Apple iMac Goes Core i5, i7; Mac Mini Updated

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]Considering the average computer costs around $500 (and this is really all that most people need), this makes sense, but has nothing to do with total market share and profit. In case you haven't noticed, Toyota makes more money than Aston Martin.Also a part of the article you posted:The Macolypse Hits AppleFrom about November 2008 to April 2009, Mac year-over-year US retail sales declined, even as Windows PCs dramatically gained. There was kind of a numbers reversal, following the late-September stock market crash. For example, in October 2008, following release of new aluminum, unibody laptops, US retail Mac revenue grew 25.5 percent, while Windows PC sales fell 4.2 percent, according to NPD. By January 2009, Mac retail revenue was down 10.4 percent from a year earlier and Windows PC revenue was flat.Apple isn't doing as well as you would like to think.Anyways, you were saying most consumers are willing to pay for an expensive Mac: The market share reports says that you are dead wrong, and I caught you trying to fib information. No matter what way you try to spin it, Apple is too expensive and most consumers think so as well. If Apple wants to sell more laptops, including expensive LED screens is the wrong way to go.[/citation]

Huh? Where was I trying to fib information? I said Apple's market share has been growing year on year for a while now. Looking at the tables you linked, Apple's market share was 5.42% in May 2009 compared to 4.73% in May 2008 and 3.77% in May 2007. I never said that most consumers are willing to pay for an expensive Mac. I'm saying that people who are thinking of buying a Mac are more likely to be willing to pay more. That growth in market share has to come from somewhere so one could say that some users who were considering Dells etc were willing to buy Apples instead. Since the average Apple costs more than the average Dell, obviously some people are willing to spend more on Apples. How can Apple not be "doing as well as would like to think" when Apple's profits per year have been going up pretty quickly since 2005: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Apple+profits+per+quarter.

Profits per quarter:

2009 Q4 $1.67 billion
2009 Q3 $1.23 billion
2009 Q2 $1.21 billion
2009 Q1 $1.61 billion

2008 Q4 $1.14 billion
2008 Q3 $1.07 billion
2008 Q2 $1.05 billion
2008 Q1 $1.58 billion

2007 Q4 $0.904 billion
2007 Q3 $0.818 billion
2007 Q2 $0.770 billion
2007 Q1 $1.00 billion

2006 Q4 $0.546 billion
2006 Q3 $0.472 billion
2006 Q2 $0.410 billion
2006 Q1 $0.565 billion

So considering Apple has increased its quarterly profits year on year for three years in a row there (more than tripling over three years for this last quarter) and has increased its yearly profits there for three years in a row (both stats are longer but I couldn't be bothered to go back further), it hardly looks like Apple isn't doing that well.

Apple's apparently doing just fine with its business plan. Most existing Mac users will be willing to pay for new Macs when they come to upgrade and it seems that there are a fair number of people willing to switch to Macs over PCs as well.

This is all getting way off the point though anyway. The iMacs are great value for the high quality hardware inside them. If you don't think the extra money is worth the higher quality of the components then that's your call. Personally, if i were in the market for a new machine, I'd consider these iMacs a great deal and would love and relish the display.
 
[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]snip[/citation]

Here here. For what it's worth njalterio, I used to be a sole PC user. I built all my desktops for many years and had a Dell laptop. I knew how to pick quality components when building my machines and knew how to overclock them and get the most out of them. True, I never bothered with the whole water cooling spiel but then again, I skipped straight over that and went to phase changed cooling. I'm fully aware of which Macs are good value in regards to their components and which aren't. A good deal of the time even the machines that aren't that great value in regards to their components are so well designed that the design makes up for it. As Yoder54 mentioned, the Mac Pros are truly amazingly built. I've owned some quality and very expensive cases over the years but nothing even comes close. Its a work of art.
 
Stupid question, what's the difference between LCD IPS and LED IPS?

Lets say for argument sake, a Dell LCD U2410 (IPS) vs Apple 24" LED Display (IPS)?
 
