheaper! But I'd only want to get the 4gb of ram since upgrading to 8 would be way too expensive. (about $700 more)
So I'm concerned that the 4gb of ram will just not be enough for the larger Photoshop files. The wait time for the iMac ATI models is 4-6 weeks and 2-3 weeks for the Mac Pros, which is a really long wait considering I need a computer now. I'm also wondering how big of a speed difference I would be able to feel between the two. I work on a 2x3ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon Mac Tower at work right now and I don't want to feel like I'm working on a slower computer at home. I have the latest edition of Photoshop CS4 as well. I also do a little video stuff and play the occasional game but most of the time is spent in PS & Illustrator.
Well anyway, thanks in advance for any help!
Jamie
None of us can really make the final decision for you. Buying a used machine out of warranty is always somewhat of a gamble. But if the older iMac is what you can afford then yes go for it.
I checked the machine today. It's got some light grey spots under the glass, which are... about 10-15% transparent (if compared to white...black where white is 0% and black ia 100%) . The seller couldn't tell what were those from, when appeared etc. Anyway, he lowered the price by 20-25% (which now is approx. 1/3 of a new iMac with similar specs). So now there's a dilemma - take it or not. The price is great, and those spots are more of a visual defect which wouldn't really affect the actual work... It's just that they are there... Other than that - iMac seemed to work OK. What a choice...
Good questions.
I think an in-store visit is needed for that iMac LCD vs Apple LED Monitor. I'll be putting that on my compare list next time I get over to one.
The big question of why Apple (and most models from other computer makers) have gone in a veritable stampede --lemming style-- to the glossy LCD screens is somewhat of a mystery to me.
Back in the CRT days, screen reflectiveness was studied a lot, and eventually, most CRTs either switched to anti-reflective, or had some sort of option to get a anti-reflective, non-glare surface. It was shown in many studies to be better for workers eyes/ ergonomics.
(I worked on both kinds back then. And technically, the anti-reflective screen surface is not really 'matte', a term which applies more to the physical surface of photographs, etc. Though we know what you mean.)
The non-reflective LCD panels I have used seem to be far better ergonomically than the glossy. The glossy ones I have used and tested are, to me, distracting to have to focus away from what is reflected (lights, windows, other people, etc) and onto the screen pixel display. And require a lot of fussing with angles and lights positioning.
What I have heard from reps is a range from 'oh, eventually, you'll just learn to ignore the reflections' to 'angle it properly to minimize reflections' to 'huh, what reflection' to 'it really makes the colors pop'.
Yeah, well pop this! (ahemm, back to reasonableness... apparently you hit my hot button ...
All sidestepping the real question of who thinks it is truly "better", why is it "better", for whom, and why are there no options for anti-reflective for the users who wish it.
My guess is that glossy screens are cheaper for the computer manufacturer (Apple included), that LCD manufacturers find glossy easier to make one a single production line for both HDTV and computer LCD monitors, thus cutting their manufacturing variables down. And recall the Apple marketing release of the Aluminum iMacs really pushed terms like 'shiny' and 'pop' -- as if those were good things in and of themselves -- trying to get us to believe.
It all seems to say that they don't really care about ergonomics and eye relief of their customers any more. Basically a sad, arrogant new trend. At least for those of us with eyes to see. (so to speak)
Re. processors and possible earlier next iMac revision... I think most of the discussion and articles I have seen indicate that higher end cpu chips were just too hot for the thin iMac case with its limitations on heat dissipation. SSD certainly cooler than a spinning HD, though way more expensive for now. But I too hope there will be a sooner than later iMac revision with a substantial cpu upgrade, AND with a non-reflective option.
thanx
I've been reading as much as possible about this topic and figured I would post a question.
I've been working on towers my entire professional career as a computer illustrator (14 years). I work mostly in Photoshop and Illustrator and a lot of my files can get rather large. Up to 2-3gb at times. I currently have a 30" Cinema Display and a 19" LCD. My tower just decided to "fry" this weekend, weird sound and then poof, shut down and a horrible smell came out from the back. So needless to say I'm in the market for a new computer ASAP!
I was all ready to order a new 8-Core Mac Pro with the 8gb of ram (and then order another 8 from an outside vendor) and the upgraded ATI video card. So at those specs we are talking $3600 before adding the additional 8gb of ram and tax. So I started thinking about an iMac. The 24" 3.06 model and upgrading to the ATI video card as well. It's considerably cheaper! But I'd only want to get the 4gb of ram since upgrading to 8 would be way too expensive. (about $700 more)
So I'm concerned that the 4gb of ram will just not be enough for the larger Photoshop files. The wait time for the iMac ATI models is 4-6 weeks and 2-3 weeks for the Mac Pros, which is a really long wait considering I need a computer now. I'm also wondering how big of a speed difference I would be able to feel between the two. I work on a 2x3ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon Mac Tower at work right now and I don't want to feel like I'm working on a slower computer at home. I have the latest edition of Photoshop CS4 as well. I also do a little video stuff and play the occasional game but most of the time is spent in PS & Illustrator.
Well anyway, thanks in advance for any help!
Jamie
Just sounds like the power supply has gone. No idea if these are easily replacable in Apple computers, but a typical PC one would set you back about $100, so certainly a lot cheaper than a new computer!
I checked the machine today. It's got some light grey spots under the glass...
Upd:
Decided not to buy that one. Those "spots" doesn't look good at all - a bad sign for a used screen, IMHO... (and you can't just replace the screen in iMac)
Will have to hold on for a while.