I REALLY wanted to i7 model...but how to justify that when my 24" C2D iMac already works wonderfully? Any tips?
the fact that you can use it as a monitor with the new input adds a lot to it IMO
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.
Core i7-Based 27" iMac Benchmarks Show Significant Improvements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
the fact that you can use it as a monitor with the new input adds a lot to it IMO
That's bull....
I have the same computer and the geekbench scores I get it with it are around 10k. Which iMac i7 comes close with 9600.
So no, you are not getting double the scores with your Mac Pro.
Enough already. Take your whining to the eight thousand other it-doesn't-have-matte-screen threads.
You forgot that the monitor Apple uses would cost around 1000£ if sold separately. So yeah, new iMac's are great value.
I REALLY wanted the i7 model...but how to justify that when my 24" C2D iMac already works wonderfully? What to do with it? Any tips?
No need to justify. Sell your C2D (plenty of buyers on eBay, Craigslist, etc.) and use the proceeds to buy an i7. You'll have to put in extra $ of course but no more so than if you were to buy a bigger monitor, a new i7 proc, and new graphics card for your current iMac. This is what I usually do just before (or after) new models drop.
Economically, except for professionals who make their money off their computers, and where every lost minute is lost money, or s/w requirements, there is no rational justification because the real difference between a moderate speed C2D and an i7 is maybe a few minutes lost encoding video or a minute transcoding a CD to MP3. Its fun to have new shiny hardware though, and who doesn't want more screen real estate.
You can make an all in one that can legally run OS X and has Apple service and support?
Holy crud, how'd you do that? 
It took me about four hours to put together and was something which I really enjoyed doing. VAT is included in the price I quoted, as was a copy of Windows 7 Home Premium (£30 as he's a student).
But if it wasn't in the iMac, would anyone buy it? Who here really thinks that they need or can justify investing in a monitor of that size, especially when it's locked into a system which cannot be upgraded and will need to be replaced entirely at the end of its life?
You can make an all in one that can legally run OS X and has Apple service and support?
I don't understand why everyone's so eager to buy an "all in one". He has plenty of space where he lives, and a little box under the desk isn't going to affect how he works or uses the computer at all. In fact, it's relieving to know that in a year or two when the graphics card is falling behind he can just swap it out for another one.
As for Apple "service and support", that's laughable. Every time I've tried to get them to do anything for me it has been a struggle. I either have to take the entire system to a store 100 miles away or I have to call up a customer care centre located somewhere in Asia (sorry, I don't know the specific location) and try to explain my issues to them. I'd imagine that would be particularly frustrating if a nonessential component was to fail. Can you imagine sending the entire system away just because an optical or hard drive failed?
He's not a video editor, so there really is no reason for him to run OS X. I've used the two extensively over the past few months and in terms of reliability and stability, Windows 7 is easily better than Snow Leopard. It has now been a long time since there was a valid reason for spending double the amount on a system just to get the other OS.
Well, Cinebench can be considered real world, since it just renders a preset scene with all available cores.
And Cinebench shows 30% improvement when you check a theoretical 2.93 Penyrn 8 Core vs a 2.93 Nehalem 8 Core with hyperthreading.
It can be due to architecture difference as well but 30% won't be due to architecture difference alone, considering Penyrn and Nehalem perform pretty similar on single threaded tasks.
I'm using Apple ACD 30" so I would invest in that monitor. Not to mention, it's not locked into a non-upgradable system. That monitor can be used as a separate monitor.
So what you are buying is a powerful enough computer which will last a while, and after it's EOL you can keep using the awesome monitor "it came with".
If it was any sort of Mac at all, yes. If you're any sort of computer enthusiast, yes. People want different things when it comes to computers - just like anything else. Just like someone might buy a Mercedes over a Kia: they both get you from point A to point B, but some people prefer Kia and some the Mercedes. That doesn't mean you need to lambaste the people driving Mercedes because you personally felt the money was wasted or because you don't have the same reasons for buying a car as the other person. The same can be said of computers.
