Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Thank you for doing this bit of research. I for one found it helpful.

Now to answer your question, I would say that two things are wrong with Apple, going solely on the basis of your search there.

1. The comparison is with Dell. I would never consider buying something from Dell, and I would advise any one else likewise. So, if you must compare with Dell, something is already wrong there. (Just to be clear, I would begin by looking for a local build-to-order shop, and make sure that I have a good conversation with whomever would put the thing together. Not for everyone, I know, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why I'd want to buy my computer at a shopping mall or a best buy, either.)

2. Dell, for all its obvious flaws, does offer other options besides the iMac wannabe. Apple only offers two other options, the mini and the pro. And when you expand your choices beyond Dell, it grows even more. To finish off this point, the main reason why you don't see more choices is that Apple actively discourages other companies from installing OSX on their wares; but if this ridiculous situation continues, whereby Apple refuses to meet the obvious needs of the computing community, then alternatives should emerge. These alternatives include psystar-type shops, online efforts a-la osx86, or linux--as well as other things that we can't think of today, but which people will think up if given enough time and incentive.

Now, there is another thing that I object to, and I wish others here would start to care about this: how this sort of scheme shuts out people who are not as financially well off as some of us. I have seen so many replies in threads like these that dismiss the needs of anyone who can't afford a mac pro, or who refuses to settle for these other inferior choices.

Yet this elitism is not even well founded in a technological sense. There have been hundreds of posts in this very thread praising the design of this iMac (when it has trouble with basic cooling because of a rather useless attempt to make it skinny), its fast speed (when it has a RAM ceiling of 4 GB), its cpu (nothing special, specially since today is as cutting-edge as this model is going to get, then it will sit on the shelves for months until the next upgrade), its obviously inferior glossy display (thankfully, you see the problem there) ... so, as I read these posts, I say to myself "damn, these Apple users are lacking in clues".

The computing world is much larger than Apple pretends it is, and we as users are not well served by that constraint.

Now, you did not address what I said about linux. When all your friends are running linux because they'd rather keep an extra $1000 in their pocket and Ubuntu is pretty good, are you still going to enjoy OSX so much? Or would you enjoy your computer more if your friends went with OSX as well?

I sense that plenty of posters in this thread don't give a damn about such communal issues, but I do. If Apple keeps downgrading the hardware until only the well-moneyed clueless--or the Mac Pro types, like myself--still want their hardware, then as a communal, and computing, experience, using Apple is going to start to suck.

I hope this trend reverses in time, but it's beginning to look like it will not. I guess a lot is riding on what they do with the mini.

Finally, consider what happened when OS X came out. Linux users switched en masse to this cool new version of unix, knowing that the problem of searching for hardware drivers would be over. Furthermore, Apple made a point of playing nice with the open software communities back then. With each successive "upgrade", all the premises in this paragraph continue to go in the wrong direction; for a particularly crass example, look at how Apple makes it impossible to play flac files within iTunes. If Apple loses a critical mass of those linux users, then you can rest assured that it will lose its image as a maker of good--if slightly pricey--hardware, and it will be replaced with an image closer to what it had in its pre-Unix era.

Hi,

Replying to your first comment, I made this comparison simply because of 2 facts.

1.)Apple is a computer company, so is Dell.
2.)Dell has the closest offering to compare iMac to, the XPS one. Sony does have Vaio LT, which is way more advanced in HTPC area, and more expensive.

I do not agree with you Dell being a bad brand, I'm using an Inspiron 8600 laotop for 3.5 years now and beside the fact tha it had never failed me, I upgraded RAM, Optical Drive, added Bluetooth and even upgraded my CPU from Pentium-M 725 (1.6Ghz) to Pentium-M 765 (2.1Ghz). Dell was kind enough to publish the service manual online. The only thing that I can complain is the quality of materials used for the enclosure and overall bad worksmanship. But my needs of a computer changed, so I want my next computer to be a MBP.

Now the Apple question. Apple is beyond a computer manufacturing company. It's a design studio focusing on computer technology related product, designing elements not only visually (Mac), but also functionally. (OSX). Dell on the other hand is focusing on manufacturing computer to sell to masses, design is merely a focus point.

