New iMacs.

Instigator said:
How is the iMac display better than the Dell displays, last I remember Dell didn't have a rash of recalls on their panels.
Click to expand...

The current 24" iMac display is using the same H-IPS panel that is in the NEC 2490WUXi 24" LCD, considered one of the absolute best 24" monitors on the market. That NEC does cost $1100, so in the case of the 24" iMac, even though you are getting a glossy display instead of matte and what are sure to be different electronics, you are still getting a damn good deal on that panel.

Either way, the **90 series NEC LCDs blow away any Dell LCD I have ever seen (or any other monitor outside of the Eizos for that matter). I can probably conclude the same with the 24" iMac pretty safely. Hell, that 24" iMac is currently a better display than the standalone 23" Apple Cinema Displays. Those things haven't been physically updated in years now and are long overdue.

The 20" iMacs are a different story, unfortunately. When they made the move from the plastic enclosure to the aluminum enclosure, the panel was changed from an S-IPS to a TN. While the 20" iMacs do have very even backlight illumination for a TN, they also have very high contrast and obviously display fewer colors than a competing IPS. They can be calibrated so as not to be too contrasty but no matter what it is a large step backwards.
 
The appeal of the iMac does not lie in PC price comparisons.

First of all, stop comparing hardware so hard, when the real advantage of the Mac is the software and OS. Secondly, the 24" uses a H-IPS panel, which is one of the best LCD panels around. Thirdly, it is style and compactness your paying for too, but it's a nice computer for the money, no matter how you cut it. Sure you could build your own, but it won't be seemless like the iMac, and have a gorgeous 24" widescreen H-IPS panel built in. There is a risk of getting a lemon, but you take that risk with every major purchase, and the iMac is hardly different in that respect. That's what 30 day return policies are for. And is anyone going to tell me that an entire computer made of metal that is no bigger than an average LCD panel is not cool?
 
colinstu said:
Is anyone that tight on space? You can fit a tower no matter how much space you don't have, stick it on the floor, under the monitor, behind it... Or just get a laptop. If you are tight on space I doubt you would have the money for an imac.
Click to expand...

In my case it made lots of sense. I wanted to replace my ancient G4 tower that I used Final Cut Studio on. I also wanted to cram my Mac and my PC onto the same 60"x30" desktop. I also realized that the iMacs use Core 2 Duo CPUs now and actually provide really excellent performance. I could have dropped $2500+ on a Mac Pro, plus more or a high quality IPS monitor. If we're talking about an NEC (which I use on my PC now) that would have added another $1100 right there.

Bottom line is that for my purposes, I didn't need two quad-core Woodcrest Xeons for running Final Cut Studio and video encoding, and I certainly didn't need it for general purpose stuff which is what I do 90% on the time in OS X anyway, that is way overkill. Instead I got a 24" iMac and a cheap external hard drive for backups. Easy. Now I can fit both my PC monitor and iMac plus stereo speakers for both on my 60" desktop, while having only one tower underneath instead of two. It works really really well, plus I spent way less on everything than if I had bought a Mac Pro alone with a monitor.

I'm really happy with the setup. Final Cut screams on this thing, it is a perfect general use machine, and I've had zero issues with it, so yeah, totally worth it for me. It has the added benefit where I can web browse or do email on one machine while waiting to respawn in Team Fortress 2 on the other, good times. :)
 
Sylar - I've built so many machines over the last 12 years, and I almost regret to say that the iMac I have is my favorite computer I've ever owned. If I wasn't a PC gamer I wouldn't even bother building my own machines anymore and just go with these. Compact, clean, fast, rock solid, gorgeous display, what more do you need if you're not a gamer?

