Don't iMacs use mobile processors, not to mention, those quad-cores, even the 45 nm ones, give off quite a bit of heat and use up about 100 W or more.
.
The mobile quad cores that Intel will release later this year are supposed use 45w, IIRC, for a 2.5 ghz frequency. Who knows how much heat they will generate.
It is the ability to run multiple taxing apps at the same time that makes multicore worthwhile.
how well does '[running] multiple taxing apps' reflect the average usage pattern of an imac owner?
i think dual core technology is one of the greatest thing in personal computing ever - one core for your main app and one for background processes - but i wouldn't know what to do with the other two...?
i'd say the only type of consumer with would actually have any use of quad core computers would be the obsessive dvd-ripper...
Decision: I want to start by thanking everyone for their input. Well, weighing in everyone?s comments and that of my wife, I went ahead and bought the iMac (3.06 ghz, upgraded ram, video, size HD on 24?). We have a baby arriving any day and decided that it is important enough to be able to produce video quickly to send to family. My wimpy PC did not handle ACVHD video very well and the PC software available for that format is not robust. Plus, she wanted something she could easily use where she could also do the editing. I didn?t go for the MBP since we both already have powerful, work provided PC laptops; Mac Pro is too much on a couple of levels. In the near term, the only software that is graphic/processer hungry is my flight SIM, which is a big reason for the larger screen. It?s cheaper to stay current flying a SIM than actually flying (if you thought auto gas was high you should see aviation fuel).
Thanks again for everyone?s feedback , I look forward to getting back to using an Apple Computer (I had an Apple IIe when I was young, some of you kids may have seen them in a museum).
Decision: I want to start by thanking everyone for their input. Well, weighing in everyone?s comments and that of my wife, I went ahead and bought the iMac (3.06 ghz, upgraded ram, video, size HD on 24?). We have a baby arriving any day and decided that it is important enough to be able to produce video quickly to send to family. My wimpy PC did not handle ACVHD video very well and the PC software available for that format is not robust. Plus, she wanted something she could easily use where she could also do the editing. I didn?t go for the MBP since we both already have powerful, work provided PC laptops; Mac Pro is too much on a couple of levels. In the near term, the only software that is graphic/processer hungry is my flight SIM, which is a big reason for the larger screen. It?s cheaper to stay current flying a SIM than actually flying (if you thought auto gas was high you should see aviation fuel).
Thanks again for everyone?s feedback , I look forward to getting back to using an Apple Computer (I had an Apple IIe when I was young, some of you kids may have seen them in a museum).
You'll be happy. That's a nice machine. Melgross, who posts here quite a bit, bought two of those machines and seems to be very happy with them. While it isn't quad core it still is very capable.
You'll be happy. That's a nice machine. Melgross, who posts here quite a bit, bought two of those machines and seems to be very happy with them. While it isn't quad core it still is very capable.
There's a photographer that posts on photo.net who did some tests with his 8 core MacPro. The results show that for still photography the iMac is a smarter choice, because the MacPro offers no advantage for still photography. His tests, show most cores idle during the post processing of his images. Plus, he had multiple apps open during the tests, but since he wasn't actively using them, they weren't taxing performance, so the extra cores didn't benefit him. Video is another matter altogether.
When it comes to the 24", the 2.8 GHz vs the 3.06 GHz, the 3.06 GHz processors offer a 7% performance increase for a 22% cost increase. Naturally, the choice is up to the buyer, but it's widely accepted that the 2.8 GHz model offers a better value. I would add a couple of caveats to that. First, for resale value, the 3.06 model will command a higher selling price. Second, the extra processing speed MIGHT make a difference as far as whether or not the machine will work with new applications in the future. Case in point is Aperture 2, which requires a minimum iMac processor of 1.8 GHz, so the 1.6 GHz models of the same generation cannot use it.
