20' imac: old one or the new one?

[oncemore]

This is just like the other threads of which imac to buy with the little difference that i just bought mine yesterday.

Yesterday i went to a store(fnac) and they had the 2 models side by side(20'old with hd2600 and 20'new) with the older one costing 999€ and the the new one 1099€.
Thinking the the old one was enought i bought it but then came to thse forums and found out that the old is limited to 4gb of ram(vs 8gb) and that the hd2600 doesnt have x264 support on macos. With that in mind i started having 2nd thoughts..

This imac will be used for:

webdev(django, drupal, java) with webserver
iphone dev
java dev
running 2vm's (one at a time)
enconding/playing hd movies
a little gaming (age of empires 3, half life 2, broken sword and other adventure point and click games)


I would like to know your opinion if this model is enought for now(hd2600 vs g9400m x264 compability) and for the future(4 vs 8gb is bothering me) while i can still go to the store and trade it.
Thanks!

[Hellhammer]

I'd go for the old model. 9400M is terrible for HD video and gaming. Who really needs 8GBs of RAM? I had 2GB in my laptop and never filled more than 80%. 2600 is much more powerful than 9400M, so for your needs, I'd say the old model.

Go for 24" 2.93GHz if you can

[oncemore]

I'd go for the old model. 9400M is terrible for HD video and gaming. Who really needs 8GBs of RAM? I had 2GB in my laptop and never filled more than 80%. 2600 is much more powerful than 9400M, so for your needs, I'd say the old model.

Go for 24" 2.93GHz if you can

I know that the hd2600 is more powerful for gaming, but for video it really is?
I red somewhere that the g400m can do x264 encoding/decoding via gpu and hd2600 cannot do this under macos..
With snow leopard i'll not need the 8gb in 2/3 years?

[Hellhammer]

I know that the hd2600 is more powerful for gaming, but for video it really is?
I red somewhere that the g400m can do x264 encoding/decoding via gpu and hd2600 cannot do this under macos..
With snow leopard i'll not need the 8gb in 2/3 years?

Some guy here said that when he was in Apple Store looking at the 24" 2.66 and playing with it and it was sluggish. He tried to watch some HD film at full screen and it was choppy, not smooth as it should.

4GB should be enough, while you don't do very hardcore tasks. If you want the best go for 2.93 with GT120 or GT130

[oncemore]

Some guy here said that when he was in Apple Store looking at the 24" 2.66 and playing with it and it was sluggish. He tried to watch some HD film at full screen and it was choppy, not smooth as it should.

4GB should be enough, while you don't do very hardcore tasks. If you want the best go for 2.93 with GT120 or GT130

What do you consider hardcore tasks? video editing?

[Hellhammer]

What do you consider hardcore tasks? video editing?

Video editing is one but there are different stages of video editing. How "hardcore" your editing will be? Those games you mentioned should all run with both models, but not in best graphics.

[OldMike]

With snow leopard i'll not need the 8gb in 2/3 years?

I thought it was confirmed in this forum that the Santa Rosa based iMacs can actually take 6GB, by using 4GBx1 and 2GBx1 SO-DIMMs.

If this is true (and it seems to have been proven true on this forum), then I think the trade off between 6GB vs 8GB is not that bad.

[iamthedudeman]

Well I just got rid of a 20' late model 2.4 two weeks and bought a 2.6 24 for work and a 20' 2.6 for home.

You will get a lot of conflicting opinions on what to buy. Do your home work before you buy. After all your spending the money.

I handed in my two week old 2.4 for a new one and let me tell you. The screen is much, much better. The old 20' had a AU Optronics M201EW02 while the new one has a AU Optronics M302EW02.

That alone is reason enough to buy a new one.

The screen you have now brightness level pales in comparison to the 2009 model I have sitting right in front of me.

http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/First-Look/iMac-20-Inch/658/2

In contrast the 2.4 20 model had the brightness turned all the way up, I have the brightness turned up a little past half way and it is brighter than the 2.4 I handed back in last week. Check your brightness levels with your keyboard and you will know what I am talking about.

The GPU in the 2009 model will work well with snow leopard. Don't believe everything you hear. The Gforce 9400M may not be discrete, but it still outperforms the 2400xt and matches and will outperform the 2600 pro especially when snow leopard is released. Snow Leopard will make good use of the 9400m's 16 cores. That is why Apple moved to Nvidia. No other reason. It certainly was not for gaming.