Actually, one of the people I play TF2 with does it on the previous gen white 20" iMac in Boot Camp and he says it runs great. He's one of the best scouts in the Shacknews group so I'll take his word for it. I guess I could do that as well but I dunno. Maybe its just a habit of mine but I just have to run games like that on a tricked out rig that I threw together. :)
 
Serpico, I totally agree. Indeed the iMacs are not for everyone, and certainly not for gamers. However, they are still sexy machines worthy of ownership. I have owned two white Intel iMacs back in the day, and if I didn't want the Mac Pro's 4-bay hard drive capacity, high end gpu options, ability for separate displays, and RAM abilities, I would be saving right now for an iMac. Plus the iMac has decent graphics for what it is, though I will admit I prefer my LCDs to not be glossy.

The iMac is my perfect budget Mac second room desktop option. However, I only have one room, and it belongs to the Mac Pro...
 
Serpico said:
In my case it made lots of sense. I wanted to replace my ancient G4 tower that I used Final Cut Studio on. I also wanted to cram my Mac and my PC onto the same 60"x30" desktop. I also realized that the iMacs use Core 2 Duo CPUs now and actually provide really excellent performance. I could have dropped $2500+ on a Mac Pro, plus more or a high quality IPS monitor. If we're talking about an NEC (which I use on my PC now) that would have added another $1100 right there.

Bottom line is that for my purposes, I didn't need two quad-core Woodcrest Xeons for running Final Cut Studio and video encoding, and I certainly didn't need it for general purpose stuff which is what I do 90% on the time in OS X anyway, that is way overkill. Instead I got a 24" iMac and a cheap external hard drive for backups. Easy. Now I can fit both my PC monitor and iMac plus stereo speakers for both on my 60" desktop, while having only one tower underneath instead of two. It works really really well, plus I spent way less on everything than if I had bought a Mac Pro alone with a monitor.

I'm really happy with the setup. Final Cut screams on this thing, it is a perfect general use machine, and I've had zero issues with it, so yeah, totally worth it for me. It has the added benefit where I can web browse or do email on one machine while waiting to respawn in Team Fortress 2 on the other, good times. :)
Click to expand...

Ditto

I use my 24" for a lot of content creation, and it's no mac pro (we've got one of those here to and it IS awesome), but it definitely kicks booty and looks glorious while doing it.
 
Sylar Powers said:
Serpico, I totally agree. Indeed the iMacs are not for everyone, and certainly not for gamers.
Click to expand...

well, the new ones with the 8800GS are certainly for gamers. i just sold my gaming pc for a 3.06 imac with the 8800GS, and it runs games great via boot camp/windows xp. bioshock runs smooth as butter at 1600x900.

i also have to say, the screen is amazing. i use a Dell 2405FPW as an extended display, and it pales in comparison to the imac display. the machine is awesome, and i just got a 4GB RAM upgrade for it, too. :)

here's my setup.
 
Glad your iMac is working fine as I recently returned mine for a full refund because I couldn't deal with the gradient problem that I was experience on the 3.06 iMac.

If interested, go to:
http://downloads.zac.ch/imac/imac_gradient_test_24.html

Enlarge that window to full screen and adjust your brightness to 0. If you see the left side being brighter than the right, gradient problem it is :)
 
richlin71 said:
well, the new ones with the 8800GS are certainly for gamers. i just sold my gaming pc for a 3.06 imac with the 8800GS, and it runs games great via boot camp/windows xp. bioshock runs smooth as butter at 1600x900.

i also have to say, the screen is amazing. i use a Dell 2405FPW as an extended display, and it pales in comparison to the imac display. the machine is awesome, and i just got a 4GB RAM upgrade for it, too. :)

here's my setup.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those new 8800GS rigs are very nice. Congrats on the purchase!
 
I would buy an iMac 24" if I could, except there are two problems, blu-ray movies and an esata connection for my esata with multi-port hard drives enclosure. If Apple would get these working or a 3rd party company. I wouldn't mind switching to an iMac 24". I don't game as I do plus I usually play RPGs, except for some 1st person shooter i.e. Half-Life 2.
 
the new speeds of the new imacs are awesome! especially with the dual cores, that means that you have essentially a 6.0ghz processor
 
You can't multiply the number of cores against the clock speed - it doesn't work like that at all.
 
