I am now part of the mac crew

[Ionium]

In plane switching :facepalm:

[Stetson]

And the only thing you noticed in the specs I posted, is that the monitor isn't IPS?

Umm, IPS or not, the ASUS is a 1920x1080 monitor and the iMac is a 2560x1440 monitor. That's a pretty big difference. A monitor with that resolution will cost you around or above $1000. The NEC model that newegg sells with that resolution goes for $1300.

[Titoist]

When I bought my Mac (Macbook Air) my friends thought I was insane cause they were involved in the same argument that is going on here.

Here is MY reason why I got a Mac;

TO EXPERIENCE SOMETHING DIFFERENT

I have used Windows since 3.1, even DOS beforehand. I have used Linux for about a year (Ubuntu 10.7, LinuxMint) and because I was given an opportunity to buy a new laptop I decided to go with a Mac. So far, I am enjoying it very much and I will be getting a iMac in a couple of years (once my desktop becomes obsolete) because I am currently enjoying my experience and I don't have time to tweak around. I barely game now too, except for WoW which is also available on the Mac. PC's are affordable and work better than a Mac in most situations. But why get a Corolla if I can get a Ferrari :p (status symbol) :p.

Just my two cents and yes, I have become a Mac *** (according to my geek friends).

[.Neo]

The guys in the reproduction department where I work, which is all Mac's, don't. ;)

They'll start noticing soon enough when they have a 20-inch iMac (aluminum) or cheap PC monitor sitting next to their Macs with ISP panels. We have 20-inch iMacs at school and the difference is quite striking compared to my iMac at home.

But why pay an extra thousand dollars, for just a look :blink: ?

Thousands?

Who cares about the "all-in-one" bull****? The only thing I got on my desk is a monitor with speakers and a few papers to write on. Same as with any iMac setup.

And the only thing you noticed in the specs I posted, is that the monitor isn't IPS? What about that the CPU got 6 cores instead of four, you get twice the HDD space or that you get 12 gigabytes of ram (out of 16 max) and an option for SLI/CrossFire with better graphics card (which you can't have in an iMac)? And have you noticed it was cheaper, too?

Actually many people, including myself (being a former PC and Mac Pro owner).

And yeah, that's the first thing I noticed. What do you think the most expensive part of the 27-inch iMac is?

There's a HUGE difference in quality between the LCD panel in the 27-inch iMac and the monitor you're suggesting. First being the resolution (2560 x 1440 vs 1920 x 1080) and second the ISP panel. Both a a pretty big deal, probably a much bigger deal than the difference in processing power. Especially when you're a graphics designer, considering Adobe's package does very little with multi-core processors. The price of the above configuration will rise with hundreds of euros when you add a PC screen that actually offers the same view quality.

[Guest]

[acnpt]

The reproduction department ;)

I giggled :rofl:

[treemonster]

speaking of 2560x1440 resolution, what exactly is the point of that if the hardware can't provide decent performance at that resolution in any situation but basic desktop/browsingi/email/im/1080p video playback?

i know when i built my current pc i kept an eye on what resolution would suit the budget i had for the hardware i had in mind. no point in 2560x1440 in a game if you have to lower IQ settings to medium to get 60fps.

[Ionium]

speaking of 2560x1440 resolution, what exactly is the point of that if the hardware can't provide decent performance at that resolution in any situation but basic desktop/browsingi/email/im/1080p video playback?

i know when i built my current pc i kept an eye on what resolution would suit the budget i had for the hardware i had in mind. no point in 2560x1440 in a game if you have to lower IQ settings to medium to get 60fps.

word, son

[Glassed Silver]

asus makes some low end all in one PCs with touchscreens for a good price compared to prebuilt towers with similar specs. no 27" though.

and none of this:

Yea, it would help if you came around with some statistics and not a video of ONE machine starting to smoke.

If you wanted, you could have that for every computer out there...

speaking of 2560x1440 resolution, what exactly is the point of that if the hardware can't provide decent performance at that resolution in any situation but basic desktop/browsingi/email/im/1080p video playback?

i know when i built my current pc i kept an eye on what resolution would suit the budget i had for the hardware i had in mind. no point in 2560x1440 in a game if you have to lower IQ settings to medium to get 60fps.

QFT

To be honest: Apple has a real passion for using outdated or just WAY underpowered graphics...

I'd go with half the RAM, half the HDD (those are at least upgradeable afterwards!!! Dear grief!) and maybe even one or two inch less screen size if only they would use DECENT graphics... And I am not talking about Mac Pros here, obviously...

But even those could get a bit better... Just sayin'...

iMacs suck for games (it has not always been like that... IMHO, back in the days when there were still eMacs and G4 iMacs around, those had comparably rather good graphics!) and if Apple wants more of the big "games pie" not only on iOS, then they better start getting their priorities fixed...

I'm not even expecting 2GB VRAM here, but on a 21.5" screen, nothing that sells for a premium price can justify having less than 1GB VRAM -> for TODAY's standards, totally leaving out future-proofness.

