iMac 30" 3.0Ghz

Would you buy a 30" iMac 3.0Ghz


  • Total voters
    134

frozentoast

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 19, 2007
296
82
Perfection: An iMac at 30 inches, minus the latest screen issues. Obviously the specs wouldn't step on the toes of the Mac Pro range but an upgrade from 2.8 to 3.0 would be nice.

It makes complete sense as it would be catering the 'prosumer' w/o having to create a new product line. Am I asking too much? :)

I realise speculation for this setup has been discussed before although the Buyer's Guide is telling me we are halfway through the product cycle so now seems a good a time as any for wishful thinking.
 

ucfgrad93

macrumors P6
Aug 17, 2007
17,858
8,767
Colorado
I wouldn't because I don't need a screen that big. I think that 24 inches would be the largest I would get.
 
Comment

Xeem

macrumors 6502a
Feb 2, 2005
903
10
Minnesota
If the 24" iMac didn't exist, my dad would own a Mac Pro. But as it is, his 24" Core 2 iMac with its geForce 7600GT is pretty fast, even outperforming Mac Pros in many tests. I think that a 30" iMac, especially one that is spec'd higher than the 24" model, would take a heavy toll on both Mac Pro and 30" ACD sales.
 
Comment

Decrepit

macrumors 65816
Sep 6, 2007
1,146
0
Foothills to the Rocky Mountains
Perfection: An iMac at 30 inches, minus the latest screen issues. Obviously the specs wouldn't step on the toes of the Mac Pro range but an upgrade from 2.8 to 3.0 would be nice.

It makes complete sense as it would be catering the 'prosumer' w/o having to create a new product line. Am I asking too much? :)

I realise speculation for this setup has been discussed before although the Buyer's Guide is telling me we are halfway through the product cycle so now seems a good a time as any for wishful thinking.
I am still leery of buying a system that is all one piece. After the warranty expires... If the display dies, the system is nearly useless. If the processor or systemboard die, the system is useless.

I like separates, so I can upgrade as necessary. If they ever update the Mini again, and it can support a 30" LCD, I'll kick myself for buying the 24" that I just got. But then again, I haven't found a KVM that will drive a 30". Yet...
 
Comment

Genghis Khan

macrumors 65816
Jun 3, 2007
1,202
0
Melbourne, Australia
i wouldn't

at current prices, you could buy a base mac pro for what you're talking about

plus 30" is too big any way unless you have a whole room set apart for computing alone

but i would like a consumer tower.........
 
Comment

docprego

macrumors 65816
Jun 12, 2007
1,201
61
Henderson, NV
A 30" screen is ridiculously big when you are sitting in front of it at home. Even in the store where things tend to look smaller than they will once you get home, it is still gargantuan. I think the 24" is pushing it to the limit for most peoples desks.
 
Comment

CRAZYBUBBA

macrumors 65816
Mar 28, 2007
1,119
6
Toronto/Houston
For now i would say that this is not likely to be a reality. HOWEVER, I do remember that when i bought my imac, 17" was considered a large monitor.
 
Comment

Mundy

macrumors regular
Sep 8, 2006
141
0
Sometimes I don't find 24" to be big enough, so yes, I'd buy an iMac with a 30" screen.
 
Comment

Vidd

macrumors 6502a
Mar 7, 2006
980
35
The main problem with an AIO is the fact that you can't take the parts for the next computer.
I think a 30" monitor is too much to discard.
 
Comment

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,824
7
Even a 20" iMac looks ridiculously large in the room I use to work in. A 30" would require me to start moving walls.
 
Comment

zap2

macrumors 604
Mar 8, 2005
7,241
1
Washington D.C
I really think thats too big,what are iMac owner doing that they need a 30'' display?

30'' display, with a good resolution, are over kill, and far to pricey
 
Comment

dmw007

macrumors G4
May 26, 2005
10,635
0
Working for MI-6
Not sure how well a 30" iMac would sell. But then again, people said the same thing about the rumored 23" iMac that become reality (albeit at 24"). :) :apple:
 
Comment

Nugget

macrumors 68000
Nov 24, 2002
1,857
863
Houston Texas USA
The main problem with an AIO is the fact that you can't take the parts for the next computer.
I think a 30" monitor is too much to discard.
This nails it, exactly. A 30" display is great, but I sure wouldn't want to chain one to a 3GHz processor that I'll want to replace in a year or two. I've gotten a good three years of use out of my 30" ACD and I plan to get another three years out of it (at least). I'd be sad if I had to throw it away just to upgrade my CPU. The price of 30" display panels is still too high for the display to be disposable.
 
Comment

u49aa2

macrumors 6502a
Nov 3, 2008
799
7
Between Heaven and Hell
I think it will depend on the price difference between it and similar specification mac pro, however i will be interested. Of course being in the 2009 era then i wound expect higher speed processor ;)
 
Comment

NATO

macrumors 68000
Feb 14, 2005
1,692
28
Northern Ireland
I would as long as it retains the resolution of the 30" Cinema Display. My biggest beef with the 24" iMac is that I would really like a higher resolution display as I've gotten used to the high-res screen on my MacBook Pro and would like a similar pixels-per-inch on a 24" display.
 
Comment

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,166
581
Finland
27" is almost the same thing so 30" would be useless, it would use nearly the same resolution anyway. 3GHz, what CPU? C2D? i7? Current 27" can handle up to 95W so that's not an issue. If Apple made it thicker, it could house 130W along with desktop GPU
 
Comment

Quad 2.5 G5 =)

macrumors 6502
Mar 29, 2009
319
0
A 30" screen is ridiculously big when you are sitting in front of it at home. Even in the store where things tend to look smaller than they will once you get home, it is still gargantuan. I think the 24" is pushing it to the limit for most peoples desks.
I would not want to see a 30" iMac, at least not without a substantial graphics upgrade. The resolution of the 27" is very high already, which makes the gaming performance take a substantial hit, and that's with the 4850, and I would imagine the 4670 is even worse. And yes, I do know that Macs aren't meant for hardcore gaming, but I would like to see midrange, decent performance from a nice, midrange iMac (The i5/i7 however, could be considered mid-high end).
 
Comment

eXan

macrumors 601
Jan 10, 2005
4,714
20
Russia
I have the 27" already, so I won't be upgrading.
27" is almost the same thing so 30" would be useless, it would use nearly the same resolution anyway. 3GHz, what CPU? C2D? i7? Current 27" can handle up to 95W so that's not an issue. If Apple made it thicker, it could house 130W along with desktop GPU
I would not want to see a 30" iMac, at least not without a substantial graphics upgrade. The resolution of the 27" is very high already, which makes the gaming performance take a substantial hit, and that's with the 4850, and I would imagine the 4670 is even worse. And yes, I do know that Macs aren't meant for hardcore gaming, but I would like to see midrange, decent performance from a nice, midrange iMac (The i5/i7 however, could be considered mid-high end).
You do all realize this thread is from 2007, right? ;)
 
Comment

Similar threads

  • IceMan30
0
Replies
0
Views
66
  • surfbug
13
Replies
13
Views
392
  • dhtmlkitchen
3
Replies
3
Views
366
  • Joey3537
1
Replies
1
Views
286
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.