What About The $1199 iMac???

Discussion in 'iMac' started by youashwag, Aug 12, 2007.

  1. youashwag macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    #1
    I'm planning on buying the iMac that costs $1199 with Leopard in October but I'm not hearing much about it so far. Everyone is either getting the higher end 20" model or the 24" model and not the base model. I want a computer were I can put a lot of digital media on it like music and photos but also do other things simultaneosly (not sure if I spelled that right). Is this computer fast enough do do what I need it for?
     
  2. kikobarbada macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    #2
    Hell yeah!! The low-end iMac is better than most people need.
     
  3. KJmoon117 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Location:
    NC
    #3
    I'm wondering the same thing if I should get 20" 2.0 or 2.4ghz.

    I guess it depends if you are going to expect a lot out of your video card, like if you're going to be playing games. If not then you can just upgrade the RAM to 2GB (from Crucial or OWC) and upgrade the hard drive to 500GB.

    Plus Mac OS X isn't a hardware craving monster like Windows Vista. So w/ little hardware (only 1GB RAM etc) you can still run Tiger.

    Some one correct me if I'm wrong..

    Kjmoon117
     
  4. Nick12945 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Location:
    Michigan
  5. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #5
    Its not just the video card. The mid-range iMac has a 20% faster processor and a bigger hard disk.
     
  6. Vidd macrumors 6502a

    Vidd

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    #6
    Although the hard disk can be increased for around £30 so it shouldn't really be a deciding factor.
     
  7. rogersmj macrumors 68020

    rogersmj

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    #7
    I got the base iMac. I don't play games and I could care less about the hard drive, because I store everything on my 2 TB file server. I rarely do things that are CPU intensive enough to justify the extra $300 for a slightly faster processor. The base iMac is a great, great value for non-gamers.

    I would have liked to get the 24" just for the larger screen, but I couldn't swing that with the wife. I've got a 20" external in addition to the iMac's screen anyway.
     
  8. skubish macrumors 68030

    skubish

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    #8
    Nothing wrong with it but the higher level 20" seems to be better value.
    Faster processor, 256MB video, and bigger harddrive.
     
  9. KJmoon117 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Location:
    NC
    #9
    Meh, bigger hard drive can be upgraded and it would still be less than the higher 20"...

    Now 400mhz, customized ATI 2600 HD Pro (256mb), and if you go upto 24" you'll be rid of those TN-panels. That is the deciding factor. Those are things that can not be upgraded anytime by the average user. (Is the CPU welded on there?)

    If you don't go CPU intensive task or graphic intensive (3d games, video editing etc) then just go for the baseline. It's like a highschooler who only does word processing getting the 2.8ghz extreme or a Mac Pro, sure it will be future-resistant...
     
  10. urbanskywalker macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2007
    #10
    It always helps to keep in mind that computers-even low end imacs that only run at 2ghz:) have been able to edit video, make music and run photoshop for years.
     
  11. KJmoon117 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Location:
    NC
    #11
    Very true, it's not like you're running Vista...
     
  12. DemNoir macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    #12
  13. Island Roots macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    #13
    I ordered the base iMac and it should be here in a couple hours. The video card isn't an issue for me because I don't do video-editing and I also don't play games on a Mac. And the hard drive isn't an issue because I don't use nearly enough of my 80GB hard drive at the moment.

    If it fits your needs, go for it. Keep in mind the 'base' iMac in this current lineup was one of the top iMacs in the previous lineup (aside from not having a 24" display).
     
  14. urbanskywalker macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2007
    #14
    Video editing has very little to do with the graphics card. Memory and processor speed are more important.
     
  15. bc008 macrumors 68000

    bc008

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Location:
    Michigan
    #15
    i just switched from a year old macbook to a new imac, and the base imac is already better than my macbook. 1.8 GHz to 2.0, 250 GB from 60 GB, and the increase in screensize already did it for me.

    im happy with the base imac.
     
  16. sarah3585 macrumors regular

    sarah3585

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    #16
    Which do people think is best for me?

    I mostly use Photoshop Illustrator and Flash, and do use After Effects for the odd assignment, and spend a small amount of time with Final Cut. Not into gaming at all on the mac (console girl)
     
  17. KJmoon117 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Location:
    NC
    #17
    Maybe with the programs you use maybe you should go for the 2.4ghz 20"... The CPU power could help you a bit...

    But I'm a console guy aswell so that's why I'm getting the baseline.
     
  18. shakastange macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2007
    #18
    For your needs you could even consider the Mac Mini. The reason you don't hear much about the 1199 model is because it has a very weak gfx card and the vocal wannabe gamers are only looking at the performance of the better 2600 Pro card not available in the 1199 model.

    If you don't care too much about gaming you can save yourself a wad of cash by purchasing a Mac Mini and decent LCD.
     
  19. iSlave macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    #19
    Would the 1199 model's graphics be up to the task of Maya, or other 3D apps?
     
  20. shakastange macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2007
    #20
    It should be more than adequate for anything that does not require a high end grafx card. Let's not forget its a dual core processor in this machine.
     
  21. KJmoon117 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Location:
    NC
    #21
    and SMP.
    Symmetric Multi-Processing.
     
  22. Jimmdean macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    #22
    The 20" base model is where the real value is here. The other 2 models are just where Apple pads their margins. The upgrades in the next model up aren't worth $300.00 (even for gaming), and it's certainly not worth $600.00 to go to 24" - take that extra money and get a good second monitor for dual-screening if you need that kind of real-estate...

    Edit: I just feel incredibly lucky that Apple gave us Firewire 800 even in the base model...
     
  23. gaelan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
  24. urbanskywalker macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2007
    #24
    Just set up my new 20" 2ghz imac. All I can say is wow. This is a thing of beauty. Glare is a non issue unless you have big lights behind you. I applied the colour profile that someone posted on this forum and the colour is great. Yes I can see some range in colourshift if I move my head around, but it's minimal and compared to my ibook...hahaha wow. I have loaded it with 2 gigs of ram and I will try photoshop and Final Cut later. It sucks but I have to goout now...Oh! I love the keyboard. Now more crumbs stuck behind white plastic.

    All the FUD about the new iMac is silly. My 2 cents
     
  25. OTA macrumors newbie

    OTA

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    #25
    It´s really interesting save abou 250$ buying the old 2.16 mac instead off new imac 20´ based model ?

    I´m not a gamer, but i will editing some lite videos, not hardcore editing.
     

Share This Page