Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iW00t

macrumors 68040
Nov 7, 2006
3,286
0
Defenders of Apple Guild
I just can't believe that for nearly a thousand more dollars (between the high end 20" and high end 24" you get the same damn GPU!! I mean c'mon, isn't that what we're paying for?

So you know why Apple is so happy to sell you an all-in-one?

No other way can they sell you a crap 24" monitor for nearly $1000!
 

Scannall

macrumors member
May 31, 2007
57
0
It really depends.

Even on my 8600 Pro MacBook Pro (which is a faster card) Civ IV crawls. I would have done better research if I were you. And yes, for all intents and purposes, if your objective is in gaming you have just wasted $2800 on an upgradeable piece of ****. For that kind of money anyone would have gotten a Mac Pro. The X2600 is arguably just a X1600 that supports DX-10.

Have a nice weekend staring at yourself in the 24" mirror :)


Civ IV is a poor example. That has to be the worst port of a game ever done. It crawls on my 17 iMac. But runs just great when running under Bootcamp on the PC version.
 

mrgreen4242

macrumors 601
Feb 10, 2004
4,377
9
welcome to the wonderful world of the mac

waiting a year for an upgrade and finding it's slower than the machine it replaces , uglier and more expensive

if that's progress you can keep it

Well, it might be slower (though I'd be willing to bet it runs about even all around) but there's no benchmarks out yet so it's a bit early to get pessimistic about it.

I think it's MUCH better looking, and aesthetics are personal preference so can't really give you any points there.

It's definitely cheaper, though. Not sure where you get the idea that it is more expensive? The bottom end 20" is comparable to the old 20" in CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD, etc. and it's $200 less. The new 24" (low end) has a faster CPU and bigger HDD, while the GPU is lacking in comparison it's $200 less expensive as well. The top end is more expensive, but should be significantly faster, has 2x the HDD space, etc.
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,190
386
Indianapolis
I think it's MUCH better looking, and aesthetics are personal preference so can't really give you any points there.
Performance > Looks

You can always buy an iMac though. I don't see the aluminum or black to be any sort of radical design change at all. Apple has made their entire computer line rather lopsided instead of well rounded.
 

mrgreen4242

macrumors 601
Feb 10, 2004
4,377
9
Performance > Looks

You can always buy an iMac though. I don't see the aluminum or black to be any sort of radical design change at all. Apple has made their entire computer line rather lopsided instead of well rounded.

I agree - I'm more interested in performance than looks. However, looks have a veto power for me. As long as I don't dislike it, they're pretty unimportant. However, if I really hate the way something (especially a computer that I will staring at a lot) looks it can make the entire product a no-go.

I also agree that they've really come up with a product line that is out of wack. The mini to the iMac is a pretty small jump, and the iMac to the Mac Pro is a huge jump, both in terms of relative power and price.
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,190
386
Indianapolis
I agree - I'm more interested in performance than looks. However, looks have a veto power for me. As long as I don't dislike it, they're pretty unimportant. However, if I really hate the way something (especially a computer that I will staring at a lot) looks it can make the entire product a no-go.

I also agree that they've really come up with a product line that is out of wack. The mini to the iMac is a pretty small jump, and the iMac to the Mac Pro is a huge jump, both in terms of relative power and price.
The iMac is still effectively a LCD display. Since the iMac G5 it has simply looked like a LCD with a chin and it still does.

What's the veto power of looks then? :confused:
 

mrgreen4242

macrumors 601
Feb 10, 2004
4,377
9
The iMac is still effectively a LCD display. Since the iMac G5 it has simply looked like a LCD with a chin and it still does.

What's the veto power of looks then? :confused:

Personally, I did NOT like the G5 iMac. It looked great online and good even in the store, but once I put it on my desk I didn't like it. The chin was a big part of that. Although I couldn't place it, the screen having a bright white border was a bad thing for my eyes. I didn't care for the color (I love the white iPod, the laptops look good that way, but something about an alpine white desktop/monitor looks bad to me).

I had one for awhile (got rid of it for non-aesthetic reasons) and just didn't like looking at it. Not enough to make me not want the machine (for appearances reasons), but still enough to make me not get another.

I'm looking at the old and new iMacs side by side right now (photos anyways) and the improvement is big for me. The black border gives the illusion that the screen runs up the edge of the case (like a stand alone display does) which I really like. It shrinks the chin, which I really like. The new color is less ... intense, which works for me. All in all I like it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.