did i miss something? is it as of now $1499, and the suggested retail price of $2199 is no longer valid?

Pardon me sir, let me edit that.

That's nice. Got anymore Crapple ads? And why is this filed under CPU?

wow there are still no imac's selling under $1000? go apple keep those paperweights coming

too expensive for people who just want to play around. and you still have to add iwork ilike, software. so the price is much higher when you add the goodies. plus on low end imac the gpu is pathetic. NVIDIA GeForce 9400M integrated graphics, no crysis for you!

lol @ the headline

That $1,499 model is a total ripoff. You get a larger hard drive and double the ram for $300 but are stuck with the game Nvidia 9400m. For $300 I should expect a GPU upgrade. Ram and a larger HDD aren't worth $300. That model won't sell well at all.

you see it as a rip-off, the mac elite see it as a status symbol

I lol'd.

If you were going to buy the top 24" iMac, would you get it with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 130; with 512MB GDDR3 memory? Or would you pay $50 more for the ATI Radeon HD 4850 with 512MB GDDR3? Apple says the ATI tests better, but the technically-oriented people I know prefer the NVIDIA. I'd really appreciate input here.

If you were going to purchase one of the new 24" iMacs, would you get the NVIDIA GeForce GT 130, or pay $50 more to upgrade to the ATI Radeon HD 4850?

A lot of technical people I know really favor the NVIDIA cards, but Apple is saying the ATI is a better card. (I'm thinking for game play and things like Final Cut Studio HD video editing. Thanks for any input.

New iMacs were announced today! I've been waiting 6 months for the new iMacs so I could get a replacement for my three year old 20" G5. I cannot wait; I'm ready to order today! What do I want? I want a 20" iMac with great graphics performance. Can I get what I want. Apple says ABSOLUTELY NO!

I am a small, short woman who enjoys using my 20" screen. I do not want the overwhelming 24" screen, but I want the performance of the GeForce GT 130M. So, can I get this from Apple? Apple says NO!

Not everyone thinks that bigger is better. As a computer professional, when I advise friends who are looking for a computer, and they want good graphics performance, but it needs to fit into the space they have in their house set aside for a computer, can I recommend an Apple? Not any more. 24" is too big for lots of families; they don't have the space. So, they'll go buy a Dell, and there's nothing I can do about it.

I think that Apple needs to consider the rest of the customers they should be serving. Not everyone wants a huge screen; not for their TV and not for their computer either.

Yay! Apple finally made a better door-stop! Would make a great computer if you're accustomed to Cold-War era computer technology.

HEY! This computer isnt outdated! ...It has a built-in camera!!!




/sarcasm

@ newcastlelinda

I've never seen anyone complain about a larger monitor on a desktop computer before. Who doesn't have the space for a 24"? If people live in mobile homes then they shouldn't buy a $1,500 computer anyways. I question your 'computer professional' credibility.

Oh boy...come on folks. I use both Windows and Mac OS X. The Mac OS blows away my Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit machine, 4Gb DDR3 1333, etc. I am curious how many of you who dish Apple have tried one? Then with the new OS that Apple will roll out here shortly will come OpenCl...what will MS bring to the table? Hell, MS is still trying to write a stable OS. I guess if you like trouble shooting and fighting with your OS then Windows is the way to go.

For those of you who dog Apple and its pricing, you should know by now that Apple refuses to produce an inferior product. Here is a recent report saying that the iMac is priced better than its competition http://www.appleinsider.com/articl [...] eport.html

I still have not seen any Windows machine produce the kind of graphics that Apple does on all of its boxes...if you want good graphics on a Win box, then you will pay...it comes with an Apple. If you want extreme, try the Mac Pro. Granted, you cannot modify the Apple hardware, but then not everyone wants to. I prefer to write code and the Mac is just fine. If I need Windows, then I dual boot.

Is there panic in the air? Is MS loosing its market share? Take out the corporate sector and you will see MS popularity falling like a brick from heaven. I guess there should be concern from those on the side of MS...besides, what have they done new and original lately? Hmmm...not much.

Would you care to explain why Photoshop CS4 64-Bit is a PC exclusive? And becuase mac AREN'T for graphics, they cant run any 3rd party sofware unless approved by Apple, I find Mac fine for everyday computing, you apple fanboys really need to get it out of your head that Mac isnt a supermachine and most PC's offer things Macs cant. Can you upgrade a mac along the line? No. I only see mac doing good in the laptop market.

@ Yoder54:

So how much were you paid to write that? I can pick out a flaw in everything you said. Macs will ONLY do good in the laptop market if Netbooks fall, based on polls Netbooks are killing MS and Apple lol. I prefer modern-day hardware; not cold-war based systems.

