Neowin.net

Ahh . . . my next purchase. Very nice.

for that much money i can build a pc 3 times better

Hm...laptop-on-a-stick gets an update. And with marginally less-mediocre hardware. How quaint.

8800s? Finally.

Macs are way behind PC in terms of performance. They tend to cost a grand more too.

they top end doesn't even have 4gb of ram. You can get 4gb of ram for less then $100 and it makes a huge difference. Especially how everyone claims these are movie/music/art whatever machines. That would be a huge factor.

Wake me up when ya get that stand-alone OS done. Not paying 2x what I paid for my computer, and it's got double the RAM, drive space and OS quality.... :yawn:

I'll be ordering one of these this week

I ordered the 24" 2.8ghz one. And purchased 4gb of crucial ram. So I will have 2 1gb sticks to sell in the next week or so haha.

It seems that for Windows users, a PC is just a set of components used to run an OS.

For Mac users, the equipment we use and the OS that runs on it represents something more, if not different. It's what keeps us coming back to Apple and it's what justifies the money we spend.

Mac users represent a different segment of the market. We spend differently and evaluate our purchases - or future purchases, by a different set of standards. Which is probably the reason some will never understand why I'm willing to pay ~$500 more than the next person.

You need a picture of the new iMac... that one hasn't even got a camera.

Did they fix the screen?

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03...rs_lawsuit.html

I love the optimism. "Mac sales are growing three and a half times faster than PC sales" this means nothing, hence the comment above "build a PC three times faster" . let's see: 3.5 x 1 = 3.5; 1.0 x 1000 = 1000. which number is bigger? There are certain things that really don't need to grow anymore, e.g. your ego.

Looks like the new Intel platform wasn't included in this update.

See http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/28/new-ima...-not-montevina/

The sad thing is, $400-600 of the price of the large models is tied up in the monitor, and that monitor goes when you upgrade the machine.

Someone needs to develop some way to salvage those displays. A good I/O device can last for longer than almost any other computer part.

I recently retired my old 21" CRT (actually, I sold it to a co-worker). It was made in 2000.

In the lifespan of that monitor, I went through about eight processors on as many mainboards. If I had to buy a new monitor every time, what a collossal waste of money and resources.

I cannot see a future upgrade path for most users with a 24" LCD-- response times are now fast enough for most users, resolutions aren't getting higher, the screens aren't improving dramatically (in some cases, TN panels are actually making newer models in some respects worse than older ones), but you expect me to replace the monitor when I replace the box?

Why not an iMac as monitor "dock". The monitor could be removed in the event of damage or for reuse, and the machines could be sold sans-monitor for upgraders, or to allow for special-purpose markets (i. e. display on an extended cable for kiosk mounting, touch-screen monitor alternative, LED backlit/OLED monitor alternative, odd resolution alternative), or with a matching monitor for new purchasers.

Wow. The Apple fans can't contain their excitement while the PC users can't seem to stay awake long enough to hear their justification for their overpriced "experience".

What'd I'd love to know is... you never see Dell, HP, or any other manufacturer make a huge spectacle over such a tiny product line update. Apple glossing over their computers with technical terms like "gorgeous" would be funny if it weren't also so sad.

Engadget benchmarks the 3.06GHz iMac. Great Googly Moogly is that thing fast!

too expensive