[citation][nom]jay236[/nom]Stupid question, what's the difference between LCD IPS and LED IPS?Lets say for argument sake, a Dell LCD U2410 (IPS) vs Apple 24" LED Display (IPS)?[/citation]

Both of those are LCD displays. IPS is the type of panel and is generally considered to be far superior to a TN panel. LED refers to the device having an LED backlight instead of a set of fluorescent lamps. Its generally considered better although the best is RGB LED backlighting, which is used in high end colour proofing displays. LED backlights are made up of white LEDs only whereas RGB LED backlights are made up of separate red, green and blue LEDs.
 
WOW! So much misinformation! Well here we go...


[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]Yea, it also has 35 languages something that comes with the Mac OS. Seems like you don't know all that it contains. But, we will let you drop down to the Pro version which sells for $200 instead of $219. Still not $100, unless you can get the Pro for $29 like a few of us can but that is not playing fair.
[/citation]

It's called OEM licensing. Only retail operating systems have the price you mentioned. The license on all vendor computers (including Macs) is OEM. The OEM price for Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit is $109.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116754&cm_re=Windows_7-_-32-116-754-_-Product

[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]
Actually the "Super Drive" is not "a DVD drive", it is a Slot-loading 8x SDVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW.
[/citation]

What do you think "SDVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW" means? It reads and writes DVDs and CDs...Just like a DVD drive! Just a marketing term...And actually that is a terrible DVD drive...usually they are around 22x speeds now.

[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]
Come on, you guys are saying consumers won't know the difference between LED and LCD, but the will know the difference between a DVD vs a DVD DL? Don't think so.
[/citation]

We are saying that very few people want to pay that much money for a monitor. Most people don't care about it that much. That is why the vast majority of people spend less than a $1000 on their computers, and why netbooks are becoming so popular.


[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]
Keyboard and mouse for $20? A shit keyboard and mouse maybe. A good aluminum keyboard like the Mac's will cost about $75, and a good wireless about the same...I prefer the Logitech Revolution. So, there is $15o compared to your paltry and misleading $20.
[/citation]

I don't know about you, but all I need a mouse to do is move a pointer and my keyboard to type. That is all. I've been using the same $20 keyboard/mouse combo for three years now. You must be very wealthy because you clearly don't understand the concept of value and what most people are willing to pay.

[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]
You apparently know nothing of what you say about Mac software and how people don't use them. Garage Band, Quick Time (who MS stole the code from and settled in the 90's by paying Apple all of those millions,) iMovie, Time Machine (this backup is free, but you need the Pro version of Win7 to get the same), iPhoto, PDF conversion (has been around for years on the Mac OS), etc. There is a software argument and your Open Source alternative is pretty weak. Audacity instead of GB? No thanks.
[/citation]

Garage Band is cool, but hardly necessary. Again, people use their computers for internet browsing, email, word processing, and photos. Not music composition. Quicktime is available for Windows, but there are better open source alternatives (VLC media player). Same with iMovie, iPhoto, and PDF conversion (CutePDF writer). Media software is pretty standard now. It all does the same stuff. Comparisons are useless for media software.

[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]
Read some the recent Maximum PC and their monitor review section. Cheap monitors like LG and Viewsonic suck ass. Good monitors like Samsung, Dell, and HP will cost you some cash. Go with the shit, I like looking at quality graphics...not washed out screens.
[/citation]

I am using a 22" 1680 x1050 screen from Acer. Looks great. Does what I need it to do. It is not washed out. Again, it's about value! Most people don't care if they get every single last color in the rainbow on their monitors!


[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]
Actually, I do use all of those Mac OS tools that you say only professionals use.
[/citation]

O really? You use BranchCache Distributed Cache? Pray tell what for?

