Imac 20" better value then 17"?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion (archive)' started by mauly, Jan 8, 2005.

  1. mauly macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    #1
    Was just working out my money situation for the iMac! at first I was going for a 17" to save money.

    But if you take into account the 20" has 160GB hard drive, its only £150 more then the 17" :D

    Has anyone regrated buying a 17" instead of a 20"?
     
  2. Mertzen macrumors 6502

    Mertzen

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2004
    Location:
    ]KLGA[
    #2
    I think it all comes down on how much screen real estate you need ..
     
  3. morkintosh macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    #3
    I had an old G4 17" and I liked it a lot. For 150BP the bigger screen is nice, but the problem is that when you're ready for a new computer in 3 years that 20" screen will still be really nice but you won't be able to use it on the new computer you get. While you have the same problem with a 17", for some reason it doesn't seem to be as hard to let the screen go with the box.
     
  4. m-dogg macrumors 65816

    m-dogg

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #4
    I went with the 17" superdrive model. I was considering the 20", but I ended up going with the 17" and put the money I was saving into a 250 GB HD and the BT keyboard & mouse instead.

    The 17 is bigger than my old screen anyway, so I figured I'd opt for a little more screen real estate and some other improvements....vs. just a lot of more screen for my budget...
     
  5. BakedBeans macrumors 68040

    BakedBeans

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Location:
    What's Your Favorite Posish
    #5
    i would never buy the 17, the 20 is a great machine with a great screen for a great price,

    says it all :)
     
  6. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #6
    Hm, in the States the price difference between the 17" SD and the 20" is $400, or 214GBP... seems like the UK is getting a slightly better deal on the 20" or a slighlty worse deal on the 17" SD.

    Anyways, $400 is a pretty god chunk of change, in my book. For the price of a 20" iMac i could get a single CPU PM with all the same specs as the 20" iMac, except it has a 9600XT GPU and a decent quality 17" LCD. The iMac will last longer, though, as it has better upgradability, and I can either get a bigger or second display later, or keep the 17" around for the next machine, etc.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I'm buying an iMac myself, I just think that the benifit you gain in trade for the non-upgradability is a LOW price. As soon as you can buy any PM w/ a LCD display for the price of an iMac, you've lost your main advantage, in my book anyways. The 17" iMacs are great deals, and compared to THEM the 20" is, but compared to the SP PM the 20" isn't such a good deal, imo.

    Rob
     
  7. Benj macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2004
    Location:
    London
    #7
    I have been looking at the iMac. The 17" has a terrible angle of view. If you are not dead straight on then the screen is very "milky". I want to use mine in the bedroom to have it as a second TV/DVD player and this would rule the 17" out.
     
  8. mauly thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    #8
    I hope the 20" dosn't suffer the same angle and "milky" problems!!!
     
  9. combatcolin macrumors 68020

    combatcolin

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Location:
    Northants, UK
    #9
    The 2nd hand value of the 20" i think would make it worth the money.

    In 5 years it will be old HW wise the for basic web browsing (thats if its not beamed into our heads by then!) and looking at pictures it will still be able to cut it with new machines.
     
  10. jspivack macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    #10
    video performance?

    Anyone have any ideas about video performance? My gut tells me that the same video card will have a harder time driving a 20" screen with 36% more pixels. So the 17" is going to have better video performance.
     
  11. mauly thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    #11
    thats something I've never thought about - tho I'm sure it won't be a great reduction, if any!!!
     
  12. BakedBeans macrumors 68040

    BakedBeans

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Location:
    What's Your Favorite Posish
    #12
    it has no problems what so ever driving two 20" monitors
    with the spanning hack it can comfortably run two (one external and the one with the iMac)

    but you did make a good point here, 36% more real estate is huge, much much better deal
     
  13. Benj macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2004
    Location:
    London
    #13
    I see you liked my techie description ('puter you say? interweb?). No - the 20" doesn't suffer in the same way. Pretty true, deep colours from different angles.

    I'm hoping that we may even see a 23" iMac soon....
     
  14. maya macrumors 68040

    maya

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    somewhere between here and there.
    #14

    Would not surprise me at all. :)

    Lets get rid of the 17" its in the same boat as the 15" LCD. :)
     
  15. carlos700 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Location:
    Omaha NE
    #15
    I would only get the 20-inch for the screen. The 160 GB Hard Drive you can add CTO. It's a great deal if you want the big screen size.
     

Share This Page