Anyone else looking at the new iMacs?

[3587]

An iMac with an SSD and a Core i7 processor can compete with a Mac Pro. Looking at the Geekbench results, a Core i7 iMac has higher scores than my 8-core 2009 Mac Pro. We can argue that the Mac Pro is superior in various ways, but I think this proves the point that a top-end iMac is in the same ballpark.

Yup, that top end iMac smokes those lower end Mac Pros... Including the 2010 models. After you buy a monitor, hard drives, and memory, those Mac Pros cost a lot more money for a lot less. Yes, they are expandable, but since owning my 2009 since it was released, I've done pretty much nothing to it. Therefore, I am more than comfortable in getting an iMac 27" that will smoke the low end Mac Pros in both speed and cost. Add the 256SSD/1TB drive and max out the memory, that iMac will be set!

 

[-hh]

Well, a hex Mac Pro with state of the art GPU will dust any four core Mac hands down. The big question that the OP is asking is if any other pro/business user is considering the same thing, and I would have to agree, the iMac isn't an ideal choice but it is becoming a viable option for anyone not needing the full blown expansion of the Mac Pro.

I think that the expansion question is quite important here.

For example, for my application where I use a lot of storage, my contemplation is a Mac Pro + display is easily going to be $3500, whereas if I go with an i7 iMac for $2000, I'll be immediately adding something like a Promise R4 for another $1150 (or more!), which means I'm really starting at around $3150 ... suddenly, the cost difference isn't necessarily as profound or obvious...I'm more concerned about "New Mac Pro" schedule qustions.

The iMac we are looking at now isn't the glorified laptop on a stand it used to be. Quad Core i7 2GB GPU and up to 32GB of RAM isn't going to bottleneck anytime soon, and by that I mean at least 3-4 years easy.

As for repairs, most of the hardware in a Mac is user serviceable save for the logic board, which would send you back to Apple regardless. The SSD option and the proprietary temp sensor on the HDD are my only repair concerns.

Good points all.

Color correction is moot given that a pro user can connect and tone from a second display. Anyone in the market for a high end NEC or EIZO isn't asking about getting an iMac because of price.

Particularly since that will be adding another ~$1K in the iMac's cost column.

At the end of the day the decision is going to be between full expansion of the Mac Pro, and the WYSIWYG configuration of the iMac. Max the iMac out and the performance of a similarly priced Mac Pro are the same.

I am still holding out for a much sooner than February release of the 2012 Mac Pro, but the iMac will be on my desk by March.

P.s. thunderbolt won't be coming to the older Mac Pro towers, so it's worth the wait.

Particularly if one can hopefully get by with just high performance I/O on the Mac Pro's internal bays until such time that TB peripherals drop a bit more in retail price before having to buy an external.


-hh

 

[ActionableMango]

Anyone else looking at the new iMacs?

No.

Mobility graphics and no current way to upgrade that is an automatic veto.

Second automatic veto is being forced into an expensive glossy screen with only one input and virtually no ergonomic adjustments.

 

[driftless]

I'm in the same situation as the OP - I have a 2006 Mac Pro, which is starting to show its age. It's a bit noisy, it takes up most of my desk (if you include the monitor) and has limited scope for upgrades. Buying one of the current Mac Pros is out of the question - I just can't afford it (and that's before you consider that they're going to be replaced once Intel's latest Xeon CPUs get released).

So, unless Apple releases something between the iMac and the Mac Pro (the mythical xMac), my next computer will be a 27" iMac, which I'll upgrade with a third-party SSD (in all likelihood, a Samsung, unless Cherryville is particularly fantastic). I like the looks of the iMac and I like the small(er) form factor. I won't miss the scope for upgrading (all I've done to my Mac Pro is add some more memory and hard drives).

I don't do any video processing, or edit massive images in Photoshop, so my needs are relatively modest. I think a decently-specced iMac will serve me well.

