• On MovieTome: See the villain of IRON MAN 2!
March 3, 2009 6:01 AM PST

Apple overhauls iMacs, 24-inch models more affordable

by Rich Brown
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 64 comments
(Credit: Apple)


Editors' Note: As of October 20, 2009, the iMac reviewed here has been replaced by 27-inch iMac models.

In addition to updating its Mac Minis this morning, Apple has new iMacs. Each of the four default models received an update, so we'll break them out below list-style for convenience, with new specs in bold.

$1,199 iMac

  • 2.6GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
  • 2GB 1,066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
  • 320GB hard drive

  • 256MB (shared) Nvidia GeForce 9400M graphics chip
  • 20-inch LCD

$1,499 iMac

  • 2.6GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
  • 4GB 1,066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
  • 640GB hard drive

  • 256MB (shared) Nvidia GeForce 9400M graphics chip
  • 24-inch LCD

$1,799 iMac

  • 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
  • 4GB 1,066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
  • 640GB hard drive

  • 256MB Nvidia GeForce GTS 120 graphics chip
  • 24-inch LCD

$2,199 iMac

  • 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
  • 4GB 1,066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
  • 1TB hard drive

  • 512MB Nvidia GeForce GTS 130 graphics chip
  • 24-inch LCD

As you can see from all of that bold text, this is a sweeping update across the entire iMac line. A few specs stand out, though. At $1,499, the 24-inch model is the most affordable all-in-one at that screen size from a major desktop vendor in the U.S. The larger hard drives are, of course, also welcome, and the roster of Nvidia graphics chips--in particular the higher-end models with dedicated GPUs--improve the iMacs' outlook for video editing as well as gaming. No other all-in-one approaches those specs at their corresponding prices right now.

(Credit: Apple)

We're glad to see the iMacs' CPU clock speed go up almost across the board as well, but Apple has also left itself vulnerable by sticking with dual-core CPUs. We'd agree that dual-core chips are generally preferable for single application performance, but quad-core excels at multitasking. Both Sony and Dell offer quad-core chips in their all-in-ones, and we suspect they'll play up that advantage as they refresh their own lines.

As with the Mac Minis, the new iMacs also come with updated ports on the back side. You get the typical USB 2.0 jacks, FireWire 800 output, and Gigabit Ethernet, but the Mini DVI port has been replaced by a Mini DisplayPort. As Mini DisplayPort is unique to Apple displays right now, you'll need to purchase an adapter if you want to connect a standard DVI monitor, at least until other monitor vendors catch up.

The following products mentioned are available.

Rich Brown reviews desktops and various other components and peripherals for CNET. E-mail Rich.
Recent posts from Crave
Killer deals on BlackBerry, Droid, and Palm Pixi
This week in Crave: The boxed-in edition
Ricky Gervais helps reveal pain of cell phone salesmen
Indecent Exposure 68: Inky extents
Apple fixes AirPort problems marring video playback on 27-inch iMacs
iPhone: The board gamer's paradise
Can erasing your iPhone's memory improve performance?
Top 5 best products of the fall
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (64 Comments)
by ubnyan March 3, 2009 7:02 AM PST
$1499 starting price for the 24" is decent price for all you get with it. A similar Dell All-in-one is $100 more. Car keys, check. Wallet, check. Cya at the Apple Store :)
Reply to this comment
by another_cissp March 3, 2009 8:43 AM PST
What dell store are you shopping at? On Dells web site you can get a 24 inch monitor with quad core and 3 gigs of ram, 500 gig hard drive for $200 less.
by ballmerisanape March 3, 2009 6:09 PM PST
another.. can you run every modern OS natively on that Dell... didn't think so. Plus... Dell = crap design. That's a given.
by another_cissp March 5, 2009 9:14 PM PST
Why are you asking me? I don?t have a Dell, nor do I care. Call Dell and ask them about their crappy design and the fact they cannot run OSX. I am sure they will get a kick out of it. Just cause I can read a price off of Dells web site does not mean I have any special insight in to Dell.
by viper396 June 2, 2009 4:38 PM PDT
With a Kalyway DVD, technical know how, and a little ambition, OSX will install on most modern Dell systems.