Apple does everything in house. Hardware and software. Surely Apple wants more people to use their products, but Apple also has two philosophies that it will never forget. Their products have to be well designed and exclusive and their performance has to be remarkably good. Yes iMac is an all in one, yes Mac Pro is way too expensive for a normal consumer and yes if Apple makes an entry level Tower/SFF, many people would buy it. Why don't they do it?

Because Apple brand should be exclusive, at leaset more exclusive than Dell, Sony, Toshiba, HP etc. Because Apple believes an average customer won't need a tower with all the cables, they simply need a computer that just works and eveything is embedded.

You, as a power user, have a major problem with this. You want to upgrade, change and customize your machine, that's fine, but this is just not in the mainstream idea of Apple. There is nothing you can do but going the Linux or Windows way for that.

Think of Apple as an exclusive restaurant with an exclusive dish and exquisite atmosphere. That exclusive dish (OSX) has a recipe and everybody wants to have it, but the restaurant does not allow it to be out in the wild, they simply say: "You can come and eat any time!". Some people complain that they live far, they cannot come to the restaurant and they say that they want to order via phone or take out the food to eat at home. Restaurant managers believe that the food and the atmosphere are one thing that cannot be seperated. And you critisize them because that do not offer the recipe, or take out options. That's fine, then do not eat here, but don't mock people of by pointing out how expensive the food is, or how there are more delicious food that is very similar but costs less. Everybody is coming to this restaurant because they love it. You know it's good, too, but simply it's too hard for you to come to the restaurant or the food is way too expensive, and that's why you try to convince people that there are other alternatives, too. But you do not have to push people. (That was a long example, but I hope you get my point)

iMac is a fast computer. The speeds of processors are higher than it's competitors. You say 4GB RAM limit, I say 2GB is enough for today. You want more, here is Mac Pro supporting 32GB. Display is inferior, I give you that. There are more responsive, brighter displays out here, and apple was lacking to update even the ACD line. But that's it. As an all-in-one, iMac is a very good computer, and resaonably priced, too.

OSX is a great operating system. So it Ubuntu, so is Windows XP. But there is one thing OSX has that no other system has. It simply works without giving you a questionmark in your head what to do next. Every task is done so simple, that even a person with no history of computer usage can start using it in 10 minutes. Nothing to setup, nothing to tweak, nothing to adjust. This is where Apple shines. There are peple who spend 199 USD on a 1GB GeForce 6200 card with 64 bit memory bus, just because it has one gigabytes of ram so it must be fast. For there kind of people, Mac is an oasis on a desert.

Right now Apple is focused on the huge mass who don't know much about computer technology. It might lost the focus on the power users, but this doesn't meat that they are going to continue like this.
 
...Having said that, in your previous post you suggested buying a Dell display for the nice hi-res it offers. Does the dell display you are referring to have better resolution than my white imac G5?

Good luck and let us know what they say.
As for the other display, it all really depends on the screen size. If you are getting a Mac Pro, I would highly recommend the largest display you can afford. And it doesn't have to be a Dell. Look for something on sale with good reviews. Online research is the best way to find what you are looking for.
 
The whole iMac is pretty custom. What's the problem?

I'm just thinking this is a stop-gap machine and with the temps running higher I'm concerned about noise levels compared with my existing 2.8GHz extreme. Also, someone has mentioned about the lifespan of the components if they've been overclocked.
 
I'm just thinking this is a stop-gap machine and with the temps running higher I'm concerned about noise levels compared with my existing 2.8GHz extreme. Also, someone has mentioned about the lifespan of the components if they've been overclocked.

This is not an overclock. You underclock FSB and raise multiplier, to reach the same speed ( 3Ghz vs 3.06Ghz )

And overclock does not ruin the lifespan of your computer if you do not plan to hit the extreme levels by raising the vCore beyond 120-130%
 
I guys!

Last week I bought Final Cut Studio 2 but waited to buy a new system because I knew that a new update was about to come out.

I wanted to buy a MacPro, but looking at the new iMac... man it has more HDcapacity, a better graphic card and a 24" monitor and ist still 600$ cheaper.

You got some advice?!?

Yeah, buy one, I did!!!

Mac, 24-inch, 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x2GB
3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS w/512MB GDDR3
750GB Serial ATA Drive

I have to update my sig, lol!
 
