Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases New Sandy Bridge Quad-Core iMacs with Thunderbolt
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Obviously not correct. Just check the rate at which computer manufacturers upgrade their computers and monitors. Computers - every year. Monitors - on average every three years and then the change rarely is significant. The tech used in the best current monitor models is many years old.
The good monitor will serve well for at least five years and the good PC ... will not.
You are right. And the reason? Given a choice, people overwhelmingly prefer separates to all-in-ones. That's why Apple does not offer a choice. The margins on all-in-ones are better.
I assumed that was what he meant.
The other vendors have mini-tower, tower, and SFF options that their customers overwhelmingly choose.
ASUS is heavily pushing Bluetooth standard on their boards. Now if it only works under UEFI for input devices. I am not a fan of wireless mice after having so many weird out. Mini-ITX is where it is as now that you SATA 6 Gbps and USB 3.0 on board and more bandwidth over DMI 2.0.
It was a pain to get so much I/O on the P55 chipset with only PCIe 1.0 lanes. Not that you need to worry about PCIe lane switching or dual GPUs on Mini-ITX.
Indeed. My home [-built] server is specced with two quad-core Nehalem CPUs, 32GB RAM, and 16 1TB drives in hot-swap bays, yet is practically silent except under heavy load.
No, Nehalem is a microarchitecture which includes Xeon and i7 processors. Considering the post he quoted specifically lists the Xeon Nehalem in the Mac Pro, it's quite clear what his intent is.
Random question to you folks that have home servers and use both Macs and PCs: how do you format your drives? exFAT so that the PCs and Macs can both see everything, or do you split 'em up, or what?
I think you've pretty much proved his point. In the PC market where consumers have choices, AIOs are vastly outsold by regular machines.
It's shared over a network (typically via CIFS/Samba, but sometimes AFP), so what the local filesystem is on the server isn't really relevant.
NTFS and EXT3 only
The drives are attached to the servers. Clients use network shares to access the data - one never disconnects the disk from the server to attach it directly to a client, so it makes no sense to choose an on-disk-format that's universal. The network shares (SMB or NFS) hide the underlying format for the most part. (Some network share features may be unavailable for some choices of disk format - so it's not completely transparent.)
Therefore, choose the best, most reliable filesystem that's native to each server. Let the network share do its work.
The drives are attached to the servers. Clients use network shares to access the data - one never disconnects the disk from the server to attach it directly to a client, so it makes no sense to choose an on-disk-format that's universal. The network shares (SMB or NFS) hide the underlying format for the most part. (Some network share features may be unavailable for some choices of disk format - so it's not completely transparent.)
Therefore, choose the best, most reliable filesystem that's native to each server. Let the network share do its work.
Sorry for fishing for your suggestions in making my purchase, mates, but I need your help and expertise. I am looking at getting the 21.5" iMac, but between the two I am trying to figure out if it'll be advantageous for me to spend the extra $350 (educational discount) for the higher end 21.5" with the 6750M card and extra 500GB hdd. The 0.2GHz processor boost will most likely not be noticeable at all, so therefore isn't inclining my decision; I am mainly looking at the 1TB hdd option and the difference between the two 6750M and 6770M graphics cards, but I sadly don't know a lot about gpus and couldn't really find anything at all online as far as comparisons between the two.
Main uses for computer: Final Cut Pro for HD video editing (not heavy into video); Logic 8 for music; Adobe CS4 (pretty big into photo editing) and just basic stuff other than that. I may play games down the road on it too.
So, basically, I do probably need the 1TB hdd (for photo alone), but and mainly looking to see if it would be justified spending the extra for the better graphics card and 500GB extra hdd space for me, or if I would be better off saving that money and just buying a 1TB internal and installing myself - saving $250. Is the 6770M THAT much of an upgrade? thank you for those that took the time to read, too; I'm trying to be a thorough as possible.
