New Core 2 Duo iMac - Investment in Obsolescence?

[Eidorian]

Here's a list of the popular serious applications that require more processor than the Core 2 Duo:

That's right. None.

Do Handbrake and Quicktime (even if Quicktime is miserable) count?

Now, if you are a gamer or you do video editing for your living, or run a couple of other really demanding applications, you might want to step up to a more powerful, faster processor, the Core 2 Duo is probably not the processor for you.

You don't have to be a gamer or do video editing to get a quad core.

 

[hakr]

Do Handbrake and Quicktime (even if Quicktime is miserable) count?


You don't have to be a gamer or do video editing to get a quad core.

Quicktime? Blech...please. 😱

I have an i7. Handbrake is no speed demon on a quad core. I use a different converter.

If you want fast, buy a hot Windoze PC. If you want ergonomics and a moderately better OS, buy a Mac. If you want games...buy a PC.

My major and I mean major disappointment with my Macs...the inability to change screen fonts to sizes I want without dropping resolution. That really sucks.

 

[HLdan]

Quicktime? Blech...please. 😱

I have an i7. Handbrake is no speed demon on a quad core. I use a different converter.

If you want fast, buy a hot Windoze PC. If you want ergonomics and a moderately better OS, buy a Mac. If you want games...buy a PC.

My major and I mean major disappointment with my Macs...the inability to change screen fonts to sizes I want without dropping resolution. That really sucks.

Have you tried Handbrake 64? I have an iMac i7 and I do a lot of encoding of DVD's to my iPod Touch. 10 minutes of encoding a 2 1/2 hour movie. 20 minutes for a rip and encode. Is that too slow?

 

[Eidorian]

Quicktime? Blech...please. 😱

I have an i7. Handbrake is no speed demon on a quad core. I use a different converter.

If you want fast, buy a hot Windoze PC. If you want ergonomics and a moderately better OS, buy a Mac. If you want games...buy a PC.

My major and I mean major disappointment with my Macs...the inability to change screen fonts to sizes I want without dropping resolution. That really sucks.

I can't justify paying the amounts that Apple wants for a quad core desktop to be honest. I feel much worse for the Mac professionals and the Mac Pro. I use my Windows machine as my all around workstation to be honest.

Everything from light video work, data crunching, and games. I don't have any major complaints about Apple's mobile line up. Then again this thread is about the iMac.

My point is that Apple hasn't matched the desktop hardware to its price points since 2006 for the iMac. You don't need to spend thousands of dollars for the quad core. A quad core isn't some awe inspiring processor and it hasn't been that way since 2008. It just looks much worse in 2010.

Have you tried Handbrake 64? I have an iMac i7 and I do a lot of encoding of DVD's to my iPod Touch. 10 minutes of encoding a 2 1/2 hour movie. 20 minutes for a rip and encode. Is that too slow?

Which version of the 64-bit build of VLC are you using? Handbrake 64 is about 10-20% faster than its 32-bit counterpart.

 

[hakr]

Have you tried Handbrake 64? I have an iMac i7 and I do a lot of encoding of DVD's to my iPod Touch. 10 minutes of encoding a 2 1/2 hour movie. 20 minutes for a rip and encode. Is that too slow?

To be honest, I don't find much appeal in watching movies on an iPod. I have a nice iPod that does a great job playing music through my several sets of headphones. Watching a movie on a teeny-tiny screen...well...it just doesn't do that much for me.

I have a nice big-screen HD TV...and what I usually do is copy movies in *.avi format onto blank DVDs. They play in very high quality on my HD TV.

 

[DannySmurf]

Not to sound like a fanboy, but we're forgetting something here.

Dell/HP etc. may pack more power into a laptop, but that comes with the resulting heat/poor battery life. Apple realizes that a pro machine should get more than 2 hours on battery and shouldn't burn your lap.

And the thing that people seem to forget in these comparisons is that if you actually want a laptop with the features of a Macbook Pro (or close equivalents), you will pay similar prices.

