[Andhee]

This is a poll about whether the new iMac would be adequate for you. It is going to show whether the majority either think it would be fine for them, or whether the majority think it is completely useless.

If you are going to participate in the poll, please also post saying why it is adequate/inadequate for you.

[Faust]

The iMac is nothing for me. In general iMacs are nothing for me, not just the new ones.

Why the iMac is inadequate for me:

a) I work with extremely performance intense applications,
b) cannot upgrade to enough RAM,
c) prefer larger monitors for work,
d) prefer multiple internal HDs,
e) prefer expandability (e.g. gaphics card, RAM, HDs, drives and so on),
f) am not a fan of "all-in-one" systems.

I am sure the iMacs are fantastic machines and can perform all tasks just fine but I prefer the Mac Pros accompanied by ACDs.

[P]

I might have bought this, if it had been at the right time of my buying cycle. As it is I won't bother yet, but it's a very attractive model - even though it does like less unique than the old one.

[ghporter]

As a matter of fact, I liked it so much that I bought one.

I have been looking for a computer that has a very small footprint, is quiet (silent is better), is powerful (but not at the level of a Mac Pro-I simply don't need that much computer), and of course looks cool. The new iMac is all of these things.

While there is a place for multiple internal drives, there is also a place for multiple external drives, and since I already have a few of those for various reasons, I don't need the internal space.

As for "larger monitors," I don't have enough room in my office to be able to back up enough to make use of anything bigger than the 20" iMac! Seriously, this screen is immense to me. I have done a fair bit of pretty fine mechanical drawing on a variety of platforms, and I would get lost if I tried to make use of all the screen real estate I have right now. What does one do with acres and acres of screen? (This is a serious question, by the way.)

And the timing of the release of this machine could not possibly have been better for me. All in all, I'm very happy with it.

[rnicoll]

Originally Posted by Andhee 

This is a poll about whether the new iMac would be adequate for you. It is going to show whether the majority either think it would be fine for them, or whether the majority think it is completely useless.

If you are going to participate in the poll, please also post saying why it is adequate/inadequate for you.

Doesn't quite work for me. I'd want something like the 24" 2.8Ghz version, but with a graphics card that's going to work well for games, and I want it 20". I have a serious lack of physical space, a 24" iMac will take up almost my entire desk, and the keyboard & mouse will use what's left. On top of which I don't want to be stuck running games at 1920x1200, with a graphics card that would be just about acceptable at 1024x768 (unless someone wants to tell me the iMacs can run at quarter resolution?).

(The Mac Pro is not the answer either. It is cheaper for me have a separate gaming PC and a low end iMac, than buy a Mac Pro that covers everything I want)

Edit: Should note, the 24" is not an insurmountable problem for me, the graphics card is.

[JonoMarshall]

I currently use a G5 at work and would be happy for them to replace it with a MP.

My own Macbook serves my general needs perfectly (The odd bit of Production/Design/Out-of-hours work, but mostly iTunes, web browsing, presentations, travelling, etc.) the most important thing for me is portability. (I also have a Mac Mini which me and my housemates use as a media centre.)

I can't see where the new iMac would fit in really, if the gloss wasn't an issue I'd be fine to use one at work?

[Faust]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

What does one do with acres and acres of screen? (This is a serious question, by the way.)

Serious answer: if you have sensitive eyes, work on a computer 10+ hours a day and are subject to getting headaches due to strain, the large screens are no longer that large really. I like big fonts and still be able to see everything without having to scroll horizontally for example. A large monitor allows me to do all of this. I can have two windows (or more)open and still have the font size set to triple plus without problems. I like it large in all areas of my working environment. It's easier on the eyes for me and saves me a lot of headaches and nausea in the most literal sense of these words. The 30 inch displays are perfect for that in my opinion.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Faust 

Serious answer:

That makes a lot of sense. For what I do-almost always paying attention to only one thing at a time-I don't need bigger fonts, nor to have a bunch of windows open and visible. But I can now see an application for bigger displays. Thanks for the information.