New 3.06Ghz imac

Just picked up the new top of the line imac and is really slow and sluggish. froze once already. I think something is wrong. Not sure but i already did the software update and problem has not fixed itself.:mad:
 
Well, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Time will tell what happens.

Just one quick comment,

OSX is a great operating system. So it Ubuntu, so is Windows XP. But there is one thing OSX has that no other system has. It simply works without giving you a questionmark in your head what to do next. Every task is done so simple, that even a person with no history of computer usage can start using it in 10 minutes. Nothing to setup, nothing to tweak, nothing to adjust. This is where Apple shines.

I would disagree, rather sternly, about XP being a great operating system (I assume that you are just being extra polite). Its only greatness that I have discovered is as a source of exasperation. :mad:

But to the meat of your comment, yes, you have hit the nail on the head. What is becoming very, very interesting is that Ubuntu seems to be hitting that stride as well now, e.g.

http://fosswire.com/2008/04/24/ubuntu-804-hardy-heron-review/

And, yes, here is one that directly addresses the non-geek accessibility issue,

http://contentconsumer.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/is-ubuntu-useable-enough-for-my-girlfriend/

That is the situation today. What will be the situation in 24 months? That is the question.
 
Well, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Time will tell what happens.

Just one quick comment,



I would disagree, rather sternly, about XP being a great operating system (I assume that you are just being extra polite). Its only greatness that I have discovered is as a source of exasperation. :mad:

But to the meat of your comment, yes, you have hit the nail on the head. What is becoming very, very interesting is that Ubuntu seems to be hitting that stride as well now, e.g.

http://fosswire.com/2008/04/24/ubuntu-804-hardy-heron-review/

And, yes, here is one that directly addresses the non-geek accessibility issue,

http://contentconsumer.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/is-ubuntu-useable-enough-for-my-girlfriend/

That is the situation today. What will be the situation in 24 months? That is the question.

Well, I've had XP for 7 years and I'm running Service Pack 3 now. I've never had a problem that was not solveable, it just works if you take classic Windows prblems into consideration.

Thinking about the old days with Windows Me, XP is heaven ;)

Ubuntu is really interesting, and I'd probably give it a shot soon...
 
Well, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Time will tell what happens.

Just one quick comment,



I would disagree, rather sternly, about XP being a great operating system (I assume that you are just being extra polite). Its only greatness that I have discovered is as a source of exasperation. :mad:

But to the meat of your comment, yes, you have hit the nail on the head. What is becoming very, very interesting is that Ubuntu seems to be hitting that stride as well now, e.g.

http://fosswire.com/2008/04/24/ubuntu-804-hardy-heron-review/

And, yes, here is one that directly addresses the non-geek accessibility issue,

http://contentconsumer.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/is-ubuntu-useable-enough-for-my-girlfriend/

That is the situation today. What will be the situation in 24 months? That is the question.


Nothing wrong with XP.. Granted it's from MicroSucks but it's the best OS they have ever made. It's stable as hell and has no memory leaks or anything like that. I built a high end quad core several months ago and I can leave the PC running weeks at a time if I need to.

Not to mention pretty much anything works with it. Vista on the other hand is a pile of dog turd and I took it off after about 3 weeks. XP on the other hand is a very solid OS.
 
That's a very good question. Hopefully we can get some more thermal information once some more time has past. I'm surprised that Apple went as far as an under warranty overclock as such.

Plus your typical Ive designed machine is already on a knife edge as it to make them thin and quiet as possible.
 
That's a very good question. Hopefully we can get some more thermal information once some more time has past. I'm surprised that Apple went as far as an under warranty overclock as such.
How sensitive is the iMac to heat? The overclock of the NB is pretty mild the standard cooling should be able to compensate. The CPU thermals on the other hand....