Main uses for computer: Final Cut Pro for HD video editing (not heavy into video); Logic 8 for music; Adobe CS4 (pretty big into photo editing) and just basic stuff other than that. I may play games down the road on it too.
So, basically, I do probably need the 1TB hdd (for photo alone), but and mainly looking to see if it would be justified spending the extra for the better graphics card and 500GB extra hdd space for me, or if I would be better off saving that money and just buying a 1TB internal and installing myself - saving $250. Is the 6770M THAT much of an upgrade? thank you for those that took the time to read, too; I'm trying to be a thorough as possible.
Fondly. Shame that the power supplies (and in turn the logic boards as well) had a problem of frying.
Look man, I'm not trying to insult your taste in computers. I've owned two iMacs in my time as a Mac user. Again, I'd happily get a third the very second the words "Blu-Ray" are printed on its webpage as a spec. I like the iMac for the reasons you have mentioned. But to say that they are a good deal for what they are is just plain wrong, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm merely, presenting the facts and my opinion on them.
Sorry for fishing for your suggestions in making my purchase, mates, but I need your help and expertise. I am looking at getting the 21.5" iMac, but between the two I am trying to figure out if it'll be advantageous for me to spend the extra $350 (educational discount) for the higher end 21.5" with the 6750M card and extra 500GB hdd. The 0.2GHz processor boost will most likely not be noticeable at all, so therefore isn't inclining my decision; I am mainly looking at the 1TB hdd option and the difference between the two 6750M and 6770M graphics cards, but I sadly don't know a lot about gpus and couldn't really find anything at all online as far as comparisons between the two.
Main uses for computer: Final Cut Pro for HD video editing (not heavy into video); Logic 8 for music; Adobe CS4 (pretty big into photo editing) and just basic stuff other than that. I may play games down the road on it too.
So, basically, I do probably need the 1TB hdd (for photo alone), but and mainly looking to see if it would be justified spending the extra for the better graphics card and 500GB extra hdd space for me, or if I would be better off saving that money and just buying a 1TB internal and installing myself - saving $250. Is the 6770M THAT much of an upgrade? thank you for those that took the time to read, too; I'm trying to be a thorough as possible.
If a 27" iMac is out of the question, get the higher-end of the two 21.5" iMacs with the better video card. Does it make much of a difference? Probably not, but with Final Cut Studio, the more, the merrier. Also, get a 2TB hard drive (an option not available to you on the lower-end 21.5" iMac) unless you want to store your video on Thunderbolt drives (which aren't out yet). If it isn't out of the question, just get a 27" iMac; those things are being used for more and more of the tasks that were previously exclusive to the Mac Pro.
yeah, 27" is a little too large for my tastes (like the 21.5" models a lot better; wayyy easier on the eyes in a quite literal term). That's what I figured that at least in Final Cut I would definitely benefit from it a lot, but I don't use Final Cut all that much; I am mainly going to be using CS4 Photoshop and Logic 8 the most, and I have a 2TB external hdd now that I'll be storing most of the photos on, just looking for a good amount of storage on the internal if so i need it because I do A LOT of music/movie downloading as well.
You'd get used to the screen; and you'd be thankful for having it if you really get into Final Cut Studio and all of the Adobe CS4 apps. But if you're still fixed on a 21.5" iMac, I'd say get the higher-end model (with the 6770M), customize it with an i7, and a 2TB hard drive (if not a 2TB drive and an SSD [depending on whether or not you need it]). Order RAM aftermarket through someplace like Crucial or OWC, eventually get AppleCare and you're golden.
Dammit why do they keep doing this?
The excitement was with the 27" the iMac finally had enough room for a desktop CPU, but the design and cooling issues practically preclude a desktop GPU, AND it is almost prohibitively difficult to aftermarket an SSD, so they really have you with their configurations and pricings for that.
