PDA

View Full Version : 20" iMac...worth the $300 to get the $1,499 model?


psmith2.0
2007-09-06, 23:39
Just curious about everyone's opinion on this. I might be in a position to make a move sooner rather than later (still firming some things up). But I've decided I'd rather have the larger screen, faster hard drive, better graphics, etc. found in the iMac than in a similarly-priced MacBook (especially when I never really use my PowerBook anywhere but my desk, and now my iPhone keeps me in touch with the world in terms of Internet and e-mail).

Anyway, I grabbed a screen shot from Apple's online store and highlighted the differences between the $1,199 model (like my Dad got a few weeks ago) and the next one up from it that I'm thinking about snagging...

http://homepage.mac.com/pscates/mockups/imac_compare.jpg

I'm interested in everyone's opinion on this; I value your input: are those three highlighted features above (processor, hard drive and graphics card) worth the extra $300?

I don't game or work in 3D or animation, but I do the Adobe CS thing (Illustrator and Photoshop, primarily). And I'm also dabbling more and more with iMovie and GarageBand these days than I ever have before. I could imagine myself ending up with Final Cut Express in 12-18 months if I stay interested in that end of things!

And I'm not a spec monkey/frequent buyer, so this is going to be my Mac for at least the next three full years from whenever I buy it (my PowerBook turns four next month, so I tend to hang on to Macs for a good while; I won't be "upgrading/replacing next summer" or whatever, I can assure you).

My gut tells me - taking all the above into account - that it is worth the extra $300 to get a slightly faster, roomier and more graphics-robust model...

chucker
2007-09-06, 23:47
The difference between the hard drives is about 15 bucks.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822144417
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148140
A joke, in other words.

The improved graphics is not something you'll make much use of, from what I can tell. (Adobe CS still barely uses 3D acceleration at all, and the use elsewhere is so limited that the faster graphics won't matter much.) Not enough to be worth even $100, IMHO.

Which leaves us mostly with the CPU, and there, too, I'm not convinced it's worth the upgrade. I'd say you'd benefit a lot more from doubling the memory than you would from the 2.0->2.4 GHz bump.

psmith2.0
2007-09-06, 23:51
Interesting...I didn't know all that.

It's a shame they don't make the hard drives in these things as easy to to go/replace as they are in the MacBook (that's weird, isn't it?). Because, if so, I'd definitely get the $1,199 model and then, at some point, know that I can always plop a larger drive in...

:(

They kinda lock you into these things; you sometimes feel like you have to "overbuy" at present time, simply because you won't have the option, a year or so from now, to upgrade that on your own.

I see where a 1GB DIMM for these new 20" aluminum iMacs are in the $40-something range(!), so I'm going to be dropping in an additional 1GB (for a total of 2GB RAM) no matter what.

Hmmm.

So that's one vote for the $1,199...

Hey, I should make a poll!

EDIT: it seems I can't create a poll after-the-fact... :o

Can a friendly mod/admin go in and create a simple two-option poll for this thread:

- $1,199 iMac
- $1,499 iMac

(and enable the feature that shows who voted for what...I want to see who chose which model).

Thanks in advance...

Luca
2007-09-06, 23:57
Well, mathematically, it's a good deal. 20% more CPU speed for 25% more money, and that extra 5% buys you double the VRAM paired with a much more capable video card, along with a slightly larger hard drive.

I've never been particularly impressed with huge processor speed numbers. I mean, how much do you really notice the difference between 2.0 and 2.4 GHz? Unless you break out the stopwatch, you're unlikely to notice.

If you don't game, you pretty much won't need the improved graphics. The $1499 machine's graphics card is in fact much more capable, but what does it matter if you're not using even the lower end card to its full potential? Unless you're planning on using Boot Camp for games, it's not really useful.

The hard drive capacity is nice but it seems like a fairly small increase. Not enough to justify more than about $20 extra. So that's a nice one to have but not nearly enough to justify going up a model. Either one is a lot of storage, and you can go with an external drive if you run out of room.

It's really up to you. Haha! That didn't really answer your question. But it's the best I can do. In this case, it sounds like the extra $300 isn't that well spent. You'll probably be better off getting the base model and spending the extra $300 on more RAM and, if you need it, an external hard drive.

psmith2.0
2007-09-06, 23:59
That's two for the $1,199...

Make me a poll, please (so I/we can tell at a glance where the opinions stand at any given time).