CS 5 will be 64-bit for the Mac OS. Apple is working on an OpenCL platform that will take full advantage of the parallel processing capabilities of multi-core processors...something that cannot be done with the Windows OS. So why not 64-bit for the CS 4 Suite? Probably because the 64-bit kernal of the Mac OS runs the 32-bit version as fast as the PS 64-bit for Windows...MS finally caught up. If you remember your software history, PS was first designed for the Mac platform. Talk to somebody in Hollywood and see what they use...predominantly Apples or very high-end workstations that run on Unix. Win is good for scientific computing...to a point...and then Unix takes over.

One big problem with MS machines is all of the crap software out there...just because there is a lot of crap available does not mean you are better. Besides, most professionals use PS, Maya, etc...all of which are ported to Macs. Anybody can write software for a Mac, you just need Apple's ok to sell it at their store. Oops.

If you like netbooks then more power to you. I like power computers with nice big monitors, not cheap toys made for third world markets. So, how many Windows machines have the same computing power of the Mac Pro? You think the Mac Pro is a cold-war based system? Wake-up man.

You guys are quick at name calling, but missed the part where I said I run a Vista 64-bit at home and use it everyday. I use my iMac everyday also, and the Mac OS is far superior...sorry, but the sun seems to be setting in Seattle. I will continue to build Windows boxes, but my computer of choice...my work machine...will be a Mac.

Oh BTW, I work in a building that has 30-5 year old eMac's that run circles around the new over 400 new Dells that they are installing. The Dells have that nice washed-out look while the older eMac's are far superior in color rendering. To compare my iMac's at work to the upper-end MS workstations is not fair. I am beginning to sense some jealousy...c'est la vie.

I'm just calling them as their hardware specs are m8. Anyway I'm pulling out of this debate No chance in debating something someone worships like a God like this "Bow down before Steve Jobs the mighty God!" (Kinda glad he's got cancer so this 'empire' of corruption can fall)

Woah, multi core processors? Are you serious? Holy shit!!! We've been doing that for a while. They run circles, around Dells...your proud of that? Nobody buys dells, there for nimrods who cant spend some research on the computer and build them thereselves. Your puny 2.66 Intel Core 2 Duo makes you proud? While pcs have them overclocked above 3ghz. Okay, ill go talk to the guys in hollywood who love to buy overpriced pcs that let them show off. Maybe you can take a talk to the U.S Secret Service, which still uses microsoft OSs. 32bit Mac PS runs as fast as 64bit PS for PC, i call bullshit, you have no proof. I am beginning to sense some light headed "worship steve jobs" fanboy.

Actually, I worship no one but am merely a true capitalist who goes with a market proven product. (Apple has weathered this economy relatively well and better than most, if not all, of its competitors.) Apple has not had to try and buy its way into the hearts of the consumers, nor did they go out and buy out all of their competitors like MS has done over the years. Furthermore, you need to read for comprehension my friend...I told you where I work they buy Dell's and I build my own Win boxes...your rage blinds you. You dog the Dell's, Lenovo's, and probably the HP's of the world, but these are the majority of the computers in the corporate sector. I have never owned a Dell, nor would I buy one for myself. You call those who do not build computers "nimrods who cant (sic) spend (sic) some research on the computer..." I think I know what you are trying to say. I have built many a box, bought my first PC in 1986, blah-blah. I could say just as easily that "nimrods are those who are too lazy to write their own code or do any embedded programming, or nimrods are those who don't know their predicate calculus or Boolean Algebra," but I won't for we all have our personal likes.

Furthermore, I do not own a 2.66 Intel Core 2 Duo. I don't understand where people get off dogging the Apple hardware when it is the same processor that is used in the Win boxes. If one likes style, then you cannot beat a Mac for aesthetics...so why dish those who like the looks of the Mac? Maybe it is because you cannot afford one? If so, then don't begrudge those who can. You boast of the overclocking...well, Apple is boasting the same about their new Xeon being overclocked to 3.3GHz...your point?

Though the mult-threaed capabilities are there, they are far from being the norm...far too much programming for all of those 1000's of apps available for Windows for them to sit down and reprogram the apps to work in parallel. With the new upcoming Mac OS X, Apple has decided to work with the Kronos group and support an OpenCL (multi-threaded apps/Parallel Processing.) This will put the OS advantage in Apple's hands since it is basically open-source, something MS has refused to do in the past...and this will be the death of MS unless they see the light.

Again, the reality is that very few applications are written to run in parallel. Sure we can do some multi-tasking, but true parallel processing is rare indeed. If you don't believe me then test for yourself: http://software.intel.com/en-us/ar [...] hecker-10/ "Most virtualization software today cannot use all 64 processors, much less the 1,024 of the high-end box, and database software, middleware, and applications all have their own limits on scalability."