I have a $700 Dell Inspiron laptop next to me. It has a decent processor, 4GB of RAM, 250GB hard drive. A close performance analog to my Macbook Pro. But are they the same? Hardly. No DVI out (or Display Port); a 1366x768 resolution, which is just awful on a 15" screen; a flimsy plastic case I'm afraid of breaking; no Firewire; no Gigabit ethernet (10/100 only); no Wireless-N (G-only, which slows my whole network down).

And, of course, a 2.5-hour battery, which I can get a second of for a mere $180.

It's certainly possible to buy a laptop with a "better" processor in it than the ones Apple is offering. But it's important (and most people don't do this) to look at the big picture. What ELSE does the laptop offer you? I could put an i7 in my Inspiron; it still wouldn't make it a better COMPUTER than my Core 2 Duo MBP.

 

[jodr]

And to the people a ways back that dismiss the i-core envy...

I get that Core 2 Duo Macs are fine machines. And that CES was only last month. But if you saw that Intel demo - it does dampen the current Mac line when an Intel chief shows a new, soon-to-be unleashed Mac-ready processor beating the brains out of the current batch.

I do agree with the point that computing, for most consumers, is actually trending toward weaker processors and less taxing applications. But that just means a wider gulf between the pro and consumer products, which is something that was nicely blurred for a while with Apple.

 

[HLdan]

Which version of the 64-bit build of VLC are you using? Handbrake 64 is about 10-20% faster than its 32-bit counterpart.

Version 1.0.2 GoldenEye Intel 64 Bit.

To be honest, I don't find much appeal in watching movies on an iPod. I have a nice iPod that does a great job playing music through my several sets of headphones. Watching a movie on a teeny-tiny screen...well...it just doesn't do that much for me.

I have a nice big-screen HD TV...and what I usually do is copy movies in *.avi format onto blank DVDs. They play in very high quality on my HD TV.

Understandable, however I was responding to you stating that Handbrake was really slow at encoding on a Quad Core. My experience with my iMac i7 is completely opposite of what you claim. That being said, I will try some tests with .avi's. I just received this machine so I'm testing games and encoding. So far I'm quite impressed, and I'm not easily impressed.

 

[Eidorian]

Version 1.0.2 GoldenEye Intel 64 Bit.

I was hoping you had a newer version. Thanks anyways.

 

[Max(IT)]

It's mainstream with geeks. The average consumer which makes up most of the computing world doesn't give a rats behind about the latest and greatest processor. They can do quite well with a 2007 Core 2 Duo, and most likely that's overkill for many.

Absolutely right!
Listening to the users of this forum all the people need a "state of the art" quad core to run Safari and iWork ...
I used to work with a 2.2 ghz C2D iMac and it wasn't slow in anything

 

[ouimetnick]

Not to sound like a fanboy, but we're forgetting something here.

Dell/HP etc. may pack more power into a laptop, but that comes with the resulting heat/poor battery life. Apple realizes that a pro machine should get more than 2 hours on battery and shouldn't burn your lap.

Just a problem though. Apple has issues with cooling in their "notebooks". They put way too much thermal paste on their computers, so they don't stay cool. Thats why the MBP BURN"t my brother's lap. My Dell Latitude D620 stays very cool compared to his notebook.

 

[iamthedudeman]

I can't justify paying the amounts that Apple wants for a quad core desktop to be honest. I feel much worse for the Mac professionals and the Mac Pro. I use my Windows machine as my all around workstation to be honest.

Everything from light video work, data crunching, and games. I don't have any major complaints about Apple's mobile line up. Then again this thread is about the iMac.

My point is that Apple hasn't matched the desktop hardware to its price points since 2006 for the iMac. You don't need to spend thousands of dollars for the quad core. A quad core isn't some awe inspiring processor and it hasn't been that way since 2008. It just looks much worse in 2010.