:p

Luca
2007-09-07, 00:00
Poll added. Including an option for those idiots who are going to come in here recommending a MacBook (Pro or otherwise), Mac Pro, top-range iMac, or PC.

chucker
2007-09-07, 00:01
Interesting...I didn't know all that.

It's a shame they don't make the hard drives in these things as easy to to go/replace as they are in the MacBook (that's weird, isn't it?). Because, if so, I'd definitely get the $1,199 model and then, at some point, know that I can always plop a larger drive in...

Yep. If it were a possibility, I'd totally recommend you go with the $1200 and upgrade RAM and hard drive a year or two from now. It would be win-win.

I see where a 1GB DIMM for these new 20" aluminum iMacs are in the $40-something range(!), so I'm going to be dropping in an additional 1GB (for a total of 2GB RAM) no matter what.

Yup, those PC2-5300/DDR2-667 SO-DIMMs have become dirt cheap. I should know; I've just doubled my MacBook Pro's RAM. :) 1 GB has gone roughly from $120 to $40 during the first half of this year.

Well, mathematically, it's a good deal. 20% more CPU speed for 25% more money, and that extra 5% buys you double the VRAM paired with a much more capable video card, along with a slightly larger hard drive.

Oh, I agree. But that's assuming that the CPU proves to be much of a bottleneck during normal workloads. Which I strongly doubt.

I've never been particularly impressed with huge processor speed numbers. I mean, how much do you really notice the difference between 2.0 and 2.4 GHz? Unless you break out the stopwatch, you're unlikely to notice.

'xactly.

psmith2.0
2007-09-07, 00:08
Poll added. Including an option for those idiots who are going to come in here recommending a MacBook (Pro or otherwise), Mac Pro, top-range iMac, or PC.

Not to be an ungrateful dick, but is there any way you can strip it down to the two essential options in question, as I originally requested?

:o

It's a serious, legit thread (and I'm seeking savvy, knowledgeable assistance from the people here I trust) and I don't want it all loused up by the other stuff (because people will, trying to be all cute and clever, choose everything but the two I'm genuinely focused on). Or it'll be a lot of people wasting my time - and their vote - with clicking the silly "beer" option. Happens all the time in thread polls...

:\

Pretty please? Just the $1,199 and $1,499 iMac options? Just this once? I won't bother you anymore.

:)

Luca
2007-09-07, 00:10
Okay, I hear you, pscates. I do get annoyed with how many polls here provide not just unscientific data, but absolutely useless data to boot.

Looks like the base iMac is going to win out, though. It's a nice machine, really. They didn't cripple it like past iMacs - the extra money buys you a modest amount of extra performance without forcing you to pay hundreds extra for basic features like a DVD burner (I'm looking at the MacBook right now, and glaring).

psmith2.0
2007-09-07, 00:14
Thanks a lot. You're the man!

Five current (mystery) votes for the $1,199 model. I assume two of them are you and chucker...

Hmmm.

So even though I'll have this iMac for a solid three years (probably longer, realistically), you don't think it's smart to perhaps "buy big" up front, just so it has some "legs" and a bit more "ooomph" two years from now?

If I was going to replace/upgrade in 18 months or less, I could easily see getting the $1,199 model. But I generally hold on for at least twice that amount of time.

Does knowing the length of time I intend to keep it factor in, or influence, any of the decision-making?

:confused:

I sometimes tend to think that way on things..."get a strong, slightly more tricked-out version now...so in 24 months it still feels like a champ and a performer, for any future Mac OS or Adobe CS updates that may hit the street, etc."

MCQ
2007-09-07, 00:16
I agree with Luca and Chucker. You probably won't notice the CPU difference much, the HD difference isn't that much, and you likely won't notice the graphics difference unless you're playing games.

I don't understand why Apple didn't go with with a 500GB HD on the $1499/$1799 iMacs, or at least a 400GB. The HD difference on the prior generation iMacs was 90GB (160GB -> 250GB), while the difference on this generation is just 70GB.

zippy
2007-09-07, 00:18
Hmm.. the $1199 one will save you $300 from the $1499. Then you can take the $300 you saved from not buying the $1499 one, and add it back to the $1499 one and you'll have $1799 and you can get a 24" one. That's what I'd do.;)

:confused:






I'm a fuckin politishun! Me and my fuzzy numbers FTW.:D

Oh sorry, you wanted serious answers. Sounds like you'd be good with the $1199 unit based on your usage.