I would love to see the mythical xMac, although not at the expense of the Mac Pro going away. I intend to upgrade to a full maxed out iMac or take a long hard look at a base Mac Pro when/if the new versions are released.

 

[scottsjack]

An iMac with an SSD and a Core i7 processor can compete with a Mac Pro. Looking at the Geekbench results, a Core i7 iMac has higher scores than my 8-core 2009 Mac Pro. We can argue that the Mac Pro is superior in various ways, but I think this proves the point that a top-end iMac is in the same ballpark.

Sorry you missed my point. Speed is only one measure of a computer. For sure, the current fastest iMac can do some things faster than a current Mac Pro. But who buys computers based solely on Geekbench scores?

Don't in most case we really buy the computer we need? To some the all-in-one nature of an iMac is just perfect. To others, especially those like me, who want multiple, replaceable internal hard drives, a choice of video cards and a Blu Ray drive the Mac Pro is the only choice.

And speaking of Geekbench my Windows 7 installation feels much more responsive than Lion yet the W7 Geekbench-64 score is lower than the Lion Geekbench-64 score. I don't know why but in reality is don't care much for benchmarks.

 

[gglockner]

Different strokes for different folks. The Mac Pro is still a great computer. I just wanted to point out that the iMac is far from a toy computer. The top iMac configurations are very capable for the demanding needs of many - though not all - professional users, and it comes at a price that is significantly cheaper than a Mac Pro.

 

[IceMacMac]

I'd move to PC before I would even consider an iMac. I use two Mac Pros (08 and 09) currently. By early spring I plan to buy a new workstation. It's looking more and more like that will be a PC.

 

[philipma1957]

I'd move to PC before I would even consider an iMac. I use two Mac Pros (08 and 09) currently. By early spring I plan to buy a new workstation. It's looking more and more like that will be a PC.

yeah that about sums it up.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I think that the expansion question is quite important here.

For example, for my application where I use a lot of storage, my contemplation is a Mac Pro + display is easily going to be $3500, whereas if I go with an i7 iMac for $2000, I'll be immediately adding something like a Promise R4 for another $1150 (or more!), which means I'm really starting at around $3150 ... suddenly, the cost difference isn't necessarily as profound or obvious...I'm more concerned about "New Mac Pro" schedule qustions.

Good points all.

Particularly since that will be adding another ~$1K in the iMac's cost column.

Particularly if one can hopefully get by with just high performance I/O on the Mac Pro's internal bays until such time that TB peripherals drop a bit more in retail price before having to buy an external.

-hh

All great points and the main reasons why the iMac becomes such a great option. If you are looking for a Promise or an EIZO, price isn't a concern, therefore he Mac Pro is your choice. If you have a budget then the iMac and a TBolt to eSATA adaptor are perfect for you.

 

[derbothaus]

I don't think about an iMac because I hate noisy fans and unnecessary heat from the form factor. It kills components. Otherwise the top shelf iMac is one of the best values out there right now. Also the pixel response time and input lag is not fast enough on the display for me. Picture quality is tops.

 

[wonderspark]

My Mom loves her new iMac, but I have no use for one.

 

[dimme]

I'd move to PC before I would even consider an iMac. I use two Mac Pros (08 and 09) currently. By early spring I plan to buy a new workstation. It's looking more and more like that will be a PC.

I agree with the PC as a next workstation option. I plan to use my 2008 macpro until the wheels fall off. It is fine for my uses with Adobe Creative suite. But If the machine went south this week I would just build a PC workstation and with the extra cash put it toward replacing my Macbook Pro.

 

[gglockner]

I'm surprised to read how many people would rather go to Windows than use an iMac. For me, the productivity gains of Mac OS X are more than any potential losses in terms of processor speed. (Then again, I have a farm of Linux machines when I have huge needs in terms of processing).

 

[ActionableMango]

I'm surprised to read how many people would rather go to Windows than use an iMac. For me, the productivity gains of Mac OS X are more than any potential losses in terms of processor speed. (Then again, I have a farm of Linux machines when I have huge needs in terms of processing).