[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]
Ridiculous? You say "Smaller footprint of a Mac? Now you are being ridiculous. BOTH PC AND MAC USE THE SAME PROCESSORS!" Footprint in my dictionary means the amount of space the computer takes up on, below, or behind the desk. What does a CPU have to do with it? You seem confused by your anger.
[/citation]

Nowadays when people talk about footprint they mean environmental impact, so I took your claim about footprint as a claim that Macs are somehow more environmentally friendly (which Apple also claims). Alright, I'll give you that one. Congratulations, your computer saves half a square foot of space. Funny how money seems to be no object to you but space is.

[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]
You say: "This is a website for the empirically minded- get your facts straight!" This is a lie. When people trash Apple products or the OS simply because they are an Apple product has nothing to do with objective thought. Nor does an avoidance to look at the performance and accept the values of an Apple product simply because it is an Apple product empirical. But the biggest laugh is when you so called hobbyist try to compare your shoddy builds whose specs do not match the machine you are building against, and then boast how you can do it cheaper and better.
[/citation]

I am not "trashing" Apple. All I have been saying is that they are not what the vast majority of people would consider value. Don't believe me? Check the sales reports.

[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]
Pretty sad state of affairs, and definitely kills your concept of this being a site for the empiricists. Do you know who makes Apples panels, psu, etc.? No, then how can you say they use inferior components? That is not empiricism. You say that not all consumers need the new $2000 iMac. Yea, that is why Apple makes one for $1200.
[/citation]

Actually I DO now what Apple and other vendors use for PSUs and motherboards! I HAVE opened up a case or two, you know what is in there? No name power supply and a Foxconn motherboard. Foxconn is infamous for instability and cheapness BTW.

How many times do I have to tell you and show you the reports? THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DO NOT SPEND MORE THAN A $1000 ON A COMPUTER! THAT IS WHY APPLE DOES NOT SELL A LOT OF COMPUTERS, BUT HAS A VERY HIGH PROFIT MARGIN.

[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]
Also, how many PCers need those fancy rigs they build? Not many. If you are talking tower cases, then you would be hard pressed to find one as nice as a Mac Pro. Have you looked at one up close. Zalman comes to mind when I think Mac Pro case.
[/citation]

What most people need in a computer (for the millionth time) is a cheap computer that they can browse the internet, email, and store photos. The people who build computers are hobbyists and enjoy the process of building. I never said everyone should build their own computer, where as you think everyone should be splurging on a $2000 Mac.

The Mac pro case is designed like crap. Where are the fans, ducts, ventilation? It is designed to look good, not actually dissipate heat well. Most big name vendors are guilty of this.



[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]
If you want the best graphics workstation the get Linux or Windows. What? Who do you think uses Mac's? The graphics industry, movie industry, etc. For CAD, CAM, etc., they primarily use Windows because that is where the software is. You could do the same on a Mac Pro merely by dual booting...there is also a NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800 for Mac by PNY for $1800 if you want.
[/citation]

YOU MISSED THE POINT. Apple does not offer the best graphics cards. They usually take a year to use in their computer; likely waiting for a lower power version to stuff into their small and poorly ventilated case. Think of it this way: How could you possibly stuff an HD 5870 into a MacPro? It will overheat, if it will even fit, and the crappy PSU and Foxconn motherboard supports it.


[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]
One last point, if you are going to do price comparisons then you should make identical machines, running comparable software and OSes, and you should include all of the components on both machines with the exact specs. That is how an empirical test is conducted. It is not empirical to just throw the major components in, assume that consumers are happy and content with inferior quality, that consumers are not tech savvy, or that a generic keyboard/mouse are the same as a wireless mouse and keyboard, etc. Empiricism is about being true with all of the test parameters, to do otherwise is to skew the data.Those are my facts. Where are yours, or are you just going to accuse me of talking out of my ass? Sounds like you are the guilty one here.[/citation]

I included the same processor, and parts with the same or better quality. Your right, I did skimp on the mouse and keyboard: mainly because people don't care that much about them and still use their old PS/2 keyboard and mouse. And I still claim you are talking out of your ass, especially that bit out how you use those Windows Ultimate extras that aren't even available on a Mac.