There's a photographer that posts on photo.net who did some tests with his 8 core MacPro. The results show that for still photography the iMac is a smarter choice, because the MacPro offers no advantage for still photography. His tests, show most cores idle during the post processing of his images. Plus, he had multiple apps open during the tests, but since he wasn't actively using them, they weren't taxing performance, so the extra cores didn't benefit him. Video is another matter altogether.
When it comes to the 24", the 2.8 GHz vs the 3.06 GHz, the 3.06 GHz processors offer a 7% performance increase for a 22% cost increase. Naturally, the choice is up to the buyer, but it's widely accepted that the 2.8 GHz model offers a better value. I would add a couple of caveats to that. First, for resale value, the 3.06 model will command a higher selling price. Second, the extra processing speed MIGHT make a difference as far as whether or not the machine will work with new applications in the future. Case in point is Aperture 2, which requires a minimum iMac processor of 1.8 GHz, so the 1.6 GHz models of the same generation cannot use it.
I don't disagree with anything you've said.
Apple however, with grand central, and Intel as well (can't find link) are working hard to optimize software to take advantage of multiple cores. Hopefully they'll be successful.
Apple however, with grand central, and Intel as well (can't find link) are working hard to optimize software to take advantage of multiple cores. Hopefully they'll be successful.
Time will tell.
That is, of course, true. Some apps will benefit from multiple cores sooner than others. For instance, Adobe PS CS 4 will not, in the Mac version, but will in the Windoze version. We have to wait until PS CS 5 to get a Mac app capable of using a quad, or more, core machine. IOW, we're still a ways off from benefitting from multiple cores for most folks, unless they are doing video compression or scientific apps that can use those extra cores. Thus, for those not actually needing those extra cores right now, they're paying a high price for something that they have to wait for future software in order to take advantage of. How long in the future has my crystal ball clouded, suffice to say that such apps are being developed.
In the meantime, the iMac offers an excellent solution at approximately half the price of a MacPro. Personally, I would rather wait to buy a machine with multiple cores until there is more software available to use those cores. As always, YMMV.
In the meantime, the iMac offers an excellent solution at approximately half the price of a MacPro.
'Excellent' is pushing it. It's a good machine, but what pro wants to haul his desktop and 24" monitor into an Apple Store just to swap out a hard drive?
'Excellent' is pushing it. It's a good machine, but what pro wants to haul his desktop and 24" monitor into an Apple Store just to swap out a hard drive?
For those not wanting to schlep their iMac in for internal service, there is the alternative of paying double for a MacPro, to avoid such an inconvenience. Considering the cost difference, I'll make the trip to the Apple Store.
For those not wanting to schlep their iMac in for internal service, there is the alternative of paying double for a MacPro, to avoid such an inconvenience. Considering the cost difference, I'll make the trip to the Apple Store.
Yes, but considering that the iMac is just a MacBook Pro in different clothing, there was no good reason for Apple to inconvenience users like that.
It was done to protect Mac Pro sales (even more than not offering a headless machine), and has the side benefit of annoying the "xMac" posters in Future Hardware even more.
Yes, but considering that the iMac is just a MacBook Pro in different clothing, there was no good reason for Apple to inconvenience users like that.
It was done to protect Mac Pro sales (even more than not offering a headless machine), and has the side benefit of annoying the "xMac" posters in Future Hardware even more.
Yes, the form factor of the iMac was built around the idea of preserving Pro sales for that segment of the market. Nary a thought was given to aesthetics or space constraints. Truly, when they sat down to build the modern iMac the first thought on the minds of J-Ive and Steve Jobs was "how do we make sure that this incredibly-well selling formula that consumers seem to love doesn't cannibalize our Pro sales?"
I truly feel restricted in my purchase of an iMac. It was almost intolerable having to plug in two firewire hard drives - I mean, I've only got 1.5TB of space!
Yes, I should have forked out for that Pro instead.