I could probably replace a lot of stuff in Windows, but I don't know what I would do without Automator. Is there a Windows equivalent to that?

 

[thekev]

For many Mac Pro users, the built-in display of iMac is actually a disadvantage. Although it's IPS, it's not as high quality as e.g. NEC or EIZO displays are. And it's glossy. If you do something that requires color accuracy, you can't compromise the display. A small error will be seen in the final product as well.

Yeah.... anything like illustration, graphic design, cgi for print (mentioned print due to the resolution) would be absolutely brutal on an imac display. I've owned NECss and Eizos. I recall the Sony and Mitsubishi crts before them. Really displays superior to the one used by the current imac have been available even since the 90s. The imac display is not exactly revolutionary. It uses a decent panel, but the really high quality displays aren't defined as much by panels these days. They're all basically LG commodity parts, but there are some implementations that are vastly superior to those offered by Apple.

Different strokes for different folks. The Mac Pro is still a great computer. I just wanted to point out that the iMac is far from a toy computer. The top iMac configurations are very capable for the demanding needs of many - though not all - professional users, and it comes at a price that is significantly cheaper than a Mac Pro.

It's still designed as a consumer grade computer. I'd feel uncomfortable setting it to render tasks overnight on a regular basis. If it was really designed for professional use, the back would come off easily to facilitate things like hard drive replacement. As it is your only real option is to boot from firewire until you can haul the machine in if you lose a drive. I've seen complaints of hard drive and gpu failure on imacs many times. I've personally seen display problems. Any one of those things means taking your entire computer in as opposed to a quick component swap or sending in a display only (many people work with multiple displays or have an older backup).

In terms of raw power though, yeah they're fully capable, but they're only that much cheaper because Apple has heavily inflated mac pro pricing and gutted hardware year over year to the point where the starting configuration often comes in slower than the imac while costing more.

 

[gglockner]

Yeah.... anything like illustration, graphic design, cgi for print (mentioned print due to the resolution) would be absolutely brutal on an imac display.

I've said it before: You can connect an iMac to an external display.

 

[thekev]

I've said it before: You can connect an iMac to an external display.

Bleck I know, but it isn't that appealing of a machine when you don't want the display. I'll probably buy whatever Apple debuts in the form of a mac pro next.

 

[Hellhammer]

I've said it before: You can connect an iMac to an external display.

Not an ideal setup. For serious editing, you will want a 30" display. 30" + 27" takes a lot space and everyone may not have the space that it requires. Better yet, you may want multiple displays for editing purposes. Where are you going to put that 27" mirror then?

 

[Digital Skunk]

I'm surprised to read how many people would rather go to Windows than use an iMac. For me, the productivity gains of Mac OS X are more than any potential losses in terms of processor speed. (Then again, I have a farm of Linux machines when I have huge needs in terms of processing).

I could probably replace a lot of stuff in Windows, but I don't know what I would do without Automator. Is there a Windows equivalent to that?

True, but I still believe that many users that switched to the Mac originally switched for something that Windows just didn't offer . . . not that imaginary belief that Macs don't get viruses.

For me it was because of the smoothness of Avid Express DV on the PowerMac G4s of that time. Then it was iWork, now it's all of those and Aperture. Everything else to me is moot, but I just couldn't get work done without those three; the rest of the Mac ecosystem is just icing on the cake.

Yeah.... anything like illustration, graphic design, cgi for print (mentioned print due to the resolution) would be absolutely brutal on an imac display. I've owned NECss and Eizos. I recall the Sony and Mitsubishi crts before them. Really displays superior to the one used by the current imac have been available even since the 90s. The imac display is not exactly revolutionary. It uses a decent panel, but the really high quality displays aren't defined as much by panels these days. They're all basically LG commodity parts, but there are some implementations that are vastly superior to those offered by Apple.

True, which is why those displays tend to be thicker than their counterparts. I've toned images on NECs, the 30" ACD, the 22" ASD before it and the 21" ASD (CRT) before that. I've toned images on monitors that were blue only and in ones that were B&W only.

