What are your thoughts on the new iMacs, Mac Pros and Mac Mini.

[MatLane]

I think its not a bad bump

In the UK the prices are looking a little aggressive but still good.


Not sure if i like the graphic cards in the new iMacs.

I would say the mac mini is now the best and most affordable desktop mac for everyone... if you have a screen that is.

 

[PurpleCliff]

Well I believe I will soon have an opinion - as I am going to be getting the new 20-inch iMac. I hope I can play same games on this Nvidia 9400m!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hellhammer]

I'll post my positive and negative thoughts:

iMac:

-Prices went up
-No CPU speed bumb (no quad-core)
-Bad GPUs (9400M )
-No LED displays
-No new Mighty Mouse (that thing really sucks)
-Remote is now an option, not a standard

+DDR3 RAM memory
+4GB as a standard (excluding the 20" model)
+Better GPUs in high-end (ATI 4850)
+Bigger HDs as a standard (640GB)
+24" for less (1399€)
+6 USBs and FW800

Mac Mini:

-Processors (no 2.4GHz)
-9400M (I know that it's Mini)
-No re-design
-Price

+It got updated but with outdated HW
+DDR3
+5 USBs and FW800

Mac Pro:

-No 3.2GHz "extreme Mac Pro"
-GPUs
-Only 8GB RAM in quad-core
-No 30" LED display

+Nehalems
+DDR3

Just my opinions

 

[clyde2801]

I'm glad the mini finally got the nvidia chip, but $600 for a low end core 2 duo desktop with only 1 gig of ram, a 120 gig hard drive, no hdmi out, and not even a frakkin apple remote for cryin' out loud? In 2009? For a machine they haven't touched in two years? That's greed, stupidity and arrogance.

 

[Amethyst]

Mac mini 9/10
Really good dump, GeForce Grade GPU -1 from gap between revision

iMac 7/10
Price drop on 24" , 4850 as high-end , -1 from step down GPU (From HD2600Pro) , -1 on no quad core option , -1 form no LED 24" version

Mac Pro 3/10
Nehalem processor , New Internal Design , Sign of xMac in future (Desktop-class chip on Low-end) , -5 from price , -2 on 8GB ram support on Quad-Core version , -1 on GT 120 with pro machine

 

[Mike in Kansas]

iMac 7/10
Price drop on 24" , 4850 as high-end , -1 from step down GPU (From HD2600Pro) , -1 on no quad core option , -1 form no LED 24" version

What is the "step down GPU"? The ongoing buzz on here is that the 9400M will be better than the 2400XT, that the GT120 will be roughly equal to the 2600PXT, that the GT130 will be better than the 2600XT, and that the 4850 will be better than the 8800GS. What Apple changed is what you get at an entry level 24", but they also lowered the price by $300. They have done what they always do; the new ones slot in-between two older ones, and the whole range moves up slightly.

Not being adversarial, just trying to make a point. Regarding the quad and LED, I think it was wishful thinking that Apple would have put those into their mid-level platform, especially given the limitations of laptop components. We'll see quad in due time, but do you even need it?

 

[mcavjame]

I was waiting for the Mac Pro updates to make a purchasing decision. I started pursuing an 8 core 2.8 after I saw the specs and price on the entry level 4 core unit.

I was able to pick up an 8 core 3.0 Mac Pro for $2700 CAD ($2100 USD). The 8 core 2.26 would have cost close to $4000 with taxes. It was purely a cost decision and I am banking that the Nahelem premium won't provide a $1300 performance benefit. I hope I made the right decision.

 

[Hellhammer]

What is the "step down GPU"? The ongoing buzz on here is that the 9400M will be better than the 2400XT, that the GT120 will be roughly equal to the 2600PXT, that the GT130 will be better than the 2600XT, and that the 4850 will be better than the 8800GS. What Apple changed is what you get at an entry level 24", but they also lowered the price by $300. They have done what they always do; the new ones slot in-between two older ones, and the whole range moves up slightly.

Not being adversarial, just trying to make a point. Regarding the quad and LED, I think it was wishful thinking that Apple would have put those into their mid-level platform, especially given the limitations of laptop components. We'll see quad in due time, but do you even need it?

Intergrated GPU in 1499$ computer? That must be a joke. iMacs are powerful from everywhere else so why their GPUs always sucks. Okay, GT130 is equivalent for 8800 in last gen and 4850 is way better. 9400M would be okay in 999$ entry-level iMac but in mid-level, it's ridiculous.

 

[Mike in Kansas]

9400M would be okay in 999$ entry-level iMac but in mid-level, it's ridiculous.

I look at it as the entry level 24". There are still 2 levels above it. It gives someone a way to get into a 24" iMac for $1500, unlike before where you had to pay $1800. Granted, your CPU speed goes down a tad and GPU may not be as good, but you get a 24" screen, bigger hard drive, and more memory than before. I think that's what Apple is expecting the casual shopper to see. Kinda like the casual camera shopper - all they look at are mega pixels and zoom range; they know nothing about sensor noise, ISO, shutter lag, etc. The casual computer shopper looks at RAM, hard drive size and processor (the iMac has the disadvantage on that one however).

Would you be surprised if the 20" went away next update? Or do you think that they must carry two screen sizes? I stopped following the iMac after the G3 up until the first aluminum one (2007?). But in looking back, since the G4 they have always had 2, sometimes 3, screen sizes available at all times - 15/17/20, 17/20, 20/24.

 

[Hellhammer]

I look at it as the entry level 24". There are still 2 levels above it. It gives someone a way to get into a 24" iMac for $1500, unlike before where you had to pay $1800. Granted, your CPU speed goes down a tad and GPU may not be as good, but you get a 24" screen, bigger hard drive, and more memory than before. I think that's what Apple is expecting the casual shopper to see. Kinda like the casual camera shopper - all they look at are mega pixels and zoom range; they know nothing about sensor noise, ISO, shutter lag, etc. The casual computer shopper looks at RAM, hard drive size and processor (the iMac has the disadvantage on that one however).

Would you be surprised if the 20" went away next update? Or do you think that they must carry two screen sizes? I stopped following the iMac after the G3 up until the first aluminum one (2007?). But in looking back, since the G4 they have always had 2, sometimes 3, screen sizes available at all times - 15/17/20, 17/20, 20/24.

I'd still like to see even as a BTO a better GPU in 2.66GHz models.

I can't see 20" going away, everyone don't have space for 24".

 

[Mike in Kansas]

I'd still like to see even as a BTO a better GPU in 2.66GHz models.

I can't see 20" going away, everyone don't have space for 24".

Agree on both points. I just got a 20" for that very reason; we had space for 1 24", but not 2, so the kids got a 20".

Regarding the CTO, it would be nice to be able to get at least the GT120, or even the GT130 as a CTO on the 2.66. Of course, going up to the GT120 Apple would probably charge $150, so may as well go up another $150 and get the 2.93!