Yes, so can this computer be successfully hackintoshed?
It is ugly; it is a dell. Much better value if it can be hackintoshed. I couldn't stand to run windows and have pop up balloons flashing up in front of me, anti virus software asking me to update it every day and having a screen saver come on when watching a DVD. Clunky POS OS.
To summarise, the only way it can be better value is if it can run OS X.
Let me understand you- a Gateway running OS X is a better value than an Apple Computer running only Windoze?
All in one desktops are computer like the iMac where everything is built in one piece of the computer. Look at the HP Touchsmart, look at the Sony Vaio they don't even compare to the iMac in terms of specs.
No other desktop has the same design inside as a Mac Pro. You are paying for a server class machine with the best build in the industry. You can't find that with Dell and you aren't getting the same quality hardware. Also, the i7's are over rated and until Intel opens up support for NIVIDIA, the i7's will fail.
First of all, people don't compare the iMac with other manufacturer's AIO offerings, they compare it with mid-towers.
Also, Core i7 is not overrated. It can easily beat Core 2 Duos even on single-threaded tasks at lower clockrate.
Finally, nVidia no longer holds the performance crown when it comes to GPUs. AMD does.
That's my point - the old white iMac's matte screens were far better than these. This change 2 years ago for the worse is nothing more than the Al Gore-ing of the iMac so it disposes better in a land fill! Who buys thinking of how your going to dispose of it? I buy it with the intention that it's gonna last.
I'm not even questioning the inherent quality (regarding color faithfulness and so on), I just wanted that brightness gradient to go away. It's so frustrating that there's no way of looking at that screen and getting an homogenous picture, and seeing it ignored makes matters even worse!
However, the Dell is a poorly made computer compared to the Mac Pro. So stop comparing the two. If you want a cheap computer, buy the Dell.
This would have been a valid if Apple has dropped the ball with regard to build-quality and durability in recent years and if Dell hasn't decided to go the opposite direction (quality has certainly improve at Dell, however little that may be).
NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 or ATI RADEON 4850 (options on the 24" only)
Mini DisplayPort
4 USB 2.0 ports
802.11N (?)
You know, sorry for being a tad repetitive, but I'd trade all that for a good display! It's just ridiculous that they didn't fix the only thing wrong with the previous models...
Also, 802.11n and 7200rpm drives were already the norm.
That's my point - the old white iMac's matte screens were far better than these. This change 2 years ago for the worse is nothing more than the Al Gore-ing of the iMac so it disposes better in a land fill! Who buys thinking of how your going to dispose of it? I buy it with the intention that it's gonna last.
You know that Aluminum is more durable than plastic, don't you?!
I used to own the white iMac before I bought me unibody MBP. In my opinion, the new iMac design is aesthetically better. My old plastic white iMac had scratches due to the few times I had to put in and take it out of my iLugger iMac carrying case.
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.
Just as expected. All you regulars whined and complained about no new Macs. Then they arrive, and all you can do is complain about them. Apple is not going to add better CPU's that would eat into Mac Pro sales. Double the hard drive, double the memory, and better graphics in the $1,799 model make them a fine upgrade. The previous 2.8 GHz model is now on clearance (not refurb) for $1,399. The average user will be satisfied with the 9400M graphics and a low $1,499 price tag for a 24" model, especially since MacBooks are selling like crazy. LED displays would have increased the price, and you fools would have complained about that too.
Mac Pros have always been using Xeons, which are server CPUs optimized for performance instead of power usage. I don't think they are comparable to mobile CPUs, which are used in all other Apple computers, including the iMac. Product cannibalization is simply not a valid point with Apple's current line-up.
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. The rest of the upgrades are now standard fare in the rest of the PC industry, so they are really just catching up there. I am not worried though, with Clarksfield and Arrandale (mobile Nehalems) coming in at the end of this year, Apple will be forced to offer those to keep up with the competition. However, the memory controller is integrated into Nehalem CPUs and with the tiny bandwidth of the DMI, nVidia will be hard-pressed to make a decent 3rd party integrated GPU, which means Apple will be forced to go with horrible Intel GMA (derails their OpenCL strategy) or adopt discrete graphics across the board.
