24" iMac released

[Eug]

Hmmm... Spike, I have never bad mouthed Intel. I've owned several Intel Windows machines (including self-built ones), and use one now at work too. So stop projecting.

Anyways, you seem to have some issues. A computing hardware forum is probably not the best place to work them out.

And wtf do servers have to do with iMac's?

Yeah, I don't get it either.

 

[ProfJohn]

Spike... this is a forum about a new iMac, not servers. iMac is a computer aimed at home and school users, not placed in a dark computer room no one enters but a few IT people.

If you want to post something constructive about this iMac then be all means please do, but if all you want to do is complain about how Macs aren't used in "server farms" or how you can build a 3ghz Core 2 Duo then do it in the "Mac Pro" thread.

Now back to the topic on hand, can you build a computer comparable to the new iMac 24" for under $2000??
Right now most 24" monitors are running around $700-$800, that leaves $1200 for the rest of the box, software included.

"The only difference between the new Intel Mac's and clone PC's is the BIOS - period. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you consult an electronics engineer as I work with daily and stop making up fairy tales to feel special. "

Spike, let me try and explain this again.
The post I was responding to tried to imply that a PC and a Mac are the same thing. To an end user a PC is any computer using a Windows Operating system and a Mac is a computer using Mac OS. Therefore, in practical terms a PC and a Mac are not the same thing. In technical terms they may have the same components, but that is irrelevant to the user experience. The original PlayStation had the same PowerPC processor that my old Mac had, yet no one would confuse the two of being the same thing. Just like no one would walk into a server farm and say "wow look at all the PCs"

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
One thing that I find amusing is that the Apple commercials are always saying that "Macs are sooo much greater than PC's!", when in reality this thing IS a PC. For the most part, it's using stock PC and laptop parts, and it can run Windows just like one of those evvvillll PC's can.

Of course, "Buy a Mac, it's a PC in a prettier case with a different operating system!" probably doesn't make for a very good advertisement.

The term PC is used to refer to any computer using Windows. Sort of like the term Google is now used to refer to a computer search.

Therefore, a Mac is NOT a PC, not even close.

The quality of the trolls today is rather low. At least in the pre-intel Mac days you could make a good case that Macs were over priced, with that arguement gone all the trolls seem to be grasping at straws.

You seem to be missing the point... Macs CAN run Windows now. They all use x86 compatible parts, and they run an x86 compatible operating system. All you need to do is remove Mac OS X, and you end up with a PC in a pretty looking and somewhat expensive case.

Maybe that's not a bad thing, mind you, but it's still the truth.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: aphex

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Wow. I'm still using my G4 based Mac Mini.

Same here... I'm debating picking up a Core Duo mini to replace it, or selling my T41 & Mini and picking up a Macbook.

If I were you, I would stand pat.

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: aphex

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Wow. I'm still using my G4 based Mac Mini.

Same here... I'm debating picking up a Core Duo mini to replace it, or selling my T41 & Mini and picking up a Macbook.

If I were you, I would stand pat.

Well, as i've gotten more and more into photography, my RAW/NEF workflows have gotten longer and longer. My T41 is a 1.6ghz Centrino w/ 768mb of Ram, while great for many things, still takes me awhile to work with the large uncompressed images, especially when i have 200-300 from a shoot (sometimes more). Even browsing them in Bridge, or Nikon View, takes quite a while... The G4 Mini is even slower, but i really do love OSX.

I thought about a new Dual Core T60, but I would be at $1300+, and still not have a faster mac.

Edit: Fergot to mention, i upgraded the hd in my T41 to a 100gb 7200rpm drive, and while noticably faster, still dosent cut down much on the time for images to load and process.

 

[ProfJohn]

Duo Core 2 systems on the market today-
These are all complete systems you can pick up or order today, not ones you have to build yourself.
Note: All of these are Conroe based systems so I assume they will be faster than the merom based iMacs.

