[Biallystock]

hcge said:

Possible 1st time mac buyer here. I am trying to get a feel for the pros and cons of the different systems. I plan on doing mostly hobby video editing with the machine. I figure ILife09 will probably be adequate for my beginner efforts. Now, which machine will do the job? I looked at the 20" IMac, but was worried about the screen quality concerns. The 24" screen is really going to be larger than I have room for on my desk and the extra $300 could kill my budget. It was recommended to get the Mac Mini at $599, upgrade the RAM to 2G, find a good monitor for about $200, and use the extra keyboard and mouse I have. This will place me well under my budget. Any thoughts on whether the mini will hold up to the job?

The 24" iMac size is not an issue. Both my sons have those cramped computer desks and the 24" fits them comfortably. It is big but big in a good way, not TOO big. For video editing a good screen and lots of screen real estate is essential, the 24" has that. Yoiu can get a refurbished model from the AppleStore online with full warranty in perfect condition but with $100s off. If you can get one of the previous white models with the matte screens, even better.

I doubt that you will be able to buy a $200 monitor to match the quality of the inbuilt iMac monitors so that is not true substitution.

Whilst PC mice are perfectly fine, in fact usually better than Apple's, PC keyboards will be a compromise. The Mac will autodetect the keyboard and it will function but will have some keys that don't work at all and some that are switched such as the Windows key and the Alt key will be in the reverse position of the Mac cmd and Option keys. Plus I have never met a PC keyboard that I ever liked. The best keyboard I have ever, ever owned is the Mac flat aluminum keyboard which is absolutely brilliant. I bought one for every Mac in the house, all 7 of them.

The Mac Mini is no match for the iMacs in performance, speed or size of hard drives nor number of ports. For video work you may quickly decide you shaved the hardware to the bone, but gave up a lot more than you saved.

[whitedog]

{quote}The use of a matte LCD or anti-glare coatings/etchings (which only Apple can do), is the only real solution.... {quote}

I agree the best solution would be for Apple to provide a non-glare iMac option. But we've been begging for almost two years for them to do so and they've remained deaf to our entireties. So what to do in the meantime? First, assume Apple will never offer a non-glare iMac and make your buying decisions accordingly. If they ever do go non-glare, then we can be pleasantly surprised. Experience shows, however, that Apple can be very stubborn about such things. They're not known for responding to customer needs, Steve's Jobs' habitual happy talk to the contrary notwithstanding (another case in point being the absence of FireWire on the unibody MacBook).

For a high traffic area like the kitchen I would suggest one of the new Mac minis with an inexpensive non-glare monitor of your choice - assuming you don't really do serious work on a computer in the kitchen (by the way, the new mini has more ports than an iMac - including 5 USB ports). Putting an expensive computer (like a 24" iMac) in such an exposed location (including exposure to bright light sources) makes little sense to me.

If non-glare film is unsatisfactory, you should put the iMac in a room where you have control over the lighting conditions. Because Apple doesn't provide many options, you have to adjust your work environment to cope with the limited options they do provide. That's one of the trade-offs you make when using a Mac.

[Mapple]

I Just notice that the graphic cards (Nvidia GeForce GT 130 and Nvidia GeForce GT 120) used on the new iMacs are engineered for notebooks not desktops (http://www.nvidia.com/object/productgeforcegt130mus.html), which makes me think, how long has Apple been doing this?
For those that think that ATI Radeon HD 4850 would work better with Leopard - and I agree - I heard somewhere that Nvidia graphics would work better than ATI with Snow Leopard. This is another reason why Macworld should test and iMac with ATI Radeon HD 4850.

[Mister_T]

Wake up and smell the odor of Apple's marketing friend. That 'cutting edge' imac is full of mobile processors and components, and therefore will always pail in comparison of raw power to available PC desktops. Stability, functionality, and minimal virus
vulnerability a resounding yes, but don't ever expect an imac to be a powerhouse for processors or graphics. Which is why I wish Apple had an entry level MacPro.

[trip1ex]

Mobile parts mean less heat and noise. And can be fit into a smaller form factor. Hence their use in iMacs and Mac Minis. Seeing as how they are more expensive I don't think their inclusion is a marketing snowjob on Apple's part.

[whitedog]

Mapple said:

I Just notice that the graphic cards (Nvidia GeForce GT 130 and Nvidia GeForce GT 120) used on the new iMacs are engineered for notebooks not desktops (http://www.nvidia.com/object/productgeforcegt130mus.html), which makes me think, how long has Apple been doing this?

Apple has been doing this for some time. The iMac has always been something of a bridge between laptop and "workstation" desktop computers. But the iMac has differed specifications from laptop computers in a number of respects. No Mac laptop ever ran on a G5 CPU; starting in August 2004 the white all-in-one iMacs used a G5 CPU, which put them well ahead of the G4 PowerBooks of the time. It wasn't until the Intel Core Duo iMacs came out in January 2006 that they began to parallel the the MacBook Pro in some ways. They had the same CPU, but the graphics cards were slightly different (ATI Radion X1600 in the iMac; ATI Mobility Radion X1600 in the MBP). They used the same RAM (and had the same RAM capacity, 2 GB), but the iMacs had larger and faster hard drives.