Let me understand you- a Gateway running OS X is a better value than an Apple Computer running only Windoze?
Well, that would be hypothetical, to me, if an apple computer, as pretty as they are, would be useless to me if it could not run OS X. As would any computer that couldn't run OS X.
I'm not even questioning the inherent quality (regarding color faithfulness and so on), I just wanted that brightness gradient to go away. It's so frustrating that there's no way of looking at that screen and getting an homogenous picture, and seeing it ignored makes matters even worse!
OMG- when the thing is turned off it looks worse than a mirrored solar panel- horrendous.
What's that keyboard?!? They must be joking! A small one? Still the same white keys? They don't go well with the look of the machine. Why would someone want a laptop like keyboard on a desktop? I was thinking of buying a new iMac to pair with my unibody Macbook Pro but I'm skipping it for some time later (next revision). No quad cores yet? Oh well... and... why not LED backlit display? Even if they put it on the high end model would be more acceptable.
Hold on your old Macs one more season because these ones are a great disappointment. If you are really in need buy one of the new ones but I guess you'll cry for your money on the next generation. Maybe the iMacs will be fine on the next revision because this one... Oh come on! Sales aren't going up with these specs. The keyboard thing really shocked me!
It's become apparent to me that it makes no sense to buy desktop PC's from Apple anymore, but that Apple is still the best vendor for notebooks.
I bought a MacBook Pro a few weeks ago, and I'm very happy with it. The trackpad is awesome (despite the lack of middle-click) and it's a solid machine that will have great resell value. The specs are very good compared to other pro laptops.
However, I would still not buy a desktop computer from Apple, especially not if I want serious power. The "all in one desktop", while a nice convenience, is not essential. Furthermore, the convenience of the monitor + computer combination is outweighed by the inability to upgrade. This is in addition to the fact that the newer iMacs are underpowered compared to competing minitowers (not all-in-one machines, but then again, this is not essential for a desktop system. What's really jarring is that Apple is now taking a year (or more in the case of the MacMini) to update their desktop models, whereas they pay for more attention to the notebook lines.
So my next desktop will a generic PC that I'll load either Linux or OpenSolaris on. Still, with my current motherboard, I'll be able to upgrade the hardware for years to come, whereas I could only do so for the RAM on the iMac.
Also, the exchange rate isn't nearly as bad on the Canadian models, which averages out at 84 cents U.S., despite the current exchange rate being 0.77 according to today's markets. It sucks that it's no longer one for one, though. Apple should revisit their policy of punishing their international customers for exchange rate differentials. What I found hilarious is that when I go to www.apple/com/imac and click "Buy Now", I get redirected to the Canadian store. I guess they don't want me to know what the U.S. price is
NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 or ATI RADEON 4850 (options on the 24" only)
Mini DisplayPort
4 USB 2.0 ports
802.11N (?)
its a healthy bump, but just exactly what you would expect for a refresh of a computer that has been the same for the past 8+ months. some of this stuff should have already been there (i mean really, just now getting 7200rpm drives?) and some of it is a bit of a waste, like DDR3.
the only think on the list that makes me truely happy about the update is the support for 8GB of ram. which all that tells me is that if there is a major update by the end of the year that adds a lot more to the table, then i'll be finally replacing my old mac. which i have to do (even if its with a PC) by the end of the year, but i really want it to be an iMac.
if i spend $2200 on a computer, its going to be better than the stats posted above. first of all its going to have a better LCD screen (it doesnt even have to be LED, just better than what is on the iMac)
What's that keyboard?!? They must be joking! A small one? Still the same white keys? They don't go well with the look of the machine. Why would someone want a laptop like keyboard on a desktop? I was thinking of buying a new iMac to pair with my unibody Macbook Pro but I'm skipping it for some time later (next revision). No quad cores yet? Oh well... and... why not LED backlit display? Even if they put it on the high end model would be more acceptable.