This is not an overclock. You underclock FSB and raise multiplier, to reach the same speed ( 3Ghz vs 3.06Ghz )

And overclock does not ruin the lifespan of your computer if you do not plan to hit the extreme levels by raising the vCore beyond 120-130%

It is an overclock. The "stock" FSB runs at 200 mhz (times 4 = the 800 that everyone likes to throw around) and the "stock" memory speed is 166 mhz (time 4 = the 667 that everyone likes the throw around). Apple has upped the FSB by 66 mhz (x4 = 1066) and the memory by 34 mhz (x4=200). It is a very mild overclock (to those that do this stuff all the time) and should easily fit within the thermal requirements of the chipset. What would be nice to know is the max multiplier that the CPU uses. That could lead to some info on if the CPUID is wrong or not. Especially since so far all the desktop CPUs that aren't the extremes have locked multipliers (can't set them higher only lower). It would be very interesting if Intel does sell that chip on the normal market because it will instantly become the overclockers sweetheart (most likely it can run at 4 Ghz easily probably on air too). Someone needs to take the iMac apart and actually look at the CPU to get at the bottom of this.


Who is gonna be the guinea pig :p err... uh saviour :D?
 
Think of Apple as an exclusive restaurant with an exclusive dish and exquisite atmosphere. That exclusive dish (OSX) has a recipe and everybody wants to have it, but the restaurant does not allow it to be out in the wild, they simply say: "You can come and eat any time!". Some people complain that they live far, they cannot come to the restaurant and they say that they want to order via phone or take out the food to eat at home. Restaurant managers believe that the food and the atmosphere are one thing that cannot be seperated. And you critisize them because that do not offer the recipe, or take out options. That's fine, then do not eat here, but don't mock people of by pointing out how expensive the food is, or how there are more delicious food that is very similar but costs less. Everybody is coming to this restaurant because they love it. You know it's good, too, but simply it's too hard for you to come to the restaurant or the food is way too expensive, and that's why you try to convince people that there are other alternatives, too. But you do not have to push people. (That was a long example, but I hope you get my point).

Great analogy.
 
Nothing wrong with XP.. Granted it's from MicroSucks but it's the best OS they have ever made. It's stable as hell and has no memory leaks or anything like that. I built a high end quad core several months ago and I can leave the PC running weeks at a time if I need to.

Not to mention pretty much anything works with it. Vista on the other hand is a pile of dog turd and I took it off after about 3 weeks. XP on the other hand is a very solid OS.

Totally agree. XP evolved into a nice, solid OS. It came about when multimedia and plug-n-play were first hitting their stride and it handled it all rather well. You can't complain about that.
 
Nehalem will not be used with Montevina. Montevina will only use only Penryn Mobile derived cores as Montevina is still a FSB NB/SB based chipset. Nehalem doesnt have a FSB, uses Quick-path, and has an integrated memory controller. It defiantly will NOT plug into Montevina. Montevina is a moble platform, as of right now Nehalem has only been discussed in its server and desktop varients. Mobile Nehalem is a very long way off, especially in Apple land. And desktop Nehalem processors will use any entirely different LGA socket as well...

So your sentence does not make sense.

It's still a bit vague about Nehalem platform support.

The roadmap shows Nehalem arriving before Calpella - so how will Intel sell chips without a chipset?

Note this Wikipedia line:

"The code-name Calpella refers to the sixth-generation Centrino platform; it will be competing with AMD Fusion platform. It will premiere in Q2 2009 with the second iteration of Nehalem processors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevina#Montevina_platform_.282008.29

If Calpella shows up with the second iteration of Nehalem, what chipset supports the first batch?

Note this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture)

"Due to its early release and market segment, Intel stated at IDF that only the high-end Bloomfields may have an integrated memory controller, leaving the "lower" end ones without it (and probably on the "old" socket 775)[9], however other sources have said that all Nehalem variants will have an integrated memory controller."
 
It's still a bit vague about Nehalem platform support.

The roadmap shows Nehalem arriving before Calpella - so how will Intel sell chips without a chipset?

Note this Wikipedia line:

"The code-name Calpella refers to the sixth-generation Centrino platform; it will be competing with AMD Fusion platform. It will premiere in Q2 2009 with the second iteration of Nehalem processors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevina#Montevina_platform_.282008.29

If Calpella shows up with the second iteration of Nehalem, what chipset supports the first batch?

From my understanding, there wont be a mobile Nehalem until then. Of course I could be wrong, but it isn't often Intel changes the socket and keeps the same NB/SB.
 
Well, I've had XP for 7 years and I'm running Service Pack 3 now. I've never had a problem that was not solveable, it just works if you take classic Windows prblems into consideration.

