The problem isn't just the loss of a FW400 port. Your adapter cable works in such a case.
The bigger issue for some (my dad included) is that this new iMac only comes with ONE (1) FireWire port of any kind. Every iMac since the original iMac G5 has come with TWO (2) FireWire ports. Initially they were both FW400. Then, with the advent of the aluminum bodies, Apple shifted to one FW400 and one FW800.
Now you only get a single FW800 port. Why does this matter? Well, for one, anyone who has multiple FW devices now MUST buy a FW hub. But try to find some decent FW800 hubs. Sure, FW400 hubs exist (my dad uses a Belkin 6-port unit), but if you use that--which implies using a cable like the one you mention to connect the hub to the iMac--you've just effectively killed the entire point of FW800.
So let's say you can get a FW800 hub. And let's say (as I'm not sure this is the case) that connecting a FW400 device to a FW800 hub using a cable such as you mention does NOT cause the entire hub to shift into lowest-common-denominator 400Mbps mode. Even with all that, what happens when most of your devices, such as camcorders, are still FW400? All those FW400 cables you have? Useless. Now you need to buy several of the cables above, one for each device.
And if the hub DOES shift down into FW400 mode if there's a single FW400 device attached, see same note above about making FW800 port useless. For folks like my dad who have a Drobo (I have it connected to his iMac G5 using a cable similar to the one above), so much for finally getting that FW800 performance. He got the 2nd gen Drobo specifically with the idea that when he bought a new iMac, he'd finally get the full performance that its FW800 port offered.
Why did Apple not simply replace the FW400 port with another FW800 port, giving users at least two FW800 ports? It's not like it would take up more real estate on the back of the unit. THIS is one thing that does disappoint me. My dad has been itching to replace his iMac G5 1.9GHz unit. But with all the FW devices he currently has connected, he won't be able to do a simple swap if he bought a new iMac today. If he wants to be able to use the Drobo at full FW800 speed, he'll have to buy a FW800 hub (good luck finding one that offers 6+ ports for less than $100 if at all) and a crapload of the cables above. This, compared to simply buying one such cable to connect to his FW400 hub, then having the Drobo connect directly to the 2nd FW800 port.
So while I applaud the rest of the features (sure, I was hoping Apple would put a quadcore into the iMac, but maybe next time), this to me IS, in fact, taking away functionality that users used to have.
You do know that FW is daisy-chainable right? I.E. if you have an external HD it's got 2 FW ports - that's not to connect it to 2 seperate computers - that's to connect another HD to it. That's another reason why FW is better than USB...
So is there any advantage of paying the extra money for this new 'update'? Or would one be wise to buy an old stock iMac at a reduced price or a refurbished one? Are the improvements actually worth the extra $$$?
This new "update" looks pretty damned good to me. Obviously if you currently own the previous models, you're not going to be as tempted to upgrade, but my iMac is three years old now and I am very tempted to finally upgrade. So from my point of view these iMacs look fantastic! Especially the entry level 24" iMac. Although I must also say that my current iMac is still chugging along just fine, so I'm not in any dire need to buy a new one. In fact, I may just wait for the next update.
While I agree I find Apple's current hardware offerings a bit lackluster, I can't say I'll ever go back to Windows. OSX is just too good from my point of view, and Snow Leopard will probably only make it better.
When I bought my 1st gen Alu iMac in the summer of 07, there was simply nothing in the PC world that could compare, so it was good value for me anyhow, because it was unique. My Early 08 MacBook with 2.4GHz Penryn is something similar, since at that time, such a bleeding edge processor in a 13 inch enclosure at that price was damn nice.
Nowdays... Dell, HP and Sony are definately catching up from a hardware point of view if you ask me. But Apple MUST have something up its sleeve. The unibodies are an example of being ahead of the competition, but those are out the door now so I'm sure Apple's huge R&D team is working on something "insanely great".
im keeping a lot of hope for this as well, apple has always been a company that looks forward, and tends to stay ahead. the other companies are also catching up in design and quality of their hardware too (which wasnt hard because catching up only means they are better than that hard plastic they were pushing on us just 2 years go)
however even if they do catch up in quality, and in style, apple does still have a few things that could convince me to buy their product (for the premium they ask me to pay)
first they need to catch up a bit with hardware, i know a lot of people are complaining saying its just fine, but its not, they are too far behind right now... but thats fixable.
second, i think they could do some really awesome things if they made it a touchscreen computer. they have a lot of experience with it now considering the time they have had with the iPhone. it will mean they will have to keep a glossy display, but they, touchscreens are nice for some things, and i think apple is capable of making a touchscreen all-in-one that would really make it stand out, all they need is to be working on the software (Which they probably are)
aside from that... they could make the iMac bigger, so it can fit in cheaper/more powerful hardware, maybe go back to how the G4 was, with the screen being a separate part than the computer, if anyone could make it look nice, it would be apple. i dont know, there are other things they could work on as well, im just afraid that they feel that the future is completely in portable, so they are starting to forget about the desktops, and feel they will eventually be something that is mostly niche.
my mother makes grocery lists, but cant figure out how to play scrabble on facebook. is she "teckyness"?