[rnicoll]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

As for "larger monitors," I don't have enough room in my office to be able to back up enough to make use of anything bigger than the 20" iMac! Seriously, this screen is immense to me. I have done a fair bit of pretty fine mechanical drawing on a variety of platforms, and I would get lost if I tried to make use of all the screen real estate I have right now. What does one do with acres and acres of screen? (This is a serious question, by the way.)

I've got 20" monitors at home and at work. Let me see... couple of terminals, IM client, e-mail, couple of browser windows. Particularly for where I want to use one window for notes, and one to work in, screen real estate can be a real issue.

Alas, limited physical space somewhat more of an issue.

[Andhee]

At the moment I have an 20" external screen hooked up to laptop, i don't really need all the space either, and i'm thinking about getting an iMac aswell, so that would be two 20" screens for one computer! I just think its cool!

[JKT]

I'm sitting on the fence until I actually see one in the flesh - I hope I am not disappointed as, come October and the release of Leopard, a top end iMac is my intended purchase.

[bobmrph]

Don't need no stinkin' monitor! :-)

I already have a 22" W/S Samsung that's only 2 months old. I don't need all the power or expansion options of a Pro, but would like more than the Mini offers. The iMacs specs, in a headless mid-size tower, would have been perfect, but alas, twas not meant to be. Guess I'll stay with my first gen Mini until Leopard, then see if there's room in the budget for a Pro or just another Mini.

[D.O.G.S. CEO]

It would be if it didn't have a crappy graphics card, and glossy glare increasing screen.

[ghporter]

As I have pointed out elsewhere (in great detail) I do NOT see ANY glare with this screen. And unless I want to idle away my time playing games, I don't see the graphics card as bad-it sure shows movies great!

[Jacke]

The iMac would be more than enough for me. I'm a student, the main usage is internet, school stuff (essays etc.), and with music being a hobby of mine, Garageband.

The only problem is that the budget doesn't really allow for it, in my case, so I'm getting a Mini. I've been using a 1Ghz eMac for some time now, and I'd say that it's quite adequate for what I do (could use more RAM, though), but with me moving out, I'll need a computer of my own.

[D.O.G.S. CEO]

Why not instead get an older iMac? They're on sale now, so you should be able to pick one up cheap.

[ort888]

It would be fine for me. I'm a console gamer, and I don't need to have the most amazing everything all the time.

The iMac would have more then enough juice to do anything I would need to do. Even intense Photoshop work.

That said, I think I'm going to get a Macbook instead.

[kenna]

I think its adequate enough for me, in actual fact is more than enough, I really can't wait until I afford one, I just need to save my pennies

[dbranham]

More than adequate, here. I likely represent precisely the market for which Apple is shooting with these new iMacs. Constantly running: Safari, iTunes, Mail, iChat, and iCal. Also spend a good bit of time in iPhoto using its simple photo editing tools. I'm a consumer level digital media hound who uses many, but not all, of Apple's apps. I don't use Aperture, Final Cut, etc. For those who use pro apps, it's certainly a big jump up to the Mac Pro. One might be tempted to go with a much cheaper windows pc. Apple's best solution to this situation is to offer the entry level Mac Pro at a much lower price point than the premium level machine. Still, pretty pricey.

[iDaver]

All-in-one — not for me, unless it's a portable.

[Aegis]

I considered the new iMac briefly. My needs teeter on the edge of MP & iMac but the poor GPU upgrade in the iMac really sealed the deal for a MP.

[Trouble]

I have been waiting for the new iMacs to get out of using this windows system.
After a trip to the Apple store on Sunday I won't be getting the new iMac.
I wasn't able to read lettering in web pages inspite the stores effort by turning off all the overhead track lighting.
I had to view the screen from a rather sharp angle.
...and mostly the fact that it's not shippping with Leopard.
If they change the screen option when they ship Leopard I may very well purchase the basic 20" model to satisfy my needs for an internet, word processing, picture viewing and iTunes machine. Thats all.
If I want performance I'll look elsewhere.