Luca
2007-09-07, 00:36
Five current (mystery) votes for the $1,199 model. I assume two of them are you and chucker...

I can't figure out how to make the poll public. Sorry.

In the long run, the extra 400 MHz probably won't make any more difference than it makes now. Do people who own 450 MHz iMacs really fare much better than people who own 400 MHz ones? Same thing here. It doesn't make much difference now, and it won't in the future.

The biggest concern is the graphics, but I think that won't matter either. Even if new eye candy comes out that might conceivably require a more powerful card than the Radeon 2400, having a 2600 instead probably won't make much difference. Sure, the 2600 is faster and more powerful, but it's of the same generation and uses most of the same technology. And for new eye candy technology, what you need isn't raw speed, but compatibility with new technologies and standards.

InactionMan
2007-09-07, 00:43
Another vote for the cheaper iMac. Spend the extra money on more RAM and just buy an external hard drive if you run out of space on the internal one. I never used to recommend the low-end iMacs but Apple's done a great job of making them worthwhile lately.

psmith2.0
2007-09-07, 01:03
Well, the $1,199 is winning by a broad margin. I'll see where it all goes tomorrow and over the weekend.

But my eyes are opening to the entry-level model more than they were before...

Take ~$45 of that $300 and buy a 1GB DIMM to go with the stock 1GB, and just save the rest for a rainy day?

Keep the votes and opinions coming; I'll be following this thread all weekend long!

Luca
2007-09-07, 01:18
Another thing - if you're a whore for screen real estate, going for the $1199 model saves you enough money (even after buying RAM) to get a pretty big external screen. You might not like having an ugly non-Apple display sitting next to your beautiful new iMac, but you could probably get a 20" widescreen LCD to compliment the built in 20" LCD for about the same price as it would cost to go to the $1499 model. You can definitely get 20" widescreen LCDs for less than $300 these days.

And be honest. As someone who works in Photoshop and Illustrator, doesn't 3360x1050 sound great?

thegeriatric
2007-09-07, 05:22
In this case, it sounds like the extra $300 isn't that well spent. You'll probably be better off getting the base model and spending the extra $300 on more RAM and, if you need it, an external hard drive.

Couldn't have put it better myself. :)

torifile
2007-09-07, 05:25
$1199 model will work perfectly for you 'scates. If you did any gaming, the $1499 model would be better because of the vid card and processor, but for pushing pixels, the $1199 is what you want. Especially if you decide the screen is too hard to get color accurate stuff, you can put that $300 towards an external display where it would be better used.

edit: I feel compelled to remind you about the Buy a Mac, get an iPod and printer deals. They end shortly (9/16) and I don't know what your timeline is but that will "save" you another couple hundred.

Koodari
2007-09-07, 05:27
Objectively, the $1,499 model is not a good deal period. The only meaningful difference is the graphics, which you aren't going to put to good use if you are not a gamer, and gamers should beat themselves on the head with an original XBox controller (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/03/25) if they even consider an iMac for their entertainment purposes when with the $300 difference they could pick up either a console or a great graphics card to transform a mundane PC into a great gaming box with.

To put the processor speed thing in perspective, we're talking about exactly the same difference as 1GHz G4 and 1.2GHz G4.
I don't think many people are even capable of noticing a 20% processor speed difference in the best case that the processing task is totally CPU bound and you get the full benefit. In the real world you'd always tend to get less.

When 500GB disks cost <$100, 1TB disks are on track to cost the same in a year or two, and you can fill the 70GB difference in one week's worth of rampant piracy, the HD's on both models are equivalent really.

Never spend a lot for "future proofing". In this case, the price difference is big enough that if we suppose a 3 year life for the $1500 machine, by going with the cheaper one you can replace it in 2.5 years and are still saving in $/year compared to the first option. In my personal experience, cheaper machines do not depreciate so much if you want to resell. In the other primary way of disposal, repurposing the computer to do low-end computing tasks with (say, give it to a relative for websurfing and iPhoto work) less goes to waste if the computer is not the top of the line.

Capella
2007-09-07, 07:53
I would choose the base model, for the same reasons that have already been stated. The processor speed isn't going to really matter and neither is the graphics card, not for what you do, and the hard drive space isn't worth the $300. It's a good, solid, reliable machine. Even in the future, in 3 years from now, there won't be any more difference between these two machines. I'm sure you won't be going "if only I had brought the other one I could have squeaked out nine more months" or something.

thegeriatric
2007-09-07, 09:03
If it helps i voted for the $1199 base iMac.