Hold on your old Macs one more season because these ones are a great disappointment. If you are really in need buy one of the new ones but I guess you'll cry for your money on the next generation. Maybe the iMacs will be fine on the next revision because this one... Oh come on! Sales aren't going up with these specs. The keyboard thing really shocked me!
The keyboard did not change. The wireless keyboards never had the numeric keypad since the last update two years ago. On the other hand, the wired keyboards have the numeric keypads option and two USB 2.0 ports. Nothing new here.
Ok, let's make people wait far longer than usual for an update, we don't really like desktops anymore so lets piss people off by bundling old CPU's with a medium powered GPU, we can claim "LOOK I'TS NEW!!!!" Off course we know it isn't, it's a system that we should have released 8 months or more ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous.Shyster
I guess the point is, it's a pretty lame update. A lot of people, including myself, have been waiting for a new computer from apple. For apple to expect people to fork out more money for specifications that are over a year old is an insult. Putting a Quadcore on a top end imac eat into mac pro sales? Hardly. What if it does? People who want a mac pro will still want a mac pro. 8 cores? Who wouldn't? People who can't afford a mac pro, but they may be willing to stretch their budget for a i7 quad core or something along those lines.
Were people really expecting desktop CPUs in an iMac? Or is it just that your wish, unfulfilled, is now a frustration?
Realistically, Solipism is right, the iMac is a desktop with notebook parts (the core i7 is not in any version today, not sure why he wrote that bit).
iMacs will have core i7 after it is available as a laptop part, and it won't get core i7 before the Macbook Pro. (I won't rule out "at the same time").
Comments
Yes, so can this computer be successfully hackintoshed?
It is ugly; it is a dell. Much better value if it can be hackintoshed. I couldn't stand to run windows and have pop up balloons flashing up in front of me, anti virus software asking me to update it every day and having a screen saver come on when watching a DVD. Clunky POS OS.
To summarise, the only way it can be better value is if it can run OS X.
Let me understand you- a Gateway running OS X is a better value than an Apple Computer running only Windoze?
All in one desktops are computer like the iMac where everything is built in one piece of the computer. Look at the HP Touchsmart, look at the Sony Vaio they don't even compare to the iMac in terms of specs.
No other desktop has the same design inside as a Mac Pro. You are paying for a server class machine with the best build in the industry. You can't find that with Dell and you aren't getting the same quality hardware. Also, the i7's are over rated and until Intel opens up support for NIVIDIA, the i7's will fail.
First of all, people don't compare the iMac with other manufacturer's AIO offerings, they compare it with mid-towers.
Also, Core i7 is not overrated. It can easily beat Core 2 Duos even on single-threaded tasks at lower clockrate.
Finally, nVidia no longer holds the performance crown when it comes to GPUs. AMD does.
9400M is it integrated graphics? any one can confirm?
is it good enough to play games or even drive 24" monster?
It's integrated and I don't think it's capable gaming at the regular resolution of a 24" screen.
Lower prices
Faster CPU (speed bumps)
NVIDEA 9400M chipset/controller (w/integrated graphics)
1066MHz bus
1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
7200 rpm drives
FireWire 800
Up to 8 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 or ATI RADEON 4850 (options on the 24" only)
Mini DisplayPort
4 USB 2.0 ports
802.11N (?)
That's my point - the old white iMac's matte screens were far better than these. This change 2 years ago for the worse is nothing more than the Al Gore-ing of the iMac so it disposes better in a land fill! Who buys thinking of how your going to dispose of it? I buy it with the intention that it's gonna last.
I'm not even questioning the inherent quality (regarding color faithfulness and so on), I just wanted that brightness gradient to go away. It's so frustrating that there's no way of looking at that screen and getting an homogenous picture, and seeing it ignored makes matters even worse!
However, the Dell is a poorly made computer compared to the Mac Pro. So stop comparing the two. If you want a cheap computer, buy the Dell.
This would have been a valid if Apple has dropped the ball with regard to build-quality and durability in recent years and if Dell hasn't decided to go the opposite direction (quality has certainly improve at Dell, however little that may be).