I say that to say that the complaints about the iMac display are moot. There are plenty of pros toning on laptop displays (and at the time that aweful 20" ACD), which are the crappiest displays I've ever had to tone with, and no one seems to be mentioning how much garbage they are. The only thing wrong with the iMac display is the glare.

Other than that, once again, if a user is in the market for an EIZO or a NEC . . . one that can be used for pro-level toning, then they have the budget for a Mac Pro anyway.

It's still designed as a consumer grade computer. I'd feel uncomfortable setting it to render tasks overnight on a regular basis. If it was really designed for professional use, the back would come off easily to facilitate things like hard drive replacement. As it is your only real option is to boot from firewire until you can haul the machine in if you lose a drive. I've seen complaints of hard drive and gpu failure on imacs many times. I've personally seen display problems. Any one of those things means taking your entire computer in as opposed to a quick component swap or sending in a display only (many people work with multiple displays or have an older backup).

There will be trade-offs for every machine. The only machine in Apple's lineup that wouldn't have to be sent in as a whole is the Mac Pro. And let's not forget about logic board failures. This issues is something that all types of machines would have to go through, it's not a plague that only affects the iMac.

In terms of raw power though, yeah they're fully capable, but they're only that much cheaper because Apple has heavily inflated mac pro pricing and gutted hardware year over year to the point where the starting configuration often comes in slower than the imac while costing more.

True . . . 100% agree. Apple has done that price gouging with ALL of their machines. Like many users have already said, they prefer building their own PC workstations over either the Mac Pro or iMac.

I've said it before: You can connect an iMac to an external display.

True.

Not an ideal setup. For serious editing, you will want a 30" display. 30" + 27" takes a lot space and everyone may not have the space that it requires. Better yet, you may want multiple displays for editing purposes. Where are you going to put that 27" mirror then?

Meh, to each their own with what a "serious editor" would edit with. I personally prefer the setup I had at a small local paper . . . two 24" NEC LCD2490WUXI2 displays. They were connected to a Mac Pro and still took up plenty of space on a large desk. I had a single 30" ACD at the Baltimore Sun for photo, and preferred a 30" ACD for editing and a 23" ACD set to a lower resolution for my bins when I did video, and now have dual 23" ACDs at a local university.

Back in my freelance days, I had 17" MBP almost always attached to a 23" ACD for accurate toning. I like the resolution of the new 27" displays from NEC, DELL, and Apple . . . with Apple only getting 4 of 5 stars due to that glare.

 

[thekev]

I don't think about an iMac because I hate noisy fans and unnecessary heat from the form factor. It kills components. Otherwise the top shelf iMac is one of the best values out there right now. Also the pixel response time and input lag is not fast enough on the display for me. Picture quality is tops.

There always seems to be a debate on this (whether or not the heat is a major factor). It definitely makes me nervous, as they cram a lot of wattage into a relatively small case.

Perhaps I put down its display too much, but it's difficult to not compare it to what I'm used to. Things like drawing benefit from a display with smooth transitions that can be tapered down adequately in brightness to roughly match what you would see printed. Then there's the issue that I've seen literally dozens of aging imacs with purple display edges. That turned me off more than anything.

I say that to say that the complaints about the iMac display are moot. There are plenty of pros toning on laptop displays (and at the time that aweful 20" ACD), which are the crappiest displays I've ever had to tone with, and no one seems to be mentioning how much garbage they are. The only thing wrong with the iMac display is the glare.

Other than that, once again, if a user is in the market for an EIZO or a NEC . . . one that can be used for pro-level toning, then they have the budget for a Mac Pro anyway.

It all adds up. Mac Pro, expensive displays, thousands in software, etc. It's not very much fun if you have to replace a lot of stuff at the same time. I recall the 20" ACDs. What I never understood is why people picked them up rather than snatching late model crts. There were many crt displays that were far superior to that 20" display. I couldn't even make out proper shadow details on the thing.

