I was curious of peoples opinions on the below comparison. The price difference is $150 more for iMac 2. I see that bringing the RAM equal would be $25-30 on Crucial, and for both to bring it up to the 4GB supported is like $50-60. so not a big difference, and I'd probably do that regardless of which one was purchased.
So really, the main dividing factors are the 1) processor speed bump, 2) 250 vs 320 GB drive and 3) the graphics card. Also, is there a difference between "fronside bus" and "system bus" that greatly impacts performance? Do you think these differences are worth $150 price increase?
I know this might seem like a stupid question, but it really has me wondering. What is the difference between the i5 processor on the MacBook Pro and the iMac? Are they exactly the same except for the clock speed of .13? If I were to upgrade my MacBook Pro with a 7200RPM HD, would it be the exact same computer?
The reason why I ask is because I read online that the i5 on the iMac has 4 cores and the i5 on the MacBook Pro only has 2 and that got me confused, why would two different processors be called the same?
Currently owing the top of the line i7, and after reading a lot about the antiglare and its high resolution I went to the Apple store (twice) to check and compare both screens. I spent around 2.5 h trying to make my mind, looking at different angles, playing movies, launching applications, etc. I was almost giving up in trying to find a solution for this when an apple store rep. talked to me. His suggestion was to look at the same picture on both computers at full screen. He said that for photos and prints, the antiglare image will be closer to what you get in the prints (with out any extra monitor calibration off course). When I started looking at the pictures very closely and with detail, I could see that the clarity and quality of the same picture was better and "crispier" on the antiglare than on the stock glossy resolution. That was my turn point and made my decision on the antiglare high res. There are other reasons why I wanted the antiglare, like the reflections I am getting in my home; but really the point was made once I looked at the clarity of the pictures in the high res screen compared with the standard res.
One point I noticed in the high res screen was that the only application where I could say the fonts were really small and maybe uncomfortable for me was on iWork applications. The icons for the format bar were really small. But in Office, everything seem OK for my eyes (I need glasses for long distance sight). I can say that by looking at both machines at home, the glossy colors look more vivid, and that the viewing angles are better than the antiglare which looks a little bit like washed off to me. But still, prefer not to have reflections and the crispier pictures.................
I'm debating between the 1.4 and 1.6ghz 11.6" macbook air.
For most activities I do, I'm thinking the faster disk access is more important than the CPU speed. I currently have a 2009 13.3" Macbook Pro, 2.26ghz.
The only thing I've noticed that I really need a fast CPU for is watching video, 720p or 1080p especially flash video.
Can the 1.4ghz display smooth 720p video from VLC or Youtube (flash)?
Of the above only the battery life is of any relevance to me (unless the display quality is really that different?). The SD card would be marginally more useful than the Express card.
I am a graphic designer and I am stuck between the choice of either the iMac 2.4GHz or iMac 2.66GHz. I work with Adobe CS4 and run many applications at once. Which iMac would suit my line of work better and would it make much difference if I just bumped up the RAM on the smaller machine to accomodate what it lacks that the 2.66GHz machine boasts?
Could someone please tell me the part number for the 24" iMac 2.66GHz model, as I'm looking at purchasing one through work therefor I need the part number. And hints and tips for a first-timer?
i just purchased an iMac 2.66GHz Intel Core 2Duo (Snow Leopard 10.6.2) and I installed Canon Digital-Photo-Professional 3.7.3 (upgraded from Canon's website).I soon had big problems with the Canon Raw sw: after the start up of the application, every command I try to operate (even a simple click in the menu bar) makes the infamous coloured wheel to appear and I have to wait 10-15 seconds, and sometime more, for the command to be operated.I found on the Canon site this "cryptic" statement about the installation of DPP 3.7.3 on Snow Leopard: "Improvements to Mac OS 10.6 Compatibility Issues have been made, to fixes the following problems that occurred with Mac OS 10.6.
***This does not guarantee the software will work correctly in all Mac OS 10.6 environments.***"So what should this mean? Does it work or not?I also tried to go back installing DPP 3.4.1 but it's the same horrible story.I'd like to hear from people who is experiencing similar problems with the same configuration I have (Snow Leo and DPP).
So I have a 1.8ghz dual G5 with 3gb of ram for work. I mainly work in Adobe CS and do a far amount of Photoshop work. At any given time I may have all of Adobe CS plus Office and a few other apps running -- and a gazillion fonts. Went to the store and saw the new 24" iMac. How would a new iMac compare to my late '04 1.8DP G5? On that same note, how would a new MacBook Pro compare to the above?
Two short questions on which I really need an answer. This academic year, I'll be writing a lot of papers, but most specifically, I am forced to use SPSS (statistical software package for social sciences).
Will I really need the 2.93 over the 2.66 and notice the improvement?
Same goes for the gfx. I like full-hd 1080, I'll be in InDesign, and use Logic Pro. Will I need "slash" notice the 4850 over the gt130?
Also, are the "hang-ups" with the 4850 truly fixed and does it indeed run a lot hotter (inc. really that more noise) than the gt130?
I'm looking to buy an iMac i7 3.4GHz with 256 GB SSD for professional audio use. I'm wondering if it would be faster to stream audio samples from an additional 2TB internal hard drive or an external Thunderbolt drive.
