24" iMac
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 24 Mar 2010 05:50 Peter James <pfjames2000(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > I saw a 24" iMac in the Apple refurb store yesterday and quite fancied > it. Alas it's gone this morning. But I can wait until another comes > up. > Does anyone know of any reason why they wouldn't buy it, other than > shortage of cash that is? I've got a 24" 3.06GHz C2D iMac. The DVD drive probably needs replacing - it sees disc errors where all our other DVD drives don't. Aside from that, it works as expected. Downsides: I've got the full 4GB RAM, and that's not quite enough. I do scan A4 at 1200dpi, which might explain /that/ little problem. Despite the snazzy graphics card and hugely powerful CPUs, it's less `snappy' in operation than the 2.5GHz 4G5 it replaced (due to the 4G5 dying, terminally). But on that subject: that 4G5 is the only PowerMac I've ever met that's as `snappy' as an SE/30 or Mac Plus. And I don't think many people would agree with my judgement that this iMac ain't `snappy' enough in terms of UI response - but I like my GUI to be *very* instantly responding. Only other faint bother: only two CPU cores. In a few years, that'll start to be a bit of a drag, that and the 4GB RAM limit. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: D.M. Procida on 24 Mar 2010 06:39 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Peter James <pfjames2000(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > > I saw a 24" iMac in the Apple refurb store yesterday and quite fancied > > it. Alas it's gone this morning. But I can wait until another comes > > up. > > Does anyone know of any reason why they wouldn't buy it, other than > > shortage of cash that is? > Only other faint bother: only two CPU cores. In a few years, that'll > start to be a bit of a drag, that and the 4GB RAM limit. It really depends what you want to use it for. I don't think CPU power has ever been as much of a real issue as people have made of it. It's mainly an easily-graspable headline figure. But, for some applications it's needed. I find the iMac's 4GB RAM limit more of a problem. If I have Aperture and a couple of other memory-munching programs open (Safari's a good one) I sometimes have to quit one to free up some memory for the others. Otherwise the computer spends all of its time managing virtual memory on the disk. But I know other people running Mac OS X 10.5 who are quite happy with a 1GHz G4 and 1GB RAM. Daniele
From: Rowland McDonnell on 24 Mar 2010 09:11 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Peter James <pfjames2000(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > I saw a 24" iMac in the Apple refurb store yesterday and quite fancied > > > it. Alas it's gone this morning. But I can wait until another comes > > > up. > > > Does anyone know of any reason why they wouldn't buy it, other than > > > shortage of cash that is? > > > Only other faint bother: only two CPU cores. In a few years, that'll > > start to be a bit of a drag, that and the 4GB RAM limit. > > It really depends what you want to use it for. Well, yes. But I'm assuming `keeping up with the latest OS and apps'. Assuming that, and assuming that Grand Central Despatch delivers pervasive multiprocessing, then in future the CPU oomph that's needed to run things well will have to be spread out over multiple cores. <shrug> Then again, the first Mac I bought was a Performan 475, round about the time Apple dropped the very last 78k models. I used it for several years - hopelessly obsolete the day I bought it. Then /again/, that thing just got faster when I upgraded from System 7.1 to MacOS 7.6. > I don't think CPU power has ever been as much of a real issue as people > have made of it. It's mainly an easily-graspable headline figure. But, > for some applications it's needed. It's not so much raw CPU oomph, as the ability to get things done without annoying delays that I'm thinking of - along with the fact that this 3.06GHz C2D iMac is definitely less snappy than the slower-overall 2.5GHz 4G5 it replaced. I dunno, I just expect things to get slower for me as software develops to make better use of multiprocessing. > I find the iMac's 4GB RAM limit more of a problem. If I have Aperture > and a couple of other memory-munching programs open (Safari's a good > one) I sometimes have to quit one to free up some memory for the others. > Otherwise the computer spends all of its time managing virtual memory on > the disk. Yeah, I've noticed that. One reason I like Firefox is the Session Manager extension - useful control over quitting and restarting sessions... Thing is, accepting that a memory hungry job's going to be just that, I do quit apps under such circumstances without minding too much. On the other hand, if an app's not doing anything, its memory can be swapped out of the way. Flash blocking comes in handy there... > But I know other people running Mac OS X 10.5 who are quite happy with a > 1GHz G4 and 1GB RAM. My work desk has a 1GHz G4 iMac with 768MB RAM and MacOS 10.4.11 and it's a useful gadget. But it's got a sluggish UI - much more sluggish than my Mac Plus (unless the Plus is file serving, in which case its UI slows to tectonic speeds). And which has the more power? It's a combination of the power of the machine and the efficiency of the software running on that machine that's relevant here. I suspect that those of us with fewer than four cores will find ourselves in the increasingly `less efficient' camp. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: /Really/ early adopter gets 10.6.3 Next: Mac Mini/HDTV: Overscan always coming up? |