Apple overhauls iMacs, 24-inch models more affordable
(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Editors' Note: As of October 20, 2009, the iMac reviewed here has been replaced by 27-inch iMac models.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 You get the typical USB 2.0 jacks, FireWire 800 output, and Gigabit Ethernet, but the Mini DVI port has been replaced by a Mini DisplayPort.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.
On Sale Now: $1,549.95
View the latest prices for Apple iMac (24-inch, 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, Winter 2009)
On Sale Now: $1,494.00 - $1,709.95
View the latest prices for Apple iMac (24-inch, 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, Winter 2009)
Rich Brown reviews desktops and various other components and peripherals for CNET. E-mail Rich. 
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.
over the Dell. Apples don't have all the software issues that Microsoft Windows Pc's
have.
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
I agree with the Mac Mini comment, though...I definitely won't be buying one of those.
On the other hand I'm pleased with the mini update and
disappointed with the iMac update !
<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
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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
I really don't get it
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
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
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.
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).
Do it.
- 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?
-
-
- by Renegade Knight October 5, 2009 2:11 PM PDT
- @JuniorMints
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (64 Comments)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.
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.