[ShadowKatana]

I was hoping for a Mac mini replacement. My PC rig is also getting long in the tooth, so some Mac with respectable "innards" would help satisfy both needs. Alas, the video card in the new iMac doesn't suit me and I have a beautiful LCD already.

I would much like Apple to release a modular mid-range Mac — imho, i feel the time is right for one…

[mavherzog]

Originally Posted by Faust

Why the iMac is inadequate for me:
a) I work with extremely performance intense applications,
b) cannot upgrade to enough RAM,
c) prefer larger monitors for work,
d) prefer multiple internal HDs,
e) prefer expandability (e.g. gaphics card, RAM, HDs, drives and so on),
f) am not a fan of "all-in-one" systems.

I'd be curious to know what your current setup is like. I assume it MUST be a pretty pimpin' machine as, based on the above answers, you likely have something better than a dual-core 2.8Ghz C2E, have more than 4GB of ram, and have at least two sizeable internal hdd's.

Fairly recent Mac Pro, perhaps?

[Faust]

Originally Posted by mavherzog 

I'd be curious to know what your current setup is like. I assume it MUST be a pretty pimpin' machine as, based on the above answers, you likely have something better than a dual-core 2.8Ghz C2E, have more than 4GB of ram, and have at least two sizeable internal hdd's.

Fairly recent Mac Pro, perhaps?

No, it is not "pimped" much. I did not go for the 8-core machines as it does not seem to make sense at this time. I went for the last 4-core 3GHz release (BTO) and had it put together for me. It works very well but does not use more than 4GB RAM right now but will be upraded to 8GB RAM this week followed by two more HDs. I would not have replaced my G5 with the Mac Pro had I not depended on the Intel capabilities (the ability to run IE and a few other apps via Windows) the newer machines had. In hindsight, I do prefer the G5 machines (at least the one I had).

[Jacke]

Originally Posted by D.O.G.S. CEO 

Why not instead get an older iMac? They're on sale now, so you should be able to pick one up cheap.

I'd be fine with a used iMac, the problem is that used used Macs here aren't that common, and looking at local auction sites (huuto.net, a finnish auction site), the prices are usually so high that you get a better deal buying new.

Right now there is a G5 iMac there, 17", 1.8 GHz/512MB RAM/80GB/SuperDrive; starts at 600€, and with a reserve price (meaning they probably want a lot more). Then there's a Mac mini, 1.66 GHz Core Duo/RAM unknown/80GB/SuperDrive, starts at 450€. Compare that to the base Mac mini that goes for roughly 550€ with an education discount... (I've asked my sister's fiancee if he's got some old screen I could borrow, so I might get that solved on the cheap, too.)

[MacosNerd]

I'd probably buy one in a heart beat, but I have a fairly new MacPro and I'm tickled with that. No use in going backwards in the sense that I have more expandability.

For what I do, I think the iMac would work nicely, though I am used to the power of the MacPro. While I do play the occasional game on a rare occasion, the benchmarks that I've seen for the imac seem to indicate that it would be adequate maybe not as fast as my X1900xt but frame rates from macworld and barefeats seems to show it being able to be playable.

[JoshKurtz]

I like the new iMac well enough. That being said, if I were in the market I would probably just buy a refurbished previous generation and save a few bucks. But I'm cheap like that.

[Chongo]

I bought a 20" 2.4Ghz iMac and am very happy with it. It actually out performs the 1.25Ghz dual G4 Power Mac I have. I did not have the money to buy the Mac pro this time and it is a step up from the old G4. I do a lot of iMovie projects and it MUCH faster. I bought 4 gigs of ram Other World Computing. A 24" would have been too big and 20" is a step up from the 17" Sony monitor I was using. Over all am pleased.

[Biest]

At the moment I would say no. I am fine with my PB and my Macbook at the moment. I might consider buying a used one, but that is just in the back of my mind.