There will be trade-offs for every machine. The only machine in Apple's lineup that wouldn't have to be sent in as a whole is the Mac Pro. And let's not forget about logic board failures. This issues is something that all types of machines would have to go through, it's not a plague that only affects the iMac.

I know... the reality is whether or not people choose to perceive Apple as a premium product, computer parts are cheap, mass market items, and they do break. What I hate about non-serviceable parts is that present day, repairs remain quite expensive on this stuff relative to total machine cost, and while they've become more and more integrated, they haven't necessarily become more reliable. This was always a reality with laptops. I just dislike the extension of the trend into desktop territory.

True . . . 100% agree. Apple has done that price gouging with ALL of their machines. Like many users have already said, they prefer building their own PC workstations over either the Mac Pro or iMac.

That's probably true, but it's most obvious at the single socket mac pro level. They built the features of a $1000 Dell into a $2500 mac pro. It's not the price point that annoys me. It's how they've offered less and less for it over time.

Meh, to each their own with what a "serious editor" would edit with. I personally prefer the setup I had at a small local paper . . . two 24" NEC LCD2490WUXI2 displays. They were connected to a Mac Pro and still took up plenty of space on a large desk. I had a single 30" ACD at the Baltimore Sun for photo, and preferred a 30" ACD for editing and a 23" ACD set to a lower resolution for my bins when I did video, and now have dual 23" ACDs at a local university.

Back in my freelance days, I had 17" MBP almost always attached to a 23" ACD for accurate toning. I like the resolution of the new 27" displays from NEC, DELL, and Apple . . . with Apple only getting 4 of 5 stars due to that glare.

The 23" ACDs weren't too bad if you got a good one. The problem was sample variation. So many of them were really uneven, and no two were alike. The things that really mess me up are crushed shadows, displays that are too bright, glossy screen treatments, and greyscale tones that do not appear neutral. Displays that can be profiled only don't necessarily return what I would consider adequate greyscale tracking. It's virtually impossible to get it perfect, but some can be quite far off. Display aging is another matter that can affect ROI. Some of the cheap ones really look terrible within a couple years so the faster repurchasing cycle can affect TCO.

 

[Digital Skunk]

There always seems to be a debate on this (whether or not the heat is a major factor). It definitely makes me nervous, as they cram a lot of wattage into a relatively small case.

That's something I've never been to worried about but concerns should be had. I do know that every iMac I've seen on for a few hours gets crazy warm. The top of the machine, where most of the heat is expelled is pretty hot to the touch.

Perhaps I put down its display too much, but it's difficult to not compare it to what I'm used to. Things like drawing benefit from a display with smooth transitions that can be tapered down adequately in brightness to roughly match what you would see printed. Then there's the issue that I've seen literally dozens of aging imacs with purple display edges. That turned me off more than anything.

it's going to be one of those trade offs any iMac for pro use buyer will have. I haven't seen any relatively young iMacs with that problem, but then I havent seen any iMacs in pro environments being run like Mac Pros.

Looking at both your comments would lead me to recommend any pro considering an iMac to seriously consider Apple Care.

It all adds up. Mac Pro, expensive displays, thousands in software, etc. It's not very much fun if you have to replace a lot of stuff at the same time. I recall the 20" ACDs. What I never understood is why people picked them up rather than snatching late model crts. There were many crt displays that were far superior to that 20" display. I couldn't even make out proper shadow details on the thing.

Not to mention that there were comparably priced CRTs at 21" as well. People bought that display for the aesthetics only, I recommended it for server or non color critical application, as well as for secondary monitor use for palettes and bins. Sticking it next to any decent HD LCD showed its too warm tones, its muddy blacks, and lack of sharpness. . . . For $1299 when it debuted non-the-less.