Its a work computer. its not going to be nice, its not a representation of what is available on the market.
that was more simple than it should have been.
you have to purchase software to use on a desktop, just as you do with a mac, if you are happy with iLife then great, but if you think its the only option, your mistaken.
they are great right out of the box, i agree.
No they are not more suited for created people, this statement is absurd. that would be like me saying that windows is the best operating system for everyone because by far the majority of people use them. macs are good, but they are also hip.
you are misinformed. you use a worktop. a bare bones system. blah...
Yes you said it, I use a bare bones windowz system at work, yes I agree. You have to purchase software to make a windowz system work, yes I agree. But a Mac is not a bare bones system so stop comparing it to bare bones windowz systems, you?re comparing apples to oranges. Go ahead and buy a windowz system for a few hundred dollars cheaper than a mac and when you want to edit a video, or edit photos, make a photo album, record music, make your own website, or make a DVD, as creative people do, you can go buy a bunch of crappy windows software that is buggy and gives inferior results that a Mac, but you can be comfortable knowing that you originally paid less for your now more expensive windowz computer.
Yes, many people may not need these types of features on their computer, and that's what windowz computers are for, the great masses who only need web access and a video game from their computers. Many mac users want more from their computer and OSX and iLife delivers that in spades.
People on these boards keep complaining that a dell or other windowz computers are so much cheaper than a Mac and I?m sick of it, because if you use your mac as intended, to easily create photos, albums, videos, websites, music... it?s actually cheaper than a windowz system, and that?s what Apple understands. I would hate to try and configure a windowz computer to do what a mac does out of the box because quite frankly there is no windowz equivalent to OSX and iLife. If you?re not using you mac for those 2 things you are missing the point of a mac, like using a race car to plow a field.
Why can't i have discrete graphics for gaming without having to pay for the 24 inch screen?
The NVidia 9400M may give the same performance as the previous model iMacs. The 20" is the entry level iMac, so integrated graphics makes sense, especially for a lower cost. Look for a prior model 20" if you feel you need dedicated graphics. It is too bad Apple switched to a lower quality 20" panel after the white iMacs were phased out, but it is all about cost and savings.
Many people are saying they are so disappointed and will, as a result, go to using a PC running Windows. How many, I wonder, will make the switch and then regret it based purely on Microsoft's OS and all the trouble they will run into with bugs, viruses, spyware etc.
One of my Mac user friends is a designer and he uses both a Mac and a PC for work (he works freelance from home). Once every two or three months he calls in an IT guy to work through his PC system and iron-out its problems, viruses etc.
Each time it costs him money, despite his security etc, and each time he begs for the day when he can work for clients using only his Macs.
All of those who switch to Windows will... come back home. :-)
The problem isn't just the loss of a FW400 port. Your adapter cable works in such a case.
The bigger issue for some (my dad included) is that this new iMac only comes with ONE (1) FireWire port of any kind. Every iMac since the original iMac G5 has come with TWO (2) FireWire ports. Initially they were both FW400. Then, with the advent of the aluminum bodies, Apple shifted to one FW400 and one FW800.
Now you only get a single FW800 port. Why does this matter? Well, for one, anyone who has multiple FW devices now MUST buy a FW hub. But try to find some decent FW800 hubs. Sure, FW400 hubs exist (my dad uses a Belkin 6-port unit), but if you use that--which implies using a cable like the one you mention to connect the hub to the iMac--you've just effectively killed the entire point of FW800.
So let's say you can get a FW800 hub. And let's say (as I'm not sure this is the case) that connecting a FW400 device to a FW800 hub using a cable such as you mention does NOT cause the entire hub to shift into lowest-common-denominator 400Mbps mode. Even with all that, what happens when most of your devices, such as camcorders, are still FW400? All those FW400 cables you have? Useless. Now you need to buy several of the cables above, one for each device.
And if the hub DOES shift down into FW400 mode if there's a single FW400 device attached, see same note above about making FW800 port useless. For folks like my dad who have a Drobo (I have it connected to his iMac G5 using a cable similar to the one above), so much for finally getting that FW800 performance. He got the 2nd gen Drobo specifically with the idea that when he bought a new iMac, he'd finally get the full performance that its FW800 port offered.
Why did Apple not simply replace the FW400 port with another FW800 port, giving users at least two FW800 ports? It's not like it would take up more real estate on the back of the unit. THIS is one thing that does disappoint me. My dad has been itching to replace his iMac G5 1.9GHz unit. But with all the FW devices he currently has connected, he won't be able to do a simple swap if he bought a new iMac today. If he wants to be able to use the Drobo at full FW800 speed, he'll have to buy a FW800 hub (good luck finding one that offers 6+ ports for less than $100 if at all) and a crapload of the cables above. This, compared to simply buying one such cable to connect to his FW400 hub, then having the Drobo connect directly to the 2nd FW800 port.