Taskiss
2007-09-07, 09:08
$300 more and you'll never say "I should have gotten the other one" = priceless.

Gizzer
2007-09-07, 09:28
I haven't voted because [braces self for abuse]Are you financially unable to run to a 24" iMac?[/braces self for abuse]

I only ask because I get the impression your bread and butter is earnt in graphics work? The 24" iMac (the old one) was a revelation to me when I saw it running Final Cut Studio 2 on it - all that extra space for palettes and timelines etc and still a huge work area.

It sold me enough that as soon as the Alu was released I went out and bought one (and sold my old 20" iMac G5). Obviously if finance is the restricting reason then ignore this post!

bassplayinMacFiend
2007-09-07, 09:35
Can you BTO a larger hard drive on the $1200 model? Sounds like you're more worried about not having enough HDD space than anything else.

Also, don't forget these chips are dual core, so you're giving up 400MHz / core or 800MHz total. That's a lot of hertz, especially if you're using Adobe's apps which can use dual cores / processors.

I would go to an Apple store and try both the 2.0 & 2.4. The Apple store in my area has CS3 installed on the new iMacs (along with bumping them to 2GB RAM). Put a file on the 'net, prepare some kind of script and time the machines in store to see if you can live with the difference.

Or, even better, don't time the machines but run the same steps and see if the 2.0GHz model leaves you tapping your foot waiting for it to finish and the 2.4GHz doesn't. This would be a test for me if I were worried about CPU differences.

[edit]
Just checked the Apple store online and you can upgrade the $1200 model's internal HDD to a max of $500 GB for an additional $149. To me that's a pretty big ripoff considering external 500GB HDDs are going for $120 sale price on a regular basis at Best Buy / Circuit City.

[edit2]
The $1500 model can be bumped to a 750GB HDD and the 24" model can be bumped to 1TB. Didn't look long enough to snag the prices though.

tomoe
2007-09-07, 09:54
I chose the base model; it's the bang for the buck of the two.

BlueRabbit
2007-09-07, 10:18
I voted for the low-end one as well. That's the model my dad is getting this weekend to replace the G4 Cube back home.

Kraetos
2007-09-07, 10:18
I know that it might not be finacially viable but if it is, the 24 iMac is where its at, because the screen in the 20 is pretty awful. The viewing angle is reduced, the brightness is as well which is a serious problem because of the gloss screen (the brightness must be able to overcome the glare, and a 33% increase is no small improvement), and the colors are less consistent, which will make a difference in photoshop.

I'd seriously consider it, but if its out of the question, than the base model is the best value.

psmith2.0
2007-09-07, 12:18
As of 1:11pm ET, the $1,199 is trouncing the other one, 18-to-6...a 3:1 ratio. Most unexpected, I have to say. And interesting.

As for the 24", I'm just trying - after spending such a huge amount on my PowerBook four years ago - to keep any future purchases $1,500 and below. I've had that little "guide" in place for some time and I'd just feel better sticking to it if I can.

Who knows...by the time things get worked out in the coming weeks or whatever, they might have some refurb units of the 24" aluminum iMacs for sale? If I could get a refurb 24" for roughly the same price as the $1,499 20", I'd seriously consider that. Off to look at refurbs...

:D

I didn't even think about that...

Robo
2007-09-07, 13:36
I'm kinda in the same boat as Paul - trying to decide between, primarily, the 20" iMac models. Like Paul, my new iMac has to last a while - at least through college.

Our situations are a little different. For one, because of Apple's lame student discounts on the low-end model (don't you get student discounts, Paul?) the price difference is $250, not $300. And I will play some games on my iMac.

Does that make a difference?

Sorry if I'm hijacking your thread, Paul - I'm just going through the exact same decision right now, and I only have another week or so to decide. :eek:

psmith2.0
2007-09-07, 13:51
Like Paul, my new iMac has to last a while -

:lol:

That just sounds funny...

"I can go all night, baby...".

:p

Robo
2007-09-07, 14:05
:lol:

That just sounds funny...

"I can go all night, baby...".

:p

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Like Paul's new computer, my new computer has to last a while. Ahem.

:D

709
2007-09-07, 14:11
:lol:

That just sounds funny...

