Should I Buy the iMac 20" 2.4GHZ

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by rph105, Oct 30, 2007.

  1. rph105 macrumors 6502

    rph105

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    #1
    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?
     
  2. MAW macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #2
    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.
     
  3. je1ani macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    #3
    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:
     
  4. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #4
    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.
     
  5. Mac OS X Ocelot macrumors 6502a

    Mac OS X Ocelot

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    #5
    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.
     
  6. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #6
    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.
     
  7. rph105 thread starter macrumors 6502

    rph105

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    #7
    what do mean everything SAVE photo editing
     
  8. snickelfritz macrumors 65816

    snickelfritz

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    Tucson AZ
    #8
    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.
     
  9. jdsmoooth macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Mac OS X Ocelot macrumors 6502a

    Mac OS X Ocelot

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    #10
    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.
     
  11. pbollin macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    #11
    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.
     

Share This Page