Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Releases Updated iMac Models With 21.5- and 27-Inch LED Screens

AidenShaw said:
Then tell the webmaster to make a "no-flash" page.

Have you ever disabled flash, and noticed how much faster and usable the web is?

Once you go "no-flash", you won't go back. ;)
Click to expand...

I agree; somewhat similarly I run NoScript in FF, which blocks Flash, Java, Javascript and any other scripts from running, and it's so much faster. Quite nice, and safer too.

Eidorian said:
While I don't own any OWC RAM I recommend them.

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/8566DDR3S4GP/

Maybe you can find Free Shipping elsewhere. Always shop around!
Click to expand...

Between me and my company I have spent about $4000 in RAM with OWC, and not a bad stick out of them. Their Mercury drives are great too.
 
RubbishBBspeed said:
Kind of agree, with the way screen resolution is going and interactive content split screen viewing it's going to be a case of stuff blu-ray I'll wait for RED ONE.
Click to expand...

Wow, I wasn't aware that there was going to be a RED ONE home disc format to watch and author high def content on.

Did you just learn about RED ONE and are excited to get your geek on by trying to impress people who do this stuff for a living?
 
Rodus said:
But the G4 towers were the Mac Pro's of their day and you paid for the upgradeability privilege. Apple's mentality is that if you want a very expandable machine then you need to buy a Mac Pro, they will not release a minitower that would cut into their pro lineup (they are close enough to doing this power-wise with the quad i7 iMac).
Click to expand...

Cutting into their range and leaving a gaping hole in their range with nothing to fill it for over 5 years are two different things.

The entry level G4s always had a lower spec GPU, a lower end CPU with no L3 cache and less standard RAM so the models above always performed much better to justify the higher cost. The initial G4s even coupled the G4 with the lower end motherboard the Blue & White G3s came with.

There's no reason why they couldn't either produce a tower based on a single Core i7 CPU and not cut into sales of either the iMac or the Mac Pro.

If you look at Geekbench scores for some of the recent Mac Models...

4993 - MacPro 2.66Ghz Xeon

4257 - iMac 3.06Ghz Core 2 Duo

...and compare it with recent results for a 2.8Ghz Core i7 Hackintosh...

8455 - Intel Core i7 860 @ 2.80 GHz (1 processor, 4 cores)

... you'll see how much faster those new models are going to be in real world terms. There'd be no loss for Apple in providing an entry level tower based on maybe the Core i5 as a compromise.
 
barkmonster said:
If you look at Geekbench scores for some of the recent Mac Models...

4993 - MacPro 2.66Ghz Xeon

4257 - iMac 3.06Ghz Core 2 Duo

...and compare it with recent results for a 2.8Ghz Core i7 Hackintosh...

8455 - Intel Core i7 860 @ 2.80 GHz (1 processor, 4 cores)

... you'll see how much faster those new models are going to be in real world terms. There'd be no loss for Apple in providing an entry level tower based on maybe the Core i5 as a compromise.
Click to expand...
Which 2.66 GHz Xeon in that first score? I'd also expect the E8435 to score a little higher than the E7600.
 
Going to the Apple store today to check out the new 27" screens.
I knew they were LED, but IPS too. Wow. And the resolution!
 
skye12 said:
Going to the Apple store today to check out the new 27" screens.
I knew they were LED, but IPS too. Wow. And the resolution!
Click to expand...

I've just got back from having a look. Both iMac models look stunning and I got the chance to play with the Magic Mouse, which also impressed.

They should be big sellers in the run up to Xmas.
 
skye12 said:
Going to the Apple store today to check out the new 27" screens.
I knew they were LED, but IPS too. Wow. And the resolution!
Click to expand...

The screen is truly awesome. I will have a hard time waiting for the next bump to order one of these. Must be strong.
 
They look good

I wish I had waited for this, i got a MacBook Pro about a month ago because it had more RAM than the iMac for a cheeper price. If I knew these iMacs were coming only a month later, I would have waited :(
 
I'm still waiting for the PC evangelists to send me a link to a dual quad core Xeon workstation that is significantly cheaper than Apple's offerings, using the same processors.

At most I'm seeing a couple hundred dollars difference. That's certainly not the $800 PC they keep bragging about.
 
barkmonster said:
Cutting into their range and leaving a gaping hole in their range with nothing to fill it for over 5 years are two different things.