"I can go all night, baby...".

:pI'm biting my lip about how "more RAM is better."

Oh.

I guess I'm not.

:D

MCQ
2007-09-07, 14:28
Our situations are a little different. For one, because of Apple's lame student discounts on the low-end model (don't you get student discounts, Paul?) the price difference is $250, not $300. And I will play some games on my iMac.

Does that make a difference?


I would say go for the middle model, since it has a better graphics card with more memory. If you're playing the latest and greatest games though, I don't know how well the 2600 Pro will play them.

Mugge
2007-09-07, 14:34
Gotta agree with Kraetos about the 24".

Screen real estate is what would do most for you, pscates.

I voted for the baseline model in the poll, you could always hook it up to a FW 800 drive if you need more storage.

Kraetos
2007-09-07, 14:36
As of 1:11pm ET, the $1,199 is trouncing the other one, 18-to-6...a 3:1 ratio. Most unexpected, I have to say. And interesting.

As for the 24", I'm just trying - after spending such a huge amount on my PowerBook four years ago - to keep any future purchases $1,500 and below. I've had that little "guide" in place for some time and I'd just feel better sticking to it if I can.

Who knows...by the time things get worked out in the coming weeks or whatever, they might have some refurb units of the 24" aluminum iMacs for sale? If I could get a refurb 24" for roughly the same price as the $1,499 20", I'd seriously consider that. Off to look at refurbs...

:D

I didn't even think about that...

Don't forget about your shiny new $100 credit, too!

My only point is that Apple really cut a pretty big corner on the 20" iMac to hit that price. Apple hasn't shipped a TN panel in years. In fact, I am not even sure they have ever shipped a TN panel prior to this iMac. I don't disapprove of the decision - you're still getting a lot of computer for a mere $1,199, and putting an S-IPS panel in that iMac would have jacked the price, $100, maybe $200 - but for savvy users like you, Paul and Robo, you will notice the screen is sub-par.

I think a good compromise would have been an S-IPS panel in the midrange model. At that price they could do it, especially since the other upgrades in that Mac don't even come close to justifying the difference.

Not to mention that 1920x1200 is a very, very comfortable resolution. I love my 23" ACD. I find the 20" to be too small, and the 30" to be too big. The 23" is perfect.

If I we're in your guyses shoes, I would buy an old white iMac. At least you know they had S-IPS panels across the board.

psmith2.0
2007-09-07, 14:44
I understand. But realize I'm coming from four years on a 15" display with 1280x854 resolution (PowerBook G4), so while the 24" iMac is great, I'm still taking quite a step up to the 20" at 1680x1050.

I didn't realize there was huge difference between the 20" and 24", in terms of panels and their quality/performance. My Dad has the new $1,199 20" iMac and I'm on it as much as he is I think :p , and it seems really nice. I might not be as discriminating or particular as some of you are assuming?

:confused:

Back to the 20" vs. 24" thing: I use Photoshop, Illustrator, iLife, etc. on my current Mac and I've got smart palette grouping, F-key hide/show shortcuts, Exposé, etc. all working to make the most of that. Going to the 20" iMac (the same size and resolution I had at work for nearly a full year) felt like a football field (and still would).

I actually think those 24" models, when I see them at the Apple store, are almost overwhelming in their size. Realistically, even a refurb is still going to only be $200 or so off, and it'll be over $1,599.

It's, honestly, going to come down between the two 20" models (unless I hit the lottery or whatever). The votes for the $1,199 are definitely ahead of the other. I'll have to see how the next several weeks shake out (and if a couple of people are going to come through on some promises they've made, regarding a couple of nice-paying side projects). If so, I'd be able to do something by early or mid-October, possibly four years to the day/week I bought my PowerBook in October 2003...that would be funny if I wound up being near that same date).

:)

709
2007-09-07, 15:11
Well, if you're looking for something that will serve your needs *right now*, I'd definitely go for the lower end 20". But, if you're going to be holding on to this machine for 3 years or so, I'd take another look at the 24". The reason I say this is that in a year or two (at the most) 1080i is going to be ubiquitous. Even from the iTunes store. The 17" laptops have it, for god's sake. You know that Apple will be introducing a 20" 1920x1200 here shortly, especially because of the pixel densities getting better and better. I wouldn't want you to feel like you were left out in the cold.

Say what you will about not needing the resolution, but that in particular is what Apple is focusing on lately.