As for the screen discussion... how about this one IBM T220/T221 LCD monitors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[hldan]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I bought a 20" 2.4Ghz iMac and am very happy with it. It actually out performs the 1.25Ghz dual G4 Power Mac I have.

Heh heh, lucky that most of us here know better cause that doesn't say much. The slowest Intel core duo should easily outperform your 1.25 dualie.

That being said, I ordered the 24" 2.8 Core 2 Extreme. Just sold my dualie 2.3 Ghz G5 to get this new baby. Most people are upset about the GPU but I had the Radeon X800 XT in my G5 and I have been playing Quake 4 at high settings and if the X2600 Pro can at least match that I am good!
I just didn't need a 23" Cinema Display and a big Mac tower sitting on my floor when the iMac can more than take care of my needs and it doesn't hurt that I can run any OS or app I want now.

[AC Rempt]

hldan, I'm with ya.

I went iMac awhile back, going from a dual 1.8 G5 and the original 22' cinema display. I wanted to streamline my life and get rid of the noise. I bought a 20" CD, and now, it's moving on to some friends to be replaced by a new 24' cuz after awhile, I missed to extra screen real estate. I'm setting it up tomorrow!

So yeah, the iMac is for me. I do miss the expandability, but I love the smaller size and silent operation.

[Kadarin]

I voted no, in that for a desktop machine I would prefer to have something with a little more graphics horsepower, in order to futureproof against playing new games as they come out. While I'm not a huge gamer, I do play from time to time. However, I like the form factor, and feel that otherwise it would be perfectly fine so long as I had the machine in a location where glare wasn't a factor.

[Tigerlittle]

I was ready to buy the new iMac until I saw the highly reflective glossy screen. Yuck!

So I bought the 2006 white iMac instead...

[Andhee]

I now realise that there is about 5 Ca$hs on the 'no' vote, so its a fairly bias poll, even though those who voted yes are still very far ahead.

[Pao|o]

Despite the shortcomings I too ordered the 2GHz 20-inch and will be coming in at the end of the week.

I would've liked it if the CPU, HDD and optical drive were user upgradeable. I wish it used 100% desktop parts. I wanted a faster GPU. More USB 2.0 FW400, FW800 and eSATA ports would be welcome. A honest to goodness DVI port, none of that mini-DVI nonsense.

Then again if these things happened the iMac would be bigger/noisier/cluttered. On the upside it would be cheaper/faster. Then again Apple Inc's not in the market for that customer for the iMac.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by Tigerlittle 

I was ready to buy the new iMac until I saw the highly reflective glossy screen. Yuck!

So I bought the 2006 white iMac instead...

Hmm, I like the new one, the white one, Yuck! Ugly and boring. Looks like Fisher price toy or even worse, Mattel.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Tigerlittle 

I was ready to buy the new iMac until I saw the highly reflective glossy screen. Yuck!

So I bought the 2006 white iMac instead...

You may have missed out on some better performance-the glossy screen is quite usable if you can simply put it somewhere that doesn't necessarily experience lots of sources for reflected light. Mine is just fine in a bright room, even with the full sun bouncing off a white wall behind me.

Others will argue the point, of course, and it's their privilege to do so. But I'm lovin' my new iMac!

[P]

I'll have to stop by an Applestore whenever I'm in a country that has one, because I need to see it in person to see how good the glossy screen is. I'm not getting one now, but a Rev B with updated GPU, Penryn and Leopard is looking very attractive at this point.

[funkboy]

The glossy screen is the only sticking point to me, and that probably will not hold me back from buying one. The GPU is not an issue for me.
I am still waiting for formal reviews of the iMac 2.8 GHz to see if it's worth the extra cash... I think it is for me.

I like a quiet (silent is better) computer, and I have always liked the all-in-one form factor.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by funkboy 

The glossy screen is the only sticking point to me, and that probably will not hold me back from buying one. The GPU is not an issue for me.
I am still waiting for formal reviews of the iMac 2.8 GHz to see if it's worth the extra cash... I think it is for me.

I like a quiet (silent is better) computer, and I have always liked the all-in-one form factor.