Yes, the form factor of the iMac was built around the idea of preserving Pro sales for that segment of the market. Nary a thought was given to aesthetics or space constraints. Truly, when they sat down to build the modern iMac the first thought on the minds of J-Ive and Steve Jobs was "how do we make sure that this incredibly-well selling formula that consumers seem to love doesn't cannibalize our Pro sales?"
I truly feel restricted in my purchase of an iMac. It was almost intolerable having to plug in two firewire hard drives - I mean, I've only got 1.5TB of space!
Yes, I should have forked out for that Pro instead.
Yes, the form factor of the iMac was built around the idea of preserving Pro sales for that segment of the market. Nary a thought was given to aesthetics or space constraints...
Space constraints? You've got to be kidding.
A MacBook Pro can have user-replaceable drives but a 24" iMac can't? That's ridiculous.
I mean, even lowly Gateway can design an AIO that has a user-replaceable drive. Don't tell me Ive can't do it even better.
Edit: While searching for the Gateway I came across this. Who the heck is Averatec?
A MacBook Pro can have user-replaceable drives but a 24" iMac can't? That's ridiculous.
I mean, even lowly Gateway can design an AIO that has a user-replaceable drive. Don't tell me Ive can't do it even better.
Edit: While searching for the Gateway I came across this. Who the heck is Averatec?
Terrible comparison, Frank. People complain about the chin on the iMac - the ONE looks like Quasimodo with it's neck fused into it's face. It's got a hyperchin.
If looking like that is the price that I have to pay for a user-replaceable drive I'll be happy to continue using Firewire.
Terrible comparison, Frank. People complain about the chin on the iMac - the ONE looks like Quasimodo with it's neck fused into it's face. It's got a hyperchin.
If looking like that is the price that I have to pay for a user-replaceable drive I'll be happy to continue using Firewire.
But it's not. The Gateway, being a Windoze machine, naturally has a lot of useless stuff like 83-in-1 card reader, an extra hard drive bay and a TV tuner inside it. Oh yes, and Vista.
Apple could easily design a user-replaceable drive in the current iMac shell and have room left over.
As a said before, the iMac essentially uses MacBook Pro internals, and Apple has no problem putting such a drive in the laptop line.
This is a question of customers needing to ask for it, not feasibility.
Two things: It's fascinating how quickly you toss out the "Apple could easily...". I've seen iMacs on the bench and I'm not entirely sure where they'd start ramming things if you're looking for a spare 2-3.5" cavity. I don't doubt that it could be done, but all things comes at a cost - which brings me to point le deux.
Secondly - you're right, it's a matter of consumers asking for it - which, with the prevalence and low cost of USB and FW hard drives, along with the plug and play convenience and the ease of moving an external from machine to machine coupled with the fact that it gives you your first line of defense in data segregation just in case something catastrophic happens to your machines...
Well it just looks like consumers ain't lookin' for it.
[QUOTE=grahamw;1277202]Terrible comparison, Frank. People complain about the chin on the iMac - the ONE looks like Quasimodo with it's neck fused into it's face. It's got a hyperchin.
If looking like that is the price that I hav
Amen! I have unlimited storage using my Icy Dock enclosures with hot swappable drive capabilities. The only limit is one's drive inventory, and I always keeps a cloned backup of the internal anyway. If the internal drive goes south, I can boot from my cloned drive via Firewire 800.
Two things: It's fascinating how quickly you toss out the "Apple could easily...". I've seen iMacs on the bench and I'm not entirely sure where they'd start ramming things if you're looking for a spare 2-3.5" cavity. I don't doubt that it could be done, but all things comes at a cost - which brings me to point le deux.
Secondly - you're right, it's a matter of consumers asking for it - which, with the prevalence and low cost of USB and FW hard drives, along with the plug and play convenience and the ease of moving an external from machine to machine coupled with the fact that it gives you your first line of defense in data segregation just in case something catastrophic happens to your machines...
Well it just looks like consumers ain't lookin' for it.
You're right, but Zinfella was specifically comparing the 24" iMac for use in the Pro market.