Anyways...Just ignore everything I said. Go look at the sales data, and the OS usage data, and tell me people care about the Mac OSX. The vast majority still use Windows, and are content with that. Go tell 90% of the world that is still on Windows that Macs are better.
 
[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom] I never said that most consumers are willing to pay for an expensive Mac. I'm saying that people who are thinking of buying a Mac are more likely to be willing to pay more.
[/citation]

Lies. You said most consumers would buy Macs.

Your quote:
"The average consumer has already shown that they're willing to spend the money on buying an iMac over a Dell."


[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom]
How can Apple not be "doing as well as would like to think" when Apple's profits per year have been going up pretty quickly since 2005: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/ [...] r+quarter.Profits per quarter:2009 Q4 $1.67 billion2009 Q3 $1.23 billion2009 Q2 $1.21 billion2009 Q1 $1.61 billion2008 Q4 $1.14 billion2008 Q3 $1.07 billion2008 Q2 $1.05 billion2008 Q1 $1.58 billion2007 Q4 $0.904 billion2007 Q3 $0.818 billion2007 Q2 $0.770 billion2007 Q1 $1.00 billion2006 Q4 $0.546 billion2006 Q3 $0.472 billion2006 Q2 $0.410 billion2006 Q1 $0.565 billionSo considering Apple has increased its quarterly profits year on year for three years in a row there (more than tripling over three years for this last quarter) and has increased its yearly profits there for three years in a row (both stats are longer but I couldn't be bothered to go back further), it hardly looks like Apple isn't doing that well.Apple's apparently doing just fine with its business plan.
[/citation]

Because according to your link, "By January 2009, Mac retail revenue was down 10.4 percent from a year earlier and Windows PC revenue was flat."


[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom]
Most existing Mac users will be willing to pay for new Macs when they come to upgrade and it seems that there are a fair number of people willing to switch to Macs over PCs as well.This is all getting way off the point though anyway. The iMacs are great value for the high quality hardware inside them. If you don't think the extra money is worth the higher quality of the components then that's your call. Personally, if i were in the market for a new machine, I'd consider these iMacs a great deal and would love and relish the display.
[/citation]

Now you think it's a great deal? Before you said:

Your quote:
"Personally I do think that's worth that - then again I also thought it was worth paying more than double for a 30" display versus a 23/24" display three years ago. I still think it was worth every penny too."

Make up your mind.

 
Yoder54 you keep assuming that we're talking about the vast majority of people. We're not, we're talking about around 5% of people, i.e. Apple's market share. I don't know why you keep insisting on talking about something that we're not. We're saying the iMacs are good value for the components they are and that the people buying them are getting a pretty darned good deal. Just because you don't like one of the components in them (the screen) doesn't mean its worthless to the people who are spending the money on it.

You're comparing your personal ideas of a system to a completely different setup with different value components. That doesn't mean the iMac's keyboard and mouse aren't worth more than a $20 setup.

We've obviously got mixed ideas of what 'value' means. When I say that the iMacs are good value for what they are I mean that considering the equivalent retail cost or manufacturing costs of the parts you get a pretty good deal. Maybe I should have said the 'worth' of the iMac is pretty good in terms of the cost rather than use the word 'value'. Apologies if that's where we're getting confused.

You might think that the components of the Mac Pros are poor quality but, in my experience, they've been pretty good. The DFIs/MFIs/ASUS/ABIT motherboards I had in the past were far more troublesome. Well maybe not the Abit ones but those were for Athlons and Athlon XPs years back.

I disagree with your opinion on the Mac Pro's case design, it has some pretty decent ventilation going on. The fans are mostly hidden away but they're definitely there and provide ample cooling.

I also don't know why you don't think a 5870 could possibly be 'stuffed' into a Mac Pro. I've got no idea why you think it would overheat, why it wouldn't fit etc. For the record, I have two 4870 cards in my 2006 Mac Pro as well as 6.25TB worth of hard drives and I haven't yet had a problem.