So while I applaud the rest of the features (sure, I was hoping Apple would put a quadcore into the iMac, but maybe next time), this to me IS, in fact, taking away functionality that users used to have.
Man! If you were around when the original iMac came out, you would've gone ape-shit! They dropped ALL legacy ports (ADB, serial and SCSI) off that sucker. But people still bought them, including me. I had keyboards, a trackball, a few external hard drives and a printer that wouldn't work with the iMac. I chose to buy it, so I just had to deal with it. I ended up getting an ethernet card for my Mac SE and used it as a file and print server - but damn was it slow!
The top end iMac in the UK is £1800. The one it replaced was £1359.
Unbelievable. Currency changes dont explain all of that.
It most certainly is not affordable... its a rip off. So much so that Ive decided not to buy. The specifications of the update are woeful, and the price is massively inflated. That kind of money buys me a top end i7 PC which even kicks a mac pro (also lame update) into the gutter.
Apple have finally priced me out. A sad day indeed.
but if that doesnt come out in 6-8 months, they will be seeing a lot of mac people go to PC... sad as it may be. (including myslef)
LOL. You're kidding right? Like I mentioned above, my iMac is 3 years old and still runs just fine. If a newer model iMac doesn't come out in 6-8 months, most of us will just continue to use the Mac we currently own. Also, given the speculation that with Snow Leopard most of us may experience a performance bump, that will only increase the lifespan of my iMac.
I'd rather run a ten year old Mac than switch to using Windows!
A: Spend $1 a day more, tip $1 more. Buy one thing extra a week. If all 170m full-time emp's did this we would fix the economy twice as fast.
Stop buying cheap imports from China and keep buying US made products... that might also do the trick! I really admire your president's view about 'Buy America'..
In the UK we have a lame duck 'non elected' prime minister who keeps telling us not to buy British as protectionism ultimately fails. I wish someone would shoot him.
Very little mention is made of the fact that the 24 inch iMac has gone from 1900 pixels to 1680, e.g. same resolution as the 20 inch model.
Lack of LEDs is a disappointment for those of us who us it with photos and are serious about it.
And Blu-Ray would be very good to store data on, like all the photos made.
And what happened to the Quad core CPUs?
I guess my decision is to postpone until the next version of the OS is out (2nd or 3rd Q??) and see what the landscape looks like then, and the OS will be on the box.
As for the naysayers above and below. The 9400M is a VERY GOOD CHIP! You know it is! It's not 3 yr old junk that PC users create the illusion around being better ("oh I got 512mb memory, that means your 256mb is worse than mine... he he...") rather it's total output. Look at it this way... The specs... 1066mhz memory at 256mb is MORE than enough to run a 30" at it's highest resolution above 50fps (we humans only see at 32fps, not sure about the bionic geek gamers). It uses very little power and also runs your north and south bridge thus making the entire computer faster and more efficient. So is it decent? YES. Will you outgrow it? YES, but how long is the real question. Compared to the outgoing model this is better, faster and less power hungry while providing more overall computing power. So YES. You have to keep in mind the design constraints in building the thinnest all-in-one full power desktop on the market. There's only so much room, space, heat dissipation.
This upgrade should run much cooler than the outgoing units too.
My target machine is the entry level 24" iMac. Compared to the outgoing model it has:
- more RAM
- RAM with higher sustained speed, but with higher latency
- bigger HD
- same bus speed
- slower processor
- graphics running in shared memory
- no separate FW400 bus for legacy peripherals (FW800 bus gets dragged down to 400 speed)
I don't see much there that qualifies as better and faster and it's still a nightmare to upgrade the hard drive, something I do on an annual basis.
Your comment about the iMac being the thinnest all-in-one full power desktop is false. The iMac is a notebook computer with a big display. It's NOT a full power desktop by any stretch of the imagination. By making it so thin, a feature no customer in the world actually cares about because people look at the front of their display not the edge, Apple is forced to use under powered components.
The 9400 is very efficient, but as a 3D display engine it is crap.
I am horribly disappointed that there's still no quad core Mac under US$2499. There are quad core PCs under $600 and Nehalem based PCs under $1000. Apple must think it's still 2007.
Yes you said it, I use a bare bones windowz system at work, yes I agree. You have to purchase software to make a windowz system work, yes I agree. But a Mac is not a bare bones system so stop comparing it to bare bones windowz systems, you?re comparing apples to oranges. Go ahead and buy a windowz system for a few hundred dollars cheaper than a mac and when you want to edit a video, or edit photos, make a photo album, record music, make your own website, or make a DVD, as creative people do, you can go buy a bunch of crappy windows software that is buggy and gives inferior results that a Mac, but you can be comfortable knowing that you originally paid less for your now more expensive windowz computer.
Yes, many people may not need these types of features on their computer, and that's what windowz computers are for, the great masses who only need web access and a video game from their computers. Many mac users want more from their computer and OSX and iLife delivers that in spades.