24" iMacs are indeed seeing adoption in the Pro market. But few realize that a small business that does credit card processing or keeps its customer databases on an iMac is likely in violation of privacy laws if they take the machine and leave it with an outside facility.
My guess is 90% to 95% of iMac users would never intend to another internal HDD even if they could. Besides, they don't need to anyway with the plethora of external drives available. Should Apple design the iMac for the other 5% to 10%? I think not and I suspect Apple doesn't, either.
Lastly, the HDD in the iMac is most definitely not a replica of the one used in the MacBook Pro.
Comments
Don't iMacs use mobile processors, not to mention, those quad-cores, even the 45 nm ones, give off quite a bit of heat and use up about 100 W or more.
.
The mobile quad cores that Intel will release later this year are supposed use 45w, IIRC, for a 2.5 ghz frequency. Who knows how much heat they will generate.
It is the ability to run multiple taxing apps at the same time that makes multicore worthwhile.
how well does '[running] multiple taxing apps' reflect the average usage pattern of an imac owner?
i think dual core technology is one of the greatest thing in personal computing ever - one core for your main app and one for background processes - but i wouldn't know what to do with the other two...?
i'd say the only type of consumer with would actually have any use of quad core computers would be the obsessive dvd-ripper...
or maybe i'm just missing the bigger picture...?
Thanks again for everyone?s feedback
Decision: I want to start by thanking everyone for their input. Well, weighing in everyone?s comments and that of my wife, I went ahead and bought the iMac (3.06 ghz, upgraded ram, video, size HD on 24?). We have a baby arriving any day and decided that it is important enough to be able to produce video quickly to send to family. My wimpy PC did not handle ACVHD video very well and the PC software available for that format is not robust. Plus, she wanted something she could easily use where she could also do the editing. I didn?t go for the MBP since we both already have powerful, work provided PC laptops; Mac Pro is too much on a couple of levels. In the near term, the only software that is graphic/processer hungry is my flight SIM, which is a big reason for the larger screen. It?s cheaper to stay current flying a SIM than actually flying (if you thought auto gas was high you should see aviation fuel).
Thanks again for everyone?s feedback
You'll be happy. That's a nice machine. Melgross, who posts here quite a bit, bought two of those machines and seems to be very happy with them. While it isn't quad core it still is very capable.
You'll be happy. That's a nice machine. Melgross, who posts here quite a bit, bought two of those machines and seems to be very happy with them. While it isn't quad core it still is very capable.
There's a photographer that posts on photo.net who did some tests with his 8 core MacPro. The results show that for still photography the iMac is a smarter choice, because the MacPro offers no advantage for still photography. His tests, show most cores idle during the post processing of his images. Plus, he had multiple apps open during the tests, but since he wasn't actively using them, they weren't taxing performance, so the extra cores didn't benefit him. Video is another matter altogether.
When it comes to the 24", the 2.8 GHz vs the 3.06 GHz, the 3.06 GHz processors offer a 7% performance increase for a 22% cost increase. Naturally, the choice is up to the buyer, but it's widely accepted that the 2.8 GHz model offers a better value. I would add a couple of caveats to that. First, for resale value, the 3.06 model will command a higher selling price. Second, the extra processing speed MIGHT make a difference as far as whether or not the machine will work with new applications in the future. Case in point is Aperture 2, which requires a minimum iMac processor of 1.8 GHz, so the 1.6 GHz models of the same generation cannot use it.
There's a photographer that posts on photo.net who did some tests with his 8 core MacPro. The results show that for still photography the iMac is a smarter choice, because the MacPro offers no advantage for still photography. His tests, show most cores idle during the post processing of his images. Plus, he had multiple apps open during the tests, but since he wasn't actively using them, they weren't taxing performance, so the extra cores didn't benefit him. Video is another matter altogether.