Apple is the only one you should be blaming to if you insist on arguing about why OSX isn't available on non-Apple branded hardware. But I guess someone who's so fanatically anti-Microsoft as to label themself "ballmerisanape" will never be honest enough to acknowledge Apple's more obvious faults.
by brettcamp July 9, 2009 10:20 AM PDT
Dell is poop... MAC
by hakeis1 July 12, 2009 10:24 AM PDT
If the Dell is $ 100 more or $ 200 less in either event i'll take the Apple 365 days a year
over the Dell. Apples don't have all the software issues that Microsoft Windows Pc's
have.
by theislands09 September 8, 2009 3:26 PM PDT
how can you say thats a decent price look at the parts
cpu $100
os $200
4gb of ram $70
case $90
monitor $220
motherboard $ 80
hard drive $70
$960 and these are considering quality parts
gpu $50
psu $50
cd drive $30
$890
by Akiba October 8, 2009 10:54 PM PDT
All-in-ones are rip-offs. These specs are horrible for the price. Either get a notebook (Mac or PC), or get a desktop with a separate monitor. $1500 desktop with 9400m graphics, $2200 desktop with 4gb ram?
by myles taylor March 3, 2009 7:07 AM PST
I'm disappointed in the Mac Mini update but very happy with the iMac update. Nothing amazing or unpredictable (Apple, I want to be surprised again!!) but still a good release all around. The bottom end 24" is an amazing deal.
Reply to this comment
by karpenterskids March 3, 2009 9:32 AM PST
24" screens are going to look absolutely beautiful.

I agree with the Mac Mini comment, though...I definitely won't be buying one of those.
by seven7dust March 3, 2009 1:48 PM PST
just curios what were you expecting in the mac mini update ?
On the other hand I'm pleased with the mini update and
disappointed with the iMac update !
by pithenumber March 4, 2009 2:51 PM PST
@77dust
<NOTsarcastic>most people were expecting a $300 computer that would have everything the Mini has now</NOTsarcastic>

people expect too much, Apple doesn't even like the Mini
by tipoo_ March 3, 2009 7:58 AM PST
Isnt this a step backwards graphicaly from the last gen ones?
Reply to this comment
by downhillwarrior March 3, 2009 8:07 AM PST
Note: On the to two high end iMacs the ATI Radeon 4850 is available as the high end graphics card.
Reply to this comment
by feedthehabit March 3, 2009 8:22 AM PST
I wish Apple would build ALL iMacs with Vesa mounts. I know they have a patent on their pivoting stand, but being able to mount an all-in-one computer to a wall seems like a no-brainer. Yeah, I've seem some hokey solutions where they've strapped a Vesa mount to the aluminum arm, but...

Does anyone know if the 24" is still Vesa-compliant? I thought it was at one time, but that may have been with the older white body.
Reply to this comment
by random truth March 3, 2009 3:17 PM PST
It is still vesa mount compatible
by dennisl59 March 3, 2009 8:37 AM PST
Scenarios being played out around the country:

(Thinking to himself) Trying to decide...mmmm....Do I pay my monthly MORTGAGE payment or buy a new Apple computer?

"Honey!?...what should WE do?"

"Dear!...Ah, don't be an idiot, just put the Apple on the Credit Card and worry about the house later...that's been working so far...!!! The government will help us out when Foreclosure is coming!"

thank you.
Reply to this comment
by Perry_Clease March 3, 2009 10:36 AM PST
"Now Honey, you know that your parents pay the mortgage, thank God that they let us live in their basement. You know if you weren't such a slacker we could afford a mortgage and a Macintosh, but I suppose if were not working when the economy was strong you are going to get a job in this economy. Well I am off to my job as a lot lizard at the truck stop. Wish me luck, even the truckers are have been cutting back. Have fun playing games on that PC you fished out of the dumpster."
by pithenumber March 3, 2009 3:14 PM PST
"Now Honey, we can pay both the mortgage and get this fancy gui because I bought us a Hackintosh!"
by bulldogJT March 3, 2009 10:32 AM PST
Actually Apples website says the Mini comes with both a Mini-DisplayPort AND a Mini-DVI port.
Reply to this comment
by dan_rich March 3, 2009 10:57 AM PST
Those who think that a quad core processor > dual core are going to be very disappointed when Snow Leopard is released. You can install a chipset with 8 processors, and it won't make a difference if the OS isn't smart enough to utilize them. To my knowledge Windows 7 has very little support for parallel processing in comparison to Snow Leopard. Just as upgrading your CPU to 3GHz isn't going to have a noticeable affect if your machine has 48MB or RAM installed.
Reply to this comment
by Mark_Anderson March 3, 2009 12:53 PM PST
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Grand Central is merely a layer to utilise multicore processing in the same way that NUMA and CCR has been used for Linux and Windows. To suggest it's any better is laughable - an elegant solution? Sure. Better? Nope.

