What's High End? Apple's 24" iMac
-
- Posts: 1386
- Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 6:53 pm
I don't think it's a very wise decision from consumer standpoint to buy 24" iMac. Simply because monitor is integrated into computer block and you cannot reuse the screen once computer gets too old. Think about it, 24" is very nice and can serve for many years and outlive several hardware upgrades. If on the other hand you buy 24" iMac, you'll be stuck with the same hardware forever. Essentially you'll be throwing away $680 (the price of Dell 2407). IMO it's much better decision to get Dell 2407 and use it with your already quiet computer.
But this is a Mac. You don't go out and buy a Mac because it is the best choise. You buy it because it is a Mac.JazzJackRabbit wrote:I don't think it's a very wise decision from consumer standpoint to buy 24" iMac. Simply because monitor is integrated into computer block and you cannot reuse the screen once computer gets too old. Think about it, 24" is very nice and can serve for many years and outlive several hardware upgrades. If on the other hand you buy 24" iMac, you'll be stuck with the same hardware forever. Essentially you'll be throwing away $680 (the price of Dell 2407). IMO it's much better decision to get Dell 2407 and use it with your already quiet computer.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 7681
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
- Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
- Contact:
Hello,
My Mac IIcx lasted me and my wife 10 years, and it was still running when I had to discard it because it ran too slowly for the current software. So, consider the useful life to be only 8-9 years?
My first PC overlapped with the Mac. The PC was faster (whopping 486 DX/2-66!) but it only lasted about 3 years. Win98 didn't really run well in 32MB of RAM, and that's all I could shoehorn in there...
So, even though the Mac cost 2X as much (~$5,500 vs ~$2,700), it was the better value: $688/year vs $900/year. Actually, I had to buy a replacement 17" flat screen CRT for $850 about a year and a half after buying the PC, so the price for the second half of the life of the PC went up to ~$1,100/year! That, and I had to reinstall DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 for Workgroups at least 2 times, upgrade it to Win95 (where it should have stayed?), and upgrade it to Win98, too. I had to mess with dual boots, and became an "expert" in tweaking the Config.SYS and the AutoExec.BAT to better manage the DOS memory page frames. Sheesh.
Back on topic: I think that Apple has thrown down the gauntlet with another iteration of the most elegantly designed computer yet. If you have not used one, then you should try it. It has a power cord, a network cord (unless you use wireless), and the mouse daisy chains to the key board. The only thing better would be that they had a wireless mouse.
It is virtually silent, consumes as little power as anything out there, and it is a modern dual core computer, using an OS that is virtually immune to viruses and hacks. If you must run Windows (like I do) -- then you can! What's not to like?
My Mac IIcx lasted me and my wife 10 years, and it was still running when I had to discard it because it ran too slowly for the current software. So, consider the useful life to be only 8-9 years?
My first PC overlapped with the Mac. The PC was faster (whopping 486 DX/2-66!) but it only lasted about 3 years. Win98 didn't really run well in 32MB of RAM, and that's all I could shoehorn in there...
So, even though the Mac cost 2X as much (~$5,500 vs ~$2,700), it was the better value: $688/year vs $900/year. Actually, I had to buy a replacement 17" flat screen CRT for $850 about a year and a half after buying the PC, so the price for the second half of the life of the PC went up to ~$1,100/year! That, and I had to reinstall DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 for Workgroups at least 2 times, upgrade it to Win95 (where it should have stayed?), and upgrade it to Win98, too. I had to mess with dual boots, and became an "expert" in tweaking the Config.SYS and the AutoExec.BAT to better manage the DOS memory page frames. Sheesh.
Back on topic: I think that Apple has thrown down the gauntlet with another iteration of the most elegantly designed computer yet. If you have not used one, then you should try it. It has a power cord, a network cord (unless you use wireless), and the mouse daisy chains to the key board. The only thing better would be that they had a wireless mouse.
It is virtually silent, consumes as little power as anything out there, and it is a modern dual core computer, using an OS that is virtually immune to viruses and hacks. If you must run Windows (like I do) -- then you can! What's not to like?
Really, this is astonishing thermal management from the Apple engineers, considering the iMac's incredibly compact dimensions. Hopefully someone on the interweb will take this one apart to see how it's done (I recall the last one had some kind of liquid-cooling module?).The CPU temperature climbed to a toasty 75°C at this level, but even at this level the noise level never increased. We left the system burning in this way for over an hour, but the system was perfectly stable and the processor did not throttle. We can only conclude that, hot as it was, it never reached unsafe levels.
