Curse

Zorrilo Gw · Nov 08, 2009, 10:37 PM // 22:37

Hey guys,

What does everyone think of the new iMac's. Now I know Apple has always been stingy in the graphics department and this time around is no exception (can get a 4850 which isn't too bad), so I'm taking more about a general use application than serious gaming. I live about 40 mins from the nearest Futureshop, and Staples obviously doesn't carry these, so I'm looking for some general opinions until I can take a look myself.

How is the new LED monitor? From some online reviews it looks pretty nice. The 27" option isn't bad for those looking for a comp-TV combo. Though I've never owned a mac, this seems to open up the options at least for the casual gamer. I do play some COD though, and am apprehensive about more strenuous games like this. Would there not only hardware limitations, but heating issues as well (the ventiliation doesn't appear great)?

I know that you're always better off building, which I have done in the past, but the next time around (likely in the summer) I think I'll just buy. I'll be finished university and really don't want to lug my full gaming rig across the country with me. There is the mac pro, but that is even more over-priced. The iMac seems like it is a pretty decent balance of price, function, and space saving (if used as TV also).

moriz · Nov 09, 2009, 01:23 AM // 01:23

the new LED is spectacular. however, it runs at a whooping 2560x1440 resolution, which is well beyond what a 4850 can deliver comfortably. even if you install windows on that machine, the graphic card is going to struggle to play any modern game at that native resolution.

if you are going for portability, this isn't it. yes, it has the physical form of a 27" monitor, but 27" monitors are not portable by any means.

Elder III · Nov 09, 2009, 04:30 AM // 04:30

my personal opinion is that you pay far more than it is worth - for the avg user there's nothing you can do with an IMac that you can't do as well and for cheaper with a basic PC. Bring gaming into the picture and it's even more of a no brainer.

Quaker · Nov 09, 2009, 03:56 PM // 15:56

I sort of agree with Elder about the relative value of iMacs. Apple computers are always more expensive than other brands. However, if you compare them to other "quality" brands, such as Sony, they don't appear to be as overpriced.

The main thing you get with an iMac is OSX. Personally, I don't believe the hype - from what I've seen, OSX is only a little more stable than Windows (esp Vista and 7) and actually has more problems as far as drivers are concerned. These problems don't show up so much with iMacs because they are basically built like a laptop and people don't try to change components.

Which, brings up the first problem with them - expandability. What little expandability there is with iMacs is mostly limited to high-priced Apple components. They are an all-in-one computer, so they don't use any standard components like an ordinary PCIe video card.

On the OS front, it's true that you get fewer (not "no", just fewer) viruses, etc., with OSX. If that is a concern to you, than OSX is for you. I personally very seldom get viruses (Vista) - an AVG pop-up is a rare event. Then again, I don't visit that many porn/hax sites.

On the gaming side of things - if you are a "gamer" and you must buy an iMac, buy Windows7 for it while you're at it and install it using Bootcamp.
I know many people will talk about Crossover Games, Wine, etc., but an actual install of Windows is the best option. If you have the bucks for a Mac, you must have the bucks for Windows too.

Of course, Apple is trendy at the moment, so you may want it for the cool factor.

Btw, Best Buy has them too. But you'd still need to get to Dartmouth Crossing (HRM). Best Buy lists a 24" model (but it may be an older model)

Here's a link to a review - http://gizmodo.com/5388567/apple-ima...-and-less-chin

Zorrilo Gw · Nov 09, 2009, 10:19 PM // 22:19

Hey guys, thanks for all the responses. As mentioned above, expandability and bang-for-the-buck are always issues with Apple (especially an all-in-one). One thing is, in my case anyway, I'm not much of an upgrader. I tend to get good parts, and by ~3yrs, barring defects, its time for a system re-haul. But regardless, it seems that these comps are just not built to handle anything heavy.

It seems that for anything more than basic uses I'd be better off doing another build (doesn't seem likely), or getting from a specialty retailer. With the price of macs, I'd probably still save $ doing this and getting a nice monitor.