So Mac retail revenue was down 10.4 percent in January 2009 compared to January 2008. Their quarterly profits were up. If you want an explanation for the difference in January profits alone you could consider that in January 2008 new Mac Pros, Xserves, MacBook Airs, Time Capsules and a pink iPod were released. In 2009 the only new announcements were iLife '09 and iWork '09. Since Apple only has a limited number of hardware machines available, they're not going to release new hardware every single month. Compare the quarter or yearly reports and its a fairer comparison.

Yes I do think its a great deal. I said "I'd consider these iMacs a great deal" and also "Personally I do think that's worth that", how do I have to make my mind up between those two statements??

I realise your definition of 'value' is different to mine, which is fair enough. You also believe that average consumers should only really get machines worth about $500, which is fair enough. I don't consider $1800 for a consumer machine for three years to be that unreasonable for a consumer but then it does of course depend on your disposable income.
 
Spanky Deluxe-

I think we reach common ground finally. The new iMac is a good deal for the 5% of the population who want a Mac. From the way your first post sounded I thought you meant iMacs are going to start replacing Windows computers all over.

Make no mistake about it though - the hardware I quoted (aside from the monitor) is just as good if not better than any hardware included in a Mac. Go ahead and buy $150 worth of mouse, keyboard, card readers, etc. the hardware is still better priced.

Anyways, I think the most important part of value is practicality. Back to car examples, just because Mercedes-Benz has a $5000 rebate on their S class cars, doesn't make the S550 a value car. It is still pricey, and impractical.

Value is more about how much money you have to spend to complete a certain objective. If your goal is to read email, browse internet, etc. a LED monitor certainly doesn't help you do that any better. Heck, if it wasn't for the energy savings people would still be using their CRT monitors.


For the record I don't think the LED screen is worthless. I am sure it is pretty sweet and a bit nicer than my LCD. The mouse and keyboard are also nice. I meant the iMac (monitor and tower all in one) when I was talking about space heat considerations for the HD 5870. Regardless, the fact that Apple doesn't include the latest graphics cards makes me question why people think they are superior graphics workstations.

I have had my current computer that I have built for two years now. I have spent $2500 so far on the computer for initial parts and hardware upgrades, and I will be spending about another $1000 for more upgrades in January. However, with what I am upgrading I will have enough "old" parts left over to build my HTPC for my living room. (Both computers will be quad core, main one will have QX9650 with HD 5850 in crossfire, HTPC will get the Q6600 and the old HD 3870 and over 2 TB in hard drive space).

So I will have spent $3500 on two high end computers (one very high end), that are extremely high performing for their respective tasks.
Do I consider this value? Not at all. Am I getting a lot of computer for the money? Sure....but it definitely isn't practical or necessary. That's how I view Macs, although less performance focus and more emphasis on ease-of-use and styling.
 
[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]Spanky Deluxe-I think we reach common ground finally. The new iMac is a good deal for the 5% of the population who want a Mac. From the way your first post sounded I thought you meant iMacs are going to start replacing Windows computers all over.[/citation]

njalterio, its been a pleasure discussing this all with you. We definitely got some wires crossed there! Those two computers sound like they're going to be pretty decent and you're definitely getting a lot of computer for what you're spending. :)
 
Wow... this is actually decent,

Why didnt they use 2560x1600 instead though?

I know the only problem I have with a iMac is the ununsed realestate at the bottom of the screen.
So, you're giving a near bezel-free monitor, except the bottom, which has a severel inch bezel?
This may be to fit the components on the smaller versions, but I'd think a 1920x1200 would help deal with it.
Too bad they used a 4850 instead of a 5750. I'd think it'd be more appropiate (though slightly more expensive).

Though, in reality, I just want three 2560x1600 bezel-free monitors for eyeinfinity.
When will 2560x1600 bezelless $400 monitors enter the market?
 
