Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Simon · Oct 2, 2007, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Veltliner

For the great video card, the nVidia 7300GT, same as in the MacPros.

If anything, the 'great video card' would have been the 7600 GT. The 7300 is nothing to cheer about.

Koralatov · Oct 2, 2007, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Veltliner

I also and simply love the design. It has the quiet relaxedness of true elegance, holding back, not being invasive, being well balanced with great forms and colors (and non colors, the transparent edge is just fantastic), and materials that go together very well.

This is great design, as opposed to effects design, which takes a stab at your perception, but will annoy you rather sooner or later - or leave you esthetically punch drunk.

I couldn't agree more, or have put it better myself. The G5 has an understated elegance that the new model lacks. As you said, the new one is a definite example of effects design, and I fear that I would tire of it in short order.

As I said, I think I'll give this generation a miss and hope the next is better.

.Neo · Oct 2, 2007, 06:10 PM

Regardless if you like or hate the new design, some of you guys sure have a real flair for the dramatic.

Veltliner · Oct 2, 2007, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Koralatov

I couldn't agree more, or have put it better myself. The G5 has an understated elegance that the new model lacks. As you said, the new one is a definite example of effects design, and I fear that I would tire of it in short order.

As I said, I think I'll give this generation a miss and hope the next is better.

Actually, it's not only G5, but also Core Duo and Core 2 Duo (which I have now).

Veltliner · Oct 2, 2007, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

If anything, the 'great video card' would have been the 7600 GT. The 7300 is nothing to cheer about.

Better than what the 24" have now, I'd say.

The 7300 is in almost all of the MacPros. Must be pretty good. (I know, I know, it's not absolutely up to date... I read the Mac Pro Waiting Blues-thread).

Simon · Oct 3, 2007, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by Veltliner

Better than what the 24" have now, I'd say.

Umm, no.

The HD 2600 PRO already clearly beats the 7300 GT at most tests now. Of course that will only become more pronounced in the future since we know that the current HD 2x000 drivers on the Mac are not up to snuff yet.

Needless to say the iMac's HD 2600 PRO comes with 256 MB RAM vs. the 7300 GT's 128 MB.

The 7300 is in almost all of the MacPros. Must be pretty good.

That doesn't mean anything actually. Firstly, it's no secret that the MP's BTO options have been lagging far behind. The 7300 GT is a disgrace in a $2.5k workstation. Anybody serious about GPU performance will upgrade immediately to the X1900 XT which simply destroys the 7300 (see the first chart above).

I'm no fan of the HD 2600, but if you seriously believe a measly 7300 comes anywhere close, you are kidding yourself. If for whatever reason you prefer the white C2D iMac over the new aluminum models and you're serious about GPU performance, the 7600 GT upgrade would have been the only option.

Veltliner · 03:47 AM

Isn't it a bit hard on the 7300GT to call it measly?

And your examples are from a video game, I take it.

I'm not a gamer. (If I play games, I play them with dames

)

What interests me is performance in Final Cut Pro, Photoshop CS3, and LIghtroom.

I have heard that the new video cards in the aluminum iMacs are more game oriented. So, maybe the comparison is more for a gamer's choice (who'd definitely like the glossy display more, which I can't use).

Originally Posted by Simon

the 7600 GT upgrade would have been the only option.

I have heard good things about the 7300Gt, but the 7600 GT would definitely be interesting at a later time. I stopped by the apple store (on the net), but couldn't find the 7600GT separately on sale (they obviously wanted you to buy the much more expensive 2.33 24" iMac, so they won't possibly sell that card separately. And if you visit the nVidia website, it says you can buy the mac version of this card only at the apple store. Circulus viciosus.

Koralatov · Oct 3, 2007, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by Veltliner

Actually, it's not only G5, but also Core Duo and Core 2 Duo (which I have now).

Yeah, the design did span G5 through to C2D, but I just use G5 as shorthand because it was when the design itself was introduced.

Simon · Oct 3, 2007, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Veltliner

I have heard good things about the 7300Gt, but the 7600 GT would definitely be interesting at a later time. I stopped by the apple store (on the net), but couldn't find the 7600GT separately on sale (they obviously wanted you to buy the much more expensive 2.33 24" iMac, so they won't possibly sell that card separately. And if you visit the nVidia website, it says you can buy the mac version of this card only at the apple store. Circulus viciosus.

I'm well aware that you can't BTO an old iMac with a 7600 anymore. That's over. Now it's just the 7300 GT or HD 2600 PRO and that is - concerning the GPU - a no-brainer.

Your statement along the line of "I got the old iMac because of the great 7300 which is so awesome Apple decided to put it in the MP too!" was the one I called you for. First of all, it's not great and secondly, it being in the MP doesn't mean squat.

