Best value for money in current models

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Vidd, Oct 22, 2007.

  1. Vidd macrumors 6502a


    Mar 7, 2006
    I was wondering based on the new pricing scheme if the extra £200 for the 24" model is worth the money according to the views of the people here.
    Since the higher-end 20" matches its specifications apart from the screen, it does seem a bit steep to me for an extra 4" and better viewing angle (although worse contrast ratio).
    The other factor that comes to mind is the fact that Spaces may make up for a lower resolution.

    Any sort of input would be great since I would like to make the purchase very soon.
  2. gorby macrumors 6502

    Oct 20, 2007
    Not only is the 24 screen bigger, it is also reported to be a better panel too... I'm sure the others will let you in on the specifics.

    I'm looking to buy my first mac too... and all of this stuff about the screen has really been daunting.

    I'm sort of leaning towards the 24 inch now (was originally going for 20), but you can bet I'll be going in for another look at the Apple store before I decide anything.
  3. Hello.there macrumors 6502a


    Oct 12, 2007
    Hello you two,

    I finally plumped for the 24" last week after reading 17,378 reviews and asking 378,893 people for their opinions! There were strong arguments for and against the 24"/20", but having had a look at the 24" in a store (I ordered online), with the 20" beside it, it was just so stunningly impressive I reckoned it was worth the extra - especially if, as I am, you're big in to photo/video editing, etc. If you can afford it I'd go for it.

    You get a nice look at the 24" here:
  4. flopticalcube macrumors G4


    Sep 7, 2006
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    I have two of the 20" models. If you can afford the 24" and can live with its size (I couldn't), you will prefer it. It has a better screen (although that was not important to me). In this case, your mileage most certainly will vary.
  5. tersono macrumors 68000


    Jan 18, 2005
    Sheer value for money, you really can't beat the 20" iMac. I think they're astoundingly good value. We have a few of them at work and they're a real pleasure to use. The 24" is also good value, but whether it's worth the extra depends on the sort of use it's going to get.

    I'll admit that if I was buying one for myself, I'd go for the 24", but then I'm one of those people who can never have enough screen space ;)
  6. Leon Kowalski macrumors 6502a

    Leon Kowalski

    Sep 20, 2007
    Gondwanaland Reunification Front HQ
    Don't know about prices/availability in the UK, but I just bought a previous-generation 20" 2.16 GHz C2D for USD $1200 -- brand new, in the factory-sealed box. It's about 10% slower than the 2.4 GHz iMacs, but it was also 20% less expensive than the ALU 20", and 33% less expensive than the ALU 24".

    The display is an absolutely beautiful Samsung, 8-bit, S-VPA panel. Matte finish, of course.
    For screen photos, see:

    Funny thing is: it's 2 weeks newer than my 20" ALU ex-iMac, and was manufactured after the ALU iMac product introduction. There was even an iLife '08 DVD packed inside the factory-sealed box (the factory HD-image and install disks are OS-X 10.4.8 with iLife '06). fits my needs/expectations better than either ALU iMac,

  7. sarah3585 macrumors regular


    Aug 12, 2007
    I kind of have the same problem. I originally wanted the 20inch but after the comments about the screen I decdied to go for the 24 inch. Now I'm not sure.
    I will be using it for graphics that was mostly screen based not print, although you never know.
    Should I go for the 24 or get the 20inch and but the £200 towards another matt monitor for a dual set up?
  8. La Curandera macrumors newbie

    Apr 28, 2007
    I had the exact same dilema, and am now a very happy owner of a new Alu 24" I picked up in the Bluewater store.

    My work involves a lot of "side by side" comparison, where having the ability to have two docs up is just that little bit easier than on the 20. I checked both in the store, and screen issues aside (I've tried to find fault, but can't) and the 24 was just the one to get.

    Interestingly, my girlfriend, who is pretty much a computer novice and had the "why do you need it attitude", has now fallen in love with it and actually admitted the 24 was a good idea.

    Worst thing is to spend £900 and then sit there for two years or whatever thinking why didn't you go for the bigger screen. That was what really clinched it.
  9. theanimala macrumors 6502

    Mar 2, 2007
    I think the best bang for the buck model is the base 20", if you are not a power user. I wanted to get that for the family PC, but I was disappointed with the screen, especially as I plan on editing my photo's on the machine. The base 20" had a fast enough processor and video card for that. Instead I spent $500 more (after $100 Amazon rebate) for the 24". While I got more, I do believe the base model is the best if it has enough power for you. I do see the 2.8 24" as being the worst bang for the buck, but necessary for those who need the additional power.
  10. Leon Kowalski macrumors 6502a

    Leon Kowalski

    Sep 20, 2007
    Gondwanaland Reunification Front HQ
    Excellent point. At work, I couldn't live without my 24" Dell -- also for side-by-side comparisons. The 20" iMac is for home use, where 20" is more than adequate for browsing, blogging, family photo cropping, and such.

    BTW, non-glossy 24" 2.16 GHz C2Ds are still readily available here for USD $1500 -- brand new, factory-sealed.

    ...just sayin'

  11. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
  12. Vidd thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Mar 7, 2006
    Well I'm not looking to edit HD video or anything but then again, I'll not just be browsing the internet either. I suppose the most strenuous thing would be gaming and its for this reason that I've decided against the base 20" (as well as the fact that the 0.4Ghz jump seens decent). I do a lot of document editing and that'd be better on a larger screen, too.
    Of course with the bigger iMac there are more pixels to fill with the same GPU but windowed mode will suit me fine for things like BioShock.
  13. jstad macrumors regular


    Jun 13, 2007
    The 24" is a better value not only for the larger view but it will also have a higher reselling value. If you do any sort of multi-tasking, the larger the screen the more enjoyable the computing experience. The only time the smaller screen is more useful is when you have a limited space for the screen or you simply cannot afford it. IMO go with the larger screen if you can afford it, you will get your money back when you resell it.

Share This Page