Stop bashing the new iMac

[jimsoff]

Ok, ok, I know it's not some amazingly super duper update, but it's something better. The prices are lower.

So, what's with all this hating on the glossy screen. Unless you're doing some serious graphics work, is it really going to matter?

The graphics card, why is everyone hating on that to?
I'm getting the 24 inch imac, let me tell you why this is now so bad as everyone is making it out to be.

I currently have a 1.25Ghz G4 emac, with 1 gig of ram, and 80 gig hard drive, and an ATI Radeon 9200 with 32 megabytes of dedicated DDR SDRAM, and a 17 inch crt screen.

Now compare that with the new 24 inch imac i'll be getting. Tell me that's not worth my money. The new imacs may not be a big step above the last ones, but they ARE better. They ARE big step above what I have now. And for someone like me, who needs a computer for going away to college, some casual video editing and photo editing, and gaming, it's just fine.

My perspective on the performance of this imac was based upon my current position, and keep in mind that is the target market for the imac. People who need an inexpensive but powerful new mac, but can't afford a power mac, and need more power than a mac mini.

So stop bashing it because it's not 10 times better than the last imac.

 

[JohnPeters]

So, what's with all this hating on the glossy screen. Unless you're doing some serious graphics work, is it really going to matter?

So stop bashing it because it's not 10 times better than the last imac.

Working 8-hours per day with my Macbook's glossy screen gave me sore eyes and headaches. The reflection makes it difficult for your eyes to focus particularly when reading text.

For some people it isn't a problem, it really depends on what you use the machine for AND in what environment.

I was going to buy a new 24" iMac ... but not with a screen that's like a mirror.

People are annoyed because they know it is NOT an issue that the factory couldnt start churning out BTO options with decent graphics cards, matte LCD ... more Apple marketing making the decision that most people don't know about these issues so why bother.

 

[Royale w/cheese]

Thing only problem I have with the new iMac is that AAPL stock is down 6.78% since it has been announced. Now the lowest stock in my portfolio, not my price, but value to cost basis. But I bought high two weeks ago. Maybe a new iPod will make it up.

But, there are always going to be bashers of any new product, especially with Apple. So what? But I do have to say, the market is not liking the New iMac. Even though I kind of do.

 

[iW00t]

Ok, ok, I know it's not some amazingly super duper update, but it's something better. The prices are lower.

So, what's with all this hating on the glossy screen. Unless you're doing some serious graphics work, is it really going to matter?

The graphics card, why is everyone hating on that to?
I'm getting the 24 inch imac, let me tell you why this is now so bad as everyone is making it out to be.

I currently have a 1.25Ghz G4 emac, with 1 gig of ram, and 80 gig hard drive, and an ATI Radeon 9200 with 32 megabytes of dedicated DDR SDRAM, and a 17 inch crt screen.

Now compare that with the new 24 inch imac i'll be getting. Tell me that's not worth my money. The new imacs may not be a big step above the last ones, but they ARE better. They ARE big step above what I have now. And for someone like me, who needs a computer for going away to college, some casual video editing and photo editing, and gaming, it's just fine.

My perspective on the performance of this imac was based upon my current position, and keep in mind that is the target market for the imac. People who need an inexpensive but powerful new mac, but can't afford a power mac, and need more power than a mac mini.

So stop bashing it because it's not 10 times better than the last imac.

Your argument:

1. I am currently using a 386 PC
2. This dude I just meant on eBay is gonna cut me a good deal!
3. He is selling me a Pentium 4 computer for $10,000!
4. Look at my current computer... a 386
5. It is such a good deal!

That sums up your argument.

The specs of your current old junker does not even matter one iota to the argument, why bring it up?

 

[jimsoff]

My apartment were I'll be moving into won't have any cealing lights that will cause glare, and I tend to use my computer with the lights off anyway.

I think I will be very happy with this imac. It's a big step up from the one I have now, and I think the glossy screen give the graphics a sharper look. I know of the issues of having it being reflective, but I doubt it would be put into production if it caused that much of a problem.

I'm just kind of surprised at all the haters of this new imac, especially on a forum based entirely around apple. But I guess a company's biggest fans are also their biggest critics.

 

[mchank]

I think people were expecting a more substantial upgrade after such a long wait of nearly a year, something akin to the upgrade between the Macbook Pro to the SR Macbook Pro. Specs wise they're not much of an upgrade with the biggest change being cosmetic. Nearly a year without updates and this is all there is?

 

[jimsoff]

I agree, the current upgrade after a year isn't much. But my point was, for someone with an older computer, it's still better than the last previous imacs.

Faster processors, better graphics card, capable of having more ram, and most substantially, the prices have gone down.

 

[masse]

I think its a fine upgrade....but if I was in the market for an imac I'd be a little disappointed. Especially because it looks ugly..

 

[iW00t]

I agree, the current upgrade after a year isn't much. But my point was, for someone with an older computer, it's still better than the last previous imacs.

Faster processors, better graphics card, capable of having more ram, and most substantially, the prices have gone down.

Nope, for the iMacs with a X2400 they have received a worse graphics card this revision...