Just FWIW, of course, but I think you'd be better served in the long run with a higher resolution screen..other specs be damned.

psmith2.0
2007-09-07, 15:32
I see where they've got a previous-generation (white) 24" iMac Core 2 Duo at the refurb store for $1,449.

I don't know...I love these new aluminum ones: the 1GB RAM on a single DIMM (with a convenient open slot for another 1GB), the new keyboard, the slim body with the black rear panel, the newer Intel stuff inside, etc.

Just seems more "now".

Maybe...I've never really paid much attention to the 24" when I'm in the stores (I've always looked at the MacBooks or the 20" iMacs the past few times I've been).

Anyone with a 24" iMac (current or previous generation) want to take a full screenshot for me, with, say, Safari, iTunes, Mail and iChat all open and showing? I'm familiar with how all that looks/sits on a 20" iMac (and the type of room it takes/space it leaves). Never really seen that on a 24" iMac. I mention those particular apps because they are my "always open/used" stuff...just curious to see how they look on that size/resolution, compared to what I'm accustomed to!

PM me for my e-mail (for those who don't already know it). Or simply remove the "2.0" from my user name and know that I'm a .Mac subscriber (xxx@mac.com)

;)

709
2007-09-07, 15:46
I know what you mean. The price difference may be a bit extreme...and I wouldn't even bother looking at last year's models (the new iMacs are teh sex)...but it may be worth it it the long run.

I wish I had an AI job right now I could have you freelance. :\

Boomerangmacuser
2007-09-07, 16:13
I voted base iMac. I don't see the value of the additional tweaks. Like others said, better to bump the RAM. If you can really afford more, then go for the 24".

Funny, I find the "middle" Macbook to be the sweet spot in that lineup, but the base 20" and base 24" to be the best deal on the iMac side.

psmith2.0
2007-09-07, 16:22
Yeah, that's weird how that works out sometimes, huh? It's rarely consistent across product lines, that one "sweet spot" of the perfect price/features combination. Sometimes it's the low-end model of a certain line, but then it'll be the mid-range or upper-end of another. :)

And it kinda bugs me how Apple will allow easy user swapping/upgrading of hard drives in something like the MacBook...but then completely seal/weld shut the iMac (except for dropping in a single DIMM), forcing you to make your hard-drive capacity choices at the time of purchase (and pay for their often-steep BTO prices if you need something larger than the stock drives).

A shame the hard drives on the iMac aren't as easy to access and replace as they are on the MacBook. I just find that odd. I guess people want to upgrade their notebook hard drives more? They must have some sort of internal data on that...

:confused:

...and at 5:26pm ET, the $1,199 iMac is beating the living shit out of the $1,499 model 21-to-6 in the viewer poll.

:)

Majost
2007-09-07, 16:29
A shame the hard drives on the iMac aren't as easy to access and replace as they are on the MacBook. I just find that odd. I guess people want to upgrade their notebook hard drives more? They must have some sort of internal data on that...


I think it has more to do with the implementation. It is slick to ferry a HD through a battery slot... but there's no such cavity/opening on an iMac. I think if they had a slick and easy to implement way of sliding an HD in and out of the iMac, they'd do it. But don't mess with Ive's curves! :p

psmith2.0
2007-09-07, 16:54
That whole bottom panel could come off, held into place with those captive screws. But yeah, they like the clean, seamless look...

Although the back is just one chunk of matte black (doesn't seem to be "one" with the silver aluminum. They could make it pop off somehow, allowing access to the guts (like those very first iMac G5 models did).

Kraetos
2007-09-07, 17:08
If you can't tell the difference, I'm not going to tell you how to spot it, and therefore it wont bother you! ;)

You've seen one in person, so you know the screen looks fine to you. Go for the $1,199.

thegeriatric
2007-09-07, 17:54
If you are going to be ready early to mid October, don't forget to wait for Leopard release. Just in case you forgot in all the excitement and decision making going on right now, thought it worth a mention.

psmith2.0
2007-09-07, 18:38
Most definitely! I wasn't going to do anything, even if I'm in a position to financially, until Leopard comes on stock. I'd rather just have it there, ready to go (I took my PowerBook from Jaguar to Panther to Tiger...I hate major OS installs).

:)

Robo
2007-09-08, 00:37
If you can't tell the difference, I'm not going to tell you how to spot it, and therefore it wont bother you! ;)

You've seen one in person, so you know the screen looks fine to you. Go for the $1,199.