Of course I suppose that Windows users just expect our operating systems to utilise multicore processing (which Windows has for about 16 years I think) and be fully 64 bit so we don't make a fuss about it.
by rbrown653 September 5, 2009 11:34 AM PDT
Didn't Microsoft even work with Intel to make sure that Windows 7 took full advantage of the multi core processors
by Dylan_Wisor March 3, 2009 2:23 PM PST
DO WANT.
Reply to this comment
by newcastlelinda March 3, 2009 2:55 PM PST
New iMacs were announced today! I've been waiting 6 months for the new iMacs so I could get a replacement for my three year old 20" G5. I cannot wait; I'm ready to order today! What do I want? I want a 20" iMac with great graphics performance. Can I get what I want. Apple says ABSOLUTELY NO!

I am a small, short woman who enjoys using my 20" screen. I do not want the overwhelming 24" screen, but I want the performance of the GeForce GT 130M. So, can I get this from Apple? Apple says NO!

Not everyone thinks that bigger is better. As a computer professional, when I advise friends who are looking for a computer, and they want good graphics performance, but it needs to fit into the space they have in their house set aside for a computer, can I recommend an Apple? Not any more. 24" is too big for lots of families; they don't have the space. So, they'll go buy a Dell, and there's nothing I can do about it.

I think that Apple needs to consider the rest of the customers they should be serving. Not everyone wants a huge screen; not for their TV and not for their computer either.
Reply to this comment
by numbingpain March 3, 2009 11:01 PM PST
If you want high end graphics performance, why are you buying an iMac anyway? Purchase a Mac Pro with a smaller display since you are frightened by larger displays. I guess Apple is supposed to have 40 different SKUs and then put all of them on clearance when they have overstocking.
by mac432e July 27, 2009 10:57 PM PDT
Basic problem solving would serve you well. If you really want tiny screen, pull your chair back a few feet!
by hess1 March 4, 2009 5:00 AM PST
The post above is right the Mac Pro 4.1 will yes give "high end graphics performance" if you care about graphics look at the base Mac Pro I can only say I feel sorry for people paying over 2K on a iMac when you can buy a Mac Pro with (so happy about this) 4 FireWire 800 ports. The my dream has come "All four slots are now PCI Express 2.0 for up to twice the performance of the previous generation. And since the graphics slot in the Mac Pro is double-wide, your graphics card won?t cover an adjacent slot." "Intel Xeon ?Nehalem? processors support Hyper-Threading, which allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core. So an 8-core Mac Pro presents 16 virtual cores that are recognized by Mac OS X. Performance is enhanced because Hyper-Threading enables the processor to take better advantage of the execution resources available in each core."

NOW I am typing to you on a Mac Pro 2.1 (first 8 core from 2007) I can only say now is when I really do wish the Economy would allow me to say to myself "be an idiot, just put the Apple on the Credit Card and worry about the house/Condo later" (I changed & used a Quote I from a wise man) I only now want the New Mac Pro
P.S. If thinking of buying a +2K iMac get a Mac Pro
Reply to this comment
by the_iceman March 4, 2009 9:02 AM PST
1500$ and you get shared graphics? No wonder I'm a PC, apple is overpriced.
Reply to this comment
by rbrown653 September 5, 2009 11:37 AM PDT
I know!!!! And only 2g Ram!!! Geez these specs are awful and everyone loves them

I really don't get it
by Dani210 March 4, 2009 5:38 PM PST
Apple has also left itself vulnerable by sticking with dual-core CPUs. We'd agree that dual-core chips are generally preferable for single application performance, but quad-core excels at multitasking. Both Sony and Dell offer quad-core chips in their all-in-ones...