Hey Serpico! Postal from the shack here. Guess there's more of us around the [H] than I thought.

I have the previous generation 2.4GHz, 24-inch model... and if I was rolling deep, I'd have one of the new ones. The CPU difference (yes, it's just a factory-overclocked Penryn/Santa Rosa combo) and the 8800 GS make for a huge jump forward in speed.

And you know what I like about the iMac? It really is just the simplest desktop you can buy! It's perfect for an apartment: there's only a small footprint, and you don't need to hook up more than the power cable (and perhaps mouse/keyboard) if you don't have a lot of peripherals. That you can play games or edit pro-level video on it is icing on the cake.
 
maxamillion said:
I just ordered my imac 24 2.8ghz last week and the 3.0 ghz releases.....

Is there a way to call up apple for an exchange even if the product wasn't purchased from them directly? (imac is brand new and waiting upon arrival for UPS)
Click to expand...

Don't open the box and take it to an Apple Store?
 
B. W. said:
That 24" panel is also a lot better than your Dell. You have to remember that the iMac is using notebook parts, so it's going to be more expensive.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. I really do not see how you can say the panel used in the iMac is *any* better than the panel used in the Dell, oh, say, 2408FPW which is likely what he just purchased. The iMac is prettier...and has a computer built in...but the screens will be identical if not in favor of the Dell due to the glossiness of the iMac screen. I say this having edited photos on both 24" iMacs and 24" PCs using Dell monitors.
 
Sheer clock speed doesn't make a difference in most computing nowadays, unless you are encoding or running some sort of heavy CPU usage program (most people don't).

As such I fail to see why Apple is making a bit of a deal out of this one.
 
Aurelius said:
Hey Serpico! Postal from the shack here. Guess there's more of us around the [H] than I thought.

I have the previous generation 2.4GHz, 24-inch model... and if I was rolling deep, I'd have one of the new ones. The CPU difference (yes, it's just a factory-overclocked Penryn/Santa Rosa combo) and the 8800 GS make for a huge jump forward in speed.

And you know what I like about the iMac? It really is just the simplest desktop you can buy! It's perfect for an apartment: there's only a small footprint, and you don't need to hook up more than the power cable (and perhaps mouse/keyboard) if you don't have a lot of peripherals. That you can play games or edit pro-level video on it is icing on the cake.
Click to expand...

Wassup!

And yes, agreed on that. Tiny footprint, no mess, can handle anything I throw at it, powerful, plus UNIX running underneath the best GUI out there right now, what's not to love?
 
TechieSooner said:
Sheer clock speed doesn't make a difference in most computing nowadays, unless you are encoding or running some sort of heavy CPU usage program (most people don't).

As such I fail to see why Apple is making a bit of a deal out of this one.
Click to expand...

You'd be here anyway if Apple was still using shitty Motorola CPUs and were grossly underpowered compared to the competition. Now they're too powerful for most people?

Oh, wait, Techie "I don't set Dell's pricing/I didn't really mean it when I said OS 10.2/10.3 was better than 10.5" is threadcrapping in an Apple thread, what a surprise. :rolleyes:
 
Mad_Pyro said:
Uh, no. I really do not see how you can say the panel used in the iMac is *any* better than the panel used in the Dell, oh, say, 2408FPW which is likely what he just purchased. The iMac is prettier...and has a computer built in...but the screens will be identical if not in favor of the Dell due to the glossiness of the iMac screen. I say this having edited photos on both 24" iMacs and 24" PCs using Dell monitors.
Click to expand...

The only other place you can get the H-IPS panel used in the 24" iMac is in the NEC 2490WUXi, which happens to be roughly $1100 and blows away the S-PVA in the 2408FPW. The difference between the NEC and the iMac is obviously the glossy display. I own both monitors and have them side by side, and with some tweaking you can get them really close. It also doesn't affect me since I have no reflection or glare issues in my home office, but if you have windows directly behind you then it can be a problem.