People on these boards keep complaining that a dell or other windowz computers are so much cheaper than a Mac and I?m sick of it, because if you use your mac as intended, to easily create photos, albums, videos, websites, music... it?s actually cheaper than a windowz system, and that?s what Apple understands. I would hate to try and configure a windowz computer to do what a mac does out of the box because quite frankly there is no windowz equivalent to OSX and iLife. If you?re not using you mac for those 2 things you are missing the point of a mac, like using a race car to plow a field.
ok this "windowz" thing is childish, you are childish, so much that im having a hard time believing that you are even a professional. further more, not all windows PC's are bare bones, just the ones they sell in bulk to companies.
with $1200 you can get a more powerful computer than any iMac.
CyberLink PowerDirector 7 Ultra $120, rated higher than ilife.
http://www.adobe.com/products/audition/ Adobe Audition 3, without a doubt the best audio editor you can buy, $350 (can be upgraded from an old version for $99, and you'll be able to upgrade later to newer versions for that same price)
you can actually do a lot of this stuff for free, like make photo albums win windows media center. anyway you'll notice with this software it all adds up to be about $570 still $430 cheaper than the iMac, and you get seriously professional applications, not the easy to use armature iLife (yes its brilliant for armatures, but for a serious professional? it just doesn't stack up, its a jack of all trades if you will)
plus, you dont have to get MS office or Apple iWork, so you save money (on a PC you can get open office, which is what i use, which is just about as good as the MS office stuff, and 100% freeware)
there is a reason to complain right now. im not saying *you* or anyone should go out and get a windows PC, but i am saying your claims are pure BS. your ignorant about windows, and use that to justify the high expense of a iMac.
Many people are saying they are so disappointed and will, as a result, go to using a PC running Windows. How many, I wonder, will make the switch and then regret it based purely on Microsoft's OS and all the trouble they will run into with bugs, viruses, spyware etc.
One of my Mac user friends is a designer and he uses both a Mac and a PC for work (he works freelance from home). Once every two or three months he calls in an IT guy to work through his PC system and iron-out its problems, viruses etc.
Each time it costs him money, despite his security etc, and each time he begs for the day when he can work for clients using only his Macs.
All of those who switch to Windows will... come back home. :-)
If I buy a PC I'm going to install Leopard. There's no way I'll run Windows.
The new iMacs are cost saving, last year models, with a poor design. Here's what's wrong with these iMacs:
- No quad-core desktop CPU, while quad-core desktop CPUs have been available from Intel since November 2007;
- No quad-core Core i7 (Nehalem) desktop CPU which has been available from Intel since November 17, 2008;
- No quad-core Penryn mobile CPU which has been available from Intel since August or September 2008;
- No quad-core Penryn CPU for all-in-one, small-form factor computers which has been available from Intel since January 2009;
- A glossy display which is more difficult to read, especially for customers with reading glasses;
- An uncompetitive price when compared with either quad-core or dual-core Windows computers offered from large retailers like Staples in the U.S.A, Britain or Canada.
The new iMacs are a big let down from a company which is more focused on its high prices and senior management bonuses than its customers.
Watch out for the upcoming Windows 7 on quad-core Core i7 desktop or mobile computers. Apple will go through another one of its self-imposed blood bath.
well you really didnt expect the i7 did you? that was never goign to make it, too hot from what i hear.
but i did see that it will be in a laptop soon... so im not sure how that works.
either way, that should be out with the mobile versions at the end of the year... i guess we should just hope that when they add those they completely redesign the thing from the ground up... would that be too much to hope for?
There is a lot to say here, but I can only be brief right now. This board, and other similar, are showing clearly that outside of the US the Apple faithful are feeling hurt and angry, outraged even. Apple have seriously damaged their good name in Europe with their arrogant, almost contemptuous pricing decisions with this update. It takes a long time to build up goodwill, but it can be destroyed in an instant, and they have done that today for a good segment of their loyal customer base with this crass strategic blunder. What the hell were they thinking? One very safe prediction - UK Mac desktop sales are going to plummet this year, and as there is such a thing as an 'anti-halo' effect, that may well adversely affect other areas of their business as well. Terrible, terrible move Apple, shocking.
And to AppleInsider: if you are going to use a direct quotation from the Apple PR Dept as part of your headline you should put quotation marks around it, otherwise it reads as a fact. On a day when they put the price of iMacs up by nearly a third for a good proportion of your readers, a headline stating 'more affordable pricing' adds insult to injury and makes you look like ridiculous shills.
Comments
The problem isn't just the loss of a FW400 port. Your adapter cable works in such a case.
The bigger issue for some (my dad included) is that this new iMac only comes with ONE (1) FireWire port of any kind. Every iMac since the original iMac G5 has come with TWO (2) FireWire ports. Initially they were both FW400. Then, with the advent of the aluminum bodies, Apple shifted to one FW400 and one FW800.
Now you only get a single FW800 port. Why does this matter? Well, for one, anyone who has multiple FW devices now MUST buy a FW hub. But try to find some decent FW800 hubs. Sure, FW400 hubs exist (my dad uses a Belkin 6-port unit), but if you use that--which implies using a cable like the one you mention to connect the hub to the iMac--you've just effectively killed the entire point of FW800.