Apple: iMac 20" widescreen, 2.16 GHZ "merom", 1GB memory, 250GB harddrive, x1600 $1499

Dell: XPS 410. 20" 2007FPW, 1.86GHz e6300 (slower or faster than the mac?) 1GB memory, 250GB "Datasafe"* hard drive, x1300 Pro $1808
*means it has a backup drive, you can not select just a 250GB drive, but for $60 more you can move to a $500GB drive.

HP: m7680y 20" ViewSonic VX2025WM* 1.86GHz e6300, 1GB memory, 250GB drive, GeForce 7500LE $1119 computer + $329 monitor = $1448
*HP doesn't offer a 20" LCD, only a 19 and a 21.

PC Club Enpower Sabre Extreme EN-SE6 20" ViewSonic VX2025WM, 1GB memory, 250GB HD, GeForce 7600GS $1078 computer + $329 monitor = $1407

Based on this list I would say the iMac is very nicely priced.
When you consider that each of the non-Mac computers would need to have software added in order to compare with an out of the box Mac then the Mac looks even better.
How much would a software suite similar to iLife cost??

I am sure you could build something similar to an iMac for less, but what percentage of the computer market is build at home? Also, how many "help my new build doesn't work" threads do we see everyday?
Finally, my brand new Gateway blue screened me last week for no reason, worked on reboot, in my 16+ years owning a Mac I have NEVER gotten a "sad Mac" on boot.

 

[Eug]

Funny you should mention RAW.

Actually, one reason I'm getting this is Aperture. My G5 2.0 with Radeon 9600 128 will run it, but just not very fast. Aperture really needs dual-core, a faster GPU, and preferably 256 MB GPU RAM.

That and the fact that my Cube at work is really showing its age. And the fact that I've wanted a 23"/24" screen for just about forever.

 

[XBoxLPU]

Originally posted by: secretanchitman
i think it'll do okay...but the 128 bit bus will hold it back for sure. the C2D makes up for it though. dont expect to play games at 1920x1200 full blast...maybe at low-medium settings at that resolution.

but at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200, you can probably crank most of the details up with AA/AF.

I would be happy at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 as I expect the graphics cards to handle very similar to what I have now in my current PC, the 6800 Ultra. My only concern is that the iMac is setup unlike the Dell 2005FPW I have where the image will be stretched or filled when using other resolutions other than default. AKA I want the black little bars around the screen...

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: aphex

Originally posted by: spike spiegal

If you ask me, you seem to be the only one showing 'blatant ignorance' in this thread.

Name one fact I'm ignorant about, or shut up.

Seriously, be a man, and name one single *FACT* in this thread I'm incorrect on.

Already your buddy here claimed Power Mac doesn't come with 2.66 ghz processors, when it was the rig Anandtech tested.

- A 3ghz Core 2 Duo will beat dual 2.66ghz Xeons in most desktop tasks other than those absolute few that can utilize more than two cores.

- Windows XP *can* run on a Power Mac because it IS a PC. *If* the Power Mac were substantially different than a normal PC, then XP woulnd't be able to run on it. Gee, I can't run XP on my $100,000 IBM AS400s. XP doesn't load on my Sun Servers either. But it *will* load and install on native on an Intel Power Mac.

Be a man? Your the only one in this thread starting arguments. If you ask me, you need to seriously grow up and act like a man yourself.

And as others above have said, its a MAC PRO not a POWER MAC. Is that a clear enough example of ignorance?

Now go away and troll somewhere else.

You're splitting hairs on the maning scheme used...pathetic way to wiggle out of a hole.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Dug

Originally posted by: spike spiegal

nd like I said, the iMac runs Merom, not Conroe (or Xeon). The fastest Merom in existence is 2.33 GHz.

That's your problem sweetheart, not mine.

