First, to those that said you cannot get a Core i7 desktop chip in a Mac, you are wrong. As of Tuesday, you can get a Core i5 or a 2.8 Core i7 in an iMac. Mine is on order!
First of all, do some research first on just what "i7" means. There are currently two desktop versions of the "i7"
* the initial version, Bloomfield, running on socket 1366
* Lynnfield, just recently released, running on socket 1156
The "i7" you are referring to is the i7 860, based on Lynnfield. Now there are a number of positives and negatives to Lynnfield, but for the iMac, it's mostly just positives: Lynnfield incorporates the PCIe lanes into the die package itself. This reduces the need for a complex northbridge chipset (P55), which also means reduced power consumption.
Lynnfield also features lower power consumption itself, which also helps in regards to being used in the iMac.
Limitations currently for Lynnfield (which aren't really factors for the iMac) are that it's limited to 20 PCIe lanes. Since iMacs only use one graphics card, this isn't a concern. For system builders, it limits dual GPU options to x8/x8 for each PCIe GPU lane.
Lynnfield also forgoes triple channel DDR3 for dual-channel DDR3, but this admittedly only has an effect on memory-intensive applications. For the general consumer, it's not a concern.
Bloomfield/X58 support 36 PCIe lanes, triple channel memory, uses a QPI link (for the consumer versions, 2x QPI for the server variants) and is compatible with Gulftown when it comes out (6 core / 12 threaded CPUs hitting in early 2010).
Second, when comparing prices, you MUST compare equal components!
There was someone early on in this thread who was trying to compare a Mac Pro (Workstation class!) with a run of the mill desktop config! Sorry, but this is not a valid comparison. Go to Dell's site and configure a WORKSTATION with the SAME processor and components as a Mac Pro and you will see that the Mac Pro is pretty competative.
That was me, and you're right, it wasn't a fully fair apples-to-apples comparison. However, both have pluses and minuses. With the entry-model Mac Pro, I gain ECC and a useless second QPI link.
With a consumer i7 and the X58 chipset, I gain the ability to have SLI/Crossfire support. There's also the fact that currently Apple's top GPU hardware is old-generation, since the Radeon 5*** series is now out.
But yes, I went back to Dell, spec'd out a 2.66 Ghz Nehalem Xeon-based system using 6 GB of DDR3 with ECC, and the cost came to around $2400. So it's more "competitive" in that it's only a $500 difference compared to a $1100 difference.
Now, compare the current base iMac with a Dell, using the same components, INCLUDING a 22" screen. Pretty comparable.
Do the same with a fully decked out iMac -- Core i7 2.8, and a 27" screen... The iMac is cheaper!!!!!
I decked out a Core i7 860 ("2.8" in your nomenclature) with Dell, same HD size, same memory, Dell's premier 27" screen, and with a better GPU (GeForce GTX 260 > Radeon HD 4850), and they came out to the same price.
Sure, you can build a PC, configure one without the screen... Cheaper. So what!!
So I'm good at building PCs, and know that I can easily build a more powerful system for less than what it would cost pre-built, and pretty much with all of the same warranty and coverage. The only thing that sucks is that it can't easily run OS X.
The iMac offers a VERY POWERFUL, ALL IN ONE, BEATIFULLY DESIGNED, computer that is SILENT, has NO Virus issues, and runs a SEAMLESS Suite of applications STABLEY.
The new iMacs (and the iMacs before them) are all very capable machines, no one is arguing that. My issue is with the Mac Pro line.
That last part is very important! Someone asked what you can do with OSX that you cant do on Windows 7. Here is you answer:
With OSX you have an easy-to-use SEAMLESS suite of applications: OSX-iCal-Address Book-Mail-iPhoto-iMovie-iTunes-iDVD-iWEB ...They all work together, sharing data and supporting each other. It is AMAZING! There is NOTHING like it on Windows, not even if you buy each of the individual applications! Believe me, I use both at home. I just installed Windows 7 on my PC yesterday.
So Windows and Office don't work together? Don't share data? Don't support each other?
I guess I'm just not an Apple "zealot", but it seems to me that much of what you see *bundled* with OS X, is software that either has a similar Windows version, or once had it (and the EU or such forced them to remove it).
Now, iCal/Address Book/Mail are definitely a lot better than Windows Mail (and previously Outlook Express), no doubt about that. And I'd gow ith iTunes being better than Windows Media Player. Personally I dislike both quite a bit.
I'm sorry, but I just can't "believe you" when the tone of your message overall is "Apple/Macs do no wrong, and PCs do no right"
Windows 7 is nice. I like it.
That's been the general consensus, though I don't quite buy the 'I like it' part, as it seems to be an a recurrent theme from diehard Apple fans in terms of trying to convince others they're not biased against Windows.
But it just does not compare to OSX with iLife. And the iMac is just unmatched in the PC world. I challenge ANYONE to find an all-in-one PC that matches the features of the base iMac for a better price than the base iMac!
I won't argue that, overall, the iMac is likely the best "all-in-one" computer around.
Now, here's the thing: all-in-one computers, aren't the end-all, be-all of computing. Sure, it's nice to make your desk as "clean" as possible, and if that's one of the objectives, it's perfect.
However, I like to be able to have options. A system shouldn't become slow/obsolete in the face of new software simply because it's not upgradeable beyond a few simple options (memory increase, etc.). Do you realize that generally, with software, it usually comes down to one of two things: you either end up being CPU-limited, or GPU-limited. Less frequently it's due to a memory (RAM, HD) limitation.
Now, I don't know about you, but given that I tend to invest thousands of dollars into computers fairly regularly, I like to think that at least some of those components can be re-used later on. That's why the only Apple desktop system of interest to me is the Mac Pro, because at least it does offer greater upgrade options than the iMac.
My Macs last a long time (my Power Mac G4 is running still), and they can still run fairly fast. But I have no doubt that if I were to try and run something like Photoshop on them compared to my i7 system, they'd be no where near it in performance. That, and gaming, is why I keep a Windows-based self-built PC around: because I can easily spend a few hundred dollars hear and there per year, replacing a component with a more powerful version, thus extending the system's life span.
Sure, it essentially adds up to a new system over time anyway (say, the lifespan that a typical Mac user sees), but it also means I don't suffer through slowly seeing my system get slower and slower for the applications I run. People say "But my system is still as fast as it was when I bought it!", but unless they're regularly reinstalling OS X, I highly, highly doubt it. Performance always degrades as new, more demanding software is released.