I know... the reality is whether or not people choose to perceive Apple as a premium product, computer parts are cheap, mass market items, and they do break. What I hate about non-serviceable parts is that present day, repairs remain quite expensive on this stuff relative to total machine cost, and while they've become more and more integrated, they haven't necessarily become more reliable. This was always a reality with laptops. I just dislike the extension of the trend into desktop territory.

Sadly, it's going to happen and personally I welcome it. It seems that everyone wanted a laptop in the early 2000's and now everyone wants a tablet. The market took notice and gave consumers what they wanted. . . a more powerful laptop with a huge display. The 27" i7 iMac is just as close to a workstation that's not a Mac Pro as we'll get from Apple.

Once I took one apart for repairs, I felt comfortable getting one for my freelance work, knowing that I could at least repair it up to a logic board failure. The part that really pisses me off is as you said, the proprietary temp sensor of the HDD, forcing me to have to go to Apple in the event of a failure. But that risk I would take given the $1000 I do save.

The Mac Pro is still a consideration for me, but I know Apple will keep the base model over-priced and under powered compared to the to end, maxed out iMac, which should be the only choice for anyone considering an iMac over a Mac Pro.

That's probably true, but it's most obvious at the single socket mac pro level. They built the features of a $1000 Dell into a $2500 mac pro. It's not the price point that annoys me. It's how they've offered less and less for it over time.

So true and so sad. The G4 towers started at 1499, once the G5 hit it jumped to 1799. The rest is history.

The 23" ACDs weren't too bad if you got a good one. The problem was sample variation. So many of them were really uneven, and no two were alike. The things that really mess me up are crushed shadows, displays that are too bright, glossy screen treatments, and greyscale tones that do not appear neutral. Displays that can be profiled only don't necessarily return what I would consider adequate greyscale tracking. It's virtually impossible to get it perfect, but some can be quite far off. Display aging is another matter that can affect ROI. Some of the cheap ones really look terrible within a couple years so the faster repurchasing cycle can affect TCO.

Hmm, yes, the two 23" ACDs I work with have that issue. One has a flickering backlight. They are pushing 6 years however. From my experience, no LCD has been able to give me the color accuracy of a good CRT. Only the high ends come close, or the super high end 14bit ones which I have only seen samples of. They (and the 30" ACD) were the only ones I ever bothered adjusting with a colorimeter. The others I just tone by the numbers. It's why I really question anyone's concern over the iMac's display. In the end it's far better than the 17" MBP's and anything else down the line.

 

[thekev]

I like discussing random stuff like this.

That's something I've never been to worried about but concerns should be had. I do know that every iMac I've seen on for a few hours gets crazy warm. The top of the machine, where most of the heat is expelled is pretty hot to the touch.



it's going to be one of those trade offs any iMac for pro use buyer will have. I haven't seen any relatively young iMacs with that problem, but then I havent seen any iMacs in pro environments being run like Mac Pros.


Looking at both your comments would lead me to recommend any pro considering an iMac to seriously consider Apple Care.

I've seen it within a couple years of use frequently enough for it to be a concern. I owned one display that showed purple corners and image persistence along the top within a year. It was replaced under warranty.

Not to mention that there were comparably priced CRTs at 21" as well. People bought that display for the aesthetics only, I recommended it for server or non color critical application, as well as for secondary monitor use for palettes and bins. Sticking it next to any decent HD LCD showed its too warm tones, its muddy blacks, and lack of sharpness. . . . For $1299 when it debuted non-the-less.

I honestly couldn't see the appeal outside of aesthetics (as in it matched the G5). You could buy a Sony Artisan system for a few hundred more. I know they were just specially binned parts, but that's basically the same with Eizo and CG series panels today too. Eizo went from NEC/Mitsubishi/Hitachi panels to LG like everyone else. NEC no longer designs any of their own panels either. Eizo is quite expensive, but it's about as close as you can get to a high end CRT. CRTs just weren't profitable anymore. Desktop lcd displays seem to be going the same direction.

