The new value machines amongst the new iMacs are the Core 2 Duo 21.5" models unless you want a fast GPU. They are quite a bit smaller than the 27-inchers, but they can be more ergonomic, they are still full 1080p HD resolution, and just as importantly they have a much larger pixel size than the 27" models. The larger pixel size can be a significant advantage for a desktop, especially for an OS like Snow Leopard which is not resolution independent. In order of increasing pixel density (or smaller pixel size):
15" G4 iMac: 1024 / 12" = 85 ppi
24" iMac: 1920 / 20.4" = 94 ppi
20" iMac: 1680 / 17.1" = 98 ppi
17" iMac: 1440 / 14.4" = 100 ppi
21.5": 1920 / 18.7" = 102 ppi
27": 2560 / 23.5" = 109 ppi
13" MacBook Pro: 1280 / 11.3" = 113 ppi
12" G4 iBook: 1024 / 9" = 114 ppi
As I no longer have the eyes of a teenager, my favourite desktop pixel density for web surfing in Safari is somewhere around 90-100 pixels per inch (ppi). That includes the 20" and 24" iMacs, with the 21.5" coming in very close at 102 ppi. I had a chance to check out the 21.5" and 27" iMacs in person and I found the 21.5" more pleasant for general surfing than the 27" at normal desktop seating distances, at least with Safari. While it's true the 27" is still a lower pixel density than the laptops, people generally sit closer to laptop screens so the higher pixel density is less problematic for laptops than desktops. Luckily, while this is a problem for Safari, it's not as much of a problem with Mozilla Firefox, since Firefox is more easily adjustable. The 27" iMac might just be enough to push to me to Firefox as my primary web browser on the Mac.
We can only hope that the new 27" screen is a hint to full resolution independence to come in OS X 10.7.
Monday, November 02, 2009
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Best 27" bang for the buck is the Quad
Despite some expectations, the dual-core iMacs may not actually be the best value in the 27" iMac line.
The price advantage of the Core 2 Duo 27" iMacs is in large part due to the much lower end AMD Radeon 4670 GPU option in those machines. However, the Radeon 4850 is roughly twice as fast, helpful with applications like gaming, Aperture, and Final Cut Studio, as well as OS X features like OpenCL°. If you want to take advantage of that GPU power boost from the Radeon 4850, then the price comparison becomes very interesting.
3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo - US$1849 / CAD$1964
3.33 GHz Core 2 Duo - US$2049 / CAD$2184
2.66 GHz Core i5 Quad - US$1999 / CAD$2099
2.80 GHz Core i7 Quad - US$2199 / CAD$2319
Out of that group, the Core i5 quad-core machine is the best deal. In fact, it's even cheaper than the 3.33 GHz dual-core model (which I suppose might make sense, since the 3.33 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU is actually significantly more expensive than the 2.66 GHz Core i5 CPU). While 2.66 GHz doesn't seem that fast, Hz for Hz, Core i5 is faster, and there are four cores too. Furthermore, in dual-core mode, Core i5 can ramp up to as high as 3.2 GHz using Turbo Boost.
But bang for the buck be damned. I've ordered the Core i7 quad-core iMac. It will be nice having eight logical cores (!) in my iMac, even if only for bragging rights.
°Both the Radeon 4670 and 4850 support OpenCL, but the 4850 will be faster. Apple Canada and Apple UK (among other international Apple pages) erroneously do not list the Radeon 4670 as supporting OpenCL.
However, Apple USA has recently updated its OS X tech specs page to include the 4670.
The price advantage of the Core 2 Duo 27" iMacs is in large part due to the much lower end AMD Radeon 4670 GPU option in those machines. However, the Radeon 4850 is roughly twice as fast, helpful with applications like gaming, Aperture, and Final Cut Studio, as well as OS X features like OpenCL°. If you want to take advantage of that GPU power boost from the Radeon 4850, then the price comparison becomes very interesting.
3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo - US$1849 / CAD$1964
3.33 GHz Core 2 Duo - US$2049 / CAD$2184
2.66 GHz Core i5 Quad - US$1999 / CAD$2099
2.80 GHz Core i7 Quad - US$2199 / CAD$2319
Out of that group, the Core i5 quad-core machine is the best deal. In fact, it's even cheaper than the 3.33 GHz dual-core model (which I suppose might make sense, since the 3.33 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU is actually significantly more expensive than the 2.66 GHz Core i5 CPU). While 2.66 GHz doesn't seem that fast, Hz for Hz, Core i5 is faster, and there are four cores too. Furthermore, in dual-core mode, Core i5 can ramp up to as high as 3.2 GHz using Turbo Boost.
But bang for the buck be damned. I've ordered the Core i7 quad-core iMac. It will be nice having eight logical cores (!) in my iMac, even if only for bragging rights.