Although why you're posting all this on a forum specifically for people who would have some pre-disposition to buy Apple products is a little beyond me.
Forgive me if someone else has already said this, but I'm off to bed in a few mins and don't have time to read all the posts in this thread.
I was under the impression Apple wanted thinner and lighter computers so they could ship them in smaller packages, fit more computers on pallets in planes etc. Doesn't make much of a difference to consumers as you rightly point out because they just sit on a desk, but there's economic incentive for Apple to want this. At least, that's the impression you get if you read all the Apple press releases on their greening efforts and whatnot.
That said, the heatsinks on those new iMacs though are monsters though
, so perhaps weight is a secondary concern to thinness.Horrible customer service.
http://www.focus.com/fyi/customer-service/10-best-and-10-worst-companies-customer-service/
The American Consumer Satisfaction Index (ASCI)* second quarter report indicates that within the Personal Computers category, customers perceived Apple as the best company in terms of customer service. Apples baseline score was 77 (on a 100-point scale), and the Q2 2006 score was 83.
Computerworld, discussing Apples number one ranking says, The Companys focus on product innovation and customer service has won it a cadre of famously loyal customers, unlike any other PC vendor. And why are Dells scores slipping? The article elaborates, Survey respondents complained mostly about the quality of Dells customer service, not its products, Van Amburg said customers were clearly more frustrated with Dell than they were last year, he said.
This blog post New Virus Found! The You Suck Virus, states, Part of being excellent in business is being innovative. If you agree with that one criteria (I know there are more) then Apple is the clear winner when it comes to innovation. Companies like Dell, HP, and IBM make good computers but once you compare them to a really excellent product (like an Apple) it is easy to see the difference.
This 2003 article indicates that Apple is pretty consistent when it comes to high-quality customer service, Apple did garnish the number one customer service ranking in the 2001 Consumer Reports Annual Questionnaire, and a number one ranking for desktop repairs in May 2003. Here are some customer compliments for Apple.
http://www.macworld.com/article/133293/2008/05/consumer.html
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...-service-gets-highest-marks-among-callers.ars
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/apple-tops-pc-customer-service-rankings/
http://deluxethemes.com/comfy/69/apples-customers-love-its-customer-service/
http://www.appletell.com/apple/comm...features-apples-high-customer-service-rating/
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/08/17/apple-turns-the-most-customer-service-frowns-upside-down/
http://experiencematters.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/apple-beats-windows-in-customer-experience/
I can't. That is one of the reasons, that I didn't buy an iMac till today.
Don't forget data privacy. You can't swap the hard drive, so the technician are able to see your data, if you don't use encryption.
This is a consumer machine - the 16:9 aspect ratio of the display leaves us with little doubt that it is designed for viewing content rather than creating it.
I didn't join this forum to troll, nor do I believe that is what I am doing now. I've been very active in the "Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion" forum, where I have posted countless replies to questions about which systems to buy.
If you notice my join date, it's around the time when there really was a benefit to buying a Mac. In 2005/2006 OS X was massively better than Windows and the main reason for my "switching" (originally to an iMac, no less!) was because I couldn't bear the problems which Windows had.
That was four years ago and times have really changed. You only have to use both operating systems to realise that Windows 7 now has the upper hand. I've been using the RC (and now the full version) since release and I was skeptical at first. However, I continue to be amazed by just how much of a turnaround this is for the series. Since installing it all those months ago I have had a single application crash - Street Fighter IV. Since then I haven't had any problems at all.
This is a stark contrast to my experience since installing Snow Leopard. Applications crash on me every single day and I have had to endure a "kernel panic" no less than five times, all when doing different things.
I reiterate - there was a time when I believed that there was an argument for spending a significant amount of extra money on a Mac, but I don't think anyone can really think that this is the case today, especially when we are talking about paying double for a less powerful system.
Good for it. Too bad I don't live anywhere near the USA or Canada.
I think you're making the difference between us quite clear here LTD. You seem to enjoy reading surveys and trust everything you read in the press. That's not how I make buying decisions - I use my own experience when buying systems for myself or helping friends.