Overall, not a bad upgrade. Lets review class. Here are the improvements thus far:
Lower prices
Faster CPU (speed bumps)
NVIDEA 9400M chipset/controller (w/integrated graphics)
1066MHz bus
1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
7200 rpm drives
FireWire 800
Up to 8 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 or ATI RADEON 4850 (options on the 24" only)
Mini DisplayPort
4 USB 2.0 ports
802.11N (?)
You know, sorry for being a tad repetitive, but I'd trade all that for a good display! It's just ridiculous that they didn't fix the only thing wrong with the previous models...
Also, 802.11n and 7200rpm drives were already the norm.
That's my point - the old white iMac's matte screens were far better than these. This change 2 years ago for the worse is nothing more than the Al Gore-ing of the iMac so it disposes better in a land fill! Who buys thinking of how your going to dispose of it? I buy it with the intention that it's gonna last.
You know that Aluminum is more durable than plastic, don't you?!
I used to own the white iMac before I bought me unibody MBP. In my opinion, the new iMac design is aesthetically better. My old plastic white iMac had scratches due to the few times I had to put in and take it out of my iLugger iMac carrying case.
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.
Awesome! Maybe you can stick your dick in it!
Just as expected. All you regulars whined and complained about no new Macs. Then they arrive, and all you can do is complain about them. Apple is not going to add better CPU's that would eat into Mac Pro sales. Double the hard drive, double the memory, and better graphics in the $1,799 model make them a fine upgrade. The previous 2.8 GHz model is now on clearance (not refurb) for $1,399. The average user will be satisfied with the 9400M graphics and a low $1,499 price tag for a 24" model, especially since MacBooks are selling like crazy. LED displays would have increased the price, and you fools would have complained about that too.
Mac Pros have always been using Xeons, which are server CPUs optimized for performance instead of power usage. I don't think they are comparable to mobile CPUs, which are used in all other Apple computers, including the iMac. Product cannibalization is simply not a valid point with Apple's current line-up.
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. The rest of the upgrades are now standard fare in the rest of the PC industry, so they are really just catching up there. I am not worried though, with Clarksfield and Arrandale (mobile Nehalems) coming in at the end of this year, Apple will be forced to offer those to keep up with the competition. However, the memory controller is integrated into Nehalem CPUs and with the tiny bandwidth of the DMI, nVidia will be hard-pressed to make a decent 3rd party integrated GPU, which means Apple will be forced to go with horrible Intel GMA (derails their OpenCL strategy) or adopt discrete graphics across the board.
Let me understand you- a Gateway running OS X is a better value than an Apple Computer running only Windoze?
Well, that would be hypothetical, to me, if an apple computer, as pretty as they are, would be useless to me if it could not run OS X. As would any computer that couldn't run OS X.
I'm not even questioning the inherent quality (regarding color faithfulness and so on), I just wanted that brightness gradient to go away. It's so frustrating that there's no way of looking at that screen and getting an homogenous picture, and seeing it ignored makes matters even worse!
OMG- when the thing is turned off it looks worse than a mirrored solar panel- horrendous.
Hold on your old Macs one more season because these ones are a great disappointment. If you are really in need buy one of the new ones but I guess you'll cry for your money on the next generation. Maybe the iMacs will be fine on the next revision because this one... Oh come on! Sales aren't going up with these specs. The keyboard thing really shocked me!
OMG- when the thing is turned off it looks worse than a mirrored solar panel- horrendous.
You better patent that idea quick. Or--taking a note from SouthPark--it could be powered by Smug when you sit in front of your Mac admiring it.
I bought a MacBook Pro a few weeks ago, and I'm very happy with it. The trackpad is awesome (despite the lack of middle-click) and it's a solid machine that will have great resell value. The specs are very good compared to other pro laptops.