Sadly, it's going to happen and personally I welcome it. It seems that everyone wanted a laptop in the early 2000's and now everyone wants a tablet. The market took notice and gave consumers what they wanted. . . a more powerful laptop with a huge display. The 27" i7 iMac is just as close to a workstation that's not a Mac Pro as we'll get from Apple.

Once I took one apart for repairs, I felt comfortable getting one for my freelance work, knowing that I could at least repair it up to a logic board failure. The part that really pisses me off is as you said, the proprietary temp sensor of the HDD, forcing me to have to go to Apple in the event of a failure. But that risk I would take given the $1000 I do save.

The Mac Pro is still a consideration for me, but I know Apple will keep the base model over-priced and under powered compared to the to end, maxed out iMac, which should be the only choice for anyone considering an iMac over a Mac Pro.



So true and so sad. The G4 towers started at 1499, once the G5 hit it jumped to 1799. The rest is history.

I recall each of the price jumps over the past decade or so. It was an awkward push away from tower form factors. My point is that the imac isn't what would be designed if they were building from the ground up today. As you said laptops were the big thing then. Now it's all about the ipad. I'm interested in what direction they'll go now. Their sense for aesthetics has been a big thing over the past decade as computers have been reaching a point where they're fast enough for the average user. One having a faster cpu than another is becoming less of a consideration for many users given the number of local processes that run nearly in real time.

Many of the users who previously used imacs (and mac pros) also owned laptops, and with the speeds of current macbook pros relative to the imacs, machine consolidation can be a valid consideration. It's possible within a few years we could even see wireless display switching of some kind given the research going into short range wireless bus standards. Your ipad or laptop basically syncs to a larger screen when you're at your desk in that scenario without plugging/unplugging. Combining a charger with display bandwidth is another possible direction, like if they were able to make something similar to the mag safe that could also link to a display.

Hmm, yes, the two 23" ACDs I work with have that issue. One has a flickering backlight. They are pushing 6 years however. From my experience, no LCD has been able to give me the color accuracy of a good CRT. Only the high ends come close, or the super high end 14bit ones which I have only seen samples of. They (and the 30" ACD) were the only ones I ever bothered adjusting with a colorimeter. The others I just tone by the numbers. It's why I really question anyone's concern over the iMac's display. In the end it's far better than the 17" MBP's and anything else down the line.

There are a lot of things that separate quality displays. Neutral greyscale tracking, accurate color temperature, ability to properly reproduce non primary colors, brightness control (some are way too bright), contrast stability, gamma, etc. You should be able to spot details easily and it should have a continuous tone feel without banding. Glossy displays just mess with me so much. I find myself squinting at them too much trying to make out details. It is much better than the laptop displays, but I wouldn't use one of those unless forced to do so. I could see large desktop displays sticking around and in a few years from now being able to place your ipad in front of them only to have it form a virtual keyboard and trackpad while the display operates via a wireless display bus standard. I could totally see them do this with graphics that resemble a physical keyboard appearing on the surface of the ipad. The current one is a bit small, but you never know what sizes will appear in the future. I'm currently wondering how many years before laptops are displaced in truly large numbers by tablets. The only reason I don't own one is because I wouldn't use it much. When I'm not at the computer, I don't like to carry it with me. I could see tablets even displacing smart phones to a degree. Perhaps you wouldn't carry your tablet everywhere, but if the interest shifted to tablets which can be used to text or for short calls, the upgrade cycle on smart phones could slow significantly, just like phones basically ate point and shoot camera sales.

Also FWIW while the image quality does degrade and the gamut shifts to where it would not be suitable for judging color, I've seen NEC displays go well past 20,000 hours without breaking or experiencing things like flickering. The backlight dims, they drift faster, and they take a bit longer to warm up, but they do keep working. With cinema displays I've seen things like little stripes/bars flickering on the screen and confirmed not to be the graphics card. I simply cannot understand how Apple is perceived as being the most reliable problem free brand in many things.

Okay I write too much sometimes.

 

[Blue Fox]

I think it's all completely irrelevant anyway.