Today the 17" MacBook Pro and the 24" iMac still parallel one another in RAM - each can support up to 8 GB. Generally, the iMac has a larger and faster hard drive (there is a 320 MB 7200 RPM drive option for the MBP, but this hardly compares with the 1TB 7200 RPM drive in the iMac). Graphics card specs are different, though somewhat similar in performance; here, again, the iMac has a higher optional sealing. And the top iMac has a slightly faster CPU.

Rather than duplicate laptop hardware in the iMac, it would be more accurate to say there is significant overlap in specifications. Generally speaking, though, the high-end iMac will always surpass the high-end MBP in capacity and power.
And, of course, there is the difference between a 17" and a 24" screen.

This is why I suggest that the iMac is a bridge between laptop and desktop Macs. The simple fact is that computer technology is always moving forward. More and more, today's laptops are supplanting the traditional big gray box desktop computer. At the high end they can handle almost anything that can be done on a desktop computer. The same is true of the high-end iMac, particularly now that the RAM capacity has reached 8 GB.

Intel has some low power quad core processors entering production right now that will no doubt make their way into the next generation MacBook Pro and iMac models. With this they will close the gap somewhat between themselves and the low end, quad core Mac Pro. In the meantime, though, there is still a significant gap between the best iMac and even the least expensive Mac Pro. The quad core Mac Pro is presumably Apple's nod to those who don't want the full power of the big dog, eight core Mac Pro workstation. But it doesn't meet the price point people looking for a Mac mini tower seem to need. Depending on options and your choice of monitor, the quad core Mac Pro can come in more than $1,000 above the best iMac. And yet it uses the same NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 graphics card found in the low-end 24" iMac.

Even when the iMac moves to a quad core CPU it will still probably fail to meet some of the needs of those wishing for a Mac mini tower. Whatever the basic specs, it will not provide the expandability a mini tower could offer - things like additional PCI slots and extra internal hard drive bays. But with the iMac now supporting 8 GB of RAM, the need for additional RAM slots seems to have diminished - though more slots would mean less expensive incremental RAM upgrades. External hard drives can provide extra storage to any computer, but they are more expensive than naked drives for internal installation - and take up more space on the desktop.

Nevertheless, I think a quad core iMac will make it even less likely that Apple will ever develop a mini tower. It's more probable Apple's creative energies are focused on some sort of super iPhone that will provide a computer in your pocket. Now there's a market niche demanding to be filled. ;-)

[Mapple]

I am not trying to be ignorant here, but from what I understand mobile parts means -relatively- same performance, a quieter machine, BUT more expensive. Right?

[Mister_T]

White Dog has done an excellent job of summing up the state of mac hardware, and the likely future. iMacs use mobile components because of the all in one form factor. Do you like the all in one design? Great, they are nice machines, but if you want power you pay for it, whether buying a macbook pro or a higher end imac. If you need power, the individual buyer is often ok buying a high end imac. I recommend buying refurbished and selling off your machine as the next generation is released.

If you are an institutional customer ie a school, most IT departments refresh every 4-5 years at best, so you are stuck with that room full of imacs, good luck ever getting a Mac Pro. I would like affordable machines that are upgradeable.

It is marketing...

"With advanced graphics performance, you have all the speed and power you need for the latest 3D games and graphics-intensive applications." - straight from Apples imac page

Unless compared to what's available on other platforms. iMacs are mostly very nice machines, but not powerhouses.

I remain disappointed with latest imacs, would like a cheaper Mac Pro but will still end up ordering 25 imacs, because I have run a lab independently, virus ( and anti virus software) free and virtually tech support free for 4 years. I'm just praying for the better graphics cards.

[trip1ex]

Mister_T said:

Quote

It is marketing...

"With advanced graphics performance, you have all the speed and power you need for the latest 3D games and graphics-intensive applications." - straight from Apples imac page

Unless compared to what's available on other platforms. iMacs are mostly very nice machines, but not powerhouses.

I remain disappointed with latest imacs, would like a cheaper Mac Pro but will still end up ordering 25 imacs, because I have run a lab independently, virus ( and anti virus software) free and virtually tech support free for 4 years. I'm just praying for the better graphics cards.

YOu can get a 3.06 ghz cpu and an ATI 4850 in the Imac. That seems pretty close to their marketing line. (I mean since when is any marketing conservative?)

Matter of fact the gpu options in the iMac are the best yet.

I think what you're really complaining about is price. I agree with you on that.

Of course if Apple changed overnight and put out cheap mini-towers at the same prices as pc towers then you wouldn't be running a virus (and anti-virus software) free lab with no tech support for 4 years.

