[V]

Are those all in one computer make for heavy work?

i had a Apple iMac "Core 2 Duo" 3.06 24-Inch (Early 2008)

I played a lot WoW with it (i'm a hardcore raider). After a year the computer died. (i was playing wow, but since a few minutes only)

Apple replaced my logic Board (for no fee, even if my warranty had expired 3 weeks ago).

I thought i had been unlucky, all my other macs always worked great for years.

Then a few months later (yesterday) bam. Computer dies again (almost instant kernel panics on startup, messed up graphics). I tried the usual, RAM, PRAM, etc. I can't even access the drive on target disk mode. I had just started the computer and logging in my WoW account.

Dead.

Looks like intense gaming took a toll on the machine, often playing many hours in a row. Yet i quit the game to let it cool a bit when taking breaks, eating, walking the dog etc. The computer is in a clean environment, well aerated, i usually have only mail and safari open while playing and graphic ingame options are pretty low. I have the computer configured to shut the screen after a few mins of inactivity then to go to sleep.

i found this thread while googling my problem Apple - Support - Discussions - Late 2006 iMac, Lines, Kernel Panic, ...

So it seems it a kinda common problem for iMacs.

I thought about getting a new i5, but maybe, as i intent to play WoW hardcore when the new expension will be out, its better to go, that would been the first time for me, for a Windows machine? I've had Macs since forever, the first one being a Performa 580, first family computer.

So any thoughts, advice? Have i been unlucky with this iMac (my 20" G5 iMac is still working very well, though only used for Safari, iTunes, iPhoto all his life). Or are those computer not made for that kind of activity?

Thanks everyone

EDIT : No i don't have AppleCare, and yes i'll buy it if i go for the i5 iMac. (btw are the new one much faster than the last one, i saw some on the refurbished store thx )

[imitchellg5]

The iMacs don't have the best graphics cards ever, but they will handle WoW just fine.

[sek929]

I"ve been gaming the hell out of my c2d iMac for almost 2 years, not to mention it was in bootcamp and my fans weren't even spinning up.

Still runs great.

[turtle777]

Side note: I also have a early 2008 iMac, same specs.

I'm not a heavy gamer, but I keep it running 24/7. No issues so farm, other than the DVD drive dying.

-t

[sek929]

That post reminds me that I actually found an interesting program you run via a command prompt in Windows XP that you can use to set your fan speed. Since XP in Bootcamp does not communicate with the SMC controller, your machine can end up getting VERY hot. After a long STALKER session one night I noticed my HDD sensor was reading 60 degrees celsius, while one of my cores almost hit 70.

Program is called MacFan and works great, now during extended XP gaming sessions my cores don't go over 50 celcius.

[ghostshadow]

Just sounds like you got a lemon. I use my iMac to run WoW as well on pretty high settings and I have no issues at all. Out of the millions that Apple makes, there are a few handfuls that end up being bad machines and need constant repair. Looks like the one you had was one of them. If you're buying new. Do it The newer machines are even better.

[kylef]

FYI I have a 27" Core i3 (mid 2010) and would run CoD4, Portal, Half-Life 2: Episode 2, Flight Simulator X etc all with no problems for extended periods of time.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by V 

Are those all in one computer make for heavy work?

The short answer is NO. Power supply, single hard drive, GPUs are all relatively light duty.

That said, the top end iMacs have powerful CPUs and decent GPUs that will perform well for tasks that don't move lots of data and hence are not "heavy work." Many games fall into that category.

OTOH folks handling heavy graphics like Aperture, etc. for a living will be much happier with a Mac Pro - and can get a non-glossy display. Most image pros find glossy display unacceptable.

[OreoCookie]

@SierraDragon
Actually, games are much more taxing than your average image editing app on just about everything, CPU and GPU in particular. The only apps that are pushing the envelope in terms of power are apps like Aperture or Lightroom.

The GPU is also irrelevant unless you're using Aperture. Photoshop and Lightroom only accelerate a few functions and they don't benefit substantially from a much faster GPU. And the iMac's power supply is sufficient for the computer.

The biggest advantage of a Mac Pro are the storage options as well as the ability to connect more than two displays (you can connect a second display to the iMac). If you are using Aperture or Lightroom, you may find the iMac's 16 GB RAM ceiling limiting, but again, I think that concerns only a small group of people.

[SierraDragon]

Agreed games tax the CPU/GPU, areas in which top iMacs are strong enough.

Heavy work means moving data and iMac mass storage falls down. Data handling becomes hugely important with heavy workflows.

