I want to know if this was a bad choice I love this iMAC I paid $950 for it, what would you have done.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I choose the 24" white iMAC 2.16ghz over refub 20" Alm iMAC 2.4 ghz
- Thread starter TAJones99
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Reverse
Think I would have gone for the 20 incher!
The difference in specs I think would have more than compensated for the loss of four inches of screen.
Also if you found you needed more screen real estate you could more easily have added an extra monitor in the future than you can upgrade components
Think I would have gone for the 20 incher!
The difference in specs I think would have more than compensated for the loss of four inches of screen.
Also if you found you needed more screen real estate you could more easily have added an extra monitor in the future than you can upgrade components
I would've gone for the 24" because it has a matte screen 
. I think you made a good choice, as you can never have enough screen space.
. I think you made a good choice, as you can never have enough screen space.I would have gone for the 24" because of the IPS panel. I would've picked a white 20" over the Alu 20" also.
Thanks for the feedback everyone, I went to the apple store and played with the new 24" and I really didn't feel that much of a difference from mine.
I might be one of the few that prefer the aluminum models. You get much better hardware and a better graphics card. Sure the screen is better, but since you noticed that you don't see much of a difference between the two, I'm guessing the panel is the least of your concern. The aluminum models handle stuff in the future better (SL, video, etc.).
Glossy screen (which isn't that bad), and alot of the Alu 24" screens have brightness gradient issues.
What makes you think that 2.4 had 2400 XT? It could have been the 2007 model with 2600 Pro.
But still, 7300 > 2400.