 

[slughead]

So, what's with all this hating on the glossy screen. Unless you're doing some serious graphics work, is it really going to matter?

Glossy screens are cheaper to manufacture than matte.

It could very well be that glossy is more popular. They should have the option like they do on the macbooks though.

Whatever, I'll never buy an iMac. Video cards are no fun at all. The way I see it, you pay 2 grand for a computer, it should have better than a $50 video card.

Personal preference, obviously. Totally subjective... but I'm right

 

[benzslrpee]

design will be accepted sooner or later.

those that are complaining about how they must have their matte screen for the professional photo/video project...why the hell are you guys using an iMac for that then? i mean, if you're to the point where a minor calibration flaw will ruin your life or cost you a hundred thousand dollar contract i seriously doubt you'd be working with an iMac. in fact, i'd hope you'd be working with better equipment than a quasi desktop with laptop innards. most graphics professionals i've seen use Mac Pros/G5 for their work, not an iMac with laptop hardware stuck inside. yes, i'm fully aware that you can do photo/video manipulation on an iMac cause i borrow my friends machine from time to time cause i like the bigger screen compared to my MBP. however, most probably just like to think that they are to this level of exactness. if the matte screen bugs you that much then go buy a second LCD monitor that is matte and run that.

and for the dude that is glued to his monitor for 8 hours a day without break and rest...get help. i work from 830 to 1800 six days a week and i have yet had a day were i just couldn't tear my eyes away from the screen. you shoot the breeze with your co-workers, lunch break, bathroom break, refill your water or coffee etc etc etc. pretty much, if you're going blind cause you can't figure out when to take a simple 10 minute break to give your eyes a rest then either matte or glossy won't help you. biologically speaking looking at anything for long periods of time produces strain on your eye...unless it's Jessica Alba.

like i said before, i do sympathize with the video card crowd cause i just don't get why Apple always drops the ball when it comes to gpu's. makes me wonder where they got the reputation for being the "best" at digital media editing...

 

[c.joe.go]

Thing only problem I have with the new iMac is that AAPL stock is down 6.78% since it has been announced. Now the lowest stock in my portfolio, not my price, but value to cost basis. But I bought high two weeks ago. Maybe a new iPod will make it up.

But, there are always going to be bashers of any new product, especially with Apple. So what? But I do have to say, the market is not liking the New iMac. Even though I kind of do.

i am sorry, but just had to post in response to this. you bought apple stock two weeks ago!!!!!?????!!!!! stock tips 101: buy (low) sell (high). simply hilarious. good work. where were you two years ago when it was at $35~? they were still making good products then and were in the heart of their retail boom.

for what it is worth. i love my new iMac. perfect update in my eyes. i loved how simple the white iMacs were and i prefer the glossy screen even though i do a lot of photoshop work. the aluminum takes the system up a few notches, the processor was what i expected, the graphics card is still very apple iMac (could care less), and the new keyboard is very comfortable and quiet.

i agree with the op. people beg for an update, expect a mini mac pro, and when apple delivers a great update people come on here and complain.

if you want to game, do not buy a mac; if you want an update, be reasonable with your expectations (touch screens are for portables); if you do not see the value in buying an iMac, do not jump online and complain to the world about how horribly disappointed you are in the current offerings of the iMac line (it makes you look jealous/cheap/rash/ignorant/unaware to list a few).

 

[Sdashiki]

design will be accepted sooner or later.

those that are complaining about how they must have their matte screen for the professional photo/video project...why the hell are you guys using an iMac for that then?

Sure, everyone who owns a video camera, or a digital SLR must be rich. No matter what, we must be able to afford and actually use all the power available from a Mac Pro.

i mean, if you're to the point where a minor calibration flaw will ruin your life or cost you a hundred thousand dollar contract i seriously doubt you'd be working with an iMac. in fact, i'd hope you'd be working with better equipment than a quasi desktop with laptop innards. most graphics professionals i've seen use Mac Pros/G5 for their work, not an iMac with laptop hardware stuck inside.

Yes, all those lucrative 6 figure contracts are always pouring in, especially when we are using iMacs to do our projects. Calibration typically takes place on a studio monitor, not the actual computer screen.

yes, i'm fully aware that you can do photo/video manipulation on an iMac cause i borrow my friends machine from time to time cause i like the bigger screen compared to my MBP. however, most probably just like to think that they are to this level of exactness. if the matte screen bugs you that much then go buy a second LCD monitor that is matte and run that.

Why spend our millions on a second screen when one is enough?

and for the dude that is glued to his monitor for 8 hours a day without break and rest...get help. i work from 830 to 1800 six days a week and i have yet had a day were i just couldn't tear my eyes away from the screen. you shoot the breeze with your co-workers, lunch break, bathroom break, refill your water or coffee etc etc etc. pretty much, if you're going blind cause you can't figure out when to take a simple 10 minute break to give your eyes a rest then either matte or glossy won't help you. biologically speaking looking at anything for long periods of time produces strain on your eye...unless it's Jessica Alba.