Thinking about the old days with Windows Me, XP is heaven ;)

Ubuntu is really interesting, and I'd probably give it a shot soon...

Windows ME? Oh now that brings back some nightmares. :eek: Vista is the new ME (no drivers, nothing works, and a pain to configure), I used XP for 8 years (Since home edition came out in either 2000 or 2001 and am still using XP pro) for my MS only apps. other than usual MS nuances, I think it is rather stable. However, given the fact I made the switch 2 weeks ago to OS X, I have found that many things i used to have to hunt down software for, OS X does it automatically, has it built in, and perfoms rather eloquently.

Since so many Linux OS's come and go, I gave up on Linux. Don't get me wrong Linux is good, but not as a desk top system. I think Apple made the best Unix desktop/laptop sytem. I have not tried Ubuntu, but one has to wonder how long it will last (Caldera, Mandrake, Slackware, Lindows, Red Hat, Suse (now Novell) - have pretty much dropped out of the mainstream or are gone totally). You just do not hear as much about them as you used to. I tried Red Hat and Suse on one of my older machines. I liked Linux, but at the time there were just not enough applications and what was available was give or take on whether it would work. the X11 desktop seemed a little sluggish for a system the rocked command line and did not require much of a PC to run on. But that was about 4 years ago, so maybe things changed.

What I do like with Mac OS X being unix, most if not all, of the Linux freeware programs will run on it natively. Although, since I do not want to junk up my Mac, I am trying to stay with Mac OS X written applications rather than using a Linux written app, if I can help it.
 
Apple memory this time

I suggest 3rd party. I've always purchased my RAM from Crucial and have never had any issues.

I've always done that too -- until today. Crucial doesn't list the 3 GHz model yet and the labels on the memory don't match between Apple's label at the store and Crucial's label. For only $100 difference, I'm not going to take the chance.
 
I've always done that too -- until today. Crucial doesn't list the 3 GHz model yet and the labels on the memory don't match between Apple's label at the store and Crucial's label. For only $100 difference, I'm not going to take the chance.

I just went to Crucial's site to spec out some ram for this gen iMac (going to be purchasing it by the end of the week) and they must have updated their site between the time you posted and this post since they have at least the new 3.06 Ghz model in their Mac Memory drop down list. Given that all the models use the same type of chipset, you can use that to determine what kind of RAM you should buy... I'll go ahead and paste what Crucial says is compatible with these new iMacs:

# Module Size: 4GB kit (2GBx2)
# Package: 200-pin SODIMM
# Feature: DDR2 PC2-6400
# Specs: DDR2 PC2-6400 • CL=6 • Unbuffered • NON-ECC • DDR2-800 • 1.8V • 256Meg x 64

Crucial is selling this kit for $123.99 currently. You can find Crucial RAM matching these specs on NewEgg for $99.99. There are other kits on NewEgg, however that are PC6400 DDR2 800 MHz 4GB but don't have the same CAS Latency. I'm wondering if the CAS Latency makes that much of a difference. Any hardware geniuses out there want to help answer that question?
 
I just went to Crucial's site to spec out some ram for this gen iMac (going to be purchasing it by the end of the week) and they must have updated their site between the time you posted and this post since they have at least the new 3.06 Ghz model in their Mac Memory drop down list. Given that all the models use the same type of chipset, you can use that to determine what kind of RAM you should buy... I'll go ahead and paste what Crucial says is compatible with these new iMacs:

# Module Size: 4GB kit (2GBx2)
# Package: 200-pin SODIMM
# Feature: DDR2 PC2-6400
# Specs: DDR2 PC2-6400 • CL=6 • Unbuffered • NON-ECC • DDR2-800 • 1.8V • 256Meg x 64

Crucial is selling this kit for $123.99 currently. You can find Crucial RAM matching these specs on NewEgg for $99.99. There are other kits on NewEgg, however that are PC6400 DDR2 800 MHz 4GB but don't have the same CAS Latency. I'm wondering if the CAS Latency makes that much of a difference. Any hardware geniuses out there want to help answer that question?

I assume 2GB is roughly $65? The 3GHZ model already has a 2GB dimm, so you'd only need half as much. Not a full "4GB kit".
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.