°Both the Radeon 4670 and 4850 support OpenCL, but the 4850 will be faster. Apple Canada and Apple UK (among other international Apple pages) erroneously do not list the Radeon 4670 as supporting OpenCL.
However, Apple USA has recently updated its OS X tech specs page to include the 4670.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Snow Leopard Up-To-Date upgrade disk is full version
After waiting several weeks after Snow Leopard was released, I finally received my Snow Leopard Up-To-Date upgrade disk for my 13" MacBook Pro. I had already installed Snow Leopard on that machine so... shhh... I tried it on my 10.5.8 iMac instead. The install app wanted to upgrade 10.5.8 to 10.6, and provided no option to reformat and install. However, I was able to do that by rebooting off the install disk.
I then retried the Up-To-Date disk on the 10.6 iMac. The install app refused to work on 10.6. However, again, I was able to reformat and reinstall by rebooting off the install disk.
The Up-To-Date disk not only works to update 10.5 to 10.6, but also can do a clean install of 10.6 on any supported Mac.
I then retried the Up-To-Date disk on the 10.6 iMac. The install app refused to work on 10.6. However, again, I was able to reformat and reinstall by rebooting off the install disk.
The Up-To-Date disk not only works to update 10.5 to 10.6, but also can do a clean install of 10.6 on any supported Mac.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
New 27" Quad Core i7 iMac ordered!
I predicted Apple could use Intel's L3426 Xeon chip for a new iMac, due to its very good power characteristics, perfect for a thin iMac. Alternatively, I thought they might use the mobile version of Core i7 instead. I was wrong on both counts, and I am very happy about it. Apple has somehow managed to wedge a Nehalem Core i7-860 desktop processor into the new iMac. This 2.80 GHz chip has a TDP of 95 Watts, which is over twice as hot as the previous 45 Watt TDP mobile chips Apple used, but Apple says the new design is still quiet. And it's stinkin' fast. Apple claims a SPECint_rate_base2006 score of 100, which is roughly twice as fast as a quad-core 2.0 GHz Xeon 5130.
Furthermore, when the multiple cores aren't being used efficiently, this chip can boost its clock speed all the way up to 3.46 GHz to compensate.
I presume OS X will be making heavy use of Intel's Enhanced Speedstep Technology to keep power usage down, and to keep the iMac quiet. While it's possible the new iMac will be significantly louder at full tilt, I think most people will be fine with that compromise, as long as the machine remains quiet with surfing, basic business applications, and email.
Another interesting feature is the size and shape. The previous 24" iMac had a height of 20.5". The height is actually slightly smaller on the new iMac, at 20.4", which means the overall height isn't any taller than the previous 24" iMac. While this is still tall, the centre of the screen has now been shifted downwards, as the size of the "chin" at the bottom of the iMac has been decreased. I was thinking that with a larger screen I might have to resort to a VESA mount to bring the screen lower for better ergonomics, but with this change it may not be absolutely necessary. The widescreen format doesn't hurt either, as more pixels are distributed sideways, at the expense of vertical resolution. If I do decide to lower it more, there still the option of the VESA mount available with the 27". It's not available with the 21.5" iMac, but it's much less needed for that unit.
The most welcome upgrade to most people however is the addition of two more memory slots in the new iMac. FINALLY, Apple has included 4 memory slots in the iMac. 8 GB of RAM is now relatively inexpensive using 2 GB RAM modules, and the hardcore geeks can upgrade the thing all the way up to 16 GB. The iMac still uses SO-DIMMs which are usually reserved for laptops, but that's fine by me.
Apple almost hit one out of the park with this upgrade. I immediately put my order in:
27" Quad-core iMac
2.8 GHz Core i7, with Turbo Boost up to 3.46 GHz.
4 GB DDR3 RAM (to be upgraded to 8 GB)
ATI Radeon HD 4850 GPU with 512 MB RAM
2 TB hard drive
I had decided to forego Apple Bluetooth devices, since my experience with them has not been pleasant. I said it'd take "some serious marketing" for me to get even the multi-touch mouse. I did forego the Bluetooth keyboard, and ordered the wired keyboard with numeric keypad, but caved on the Magic Mouse. It's new and seems interesting, but most importantly it comes free with the iMac. Since I already have RF mice and wired mice I can use if I don't like it, I figured it can't hurt to give it a shot, but the option of a wired Magic Mouse would have been nice.
There is one big downer about the new iMac though. While it has a Firewire 800 port, it only has one of them. This represents a loss of the Firewire 400 port from my three year-old iMac Core 2 Duo, although it is not unexpected since recent iMacs only had the Firewire 800 port too. This wouldn't be a big issue if Firewire 800 hubs were common, but they aren't. I currently use a Firewire 800 Compact Flash reader. With about 15 GB of files on a card, my USB 2 reader takes forever, and OS X tells me it would take about 10 minutes with Firewire 400. With Firewire 800 it's only about two-thirds that time, shaving off several minutes. Either I downgrade the port with a Firewire 400 hub to Firewire 400 only and deal with the slower speeds, or else I scrap my Firewire 400 drives for USB 2, and use the lone Firewire 800 port with my Compact Flash reader at full speed. Neither is an ideal solution.