DUDE!!!! Apple is not vulnerable bc apple's computers still run faster than the pcs!! they have windows on them!! that like halves the speed of any computer. This computer is a regular 2.8 Ghz processor, and i have windows here. It is so freakin slow that closing my browser takes a minute. once in a while, the comp will go so slow that i have to wait like 3 min. bfor the hard drive stops reading until i can use it again. and i don;t have anything running in the background. it just now took 15 seconds to open up the task manager. i have 30 processes running, only 7 that are user processes. 3 of those are for the network, one is explorer.exe, one is task manager, one is this internet browser, and the last is notepad. thats it. Ive even tried to limit how many system processes that i don;t need to run. ive tried mem cleanup programs, defraging my hd, and even using programs that arent so big instead
Reply to this comment
by pithenumber March 7, 2009 12:00 PM PST
nah
my home built PC outspecs the iMac by more than double and costs as much as the cheapest Mac Mini
I built it for less than the Mac Mini sells for

you pay for OS X and the logo
if you want OS X, get a Hackintosh
if you want the logo, you're screwed, fanboy
by onlymac4ever April 6, 2009 6:01 PM PDT
OK!!! OK!!!! I AM GLAD YOU LIKE IT( cheap P_C) !!!!!!!!!!!!! I would not, won't ever, I LOVE MAC'S!! Just so folks know it's not about the $$$$, not about "techno jumbo" ....... IT'S ABOUT THE FEEL ..... THE PLEASURE ....... DUDE. Yeah I know you either get it or you don't .... it's just THAT I GET IT, YOU KNOW MAN!!!
Reply to this comment
by evgonnagetya May 10, 2009 5:36 PM PDT
for Pitthenumber, I would also build my own car if I was a skilled mechanic... wouldn't that be cheaper? And also to maintenance my car if I was a mechanic? Most people just want something that works right every time. My macbook is more dependable than any PC I have not only ever owned, but ever used. (PC for 10 years, Mac for 2) I am not stuck on a brand like you lifers that bicker on here all the time. I will use what I feel is the best product available, and right now it's Mac and OS X. Vista was a flop... admit it already. And what does fanboy mean? Seriously, computer programmers and IT people can be so obnoxious.
by Electronic_Dreamer September 18, 2009 3:33 PM PDT
your funny, but its is about the money and the tech jumbo! i mean obviously most would want more computer power for their money right? why pay more? "the feel" *** is that? i think you've had a little too much fun with mac's, stop kissing steve job's ass.
by Renegade Knight October 5, 2009 2:06 PM PDT
Your the guu who wrote the worthless reivew gushing over Mac's when I was looking promising me no pain, only pleasure blah, blah, blah. You are right, it'sn ot the money or techno geek factor, it's about working and doing the job you have for the computer. My Mac falls short. But then why would I expect you to 'get it'?
by stevenb125 April 6, 2009 11:01 PM PDT
Both of them have advantage mac are a bite overprice but they do work for standard user no trouble of using it and it work, For people like me with surround sound 7.1 studio quality, 46 inc 1080p meaning having 2 graphic card for good performance, and have need of 3tb of hard drive as well easy hardware upgrade with out the need to buy new one every year so work with new games with the ability to work with all component for full support with ability of the adjustment windows the deal for you.
Reply to this comment
by SystemsJunky May 15, 2009 9:19 AM PDT
These Macs still lack one thing...Upgradeability. Always the problem with Macs, that never changes...Ill stick with my POS PEECEE that does nothing - since im such a cheap loser who doesnt know his a$$ from a hole in the ground...And since Macs run the world maybe I should quit my job as an IT Consultant. Since macs are perfect..never crash..no pinnwheels, no thing, they "just work"..Okay ppl, whatever you say....LOL
Reply to this comment
by Renegade Knight October 5, 2009 2:07 PM PDT
That's less of an issue than it used to be. All computers hold up better than they usedto for doing the job. I'm using 7 year old laptops to work and play games. It used to be new every two (low end crap breaks in two but that's another thing).
by guytaur1 May 31, 2009 4:44 AM PDT
I switched from PC to Mac. Yes you pay more for a Mac Upfront. However over time the Mac is cheaper.
I learnt this from watching my friend with his Imac. One of the Table lamp looking ones running Tiger.
To this day it is still running. All the Browser updates and other essential software still supported. So unlike the PC experience. Windows 95 was cool. Then came 98 support for 95 phased out fast. Same when XP came along. Then Vista Then Windows 7.
So I think that the Mac wins the cost war. A good example is to compare the availability of second hand Apple computers to PC's. As this is what users want I can see why Imacs are gaining market share. Works out of the box. Not too many costly updates over time.
Reply to this comment
by xm8 September 25, 2009 11:58 AM PDT
well. if you consider how often apple releases their operating system compared to windows. it is obvious that they should still support older macs running older operating systems.
by deniceels October 2, 2009 10:58 AM PDT
Maybe you've missed out Cheetah, Jaguar, Panther, the the rest which came out when XP came out. Thus, the number of MacOSes that came out with the timeline of MS XP is more, thus, can't be compared to Win95, Win98_SE, WinME, Win2K... (for which they came out on or before 2000).

