Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: mac, pro, imac | Themes: Business, Desktop Computers, Laptops and Notebooks
5. Analysis Of The 2007 IMacs
The 2007 iMacs represent the third release of Intel iMacs. Intel Core Duo iMacs were released in January 2006, followed by Core 2 Duos in September 2006 and then the new Core 2 Duos in August 2007. An 11-month wait for an upgrade is unheard of in the iMac world; it had a lot of Mac users hoping for something spectacular, and may have left many Mac users unmoved with the final outcome.
As someone that uses both Windows and Mac computers, one issue caught my eye as soon as I looked at the 2007 iMacs. Despite the recent dramatic drop in quad-core prices (the Q6600 Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz is now selling for under $300 retail, and Apple obviously doesn’t pay retail), there is still no iMac with a quad-core processor. Gateway now has a Q6600 selling for a base price of $999. With iMac base prices as high as $2,299.00, Apple could have found a way to fit a quad core into the mix.
The iMac typically ships with 1 GB of RAM, which may leave you wondering "Can a Mac run on 1 GB of RAM?" Yes, it can, providing of course that you’re not opening 8-mega pixel digital photos, or doing anything else that seriously stresses the memory system. Keep in mind that Mac OS X is a Unix-based operating system, with Aqua running on top of it to provide a user-friendly GUI. In general terms, it manages memory better than Windows, and significantly better than Windows Vista.
Despite that, a peculiarity can be found in the iMacs default memory configuration. Apple is shipping iMacs with 1 GB of RAM in a 1 x 1 GB arrangement. In other words, all of the RAM is on a single memory stick. Thus, the entire concept of operating RAM in "Dual Channel" mode is completely wasted, simply due to an ill-conceived design. Maybe this is
Apple’s way of encouraging customers to buy an extra stick of 1 GB RAM for $150.00, or two sticks of 2 GB RAM for $850 (yes, $850). But, whatever it is, I find it very disquieting.
Unlike the Mac Mini, the iMac can handle the heat generated by full speed 7200 rpm SATA hard drives, with capacities of up to 1 Terabyte. That’s impressive, particularly when you consider the 2007 iMac’s super-thin size. However, Apple’s continued insistence on relying on the "SuperDrive" as its all-in-one optical solution is another bizarre decision. This is because the drive burns DVD±R at 8x, which is less than one half of the standard PC speed of 18x, and burns DVD±R DL at 4x, which is one-half of the standard PC speed of 8x.
Perhaps most puzzling about the 2007 iMacs is that they do not accommodate Nvidia graphics cards. There is simply no option available anywhere. Want to take out the ATI card and replace it with your own Nvidia device? Well, that may be a problem... The ATI is soldered into place.
Given Apple’s cozy relationship with Intel, and the fact that Intel has a less-than-cozy relationship with ATI’s parent company, AMD, you’d almost expect it to be the other way around, as in all Nvidia and no ATI. What I’d really like to see is a choice. But, Steve Jobs has made that decision for us, and for people that feel Nvidia handles OpenGL better than ATI, or who prefer Nvidia for any reason, Apple has placed Nvidia fans in a very uncomfortable position. Unless you’re really good with a soldering iron, and don’t mind voiding your warrantee, you’re not getting an Nvidia-based 2007 iMac.
Graphics geeks such as this writer will always notice issues like that, but still, the amount of desktop computing power squeezed into the aesthetically-pleasing iMac is absolutely impressive, as it always is. This year, it’s even a little more impressive, since the iMac is thinner than ever. The body of the iMac has also changed, from the familiar ice-white exterior, which has been around since the G5 (the last non-Intel iMac), to a new glossy-aluminum exterior. Whether or not the glossy aluminum is an improvement is too subjective of a question for this forum, but it has unquestionably led to a lot of discussion among iMac fans.
Where Are Apples Mid-Range Desktops?
A disturbing trend seems to be emerging recently in the computer retail marketplace: the abandonment of the midrange customer. Tom’s Hardware Guide noticed this trend earlier this summer among both ATI and Nvidia offerings in Darren Polkowski’s July 24 article "HD 2600 & GeForce 8600: No Mid-Range?." Apple seems to be making a similar move in this direction.
- Previous page Apple's High End 24
- Next page The 17
It is a pro system and as such no mainstream graphics card should do the bussiness.
For 2d graphics a 7300 is no worse than a 8800, and for 3d a 8800 is no better than a quadro FX.
I see your point but try thinking like a pro when you review such a system.
Of course that doesn't change your "over-priced" conclusion.
What really kills me is that when you look at any of these "Mac comparisons" then there is a gigantic hole in the lineup because Apple doesn't make a basic tower system. Some people don't need a $3000 quad core system and don't want an integrated monitor glued on an un-upgradeable system.
I've been in the market for a $1000 "Mac Desktop" for several months but in the end just gave up and reluctantly got a nice cheap Dell. I would have definitely preferred a Mac but if they refuse to make an "ordinary" product for us "ordinary" people then I'll throw my money elsewhere.
BTW, for less than $600 this is what I got from Dell C2D/2GB/250GB/DVDRW/x1300/22"LCD = $600. What's odd is that Apple would easily charge $1100 for these specs so people should really quit making fun of PC's because if Apple ruled the world then we'd all be broke.
I agree with mini-boss totally.I can either build or buy a Dell Desktop for half the price of any Mac that has the same specs.I recently built a PC for under $500 that can play any game out there on the highest settings. I am looking for performance not some externally pretty machine.
miniboss-
While I totally understand your shopping method, I think its important to realize there is more to the computing experience than cheap hardware. I'd gladly pay 1200 for an iMac (2x what your dell costs) just so that I could have the iLife software and OS X. The iLife software is the best software for ordinary folks I've ever seen. Nothing touches it on any platform, including OS X. As for the OS, I guess basic file management can be had on any system, but I love the fact that I don't have to deal with virus/spyware/zombieware on my Mac. That last point alone is worth paying a measly $600. So, maybe Apple does not have the widest selection of hardware at the cheapest prices, but the actual experience of using it is worth far more than the cash you saved.
In my daily work, I use 5 machines, 2 are Macs. My home computer is a Mac.
miniboss-
While I totally understand your shopping method, I think its important to realize there is more to the computing experience than cheap hardware. I'd gladly pay 1200 for an iMac (2x what your dell costs) just so that I could have the iLife software and OS X. The iLife software is the best software for ordinary folks I've ever seen. Nothing touches it on any platform, including OS X. As for the OS, I guess basic file management can be had on any system, but I love the fact that I don't have to deal with virus/spyware/zombieware on my Mac. That last point alone is worth paying a measly $600. So, maybe Apple does not have the widest selection of hardware at the cheapest prices, but the actual experience of using it is worth far more than the cash you saved.
In my daily work, I use 5 machines, 2 are Macs. My home computer is a Mac.
I know.. I accidentally posted twice. shame the system won't allow me to erase the phantom post.
I was investigating the Mac Pro recently but couldn't bring myself to part with $2500. Instead I spent $1100 and built the following:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Processor(2.40GHz, 4x2MB, 1066MHz FSB)
ABIT IP35-E Motherboard (P35 Express, 8GB DDR2, 1333MHz FSB)
G.Skill 4GB PC2-6400 DDR2 DIMM Dual Channel Memory
ASUS GeForce 8500GT 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 HDCP Ready Video Card
Seagate Barracuda 320GB Hard Drive(Serial ATA-300, 7,200 RPM, 16MB)
Lite-On Dual Layer DVD±RW Writer (8x DVD±R DL)
Antec SOLO Silver/Black Mini Tower (ATX, 8 Bays)
Antec EarthWatts EA-430 430W Power Supply
Acer Black 19" Widescreen LCD Monitor (19", 1440x900, 5ms)
Microsoft Business Keyboard / Mouse Combo
Windows XP Professional x64
And for an extra $200 I am considering another 4Gb of RAM and a second hard disk. All this for less than half the price of the comparable Mac Pro model. My GPU is not spectacular but I'm not a gamer and it is easily upgraded. My next endeavor is to run Leopard on one of this systems' drive partitions. I'm not too crazy about Apple's hardware either. But Tiger running on my 21" iMac G5 2.1Ghz machine has been next to flawless.
I agree with minibus. I just built a system based on the Athlon 6400+ for under $800 (core system). And as far as spending an additional $600-$1,000 for OS X, hey if you have money to burn and love OS X so much, be my guest.
On the matter of the Mac Mini: Not only it uses Intel integrated graphics, it uses *last-generation* Intel integrated graphics! In fact probably the only thing in the current Mac Mini that was changed from the first Intel Mac Mini is the processor!
On the matter of the Mac Pro: Yep, another Mac model that was not updated in any way other the processor for about 15-18 months! Only in Jan 2008 has there been a real update to the Mac Pro.
However, keep in mind that the fact that Apple owns the OS allows Apple to make special releases of Mac OS X for new Macs, and though that it is a good thing Macs don't need separate driver CDs for Mac OS X, it also may mean lag time while Apple write the drivers for the new hardware.