Was the G4 iMac better? It always struck me as the pinnacle of design, but I have some recollection it was just as messy. Still, if I could get hold of a 20" one my historical wants would be sorted
.awesome, man, thank you for the suggestion. I honestly don't think that I would ever adjust to the scene (especially since I tend to sit extremely close to my computer), so I am gonna stay with the 21.5", but yes, the RAM upgrade will definitely be a MUST as well. So you think that for what I'd use it for the 6770M would definitely be worth the extra cash over the 6750M? Trying to stay cost-effective because installing a new hdd isn't a big deal, especially if it'll save me a couple hundred; that is if there isn't a huge difference between the gpus, of course.
thank you for your input too!
Well there is your problem right there, mate.
I agree, I work on my Mac, when I wanna relax the last place I wanna be is at my computer. I do my gaming and movie watching where it belongs, on my television. Never believed in gaming on computers.
Dammit why do they keep doing this?
The excitement was with the 27" the iMac finally had enough room for a desktop CPU, but the design and cooling issues practically preclude a desktop GPU, AND it is almost prohibitively difficult to aftermarket an SSD, so they really have you with their configurations and pricings for that.
Was the G4 iMac better? It always struck me as the pinnacle of design, but I have some recollection it was just as messy. Still, if I could get hold of a 20" one my historical wants would be sorted
Really, the design of the pre-iSight iMac G5s was the best. You could get at everything fairly easily and it wasn't so thin that cooling and heating would be an issue for anything but a PowerPC G5.
awesome, man, thank you for the suggestion. I honestly don't think that I would ever adjust to the scene (especially since I tend to sit extremely close to my computer), so I am gonna stay with the 21.5", but yes, the RAM upgrade will definitely be a MUST as well. So you think that for what I'd use it for the 6770M would definitely be worth the extra cash over the 6750M? Trying to stay cost-effective because installing a new hdd isn't a big deal, especially if it'll save me a couple hundred; that is if there isn't a huge difference between the gpus, of course.
The 6770M might be worth the extra cash, but more than that, being able to customize the CPU and hard drive options is worth it. Incidentally, both are only available on the higher-end 21.5" iMac. The lower-end iMac doesn't allow you those customizations, and it's the only of the four in the line that have the 6750M. So, for multiple reasons, avoid the lowest end. As for the screen, I had a 15" CRT iMac G3. Then I got a 20" Early 2006 iMac, and I thought I'd never get used to the screen size. Now I have a Mac mini Server (used as a normal Mac) hooked up to a 21.5" Asus monitor and a PC tower right next to it, hooked up to a 24.6" Samsung monitor. I think I won't get adjusted and used to it, but really, I will. And honestly, the 27" iMac has internal features that are much better suited to what you are doing (for instance, the 6970M IS a better GPU than the 6750M, especially when decked out with the additional VRAM). It's a shame those features don't exist on the 21.5" model, nevertheless, you probably want them.
They had max chin factor though; I remember the first time I saw one of those G5 iMacs, through a shop window in Bern, Switzerland of all places. First impression was definitely chin!!
Y'know, if it works, and is well designed and engineered, then the "chin factor" is a fine price to pay.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Hey people,
Do you think the better GPU with 1 or 2 gb RAM is worth the extra 220/300 ? I guess the iMac would become way better in direction 'still very useful in the future'
I like to play games from time to time like GTA iv but the major usage is for university, movies and surfing. Buuut...
Hey people,
Do you think the better GPU with 1 or 2 gb RAM is worth the extra 220/300 ? I guess the iMac would become way better in direction 'still very useful in the future'
I like to play games from time to time like GTA iv but the major usage is for university, movies and surfing. Buuut...
When I look back on my Windows days I can agree with that statement.
On the Mac I am impressed with how well wireless works. I have been using the magic mouse since day one and it works better than any wired PC mouse I have used. Again, the "it just works" principle applies. Same can be said for Airport Extreme/Expresses. Apple just gets it right.
That is mostly because Apple chooses to use BT for it's wireless input devices. I never understood why wireless kb/m for PCs didn't go the same route.
I just avoid wireless mice entirely. (Though it is tough on my HTPC.) The keyboards work well enough.