[benroethig]

[quote name='trip1ex']
>

Mister_T said:

> It is marketing...
>
> "With advanced graphics performance, you have all the speed and power you need for the latest 3D games and graphics-intensive applications." - straight from Apples imac page
>
> Unless compared to what's available on other platforms. iMacs are mostly very nice machines, but not powerhouses.
>
> I remain disappointed with latest imacs, would like a cheaper Mac Pro but will still end up ordering 25 imacs, because I have run a lab independently, virus ( and anti virus software) free and virtually tech support free for 4 years. I'm just praying for the better graphics cards.


YOu can get a 3.06 ghz cpu and an ATI 4850 in the Imac. That seems pretty close to their marketing line. (I mean since when is any marketing conservative?)

Matter of fact the gpu options in the iMac are the best yet.

I think what you're really complaining about is price. I agree with you on that.

Of course if Apple changed overnight and put out cheap mini-towers at the same prices as pc towers then you wouldn't be running a virus (and anti-virus software) free lab with no tech support for 4 years.

A 3ghz C2D on the desktop side is a close to $700 cheaper, so if anyone else was still using core 2s beyond all in ones and bargain basement you'd be able to have a similar machine for less than $1000 with a IPS display. All in ones should be moving to 65w quad core. The ironic part here is Apple is actually relying on the "megahertz myth" to try to sell computers and hoping the buyer will be either stuck or ill-informed enough to think that getting a 3ghz dual core is a better deal than a 2.8ghz quad core. Once Snow Leopard hits, there will be a big difference between the two. The 20" and 24" machines are very good deals if you accept them for what they are, a lower middle end machine designed for compactness for less demanding consumers and businesses/ institutions. The upper two rungs of the iMac line are great additions for a small nice of users, but Apple is trying to fit square users into its round holes with the (dual-core) All in ones for everyone doctrine.

You seem to have bought into Apple's absolutism that there no alternatives but doing what they're doing right now or becoming eMachines. They could have produced a slightly thicker 24" iMac with (less expensive) 9000S series 65w cores that would have set the line up better for Snow Leopard and put it in a better position against upcoming competition. They could have done a "big brother" to the mini Based on small form factor desktop parts, a modern day cube if you will. What they chose to do was follow design philosophy and put the desires of the designers ahead of the users put folks who aren't quite into minimalism into very bad positions..

[trip1ex]

I can see how it is frustrating if Apple doesn't make your dream machine. I wish they'd have a few more options myself. I wish they had lower prices. I wish they'd start a 2nd brand that caters more to the lower end consumer who doesn't care about having the "Lexus" of computers. They'd settle for having the "Toyota" of computers.

I don't believe Quad-core does anything for most consumers 'cept when you're talking video encoding. Even then the difference isn't going to be great enough to matter to the average consumer. It's still not going to be a task you wait for.

I don't believe the market is big enough for a Mac mini-tower. The ones that really need the most power they can get are going to get a Mac Pro. And the ones that don't will get an iMac.

The ones in between are hobbyists.

[Mister_T]

trip1ex said:

YOu can get a 3.06 ghz cpu and an ATI 4850 in the Imac. That seems pretty close to their marketing line. (I mean since when is any marketing conservative?)

Matter of fact the gpu options in the iMac are the best yet.

I think what you're really complaining about is price. I agree with you on that.

Of course if Apple changed overnight and put out cheap mini-towers at the same prices as pc towers then you wouldn't be running a virus (and anti-virus software) free lab with no tech support for 4 years.

What I am talking about is VALUE not price. Value recognizes the higher quality design and OS on the mac AND looks at the price difference. I think the current higher end imacs are not a good VALUE. The new imacs should be significantly more powerful for the price they are asking for the dual core machines, and they have taken away the option of better graphics in the 20 inch machines. Quad-core imacs when they come may return the imacs to being a good value machines for higher end users, or they may be overpriced and therefore not a good value. I am not suggesting Apple start building e-machines, I am suggesting they build a decently priced upgradeable desktop, with 1 open bay and card slot. Our choices are all in ones or workstations with nothing in between.

[Stephen123]

I think the new iMacs are a GREAT value for everyone who wants a superior quality 24 inch glossy display.

I just don't understand why Apple thinks so many people want that, and if they're right, why so many people want that.

The 24" high quality LCD2490WUXi from NEC costs $1300 list just for the display. But it seems like anyone who wants that doesn't want gloss.

[Stephen123]

I just checked the SWOP site. They've revoked certifications granted prior to 2006. That means there are now only 8 certified displays of which two are discontinued:

Apple 30"
EIZO CG221
EIZO CG241
EIZO CG301
NEC LCD3090WQXi
NEC LCD2690WUXi2

Discontinued
---
Apple 23"
NEC LCD2690WUXi

Interestingly, the gloss surface of the Apple 30 inch didn't stop 3 different organizations from certifying them: Kodak, Integrated Color Solutions, and DALiM Software. The other two certifying organizations are Eizo and CGS who both certify Eizo only.

At the same time, Apple seems to be phasing out the 30" Cinema, its still in the store, but they've removed it from the hardware section of the website. And the 23" is gone completely.