New iMacs

Yes I think this itineration was a rather disappointing move forward. The processor is the only thing I like, but I'd never shell out 2,299 for a computer.

As to the people that say it is ugly, I agree. As to the macheads that say who cares... um why the hell else do you pay a HUGE premium for a mac... cause its processors are faster? Oh wait... they are all intel.

As to the video card... I think you will find it dissapointingly slow, and many steps lower than the new nVidia 8 series... at least according to reviews.

So... on the plus side better processor options... thinner, nice big screen.

Negatives:

Ugly,
crap videocard,
keyboard form over function,
still a large price premium over dell, and no longer as "hot."
1 gb of ram stock

 

It looks pretty sweet. I'm going to buy it.

It uses an HD 2600 Pro, right?

Is it possible to change the video card to an HD 2900 XT?

 

No no no and no, this is a mac... not a PC... you don't switch things around. It comes the way they tell you it comes. No more.

Only the 2.4 comes with the 2600 Pro

 

I don't mind the black border one bit. It's the entire rest of the thing that looks ugly to me

Ah well, I'm sure it looks better in person (I hope?).

 

Well, that's a bummer, but still, it's still better than the last iMac. Is the video card DX 10?

What nvidia series is it equivalent to?

 

You won't be able to get a 2900 XT in there - that's 80nm, this is a 65nm.

As far as performance for the 2600 Pro - it's decent. It's not that great though...based on the scores for the MacBook Pro in this forum, it doesn't even match the 8600m GT in the new MBPs. See here for a good benchmarking:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2151750,00.asp

Since it sits on a 128 bit bus, it's still somewhat hampered, compared to the more powerful cards of today.

EDIT: Yes, it is DX10 - and it's a bit lower than the 8600 GT (not GTS) in performance.

 

But seriously guys... what the heck.... You can get a quad core 2.4 with 2 gigs a of ram a video card that is 2x faster and a 20" inch screen for the price of this mac 20"....

Doesn't that seem a little weird?

 

It's a laptop wannabe from Apple I find it funny how everyone's trying to make desktop-wannabe laptops, but Apple has laptop-wannabe desktops.

Just consider how much you can save if you actually built your own desktop too

 

It's only weird to you. We're are not interested in using Windows. This machine is for people that want to use Mac OS X and if they want to use Windows it can be installed for gaming. The cheesy machine you just described doesn't have this capability.

Stop trolling and calm down.

 

yeah this is for people who don't care about apple tax. To some people, a sleek machine means more than video horsepower.

Count on apple to both tell you what you want and how much you want to pay for it.

Go apple!

 

Well Bill Gates does it and collects well on his fanboys.

 

This is the frustrating ignorance of a mac purist. No the machine you can get from dell, (XPS 410) is 1199 and has QUAD 2.4's and outmatches everything about this machine by 2x over. Seriously... you pay a 600-2000 dollar OSX tax... its so ... sad?

 

That's right, money is no object for what I want to use. Why buy cheap hardware if that means being stuck with Windows? That's your logic, if you don't like Apple's stuff then why troll? You're not going to convince anyone to switch to Windows because you've found lower cost options.

 

No, this is the frustrating ignorance of a Windows PC user, always trolling and putting down the Mac and it's user base like we made a mistake in computing choices.

 

Well, I'm disappointed with the HD 2600Pro. Apple should have at least gone with the HD 2600XT. Frankly, ATI's R600 series are very poor performing because of their VLIW architecture which relies heavily on good compilers and drivers to achieve performance. And somehow I doubt Apple's OpenGL drivers will be better than the current Windows ones which are already poor. Going with a 8600GT or 8600GTS would have simplified things a lot. I wonder how much cajoling ATI had to do to get AMD a piece of the Intel iMac.

Anyways, the 24" iMac has a 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme option. Seeing that the only mobile Core 2 Extreme is the 2.6GHz X7800 that was just announced, it seems Apple is actually shipping and supporting a factory overclocked computer. I wonder if the power consumption and heat is noticeably higher?