Burst Cancel · Nov 10, 2009, 06:14 AM // 06:14

One thing to keep in mind is that, contrary to what industry marketers would have you believe, personal computing crossed the line of "good enough" a long time ago. Unless you have specific high-end needs (bleeding-edge gaming, CAD, HPC, etc.), a machine you build today (actually, one you built three years ago) will probably be sufficient for most people for the next decade. The old scheme of buying new parts or new computers every few years is dead.

moriz · Nov 10, 2009, 07:13 AM // 07:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

One thing to keep in mind is that, contrary to what industry marketers would have you believe, personal computing crossed the line of "good enough" a long time ago. Unless you have specific high-end needs (bleeding-edge gaming, CAD, HPC, etc.), a machine you build today (actually, one you built three years ago) will probably be sufficient for most people for the next decade. The old scheme of buying new parts or new computers every few years is dead.

that would depend on what you classify as "good enough", wouldn't it?

for me, a machine from three years ago would never be good enough. even in very light usage, a new machine will definitely be noticeably faster. and no, i doubt any machine built today would be adequate ten years from now. just not gonna happen.

Bob Slydell · Nov 10, 2009, 07:35 AM // 07:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zorrilo Gw

Hey guys,

What does everyone think of the new iMac's. Now I know Apple has always been stingy in the graphics department and this time around is no exception (can get a 4850 which isn't too bad), so I'm taking more about a general use application than serious gaming. I live about 40 mins from the nearest Futureshop, and Staples obviously doesn't carry these, so I'm looking for some general opinions until I can take a look myself.

How is the new LED monitor? From some online reviews it looks pretty nice. The 27" option isn't bad for those looking for a comp-TV combo. Though I've never owned a mac, this seems to open up the options at least for the casual gamer. I do play some COD though, and am apprehensive about more strenuous games like this. Would there not only hardware limitations, but heating issues as well (the ventiliation doesn't appear great)?

I know that you're always better off building, which I have done in the past, but the next time around (likely in the summer) I think I'll just buy. I'll be finished university and really don't want to lug my full gaming rig across the country with me. There is the mac pro, but that is even more over-priced. The iMac seems like it is a pretty decent balance of price, function, and space saving (if used as TV also).

Can't give you an opinion on the new iMac..but I am using an older one..about 3 years old. It's an Intel, runs Windows if needed (for games) has a Radeon x1600 which "sucks" by most standards today, but plays gw in the 40-50 FPS range, plays CoD4 VERY well, CoD5 not that great. If you do get a new iMac, don't waste it on "general usage". Beat the hell out of it, just beat the hell out of that GPU. As for ventilation, like I said I don't own one of these myself...mine gets hot but as long as the room is well circulated and cool air gets to the Mac..you're fine. Trust me, I've had this thing for 3 years, the new ones are worth it, I also plan to get a new iMac or new MBP as my next one sometime. They can only be better that what I have now and I like what I have now in terms of performance. I never really was a m..u..s..t...have-perfect-performance-benchmarks-kinda-guy. Works great for what I do.

The new LED Screen sounds nice...Although in reality it IS just an LCD screen with an LED light panel behind it. The LED light panel is supposedly supposed to adapt to lighting changes on the screen because it take information from the LCD pixel computer, so when something dark is on the screen, for example, the corresponding LED's in the general area of that darkness will dim down. Same for bright areas, only they will be brighter.

One of the best things about these iMacs is the convenience of moving it around. Now... I have the 20" WS from a few years back, the 27 would probably be a lot more awkward to move around. But if you do plan on moving it, it's one power cord, a mouse and keyboard thats it. It has a hardwired network card but you can also use the onboard wireless network card. The hardware is all regarded as laptop grade, even though it is considered a desktop by apple's standard, it's a MacBook Pro on a stand with a big screen, lol.

If you ask me... you should get it, you won't be sorry. You are on a GW forum, so it seems to me you'd play GW on it (you would need Windows, and bootcamp is free on the mac anyway) and you also said you'd use it for "general use" and I think you mentioned CoD (as i said i play GW and CoD on mine and they look and run great, for a 3 year old system)....and then that GPU can still take a lot more than those sissy GPU unintensive carebear games.. so yeah...it is really worth it. Just watch the prices, apple is crazy with their prices.

Oh and one more thing, upgrades aren't impossible on this thing... if a few years or more down the line, you feel it needs a new graphics card, as far as I know, the new ones use an MXM graphics module, which can be removed and replaced. Bit of a hard case to open though, but thats the price to pay with slim form factors. RAM can also be upgraded easily.