/rant by an otherwise satisfied iMac '06 user. (knock knock... running 128mb vram here... dude, I so regretted not upgrading to 256 on purchase... *sigh* but it actually pushed me towards finally buying an xbox 360 a year ago and darn am I happy :D)

In conclusion one can say: iMac + Xbox 360 = Pure golden win! (Y)

(Apple should have an imac upgrade to get a 360 with your iMac marketed as the "Gaming option" XDDD)

Glassed Silver:mac

[BajiRav]

speaking of 2560x1440 resolution, what exactly is the point of that if the hardware can't provide decent performance at that resolution in any situation but basic desktop/browsingi/email/im/1080p video playback?

i know when i built my current pc i kept an eye on what resolution would suit the budget i had for the hardware i had in mind. no point in 2560x1440 in a game if you have to lower IQ settings to medium to get 60fps.

I guess that's one way Apple can justify charging premium prices for commodity hardware. :/ In their defense, I think Apple has always tried to maintain DPI at or above 100.

[Glassed Silver]

I guess that's one way Apple can justify charging premium prices for commodity hardware. :/ In their defense, I think Apple has always tried to maintain DPI at or above 100.

Indeed, IMHO... Once you go to high-dpi you never want to go back. I don't at least.

I adore the high density!

Glassed Silver:mac

[Malisk]

The are PC's that will do a perfectly fine job for less money, maybe not 27" all in one, and wont look as nice, but not everyone wants that.

Not just maybe. There is no all-in-one 27" PC. That's part of why this one cost so much. It's for those who aren't happy with plastic all-in-ones and 24" non-IPS displays.

[.Neo]

speaking of 2560x1440 resolution, what exactly is the point of that if the hardware can't provide decent performance at that resolution in any situation but basic desktop/browsingi/email/im/1080p video playback?

I've been using my 27-inch iMac intensively for desktop publishing and video editing and the thing is blazing fast. If you want a gaming rig get a tower, but don't pretend the iMac is limited to basic tasks.

[treemonster]

I've been using my 27-inch iMac intensively for desktop publishing and video editing and the thing is blazing fast. If you want a gaming rig get a tower, but don't pretend the iMac is limited to basic tasks.

i know how long it takes to encode video while render each frame on a i7 920/480 based pc in a small window showing each frame on a 1080p monitor so don't be silly.

[Vice]

speaking of 2560x1440 resolution, what exactly is the point of that if the hardware can't provide decent performance at that resolution in any situation but basic desktop/browsingi/email/im/1080p video playback?

i know when i built my current pc i kept an eye on what resolution would suit the budget i had for the hardware i had in mind. no point in 2560x1440 in a game if you have to lower IQ settings to medium to get 60fps.

I don't think anyone is buying an iMac to game.

As an owner of two 30" 2560x1600 displays, one of which I hook up to my 17" MacBook Pro every day I can tell you that OS X can handle that resolution perfectly in every task I do. Which includes Video Editing, Programming, Logic Studio, Photoshop and more on the system at that resolution and my MacBook Pro is much lower specced than an iMac in every way. I only have a Core 2 Duo 2.93GHz processor and a 9600GT graphics card while the 27" iMac is much higher specced on both parts.

I have tried Team Fortress 2 on my 30" display via MacBook Pro before and it did run poorly at high settings but turning the setting to medium made it run fine at the native 2560x1600 resolution of the display. The iMac I'd bet could run at Medium-High on every setting at 2560x1440 in Team Fortress 2. But like I said no one is buying these for gaming, not yet anyway.

[treemonster]

I don't think anyone is buying an iMac to game.

As an owner of two 30" 2560x1600 displays, one of which I hook up to my 17" MacBook Pro every day I can tell you that OS X can handle that resolution perfectly in every task I do. Which includes Video Editing, Programming, Logic Studio, Photoshop and more on the system at that resolution and my MacBook Pro is much lower specced than an iMac in every way. I only have a Core 2 Duo 2.93GHz processor and a 9600GT graphics card while the 27" iMac is much higher specced on both parts.

I have tried Team Fortress 2 on my 30" display via MacBook Pro before and it did run poorly at high settings but turning the setting to medium made it run fine at the native 2560x1600 resolution of the display. The iMac I'd bet could run at Medium-High on every setting at 2560x1440 in Team Fortress 2. But like I said no one is buying these for gaming, not yet anyway.

you're right but more people are at least considering gaming on their macs, w/e specs they are. and that resolution pushes hardware in windows with better driver on better hardware.

lowering IQ settings to medium is just not a viable solution to me imho.

video editing tends to be just about how long you are willing to wait. maybe i should have included that earlier. it all depends on what you have going while you do the encoding.

[.Neo]

i know how long it takes to encode video while render each frame on a i7 920/480 based pc in a small window showing each frame on a 1080p monitor so don't be silly.

