Comments on: Apple Updates the iMac: Big Screen, Small Dollars

By: frd75

frd75 — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:38:08 +0000

Nancy, If you are into serious photography, you will want to calibrate your monitor. I have no personal experience with the imac, but I have been told that screen brightness is way to high and almost impossible to adjust. I cannot use the imac because the glossy screen has yoo many reflections.

By: Vishal

Vishal — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:22:19 +0000

Is the 1499 imac good enough for editing avchd movies. Using either imovie or finalcut express.
In other words…do I need a better grapichs card with dedicated video memory, for my editing needs stated above…

By: Danh

Danh — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:57:33 +0000

@Nancy I would go with the 2.93. My MacBook Pro is a 2.4 and I do professional photography with CS4 and it works great. I think saving that extra cash between the 2.93 and 3.06 would be beneficial to invest in an external hard drive.

By: Nancy

Nancy — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:37:09 +0000

Which iMac do I buy for professional photography, using Photoshop CS4, and also Dreamweaver. I am torn between the 2.93 & 3.06. Are there any benchmarks yet? With student discounts, I can get the 2.93 configured exactly like the 3.06 (other than the processsor) for $175 difference.

By: Weekly App Store Picks: March 7, 2009 - TheAppleBlog

Weekly App Store Picks: March 7, 2009 - TheAppleBlog — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:18:56 +0000

[...] We covered it all right here at TheAppleBlog and so there are dedicated articles for the new iMacs (I’ll be getting one!), new Mac minis, refreshed Airport Extreme and Time Capsule, plus [...]

By: Danh

Danh — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:57:12 +0000

Which firewire is faster? 400 or 800?

By: ecchi

ecchi — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:23:21 +0000

@frd75: Has firewire800 though, which is compatible with firewire400 devices. Just need a $5 cable.

By: frd75

frd75 — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:04:26 +0000

Still no matte screen or fire wire 400 options. two killers for me.

By: Danh

Danh — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:23:44 +0000

thanks @ecchi. It sounds like that upgrade to the Rradeon would put it along the lines of the MacBook Pro.

I’m not going to do any 3d rendering. I’m big on photoshop and professional photography… and hopefully have a good enough machine to play Diablo III and Starcraft 2.

By: ecchi

ecchi — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:47:03 +0000

Probably the iMac – provided you upgrade the GPU to the Radeon HD 4850; The CPU speed alone is 300-400 mhz higher, with more flexible power and heat consumption than the MBP. Now if the 4850 is “desktop-class” (and not a Mobile-version), than the iMac would easily out-class the 9600M GT(though Apple has traditionally used the mobile GPU’s in the iMacs). The GT130 is basically the 9600GT with a few tweaks. Some debate that its just a re-badge.

By: Danh

Danh — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:05:13 +0000

with portability aside, which is a stronger machine to get? The high end 24′ iMac or the high end 15′ MacBook Pro? I’m looking into getting either one of these.

By: Tom Reestman

Tom Reestman — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:16:30 +0000

Kent,

Lots of people wanted LED, but even with all the crazy rumors I didn’t here anyone with that much wishful thinking.

Apple’s 24″ LED cinema display is $899, and everyone seems furious at the price, yet they think it could be added to the iMac affordably? LED screens of that size are simply not made on that kind of scale.

By: pndai

pndai — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:13:05 +0000

Sigh, I just bought the $1499 model 2-3 months ago!!! Should’ve wait a little longer. I really like the better, faster memory and 20 -> 24 inches improvement…

Oh well… sigh…

By: Kent

Kent — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:42:50 +0000

I’m quite disappointed that they didn’t take the logical step of incorporating an LED screen. If cost is the issue, it should, at a minimum, have at least been an option on the highest end configuration. They obviously have the technology (i.e. standalone 24″ LED cinema display).

By: Galley

Galley — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:51:34 +0000

The 24-incher blows mine away, except for processor speed, and it’s $300 cheaper.

By: ecchi

ecchi — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:30:24 +0000

Based on this Macworld article: http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/reviews/index.cfm?reviewid=2868&pagtype=allchandate the 9400m is basically at odds with what it’ll be replacing on the 20″ 2400 XT iMac(and in some cases loses to it). The new intro 24″ which also uses the 9400m, will definitely be “slower” than the 20″ 2600 Pro.

There may be some minor improvement with the iMac, as apposed to the MBP – more thermal and power flexibility – for instance, some PC benches indicate anywhere from 5-30% bump in the 9400m’s favor – but a lot of the data to support that is synthetic benchmarks, so I’m hesitant to think that this refresh was anything BUT beneficial to the consumer. They screwed us over on the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro, I’m inclined to think they did so with the iMac as well.