Honestly..thats my insight on the iMac maybe a sorta rant coming from someone who uses one everyday and has for the past 3 long years I like to make sure anyone interested in a Mac is well informed because of my experiences. PM me here if you have any more questions.

Snow Bunny · Nov 10, 2009, 03:57 PM // 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

that would depend on what you classify as "good enough", wouldn't it?

for me, a machine from three years ago would never be good enough. even in very light usage, a new machine will definitely be noticeably faster. and no, i doubt any machine built today would be adequate ten years from now. just not gonna happen.

Gaming, yes.

Everything else? No.

My Inspiron laptop can't play games for anything (it plays torchlight though!) and it can run outlook, itunes, firefox, steam, word, and excel without breaking a sweat.

Burst Cancel · Nov 11, 2009, 06:16 AM // 06:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

and no, i doubt any machine built today would be adequate ten years from now. just not gonna happen.

It's already happened, actually. There are people running linux boxes on decade-old hardware that are perfectly adequate for everyday usage. I have a Pentium III machine built in 1999 that I still use for basic tasks; not a single component in that machine has ever been upgraded or replaced.

Gamers have an understandably skewed view of what is or is not "good enough", but you need to realize that the average user is perfectly happy with surfing the web on their smartphone or netbook. We had access to equivalent processing power in desktops years ago. You don't need an i7 for email, Facebook, and word processing.

The machines we build today are likely to have even greater staying power than the machines from a decade ago, due to multi-core processors and SSDs; these technologies aren't just simple speed upgrades - they're fundamentally different technologies that addressed some of the last remaining problems with home computing. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if my i7 box lasted me for the next twenty years, let alone the next ten.

moriz · Nov 11, 2009, 01:55 PM // 13:55

yeah, assuming the hardware even lasts 10 years. let's face it, the average computer hardware isn't designed to last that long. the last pre-built desktop my parents bought lasted four years, before parts on it began to crap out. it wouldn't even lasted two years if i hadn't been constantly maintaining that POS. the last custom built desktop we had lasted eight years, again, because of parts dying from general wear and tear (ATI rage pro representing!). it was replaced by the aforementioned POS prebuilt, which has been recently replaced with a $350 system i built myself.

computer upgrades will happen regardless of how powerful the hardware has become, or what the general usage is, simply because consumer computer parts are not designed to last that long. SSDs, for instance, are mathematically incapable of going beyond five years (or however long it is), because they can only handle so many reads/writes before it stops responding. and of course, there's tangible speed differences going from a pentium 4 to a core 2 duo, from a core 2 duo to a core i7/i5, etc. these are differences that the average user will notice and appreciate.

Quaker · Nov 11, 2009, 03:22 PM // 15:22

Yes & No. A lot of the speed increases are gobbled up by ever more feature-laden software. If you could put Windows95 on that P4, then the Core2, & then an i7, you would notice the difference. But normally, you would also be going from Win95 to WinXP, to Win7 while you're at it, and a lot of the potential speed increase would be lost in the extra features.

(Not that I'm complaining, btw)

Edit: Elder's post below made me realize I hadn't said that I basically agree that, for the average person who simply surfs the web, downloads music, checks there e-mail, etc., a computer probably could last for a very long time. Basically, until something breaks which makes it more economical to buy a new system. Much like any appliance (such as a stove or washer).
Most "Office" based tasks don't require anything special, either.
If you think about it, the new netbooks have the performance of a 5-10 yr old computer.
It's the video/music/photo editors, etc., who actually do work on their computers, and the gamers, who will want/need to upgrade more often.

Elder III · Nov 11, 2009, 03:32 PM // 15:32

I'll chime in by saying that a current "modern computer", --- by which I mean Intel Core Duo 2 ghz or better CPU (or AMD equivalent), 3 or more GB of DDR2/3 RAM, 500GB HDD (this will vary greatly from user to user), and a HD dual display GPU, --- will likely meet the needs of the avg home user, Joe and Fanny Sixpack who surf the web, watch some videos, upload pics of their kiddies, and use Word, Excel etc on occasion - for several years, 5-6 seems very likely right now, but 10+ is a stretch. Who knows what popular software will be in vogue a decade from now. I don't think computer useage and technology will change as much in the next 10 yrs as the last 10 yrs, but it will change and so will our computers..... but it will be more gradual and therefore kinder on the pocket book. XD

Now those who do graphics design for fun or for a living, let alone the avid gamer - they can expect to need to upgrade as they have, but I think at a little slower pace than before.

there that's a nickels worth this time.

