Thanks, I went to my Dell account and had a look at the One. Nice package for a sub-$2K all in one.
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.
No price drops on the iMacs
- Thread starter rgarjr
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It was a price *increase*.
Don't believe Apple's press release - the 24" is the same price as the old HIGH end 20" but it's specced as the LOW end 20".
Likewise, the 20" GeForce 9400 is the same price as the old 20" with Radeon 2600 ie. the slower machine is now the same price as the previous higher machine.
Apple put their iMac prices up by £200 in the spring.
Okay. So I guess it doesn't matter that those cores won't be used efficiently until SL anyway. Also what other choice does Apple have? Where are the mobile / low power nehalems? Nowhere it seems, so how can Apple implement a newer processor into their iMac's before the processor is actually released?The iMac is a desktop bound laptop, really. I don't understand your bile spilling exercises in this thread.
If you want the glory of quad or oct core processing, get a Mac Pro. Or play the Vista game and get a Dell.
Get a Dell Studio. I bet you'll love the all shimmering plastic build with Dell's renowned quality. And look, you'll have Windows - nearly 90% of all computers use it, can't be that bad - right? Go on. Just buy one and be happy for once, no one is forcing you to buy Apple.
Tiger and Leopard support multi-processors just fine. As do Windows XP and Vista.
Mobile Core 2 Quads have been out for months and will work just fine in the thin iMac enclosure.
The only component that's truly a desktop one in the iMac is the hard drive. It's a notebook on a stand with no battery.
and, a really amazing 24" IPS Panel
Anyway, I don't see why you attack the iMac's so much. If you don't like them - get something else?
I've already lived the glory of Intel's Quad Core running Vista - no performance improvement at all. Maybe it was Vista not being able to use multiple core's efficiently; or maybe it was the software I was using. Either way, todays desktop apps have enough trouble using two cores - let alone 4 or more IMHO.
There's a huge and noticeable difference between an operating system supporting multi-cores and being truly designed / optimized for multi-cores.
I have no desire to buy an iMac or any other computer at this current time. I'm only pointing out the current hardware situation on the iMac. IPS panels aren't limited to just the 24" iMac either.and, a really amazing 24" IPS Panel
Anyway, I don't see why you attack the iMac's so much. If you don't like them - get something else?
I've already lived the glory of Intel's Quad Core running Vista - no performance improvement at all. Maybe it was Vista not being able to use multiple core's efficiently; or maybe it was the software I was using. Either way, todays desktop apps have enough trouble using two cores - let alone 4 or more IMHO.
It's quite common to misinterpret a sluggish user environment with an operating system being unable to use all of its procesing power. I don't have any experience with the computer that you used so I can't say what factors lead to your experience.
I have games from 2006 that support at least two processors. Handbrake runs perfectly under Windows XP with four logical processors.
Snow Leopard and Concurrency Runtime (AKA "ConcRT" or "Concert") for Windows XP, Vista, and 7 bring to the programmers easier methods of parallelizing tasks. That doesn't mean you couldn't in the past. Tiger and XP do have multi-threaded software. There are also tasks that cannot be parallelized.
Sadly with Grand Central I have a feeling that more software might eventually become too dependent on the OS. You can buy multi-threaded software for Windows today that will work fine on XP.
So, I ask myself. Would I rather have an iMac with a Core2Duo that runs Leopard really smoothly and quickly or have a Dell with a Core2Quad that runs Vista in a stuttery / also-ran fashion.
Another example of: 'Your hardware is only as good as your OS allows it to be.'
I'd sadly have to go with the Dell quad core given my experiences with Vista. OS X while enjoyable isn't cutting time in half with a quad core.