I've seen better passive-aggressiveness from a 6yr old. How can you claim someone is in need of a break, and then go on to say sarcastically how they get "breaks, coffee..." unlike you're hard-working self? Jessica Alba hasn't been worthy of such praise since "Idle Hands".

like i said before, i do sympathize with the video card crowd cause i just don't get why Apple always drops the ball when it comes to gpu's. makes me wonder where they got the reputation for being the "best" at digital media editing...

ouch.

 

[cmvsm]

People keep saying, "If you want to game, don't buy an Imac". What a bunch of crap. My 'old' 24" Imac with the 7600GT does VERY well with just about any game thrown at it. Was it the equivalent of some of the video cards of the Mac Pro's? No, of course not, but it certainly held its own. Now, with the new iMac revision, we're supposed to go back to having a sub $100 card GPU that has mediocre performance at best with no BTO options? I think not.

Rob at Barefeats stated that the new 2600 Pro is 21% slower than my 7600GT when playing Prey at full resolution. That's ridiculous for a new card and a $2200 machine.

 

[iliketomac]

Where is the love? C'mon Steve... Hmmm, dropping the iMac's 24" price down to $1799 but sacrificing the graphics card and not including the choice between matte vs. glossy? All I can say is Steve, you’re definitely thinking “different” now, so get back on the path and show us the love… at least offer “choices” in the BTO option. I'm keeping my 20" iMac (prev gen), I still love it.

 

[slughead]

Rob at Barefeats stated that the new 2600 Pro is 21% slower than my 7600GT when playing Prey at full resolution. That's ridiculous for a new card and a $2200 machine.

Oh wow you're right. Apple DOWNGRADED the video card in this imac!

OLD IMAC: 7600 GT
NEW IMAC: 2600 PRO (or 2400 XT)

 

[iStrat]

Isn't Prey one of the most advanced 3D games available (as in graphics intensive)? Yes, the 2600 PRO is a downgrade in terms of gaming performance from the 7600 GT, but it's not that big of a downgrade. It's less than a 6 fps difference. I'm happy that the new iMac is at least able to play these new 3D games at their highest settings. 25 FPS is definitely usable.

 

[Grenadier]

Isn't Prey one of the most advanced 3D games available (as in graphics intensive)? Yes, the 2600 PRO is a downgrade in terms of gaming performance from the 7600 GT, but it's not that big of a downgrade. It's less than a 6 fps difference. I'm happy that the new iMac is at least able to play these new 3D games at their highest settings. 25 FPS is definitely usable.

Thats the problem though - we want a upgrade !
Im not even satisfied with it almost breaking even - the 7600GT is a bit 'old boy', and its had its day - a card which struggles to keep up with that is insulting.

Besides - Prey came out a year ago. Games such as Rainbow 6 Vegas, and Company of Heroes require even more power.

Anyhow, I think you will have a hard time running any new game on the iMac at 1680x1050 at high settings at any more than 25fps. I would say 15, and we are more on target. Dont forget the 24" iMac has a 1920x1200 resolution - perhaps a 5fps slideshow if you are lucky on that.

 

[cmvsm]

I'd be 'happy' with the 2600XT. At least it is some kind of upgrade, and you get the HD to boot with the glossy screen. Hopefully there isn't a heat issue and it will be available as a BTO option very soon.

 

[The General]

Isn't Prey one of the most advanced 3D games available (as in graphics intensive)?

No, lol. It uses the Doom 3 engine from 2004.

Prey is hardly graphic intensive.

 

[I'mAMac]

I'd be 'happy' with the 2600XT. At least it is some kind of upgrade, and you get the HD to boot with the glossy screen. Hopefully there isn't a heat issue and it will be available as a BTO option very soon.

Same here XT would suit me fine. At least it looks like theyre trying.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Oh wow you're right. Apple DOWNGRADED the video card in this imac!

OLD IMAC: 7600 GT
NEW IMAC: 2600 PRO (or 2400 XT)

Wow you right they did downgrade. How do these new cards stack up against the x1600? Better? about the same?

 

[iliketomac]

Wow you right they did downgrade. How do these new cards stack up against the x1600? Better? about the same?

From what Apple genius bar techies told me, the X1600 are about on par with the current 2400XT and just a tad lower in performance than the 2600Pro. Looking at that bar graph, Apple should have bumped the vcards to the higher and better configured NVDIA's... dang!

 

[jimsoff]

I'm thinking that apple down graded the graphics card to get that lower price point, because that will help them sell more imacs. (the lower price, not the graphics card)

I for one, could not afford 200 dollars more. This was my only option, I don't have any more time to wait, and quite frankly, I think I made a good choice.

For me, it's a bigger screen, faster processor, much better graphics card, and a bigger hard drive, then what I have now, and that's all I need.

 

[Eidorian]

I'm thinking that apple down graded the graphics card to get that lower price point, because that will help them sell more imacs. (the lower price, not the graphics card)

I for one, could not afford 200 dollars more. This was my only option, I don't have any more time to wait, and quite frankly, I think I made a good choice.

For me, it's a bigger screen, faster processor, much better graphics card, and a bigger hard drive, then what I have now, and that's all I need.

$20 more for the HD2600XT or the 8600GT.