Burst Cancel · Nov 11, 2009, 11:05 PM // 23:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

snip

Computer parts last longer than you think; as I said, I'm still using a P3 machine from 1999 that has never been repaired or upgraded. In a modern computer, the mechanical components (hard drives, optical drives, fans, etc.) are the most likely to fail. The CPU, RAM, motherboard, video card (if you even have one, because let's face it, most people have IGPs) should run for years and years without problems.

Flash drives have write-limited lifetimes, but the ratings drastically overestimate the amount of writing that's actually done to the drive. Unless you're writing tens of GB to the disk every single day, even MLC SSDs will last you a lot longer than most people think. The average user probably isn't going to hit even 1 GB/day; I certainly don't.

The speed difference in checking email or filing my tax returns is negligible between my socket 939 Athlon X2 3800 (circa 2005) and my i7 920. It all depends on what you're running. And as I stated above, many people are perfectly happy with netbooks or atom-based desktop machines (nettops?). The point is, there's a lot more processing power available in even bottom-tier machines today than most people can even use. Unless they have specific high-performance requirements, the average user can buy a machine today with the expectation of keeping it for a long, long time.

If the industry wants to keep everyone buying new machines every year or so, they need a constant stream of killer apps that actually use that power. PC gaming serves that function for a portion of the market, but how do you reach everyone else? And just how long is gaming going to be a compelling driver for hardware sales?

Bob Slydell · Nov 12, 2009, 12:35 AM // 00:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

yeah, assuming the hardware even lasts 10 years. let's face it, the average computer hardware isn't designed to last that long. the last pre-built desktop my parents bought lasted four years, before parts on it began to crap out. it wouldn't even lasted two years if i hadn't been constantly maintaining that POS.

Are you sure? I have a lot of old stuff, in conjunction with my newer stuff...the old still works and dosen't really show a sign of failure anywhere in sight.

Two of my older PCs are 5 years (pre built HP) and my laser printer is about 11-12 years old. If anything, the hardware in the older PC's is healthier than my 2006 iMac which already has a dying HDD..i think.

moriz · Nov 12, 2009, 03:51 AM // 03:51

well, my old pentium 1 that i got back in '97 technically still works, if i'm ever inclined to use it again. however, just because some of us seem to have pc-zombies that never die, there is a very healthy turnover for PCs because of failure. after all, prebuilt PCs are basically designed to fail after a couple of years.

i'm not sure why none of you are not noticing the speed difference between older and new hardware. the jump from the old pentium 4 (3ghz) i had before, to my current system i built last year is pretty huge. yes, this applies for basic things: word/excel, web browsing, email. opening and browsing files on the new computer is dramatically faster. this even applies for my Oblivion folder, complete with 20 gb worth of mods. zipping/unzipping files, data transfer, almost everything is noticeably faster too. even my parents, both whom are not technically inclined, can notice the same speed differences.

Lord Sojar · Nov 12, 2009, 05:24 AM // 05:24

Meh... the only new Apple that I think is worth the money is their 17" Macbook Pro, and at 2,499, it's still too much. But... the battery life is amazing and they screen is.... orgasmic. So... you pay for what you get in this case. The 15" is purdy too, if not even more purdy provided you add in the extra features.

Elder III · Nov 12, 2009, 03:44 PM // 15:44

Most people have poor computer habits and never perform basic computer maintenance tasks, aka defragging, cleaning out cookies, registry editing etc.... things that are not terribly hard to do, but most people will give you a blank look if you mention it. My point is that the older systems I come across that have gone through several years of no maintenance etc simply crawl, like a gut shot elephant..... At least the "modern" configuration of hardware has the overhead to handle allot more of that before they begin to slow down....

that disjointed paragraph is just to say that I agree with Moriz - P3 & P4 systems are noticeably slower than Core 2 DUO or other "new" systems; even to the computer illiterate.