When it comes to the 24", the 2.8 GHz vs the 3.06 GHz, the 3.06 GHz processors offer a 7% performance increase for a 22% cost increase. Naturally, the choice is up to the buyer, but it's widely accepted that the 2.8 GHz model offers a better value. I would add a couple of caveats to that. First, for resale value, the 3.06 model will command a higher selling price. Second, the extra processing speed MIGHT make a difference as far as whether or not the machine will work with new applications in the future. Case in point is Aperture 2, which requires a minimum iMac processor of 1.8 GHz, so the 1.6 GHz models of the same generation cannot use it.
I don't disagree with anything you've said.
Apple however, with grand central, and Intel as well (can't find link) are working hard to optimize software to take advantage of multiple cores. Hopefully they'll be successful.
Time will tell.
I don't disagree with anything you've said.
Apple however, with grand central, and Intel as well (can't find link) are working hard to optimize software to take advantage of multiple cores. Hopefully they'll be successful.
Time will tell.
That is, of course, true. Some apps will benefit from multiple cores sooner than others. For instance, Adobe PS CS 4 will not, in the Mac version, but will in the Windoze version. We have to wait until PS CS 5 to get a Mac app capable of using a quad, or more, core machine. IOW, we're still a ways off from benefitting from multiple cores for most folks, unless they are doing video compression or scientific apps that can use those extra cores. Thus, for those not actually needing those extra cores right now, they're paying a high price for something that they have to wait for future software in order to take advantage of. How long in the future has my crystal ball clouded, suffice to say that such apps are being developed.
In the meantime, the iMac offers an excellent solution at approximately half the price of a MacPro. Personally, I would rather wait to buy a machine with multiple cores until there is more software available to use those cores. As always, YMMV.
In the meantime, the iMac offers an excellent solution at approximately half the price of a MacPro.
'Excellent' is pushing it. It's a good machine, but what pro wants to haul his desktop and 24" monitor into an Apple Store just to swap out a hard drive?
'Excellent' is pushing it. It's a good machine, but what pro wants to haul his desktop and 24" monitor into an Apple Store just to swap out a hard drive?
For those not wanting to schlep their iMac in for internal service, there is the alternative of paying double for a MacPro, to avoid such an inconvenience. Considering the cost difference, I'll make the trip to the Apple Store.
For those not wanting to schlep their iMac in for internal service, there is the alternative of paying double for a MacPro, to avoid such an inconvenience. Considering the cost difference, I'll make the trip to the Apple Store.
Yes, but considering that the iMac is just a MacBook Pro in different clothing, there was no good reason for Apple to inconvenience users like that.
It was done to protect Mac Pro sales (even more than not offering a headless machine), and has the side benefit of annoying the "xMac" posters in Future Hardware even more.
Yes, but considering that the iMac is just a MacBook Pro in different clothing, there was no good reason for Apple to inconvenience users like that.
It was done to protect Mac Pro sales (even more than not offering a headless machine), and has the side benefit of annoying the "xMac" posters in Future Hardware even more.
Yes, the form factor of the iMac was built around the idea of preserving Pro sales for that segment of the market. Nary a thought was given to aesthetics or space constraints. Truly, when they sat down to build the modern iMac the first thought on the minds of J-Ive and Steve Jobs was "how do we make sure that this incredibly-well selling formula that consumers seem to love doesn't cannibalize our Pro sales?"
I truly feel restricted in my purchase of an iMac. It was almost intolerable having to plug in two firewire hard drives - I mean, I've only got 1.5TB of space!
Yes, I should have forked out for that Pro instead.
Yes, the form factor of the iMac was built around the idea of preserving Pro sales for that segment of the market. Nary a thought was given to aesthetics or space constraints. Truly, when they sat down to build the modern iMac the first thought on the minds of J-Ive and Steve Jobs was "how do we make sure that this incredibly-well selling formula that consumers seem to love doesn't cannibalize our Pro sales?"
I truly feel restricted in my purchase of an iMac. It was almost intolerable having to plug in two firewire hard drives - I mean, I've only got 1.5TB of space!