Heavy work often means images and multiple displays. Even if one can tolerate glossy (most image pros find the added contrast and saturation unacceptable) multiple identical displays cannot be done with iMacs.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Heavy work means moving data and iMac mass storage falls down. Data handling becomes hugely important with heavy workflows.

Even there, I would not make such a blanket statement: in most situations, people can make due with external harddrives to store old projects. 1.5 TB drives are commonplace nowadays and you can fit a lot of photos on them. Besides, the new iMacs give an BTO for a second drive. The truth of the matter is that in most cases, graphics pros don't push the envelope anymore in most respects. Certainly not in the GPU department, that's due to games.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Heavy work often means images and multiple displays. Even if one can tolerate glossy (most image pros find the added contrast and saturation unacceptable) multiple identical displays cannot be done with iMacs.

You could get a 27" iMac and a 27" ACD, just sayin' … 
In any case, I don't mind using asymmetric configurations of monitors -- but perhaps that's because I have to (I haven't owned a desktop in 12 years).

[SamuraiArtGuy]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

OTOH folks handling heavy graphics like Aperture, etc. for a living will be much happier with a Mac Pro - and can get a non-glossy display. Most image pros find glossy display unacceptable.

The hiccup in this thought, is that once the Apple 24" and 30" displays, sell out, both lines will be replaced by the new 27" LCD display - the same display as the iMac 27". And this is a glossy display. Leaving the only non-glossy apple display is the build-to-order 17" Macbook Pro. Graphics pros will have to look to third party displays for non-glossy.

But it appears that Apple has committed to the "oohhhhh, shiny" that looks so much spiffier in the Apple Store lighting.

[SamuraiArtGuy]

Overall a very relevant question considering that with the release of Adobe Creative Suite 5, a LOT of Design Pros using G5 towers will see those machines retired when they start getting files that they can't open in CS3 or CS4 Apps. CS5 requires an Intel multicore processor, and ends Power PC support.

I have a perfectly functional G5 machine, but my Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro is actually faster. A lot of Design Pros are looking at the slightly disappointing, and pricey, Mac Pro update and squinting at the cost. Design has become a more marginal profession for freelancers and small studios in the current economy, and many of us are wondering whether, other than the tower form factor, we could get by comfortably on one of the more robust iMacs, such as the 27" Core i7.

Ideally many Creative Pro, short of 3D modeling and heavy audio/video work, would LOVE a tower machine at that performance level, but the expandability and accessibility of a tower. But Apple has shown absolutely NO interest in such a mid-range machine.

[P]

Originally Posted by sek929 

That post reminds me that I actually found an interesting program you run via a command prompt in Windows XP that you can use to set your fan speed. Since XP in Bootcamp does not communicate with the SMC controller, your machine can end up getting VERY hot. After a long STALKER session one night I noticed my HDD sensor was reading 60 degrees celsius, while one of my cores almost hit 70.

Program is called MacFan and works great, now during extended XP gaming sessions my cores don't go over 50 celcius.

That temp for the HD is worrying, but remember that the CPU is a mobile one. It can take some serious temperatures before having problems, and 70C is nothing.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by SamuraiArtGuy 

The hiccup in this thought, is that once the Apple 24" and 30" displays, sell out, both lines will be replaced by the new 27" LCD display - the same display as the iMac 27". And this is a glossy display. Leaving the only non-glossy apple display is the build-to-order 17" Macbook Pro. Graphics pros will have to look to third party displays for non-glossy.

The 15" MacBook Pro comes with a matte option.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by P 

That temp for the HD is worrying, but remember that the CPU is a mobile one. It can take some serious temperatures before having problems, and 70C is nothing.

Good to know, but I remember right when I got the machine that long periods of Command and Conquer would eventually force a restart, something I realized recently was probably due to overheating. Not sure if it was the CPU that overheated or the HDD, but now I can make sure it won't happen again.

[Thorzdad]

I'm a designer who has made the move from my old G5 to an iMac, and have found the iMac to be perfectly acceptable for the work, including photo editing in Photoshop. I do wish the iMac had a matte screen, like my old Cinema Display, but the screen on the iMac isn't too bad with the ambient lighting turned-down.

[Waragainstsleep]

Lots of creative professionals have switched from Apple towers to iMacs in recent years. The Mac Pro is overpowered for a lot of them (most of them) who are just doing light photoshop work and are happy enough to wait for the odd thing to render rather than spend the extra. Factor in the price of the Pro and the price of an Apple display and the iMac starts to look a no brainer. For an MD, its upgrading 2 artists with iMacs for the price of one Mac Pro with display. Give or take.