Oh yea, before you forget, MS saved Apple from going under around that period as well. So, don't mentioning cost isn't going to change that they both need each other to compete (More like MS needs Apple to keep it from being alone).
by ankeshsm June 9, 2009 2:55 AM PDT
thank...........................
Reply to this comment
by William Crow June 11, 2009 8:18 PM PDT
Which one is cheaper? The PCs run with Windows. Buyers should run to an iMac. I quit Windows cold turkey, 3 years ago, and won't go back.
Do it.
Reply to this comment
by Electronic_Dreamer September 22, 2009 5:52 PM PDT
to pay extra money for same specs or weaker???
by rainloving July 9, 2009 2:11 AM PDT
Attractive iMac,but it is too expensive for me.
Reply to this comment
by JuniorMints August 1, 2009 5:42 AM PDT
When it comes to buying either Mac or PC, think of it this way: you get what you pay for. Which one may cost more up front ($100-$300) but works right out of the box, has some of the coolest programs already installed, and is usually the one that lives a lot longer? Which one will need more patches and anti-virus software for the rest of its existence, and hardly comes with anything useful out of the box?

Most users out there are not techno-geeks who know every spec or build their own computers. Many are families or businesses that just want something dependable, affordable and of course, fun to use. But before you buy any computer, a little research and study coupled with a realistic view of what you need and how much you want to grow is essential. Not everyone falls under the category of a fanboy who has to have the latest thing. The true cost of a computer comes down to 1) how much use can you get out of it, 2) can it open up new doors of creativity for you, 3) how much do you spend on it to keep it working in the long run?

If you can work your way through those steps (and obviously add your own--since I won't presume to know what you need), then you will make the decision that's right for you.
by Renegade Knight October 5, 2009 2:11 PM PDT
@JuniorMints

You do get what you pay for to a point. Then you can overpay for the same thing. Windoze works better ouf of the box for Joe User than OS X. I had to do some software installs and load a scipt to fill in some missing funcionality in my Mac. Mac does come with some software that Windose doesn't have. Since we don't use it. It iddn't add anything to the value of my Mac. As for firewalls and antivirus software. I use the free stuff having been burned by the pay companies a long time ago. For now I don't use antivirus on my mac. However the day is coming.

You are dead on about matchng the computer for your use.
Showing 1 of 2 pages (64 Comments)

About Crave

The name says it all. Crave is our blog about gorgeous gadgets and other crushworthy stuff. If you would like to contact Crave with a tip or comment, please write to: crave@cnet.com

Add this feed to your online news reader

Crave topics

A CNET Conversation with Eric Schmidt

CNET's Tom Krazit and Molly Wood sit down with Google CEO Eric Schmidt to discuss the future of Android, the Chrome OS, the problem of real-time search indexing, and more.

Verizon tests sending RIAA copyright notices

The No. 2 phone company, known for its reluctance to intervene in antipiracy cases, strikes an agreement to forward copyright notices on behalf of the music industry.