So you know that the GPU isn't an issue there. You try to make it sound like you can do little more on an iMac than basic internet tasks and word processing which is utter nonsense.

And as I explained many times before, the GPU is a limitation that comes with the form factor. If you rely heavily on your GPU you'll need a tower.

[Vice]

you're right but more people are at least considering gaming on their macs, w/e specs they are. and that resolution pushes hardware in windows with better driver on better hardware.

lowering IQ settings to medium is just not a viable solution to me imho.

video editing tends to be just about how long you are willing to wait. maybe i should have included that earlier. it all depends on what you have going while you do the encoding.

Well you know these aren't gaming systems. Windows users like to focus on gaming in these Mac threads but the thing is we don't game on our Macs we use them for work and life. We have 360's and PS3's for that.

PC Gaming has been in decline for a long time with many of the best games being either console exclusives or only coming on the PC 9 months or more after release on consoles. Many of us simply don't care about gaming on our Macs yeah it is great that Valve are focusing on Mac gaming but I'm not really fussed and I bet Neo isn't either. But regardless Neo's iMac can play Team Fortress 2 on max settings at native resolution. My MacBook Pro can't at 2560x1600 but I can if I turn settings to Medium and the game still looks great.

[treemonster]

Well you know these aren't gaming systems. Windows users like to focus on gaming in these Mac threads but the thing is we don't game on our Macs we use them for work and life. We have 360's and PS3's for that.

PC Gaming has been in decline for a long time with many of the best games being either console exclusives or only coming on the PC 9 months or more after release on consoles. Many of us simply don't care about gaming on our Macs yeah it is great that Valve are focusing on Mac gaming but I'm not really fussed and I bet Neo isn't either. But regardless Neo's iMac can play Team Fortress 2 on max settings at native resolution. My MacBook Pro can't at 2560x1600 but I can if I turn settings to Medium and the game still looks great.

but you just said you turn down tf2 to medium IQ settings. which is it? tf2 isn't known for being a demanding game.

i respect mac users' decision to work on mac, but i'd rather work in windows myself. just my opinion.

So you know that the GPU isn't an issue there. You try to make it sound like you can do little more on an iMac than basic internet tasks and word processing which is utter nonsense.

And as I explained many times before, the GPU is a limitation that comes with the form factor. If you rely heavily on your GPU you'll need a tower.

there are laptops that come with beefier GPUs than your imac

[Vice]

but you just said you turn down tf2 to medium IQ settings. which is it? tf2 isn't known for being a demanding game.

i respect mac users' decision to work on mac, but i'd rather work in windows myself. just my opinion.

Yeah but I don't own an iMac tree. This is a MacBook Pro a laptop. Neo owns a desktop system with a graphics card that is like 3x faster than what is in my MacBook Pro.

And I don't play TF2 on my Mac I tried it because I already have a Steam account that I play on my PC with and I thought I'd try it on my Mac to see what Steam on Mac was like that was all.

My desktop is a Core i7 940 @ 4GHz & 12GB of RAM with Dual GTX 480's, all water cooled. I simply cant get any of those components from Apple they don't even make a desktop that has a Core i7 desktop processor only XEON's, they don't sell GTX 480's and well I guess I could get 12GB of memory in a Mac Pro. Apple doesn't fit my personal needs for a Desktop but their notebooks fit the bill perfectly for me.

[treemonster]

fair enough. i don;t keep track of regular users' specs so forgive me on that one. i thought you were implying you were on a 27" imac.

[Vice]

fair enough. i don;t keep track of regular users' specs so forgive me on that one. i thought you were implying you were on a 27" imac.

I said several times I was using a MacBook Pro, in every post in this thread..

[treemonster]

I said several times I was using a MacBook Pro, in every post in this thread..

don't make me go back and quote every single on e of your posts about hooking your MBP up to 1560x1440 displays you made in this thread. in a thread about 27" imacs.

anwyays, obviously the hardware isn't going to run many games at max IQ settings at teh default resolution on a 27" imac because it just doesn't do it on windows with better optimized drivers. :laugh:

[.Neo]

]there are laptops that come with beefier GPUs than your imac

Yeah, I've seen their size and heard the sound they produce. It was hard to miss really.

[Vice]

don't make me go back and quote every single on e of your posts about hooking your MBP up to 1560x1440 displays you made in this thread. in a thread about 27" imacs.

anwyays, obviously the hardware isn't going to run many games at max IQ settings at teh default resolution on a 27" imac because it just doesn't do it on windows with better optimized drivers. :laugh:

Actually I hooked my MacBook Pro up to a 2560x1600 display. Not a 1560x1440 display. And I used it as a point to show that Macs can drive such large resolution displays. The iMac has a 2560x1440 display which is similar to what I run my MacBook Pro at without problems. You were asserting a much more powerful iMac cannot run applications properly at such a high resolution and you relegated it to nothing more than an expensive type writer and web browser which was simply not the case.

Might I suggest actually reading posts before you reply it may help in future as I did mention which computer I was using like 3 times at-least.