So let's say you can get a FW800 hub. And let's say (as I'm not sure this is the case) that connecting a FW400 device to a FW800 hub using a cable such as you mention does NOT cause the entire hub to shift into lowest-common-denominator 400Mbps mode. Even with all that, what happens when most of your devices, such as camcorders, are still FW400? All those FW400 cables you have? Useless. Now you need to buy several of the cables above, one for each device.
And if the hub DOES shift down into FW400 mode if there's a single FW400 device attached, see same note above about making FW800 port useless. For folks like my dad who have a Drobo (I have it connected to his iMac G5 using a cable similar to the one above), so much for finally getting that FW800 performance. He got the 2nd gen Drobo specifically with the idea that when he bought a new iMac, he'd finally get the full performance that its FW800 port offered.
Why did Apple not simply replace the FW400 port with another FW800 port, giving users at least two FW800 ports? It's not like it would take up more real estate on the back of the unit. THIS is one thing that does disappoint me. My dad has been itching to replace his iMac G5 1.9GHz unit. But with all the FW devices he currently has connected, he won't be able to do a simple swap if he bought a new iMac today. If he wants to be able to use the Drobo at full FW800 speed, he'll have to buy a FW800 hub (good luck finding one that offers 6+ ports for less than $100 if at all) and a crapload of the cables above. This, compared to simply buying one such cable to connect to his FW400 hub, then having the Drobo connect directly to the 2nd FW800 port.
So while I applaud the rest of the features (sure, I was hoping Apple would put a quadcore into the iMac, but maybe next time), this to me IS, in fact, taking away functionality that users used to have.
You do know that FW is daisy-chainable right? I.E. if you have an external HD it's got 2 FW ports - that's not to connect it to 2 seperate computers - that's to connect another HD to it. That's another reason why FW is better than USB...
So is there any advantage of paying the extra money for this new 'update'? Or would one be wise to buy an old stock iMac at a reduced price or a refurbished one? Are the improvements actually worth the extra $$$?
This new "update" looks pretty damned good to me. Obviously if you currently own the previous models, you're not going to be as tempted to upgrade, but my iMac is three years old now and I am very tempted to finally upgrade. So from my point of view these iMacs look fantastic! Especially the entry level 24" iMac. Although I must also say that my current iMac is still chugging along just fine, so I'm not in any dire need to buy a new one. In fact, I may just wait for the next update.
While I agree I find Apple's current hardware offerings a bit lackluster, I can't say I'll ever go back to Windows. OSX is just too good from my point of view, and Snow Leopard will probably only make it better.
When I bought my 1st gen Alu iMac in the summer of 07, there was simply nothing in the PC world that could compare, so it was good value for me anyhow, because it was unique. My Early 08 MacBook with 2.4GHz Penryn is something similar, since at that time, such a bleeding edge processor in a 13 inch enclosure at that price was damn nice.
Nowdays... Dell, HP and Sony are definately catching up from a hardware point of view if you ask me. But Apple MUST have something up its sleeve. The unibodies are an example of being ahead of the competition, but those are out the door now so I'm sure Apple's huge R&D team is working on something "insanely great".
im keeping a lot of hope for this as well, apple has always been a company that looks forward, and tends to stay ahead. the other companies are also catching up in design and quality of their hardware too (which wasnt hard because catching up only means they are better than that hard plastic they were pushing on us just 2 years go)
however even if they do catch up in quality, and in style, apple does still have a few things that could convince me to buy their product (for the premium they ask me to pay)
first they need to catch up a bit with hardware, i know a lot of people are complaining saying its just fine, but its not, they are too far behind right now... but thats fixable.
second, i think they could do some really awesome things if they made it a touchscreen computer. they have a lot of experience with it now considering the time they have had with the iPhone. it will mean they will have to keep a glossy display, but they, touchscreens are nice for some things, and i think apple is capable of making a touchscreen all-in-one that would really make it stand out, all they need is to be working on the software (Which they probably are)
aside from that... they could make the iMac bigger, so it can fit in cheaper/more powerful hardware, maybe go back to how the G4 was, with the screen being a separate part than the computer, if anyone could make it look nice, it would be apple. i dont know, there are other things they could work on as well, im just afraid that they feel that the future is completely in portable, so they are starting to forget about the desktops, and feel they will eventually be something that is mostly niche.
my mother makes grocery lists, but cant figure out how to play scrabble on facebook. is she "teckyness"?
Its a work computer. its not going to be nice, its not a representation of what is available on the market.
that was more simple than it should have been.
you have to purchase software to use on a desktop, just as you do with a mac, if you are happy with iLife then great, but if you think its the only option, your mistaken.
they are great right out of the box, i agree.
No they are not more suited for created people, this statement is absurd. that would be like me saying that windows is the best operating system for everyone because by far the majority of people use them. macs are good, but they are also hip.
you are misinformed. you use a worktop. a bare bones system. blah...