[citation][nom]raden_muaz[/nom]Ah shoot. No ATI Radeon 5000 series GPUs. and still using old 4850 (at least why not 4770?)[/citation]

The iMac line uses mobile graphics solutions. As such they're limited to what ATI's currently producing. True they could have used a mobility 4860 or 4870 but that would be treading on the toes of the Mac Pro's graphics cards. When the next iMac refresh comes along the 5xxx series mobility chips will probably be available and so we'll be seeing iMacs with 5850s in. The Mac Pros will likely have been refreshed before then and will probably have 5870s as an option. Although Apple have always lagged a fair bit in terms of their graphics chips, the lag's been getting shorter and shorter.

[citation][nom]anamaniac[/nom]Wow... this is actually decent,Why didnt they use 2560x1600 instead though?I know the only problem I have with a iMac is the ununsed realestate at the bottom of the screen.So, you're giving a near bezel-free monitor, except the bottom, which has a severel inch bezel?This may be to fit the components on the smaller versions, but I'd think a 1920x1200 would help deal with it.Too bad they used a 4850 instead of a 5750. I'd think it'd be more appropiate (though slightly more expensive).Though, in reality, I just want three 2560x1600 bezel-free monitors for eyeinfinity.When will 2560x1600 bezelless $400 monitors enter the market?[/citation]

They're going for 16:9 monitor sizes, it seems to be becoming the norm now. Its a shame because I like the extra vertical height. I'm afraid I don't expect bezel less displays of this size anytime soon. I think the number of 30" displays will also start to fade soon. My guess is that when Apple releases a replacement for the 30" ACD it'll be a larger (maybe 32") display with a 16:9 ratio and a higher resolution than 2560x1600. Maybe 2844x1600 or 3072x1728.
 
"Who cares what the screen looks like if only I see it?"

ROFL! I DO! If it's MY computer I want a nice computer and screen. As for building it cheaper with a $100 case. Do it. I surely don't want your homebuilt thing running Windows 7 which will need defragmentation love every month. Actually, I might install it for some gaming anyway, but via VMware. 🙂

Each to his own. peace.
 
To boil all this crap down, MAC SUCKS, unless you're a complete nincompoop or a my wise and beautiful friend hipster you can do all things better and for less by building your own PC.
 
[citation][nom]littlec[/nom]To boil all this crap down, MAC SUCKS, unless you're a complete nincompoop or a my wise and beautiful friend hipster you can do all things better and for less by building your own PC.[/citation]

Really? Go and spec up a similar machine to the 27" iMac with a Core i7 and a 2560x1440 27" LED backlit IPS panelled display and see if you can beat Apple's price. Oh wait... you can't. Something to do with LED backlit IPS panels of this kind of size costing loads of money.

If you actually had any decent knowledge or experience on building and speccing up your own decent computers you would realise that you can't currently build a PC that is better in all ways and yet is still cheaper than one of these 27" iMacs. If you don't want to build one that's better in all ways and would rather settle for a cheap display then that's doable. However, it would not have "all things better" then.
 
I would get more for the money. I've spec'd it up for every new mac release and I always can get more for my money building my own pc, Not to mention that a beautiful display is completely wasted by an OS and a video card that could never do it justice. I've built over 25 high end PCs in the past 6 years, 7 of them for myself. I know what's out there, and I do believe you're confusing base model price when making your comparisons.

The new iMac line starts at $1,199 with the 21.5-inch screen and Core 2 Duo at 3.06 GHz. Those willing to shell out top dollar can upgrade all the way up to the new Nehalem-based Core i5 and i7 quad-core processors (but expect to pay $2,000 to get there).


What's 1,199 plus 2,000? $3,200 plus shipping.
For $3,200 I can build a PC with a MUCH better screen, mobo, video card, ect. Will it run OSX? maybe, maybe not (its not that hard to run it on PC) will it be in a hipster my wise and beautiful friend looking unibody? hell no, who would want one anyways. Will it be screaming fast and run circles around the iMAC in EVERY SINGLE BENCHMARK OUT THERE? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT! Currently there isn't (to my knowledge) a benchmark based on hipster points.
 