Info: iMac, MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.5.2), Logic Pro
I just found this environmental report for the 27" iMac's on Apple's web site, which lists the amount of power they use when off/asleep/idle.
There doesn't seem to be a similar document for the Late 2006 iMac's. I'm just wondering if anybody knows the power consumption stats for the older iMac's (the 20" model in particular) - I'm interested to now how the newer models compare as I'll be buying one soon.
I'm looking for a new monitor to go with my MBP, and I'm stuck trying to choose between the ones listed above.
The 2407WFP is a couple of years old now I guess, but it's the rev A04 version, which supposedly fixed the (few) problems with what was otherwise meant to be a great screen. It's an sPVA screen.
I've heard good reviews of the G2410, with its LED backlighting. It's still a TN panel and I hear so much bad stuff about them.
The 2209WA is an eIPS panel which I like the sound of, but it's smaller and lower resolution.
The F2380 is a cPVA panel, the image quality looks better but I've heard bad things about blacks on this panel.
I know USB 3.0 is coming out and would like to know if it will be faster than Firewire 800?
It 's confirmed some of computer providers will be releasing their products with USB 3.0 ports on this month, January. like Lenovo Thinkpad W510
I'm thinking of returning my iMac for the refund and wait til new iMac comes with USB 3.0 ports (if it is a lot faster than firewire 800) and of course wait til Apple has eliminated all current problems for this iMac.
I have a Mac Mini 1.66GHz Intel Core Duo that i cant run Lion on due to the processor. I also have an older 15' Macbook Pro of the previous design that has a later Core 2 Duo. Am i able to use this in the mac mini as the Macbook Pro KB is broken and no real use to me? I am unsure but first findings say No as one is Socket M and other is Socket T but unsure if this is true.
I'm pretty satisfied with the Marware cover, although it can be a little frustrating when typing quickly..I'm wondering if I should go back, return the Marware cover and pick up the iSkin.
So, for those of you that have any of these in comparing..which do you think is the best?
And yes, I did search and am aware threads like this exist..but I couldn't find any comparing all three, only iSkin vs. Moshi.
I'm trying to decide which product to buy and I was hoping for some advice.
First and foremost I want a device so that I may transfer my VHS tapes to DVD.
Live TV recording is secondary but for the price, I'd like to find the device that suits me best so I can continue to use it after i've transferred all my VHS.
Here are my concerns:
1) I'm going to be moving from the US to Ireland in a couple of months (not sure for how long, could be years+) Obviously there's the whole NTSC vs. PAL, ATSC vs. DVB.
I know with EyeTV 250 it's either or, any ideas if buying some sort of converter is an option (prices, quality)? If I bought just a PAL one, would I still be able to convert VHS or would it be completely unusable in the US?
2) I'd like some sort of HD/Digital abilities. From what I can tell TVMax is analog only and Blackmagic may also be but I can't find more specs on that.
Does this mean they'll be useless once the US undergoes the conversion?
So as of now I'm leaning towards EyeTV 250 but the question are there any forseeable problems with using a PAL to NTSC converter or using a PAL EyeTV in the US just to convert VHS.
I am about to buy my first mac and am going with the new 27 inch iMac but I can't decide on the i5 or i7. Is the i7 worth the extra $200? As far as I know they both have the same components except for the processor. Also, from my research online, speeds don't look to be all that much faster with the i7.
I don't know which iMac to buy, the "high end" 21,5" or the basic one. I really don't need more hdd space, so for me 1Tb is unnecessary, I also don't need the 3,2 Ghz processor.
So my question is, how much difference will I notice in games ? Is the 5670 much better? Is there any FPS comparison anywhere ?
I'd like to upgrade my 2.8ghz iMac from the standard 2gbs to 4gbs. I can get crucial ram for �65.79 and corsair for �55.90. I've heard that corsair has a very good reputation for desktop ram but don't know if this transfers over to laptop ram. Is there any reason why I would go for the crucial memory? Also, does anyone else know of any other brands I should look out for in the UK?
I saw the graphic on Apples website obviously but the 3DMark06 from another website had the GT130 only like 8% better?? Why the difference in the stats from Apple and the 3Dmark06? Does the 256 vs 512 graphics memory really matter much? I play mainly WoW and iRacing, but may move to newer MMRPGs, and don't want to spend the extra $300 if it's worthless.
Is there much difference from a stock iMac with Nvidia GT 130 vs ATI HD 4850 for gaming? It would be nice to be able just to buy a stock machines rather than a custom with the ATI for $50.
My real concern is overall gaming proformance and heat produced by the two cards. Current iMac has the ATI 2600 HD Pro, which I think is pretty slow compared.
I am very new to the entire Apple/Mac world (except for an iPhone) and it's time to get a new desktop, and I will be switching from the PC world. That being said, I have followed the various posts related to some of the technical issues there have been with the new generation of iMac's. I will be doing some limited game play, as well as limited photo editing, and some movie editing/making (expecting a baby boy in late May).
I am seriously looking at a couple of new 24" iMacs from an online vendor and there is a $100 difference in the 2.93 with the 640G hd and the GT120 and the 3.06 with 1TB and GT130. Would either of these be a good choice, or is there likely to be an upgrade to the processors in the near future to the current line of iMacs, possibly resulting in a price drop? Again I am new to the Apple way of doing things, so I'm not looking for a difinitive answer to the upgrade question, just an opinion based on your experiences.