If you really think about it, nothing you have ever bought is "perfect" in the way you want it to be but usually good enough to warrant purchasing it. Don't stay too concerned about the glossy. I just ordered the 2.8 Ghz and it's on it's way but I checked it out at the Apple store and it looked fine.

Here's the real problem:
Posters on the forums whom have never seen the new iMac in person are going to be the most critical.
Secondly, the Apple store has a great deal of overhead lighting to make the store have that bright and clean look but because of that gawkers of the iMac will tilt the screen upwards and get all that glare and report back to the forums how bad the glare is.

Those two factors scare people and the snowball effect of everyone hating the glossy screen becomes apparent.

Like you said earlier, you want to get feedback from "owners" of the new iMac and not blind advisors. Real world usability at home will show it's worth.
That being said, I didn't care about the nay sayers, I sold my dualie G5 and Cinema display in favor of the iMac 24".

[rubaiyat]

I used to be an architecture student and am well aware of the nature and origin of reflections. I am also well aware of basic ergonomics.

I tried the new 24" iMac in 5 different stores all with quite different lighting, not all were bright in fact a couple had quite subdued light. Some the kind of lighting you would expect in an office, ceiling flourescents in banks.

I seated myself at normal viewing height and angle, something I noticed nobody else doing. In all cases it was extremely difficult to find an angle where you did not see something reflected above and behind or to the side.

As long as the contents of the screen stayed bright like a white background text document or website the reflections were largely hidden. Though they did cause shine problems over small details like individual text or navigation, and I found myself moving my head around to see past the reflections. Once the background became dark, as it does in Aperture for example, or the image itself was dark I could quite clearly see myself reflected back out of the screen, superimposed over the screen contents.

The screen has absolutely no glare control that I can see. It is highly polished to look like an iPhone and the glass is tinted to make images look even more impressive as they contrast against the black frame. But this is all superficial and designed to make a big initial impression to the uninitiated shopper.

The fact is we often have to use such screens for long periods in the day which will lead to eye strain amongst other problems. For graphic designers it is catastrophic not to able to see the screen clearly and without the tainting of reflections overlaying the images on screen.

I really, really wanted to buy this model so I can move up to Adobe CS3 but despite my heart saying yes, my head said no. My wallet is staying in my pocket and I hope Apple offers an alternative that I and other professionals can use.

[WhozeJohnGalt]

Originally Posted by Andhee 

I now realise that there is about 5 Ca$hs on the 'no' vote, so its a fairly bias poll, even though those who voted yes are still very far ahead.

Actually he's never voted in this poll. I can assure you that much.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by WhozeJohnGalt 

Actually he's never voted in this poll. I can assure you that much.

D.O.G.S. CEO is listed in the no votes. I don't see any other Rob nicks, though.

[WhozeJohnGalt]

Ah. Okay, forgot. It's hard to tell where I've posted and where I haven't posted sometimes, because things don't light up green if you're using a new username.

[AC Rempt]

I already voted "yes," and since then, I bought a 24" iMac and love it. The screen is just gorgeous, and I have my office set up in such a way that no direct lighting hits it. I need to point out that my office has been that way for as long as I've set it up around computers, back in my Laser 128 days (an Apple II clone), so the glassy debate is a moot point to me. I'm also not a professional photographer or any such thing, so whatever the issues are there don't affect me.

I can say that as someone whose eye sight is getting worse and worse as I get older and older, having a screen this bright with text this sharp is a blessing. I find myself able to spend more time reading off this monitor than the monitor on my 20" iMac.

I also love the new keyboard, and I find my typing speed and accuracy has increased greatly. All in all, this has been an excellent upgrade for me, and I would recommend it to pretty much anyone I know.

[Gamoe]

I like the iMac. But, I'm one of those people who falls into Apple's missing "prosumer Mac" category, and there are several reasons why I wouldn't want an iMac as my main desktop machine. Those are:

• Can't easily upgrade the heard drive. This is kind of important for my main machine.
  