Edit* I meant to say Bigger screen, Currently this display is tops coming in a close second would be Dell's UltraSharp(i own several they are veryyy nice), and you better believe this will change in the near future, I gotta give apple credit for getting the lead with this new generation of displays but you better believe this will change very quickly. And as usual apple is lagging behind with the system hardware. And again why bother trying to talk shit about this display with the crappy hardware its stuck to? I would buy a baseline iMAC and then strip out the hardware and connect a MUCH faster PC that would actually do it some justice.
 
You're kidding right? You're comparing a $3200 build PC to buying a $1199 iMac and a $2000 iMac. Either that or you think that an iMac with Core i5/i7 costs $3200. What planet are you on??

A 27" iMac with 2.66GHz Core i5, 4GB RAM, 1TB HDD, Bluetooth Mouse & Keyboard and Radeon 4850 512MB costs $1999. $2199 for the same but with a Core i7 2.8GHz CPU. Oh and then there's the inclusion of a 27" 2560x1440 IPS LED display. Considering a stand alone display with that kind of screen would cost somewhere around $1200-$1500 at a guess (by looking at the current prices of similar spec LED IPS panels at different sizes), that looks like a pretty decent deal to me.

Hell, if I were in the market for another 30" screen, I'd have to seriously consider getting a 27" iMac instead. At $1699 for the entry level 27" screen, that's pretty much the same as a 30" non LED backlit display would cost. Yes it might be a little physically smaller and have 2560x1440 instead of 2560x1600 pixels but its a better quality display with a far better backlight and has a whole computer built in.

You're deluded if you think that the screen's as good as Dell's UltraSharp range. Those don't have LED backlights. Its closest rival from Dell is the UltraSharp 3008WFP at $1699. The Dell is 3" bigger and has 11% more pixels but it has an inferior backlight and doesn't come with a whole computer attached.

Apple has always had the lead with new generations of displays. They were the first to produce mainstream 22" displays, 1920x1200 displays and 30" displays. They were also the first to bring a 24" LED backlit display to market.

You say they're lagging with system hardware yet the Core i5/i7 chips used in here have only just been released. They released Nehalem based chips in their Mac Pros about a month before anyone else had them on the market. Sure they don't have 5000 series graphics cards in these machines but that's largely because no 5000 series mobile cards exist yet.

You are clearly lying when you say that you've "spec'd it up for every new mac release and I always can get more for my money building my own oc". I'd like to see the specs you made for a quad core machine comparable to the original Mac Pro. Or the Octo Mac Pro when that came out. Not all Macs are more expensive than PC counterparts. If you had spec'd up machines for every mac release then you would have actually gone to Apple's website now too to see what prices you had to spec up to. Then you would have seen that a Core i5/i7 iMac doesn't cost $3200 plus shipping. Obviously I'm the one confusing "base model price". You spec all new Macs up. Yes.
 
There are two issues with the iMac's 2560 x 1440 resolution:

1) The graphics card (HD 4850) will not perform well at that resolution. Unless you browsing the web and doing other non-graphic intensive work (where resolution is least important); I highly doubt you will be able to run that resolution with good performance. We already know the HD 4850 for all intensive purposes can't run 1440p in games....and games are usually optimized for performance.

Please don't tell me 2560 x 1440 is necessary for "screen real estate". If that is really what you were after, you would go with multiple monitors.

2) Even if you could get reasonable performance out of that card....there are limits on human ability to resolve resolution.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/
It seems for a screen that size (27"), and sitting two feet away...you better have some good eyesight to appreciate the difference.

[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom]
Considering a stand alone display with that kind of screen would cost somewhere around $1200-$1500 at a guess (by looking at the current prices of similar spec LED IPS panels at different sizes), that looks like a pretty decent deal to me. Hell, if I were in the market for another 30" screen, I'd have to seriously consider getting a 27" iMac instead. At $1699 for the entry level 27" screen, that's pretty much the same as a 30" non LED backlit display would cost. Yes it might be a little physically smaller and have 2560x1440 instead of 2560x1600 pixels but its a better quality display with a far better backlight and has a whole computer built in.
[/citation]

Dell has their UltraSharp IPS panel for $600.
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=320-8277&cs=19&c=us&l=en&dgc=SS&cid=27530&lid=627063

Sure it only goes to 1920x1200, but as far as I am concerned, 2560x1440 is just numbers at this point for reasons I pointed out above.

