We believe in the long term value of Apple hardware. You should be able to use your Apple gear as long as it helps you remain productive and meets your needs, upgrading only as necessary. We want to help maximize the life of your Apple gear.
Yesterday's introduction of new consumer Macs included some expected
developments and some surprises: iMacs got bigger, the MacBook got a
bit lighter, and the Mac mini got a bit faster.
Of the three, I'd have to say that the iMac got the biggest change,
physically larger, higher resolution displays topping the list. The
polycarbonate MacBook got its first redesign since the line was
introduced in May 2006, and the mini's changes are all under the
hood.
Display Size
I've argued against 16:9
computer displays in the past, because in my work I've found that
having enough vertical pixels makes a much bigger difference than
having an overabundance of horizontal ones. The first Macs had a 3:2 aspect ratio, and
until the Titanium
PowerBook was introduced in 2001, almost every Mac display had a
4:3 aspect ratio. (The Mac
Portable and many early PowerBooks had a 640 x 400 display - a
16:10 ratio - and most PowerBook users found the 400 pixel screen
height limiting.)
The Titanium PowerBook introduced the "megawide" display to the
notebook world, with its 1152 x 768 screen (3:2 aspect ratio). Except
for the 12" PowerBook and the iBooks, that ratio became the norm for
Apple notebooks - and with the 17" iMac G4 in 2002, it came to
the desktop Mac world as well. It had a 1440 x 900 pixel display, which
I find just short of adequate.
I've worked in the world of desktop publishing, where the higher the
resolution, the better, because you'd often be working with 9 point
type in footnotes that could be quite fuzzy on a traditional CRT
display. At Low End Mac, I went from a 1280 x 960 display on my
SuperMac J700 to a G4 PowerBook (1152 x 768) to
an eMac (1280 x 960) to a Power Mac G4 with a 1280 x 1024
Dell flat panel display.
It's hard to go backwards, especially to a display with less
vertical pixels. Using the eMac as 1280 x 960 or my WallStreet PowerBook
or"Mystic" Power Mac
server at 1024 x 768 (the highest resolution at which the old Micron
monitor refreshes at more than 60 Hz, a low enough rate to induce
headaches) just feels tight after 1024 vertical pixels.
The first iMac to have sufficient vertical pixels for the way I've
become accustomed to working was the 20" iMac G4, which has a 1680 x
1050 display. Every subsequent 20" iMac has had exactly the same
resolution - and 26 more vertical pixels than I'm used to.
Not that I have anything against horizontal pixels. I've been
working at 1280 pixels horizontally for 10 years now, and I'd very much
appreciate more width. My work style is to have documents on the right
and left sides of the screen (usually NetNewWire, Camino, and Firefox
on the right, Claris Home Page and/or KompoZer on the left) so I can
reference a page on the Web while writing or editing. There's always
significant overlap.
I've played with the 15" MacBook Pro, which has a nice 1440 x 900
display. For things like Geni, a
nice genealogy site, the extra width makes it easier to navigate family
trees, as they tend to be tall and very, very wide. Of course, you can
hardly have enough pixels for graphical family trees. The 1680 x 1050
of the 20" iMac would pretty much be perfect for my needs - and now
Apple goes and increases that to 1920 x 1080!
Heaven. I'm in heaven....
Work Style
We all have different work styles. Ask six people to build a
spreadsheet with certain fields and calculations, and you'll end up
with six somewhat different spreadsheets. Ask two dozen Mac lovers to
give their opinion of the newest iMacs, and you'll get two dozen
opinions because each of use has different needs and wants.
For me, any Intel Mac has more power than I can wrap my mind around.
My production machines are dual processor G4 Power Macs from 2001
(upgraded with dual 1.6 GHz CPUs) and 2002 (dual 1 GHz). Faster would
be nice, a dual- or quad-core Power Mac G5 would be wonderful, and the
power of Intel Core technology would be awesome simply because my
"vintage" Macs are more than adequate for the work I do.
As I said, for me the screen is the most important part of the
keyboard, particularly the resolution. Give me 1280 x 1024, and I'm
comfortable. Give me 1440 x 900, and I lose more than I gain. Give me
1680 x 1050, and I will be thrilled. Boost that to 1920 x 1080, and
I'll be blown away.
The Late 2009 iMacs are optimized for serious work. At a minimum you
get two 3.06 GHz cores. For a bit more power, you can boost that to
3.33 GHz (about 10% more processing power) for US$200. If you really
want some power, there's the 27" quad-core iMac running a 2.66 GHz
Intel Core i5 CPU - and for the ultimate iMac, US$200 gets you a 2.8
GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 CPU - and the i7 supports HyperThreading,
while the i5 does not. (Another way the quad-core iMac boosts
performance is with an 8 MB L3 cache shared by all four cores. The
dual-core iMacs get by with a 3 MB shared L2 cache.)
At the top end, the iMac now has as much power as the entry-level
Mac Pro, and the Nehalem-based i5 and i7 CPUs used in the top-end model
have the same Turbo Boost technology as the Mac Pro, allowing
individual cores to run well above their rated speed. As Tim the Tool
Man would say, "More power!"
500 GB and 1 TB 7200 rpm SATA drives are standard, and there's a
2 TB option. As someone content with partitioned 400 GB drives, my
mind boggles.
The Late 2009 iMac Value Equation
The entry-level 21.5" iMac has a dual-core 3.06 GHz CPU, 4 GB of RAM
(with room for 16 GB), a 500 GB hard drive, as 1920 x 1080 display, and
Nvidia GeForce 9400M graphics. It retails for US$1,199. I imagine
almost anyone looking for a desktop computer would be completely
satisfied. It's not a killer game machine or video production machine,
but except for a few areas, the fast processor and the GeForce 9400M
GPU should be more than adequate.