Yes you said it, I use a bare bones windowz system at work, yes I agree. You have to purchase software to make a windowz system work, yes I agree. But a Mac is not a bare bones system so stop comparing it to bare bones windowz systems, you?re comparing apples to oranges. Go ahead and buy a windowz system for a few hundred dollars cheaper than a mac and when you want to edit a video, or edit photos, make a photo album, record music, make your own website, or make a DVD, as creative people do, you can go buy a bunch of crappy windows software that is buggy and gives inferior results that a Mac, but you can be comfortable knowing that you originally paid less for your now more expensive windowz computer.
Yes, many people may not need these types of features on their computer, and that's what windowz computers are for, the great masses who only need web access and a video game from their computers. Many mac users want more from their computer and OSX and iLife delivers that in spades.
People on these boards keep complaining that a dell or other windowz computers are so much cheaper than a Mac and I?m sick of it, because if you use your mac as intended, to easily create photos, albums, videos, websites, music... it?s actually cheaper than a windowz system, and that?s what Apple understands. I would hate to try and configure a windowz computer to do what a mac does out of the box because quite frankly there is no windowz equivalent to OSX and iLife. If you?re not using you mac for those 2 things you are missing the point of a mac, like using a race car to plow a field.
Why can't i have discrete graphics for gaming without having to pay for the 24 inch screen?
The NVidia 9400M may give the same performance as the previous model iMacs. The 20" is the entry level iMac, so integrated graphics makes sense, especially for a lower cost. Look for a prior model 20" if you feel you need dedicated graphics. It is too bad Apple switched to a lower quality 20" panel after the white iMacs were phased out, but it is all about cost and savings.
One of my Mac user friends is a designer and he uses both a Mac and a PC for work (he works freelance from home). Once every two or three months he calls in an IT guy to work through his PC system and iron-out its problems, viruses etc.
Each time it costs him money, despite his security etc, and each time he begs for the day when he can work for clients using only his Macs.
All of those who switch to Windows will... come back home. :-)
The problem isn't just the loss of a FW400 port. Your adapter cable works in such a case.
The bigger issue for some (my dad included) is that this new iMac only comes with ONE (1) FireWire port of any kind. Every iMac since the original iMac G5 has come with TWO (2) FireWire ports. Initially they were both FW400. Then, with the advent of the aluminum bodies, Apple shifted to one FW400 and one FW800.
Now you only get a single FW800 port. Why does this matter? Well, for one, anyone who has multiple FW devices now MUST buy a FW hub. But try to find some decent FW800 hubs. Sure, FW400 hubs exist (my dad uses a Belkin 6-port unit), but if you use that--which implies using a cable like the one you mention to connect the hub to the iMac--you've just effectively killed the entire point of FW800.
So let's say you can get a FW800 hub. And let's say (as I'm not sure this is the case) that connecting a FW400 device to a FW800 hub using a cable such as you mention does NOT cause the entire hub to shift into lowest-common-denominator 400Mbps mode. Even with all that, what happens when most of your devices, such as camcorders, are still FW400? All those FW400 cables you have? Useless. Now you need to buy several of the cables above, one for each device.
And if the hub DOES shift down into FW400 mode if there's a single FW400 device attached, see same note above about making FW800 port useless. For folks like my dad who have a Drobo (I have it connected to his iMac G5 using a cable similar to the one above), so much for finally getting that FW800 performance. He got the 2nd gen Drobo specifically with the idea that when he bought a new iMac, he'd finally get the full performance that its FW800 port offered.
Why did Apple not simply replace the FW400 port with another FW800 port, giving users at least two FW800 ports? It's not like it would take up more real estate on the back of the unit. THIS is one thing that does disappoint me. My dad has been itching to replace his iMac G5 1.9GHz unit. But with all the FW devices he currently has connected, he won't be able to do a simple swap if he bought a new iMac today. If he wants to be able to use the Drobo at full FW800 speed, he'll have to buy a FW800 hub (good luck finding one that offers 6+ ports for less than $100 if at all) and a crapload of the cables above. This, compared to simply buying one such cable to connect to his FW400 hub, then having the Drobo connect directly to the 2nd FW800 port.
So while I applaud the rest of the features (sure, I was hoping Apple would put a quadcore into the iMac, but maybe next time), this to me IS, in fact, taking away functionality that users used to have.
Man! If you were around when the original iMac came out, you would've gone ape-shit! They dropped ALL legacy ports (ADB, serial and SCSI) off that sucker. But people still bought them, including me. I had keyboards, a trackball, a few external hard drives and a printer that wouldn't work with the iMac. I chose to buy it, so I just had to deal with it. I ended up getting an ethernet card for my Mac SE and used it as a file and print server - but damn was it slow!
Who on earth wrote the title of that news story ?
The top end iMac in the UK is £1800.
Unbelievable. Currency changes dont explain all of that.
It most certainly is not affordable... its a rip off. So much so that Ive decided not to buy. The specifications of the update are woeful, and the price is massively inflated. That kind of money buys me a top end i7 PC which even kicks a mac pro (also lame update) into the gutter.