The 20" iMacs are a different story since they use TN panels (ugh). Big mistake going from S-IPS to TN there, but part of me wonders if that is a supply issue. NEC discontinued their S-IPS 20" in December and finding a 20" IPS seems to be impossible now...
 
crfracer290 said:
Not an all in one of course...but what really is the point of an all in one desktop? Do you have a tiny desk that is a foot wide and and 6 inches deep? Don't get me wrong, the iMac looks nice, but for the money you spend you just don't get alot.
Click to expand...
You might find this hard to believe, but there are a lot of people out there who are willing to pay a bit more for a bit less hardware, in order to free up desk space and clutter. If I didn't desperately need the gigahertz, I'd buy an all-in-one in a heartbeat. As general-usage computers for people who don't need several internal hard drives or replaceable monitors or whatever, the iMacs are brilliant. Very small, very quiet, and still very very fast.

It's changed since, but during the first-gen C2D iMacs, I priced out a similarly-speced homegrown PC and it came out slightly more expensive than the iMac. YMMV and so on, but the iMacs aren't that expensive for what you get. I probably spent about as much as an iMac on my machine, and the only thing mine has over the iMac (other than expandability) is the fact that it's a quadcore instead of a dualcore. Hell, even the monitor is worse -- stay away from the Samsung SyncMaster 245b, it's shit.
 
Serpico said:
You'd be here anyway if Apple was still using shitty Motorola CPUs and were grossly underpowered compared to the competition.
Click to expand...
In some instances (when comparing PC v Mac specs) the PCs you can configure DO have higher clock speeds, so yes- the Mac is underpowered.

However, it's like comparing a V8 in a pickup truck to an engine in a semi truck to haul a table across town... The pickup truck IS underpowered in that example, but is more than enough to get the job done.

Understand?

It's just that globally across the board (even for PCs), sheer clock speed is PLENTY.

All I was saying, is why Apple is making a big deal about the clock speed. I'd be questioning it if Dell, or HP were making a big deal about this as well... Except obviously, they aren't.

I'd understand if they added some cool new features (like I was expecting).
 
TechieSooner said:
In some instances (when comparing PC v Mac specs) the PCs you can configure DO have higher clock speeds, so yes- the Mac is underpowered.

However, it's like comparing a V8 in a pickup truck to an engine in a semi truck to haul a table across town... The pickup truck IS underpowered in that example, but is more than enough to get the job done.

Understand?

It's just that globally across the board (even for PCs), sheer clock speed is PLENTY.

All I was saying, is why Apple is making a big deal about the clock speed. I'd be questioning it if Dell, or HP were making a big deal about this as well... Except obviously, they aren't.

I'd understand if they added some cool new features (like I was expecting).
Click to expand...

Didn't your mamma ever tell you that nobody likes a troll?

Maybe we don't "understand" because nobody is listening to you.
 
All I was saying, is why Apple is making a big deal about the clock speed. I'd be questioning it if Dell, or HP were making a big deal about this as well... Except obviously, they aren't.

I'd understand if they added some cool new features (like I was expecting).
Click to expand...

It is a midcycle upgrade to Penryns, no big deal. They always announce faster clock speeds across the board in the middle of a product cycle. The "new features" already came in the form of a new enclosure last August. If they add anything new it'll come (even thinner, 30" model, on-screen multitouch interface?), but for now the features are set based on the last major revision which is just over half a year old. All they can do now is offer faster components, more default RAM, and more hard drive space for the same price as before.

What is wrong with any company promoting this? I certainly don't hold it against Dell or HP when they promote that they are giving more bang for the buck.

It is fun trolling Apple threads for no reason though, isn't it? ;)
 
Serpico said:
In my case it made lots of sense. I wanted to replace my ancient G4 tower that I used Final Cut Studio on. I also wanted to cram my Mac and my PC onto the same 60"x30" desktop. I also realized that the iMacs use Core 2 Duo CPUs now and actually provide really excellent performance. I could have dropped $2500+ on a Mac Pro, plus more or a high quality IPS monitor. If we're talking about an NEC (which I use on my PC now) that would have added another $1100 right there.

