Just out of curiosity, why would someone that needs the power of an iMac "ultimate", and has the cash to drop on something like that, get that over a Mac Pro? Or for someone that builds PCs, or has, why not do up a hackintosh monster? Not trying to flame, just saying with that kind of cash there are other options that would give you more bang for less buck... heck, even a MBP 15" with the 2.2Ghz would outperform the iMac, for less, and would replace both the iMac and the MBA.
I come from PC buliding and was about to design my own little Sandy Bridge monster:
1 OCZ Revodrive X2 PCI Express for OS
1 Intel 510 250 GB or OCZ Vertex 3 for programs
2 Intel X-25 M for small files
2 2 TB Caviar for music and video
1 Intel i7 2600K 3.4 Ghz CPU
16 GB Corsair Dominator DDR3 1600 Mhz ram
Asus Maximus Extreme mobo
Lian LI Alu server case
Noctua fans and CPU cooler
Radeon 6970 2 GB ram GPU card (w. mini display port)
Apple Cinema Dispaly 27"
But then got the itch for a Mac - and thought it was about time I tried something with a great nice simple design and fell for the iMac and the MacBook Air
I just started web designing again and an iMac 27" Ultimate 2010 would be more than powerful enough for my needs - 16 GB ram, 256 SSD + 2 TB HDD, 5750 GPU card, 2.93 Ghz Quad CPU, external My Book Studio 2 TB, Time Capsule 2 TB and possible an extra ACD 27.
I really don't need Sandy Bridge, but thinkining about resale value in 1-2 years time, I think it was a good decision to wait until the Sandy Bridge iMac has been released and then get that