Apple have finally priced me out. A sad day indeed.
but if that doesnt come out in 6-8 months, they will be seeing a lot of mac people go to PC... sad as it may be. (including myslef)
LOL. You're kidding right? Like I mentioned above, my iMac is 3 years old and still runs just fine. If a newer model iMac doesn't come out in 6-8 months, most of us will just continue to use the Mac we currently own. Also, given the speculation that with Snow Leopard most of us may experience a performance bump, that will only increase the lifespan of my iMac.
I'd rather run a ten year old Mac than switch to using Windows!
So, class, how do we get faster Mac's sooner?
A: Spend $1 a day more, tip $1 more. Buy one thing extra a week. If all 170m full-time emp's did this we would fix the economy twice as fast.
Stop buying cheap imports from China and keep buying US made products... that might also do the trick! I really admire your president's view about 'Buy America'..
In the UK we have a lame duck 'non elected' prime minister who keeps telling us not to buy British as protectionism ultimately fails. I wish someone would shoot him.
Lack of LEDs is a disappointment for those of us who us it with photos and are serious about it.
And Blu-Ray would be very good to store data on, like all the photos made.
And what happened to the Quad core CPUs?
I guess my decision is to postpone until the next version of the OS is out (2nd or 3rd Q??) and see what the landscape looks like then, and the OS will be on the box.
As for the naysayers above and below. The 9400M is a VERY GOOD CHIP! You know it is! It's not 3 yr old junk that PC users create the illusion around being better ("oh I got 512mb memory, that means your 256mb is worse than mine... he he...") rather it's total output. Look at it this way... The specs... 1066mhz memory at 256mb is MORE than enough to run a 30" at it's highest resolution above 50fps (we humans only see at 32fps, not sure about the bionic geek gamers). It uses very little power and also runs your north and south bridge thus making the entire computer faster and more efficient. So is it decent? YES. Will you outgrow it? YES, but how long is the real question. Compared to the outgoing model this is better, faster and less power hungry while providing more overall computing power. So YES. You have to keep in mind the design constraints in building the thinnest all-in-one full power desktop on the market. There's only so much room, space, heat dissipation.
This upgrade should run much cooler than the outgoing units too.
My target machine is the entry level 24" iMac. Compared to the outgoing model it has:
- more RAM
- RAM with higher sustained speed, but with higher latency
- bigger HD
- same bus speed
- slower processor
- graphics running in shared memory
- no separate FW400 bus for legacy peripherals (FW800 bus gets dragged down to 400 speed)
I don't see much there that qualifies as better and faster and it's still a nightmare to upgrade the hard drive, something I do on an annual basis.
Your comment about the iMac being the thinnest all-in-one full power desktop is false. The iMac is a notebook computer with a big display. It's NOT a full power desktop by any stretch of the imagination. By making it so thin, a feature no customer in the world actually cares about because people look at the front of their display not the edge, Apple is forced to use under powered components.
The 9400 is very efficient, but as a 3D display engine it is crap.
I am horribly disappointed that there's still no quad core Mac under US$2499. There are quad core PCs under $600 and Nehalem based PCs under $1000. Apple must think it's still 2007.
Yes you said it, I use a bare bones windowz system at work, yes I agree. You have to purchase software to make a windowz system work, yes I agree. But a Mac is not a bare bones system so stop comparing it to bare bones windowz systems, you?re comparing apples to oranges. Go ahead and buy a windowz system for a few hundred dollars cheaper than a mac and when you want to edit a video, or edit photos, make a photo album, record music, make your own website, or make a DVD, as creative people do, you can go buy a bunch of crappy windows software that is buggy and gives inferior results that a Mac, but you can be comfortable knowing that you originally paid less for your now more expensive windowz computer.
Yes, many people may not need these types of features on their computer, and that's what windowz computers are for, the great masses who only need web access and a video game from their computers. Many mac users want more from their computer and OSX and iLife delivers that in spades.
People on these boards keep complaining that a dell or other windowz computers are so much cheaper than a Mac and I?m sick of it, because if you use your mac as intended, to easily create photos, albums, videos, websites, music... it?s actually cheaper than a windowz system, and that?s what Apple understands. I would hate to try and configure a windowz computer to do what a mac does out of the box because quite frankly there is no windowz equivalent to OSX and iLife. If you?re not using you mac for those 2 things you are missing the point of a mac, like using a race car to plow a field.
ok this "windowz" thing is childish, you are childish, so much that im having a hard time believing that you are even a professional. further more, not all windows PC's are bare bones, just the ones they sell in bulk to companies.
with $1200 you can get a more powerful computer than any iMac.
you now have $1000 to spend on software.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopelwin/ (adobe photoshop elements 7) $99 and its a more in depth program.