We real computer users don't run mobile processors in desktops just so we don't interfere with our Mac Pro sales. That's Apple's whole point, but since you morons only buy computers that the OS makers sells........ Apple could stick 600mhz Cyrix chips in that thing and you'd be claiming it was 2x as fast as AMD X2's or something. Whatever Apple says - you believe, right? You aren't intelligent enough to make your own hardware decisions, so daddy makes them for you.

-And it the fact still stands that a 3ghz Core 2 Duo will beat a dual processor 2.66ghz Xeon, and I could build the Core 2 duo box for about 2/3 the price.

-And the fact still stands you've spent the past ten years bad mouthing Intel, then flip to Intel like my GF changes tampons. You had no credibility then, so you have none now.

I've deployed over 100 servers in the past 4 years, and built approx ten percent of them from either Intel or AMD. I've also been working with quad processor arrays since the mid 90's, and have yet to see an Apple product in a corporate environment other than plugged into the ears of the staff temp.

This guy cracks me up. Have you bought any 3ghz Core2 Duo's lately? And wtf do servers have to do with iMac's?

My E6400 is running at 3.2Ghz... and if you round up the x6800 would be 3Ghz.

 

[Eug]

My E6400 is running at 3.2Ghz...

That's overclocked of course. Your E6400 is actually normally clocked slower than even the 2.16 GHz Merom.

I ran my Celeron 533A@880 MHz, but I would never claim it was an 800+ MHz CPU. Beat your E6400 overclock by a fair margin though.

and if you round up the x6800 would be 3Ghz.

I'd usually round 2.93 to 2.9 GHz.

P.S. CPU speed is nice, but I actually got the slower 2.16 Core 2 Duo Merom instead of the 2.33 to save a few bucks.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: aphex

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: aphex
Hey Eug, were you the one i spoke to in the past about the upgraded Mini?

I don't remember.

In any case, I don't own a Mac mini.

Musta been someone else then. They took a solo and upgraded it to a duo, new HD, burner, etc..

Probably me. Sold it already though

Parts list: (updated)
Base Intel Mini - $600
Intel T7600 (dual-core 2.33ghz Merom with 4mb l2) - $750
Arctic Silver 5 - $6
Pioneer DVR-K06 DVD burner - $72
2gb ram - $190 (2 sticks)
Seagate 100gb 7200rpm hard drive - $164

You can sell the proc & ram for at least $50. Not a bad little computer, just lacking in the video card department. If you don't need to game on it, it's a great buy

 

[Dug]

Originally posted by: aphex

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: aphex

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Wow. I'm still using my G4 based Mac Mini.

Same here... I'm debating picking up a Core Duo mini to replace it, or selling my T41 & Mini and picking up a Macbook.

If I were you, I would stand pat.

Well, as i've gotten more and more into photography, my RAW/NEF workflows have gotten longer and longer. My T41 is a 1.6ghz Centrino w/ 768mb of Ram, while great for many things, still takes me awhile to work with the large uncompressed images, especially when i have 200-300 from a shoot (sometimes more). Even browsing them in Bridge, or Nikon View, takes quite a while... The G4 Mini is even slower, but i really do love OSX.

I thought about a new Dual Core T60, but I would be at $1300+, and still not have a faster mac.

Edit: Fergot to mention, i upgraded the hd in my T41 to a 100gb 7200rpm drive, and while noticably faster, still dosent cut down much on the time for images to load and process.

Unfortunatly the iMac won't help you much if you are using CS2. It is so painfully slow. Have to wait for CS3. It should be nice once it's optimized. A dual core for PS makes all the difference (and memory too). Not sure how Capture NX runs on the Intel Mac, but again dual core makes all the difference on the PC side.

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: Dug

Originally posted by: aphex

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: aphex

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Wow. I'm still using my G4 based Mac Mini.

Same here... I'm debating picking up a Core Duo mini to replace it, or selling my T41 & Mini and picking up a Macbook.

If I were you, I would stand pat.