 

To be fair, the $1,199 version of the XPS 410 only has an nVidia 8300...so you do need to bump up to the 8600 GT to overtake the 2600 Pro. But I think everyone here gets your point, tsunami - Macs, looking solely at hardware, are overpriced. That isn't why people buy Macs, though. If you only care about the hardware involved, then you're absolutely right, don't get a Mac.

 

Yea I would've greatly preferred an nVidia card in here - the 8600 GTS would've made me one happy camper. Of course, in that small enclosure, they might not've been able to fit it in, or it got too hot and didn't ventilate well. Who knows - either way, Steve Jobs has spoken, and ATI it is.

 

If anyone's interested, Apple's posted a video to today's Special Event. Here's the link: http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/r27842e/event/index.html?test=q1wa2sz3x

 

There's your answer. Heat is the issue here. Since apple insists on aesthetics they use one piece of aluminum for the entire computer. They're obviously not going to mar their work of art with a bunch of vents and fans all over the place. They had to cut the heat and it appears a place they thought was wise was in the video card section.

Apple knows their consumers, and they know that macs aren't the number one choice for gaming. The HD 2600 may not be so hot for gaming, but it does great in all other areas(much like how the Quadro FX series are great for rendering still 3D images or even movies, but generally lack in gaming). Mac users aren't looking for gaming machines, their looking for multimedia machines, and this looks to deliver.

 

Ok so your saying that heat is an issue. If they can put an 8600GT in the MBP then they certainly can put one in the new iMac. The iMac is basically laptop parts anyway. I was holding out for the new iMac to get one to use OSX and game on XP but this GPU they are using now sucks compared to the 7600 in the old one. To think they were trotting out EA and id to tout gaming on the Mac system. They just lost that on the consumer level. I would consider the Mac Pro but I was wanting an all in one solution. Guess I will have to get a gaming laptop to compensate.

 

I believe the desktop 7600GT and the desktop 8600GT are actually about the same speed in actual games (not 3DMark), which would make the HD 2600Pro much slower than both of those. (The HD 2600XT competes against the 8600GT). That means it's quite possible that the new iMacs will be slower in gaming than the previous iMacs with the 7600GT.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3047&p=7

In terms of multimedia usage, from Anandtech's conclusions, ATI's UVD does seem to lower CPU usage of HD playback, but they felt the 8600 had better image quality, which is disappointing since that is usually ATI's forte.

The HD 2600Pro just doesn't have much to recommend it. Really, given that Apple had the thermal room to stick in the 2.6GHz X7800 Merom Extreme Edition and overclock it to 2.8GHz, you'd think they could fit the desktop 8600GT in.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=4

In fact, the 8600GT and HD 2600Pro consume identical power at idle and the 8600GT only consumes 12W more on load. I doubt the difference at load was insurmountable.

 

The reason no one cares how a Dell or HP desktop looks is that you don't have to stare at the box while you use it. You put it on the side or under the desk, and all you're really looking at is the monitor. With Apple, for the midrange desktops, you have to get the all-in-one, and you have to look at the computer while using it, since it's built in to the display, so that's why people care about how it looks.

 

Hmm, actually, I bought my iMac since it was the nicest looking computer I could get for less than $600, and it served all of my needs (after I installed XP).

 

Less than $600? You got an iMac for less than $600? Tell me where you're getting these iMacs, Vivek!

 

24" can have a desktop processor! wooo, great upgrade Apple, Me likes me likes.

 

I know my opinion probably won't mean much here....

But I honestly think the new iMacs are hideous. That two tone look has got to go.

And when will Apple start using desktop processors and components in desktop PCs? $2300 and you still get the mobile "Extreme" processor! I'd rather have the iMac be twice as thick and have desktop components in it than pay $2300 for a system that still has mobile/laptop components.

 

I think the old iMacs are much cleaner, but the look of the new ones is slick, too. I think the big problem is the keyboard...why no number pad?

How Ironic: the same day Apple releases a spreadsheet program called "Numbers", it also releases a keyboard with no number pad! Hmm...

 

There's two new keyboards announced today; the wired one has a number pad, the wireless one that's "meant to be moved around, put on your lap, etc." does not have a number pad. So you're half right .