CyberLink PowerDirector 7 Ultra $120, rated higher than ilife.
http://www.adobe.com/products/audition/ Adobe Audition 3, without a doubt the best audio editor you can buy, $350 (can be upgraded from an old version for $99, and you'll be able to upgrade later to newer versions for that same price)
you can actually do a lot of this stuff for free, like make photo albums win windows media center. anyway you'll notice with this software it all adds up to be about $570 still $430 cheaper than the iMac, and you get seriously professional applications, not the easy to use armature iLife (yes its brilliant for armatures, but for a serious professional? it just doesn't stack up, its a jack of all trades if you will)
plus, you dont have to get MS office or Apple iWork, so you save money (on a PC you can get open office, which is what i use, which is just about as good as the MS office stuff, and 100% freeware)
there is a reason to complain right now. im not saying *you* or anyone should go out and get a windows PC, but i am saying your claims are pure BS. your ignorant about windows, and use that to justify the high expense of a iMac.
Many people are saying they are so disappointed and will, as a result, go to using a PC running Windows. How many, I wonder, will make the switch and then regret it based purely on Microsoft's OS and all the trouble they will run into with bugs, viruses, spyware etc.
One of my Mac user friends is a designer and he uses both a Mac and a PC for work (he works freelance from home). Once every two or three months he calls in an IT guy to work through his PC system and iron-out its problems, viruses etc.
Each time it costs him money, despite his security etc, and each time he begs for the day when he can work for clients using only his Macs.
All of those who switch to Windows will... come back home. :-)
If I buy a PC I'm going to install Leopard. There's no way I'll run Windows.
The new iMacs are cost saving, last year models, with a poor design. Here's what's wrong with these iMacs:
- No quad-core desktop CPU, while quad-core desktop CPUs have been available from Intel since November 2007;
- No quad-core Core i7 (Nehalem) desktop CPU which has been available from Intel since November 17, 2008;
- No quad-core Penryn mobile CPU which has been available from Intel since August or September 2008;
- No quad-core Penryn CPU for all-in-one, small-form factor computers which has been available from Intel since January 2009;
- A glossy display which is more difficult to read, especially for customers with reading glasses;
- An uncompetitive price when compared with either quad-core or dual-core Windows computers offered from large retailers like Staples in the U.S.A, Britain or Canada.
The new iMacs are a big let down from a company which is more focused on its high prices and senior management bonuses than its customers.
Watch out for the upcoming Windows 7 on quad-core Core i7 desktop or mobile computers. Apple will go through another one of its self-imposed blood bath.
For more info on the Core i7, see:
- Intel unleashes Core i7, beats itself @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40213/135/
- Core i7 PCs launch with prices from $1250 to $13,000 @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40227/135/
- Intel Core i7 processor pricing @ http://www.intc.com/common/download/..._1ku_Price.pdf
The Penryn Core 2 Quad Q6600 65 nm CPU has been available from Intel for $266 since November 2007, and $224 since April 20, 2008. See:
- Intel releases sixteen new Penryn processors for servers and high-end @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34800/118/
- Intel to cut 65 nm quad-core processor prices for 45 nm @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36136/139/
- Intel drops second quad-core CPU into the mainstream @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37038/135/
- Have quad-core processors arrived in the mainstream? @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36548/135/
- Intel adds cheap dual-core, quad-core @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39135/135/
- Intel lowers CPU prices up to 48% on server, quads, duals and mobile @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41092/135/
- Intel to launch 65W desktop CPUs for all-in-one PCs @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40267/139/
Apple, what have you done?
If I buy a PC I'm going to install Leopard. There's no way I'll run Windows.
Michael Dell saw these *upgrades* and if you listen, listen really hard you can almost hear him cheering!!!
..its that or Ballmer sighing with relief.
Apple, we are in a recession. Get a clue.
What? No quad-core? No Core i7?
well you really didnt expect the i7 did you? that was never goign to make it, too hot from what i hear.
but i did see that it will be in a laptop soon... so im not sure how that works.
either way, that should be out with the mobile versions at the end of the year... i guess we should just hope that when they add those they completely redesign the thing from the ground up... would that be too much to hope for?
And to AppleInsider: if you are going to use a direct quotation from the Apple PR Dept as part of your headline you should put quotation marks around it, otherwise it reads as a fact. On a day when they put the price of iMacs up by nearly a third for a good proportion of your readers, a headline stating 'more affordable pricing' adds insult to injury and makes you look like ridiculous shills.
iMac 24inch- AU$2499
2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
640GB Serial ATA Drive
8x DL Superdrive
NIVIDIA GeForce 9400M Graphics
compared to something like...
Dell Studio XPS Desktop- AU$2519.30
Dell S2409WFP 24" Flat Panel Monitor
2.66 Ghz Intel Core i7-920
6GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
1TB Serial ATA Drive
16x DVD+/-RW with Dual Layer Write capabilities
512MB ATI Radeon HD 4850
Seems pretty good value for an extra AU$20...
Keep in mind OS X runs graphics in a much faster way than windows by almost 3:1.
Oh please, that's hilarious. Post some Crysis benchmarks on PC vs Mac and lets see this 3:1 speed boost.