The biggest difference between this and the step-up model is that
the more expensive 21.5" iMac has ATI Radeon HD 4670 graphics with 256
MB of dedicated video memory. (The GeForce 9400M in the base iMac uses
256 MB of system RAM.) You gain a bit of free RAM, and the Radeon 4670
GPU should make it a much better gaming system. For video work, OpenCL
might also provide a boost by taking advantage of the more
sophisticated graphics processor. Whether it's worth $300 more for a
better graphics card and a larger (1 GB) hard drive is your call,
but I think the vast majority of users are going to be thrilled with
the $1,200 base model.
The 21.5" iMacs have HDTV resolution. The 27" blows that away with
an astounding 2560 x 1440. That goes well beyond Blu-ray quality. The
market for such a high resolution display includes gamers and
production work - applications such as desktop publishing, video
editing, sound production, CAD, and a few other high-end, demanding
areas. For most Mac users, this goes well beyond their needs to satisfy
their cravings for more pixels - or maybe just a great iMac for
watching movies without being tied to a relatively small 20" or 21.5"
screen.
The brilliant new feature in the 27" iMac is video input using Mini
DisplayLink. You can connect your Blu-ray player, your gaming console,
your cable box or DVD, or another computer to the iMac and have that
device use the display. I think Apple just killed the argument for
including Blu-ray in Macs, at least until the prices of hardware come
down and the demands of the market can justify it. It's a shame the
21.5" iMac doesn't allow video input like the 27" version does.
If you need the incredibly resolution of this display, the US$1,799
price is easy to justify - it's exactly the same price as Apple's 30"
Cinema Display, which has a 2460 x 1600 resolution. You could buy a 27"
iMac just to use it as a display for a Mac mini, assuming you planned
to use a $1,800 display with a $600 computer.
Then comes the ultimate iMac, the 27" quad-core model. It has four
2.66 GHz cores (or 2.8 GHz for $200 more) and even better graphics with
an ATI Radeon HD 4850 that has 512 MB of VRAM. The CPUs use Intel's
Nehalem architecture and support Turbo Boost, putting this iMac in
Mac Pro territory. And it
retails for US$200 less than the model it replaces.
The 2.66 GHz quad-core Mac Pro offers a bit more processing power
and a slightly better graphics card (the optional Radeon HD 4870) at a
25% higher price - and it doesn't include a display. Bang for the buck,
this is going to really eat into the low-end Mac Pro market. (Yes,
low-end and Mac Pro don't usually go together.)
Seriously, you could buy both versions of the 27" iMac for less than
the cost of one Mac Pro and a 30" Cinema Display. It boggles the mind,
assuming you can justify that level of computing power.
I know that I would be more than satisfied with the $1,200
entry-level 21.5" iMac, and my guess is that it and the quad-core 27"
will be Apple's hottest sellers among the four configuration.
Late 2009 vs. Early 2009 iMacs
The good is the enemy of the best, and for Mac users, it's never
been more true than now. Close-out prices on the March 2009 iMacs seem
to be settling at $999 for the 20" 2,66 GHz model, and $1,499 for the
24" 2.93 GHz.
If, like me, you're using a "hopelessly underpowered" PowerPC Mac,
getting the 20" 2.66 GHz model for $200 less than the new 21.5" isn't a
bad deal at all. Sure, you get 15% more power, 100% more RAM, and 55%
more drive space for that $200, so it's not hard to justify the
expense, but if the budget's tight, you'll be blown away by the Early
2009 iMac. Better yet, Apple has refurbished
units for US$849 shipped, including the same one-year warranty as a
brand new iMac. At $350 less, it's an even more tempting proposition.
Unless that 1920 x 1080 display means a lot to you, the 20" iMac with
its 1680 x 1050 resolution should make you very happy while saving you
a big chunk of change.
The real deals are on the 24" close-out iMacs. As noted above, the
24" 2.93 GHz model will save you $300 over the new 27" 3.06 GHz one for
a minuscule difference in computing power. The big difference is the
display - an impressive 1920 x 1200 vs. the awesome 2460 x 1600 of the
new monster iMac.
There's really no other way to say it: You're not really comparing
apples to apples here. The old 24" has the same horizontal resolution
as the new 21.5", although 10% less vertically. In that light, the
prices on refurbished 24" iMacs are competitive.
But compared to the 27" iMac, it's a whole different thing. You get
25% more horizontal pixels and 33% more vertical ones, putting the big
iMacs in a different market. The 27" iMac is a high-end computer, even
if it is technically part of Apple's consumer line.
All thing considered, I'd say the best iMac value today is the
refurbished 20" 2.66 GHz model at $849, followed by the new 21.5" 3.06
GHz base iMac at $1,199 (and possibly a bit less one all the online
dealers start listing it). The close-out 24" iMacs are a good value,
but not a great one, and for the small difference in price, the
quad-core 27" iMac offers power users a stunning level of power along
with a stunning display. I'll call that the third-best value at present
- although the best for those who need that kind of power or that big a
display.
Dan Knight has been using Macs since 1986,
sold Macs for several years, supported them for many more years, and
has been publishing Low End Mac since April 1997. If you find Dan's articles helpful, please consider making a donation to his tip jar.
Links for the Day
Mac of the Day: 500 MHz iMac G3, introduced 2000.07.19. The Summer 2000 iMac topped out at 500 MHz, a 100 MHz jump.
