If you think it's fugly then you really have a unique view on what attractive is. But, then again, to each his/her own. I suppose you think, say, Marisa Miller is hideous?
I'd like to know how many of you whiners use your Macs for anything more than social networking, browsing and email downloading porn etc...???
I'd like to know how much PURCHASED professional software you use on a full time basis that requires more than a Macbook...I'd like to know if you've ever in your pathetic whining lives ever needed more computing power than any of the new Macs offer....
I'd be willing to bet that most of the whiners here haven't even a clue, but will complain anyway, just because the internet affords every dog a throne ...
These machines are definately perfectly adequate for most users, but at the price Apple is asking... bang for your buck is WEAK.
It's been over a year sonce the last refresh and some of these "spec bumps" will be downgrades for a lot of people. Especially if you live overseas and prices didn't go down at all...
I'd like to know how many of you whiners use your Macs for anything more than social networking, browsing and email downloading porn etc...???
I'd like to know how much PURCHASED professional software you use on a full time basis that requires more than a Macbook...I'd like to know if you've ever in your pathetic whining lives ever needed more computing power than any of the new Macs offer....
I'd be willing to bet that most of the whiners here haven't even a clue, but will complain anyway, just because the internet affords every dog a throne ...
Well said! I work as an editor of magazines in Europe and, on any given day at work, I am running Quark and Photoshop (downloading and processing large photo files) and at the same time have all the usual applications open (Microsoft Office for Mac), numerous websites, my email client etc, and have open access to my company's FTP site...
... I use an iMac that is about two years old and the speed is, well, speedy. I'd love to know what apps people on this forum are running that they find the new hardware too slow for their daily use!
Edit: And regarding bang for buck, I have never had a problem paying more for:
a) A rock-solid machine that hardly ever fooks up on me
b) The best operating system I've come across
c) A desktop computer (and my new MacBook) that is beautiful to look at and thus a joy to use each day
By your reasoning most people buying Macs don't deserve to use a Mac.
Not at all...the point I was trying to illustrate was that most people love to complain about everything. Most of those that complain, frankly don't even have a need for the processing power that a a Mac mini has, because they use their macs for everyday routine stuff that can certainly sufficiently run well with minimal power - but they have plenty to spout crap about anyway....
Well said! I work as an editor of magazines in Europe and, on any given day at work, I am running Quark and Photoshop (downloading and processing large photo files) and at the same time have all the usual applications open (Microsoft Office for Mac), numerous websites, my email client etc, and have open access to my company's FTP site...
... I use an iMac that is about two years old and the speed is, well, speedy. I'd love to know what apps people on this forum are running that they find the new hardware too slow for their daily use!
It's about perceived value for money. Most PC users don't need a Core i7 but why is there so much hype about it?
Wow I was really hoping/expecting they would have LED displays. Big disappointment!!! Although, the specs and pricing look pretty decent for the low-end 24" model.
Except what sort of graphics power can you expect from a GPU that is meant for a 13" laptop?
YES I do need the power every other manufacturer offers. After 16 years as a Mac user, I'm making the jump to the dark side.
Going even further, I'll suggest Apple will drop their desktop line soon. They're plainly only interested in selling 'phones and music players. I can't wait until 2010 for the next upgrade.
It's about perceived value for money. Most PC users don't need a Core i7 but why is there so much hype about it?
I am sure you're right. Most of the Mac users I know (in the publishing industry) buy them for the reasons I stated regarding bang for buck.
The simple answer, I guess, is that if you want the kind of processing power needed to work out Quantum Mechanics, then your best bet is to buy a Dell or the like. My wife's Dell laptop is insanely powerful....
... she uses Microsoft Office and Lotus Notes... and that's it. It's soooo much cheaper than a Mac, but when she gets home it's the Dell that stays in its bag and she fires up my MacBook.
Except what sort of graphics power can you expect from a GPU that is meant for a 13" laptop?
The same sort of graphics that is present on the new MB, Mac Mini and the MBPs when the discrete GPU is turned off. The 9400Ms have shown to be considerably better than the many of the discrete GPUs Apple have used in the past.
But that is besides the point. Don't forget that the iMac is a desktop made svelte by using notebook-grade parts. Historically, except for the display and HDD all the major components have been notebook-grade. The inclusion of Core i7 surprises me. I am curious if Apple is underclocking them and/or has implemented a new cooling method. I look forward to iFixit.com's thorough dissection.
So, there you have it... same old display technology... horrendous 20'' TN LCD with narrow viewing angles and brightness gradient and sort of average 24'' LCD with a few problems of its own as well... why on earth didn't they upgrade the displays to LED, like on every other recent Apple product?! It doesn't make any sense...
Definitely an upgrade to ignore... something better will come.
True but aesthetically speaking the iMac is a great looking machine - there are going to be people who don't like it because of the screen but by all accounts (tech reviews) it's a gorgeous piece of machinery.
People need to not be as disappointed about a Quad-Core system as they are now. There are not any fast quad core all in ones out there. Apple doesn't have a mid tower, that should be the discussion going on, not about a quad core iMac.
Comments
So, no big leap from my point of view and my iMac is still an extremely relevant Apple Computer, that serves me extremely well.
I am really surprised though, that Apple did not incorporate the LED displays in any of these machines.
That one's got me scratching my head.
If you think it's fugly then you really have a unique view on what attractive is. But, then again, to each his/her own. I suppose you think, say, Marisa Miller is hideous?
No LED backlighting. Naughty on Apple's part.
I'd like to know how many of you whiners use your Macs for anything more than social networking, browsing and email downloading porn etc...???
I'd like to know how much PURCHASED professional software you use on a full time basis that requires more than a Macbook...I'd like to know if you've ever in your pathetic whining lives ever needed more computing power than any of the new Macs offer....