However, I would still not buy a desktop computer from Apple, especially not if I want serious power. The "all in one desktop", while a nice convenience, is not essential. Furthermore, the convenience of the monitor + computer combination is outweighed by the inability to upgrade. This is in addition to the fact that the newer iMacs are underpowered compared to competing minitowers (not all-in-one machines, but then again, this is not essential for a desktop system. What's really jarring is that Apple is now taking a year (or more in the case of the MacMini) to update their desktop models, whereas they pay for more attention to the notebook lines.
So my next desktop will a generic PC that I'll load either Linux or OpenSolaris on. Still, with my current motherboard, I'll be able to upgrade the hardware for years to come, whereas I could only do so for the RAM on the iMac.
Also, the exchange rate isn't nearly as bad on the Canadian models, which averages out at 84 cents U.S., despite the current exchange rate being 0.77 according to today's markets. It sucks that it's no longer one for one, though. Apple should revisit their policy of punishing their international customers for exchange rate differentials. What I found hilarious is that when I go to www.apple/com/imac and click "Buy Now", I get redirected to the Canadian store. I guess they don't want me to know what the U.S. price is
Overall, not a bad upgrade. Lets review class. Here are the improvements thus far:
Lower prices
Faster CPU (speed bumps)
NVIDEA 9400M chipset/controller (w/integrated graphics)
1066MHz bus
1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
7200 rpm drives
FireWire 800
Up to 8 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 or ATI RADEON 4850 (options on the 24" only)
Mini DisplayPort
4 USB 2.0 ports
802.11N (?)
its a healthy bump, but just exactly what you would expect for a refresh of a computer that has been the same for the past 8+ months. some of this stuff should have already been there (i mean really, just now getting 7200rpm drives?) and some of it is a bit of a waste, like DDR3.
the only think on the list that makes me truely happy about the update is the support for 8GB of ram. which all that tells me is that if there is a major update by the end of the year that adds a lot more to the table, then i'll be finally replacing my old mac. which i have to do (even if its with a PC) by the end of the year, but i really want it to be an iMac.
if i spend $2200 on a computer, its going to be better than the stats posted above. first of all its going to have a better LCD screen (it doesnt even have to be LED, just better than what is on the iMac)
What's that keyboard?!? They must be joking! A small one? Still the same white keys? They don't go well with the look of the machine. Why would someone want a laptop like keyboard on a desktop? I was thinking of buying a new iMac to pair with my unibody Macbook Pro but I'm skipping it for some time later (next revision). No quad cores yet? Oh well... and... why not LED backlit display? Even if they put it on the high end model would be more acceptable.
Hold on your old Macs one more season because these ones are a great disappointment. If you are really in need buy one of the new ones but I guess you'll cry for your money on the next generation. Maybe the iMacs will be fine on the next revision because this one... Oh come on! Sales aren't going up with these specs. The keyboard thing really shocked me!
The keyboard did not change. The wireless keyboards never had the numeric keypad since the last update two years ago. On the other hand, the wired keyboards have the numeric keypads option and two USB 2.0 ports. Nothing new here.
Ok, let's make people wait far longer than usual for an update, we don't really like desktops anymore so lets piss people off by bundling old CPU's with a medium powered GPU, we can claim "LOOK I'TS NEW!!!!" Off course we know it isn't, it's a system that we should have released 8 months or more ago.
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.
I guess the point is, it's a pretty lame update. A lot of people, including myself, have been waiting for a new computer from apple. For apple to expect people to fork out more money for specifications that are over a year old is an insult. Putting a Quadcore on a top end imac eat into mac pro sales? Hardly. What if it does? People who want a mac pro will still want a mac pro. 8 cores? Who wouldn't? People who can't afford a mac pro, but they may be willing to stretch their budget for a i7 quad core or something along those lines.
Were people really expecting desktop CPUs in an iMac? Or is it just that your wish, unfulfilled, is now a frustration?
Realistically, Solipism is right, the iMac is a desktop with notebook parts (the core i7 is not in any version today, not sure why he wrote that bit).
iMacs will have core i7 after it is available as a laptop part, and it won't get core i7 before the Macbook Pro. (I won't rule out "at the same time").
R.I.P. FW400.
Go buy this:
http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProdu...duct_Id=164598
-D