You are more productive with an SSD and you must have a backup (bootable preferably) to get yourself back and working until you can replace the SSD.

The Intel X25-M drives are very reliable, and the 320 series are based on the X25-M drives.

I can attest to the reliability of the Intel X25-M drives. I run an 80GB version (and have for quite some time) in my 27" iMac i3. I'm so much more productive, especially when video editing or using Adobe CS software. Bootup times are insane (sub 8 second), and applications open instantly. I have a 2TB external connected via FireWire and re-routed my home directory to point to the external. I only run the OS and programs on the SSD (which is just enough, with about 10 GB left) This is an EPIC combination, and has been extremely reliable and extremely fast. Wouldn't run another computer without SSD again.

----------

I don't think about an iMac because I hate noisy fans and unnecessary heat from the form factor.

Noisy fans??? I never hear my fans. Yes, the case produces heat, but that's also because the case serves as a heat sink to pull heat away and radiate it off. Even when pushing my Mac to the fullest with running Pro apps, Creative Suite software, ProTools, etc. my fans rarely kick up speed to the point where I can hear them (and even then, the fans are quieter than the one in my cable box).

Even when the case (on the top) is very hot, the internal temps are perfectly fine, no complaints here. (and yes, the display is absolutely phenomenal)

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

I don't think about an iMac because I hate noisy fans and unnecessary heat from the form factor. It kills components. Otherwise the top shelf iMac is one of the best values out there right now. Also the pixel response time and input lag is not fast enough on the display for me. Picture quality is tops.

Not to mention the quality control issues the iMac has had over the last three years.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I like discussing random stuff like this . . . . . ** intelligent insightful comments here **

Not at all, this is what MR used to be when I first joined, before the Android/iOS flame wars that I really wish admins and Arn would do something about.

But truly all good points, and I was in the same boat when it came to the iPad. I considered it a fantastic device if all you wanted to do was play around and ingest content. I knew it had potential for being a real performance platform. I waited for two things, multitasking (which we still didn't quite get) and real production tools. Once iOS 5 hit I jumped right on it but still didn't use it as much as my MBP. Once the MBP failed . . . the last of my once four Macs, I was left with just the iPad. Now I am punching these replies to you out on it and punching out plenty with Numbers, Pages, etc. All of my apps that kept on the Mac side have iPad equivalence and it's just been a learning experience for myself. I see why many have sold their laptops in favor of an iPad or other tablets.

The general trend that you're mentioning really came about when 90% of the masses settled on Firefox, MS Office/iWork, email, and YouTube as their day-to-day. Most aren't crunching numbers to the extend that warrants a quad core laptop.

I can see what you describe happening when the tech is mature, and it's becoming noticeable in the Android market, which is why I keep telling the crazies over in the iPhone forums to take note. People are doing more and more with just a tablet and a smartphone. Bigger smartphones and smaller tablets are shooting out everywhere, and 3.5" doesn't cut it for many.

I don't see the demise of the high end workstation . . . not at all. Apple itself still needs power to run their empire, but I do see their price shooting higher and higher. It's been set at $2500 for a good while now. I hope it stays there for a few more cycles. I do see much of our pro machines moving/sliding/dropping into the realm of consumer/pro hybrid machine however. The 15" MBP lost it's ExpressCard34 slot, which I know for a fact EVER pro used from time to time, and not just for SD cards. The 17" MBP may seriously be next given the TBolt to ExpressCard adaptors. And even the 17" MBP being touted as a desktop replacement is a joke in itself with monsters like the Dell M6600 which I drool over constantly.

All my ranting is really just to say that 1.) I welcome the new transitions from laptop to tablet and tower+monitor to all-in-one, not blinded by it, but it is inevitable; 2.) I don't see the workstation going anywhere. Your comments about color are pushing me back to the Mac Pro side. The monitor will be the real deciding factor for me; and 3.) Digital Skunk will always welcome a discussion over a heated flame war over something as silly as what phone is in your pocket.

Thank You.