I'd be willing to bet that most of the whiners here haven't even a clue, but will complain anyway, just because the internet affords every dog a throne ...
These machines are definately perfectly adequate for most users, but at the price Apple is asking... bang for your buck is WEAK.
It's been over a year sonce the last refresh and some of these "spec bumps" will be downgrades for a lot of people. Especially if you live overseas and prices didn't go down at all...
I'd like to know how many of you whiners use your Macs for anything more than social networking, browsing and email downloading porn etc...???
I'd like to know how much PURCHASED professional software you use on a full time basis that requires more than a Macbook...I'd like to know if you've ever in your pathetic whining lives ever needed more computing power than any of the new Macs offer....
I'd be willing to bet that most of the whiners here haven't even a clue, but will complain anyway, just because the internet affords every dog a throne ...
Well said! I work as an editor of magazines in Europe and, on any given day at work, I am running Quark and Photoshop (downloading and processing large photo files) and at the same time have all the usual applications open (Microsoft Office for Mac), numerous websites, my email client etc, and have open access to my company's FTP site...
... I use an iMac that is about two years old and the speed is, well, speedy. I'd love to know what apps people on this forum are running that they find the new hardware too slow for their daily use!
Edit: And regarding bang for buck, I have never had a problem paying more for:
a) A rock-solid machine that hardly ever fooks up on me
b) The best operating system I've come across
c) A desktop computer (and my new MacBook) that is beautiful to look at and thus a joy to use each day
I'm not too surprised.....Actually feel good since I purchased my iMac 24" 3.06Ghz Aluminum last June '08.
So, no big leap from my point of view and my iMac is still an extremely relevant Apple Computer, that serves me extremely well.
I am really surprised though, that Apple did not incorporate the LED displays in any of these machines.
That one's got me scratching my head.
Yup, you've got a nice iMac there.
By your reasoning most people buying Macs don't deserve to use a Mac.
Not at all...the point I was trying to illustrate was that most people love to complain about everything. Most of those that complain, frankly don't even have a need for the processing power that a a Mac mini has, because they use their macs for everyday routine stuff that can certainly sufficiently run well with minimal power - but they have plenty to spout crap about anyway....
Well said! I work as an editor of magazines in Europe and, on any given day at work, I am running Quark and Photoshop (downloading and processing large photo files) and at the same time have all the usual applications open (Microsoft Office for Mac), numerous websites, my email client etc, and have open access to my company's FTP site...
... I use an iMac that is about two years old and the speed is, well, speedy. I'd love to know what apps people on this forum are running that they find the new hardware too slow for their daily use!
It's about perceived value for money. Most PC users don't need a Core i7 but why is there so much hype about it?
Wow I was really hoping/expecting they would have LED displays. Big disappointment!!! Although, the specs and pricing look pretty decent for the low-end 24" model.
Except what sort of graphics power can you expect from a GPU that is meant for a 13" laptop?
This is purely a price point value refresh. We'll probably see a major update in the fall with new GPU and CPU.
On the surface they seem like the exact same motherboard chipset.
Thank you
YES I do need the power every other manufacturer offers. After 16 years as a Mac user, I'm making the jump to the dark side.
Going even further, I'll suggest Apple will drop their desktop line soon. They're plainly only interested in selling 'phones and music players. I can't wait until 2010 for the next upgrade.
aW67.
Does anyone know, if my iMac 3.06 from June '08 can support the 8GB's of memory that today's models do?
On the surface they seem like the exact same motherboard chipset.
Thank you
Your iMac uses a different chipset from today's model.
It's about perceived value for money. Most PC users don't need a Core i7 but why is there so much hype about it?
I am sure you're right. Most of the Mac users I know (in the publishing industry) buy them for the reasons I stated regarding bang for buck.
The simple answer, I guess, is that if you want the kind of processing power needed to work out Quantum Mechanics, then your best bet is to buy a Dell or the like. My wife's Dell laptop is insanely powerful....
... she uses Microsoft Office and Lotus Notes... and that's it. It's soooo much cheaper than a Mac, but when she gets home it's the Dell that stays in its bag and she fires up my MacBook.
Except what sort of graphics power can you expect from a GPU that is meant for a 13" laptop?
The same sort of graphics that is present on the new MB, Mac Mini and the MBPs when the discrete GPU is turned off. The 9400Ms have shown to be considerably better than the many of the discrete GPUs Apple have used in the past.
But that is besides the point. Don't forget that the iMac is a desktop made svelte by using notebook-grade parts. Historically, except for the display and HDD all the major components have been notebook-grade. The inclusion of Core i7 surprises me. I am curious if Apple is underclocking them and/or has implemented a new cooling method. I look forward to iFixit.com's thorough dissection.
Except what sort of graphics power can you expect from a GPU that is meant for a 13" laptop?
http://www.apple.com/imac/features.html
Apple claims the 9400M gets 2.3x the performance of the 2400XT on Call of Duty 4.
Definitely an upgrade to ignore... something better will come.
No LED backlighting. Naughty on Apple's part.
True but aesthetically speaking the iMac is a great looking machine - there are going to be people who don't like it because of the screen but by all accounts (tech reviews) it's a gorgeous piece of machinery.
WHAT A HORRIBLE UPDATE!
NO LED? NO BLU RAY? WHAT IS APPLE DOING?
the price of 2199$ US is 2599$ CDN LOL
NO THANKS!
Ps The exchange rate difference is not 40%
APPLE WANTS TO HOSE CUSTOMERS!
I'd pay a 10 to 15% difference not 40% for these specs.
My first post here - and maybe my last.
bye ...