• No other internal expansion options apart from RAM. This starts to become important when one has specific needs or a few years down the line when the machine is no longer top-of-the-line and needs some upgrades.
  
• The glare. I like the glass, but not the extra glare.

My next Mac will most probably be a MacBook instead. I need a portable for presentations, but I can't justify buying both a new notebook and desktop right now. The screen is "glossy" also, but that won't be an issue with an external display.

Unfortunately, I'll have to deal with limited expansion options, but that's to be expected from a notebook, and the MacBook's hard drive is surprisingly easy to replace, which is a blessing for me. Had I the funds, I'd get both a MacBook for portability and a Mac Pro for home.

[AC Rempt]

Not to be a PIA, but why could you just add an external drive? I have 750 Gigs of extra space thanks to two Western Digital My Book drives, and they are as quiet as can be, sitting behind my iMac, so I don't even see them. I they didn't show up on my desktop, I wouldn't know they were there.

As for the MacBook, upgrading the hard drive is pretty easy, sure, but you're not going to get a 750 Gig drive in there without noise and heat and advances in technology. And the screen is comparable in terms of gloss. I have my BlackBook sitting right next to my iMac, and they look pretty much the same.

I dunno. In the end the choice is up to the person, but beyond some graphic pros and their concerns, I don't see any thing other than personal preferences behind criticism of this model iMac.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by AC Rempt 

Not to be a PIA, but why could you just add an external drive? I have 750 Gigs of extra space thanks to two Western Digital My Book drives, and they are as quiet as can be, sitting behind my iMac, so I don't even see them. I they didn't show up on my desktop, I wouldn't know they were there.

Internal hard drives are usually faster than external ones, due to the interfaces used respectively.

Though you don't notice the drives, doesn't that partially undermine the purpose of an all-in-one design. If we're talking about a backup drive that's one thing, but needing more space translates into your setup of at least two external hard drives, where if you could upgrade the internal you would need only one external.

And apart from all of that, it just bugs me that I can't easily upgrade a component of my computer which should be easily upgradeable. Hard drives go bad and need to be replaced, and I shouldn't be confined to the original specs of the hard drive that came in my computer.

Originally Posted by AC Rempt 

As for the MacBook, upgrading the hard drive is pretty easy, sure, but you're not going to get a 750 Gig drive in there without noise and heat and advances in technology. And the screen is comparable in terms of gloss. I have my BlackBook sitting right next to my iMac, and they look pretty much the same.

Of course, but the point is that it is upgradeable. That, in a few years I'll be able to replace the stock drive with something bigger and better to suit my needs. Maybe I'll even be able to replace it with a big enough flash Solid State Drive/Flash Hard Drive and significantly speed up access time and increase battery life. When things are upgradeable, they are open to a wider range of possibilities.

And though the screen may be glossy, I already have a perfectly good 20" matte screen I'd use in conjunction with my MacBook at home. I'd have to put up with the gloss on the go, but then I get the portability that the iMac, in spite of using notebook components, does not give me.

Originally Posted by AC Rempt 

I dunno. In the end the choice is up to the person, but beyond some graphic pros and their concerns, I don't see any thing other than personal preferences behind criticism of this model iMac.

I'm sure even those of us who don't find the iMac suitable could adapt to using one if need be. It's a perfectly fine Mac. But it's more than practical concerns (which there are a legitimate number of), but a philosophical idea of what a desktop computer should be. And to me, that means a decent amount of upgradeability and expandability.

I realize most computer users do not actually need all that. But not all Mac users fit into a little niche.-- Which of course, is why Apple has several different models. They just happen to be missing the midpoint where I fit in most comfortably.

[P]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

Internal hard drives are usually faster than external ones, due to the interfaces used respectively.

The latency(=access time) is higher (possibly excepting eSATA) but the bandwidth is the same. If you have an internal HD with the OS, VM swap and temp files, you can have documents and apps on an external drive with little loss in performance - especially if you have enough RAM to be able to spend some of it on disk cache.