Mac Discussion

After 15 years, I finally pulled the plug and got a new Mac desktop: a March 2009 Refurb of the 24" 3.06 Ghz, 4 Gig RAM, 1TB HD, with GT 130/512MB, 6MB Shared cache, 1066Mhz bus and memory. It is upgradable to 8 gigs of RAM. I have purchased several Mac laptops in this period, but just haven't been compelled to replace my old heavily upgraded workhorse til now. Price $1349.

[store.apple.com]

Of the new models, I found the 21" models to be a tad smaller than I wanted, and the 27" to be way too large (even the 24" is huge, frankly). All 3 displays are IPS based, only difference is LED which while nice doesn't make a big difference to me. I will admit the Magic Mouse seems fantastic but I had already purchased a Logitech Illuminated keyboard and a Kensington Trackball a while back when I first contemplated pulling the trigger, and honestly, the Mighty Mouse isn't all that. I plan to sell it and that tiny little keyboard; I like number pads.

Dear forum readers: Did I screw up? I plan to make this a dual boot with Win 7 (for some kid's games), run XP under VirtualBox (for work: it is a "client build"), and Snow Leopard for everything else. Will play a few games on it, edit Tivo videos, digitize VHS videos, make it the new media hub for our iPods and iPod Touch.

The 24" with a GT 130 should be fine for at least 3 years. The GT 130 is not the best for new PC games but it is a big step up for games compared to the default graphics chip in the low end 21" iMac or the mini.

I think someone that uses a 24" display on a regular basis that would not want a 27" display would be in the minority, assuming they had enough space for it to fit on their desk.



From a Raines Cohen T-Shirt: "The day Microsoft makes a product that
does not suck will be the day they start making vacuum cleaners."

You did great, and your use sounds fine.

I could never get Virtual Box to work right, you might look into a copy of Fusion or Parallels, which have been as low as $20 recently.

I have a 24" Al iMac with 2.4ghz /Radeon 2600PRO and I do way more than whats on your list. I run the entire Adobe Creative Suite, Quark, and several browsers all day every day with never a hiccup.

Your 3.06 is +600 mhz and the GT130 performs nearly 3X as fast

[www.barefeats.com]

[www.barefeats.com]

[www.barefeats.com]

And GRP is right. Ive had a 24" monitor for at least 10 years, the thought of going to 27" makes me really, really, really happy =)

---------------------------------
Posting And You: [www.albinoblacksheep.com]

I should receive in the mail today the exact refurb unit you just got. I currently have a 1.25 G4 MDD dual. I use a 22" and a 19" monitor. I didn't go for the 27" because my desk will only work well with a 24" with a 19" alongside of it. Also, I liked the price. 38 percent off list works for me.

Here's a link that compares video cards, including the 130 GT and the Radeon HD 4850 and 4870. The Radeon's are better cards but I think the specs on the 130 GT will work okay. [www.barefeats.com]

LyleH

That chart isnt really helpful, since the new "better" iMacs ship with a 4670, which isnt on that chart.

Im guessing the 4670 is probably going to fall right on top of the GT130 specs.

They cant make it faster than the 4850, thats the top of the line card.

You cant get the 4850 unless you BTO or order the quad-core, which is $2000.

---------------------------------
Posting And You: [www.albinoblacksheep.com]

While the 27" may look great, there are a couple strikes against it in my opinion (not enough to deter me, but enough to give me pause):
1) 16:9 aspect ratio. Yes, I know more and more displays are going this way, but most of what we look at on a computer needs more vertical pixels, not horizontal ones. I'd take 16:10 over 16:9 if given the choice.
2) 109 pixels per inch! Sure, the 27" display has great resolution, but I would anticipate a lot more squinting. I don't know why they keep cramming in more pixels if they won't build resolution independence into the OS.

You got a great machine at a great price. I wouldn't worry at all.

Thanks to all. I think I finally realized I'd never get another 'dream machine' from Apple like my old PM7600 used to be for me (with such wonderful expandability for a decent price)...but right now I could get a damn nice machine I'd be proud to use and keep on my desk for years to come. This hasn't been a problem for me with laptops because I just accepted they wouldn't be very expandable (though I do draw the line at the availability of a Firewire port!) Also as I get older, I think I just stopped caring so much about being 'current'. What a drain of the pocketbook. Get what you need/want, upgrade when you feel 'compelled' because it stops serving your purpose.

I agree the older G130 is probably on par with the newer midrange cards, given we know what the performance of the high end card is (4850). This makes sense.

The specs of the 27" gave me pause for more than its sheer size, and Cymbosypondylus summed my feelings up well: 16:10 is better for computing, 16:9 for movies. And for the latter, I have a 46" 1080p display with a Blu-ray player (PS3) for true HD. The 24" iMac will still be great for streaming Netflix and watching DVDs, so I am plenty happy. The 109 pixels per inch would be fabulous if MacOS X was truly resolution independent, as long promised by Apple (and MS for Windows). With a fixed resolution, bigger pixels are easier to see! My eyes are getting older; and hey, so are yours! Smaller isn't necessarily better.

LyleH--share your impressions once you get them. I almost got the GT120 model instead but when the GT130 model showed up briefly at the Apple Store for just $70 more (!) I backed out of my order and got it instead. Got a bigger HD, too.

I'd love to see benchmarks comparing the early 2009 iMacs to the late 2009 iMacs. Does anyone know if Barefeats or some other site is working on these? Been searching like crazy for them.

>
> The specs of the 27" gave me pause for more than
> its sheer size, and Cymbosypondylus summed my
> feelings up well: 16:10 is better for computing,

This discussion about the new 27" imac and the lusting after the four core config, gives me pause to wonder how long before the four core is standard issue for the imac. Or at least available as a custom order in all the imacs. Part of it must depend on how easily it will fit into the case. The single core intel went away fairly quickly in the mac world, but it was there. A four core laptop would be great, and what about a four core mac mini, if and when Apple decides to release the mini mac pro tower!! Ahh.. we can dream!