[Updated 2009-10-23]
Although I could not find a FW800 hub locally, I was able to find a Kramer VS-FW30 3-port Firewire 800 hub available at a respectable out-of-country online vendor, so I promptly ordered it. I'll be sure to post back once I've had a chance to give it a whirl.
Furthermore, when the multiple cores aren't being used efficiently, this chip can boost its clock speed all the way up to 3.46 GHz to compensate.
I presume OS X will be making heavy use of Intel's Enhanced Speedstep Technology to keep power usage down, and to keep the iMac quiet. While it's possible the new iMac will be significantly louder at full tilt, I think most people will be fine with that compromise, as long as the machine remains quiet with surfing, basic business applications, and email.
Another interesting feature is the size and shape. The previous 24" iMac had a height of 20.5". The height is actually slightly smaller on the new iMac, at 20.4", which means the overall height isn't any taller than the previous 24" iMac. While this is still tall, the centre of the screen has now been shifted downwards, as the size of the "chin" at the bottom of the iMac has been decreased. I was thinking that with a larger screen I might have to resort to a VESA mount to bring the screen lower for better ergonomics, but with this change it may not be absolutely necessary. The widescreen format doesn't hurt either, as more pixels are distributed sideways, at the expense of vertical resolution. If I do decide to lower it more, there still the option of the VESA mount available with the 27". It's not available with the 21.5" iMac, but it's much less needed for that unit.
The most welcome upgrade to most people however is the addition of two more memory slots in the new iMac. FINALLY, Apple has included 4 memory slots in the iMac. 8 GB of RAM is now relatively inexpensive using 2 GB RAM modules, and the hardcore geeks can upgrade the thing all the way up to 16 GB. The iMac still uses SO-DIMMs which are usually reserved for laptops, but that's fine by me.
Apple almost hit one out of the park with this upgrade. I immediately put my order in:
27" Quad-core iMac
2.8 GHz Core i7, with Turbo Boost up to 3.46 GHz.
4 GB DDR3 RAM (to be upgraded to 8 GB)
ATI Radeon HD 4850 GPU with 512 MB RAM
2 TB hard drive
I had decided to forego Apple Bluetooth devices, since my experience with them has not been pleasant. I said it'd take "some serious marketing" for me to get even the multi-touch mouse. I did forego the Bluetooth keyboard, and ordered the wired keyboard with numeric keypad, but caved on the Magic Mouse. It's new and seems interesting, but most importantly it comes free with the iMac. Since I already have RF mice and wired mice I can use if I don't like it, I figured it can't hurt to give it a shot, but the option of a wired Magic Mouse would have been nice.
There is one big downer about the new iMac though. While it has a Firewire 800 port, it only has one of them. This represents a loss of the Firewire 400 port from my three year-old iMac Core 2 Duo, although it is not unexpected since recent iMacs only had the Firewire 800 port too. This wouldn't be a big issue if Firewire 800 hubs were common, but they aren't. I currently use a Firewire 800 Compact Flash reader. With about 15 GB of files on a card, my USB 2 reader takes forever, and OS X tells me it would take about 10 minutes with Firewire 400. With Firewire 800 it's only about two-thirds that time, shaving off several minutes. Either I downgrade the port with a Firewire 400 hub to Firewire 400 only and deal with the slower speeds, or else I scrap my Firewire 400 drives for USB 2, and use the lone Firewire 800 port with my Compact Flash reader at full speed. Neither is an ideal solution.
[Updated 2009-10-23]
Although I could not find a FW800 hub locally, I was able to find a Kramer VS-FW30 3-port Firewire 800 hub available at a respectable out-of-country online vendor, so I promptly ordered it. I'll be sure to post back once I've had a chance to give it a whirl.
Apple is bigger than Google
With the bump in Apple's stock price today, it is now bigger than Google. With a current stock valuation of just under $200, Apple is now worth over $178 billion, and Google is at $172 billion and change. For reference, AT&T is worth just over $152 billion, and Intel a paltry $113 billion.
I'm starting to wonder if AAPL is getting a little ahead of itself.
I'm starting to wonder if AAPL is getting a little ahead of itself.
Monday, October 19, 2009
$1.67 billion profit
Apple posted a $1.67 billion profit last quarter.
You've come a long way, baby.
Apple sold 3.05 million Macintosh® computers during the quarter, representing a 17 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter. The Company sold 10.2 million iPods during the quarter, representing an eight percent unit decline from the year-ago quarter. Apple sold 7.4 million iPhones in the quarter, representing seven percent unit growth over the year-ago quarter.
“We are thrilled to have sold more Macs and iPhones than in any previous quarter,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO.
You've come a long way, baby.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)