 

Yea, I got the machine in my sig for $570 plus tax It was the last one left in Washington state (not sure about other places though)

 

yes, but when buying a premium product (i.e. apple), you would almost expect there to ONLY be a wireless keyboard option. It just doesn't make sense not to include a number pad. it doesn't make the keyboard that much bigger!

 

The previous iMacs never had Nvidia GeForce 7600GT, did they? I thought they only offered ATI X1600PRO and 7300GT at most.

 

correct.

if that's true about the ATI HD 2600 being slower than the nVidia 8600, then that would be ridiculous

how could the make their 'desktop' slower than their 'laptop'
terrible!

 

You aren't thinking in terms of marketing! How could they make their pro line anything slower than their consumer line. Pro needs to be faster than "i" ... even if its artificially contrived and still overpriced. This is normal for most manufacturers except oddly enough dell... who will make their Inspiron line faster and cheaper than a lot of XPS computers in some configs.... that I don't get at all.

Also... the iMac is NOT a desktop computer... it is a laptop that has been made non-portable, all laptop components.

 

I don't think that's entirely true as I believe the hard drives are desktop hard drives. There isn't a 1TB laptop hard drive yet is there or a 24" laptop screen? It's more of a combination of desktop and laptop parts.

 

So Dell can just relabel their Inspiron with the title "gaming machine" and add an extra $1000 to the price

To be fair, the XPS line does offer much-needed high-end options that you can't get in the Inspiron line, and earlier than most other laptop lines (i.e. a decent processor, first to offer the Hitachi 7k200, etc.)

 

C'mon get real... of course there isn't but you can essentially connect ANY laptop to ANY screen and any external hard drive. Any of the parts that MATTER (Motherboard, CPU,GPU, BUS etc) are laptop.

 

But then you lose sight of the original purpose of the iMac. It's supposed to be an all-in-one desktop computer, not something you connect to external things like a screen and hard-drive and it's not fair for you to call it "a laptop that has been made non-portable, all laptop components."

 

Do you really want an all-in-one desktop though? The whole point of a desktop is configurability and versatility, compared to laptops right?

I tend to agree with the "non-portable laptop" image. I think all these hybrids (i.e. desktop with laptop components and laptops with desktop components) tend to bring out most of the disadvantages of both, while lacking a lot of the advantages of each.

Laptop-wannabee desktops:
Desktops aren't meant to be moved often. They can stay in place with a ton of external peripherals, as well as holding a lot more power inside since you don't have to worry about battery life and portability. However, cramming laptop components inside one just defeats all the power and versatility of being a "desktop". On the other hand, you still can't carry it around with you, so it defeats the point of being a laptop either - hence, all the disadvantages of both, and few of the advantages of either. So the question is, "Why didn't you just buy a laptop?"

Desktop-wannabe laptops:
Now you've got a laptop that can't be used on the lap, has battery life so pitiful you can't use it for even an hour, and produces heat like an oven. It's also heavy and thick. So you just lost all point of having a laptop. On the other hand, the performance boost isn't that great, you're still stuck with laptop components in several critical areas (i.e. GPU, RAM), and the expandability still approaches zero. Another one of those machines where you get the disadvantages of both, with few of the advantages of either. At this point, the question becomes, "why didn't you just build a desktop?"

Okay that post had little to do with Macs, except the 1st part about the iMac maybe, but anyway, that's my little rant

 

The 24inch iMac had the 7600GT.

 

Ah, and that's the question consumers must answer for themselves. In reality, most people don't know much about computers and that's a good reason for the iMac. It just works the way that it should and most iMac customers probably don't really care about the technical specs of the computer and therefore the value of Quad-core CPU's and the latest and greatest video cards don't really apply. However, I do feel that Apple should just get rid of the Mac Mini and release a smaller, consumer version of the Mac Pro. And my view on the whole hybrid computer thing is this: I have a desktop replacement laptop(HP DV8000t) and I've found myself regretting not just buying a desktop computer just because it doesn't leave my desk. It's not that I'm not satisfied with the power of it, it's just I feel that I'm not taking full advantage of it's laptop form. I would almost rather have an iMac because of this fact.