The Mac is expensive, but for style-conscious advertising execs who live in loft apartments it's the perfect complement to their Japanese minimalist chic; it's not for someone who likes to tinker with and upgrade their PC, but then Macs have never been aimed at that market.
It's probably the low market share that gives the impression of invulnerability, rather than any inherent security features:using an OS that is virtually immune to viruses and hacks.
Ancient flaws leave OS X vulnerable?
-
- Friend of SPCR
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:06 pm
- Location: New Hampshire, US
- Contact:
I really liked the review, and I've always been a fan of the mac and it's OS. But, being a hands on hardware kinda guy, I like to be able to open the system up, modify it, so, i don't think macs are for me right now. Maybe when I finally graduate and get my own place, I'll have a mac as an office computer?
The imacs have built in bluetooth, right? why don't they just make a bluetooth mouse? Maybe they just haven't thought of an elegant way to charge the battery, because you can't just use regular alkalines with something like mac hardware. Maybe they could have a little slot on the side that charged a lithuim battery. I doubt it. The mouse is the only piece of hardware I think Mac should re-imagine, and maybe come up with a secondary keyboard design.NeilBlanchard wrote:The only thing better would be that they had a wireless mouse.
-
- Posts: 434
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:10 am
That sounds interesting, I might buy one for my PC laptop if Apple lets me use it with windows.floffe wrote:They do make a bluetooth mouse, that and a wireless keyboard costs $60 extra when ordering. The wireless keyboard is $59 and the mouse $69 when sold separate, not sure if they're available in a bundle.
If it's any better than all other bluetooth mice that is.
It's hard to find one with a desent updaterate.
I was hoping to see pics of its insides. How big are its heatsinks? Any pipes? Are graphics on a daughtercard? Does it look like a PC inside?
Like nici, I dislike the Way-Too-White high-gloss design. While reading the article, thoughts about improving the looks with a can of flat black spray paint crossed my mind. Even though that would make me Tyler Durden, destroying something beautiful.
Like nici, I dislike the Way-Too-White high-gloss design. While reading the article, thoughts about improving the looks with a can of flat black spray paint crossed my mind. Even though that would make me Tyler Durden, destroying something beautiful.
People have made this comment before, but I disagree: you forget that it also has to deal with the heat from the TFT, and few laptops are as quiet as the Apple, note especially the stress test where temps, while high, were not dangerous, and noise did not increase. So this is better than normal laptop thermal management.Saribro wrote:About the same as any DTR laptop really, I'd hardly call it astonishing.jaganath wrote:Really, this is astonishing thermal management from the Apple engineers
-
- Patron of SPCR
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Contact:
Also, Saribro, DTRs can get quite loud, so I consider the low noise level of the iMac a bonus.
Regarding a couple questions/points, there are no available inputs on the LCD. However the iMac does come with a video out that can output to DVI, VGA, etc. Unlike previous generations of iMacs, these new models can span the monitors, not just mirror the desktop.
The graphics card is built-in to the motherboard. The review was quite accurate in it's description: it's a laptop built into the LCD casing. Components such as that are integrated.
RAM is user-upgradable, the hard-drive, not so much. Upgrading it yourself -should not- void your warranty, but it is not a particularly user-friendly machine to service. It's not as bad as previous-gen iBooks, or apparently the G5 iMacs (Rev 2), but they're still hard to crack.
They can boot from FW. I have not tried USB, but it should work.
Regarding the color management, I don't mind it. On expert mode, the color calibration is significantly more user-friendly (and reliable) than the built-in color correction on most monitors, not to mention significantly more extensive. Also, the software profiles mean that I maintain control over my color settings, and that some random co-worker (or my wife) won't throw me off by doing more than changing the brightness/contrast setting.
And yes, I am a designer-type person
Regarding a couple questions/points, there are no available inputs on the LCD. However the iMac does come with a video out that can output to DVI, VGA, etc. Unlike previous generations of iMacs, these new models can span the monitors, not just mirror the desktop.
The graphics card is built-in to the motherboard. The review was quite accurate in it's description: it's a laptop built into the LCD casing. Components such as that are integrated.
RAM is user-upgradable, the hard-drive, not so much. Upgrading it yourself -should not- void your warranty, but it is not a particularly user-friendly machine to service. It's not as bad as previous-gen iBooks, or apparently the G5 iMacs (Rev 2), but they're still hard to crack.
They can boot from FW. I have not tried USB, but it should work.
Regarding the color management, I don't mind it. On expert mode, the color calibration is significantly more user-friendly (and reliable) than the built-in color correction on most monitors, not to mention significantly more extensive. Also, the software profiles mean that I maintain control over my color settings, and that some random co-worker (or my wife) won't throw me off by doing more than changing the brightness/contrast setting.