Which version of the 64-bit build of VLC are you using? Handbrake 64 is about 10-20% faster than its 32-bit counterpart.

To be fair to Apple, there isn't really a PC that is equlivent. No all in one with the same specs to the imac. Not even close really.

Most of the cost of the Imac is in the monitor. The 27 inch imac is a bargain. Literally. The IPS panel itself cost $1100. Just for the panel. Dell sells the same panel for $1100. The other $900 is for the computer part, which given what you get wrapped into a all-in-one is a bargain.

Heck, you can't even build a PC for much less if at all for $2000 with the same panel.
Add up the parts to build a PC with the same panel. It has nothing to due with it being quad core.

 

[Max(IT)]

Just a problem though. Apple has issues with cooling in their "notebooks". They put way too much thermal paste on their computers, so they don't stay cool. Thats why the MBP BURN"t my brother's lap. My Dell Latitude D620 stays very cool compared to his notebook.

they solved this problem quite a lot of time ago ...
The 2008 and 2009 MBPs are cool. Same for Macbook from 2007 ....

I'm not going to compare a Dell D620 to ANY Macbook/Macbook Pro, because such a comparison is ridiculous (in MY opinion)

 

[alent1234]

It's mainstream with geeks. The average consumer which makes up most of the computing world doesn't give a rats behind about the latest and greatest processor. They can do quite well with a 2007 Core 2 Duo, and most likely that's overkill for many.

average consumer goes to best buy for a laptop. he is told he can buy a $500 HP C2D PC or a $2000 MBP or $1500 iMac with a C2D. most people won't care about the better monitor

 

[alent1234]

And the thing that people seem to forget in these comparisons is that if you actually want a laptop with the features of a Macbook Pro (or close equivalents), you will pay similar prices.

I have a $700 Dell Inspiron laptop next to me. It has a decent processor, 4GB of RAM, 250GB hard drive. A close performance analog to my Macbook Pro. But are they the same? Hardly. No DVI out (or Display Port); a 1366x768 resolution, which is just awful on a 15" screen; a flimsy plastic case I'm afraid of breaking; no Firewire; no Gigabit ethernet (10/100 only); no Wireless-N (G-only, which slows my whole network down).

And, of course, a 2.5-hour battery, which I can get a second of for a mere $180.

It's certainly possible to buy a laptop with a "better" processor in it than the ones Apple is offering. But it's important (and most people don't do this) to look at the big picture. What ELSE does the laptop offer you? I could put an i7 in my Inspiron; it still wouldn't make it a better COMPUTER than my Core 2 Duo MBP.

you can get all that for $700 today. you must have an ancient Dell Inspiron 6000 like i used to have. 8 pounds, plastic, but it was built like a tank. there is no one selling a NIC today that isn't gigabit

 

[freebooter]

@ O.P.
I haven't updated my 31/2 y.o. 24" 2.17ghz iMac because it is fast enough for 85% of my photo editing and 99% of my other uses. I can't justify another 2k outlay just to shave off a few minutes a week--not worth it. Also, I will not buy a glossy screen.

Perhaps you need to sit down and calculate just how much time you would actually save over the course of a semester video editing with the "latest greatest" compared to an iMac C2D or your MB. The time saved may not be worth the cost or the wait for Apple. The 'maybe' job...meh...

 

[turbineseaplane]

My major and I mean major disappointment with my Macs...the inability to change screen fonts to sizes I want without dropping resolution. That really sucks.

I'd have to totally agree with this. I absolutely love Mac's and have been onboard since 2002.

My one SERIOUS gripe and area where Windows is far better is the handling of text resizing. It doesn't impact me so much, but more my other family members whom I've gotten setup on the Mac over the years.

My uncle has this gorgeous 24" screen for his Mac Mini and he has the resolution dialed down so he can read things easier. It's so painful and ugly to look at.

I really hope the next OS release addresses this, as it's a huge accessibility issue. "Zooming" the screen isn't a great fix.