So my MacPro 1.1 scores 4950 and the new iMac i7 = 9600 ?
Seriously didn't think there would be that much (if any) difference but wow.
However... What does this mean in 'real world' peformance test ? I guess I'm not going to see 2 X difference in the real world or am I ?
Seriously didn't think there would be that much (if any) difference but wow.
However... What does this mean in 'real world' peformance test ? I guess I'm not going to see 2 X difference in the real world or am I ?
Member is what member posts.
When you SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, please . . . DON'T SPEAK FOR THE REST OF APPLE'S MARKET. Or put some qualifier or disclaimer there telling us it's only your anecdotal opinion, so we can maybe stop reading it.
Cheers.
Posting the results of a survey from a foreign country doesn't mean that your opinion is any more valid than mine.
But in many points he is right.
There are a lot of disadavantages people don't want to see.
Those are some impressive scores.
Personally, as much as I admire the high end i7 iMac it's a system that I would never need for what I use a Mac for.
To those who do a lot of intense graphic tasks and video editing though, that system is going to be a dream to work with.
So, to those who have them on order, enjoy.
Personally, as much as I admire the high end i7 iMac it's a system that I would never need for what I use a Mac for.
To those who do a lot of intense graphic tasks and video editing though, that system is going to be a dream to work with.
So, to those who have them on order, enjoy.
i7 - Extremelly fast chip too bad....
Too bad there is no room to overlock - but other than that you'll be very close to a Macpro low end in speed no questions ask. Now with a little overlocking same chip you can get same speed as the high end Macpro.
Here is my benchmark on a i7 920 Overlocked @ 3.6ghz http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/184259
Too bad there is no room to overlock - but other than that you'll be very close to a Macpro low end in speed no questions ask. Now with a little overlocking same chip you can get same speed as the high end Macpro.
Here is my benchmark on a i7 920 Overlocked @ 3.6ghz http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/184259
It is fun to put hardware together, but for some people, their time may be more valuable. 4 hours of effort to build a PC for some of us would be the difference in value alone. Not just in how much they make, but in time away from family or friends. I will assume either you or the person you built for is a student since you (legally) bought that version, but many of us are not which increases cost.
Finally there is industrial design, many people including myself are willing to add a certain amount of value to the clean lines and visually appealing design. It is hard to quantify as it is different for everyone, but there is SOME value there. All of these things combined negate the price difference.
I can appreciate that, but how exactly do you make an "experienced" decision on a product you have never used? It can be great based on PAST experience or it can be a lemon. This is a new piece of hardware for Apple. If you have not used it, you have minimal experience in it, other than possibly a short amount of time at a friend or store.
At a certain point you need to value the opinions of others and weigh them against your own knowledge. That doesn't mean if the "press" says it, then believe, but when multiple media outlets from different owners with different people all come to the same conclusion, that at least supports the idea it may be true.
Forgive me if someone else has already said this, but I'm off to bed in a few mins and don't have time to read all the posts in this thread.
I was under the impression Apple wanted thinner and lighter computers so they could ship them in smaller packages, fit more computers on pallets in planes etc. Doesn't make much of a difference to consumers as you rightly point out because they just sit on a desk, but there's economic incentive for Apple to want this. At least, that's the impression you get if you read all the Apple press releases on their greening efforts and whatnot.
That said, the heatsinks on those new iMacs though are monsters though
Well, I thought the exact same way until I saw this current iMac refresh. I was a complete nay-sayer of the new quad core iMac rumors because I was under the impression that Apple was really leaning on making everything thinner for less packaging and less power consuming. Boy was I wrong. Apple obviously focuses on making things thinner as time goes on but not Macbook Air thin. I'm under the impression that you guys think that Apple wants to make an Ultra-thin iMac, which I think couldn't be any farther from the truth when doing that will effectively kill any room they have for desktop CPU's and the like. So basically you are asking for a downgrade in parts? I don't think Apple could ever downgrade one machine in their product line unless they split it like I mentioned before.