Well, as i've gotten more and more into photography, my RAW/NEF workflows have gotten longer and longer. My T41 is a 1.6ghz Centrino w/ 768mb of Ram, while great for many things, still takes me awhile to work with the large uncompressed images, especially when i have 200-300 from a shoot (sometimes more). Even browsing them in Bridge, or Nikon View, takes quite a while... The G4 Mini is even slower, but i really do love OSX.

I thought about a new Dual Core T60, but I would be at $1300+, and still not have a faster mac.

Edit: Fergot to mention, i upgraded the hd in my T41 to a 100gb 7200rpm drive, and while noticably faster, still dosent cut down much on the time for images to load and process.

Unfortunatly the iMac won't help you much if you are using CS2. It is so painfully slow. Have to wait for CS3. It should be nice once it's optimized. A dual core for PS makes all the difference (and memory too). Not sure how Capture NX runs on the Intel Mac, but again dual core makes all the difference on the PC side.

Well, wouldnt CS2 under Parallels be the same as a native CS2 on a windows box? I already bought Parallels, just don't have an intel mac yet

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: spike spiegal

nd like I said, the iMac runs Merom, not Conroe (or Xeon). The fastest Merom in existence is 2.33 GHz.

That's your problem sweetheart, not mine.

We real computer users don't run mobile processors in desktops just so we don't interfere with our Mac Pro sales. That's Apple's whole point, but since you morons only buy computers that the OS makers sells........ Apple could stick 600mhz Cyrix chips in that thing and you'd be claiming it was 2x as fast as AMD X2's or something. Whatever Apple says - you believe, right? You aren't intelligent enough to make your own hardware decisions, so daddy makes them for you.

-And it the fact still stands that a 3ghz Core 2 Duo will beat a dual processor 2.66ghz Xeon, and I could build the Core 2 duo box for about 2/3 the price.

-And the fact still stands you've spent the past ten years bad mouthing Intel, then flip to Intel like my GF changes tampons. You had no credibility then, so you have none now.

I've deployed over 100 servers in the past 4 years, and built approx ten percent of them from either Intel or AMD. I've also been working with quad processor arrays since the mid 90's, and have yet to see an Apple product in a corporate environment other than plugged into the ears of the staff temp.

Ok, I've got to ask...Where are all these morons coming from lately? We have KillerNIC supporters and now this guy. I thought AT was a place where people KNEW what they were talking about. I guess special ed classrooms are now being equipped with PCs and instructions on how to create an AT accounts.

 

[Eug]

So far everyone I've come across is buying the 2.16 24" and not the 2.33. Hmm...

P.S. It seems 2 GB SODIMMs are EXTREMELY hard to find, and very, very expensive. $700 and up. So, practically, the max RAM for this iMac is 2 GB total.

Originally posted by: aphex
Well, wouldnt CS2 under Parallels be the same as a native CS2 on a windows box? I already bought Parallels, just don't have an intel mac yet

How well does Parallels work with cut and paste and stuff like that?

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: aphex
Well, wouldnt CS2 under Parallels be the same as a native CS2 on a windows box? I already bought Parallels, just don't have an intel mac yet

How well does Parallels work with cut and paste and stuff like that?

Parallels gives you one core on a dual-core system. You set the amount of ram you want for the virtual machine, as well as the size of the hard drive (by default it grows to fill the space; it's not a 40gb file the moment you create it unless you specify).

The downer is that the video card in Parallels is emulated - only 8mb. That's right, an 8mb virtual video card. There are is also some slight lag in the whole Windows interface - just a touch, like a hundredth of a millisecond. Enough to notice but not enough to really be annoying. I haven't tried Photoshop on it yet, but Paint Shop Pro 7 is alright. I'm currently using Boot Camp and waiting for CS3

 

[aphex]

So with Parallels, you can only do 1 core, but with Boot Camp, if you boot into windows its full on dual core goodness?

 

[secretanchitman]

Originally posted by: Trinitron

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: StevenNevets
I'm an Apple moron...

is an imac a monitor/computer in one - it has all these parts inside?