 

I think a lot of people give the iMac too little credit when it comes to portability. Certainly it isn't as portable as a laptop, but it's still certainly more portable than a desktop. Also, it has a clean look and loses a lot of the wires and things that people often hate about desktops.

Now, I'm not saying that you're going to pick up your iMac and take it to Starbuck's with you. But if you happen to be off at college and have to move out of your dorm room for the summer, the iMac is a lot easier to transport than a full desktop, and it's more powerful than the Macbook for not much more money. It also saves space for a lot of people who are concerned about that, as the entire computer takes up about as much space as a standalone monitor. And on top of that, you only have one wire (three if you use wired keyboard and mouse), which is huge for a lot of people who have a modern/minimalist/expensive design scheme in their home (which is really Apple's main demographic right?).

Personally, I think the big thing Apple missed here was only 1GB of RAM. It's really not massively overpriced (the $1199 model anyway) considering the quality of most Apple displays. But 1GB? Seriously? And using ATi cards isn't helping much either in my eyes. ATi is not only losing this generation in terms of power, but they are really far behind in *nix graphics drivers and OpenGL implementation. It looks good, but I kind of like the old ones better. A good upgrade, but not amazing.

 

Very nicely said, notebook_ftw. As many still don't realize, the iMac isn't geared towards every single person in the world. It will not be a choice for a large majority of users. A lot of you won't like it because its not geared towards those that are wanting to use the iMac for playing Crysis.

As notebook_ftw said, the iMac is much cleaner than say the conventional desktop. Apple even emphasizes this with this image on apple.com:



You gotta admit, how simple is that? Power cord, and cord to keyboard.

 

Definitely go with cordless
Same with the mouse.

Oh the lack of wires is definitely tempting, and I'm sure we're all used to the mess of wires behind our desktops and hate it.

Even still, I'd rather just get a laptop...oh I did

Ah well. It's very interesting to see how different the iMacs look now compared to when they were first introduced

At least no one can derive an anime girl from this model ...yet...

 

i disagree
i'd be MORE than happy to very occasionally lug around a heavy desktop and monitor to have WAY more power.

why would you want to sacrifice performance, for an extremely infrequent move.

apple has recently been trying (with John Carmack id's game engine) to push gaming

this is a terrible move.

are you telling me the only option for fairly high end gaming is to get the macp pro, plus a monitor, plus the upgraded ATI 1900 ???

that's $2500, plus the monitor, plus speakers, plus gfx card, plus bigger HD, and it still only has 1GB RAM.

you're likely to spend $4k
it's no surprise windows has all the market share

 

LOL, Compared to all the other stuff you have to move when moving... a desktop tower is pretty trivial.

 

I agree. If Apple is going to try and start pushing Mac gaming a little more then they really needed to put something other than the Ati card in the new iMac, at least a better BTO option. I'm a gamer and I don't have to have the latest and greatest thing as soon as it comes out. I honestly don't upgrade my components in my PC until absolutly necessary. I make due and if that means not having all kinds of eye candy on so be it. It's the experieince in the game to me not how pretty it looks often times. If they would have put a better option out in the iMac now, some people would have been happy with it for the next 3 years. I for one was hoping to ditch my only PC in my household and get an iMac, but the Ati is no update compared to the 7600GT that was available in the 24" BTO option on the previous model. I figured this would have lasted me for at least 3 years. I really love OSX and was planning to Boot Camp like I do on my MBP.

 

what's stopping them from giving a good upgrade option ?

their obsessiveness with thinness (say that 3 times!!)

it's true though, i'd rather it was a bit thicker, had better cooling, less fan noise, and a few better upgrade options

 

hmmmmm honestly i love the new imac design, but i absolutely hate the new key boards.

 

Just found this on digg.com:



When compared side by side like that. I think the new one does look a lot better. Unfortunately the old one wasn't that gorgeous to start with :/

 

Yeah, the overall design is more sleek, but the only thing bugging me about the new one is the black border. I'd rather it be a white border than a black border.