[Macworld]

Post your comments for 21.5- and 27-inch iMacs (Mid 2010) here

[davebarnes]

@Roman,

Why only 4 mice?

What would be needed to cause you to rate them at 5 mice?

I ask, because, for me, 5 mice.

[SprayPass]

The 3.6GHz (not a misprint, right?) Core i5 processor with hyper-threading and turbo boost is just dual core not quad core, I guess. Still it sounds very fast: I'd like to see it compared to the 2.8GHz Core i5 and even the 2.93GHz Core i7. It might be a very good value. What does it clock up to when using Turbo Boost?

[pcharles]

Why does the review not include the quad core i7?

[Jon Seff]

pcharles, on 04 August 2010 - 02:37 PM, said:

Why does the review not include the quad core i7?

From the story: "For $200, the top-of-the-line iMac can be upgraded to a quad-core 2.93GHz Core i7 processor, which supports Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost. Macworld has yet to see the new Core i7-equipped iMac, but we are working on getting one and testing it to see how much of a performance boost it provides. If it’s anything like the boost provided in the previous Core i7 iMac, the extra $200 will be well worth it."

Also, we don't rate BTO options.

[bigrob66]

maydupp, on 04 August 2010 - 12:33 PM, said:

davebarnes, on 04 August 2010 - 12:12 PM, said:

@Roman,

Why only 4 mice?

What would be needed to cause you to rate them at 5 mice?

I ask, because, for me, 5 mice.

It does seem like MacWorld has a 4 mice policy on Apple products. iPhones get 4 mice vs Android EVO 4G gets 4.5? If so, then how many of you at Macworld use android phones?

Actually, they rated the i5 27inch iMac 4.5 mice late last year. Ditto for the base Mac mini. They also specify the cons at the beginning of the review.

I bought the 12" PowerBook G4 back in 2005 because they gave it 4.5 stars and the newest 15" Macbook Pro this April for the same reason.

So no, they do not have a 4 mice-only policy on Apple products. My impression is that they are merely calling it as they see it.

[bigrob66]

Oops, that was the late 2009 Mac mini server that got 4.5 mice, my mistake!

[pcharles]

Jon Seff, on 04 August 2010 - 02:46 PM, said:

pcharles, on 04 August 2010 - 02:37 PM, said:

Why does the review not include the quad core i7?

From the story: "For $200, the top-of-the-line iMac can be upgraded to a quad-core 2.93GHz Core i7 processor, which supports Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost. Macworld has yet to see the new Core i7-equipped iMac, but we are working on getting one and testing it to see how much of a performance boost it provides. If it’s anything like the boost provided in the previous Core i7 iMac, the extra $200 will be well worth it."

Also, we don't rate BTO options.

Sounds good. I've been trying to figure out whether getting the i7 would be worth it for the kinds of things I do (internet, office (mainly ppt and word), some imovie/FC Express, some iPhoto/aperture, Handbrake, iTunes, scanning, Parallels). I have been trying to guestimate from the specs but it seems like a lot has changed from 2009 to 2010.

Why does the i5 quad not have hyperthreading when the i5 duo does have it?

On the parallels score, is that in seconds?

Thanks,

Paul

This post has been edited by pcharles: 04 August 2010 - 03:46 PM

[bigrob66]

SprayPass, on 04 August 2010 - 12:42 PM, said:

The 3.6GHz (not a misprint, right?) Core i5 processor with hyper-threading and turbo boost is just dual core not quad core, I guess. Still it sounds very fast: I'd like to see it compared to the 2.8GHz Core i5 and even the 2.93GHz Core i7. It might be a very good value. What does it clock up to when using Turbo Boost?

Assuming they use the CPU in this link, the answer is 3.86 GHz. Not dramatic, but still impressive :-)

http://ark.intel.com...t.aspx?id=48504

[lajava]

Has anyone done a comparison between the previous generation 2.8 i7 vs the new 2.8 i5?

[rloyola]

SprayPass, on 04 August 2010 - 12:42 PM, said:

The 3.6GHz (not a misprint, right?) Core i5 processor with hyper-threading and turbo boost is just dual core not quad core, I guess. Still it sounds very fast: I'd like to see it compared to the 2.8GHz Core i5 and even the 2.93GHz Core i7. It might be a very good value. What does it clock up to when using Turbo Boost?

It is a dual-core 3.6GHz Core i5 with Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost, as per Apple's iMac tech specs page and confirmed with an Apple rep. And bigrob66 is correct, it ramps up to 3.86GHz.

[brilor]

davebarnes, on 04 August 2010 - 12:12 PM, said:

@Roman,

Why only 4 mice?

What would be needed to cause you to rate them at 5 mice?

I ask, because, for me, 5 mice.

This is just a CPU swap. IMO the machine is not significantly different from the previous generation, plus Apple continues to drag their feet on obvious upgrades that are easy to find on Sony/Dell Windows 7 machines such as:

(1) eSata support - Firewire 800 is slow by comparison. If you have GBs to back up/process, an eSata port would be wonderful

(2) USB 3.0

(3) Blu-Ray

(4) HDMI

Plus they can be had for much less $$ than Macs. Apple is no longer the computer technology leader.

[awadsworth]

brilor, on 04 August 2010 - 11:04 PM, said:

davebarnes, on 04 August 2010 - 12:12 PM, said:

@Roman,

Why only 4 mice?

What would be needed to cause you to rate them at 5 mice?

I ask, because, for me, 5 mice.

This is just a CPU swap. IMO the machine is not significantly different from the previous generation, plus Apple continues to drag their feet on obvious upgrades that are easy to find on Sony/Dell Windows 7 machines such as:

(1) eSata support - Firewire 800 is slow by comparison. If you have GBs to back up/process, an eSata port would be wonderful

(2) USB 3.0

(3) Blu-Ray

(4) HDMI

Plus they can be had for much less $$ than Macs. Apple is no longer the computer technology leader.

I'm not sure Apple has ever been a technology leader in the sense of putting all the latest hardware into their systems. Their lead comes from the whole package of OS, hardware and design, especially the OS. I use Windows because I have to and OS X because I want to.

[pcharles]

With the exception of eSATA and USB3, I am not concerned about any of the others.

For HDMI, you just get a displayport to HDMI connector if you want HDMI, but I do not understand why you would want HDMI out from a desktop that has a 27 inch screen. Displayport is actually more advanced and flexible than HDMI. HDMI is standard on the MacMini, which is the kind of computer you would use in a home theatre.

I am definitely frustrated by the lack of eSATA, but right now I am using a PowerMac G5 Tower, so the upgrade will be reasonable. If I was desperate for eSATA, I could spend an extra $1000 on the MacPro, plus extra on the eSATA cards. Guess, I will have to live with slower backup!

USB 3.0 is would be nice, but is that even an official standard yet?

Blu-Ray is not a technology issue, it is a philosophy issue, and one that I am 100% behind. Personally, I see no good reason to have BlueRay on a desktop computer. The capacity is too small for backup (I have a number of 1TB drives filled with audio, photo, and video, and my Time Machine is a 2TB drive), and too slow, when compared to the rapid growth of flash and the low cost of hard drives ($100 for a 2TB Fantom USB/eSATA). The other problem with storing all your APV data on BluRay, is that your other machines need to have BluRay to read them, which most don't. They do, however, have USB and Firewire, and eSATA if you have a tower.