[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom]
They were the first to produce mainstream 22" displays, 1920x1200 displays and 30" displays. They were also the first to bring a 24" LED backlit display to market.
[/citation]

Careful...it was Hitachi who developed and brought the IPS display to the market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD
Apple is usually the first to go mainstream for monitors because Apple sells high. All the other vendors are concerned with the demands of 90% of the market, which don't give a damn about IPS technology.
 
[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]There are two issues with the iMac's 2560 x 1440 resolution:1) The graphics card (HD 4850) will not perform well at that resolution. Unless you browsing the web and doing other non-graphic intensive work (where resolution is least important); I highly doubt you will be able to run that resolution with good performance. We already know the HD 4850 for all intensive purposes can't run 1440p in games....and games are usually optimized for performance.Please don't tell me 2560 x 1440 is necessary for "screen real estate". If that is really what you were after, you would go with multiple monitors. 2) Even if you could get reasonable performance out of that card....there are limits on human ability to resolve resolution.http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/ [...] reen-size/It seems for a screen that size (27"), and sitting two feet away...you better have some good eyesight to appreciate the difference.Dell has their UltraSharp IPS panel for $600.http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna [...] lid=627063Sure it only goes to 1920x1200, but as far as I am concerned, 2560x1440 is just numbers at this point for reasons I pointed out above.Careful...it was Hitachi who developed and brought the IPS display to the market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCDApple is usually the first to go mainstream for monitors because Apple sells high. All the other vendors are concerned with the demands of 90% of the market, which don't give a damn about IPS technology.[/citation]

I'm not saying that the 4850 can run games at native res on these machines but for any 2D work, they'll do just fine. I've happily used 2560x1600 powered by a GeForce 9400M. As long as you're not doing full screen 3D stuff, you don't need a powerful graphics card. I usually sit 3 feet from my 30" screen and don't ever get any eye problems. I could easily use a higher DPI screen without issues and I didn't have any problems with the 27" screen in store.
Of course not everyone will need that kind of screen real estate but it sure is nice. I've got friends who have 24" 1080p screens and love the space and my girlfriend loves the space when she uses my desktop.
2560x1440 is a lot better than 1920x1200. Its 60% more desktop real-estate and really is nice to use. Most people prefer to have one larger display than multiple smaller displays. I've used dual and triple display setups before and never really liked them much. The Dell Ultrasharp IPS ranges don't have LED backlights either, hence the lower price. I'm not saying the screen is worth every penny extra to everyone. Littlec just came along with some baseless lies.

I didn't mean that Apple was the first to develop and release IPS displays, just that they've always been on the forefront of mainstream screen technology. Just like they've been on the forefront of workstation machines for the last couple of years. Littlec saying that they are "lagging behind with system hardware as usual" is simply not true.
 
Spanky, Yes you're correct in calling me out for misquoting the price, and that is where to stop being correct. You sir must have a one track mind, you cannot compair computers using just a sinlge component. for $2,200 i could build an i7 based system that would run circles around the iMAC all day in everybench mark. This is an undenyable fact. You cannot go around telling me and others that the iMAC is better b/c for this short amount of time that they have a new display technology that isn't even being fully utilized. A homebuilt PC at the same price mark would win in any preformance test out there. They took something beautiful and strapped a POS to it. The dell ultrasharps are IPS displays btw and tho not all of them are quite caught up yet spec wise they more that make up for it in price and ability to not be stuck a steaming pile that is the new iMAC hardware. You sir would never be able to enjoy half the quality of that screen where i would be making the most and then some on my ultrasharps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom