Should I Buy the iMac 20" 2.4GHZ

rph105

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 21, 2007
266
0
is the computer worth the money, how much diff is the 24" 2.8 extreme duo, i would love to buy an imac, but 20" is enough for me to be totally honest, what do u lot think?
 

MAW

macrumors regular
Apr 29, 2007
155
0
Los Angeles
2nd week w/mine and loving it. I fail to see a reason for getting the 2.8 unless you need the screen space(20" seems plenty for most everything save photo editing, especially w/ leopard's spaces) or you just can't live w/out the extra 400 Mhz.
 
Comment

je1ani

macrumors 6502
Sep 19, 2007
455
1
I have it and i love every second of it... knowing i have the fastest model.. Peace of mind I guess you would call it...but I don't notice much of a difference between if any, between the 20" aluminum I had with the machine I have now... granted the 20" had 4Gb of ram and this only has 2 :rolleyes:
 
Comment

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
Better to spend the money on a getting the largest HD on 20" 2.4GHz iMac that you can.

If you need more screen space later, a 2nd 20" monitor wouldn't be a bad choice.

The 24" just starts being on the verge of too large for some areas.
 
Comment

Mac OS X Ocelot

macrumors 6502a
Sep 7, 2005
603
0
Better to spend the money on a getting the largest HD on 20" 2.4GHz iMac that you can.

If you need more screen space later, a 2nd 20" monitor wouldn't be a bad choice.

The 24" just starts being on the verge of too large for some areas.
I second this. The largest HD (750GB?) and most RAM (4GB) in the 20'' is about the same price as the 24'' with like 2GB RAM and only 320GB HD I think. Unless size is REALLY that big of a deal, it's probably smarter to get the 20'' and supe it up.
 
Comment

ucfgrad93

macrumors P6
Aug 17, 2007
17,855
8,759
Colorado
I've had my iMac since August. Its been rock solid so far. Save some dough and get the 20 inch unless you have some dire need for the extra screen real estate.
 
Comment

rph105

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 21, 2007
266
0
2nd week w/mine and loving it. I fail to see a reason for getting the 2.8 unless you need the screen space(20" seems plenty for most everything save photo editing, especially w/ leopard's spaces) or you just can't live w/out the extra 400 Mhz.
what do mean everything SAVE photo editing
 
Comment

snickelfritz

macrumors 65816
Oct 24, 2003
1,109
0
Tucson AZ
I just installed and setup a 20" 2.4 this week for a friend and it's a nice computer. Very snappy, and a good size for most people I think.

Viewing angle is not as wide and consistent as the 24", very much like a notebook display.
This is very noticeable in the display preferences when calibrating in Expert mode; the blend-the-apple-with-the-background-thingamabob looks very different depending on the angle you look at it. Even small variations in your head position will shift the darkness of the apple noticeably, making precise calibration a judgement call.
It's probably a non-issue for most people though; the image clarity and color saturation were very good once I got it calibrated.
 
Comment

jdsmoooth

macrumors member
Oct 30, 2007
41
0
Pittsburgh, PA
Get the Screen

I have a 2.8 24" Imac and I'm glad that I got the extera screen real estate. It leaves me plenty of room to work with photos and presentations.
I actually went to the store to buy the 20" and was so floored by the 24" that I couldn't even go back to the 20".
If your like me you will have to live with this decision for at least 3 years, so I say that the extra cost divided by all the time you have the computer is very minimal.
 
Comment

Mac OS X Ocelot

macrumors 6502a
Sep 7, 2005
603
0
I have a 2.8 24" Imac and I'm glad that I got the extera screen real estate. It leaves me plenty of room to work with photos and presentations.
I actually went to the store to buy the 20" and was so floored by the 24" that I couldn't even go back to the 20".
If your like me you will have to live with this decision for at least 3 years, so I say that the extra cost divided by all the time you have the computer is very minimal.
Dang! You get a new one every three years? I've had my 17'' iMac for four years and I can't imagine needing any more space than maybe a 20". I haven't actually seen a 24" in person, but that just seems too huge. Maybe not. The point is that you're spending like six hundred dollars more for the extra screen space. Some people think the screen space is worth it, some people prefer to spend that money on RAM and HD upgrades. The OP seemed more concerned about whether it's worth it for the faster processor, not the screen space. As to that I don't think he'd notice the difference. But you really should see the two in person if you think you'd like the larger screen for screen size purposes.
 
Comment

pbollin

macrumors newbie
Aug 5, 2006
15
0
iMac 24

The 24 inch imac is $300 more than the same thing with a 20 inch screen. Personally, after seeing the two displays, I think the extra money for the larger screen is worth it. Not only is the 24 inch screen better with a higher resolution and more consistent viewing angles, but if your computer just sits on a desk anyway, the extra space that it takes up will not be a big deal. As for the 2.8 GHZ version, that is too much. THe low end 24 is the way to go IMO. Besides, I would rather have a smaller internal drive and spend the savings on an external. That way, if the internal dies, you have a backup for Time Machine and the rest of the data you may want to keep such as pictures and music. I think 320GB is more than enough for many people anyhow. Although this may bring up the point that the 24 inch is more than enough as well. Well anyways, to sum up, I got the 24 inch because of the logic I used above. I think it was a very wise decision. If the quality of the 20 inch was better, then I would have considered that.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.