Yes. It's an all in one. You need nothing extra. In fact, it even includes wireless 802.11g, Bluetooth, a DVD burner, and a web cam.

http://www.apple.com/imac/design.html

So if the screen dies your facked?

you can use another monitor via the dvi input on the imac...dunno if that will display or not without going into osx first, heh...

and spike. wow, just wow. power mac does NOT equal mac pro. and speed isnt everything.

 

[Dug]

Use bootcamp if you have Windows version of CS2. Then you won't have a performance hit.
CS2 in OSX on Core 2 Duo is basically emulated so it runs like its on a 300mhz computer, not even worth installing, just wait for CS3.
Parallels will not work well for CS2 because of resources used and one processor.

 

[Eug]

^^^ My emulated vs. native Mac Photoshop CS2 benchmark

Yeah, Photoshop under Rosetta emulation runs at less than half speed compared to native Photoshop, but even if it were at say 1/3rd speed, that's more than "300 MHz". It's definitely not great, but it's actually not that bad for light usage.

I just edit up to 8 MP images. I never deal with 600 MB pre-print documents, so it's not a huge deal for me. ie. I'd rather deal with the slowness than reboot to run Boot Camp.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: spike spiegal

nd like I said, the iMac runs Merom, not Conroe (or Xeon). The fastest Merom in existence is 2.33 GHz.

That's your problem sweetheart, not mine.

We real computer users don't run mobile processors in desktops just so we don't interfere with our Mac Pro sales. That's Apple's whole point, but since you morons only buy computers that the OS makers sells........ Apple could stick 600mhz Cyrix chips in that thing and you'd be claiming it was 2x as fast as AMD X2's or something. Whatever Apple says - you believe, right? You aren't intelligent enough to make your own hardware decisions, so daddy makes them for you.

-And it the fact still stands that a 3ghz Core 2 Duo will beat a dual processor 2.66ghz Xeon, and I could build the Core 2 duo box for about 2/3 the price.

-And the fact still stands you've spent the past ten years bad mouthing Intel, then flip to Intel like my GF changes tampons. You had no credibility then, so you have none now.

I've deployed over 100 servers in the past 4 years, and built approx ten percent of them from either Intel or AMD. I've also been working with quad processor arrays since the mid 90's, and have yet to see an Apple product in a corporate environment other than plugged into the ears of the staff temp.

You've never seen a Apple product in a corporate environment? That's odd. Most graphics and video editing departments that I've seen have at least a couple of Macs, since that's what the old school Photoshop gurus are comfortable with.

Oh, and only a rookie sys admin would brag about deploying only 25 servers a year.

 

[ForumMaster]

Originally posted by: spike spiegal

Seriously, STFU if you haven't used or are using a Mac. It's very annoying when people talk out of their ass when they have zero clue.

Apple users have no clue - period.

Question: Why doesn't the new iMac offer a 3ghz Core 2 Duo option?

Answer: Because that would make it faster than the overpriced dual processor 2.66ghz Power Mac, and Apple won't allow that.

You not only let an OS seller (Apple) dictate their own hardware to increase their hardware profits, but you brag about it.

I honestly have to go into a PlayStation 3 forum and talk to 15yr old kids before I reach the same level of blatant ignorance and brand fetish as you Apple users.

as for your stupid comment on how the Mac Pro is overpriced, why don't you read this article? The Mac Pro is a quad core Xeon based PC and it is competivly priced. just check the article that anandtech had. the Mac Pro doesn't use C2D and you wouldn't be able to build a comparable computer for less. so STFU.

 

[Eug]

Out of interest's sake, what do you think is the real life performance difference between 2.17 Merom and 2.33 Merom?

My guess is in the ballpark of 5% - not noticeable in actual usage.

 

[Suture]

I thought the DJ guy was an idiot until Spike came in and helped make us smarter.

Apparently, a Mac killed Spike's whole family and he has brought his vegeance to Anandtech.