Veltliner · 11:49 AM

A non-gamers comment: what do you need the 100fps for? Film has 24fps, and 60i NTSC roughly 30fps. That's enough for the human brainto simulate motion perfectly).

I know, Simon, you are very much into video cards, and you posted that youtcry that the 2600 is actually an underclocked mobility card.

I just wonder if the frames per second of a video game is a tell-it-all regarding video card quality.

Veltliner · Oct 3, 2007, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by iREZ

good design never gets boring (look at the imac g4 and how soo many users still prefer the look of that imac over any since). i think its a step in a wron...no, different, direction.

i am a designer and prefer the white imac over the new imac for the following reasons:
a. i prefer a matte screen and this new imac doesn't have a matte option.
b. although i do like the new exterior, its def not "mac" like to me.
c. the keyboard and mouse (although very awesome to use) and back cable do not match the rest of the computer and stick out like a sore thumb to me.
d. the old imac had a sleep light to indicate when a machine was in sleep.
e. the old imac had a better gpu (some argue this but the numbers so far dont lie).

but these are just petty reasons to some. no knock on the new imac, its definitely a GREAT computer for the people it caters to, i'm just not one of those people.

The old iMac had the better GPU, iREZ says. And I have read this over and over on the threads.

Finally, without lugging tech specs around, the new alu macs are great entertainment centers and gaming machines - which is really not my type of use.

iREZ · Oct 3, 2007, 04:41 PM

hahah....well dont throw me into the fire, i was just going by the numbers at the time that were posted on barefeats which i find a reliable source of information concerning mac computers.

Simon · Oct 4, 2007, 01:07 AM

Yeah, and the same BareFeats (see the charts I posted above) shows that the 7300 gets its butt kicked by the HD 2600 Pro almost every single time. And that's with the 7300's mature drivers vs. the HD 2x00's crappy OS X drivers.

If you're not a gamer or pro 3D app user, there's not much to worry about now, but that's still no reason to go around and post about how awesome the 7300 supposedly is. It's not. The 7300 is a low-end desktop GPU. It being in the MP just goes to show how badly in need of a BTO options update the MP actually is.

Veltliner · Oct 4, 2007, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by iREZ

hahah....well dont throw me into the fire, i was just going by the numbers at the time that were posted on barefeats which i find a reliable source of information concerning mac computers.

Would never do that. I hate burn marks on my clothing, too

Just liked your clear headed list, and it's written from a good, professional background.

The white 24" iMac is a great professional machine, with a great GPU, and the price difference to a MacPro frees a lot of ressources to get necessary software. There are too many people having expensive hardware and outdated software or shareware or software that is not up to task.

Especially the matte display is necessary for anybody dealing with color critical work. And the design is better, clearer, well balanced. To lessen the pressure of a competition to the MacPro, the iMac has become an entertainment center, which is why we probably will never see a matte or color accurate screen version. For most people this is surely great, and they can enjoy the gaming performance I don't care about at all.

Simon · Oct 4, 2007, 02:36 AM

Originally Posted by Veltliner

The white 24" iMac is a great professional machine, with a great GPU...

There you go again. Good luck with that.

Just because you seem so convinced, may I ask you to point out what exactly is so great about the 7300? Is the FX5200 great too? What about the Rage 128?

iREZ · Oct 4, 2007, 03:02 AM

well simon, he didn't really say it was superior to the HD 2600, just that it was a great gpu...and for somebody who only uses their computer for design work or just work in general and i think its a fair assessment to call something great when it handles what you do great. im not picking a fight here, just trying to clear up the miscommunication...the last thing i wanna do is challenge simon to anything mac (dude is pretty smart when it comes to the innards of a mac).

iREZ · Oct 4, 2007, 11:58 AM

another reason why i prefer the older imacs gpu (whether it be more powerful or not)

MacNN | iMacs suffering from widescale freezes

Veltliner · Oct 4, 2007, 03:27 PM

I think we are all on the same page now.

When I said the system was great, then I meant exactly that. Not that it was tops.

I wanted a reliable system, and I needed the matte display for color critical work, in addition I preferred the white iMac design. The glossy iMacs I consider entertainment and gaming machines (add that problem with the freezing and the GPU drivers), and, while great for many, are therefore completely out of the question for me. My next upgrade will be to a MacPro.

I definitely would have taken the 7600GT with its higher VRAM, but it wasn't an option any more when I bought my iMac. I don't consider this a major problem.

As far as I know, Photoshop and Lightroom are more processor intensive, with Final Cut Pro it depends (Motion is more GPU demanding, and a better video card will give you better rendering times), but as long as you do mostly SD I don't consider it a problem, either.