Now I'm curious. :\

I was really really hoping to spring for the 24" iMac. I mean, that's just...huge.

But as big as that iMac is...I'd still need a TV. With the $300 that I'd save, I could get most of a decent HD LCD...

I really wish Apple would just put AV inputs into the iMac. Just one little HDMI-in is all it would take...I'd totally buy the 24" iMac if I knew I could use it as a 1080p HDTV as well. :eek:

MCQ
2007-09-08, 01:12
Hm? You should be able to buy a USB tuner from a third party such as Elgato, and hook up a coax cable or digital cable box to it.

Robo
2007-09-08, 01:17
Hm? You should be able to buy a USB tuner from a third party such as Elgato, and hook up a coax cable or digital cable box to it.

Nonononono. USB tuners have lag. Fine for watching TV, horrible for playing games with.

MCQ
2007-09-08, 02:19
Ah. Understood. :)

Kraetos
2007-09-08, 11:29
I really wish Apple would just put AV inputs into the iMac. Just one little HDMI-in is all it would take...I'd totally buy the 24" iMac if I knew I could use it as a 1080p HDTV as well. :eek:

As awesome as that would be, the problem with that is you now have less incentive to buy TV off iTunes. So I don't see it happening.

bassplayinMacFiend
2007-09-08, 12:34
Now I'm curious. :\

I was really really hoping to spring for the 24" iMac. I mean, that's just...huge.

But as big as that iMac is...I'd still need a TV. With the $300 that I'd save, I could get most of a decent HD LCD...

I really wish Apple would just put AV inputs into the iMac. Just one little HDMI-in is all it would take...I'd totally buy the 24" iMac if I knew I could use it as a 1080p HDTV as well. :eek:

I too would buy a 24" iMac if it could take non-lagged HDTV inputs as well. I don't like not playing Bioshock because it's wifey's turn to use the TV. :(

csb
2007-09-08, 13:03
I find myself in the same place as you and keep going back and forth between the two, but if i add the 320gb drive from Apple ($49) plus Applecare ($169) it come to a little over $1400. Later adding more RAM won't hurt so much

Boomerangmacuser
2007-09-11, 12:41
At this point 'Scates if you haven't bought it yet, and you're thinking of waiting until Leopard, you might want to wait until Black Friday in the States. Are you living in the US? It might be available in other countries too. Last year the Black Friday deals were extended to the Canadian store and my corporate discount was taken off of that. :p .

If you wait; for roughly the same price as the upper 20" you could get the base 24" with all the same specs but the better display.

psmith2.0
2007-09-11, 12:55
Is Black Friday that "day after Thanksgiving" thing?

bassplayinMacFiend
2007-09-11, 14:06
Is Black Friday that "day after Thanksgiving" thing?

Yup, it sure is. Don't know who decided to put the "Let's all wake up at 5AM for a cheap TV!!!" day right after the "Let's all gorge on fatty foods until we can't wear our own clothes anymore, then watch Football!!!" day.

Nonetheless it can still be a fun day to go out because most everyone is in good spirits. Either that or the coffee hadn't kicked in yet.

[edit]
Anyway, Apple may just have some kind of discount on Leper release day just like they did when they released Crouching Tiger (which was 10% off hardware, IIRC).

PeggyHill
2007-09-11, 14:20
I'm on the side of the 20". Easier on the eyes, on the keyboarding, just more comfortable overall. $300 is nothing for 3-4 years (at least) of comfort.

Peggy

Satchmo
2007-09-11, 17:47
That whole bottom panel could come off, held into place with those captive screws. But yeah, they like the clean, seamless look...

Although the back is just one chunk of matte black (doesn't seem to be "one" with the silver aluminum. They could make it pop off somehow, allowing access to the guts (like those very first iMac G5 models did).

I may be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the old 24" iMacs were much easier to pop open than the 20" ones. Granted, not as easy as the G5 ones. Not sure about these new aluminum ones, since you'll need some kind of suction device for the glass.

But are you really into mucking around in there. Never thought you to be the sort. Why not just get external drives when the time comes to adding more storage. Yeah, I know, it's nice to have a less cluttered desktop but the extra savings could come in handy in buying yourself a eye pleasing fat nano. ;)

Anthem
2007-09-11, 22:01
Got mine today. No tweaks... just the base model. Haven't even put in the extra ram like I've been planning.