The entry level G4s always had a lower spec GPU, a lower end CPU with no L3 cache and less standard RAM so the models above always performed much better to justify the higher cost. The initial G4s even coupled the G4 with the lower end motherboard the Blue & White G3s came with.

There's no reason why they couldn't either produce a tower based on a single Core i7 CPU and not cut into sales of either the iMac or the Mac Pro.

If you look at Geekbench scores for some of the recent Mac Models...

4993 - MacPro 2.66Ghz Xeon

4257 - iMac 3.06Ghz Core 2 Duo

...and compare it with recent results for a 2.8Ghz Core i7 Hackintosh...

8455 - Intel Core i7 860 @ 2.80 GHz (1 processor, 4 cores)

... you'll see how much faster those new models are going to be in real world terms. There'd be no loss for Apple in providing an entry level tower based on maybe the Core i5 as a compromise.
Click to expand...

i'm amazed at how well i7s perform. My quad core at 3.71 GHz scores 8855 in geekbench (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/177822 ; the clock speeds are wrong. it's really 3.71 GHz for CPU and 1150 MHz for the ram) and that's at much higher speeds. I wish I had an i7 :[
 
PeterQVenkman said:
I'm still waiting for the PC evangelists to send me a link to a dual quad core Xeon workstation that is significantly cheaper than Apple's offerings, using the same processors.

At most I'm seeing a couple hundred dollars difference. That's certainly not the $800 PC they keep bragging about.
Click to expand...

Compared to the Dell Precision workstations, the Mac Pro at $20,000+ is nothing. Of course, a maxed out Precision has *far* more RAM, hard drives, and a dual 4.0 GiB QuadroFX graphics card option. But yes, if you want it, Dell would be more than happy to sell you a $120,000 Precision.
 
I quickly threw together an i7 system on newegg:

22x DVD-RW+ drive
27 inch monitor (2048 x 1152)
1 tb hard drive
Windos 7 Home Premium
wireless keyboard and mouse
case, PSU (850 watts)
Radeon 4890
same 2.8 GHz i7, along with a foxconn motherboard
4 GB DDR3 1333 ram
-free 8 GB USB drive (thanks newegg!)

came out to about $1910.

These iMacs aren't terribly priced I think ;o
 
These iMacs aren't terribly priced I think ;o
Click to expand...
Wow your right - how much was the monitor (nvm I think I found it @ $429)?

It's only $2,199 for the same thing with an iMac but you get a 27.5" 2560x1440 res on a very high quality IPS display.
The only difference is the 4850 instead of the 4890, and 1066MHz RAM instead of 1333MHz.

Very good value for an iMac :p
 
CQd44 said:
I quickly threw together an i7 system on newegg:

22x DVD-RW+ drive
27 inch monitor (2048 x 1152)
1 tb hard drive
Windos 7 Home Premium
wireless keyboard and mouse
case, PSU (850 watts)
Radeon 4890
same 2.8 GHz i7, along with a foxconn motherboard
4 GB DDR3 1333 ram
-free 8 GB USB drive (thanks newegg!)

came out to about $1910.

These iMacs aren't terribly priced I think ;o
Click to expand...
One might even consider the iMac's pricing/value to be competitive.
 
DMann said:
One might even consider the iMac's pricing/value to be competitive.
Click to expand...
Figure in how much money you will save over the life of the computer on your electric bill and the iMac starts looking better and better.
 
PeterQVenkman said:
I'm still waiting for the PC evangelists to send me a link to a dual quad core Xeon workstation that is significantly cheaper than Apple's offerings, using the same processors.

At most I'm seeing a couple hundred dollars difference. That's certainly not the $800 PC they keep bragging about.
Click to expand...

I think that you are missing the point completely.

The argument isn't that Apple dual-socket overkill is more expensive than (other) dual-socket overkill.

The point is that in the quad-core space, (not the octo-core space), Apple has *no* interesting products.

If you don't need a monitor (or don't want to buy an all-in-one where you have to throw away the monitor when the CPU need upgrading) the Imac is *not interesting*.

The Mini is a toy without quad options - *not interesting*.

Dell/... have quad i5/i7 systems in the under $800 range. Apple starts at $2000 in the dreaded all-in-one configuration.

It's really pointless for the vast majority of consumers to say that an octo-core Apple at $7300 is a better buy than an equivalent octo-core Dell at $7500. Most people are looking at the $1000 price range.


DMann said:
One might even consider the iMac's pricing/value to be competitive.
Click to expand...

Quaff another glass of Kool-Aid.... ;)

Sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back