Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Seth Weintraub's picture
Seth Weintraub

Apple versus Google

Apple's new 27-inch iMac is its crown jewel

Apple hasn't had a flagship Macintosh lately; each model has had its area of specialization. The Mac Pros have always been the fastest, but they have a very limited appeal. The MacBooks are the most popular. The MacBook Pro laptops are probably the ones to be seen with when out and about.

All of that just fell by the wayside, as the new 27-inch iMac now is the "Mac to have".

The iMacs have always been nice home machines for doing Web browsing, writing, movie watching and light/consumer multimedia work.  They look great in artists' studios and designers' homes and are at home in school labs.  But they've never been "high end" for technophiles.

That's not to say they don't work well in an office environment.  We moved about half of the artists (ie, Adobe jockeys) in my last office from Mac Pros to high end iMacs, and with much success.  Sure, they have the ultra-shiny screens and they aren't terribly upgradable, but a maxed-out iMac performs just as well as a medium level Mac Pro -- which is plenty for most Adobe/light video editing creative types.

Still, money not being an object, my dream machine would have been a Mac Pro with a 30-inch Cinema Display (or two). As of yesterday, that is no longer the case.

The 27-inch iMac has all of the horsepower that I will need for the foreseeable future.  The high-end Quad Core i7 Intel configuration with 16GB of RAM and ATI Radeon HD 4850 graphics processor on that gorgeous 27-inch screen is as solid a computer as I can imagine. It also has most of the pixel screen area of a 30-inch display (2560x1440 for iMac vs. 2560x1600 for 30-inch SXGA) yet is smaller than a 30-inch display. Oh, and you get a freakishly fast computer in there as well.  In fact, the base model 27-inch iMac is $100 less than an Apple 30-inch cinema display.

But is the computer inside that giant display any good? It is fast, indeed. More than double the speed of the previous iMacs.

I'd wager that Apple's Enterprise group doesn't want you to see how it performs against Mac Pros.  It likely compares pretty favorably with low- to mid-range models for 99% of what people use these things for.  If you spend your day doing Maya rendering or protein folding, you're obviously stuck with a Mac Pro.

For expansion, the video card options are both fast and powerful.  You can even add an additional 30-inch display to your iMac via the Mini DisplayPort-out.  You can also use it as a monitor for the DisplayPort-in -- though I am not sure why you'd need to.  You'll also be forced to add Firewire or NAS hard drives rather than internal drives if you want to go beyond the 2TB max size.  eSATA would have been nice, but I think Apple's next interface will be Intel's 10 GB LightPeak.

So, is it just that the specs are off the charts for a "consumer machine"?  Not at all.  It is the most beautiful Mac I've ever seen.  Although it is a monster in size, it is also has improved upon the previous iMac's already stunning looks. If you want the Apple take on it, have look at the video they've made below


Okay, they might have taken it a bit far, but the point is clear.  This is not only a spectacularly performing machine that is loaded to the teeth with features, it is also the best looking computer out there.  Period.

What People Are Saying

wow microsoft fanboys...

Build a core i7 machine for $400 i wish! The core itself is about $250 and a better video card would be $150 there's your estimate. Not including: motherboard, ddr3 ram, 1tb hard drive, I haven't even seen a screen with the resolution of this monster, case, keyboard, mouse, $200 operating system. Honestly. I'm thinking it's impossible right now to build a comparable machine. It scares me a little. I'd wait a while to build a computer now though. Whenever Apple pulls a stunt like this prices go way lower. Not much lower they can go, but I'm loving Apple right now. Can't wait to set my eyes on one of these babies. I'm drooling all over my last gen 2008 Macbook (O_O) lol.

Why get a high-end 8MP

Why get a high-end 8MP camera when you can get a compact 12MP point-and-shoot one for half the price? That monitor is terrible compared to the iMac's screen. The 27" iMac has a resolution of 2560x1440, the monitor you linked is an inch bigger but has a resolution of only 1920x1200, and is not an IPS. In fact, I've never seen a monitor between 24" and 29" with a resolution above 1920x1200.

And I highly doubt you can build a Core i7 machine for $400. I was going to build a PC from scratch before the iMacs were updated, the cost without a monitor was up around $2200. The Core i7 iMac is the same price including a badass monitor that you can't get anywhere else (which also happens to be exactly what I was looking for) and it's only a little slower other than the graphics card.

color gamut the same?

It sounds great, but at that price, I strongly suspect that the screen doesn't display true 24-bit color. These iMac and Macbook screens really have a much smaller native gamut of color, and achieve the rest through dithering. The big, stand-alone displays are the real deal.

I'd be curious to know if your "Adobe jockies" can tell the difference. Does the bright and shiny screen make up for the color inadequacy, or are the colors true, rich, and satisfying enough on these new iMacs?

haha... deep thoughts with

haha... deep thoughts with larry g...LOL

What are you smoking?

I've heard some wild stories from the Windows fanbois, but this one is so far out you'd need a telescope to see it. Are you under the impression that Apple builds it's own displays and doesn't get them from the same suppliers as everyone else? I guess there is one born every minute!

Not all displays are the same

There is a huge difference between displays.

No one is saying that Apple builds LCDs but their own monitors are using LCDs of a much higher specification. That's why they cost more and are SWOP-certified.

I recently tried a ~US$200 display for photo editing because it was recommended as a very good value. Editing photos with people was horrible. The skin tones looked posterized and checking the specifications, the gamut was 72 %.

Professionals won't work on most monitors that people find acceptable or even excellent because they're not good enough.

Watching an iMac LCD is...

...like watching a real apple, while watching a PC monitor is like watching the same apple chewed and regurgitated.

YES YES YES

you are damn right! The new iMac is great ... and this video with Mr. Ivy and Co. explaining the iMac's greatness is the best looking commervial I know! It makes me "love" that machine ...

I think the whole thing is a

I think the whole thing is a bit much, but they should definitely do a short version of that video as a TV ad, would be a refreshing break from "But Macs don't have viruses or crashes! Ba-dum tsshh!"