Works pretty well, though. I didn't really want an all-in-one, and would still have bought the midrange headless if it existed, but this is a very nice machine. I'm not really sure I'd feel a couple of hundred extra megahertz unless I was doing something a lot more intensive than I have so far.

dmegatool
2007-10-21, 00:10
Reviving old thread !

So a friend of mine (She's around 60yo !) will buy iMac in 3 weeks. She doesn't know that much on computer so she's relying on my tips to know what to buy.

So, 20"... no brainer. Now I'm kind of confused about the 2400xt. It really seems like shit. I looked at some benchmark and it's terrible. http://www.legitreviews.com/article/547/1/

Now, I don't know if I should recommend the 1499$ model. She'll play some game for sure but I don't think it will be the lastest release. She's more into investigation, inquiry, a little bit police related games. But in the other hand... in 2-3 years, today's games will be the old games.

What do you think about the 2400xt ? Is that terrible ?

BlueRabbit
2007-10-21, 01:45
I've tried a few game demos (Age of Empires 3, Lego Star Wars, Empire at War, Quake 4, Call of Duty 2) on my parent's 20" iMac (with the 2400 XT), and they seem to run pretty smoothly. I didn't try maxing the settings or anything, but it seemed like a decent enough graphics card. (of course, what do I know; my 12" PB still has a 32 meg graphics card :p)

Koodari
2007-10-21, 02:18
Reviving old thread !

So a friend of mine (She's around 60yo !) will buy iMac in 3 weeks. She doesn't know that much on computer so she's relying on my tips to know what to buy.

So, 20"... no brainer. Now I'm kind of confused about the 2400xt. It really seems like shit. I looked at some benchmark and it's terrible. http://www.legitreviews.com/article/547/1/

Now, I don't know if I should recommend the 1499$ model. She'll play some game for sure but I don't think it will be the lastest release. She's more into investigation, inquiry, a little bit police related games. But in the other hand... in 2-3 years, today's games will be the old games.Investigation, inquiry, a little bit police related... this sounds like we're looking at adventure games mostly. They are a languished breed. The real trouble is finding some. You will quite possibly need to go Windows for them, they will be old, etc. :grumble:

I just remembered the new Sam and Max game series is currently being published in episodic form. Again, on Windows.What do you think about the 2400xt ? Is that terrible ?It is pretty terrible by today's standards, as you have seen.

Then again it will run any game I know that even remotely fits the description.

But if she's into gaming at all, then it's possible she could get into some more current genre, RPG's for example.

Does she actually play something right now? Has she played something in the past?

I can't help of thinking about consoles, but it's not like those have mature plot driven games in abundance, either.

dmegatool
2007-10-21, 09:25
Thx for your post Koodari.

I think I'll explain her the situation right like you just explained it so she can take this decision bye herself.

Another little question... about the RAM this time. Just to make sure as I never buyed RAM... This is the one I need to buy, right ? (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231069)

chucker
2007-10-21, 10:28
That looks right, yes. All Intel iMacs use PC2-5300 (DDR2-667) SO-DIMMs.

dmegatool
2007-10-21, 11:49
Just realized that newegg doesn't ship to canada. That sucks ! I'll try to find something similar. I can't buy it at Futureshop where my friend is gonna buy is iMac. They sell the 1gb stick 105$ !!!

chucker
2007-10-21, 12:08
$48.97 CAD (http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3261243&CatId=2268). That's not too bad.

Or: $29.06 ($39.06 without rebate) (http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=22702&vpn=VSA1GSDS667D2&manufacture=CORSAIR). Even nicer.

dmegatool
2007-10-21, 13:18
Or: $29.06 ($39.06 without rebate) (http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=22702&vpn=VSA1GSDS667D2&manufacture=CORSAIR). Even nicer.

Yeah I already found that one ! Thx ! I looked on http://www.meilleursprix.ca/. It list the best price of different stores (11) in quebec.

Boomerangmacuser
2007-10-23, 17:41
Just realized that newegg doesn't ship to canada. That sucks ! I'll try to find something similar. I can't buy it at Futureshop where my friend is gonna buy is iMac. They sell the 1gb stick 105$ !!!

In canada, the place to buy RAM is canadaram.com. They have RAM specific to Apple machines both the exact RAM Apple uses and fully tested generics. Prices are good too. They're based in Victoria and I've used them before.