Yes, I should have forked out for that Pro instead.
Eggzalent!
Yes, the form factor of the iMac was built around the idea of preserving Pro sales for that segment of the market. Nary a thought was given to aesthetics or space constraints...
Space constraints? You've got to be kidding.
A MacBook Pro can have user-replaceable drives but a 24" iMac can't? That's ridiculous.
I mean, even lowly Gateway can design an AIO that has a user-replaceable drive. Don't tell me Ive can't do it even better.
Edit: While searching for the Gateway I came across this. Who the heck is Averatec?
Space constraints? You've got to be kidding.
A MacBook Pro can have user-replaceable drives but a 24" iMac can't? That's ridiculous.
I mean, even lowly Gateway can design an AIO that has a user-replaceable drive. Don't tell me Ive can't do it even better.
Edit: While searching for the Gateway I came across this.. Who the heck is Averatec?
Then you should beat feet it right on down to get yourself a Gateway. I'm sure that you'll be happy, because nothing here is doing that for you.
Space constraints? You've got to be kidding.
A MacBook Pro can have user-replaceable drives but a 24" iMac can't? That's ridiculous.
I mean, even lowly Gateway can design an AIO that has a user-replaceable drive. Don't tell me Ive can't do it even better.
Edit: While searching for the Gateway I came across this. Who the heck is Averatec?
Terrible comparison, Frank. People complain about the chin on the iMac - the ONE looks like Quasimodo with it's neck fused into it's face. It's got a hyperchin.
If looking like that is the price that I have to pay for a user-replaceable drive I'll be happy to continue using Firewire.
Terrible comparison, Frank. People complain about the chin on the iMac - the ONE looks like Quasimodo with it's neck fused into it's face. It's got a hyperchin.
If looking like that is the price that I have to pay for a user-replaceable drive I'll be happy to continue using Firewire.
But it's not. The Gateway, being a Windoze machine, naturally has a lot of useless stuff like 83-in-1 card reader, an extra hard drive bay and a TV tuner inside it. Oh yes, and Vista.
Apple could easily design a user-replaceable drive in the current iMac shell and have room left over.
As a said before, the iMac essentially uses MacBook Pro internals, and Apple has no problem putting such a drive in the laptop line.
This is a question of customers needing to ask for it, not feasibility.
Secondly - you're right, it's a matter of consumers asking for it - which, with the prevalence and low cost of USB and FW hard drives, along with the plug and play convenience and the ease of moving an external from machine to machine coupled with the fact that it gives you your first line of defense in data segregation just in case something catastrophic happens to your machines...
Well it just looks like consumers ain't lookin' for it.
If looking like that is the price that I hav
Amen! I have unlimited storage using my Icy Dock enclosures with hot swappable drive capabilities. The only limit is one's drive inventory, and I always keeps a cloned backup of the internal anyway. If the internal drive goes south, I can boot from my cloned drive via Firewire 800.
Two things: It's fascinating how quickly you toss out the "Apple could easily...". I've seen iMacs on the bench and I'm not entirely sure where they'd start ramming things if you're looking for a spare 2-3.5" cavity. I don't doubt that it could be done, but all things comes at a cost - which brings me to point le deux.
Secondly - you're right, it's a matter of consumers asking for it - which, with the prevalence and low cost of USB and FW hard drives, along with the plug and play convenience and the ease of moving an external from machine to machine coupled with the fact that it gives you your first line of defense in data segregation just in case something catastrophic happens to your machines...
Well it just looks like consumers ain't lookin' for it.
You're right, but Zinfella was specifically comparing the 24" iMac for use in the Pro market.
24" iMacs are indeed seeing adoption in the Pro market. But few realize that a small business that does credit card processing or keeps its customer databases on an iMac is likely in violation of privacy laws if they take the machine and leave it with an outside facility.
Lastly, the HDD in the iMac is most definitely not a replica of the one used in the MacBook Pro.