Apple picked Nvidia because of their CUDA technology. The 9400M will allow the 16 core GPU to help in overall application performance. The ATi discrete cards will not.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_what_is.html

The 9400M bad for video. I think not. The movies I am playing on my 24' as well as my 20' are stunning. Some guy said that he saw at a store for a few seconds that the video was choppy? That is hearsay my friend, because both of my machines provide stunning video.The 9400M utilizes PureVideo HD. It uses 100% of the 9400m's GPU to play the movie back without involving the CPU. The ATI cards do not have that option, and the 9400M displays true 1080P HD.

DDR3 is faster than DDR2. No question there, nothing more to be said.

You also get a extra usb port in the back. Not a big deal.

[iamthedudeman]

I thought it was confirmed in this forum that the Santa Rosa based iMacs can actually take 6GB, by using 4GBx1 and 2GBx1 SO-DIMMs.

If this is true (and it seems to have been proven true on this forum), then I think the trade off between 6GB vs 8GB is not that bad.

Yeah but one uses the much faster DDR3 while the other uses DDR2. Big difference.

[cold]

Please stop with the DDR3 vs. DDR2 thing, and please stop saying DDR3 is faster. I just can't hear it any more.

There are so many benchmarks ot there, who proove that DDR3 is only a liitle bit faster than DDR2, and the difference is just statistical and barely noticeable.

And if Snow Leopard runs fast on the 9400M iMac, it will run even faster on the ATI 2600 iMac, just because the 2600 GPU is better. Snow Leopard, like Leopard, is just an operating system, nothing more. It runs as fast as the hardware allows, on faster hardware it will run better, on slow hardware it will run poorer.

I would buy a new iMac only if it has the 4850 GPU, because i know it is fast and future proof. My second choice would be a refurb 8800 GS iMac.

@oncemore

If you like how your mac performs stay with it. You won't feel any difference if you get a new model.

[oncemore]

I went back to store and made the trade for a new one...
The screen looks better :)
But...the imac is buzzing :(

[The Hammer]

I red somewhere that the g400m can do x264 encoding/decoding via gpu and hd2600 cannot do this under macos..Could someone explain what this means in plain language and what it's signifigance to the end user is?

[trip1ex]

Brightness was never a problem with the previous gen iMacs.

[iamthedudeman]

Please stop with the DDR3 vs. DDR2 thing, and please stop saying DDR3 is faster. I just can't hear it any more.

There are so many benchmarks ot there, who proove that DDR3 is only a liitle bit faster than DDR2, and the difference is just statistical and barely noticeable.

And if Snow Leopard runs fast on the 9400M iMac, it will run even faster on the ATI 2600 iMac, just because the 2600 GPU is better. Snow Leopard, like Leopard, is just an operating system, nothing more. It runs as fast as the hardware allows, on faster hardware it will run better, on slow hardware it will run poorer.

I would buy a new iMac only if it has the 4850 GPU, because i know it is fast and future proof. My second choice would be a refurb 8800 GS iMac.

@oncemore

If you like how your mac performs stay with it. You won't feel any difference if you get a new model.



First of all DDR3 is alot faster. Sorry.

I liked how my two week old mac ran, traded it in and the new ones run better. And I can tell a big difference.

Your analogy of how a 2600 pro will run faster that the 9400M is a load of you know what.

Why will it run faster? Answer me that one. Does it take advantage of snow leopard as snow leopard will take advantage of CUDA that is "parallel Processing' of the CPU and GPU. The GPU will take care of tasks once run by the CPU. No it will not. That is a fact.

You have it backwards. The OS runs the hardware not the other way around. Hardware is only as good as the Software. If that wasn't the case,

Why did you buy a Mac? Why not stick with a gaming rig running windows?

I guess Windows compared to OSX is no real advantage since they are both just operating systems. Yeah that makes sense. :rolleyes:

[cold]

First of all DDR3 is alot faster. Sorry.

I liked how my two week old mac ran, traded it in and the new ones run better. And I can tell a big difference.