After all, I had a 2.1 ghz iMac G5 before... which, as far as I know, had a rather sub-par laptop GPU inside.

For me it was more important to get, rather than throwing all the money on hardware, a good balance on software I needed. After all, this is a creative production computer. So, I was always aware I'm not having (and not needing) a top system right now, but it is a great system throughout, the great screen having also been a major attraction for me.

selowitch · Oct 7, 2007, 07:10 PM

I do wish I had sprung for the 24" instead of the 20" white one I have, simply because I'd love to have the VESA option. Oh, well.

Veltliner · Oct 7, 2007, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by selowitch

I do wish I had sprung for the 24" instead of the 20" white one I have, simply because I'd love to have the VESA option. Oh, well.

Still time to switch, as you can still buy the 24", now at a large discount. And I tell you: the real advantage is the quality of the display. Leaves the 20" far, far behind (and it was still a good display).

Mojo · Oct 7, 2007, 07:57 PM

I have owned a G5 20" iMac for almost two years and even though I can get a 24" white iMac for only $1099 new I won't be doing so. The reason: the inability to adjust the iMac monitor. I'm tired of raising myself on a hard pillow and the keyboard and mouse on books just so I can use the IMac without serious neck pain. The ergonomics of the the post-G4 iMacs are simply awful.

I'm going to get a 15" MBP and a 24" Dell monitor, which has a height adjustment that can lower the monitor to where it almost touches the desktop. No more pillows, books and neck pain...

0157988944 · Oct 7, 2007, 08:45 PM

Where are you finding that 24" deal?

Veltliner · Oct 7, 2007, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

I have owned a G5 20" iMac for almost two years and even though I can get a 24" white iMac for only $1099 new I won't be doing so. The reason: the inability to adjust the iMac monitor. I'm tired of raising myself on a hard pillow and the keyboard and mouse on books just so I can use the IMac without serious neck pain. The ergonomics of the the post-G4 iMacs are simply awful.

I'm going to get a 15" MBP and a 24" Dell monitor, which has a height adjustment that can lower the monitor to where it almost touches the desktop. No more pillows, books and neck pain...

How about getting a good work chair, that you can raise?

If you work long hours at your computer you will need one anyway, if you don't want to change your stature into that of the hunchback of Notre Dame.

Mojo · 05:59 PM

D'OH! I just discovered that I can raise my chair higher... I thought that it was as high as it would go. Veltliner, you may have saved me a bunch of $$$!

The iMac deal is available through the University of Oregon Bookstore. They got a great deal on a bunch of iMacs with corded and cordless keyboards and mice.

I just got off the phone with the bookstore. The cordless models are gone, so I ordered an iMac with standard keyboard and mouse (which I don't use anyway...) along with a black 80GB iPod for $100; there is a $149 iPod credit that comes with the purchase of a Mac. Total price with shipping: $1229.00.

Veltliner · Oct 8, 2007, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

D'OH! I just discovered that I can raise my chair higher... I thought that it was as high as it would go. Veltliner, you may have saved me a bunch of $$$!

The iMac deal is available through the University of Oregon Bookstore. They got a great deal on a bunch of iMacs with corded and cordless keyboards and mice.

I just got off the phone with the bookstore. The cordless models are gone, so I ordered an iMac with standard keyboard and mouse (which I don't use anyway...) along with a black 80GB iPod for $100; there is a $149 iPod credit that comes with the purchase of a Mac. Total price with shipping: $1229.00.

You can't compare a student discount with the going market rates.

Enjoy! It's a great machine!

Mojo · Oct 9, 2007, 02:02 PM

The original student discount price was $1899; retail was $1999. This batch of iMacs was a special purchase of previous models. They had between 30 and 50 iMacs with cordless and corded keyboards and mice; the cordless models sold out first, natch...

A couple of years ago UCLA had a similar sale of 20" G5 iMacs for $579, but only UCLA folks could partake... The iMacs were gone in a couple of days.

It looks like the 24" iMacs are sold out... The iMac link is no longer working.

BoingoBongo · Oct 11, 2007, 11:25 PM

When I saw the new iMacs unveiled online, I thought they were ugly as sin. Once I saw them in stores, however, I was really impressed. They are quite beautiful in person. It doesn't seem to translate too well in photos though. I'm not crazy about the glossy screens. I don't mind it on a laptop because usually it's a lot easier to move out of any glare, but I would not want it on a desktop if I could help it. I get migraines and sometimes the glare on a glossy screen can look like the beginning of the "aura" that signals a migraine and I get all paranoid! Sounds crazy, but it's really annoying. I'm sure anyone else who gets them will understand.

Anyway, I think they're both great. I'm considering getting one of the new keyboards for my white iMac. I think those are really nice. I'm not sure if it will go together though?