And yes, I am a designer-type person
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 12285
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Contact:
I was aware that Apple had issues with environmentalists about their manufacturing process but.... Greenpeace ranked Apple lowest this month among 14 "leading mobile and PC manufacturers on their global policies and practice on eliminating harmful chemicals and on taking responsibility for their products once they are discarded by consumers. There are questions about whether Apple is singled out for headline value, and about the accuracy of Greenpeace's ranking system.
Apple's share price is far too strong and some shorts are screaming in pain ....
I really wonder who the 'sponsors' of Greenpeace and like minded organisations are
They say they take no contributions from govts and corporations but only from individuals and foundation grants (according to their homepage)
Does that mean Michael Dell if/when he contributes is not doing so on behalf of Dell Corp?! Does it mean Soros if/when he 'donates' is not doing so on behalf of the trading funds he manages?! and the stocks that the trading funds have an interest in (long or short)?
I do wonder with such a list and the seemingly EXACTING nature of their ranking leading to a patina of AUTHORITAH (as Cartman might exclaim). Most would just focus on the ranking numbers to immediately deduce that one company is 'better and greener' than another... I wonder how many go further than that to read the criteria?!
hehehe
regards
Runn3r
I really wonder who the 'sponsors' of Greenpeace and like minded organisations are
They say they take no contributions from govts and corporations but only from individuals and foundation grants (according to their homepage)
Does that mean Michael Dell if/when he contributes is not doing so on behalf of Dell Corp?! Does it mean Soros if/when he 'donates' is not doing so on behalf of the trading funds he manages?! and the stocks that the trading funds have an interest in (long or short)?
I do wonder with such a list and the seemingly EXACTING nature of their ranking leading to a patina of AUTHORITAH (as Cartman might exclaim). Most would just focus on the ranking numbers to immediately deduce that one company is 'better and greener' than another... I wonder how many go further than that to read the criteria?!
hehehe
regards
Runn3r
I'm pleased to have found this article! I logged in to search the forums to see if there were any posts about how quiet the iMacs are, and lo and behold there are two reviews!
The flatpanel on my Downstairs PC is on its last legs and, rather than fork out on a screen, I'm considering relegating the P4 to file-serving duty and putting the screen money towards a 17" iMac. It's encouraging to hear that it's quiet. Thank you SPCR for the reviews!
The flatpanel on my Downstairs PC is on its last legs and, rather than fork out on a screen, I'm considering relegating the P4 to file-serving duty and putting the screen money towards a 17" iMac. It's encouraging to hear that it's quiet. Thank you SPCR for the reviews!
IMHO: The 20" iMac is the best deal. I convinced my work to get me one. Anyway, just some thoughts about it since I have been using it for a month or so.Cams wrote:I'm pleased to have found this article! I logged in to search the forums to see if there were any posts about how quiet the iMacs are, and lo and behold there are two reviews!
The flatpanel on my Downstairs PC is on its last legs and, rather than fork out on a screen, I'm considering relegating the P4 to file-serving duty and putting the screen money towards a 17" iMac. It's encouraging to hear that it's quiet. Thank you SPCR for the reviews!
The 2GB/3GB RAM limit is very limiting in OSX. I constanly find my machine barely chugging through normal work. It was almost unusable with only 1GB of RAM. OSX is makes it a pain to quit applications--it really wants you to have lots and lots of memory. Getting rid of non-Universal applications helped a little, since PowerPC apps need additional memory and CPU time. Also the slow 250GB Seagate drive doesn't help the memory problems. Definitely plan on 2GB and the extra capacity of the uber expensive 3GB option is probably worth the 50% reduction in bandwidth.
IMHO: The iMac makes a much better Windows XP machine than it does a OSX machine. Apple has forgotten to build a normal desktop PC. Something with a normal desktop CPU and a normal 4GB/8GB memory capability. The former would help price and the latter performance.
Reason: Margins. The "normal desktop" market is much more crowded than the high-end or the highly-integrated. I think Apple is quite satisfied with having the top-end Mac Pros and the iMacs in segments that are not under too heavy competition, at least not price-wise. Going into the regular segment might show just how much they mark up...QuietOC wrote:IMHO: The iMac makes a much better Windows XP machine than it does a OSX machine. Apple has forgotten to build a normal desktop PC. Something with a normal desktop CPU and a normal 4GB/8GB memory capability. The former would help price and the latter performance.
buzzing when dimmed
interesting that your testing didn't uncover the buzzing that many 24" imacs suffer from when the display is dimmed. i haven't the gear to measure the level but it's quite an audible buzz. hence, i've disabled the ability of the screen to dim with the pmset command.