What was your old mac, and what the new one?

http://media.bestofmicro.com/2/1/71353/original/chart_bench_games.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/2/2/71354/original/chart_bench_office_3d.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/2/B/71363/original/chart_bench_video.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/2/C/71364/original/chart_bench_audio.png

Just type DDR3 vs DDR2 in google.

DDR3 will make a difference after the Nehalem CPUs come to the iMac. The way between the CPU and the RAM will be shorter. And it is necessary to have 3 slots, not 2 to take full advantage of the new technology. (DualChannel with DDR2 and triple channel with DDR3)

Your analogy of how a 2600 pro will run faster that the 9400M is a load of you know what.

Why will it run faster? Answer me that one. Does it take advantage of snow leopard as snow leopard will take advantage of CUDA that is "parallel Processing' of the CPU and GPU. The GPU will take care of tasks once run by the CPU. No it will not. That is a fact.

OK, Snow leopard will MAYBE run faster on a nvidia GPU, but what about all the other apps installed, they must also support OpenCL, CUDA (PhysX). Maybe the new PRO apps will support cuda? We'll see. And there is only one game on the market which supports CUDA, and it's not available for mac. So all the software on your computer must support CUDA, to feel a real performance boost.

You have it backwards. The OS runs the hardware not the other way around. Hardware is only as good as the Software. If that wasn't the case,

Why did you buy a Mac? Why not stick with a gaming rig running windows?

I guess Windows compared to OSX is no real advantage since they are both just operating systems. Yeah that makes sense. :rolleyes:

OK, only Apple and the developers know how big the advantage of Snow Leopard will be. And we'll have to wait untill all the software installed on our computers supports CUDA to see a real difference in performance.

And till I see benchmarks of Snow Leopard running on both ATI and NVIDIA, I'll stick with the ones I have, and they prove ATI is faster. I can't see in the future and i don't know how fast the new OS will be, if it will be faster on the old or the new macs.

My theory is: if leopard runs good on a 2 GHz mac, it will run even better on a 3 GHz mac. Which means Snow Leopard will also run better on the faster CPU. The same thing with the GPUs: the ATI 2600 Pro is now faster than the 9400M. And I'm expecting that any OS will run better on the faster hardware.

I have a windows PC and a mac right now. I want to buy a 2,9 GHz iMac with the ATI 4850 to replace my PC, or maybe a refurb 3 GHz 8800 GS. I'm waiting for some benchmarks on the both systems.

[gigas65]

My humble opinion is that, hardware architecture does play a significant role as long as it is properly supported by software (anybody knows XP pro vs Vista behavior in same hardware). Compare different motherboards with same "stuff" on them. Do they perform the same? Absolutely NOT.
Now, if Snow Leopard manages to "interface" OPEN CL to other applications "hanging" from it (like FC E or PRO or even iMovie 09), as said in macrumor forum http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2009/03/imac-and-mac-mini-benchmarks-early-2009/ then CUDA will definitely play a crucial role to system's overall performance.:apple:

[cold]

My humble opinion is that, hardware architecture does play a significant role as long as it is properly supported by software (anybody remembers Windows Me?). Compare different motherboards with same "stuff" on them. Do they perform the same? Absolutely NOT.
Now, if Snow Leopard manages to "interface" OPEN CL to other applications "hanging" from it (like FC E or PRO or even iMovie 09), then CUDA will definitely play a crucial role to system's overall performance.:apple:

Yes, I know. The thing with the GHz was just an example.

You're right, CUDA will play a role, but we don't know if it will be worth buying a new operating system. We don't know if Apple will be able to incorporate the new technology so, that we can see a real and noticeable boost in performace.

The whole discussion is nonsense. The whole old vs. new thing depends on the needs of the user buying the computer. The both have their pros and cons. The one is faster, the other cheaper, one has a better GPU, the other has a better CPU, 4gb vs 8gb, nvidia vs ati...

Let's see what snow leopard brings and we'll talk again. ;)

[kabunaru]

ATI cards are always better at Pro apps, always.

[gigas65]

ATI cards are always better at Pro apps, always.

So, you would propose to me, if money is not an issue, to buy an old iMac 20' with 2600 pro or wait for new iMAc 20' with Snow Leopard? Except basics, i do a lot of video editing and encoding DV->mpeg2

[cold]

So, you would propose to me, if money is not an issue, to buy an old iMac 20' with 2600 pro or wait for new iMAc 20' with Snow Leopard? Except basics, i do a lot of video editing and encoding DV->mpeg2

As far as i know video editing is motsly a CPU task. So you schould go for the system with the faster processor. You will feel a difference between the 2600 ATI and the 9400M only when you play games.

BUT!!! If the new PRO apps from Apple support CUDA (nvidia technology), and you're gonna use these apps, or other that support CUDA too (in combination) with Snow Leopard, you should definitely go for an iMac with the latest nvidia GPU on it.

[gigas65]

As far as i know video editing is motsly a CPU task. So you schould go with the system with the faster processor. You will feel a difference between the 2600 ATI and the 9400M only when you play games.

BUT!!! If the new PRO apps from Apple support CUDA (nvidia technology), and you're gonna use these apps, or other that support CUDA too (in combination) with Snow Leopard, you should definitely go for an iMac with the latest nvidia GPU on it.

Thanks for replying !!

[kabunaru]

BUT!!! If the new PRO apps from Apple support CUDA (nvidia technology), and you're gonna use these apps, or other that support CUDA too (in combination) with Snow Leopard, you should definitely go for an iMac with the latest nvidia GPU on it.
It should not matter. ATI and Nvidia GPUs should be both optimised for Snow Leopard.

[bigjnyc]

a 20' iMac i didnt even know Apple made them that big, you need a pretty big room for that puppy. whats the resolution on that screen?:p

[cold]

It should not matter. ATI and Nvidia GPUs should be both optimised for Snow Leopard.

The ATI 2600 is an old graphic card. Neither Apple nor Ati will investigate in optimizing it. It is two generations old. Don't expect any big improvement on that one.

You'll need at least a 4xxx generation ATI card, maye the 3xxx will also see improvements in Snow Leopard.

[kabunaru]

You'll need at least a 4xxx generation ATI card, maye the 3xxx will also see inprovements in Snow Leopard.
ATI cards are still better than Nvidia on the Mac side.
The best cards for the Mac right now are ATI. Just look at ATI 4850 in the iMac and ATI 4870 in the Mac Pro.

[Grasbak]

Some guy here said that when he was in Apple Store looking at the 24" 2.66 and playing with it and it was sluggish. He tried to watch some HD film at full screen and it was choppy, not smooth as it should.

4GB should be enough, while you don't do very hardcore tasks. If you want the best go for 2.93 with GT120 or GT130

As far as I know - HD playback is nothing to do with the GPU, it is all about the CPU.

[cold]

ATI cards are still better than Nvidia on the Mac side.
The best cards for the Mac right now are ATI. Just look at ATI 4850 in the iMac and ATI 4870 in the Mac Pro.

We are going off topic!

I agree: the fastest cards for the mac right now are these two cards (4870 & 4850). Read my posts: never said anything else. But that doesn't mean that the 2600 is a good card.

"ATI cards are still better than Nvidia on the Mac"
So you're saying the 2400 XT is a better card than the GT 130, just because it's an ATI card. :rolleyes: (sarcastic)

[kabunaru]

"ATI cards are still better than Nvidia on the Mac"
So you're saying the 2400 XT is a better card than the GT 130, just because it's an ATI card.

I mean the Mac's best video card options are from ATI.

[cold]

As far as I know - HD playback is nothing to do with the GPU, it is all about the CPU.

The newer GPUs are taking over of some of the tasks needet to playback HD Video. So it's not just a CPU task.

The hardware in the GPU supports now HD video encoding. But you still need a fast CPU, because not all the work is done by the graphics.

[Pagga]

I have the old one. I maxed out the specs autumn 2008.
I must say it is holdong out just fine for 2009!

Cheers,
P

[gigas65]

I mean the Mac's best video card options are from ATI.

The wondering i stated had to do with 20' imac, meaning 2600pro (old) vs 9400m (new).
Which one of them to select?

[SpookyLars]

:)The wondering i stated had to do with 20' imac, meaning 2600pro (old) vs 9400m (new).
Which one of them to select?

Yesterday, I bought a new iMac 20" with ATI 2600 Pro. I'm waiting for delivery now :D

[trip1ex]

The hardware in the GPU supports now HD video encoding.

I think you mean decoding.

And I believe the ATI 2600 Pro also supported some kind of video decoding.

You would really need someone to test out the claims of video decoding by these gpus to put them into any sort of context.

[cold]

I think you mean decoding.

And I believe the ATI 2600 Pro also supported some kind of video decoding.

You would really need someone to test out the claims of video decoding by these gpus to put them into any sort of context.

The ATI HD 2600 uses the Avivo HD videoengine to decode HD video.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-2600.3771.0.html

And nVidia uses NVIDIA PureVideo HD.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html


So both cards ae capable of video decoding, and both are powerful enough to play HD without problems. If I had 1999$ I would go for the Refurbished iMac 24-inch 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Duo.

[gigas65]

I think you mean decoding.

And I believe the ATI 2600 Pro also supported some kind of video decoding.

You would really need someone to test out the claims of video decoding by these gpus to put them into any sort of context.


No, i mean encoding or transcoding, from DV to mpeg2, in order to make DVD's:confused:

[iamthedudeman]

It should not matter. ATI and Nvidia GPUs should be both optimised for Snow Leopard.


It matters a alot. The 2600 does not support it nor is their any info if the new ATI cards do or do not. Currently CUDA by Nvidia is the only company that officially supports the advances made by snow leopard. That is why Apple put them in all of their computers. That much is obvious. They did not do it just because they think that Nvidia is better at making graphic cards.

[iamthedudeman]

As far as I know - HD playback is nothing to do with the GPU, it is all about the CPU.

Well those days are over. The new Nvidia GPU's handle all the video encoding and HD playback with Pure Video HD and CUDA.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_9400m_g_us.html

[iamthedudeman]

The ATI HD 2600 uses the Avivo HD videoengine to decode HD video.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-2600.3771.0.html

And nVidia uses NVIDIA PureVideo HD.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html


So both cards ae capable of video decoding, and both are powerful enough to play HD without problems. If I had 1999$ I would go for the Refurbished iMac 24-inch 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Duo.

Actually the two technologies do not do the same thing. The ATI card "accelrates' the video encoding, while the Nvidia GPU actually does the encoding on the chip itself without any help from the CPU with the help of CUDA.

They are not doing the same functions.

Apple did not use the integrated Nvidia GPU for gaming, they got them for CUDA to help their Macs run applications.

[iamthedudeman]

The wondering i stated had to do with 20' imac, meaning 2600pro (old) vs 9400m (new).
Which one of them to select?

Well I would not just make your decision based on just the graphic cards. The screen is of a much higher quality on the 09 model. I know I have owned a 2.4 ghz imac three weeks ago and traded it in for a 2009 model. The new 09 model LCD has a new model number for the screen.

http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/First-Look/iMac-20-Inch/658/1

The old model is a AU Optronics M201EW02, the new one is a AU Optronics M302EW02.

They also make the 24 screen: AU Optronics M240HW01 V0

It is a completely different model of LCD from the one that the ATI graphic card is in. It is like a night and day difference. I have a 24 09 model for work and the only difference I see between the 09 24 model and the 09 20 model is the screen size. Quality is about the same, just the size is different. If your looking for a reason to buy a 09 model vs a 08 model, do it for the screen, not the graphics card.

It also has DDR3 memory. While not a big deal it is when the integrated GPU takes advantage of the DDR3 memory. The more you have the better it performs.

Snow leopard will also take advantage of the CUDA technology that is in the Nvidia cards. That is not the case for the ATI card.

[trip1ex]

MacWorld reviewed the new iMacs. They said the 20" iMac still uses 6-bit dithered display although it looks a little brighter.

[Mike in Kansas]

Snow leopard will also take advantage of the CUDA technology that is in the Nvidia cards. That is not the case for the ATI card.

Are you saying that SL will not take advantage of the new ATI 4850 as well?? Or does that card have the appropriate technology?

[iamthedudeman]

MacWorld reviewed the new iMacs. They said the 20" iMac still uses 6-bit dithered display although it looks a little brighter.

That was not a fact. They were stating their opinion. How would they know since they did not even know who produced the panel? They also said that the 20' macs also used the "same display from the previous model'.

Which is strictly not the case. Proven by ifixit.com when they tore down the 2009 20 imac. The model revealed is not even listed on AU's website. I called the company. None of their panels use 6-bit dithering. And that goes for the 24" model. The only difference between the AU produced 24 panel and 20 panel is the size, thats it. They would not deny or elaborate or even talk to me for that matter about what they produce and for whom, but for general questions and kept asking me if I would be interested in a business contract with the company and with whom I am working for.

http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/First-Look/iMac-20-Inch/658/2

The specs for the late 2008 model panel: Notice it doesn't say "by dithering".

http://auo.com/auoDEV/products.php?sec=monitor&func=info&product_id=111&items_id=1

For the 24:

http://auo.com/auoDEV/products.php?sec=monitor&func=info&product_id=157&items_id=1

Now I don't know what the model number for the 2009 24 is or who makes it. Those posted above is for the previous 24 and previous 20".

The model number for the 20" 2009 imac is:

AU Optronics M302EW02

If you look at the phillips produced panel that uses 6-bit dithering. Not the AU panels. Even the 2008 panel used by Apple produced by AU do not use dithering. It may not be that bright, but it sure is clear.

[kabunaru]

Not the AO panels. Even the 2008 panel used by Apple produced by AO do not use dithering. It may not be that bright, but it sure is clear.

No wonder my 2008 20" Aluminium iMac display looks so good. :D
It doesn't look like an TN panel at all.

[iamthedudeman]

No wonder my 2008 20" Aluminium iMac display looks so good. :D
It doesn't look like an TN panel at all.

Actually it is a TN panel.

[iamthedudeman]

No wonder my 2008 20" Aluminium iMac display looks so good. :D
It doesn't look like an TN panel at all.

Most TN panels these days are as good as or better than some H-IPS panels.

I don't know if the 24' is still a H-IPS panel or a TN or who makes it. But if AUO makes it, it is a TN. Most likely it is not since the viewing angle is 178 degrees, but the 20' is 170/160 degrees on the 2008 the 2009 seems better so maybe it's a 170 degree panel, since i don't know the specs I really don't know yet, nor does anyone else for that matter.

[Canadian Bacon]

While I await delivery of my 2009 20" iMac, I've been constantly checking AU Optronics' website (ifixit link to panel #), but they haven't updated it yet with specs to the M302EW02 panel. And it's been driving me crazy. Apple's tech specs haven't changed either. Hmm...

Interesting to hear that iamthedudeman actually called the company. Good one.

[iamthedudeman]

While I await delivery of my 2009 20" iMac, I've been constantly checking AU Optronics' website (ifixit link to panel #), but they haven't updated it yet with specs to the M302EW02 panel. And it's been driving me crazy. Apple's tech specs haven't changed either. Hmm...

Interesting to hear that iamthedudeman actually called the company. Good one.


You will be happy with your 20' 09 model. It is a improved screen over the 08, as I just bought a 08 three weeks ago, and traded it in on a 20' model. It is brighter, by a noticeable margin.

The company who makes the panels for Apple(AUO) would not tell me much, other that they claim that none of their TN panels use dithering, and is true 16.7 colors. So i don't know how much good it did me but I tried.

As for the M302EW02 Panel, AU would not even confirm it even exists, even we know it does by it being outed by ifixit.com. I also noticed that the panel is also a 20.1. And not a straight 20". As is the 2008 model.

I also own a 24" 2009 imac for work. As far as quality vs the 20' i cannot tell a difference between the two other for the size. I am not saying the 24' is not a better panel, it probably is. I just can't tell the difference. That is how good the new panels on the 09 20' are.

[nusynergy]

We are going off topic!

I agree: the fastest cards for the mac right now are these two cards (4870 & 4850). [/B]

+ Not all of us can afford the massive price Hike to get the iMac / Mac pro with these card.

When it come down to the crunch all we need to know is; 9400m or Ati 9600?

Which would for the money be a better all rounder?

[Canadian Bacon]

My 2cents worth: my 2009 20" iMac with 4 GB/640 HD consistently boots in 31 seconds. Compared to my other computer (see sig) this is blazingly fast. I'm wondering about boot times for the 2008 models with 4GB of DDR2 RAM - would it make a noticeable difference?

[JayLenochiniMac]

Most TN panels these days are as good as or better than some H-IPS panels.

Joke...