Bottom line is that for my purposes, I didn't need two quad-core Woodcrest Xeons for running Final Cut Studio and video encoding, and I certainly didn't need it for general purpose stuff which is what I do 90% on the time in OS X anyway, that is way overkill. Instead I got a 24" iMac and a cheap external hard drive for backups. Easy. Now I can fit both my PC monitor and iMac plus stereo speakers for both on my 60" desktop, while having only one tower underneath instead of two. It works really really well, plus I spent way less on everything than if I had bought a Mac Pro alone with a monitor.

I'm really happy with the setup. Final Cut screams on this thing, it is a perfect general use machine, and I've had zero issues with it, so yeah, totally worth it for me. It has the added benefit where I can web browse or do email on one machine while waiting to respawn in Team Fortress 2 on the other, good times. :)
Click to expand...

My gf wants to get a Mac for Final Cut Pro. Which model will suit her needs? How much memory does that need to run smoothly? How upgradeable are Macs? Can I throw in a new video card? Are they using proprietary parts or can I get any notebook part and use that? Thanks.
 
the 24" iMac might as well have been designed specifically for final cut pro. It's an absolutely perfect match.

FCP is not RAM demanding, but it's so cheap anyway. upgrade to 4GB of ram ($75 on newegg). Get final cut studio and learn to use motion.

Only thing you might need to expand in the future is hard drive space. I suggest external firewire 800 drives.
 
DaNotoriousDOM said:
My gf wants to get a Mac for Final Cut Pro. Which model will suit her needs? How much memory does that need to run smoothly? How upgradeable are Macs? Can I throw in a new video card? Are they using proprietary parts or can I get any notebook part and use that? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Like Methodical said, Final Cut Studio will run great on the 24" iMacs. The baseline 2GB of RAM is great, that's what I use. You can upgrade to 4GB of DDR2 for cheap but right now I don't think it is totally necessary.

I use external hard drives for backup (a mix of Firewire and USB 2) so storage expansion isn't an issue. Editing with files off of an external is fine too with the Firewire 400 and 800 ports that are available. The internal hard drive is a notebook HD but it is not easily upgradable. I would pick the HD you want to use at purchase and stick with it. The GPU is soldered to the motherboard so that cannot be swapped out like a PCI-E card. You can get a Mac Pro for PCI-E cards but I personally feel that that is unnecessary for Final Cut Pro.

Something to note is the difference in performance between the default Radeon HD 2600 PRO and the 8800GS upgrade option. The 8800GS benches approximately twice as fast as the Radeon in 3D gaming. That said, the Radeon 2600 PRO is about 25% faster than the 8800GS in Core Image and Core Animation benchmarks. This is important because all of the Pro applications make extensive use of Core Image and Animation. Keep this in mind if you are thinking about spending $150 on the upgrade to the 8800GS. There is talk of nVidia issuing drivers to improve Core performance, but for the time being the way to go with a rig for running applications like Final Cut and Motion on both the iMac and the Mac Pro is to go with the Radeon. I wouldn't get the 8800GS unless gaming at 1920x1200 was more important to me than running Final Cut.

All that said, my recommendation is the baseline 24" iMac with 2.8ghz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, and Radeon video option. The only other thing I would do is make the $50 upgrade to a 500GB internal hard drive. The 24" screen gives her tons of desktop real estate to do her work on, plus that LCD uses the same incredible H-IPS panel that is in the NEC 2490WUXi, except that the NEC monitor alone is $1100. I would stay away from the 20" iMac unless money was an issue. The hardware specs are fine but the LCD is a TN panel, a big step back in visual quality from the S-IPS panels used in the previous white plastic versions of the iMac. You could run a second IPS panel off of that 20" iMac, of course, but at that point you might as well get the 24" version anyway.

Let me know if you have more questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top