Apple has made the decesion to go with OpenCL, which will give the programming community direct access to PP capabilities. All the while MS is trying ever so desperately to recover from Vista with Win7. So, while the Mac OS is working towards sytem optimization and continually building upon it Unix kernal, it seems that MS is constantly reinventing the wheel. They are continually building their OSes from scratch, but no problem, Apple will help them with Win7 "Microsoft is also borrowing a few other ideas from Leopard, including Web Clippings (Microsoft calls them "Web Slices"), Apple Data Detectors (which Microsoft calls "Accelerators"), Smart Folders (which lack Leopard's smart query functions, but are nonetheless called "Libraries"), and Apple's Bonjour-style simplified local networking and file and device sharing (which Microsoft refers to as "HomeGroup", pictured below)."

You people who do the name calling should stand back and try to figure out how to port the Mac OS to that fancy rig of yours. Now your are talking genius. For those of us who have been loyal to Windows since 1986 and have decided to finally abandon ship, then you need to realize that is not because of any "fanboy" values, but because we have grown tired of the Windows headaches, tired of the bloat, and tired of a lack of innovativeness. Finally, look at the numbers the retail price of Vista Ultimate 64-bit is $219.95, yet I can get a family pack of Mac OS X for $159...hmmm.

Yea, I have read about the problems with the USSS networks, the viruses, the system attacks...I am sure the system you speak of is what the staff uses. I know that at Norad and other high-security areas they are using mostly Unix. Tell me, is it because of this wonderful Win OS you speak of why the military has locked down many of it bases from accessing the Internet? Finally, if the Feds are using it then that is reason enough for me to jump ship!

I work with both Mac OS and Vista 64-bit CS3 and CS4...the Mac CS3 is about on equal terms with CS4. But, why would you want to buy CS4 when there really is nothing new about it? Wait for CS5, and it will be 64-bit for both and there will be some decent software upgrades (we hope), and maybe Adobe will get the text engine right with Fireworks. But, my speed comparisons are anecdotal and I merely was responding to a question...relax.

Point is, I am happy that the new Mac's are out. Think I will get the 24" 3.09GHz one with the Radeon gpu in a month or so...or maybe wait for Snow Leopard.

I have presented facts. I think maybe you cannot articulate well. Regardless, your comments about Jobs and his cancer is crude. Why would anyone begrudge another persons' success and wish ill-will upon them? It merely exemplifies your ignorance and distorted self-righteousness. Besides, you don't debate...you just attack. Prove me wrong in what I say...don't just say "I can pick out a flaw in everything you said." Do it.

Are you serious?I mean, are you serious? Macs are more aesthetically pleasing? Have you seen any computer cases lately, pcs are much better looking,antecs,silverstone, all better looking, the mac pro is uniform and looks like an extended box. And as for the virus's and malware, they are already developing them for macs, dont worry, in 3 years there will be plenty worms for mac, just because theres no reason to put a reasonable amount of time into making one, soon there will be. And the pc can run physics and run videos with CUDA,HAVOK,PHYSX, and much more for encoding. Windows Vista Ultimate 64-Bit OEM is actually $179. And like i said, pcs last longer, are upgradeable, stronger, and arent completely overpriced like the macs are. Apple fanboys will just buy into anything with a bitten apple on it, im sure in a couple years when the viruss and malware, and everything get to mac, people will see its not so special, sure for everyday tasks like surfing the web, but i dont see how macs can be useful for anything else. Yes we have core 2 duos, but we can swap them, have more of them to choose from. This conputer brings nothing new to the table. Just like the ipod, people will just buy into it without thinking.

All you have to do is watch TV. Most of the hi-tech programs like the CSI series have predominantly Mac's, for the simple reason that they have the clean, futuristic look to them. But, like women we all have our differnt tastes.

I have seen both PC's and Mac in both large corporations and school districts and to be honest the Mac's have a considerably longer life cycle. Currently we get about 3 years out of the PCs, and about 5 out of the Mac's.

Three years? Hah, that is what they said three years ago and I am still waiting. Twenty years ago they said Apple would wash out. Now they are one of the darlings of Wall Street.

Consumers, generally buy anything and everything without thinking. It is a rare consumer who thinks. But, close to 2,000,000 iPods have been sold. Obviously, Apple is doing something right and capitalism will not allow a product/corporation to exists for as long as Apple has without having some substance behind their products. Granted, the auto-industry contradicts this, but they have also received Fed backing over the years.

In marketing it is called "branding." Apple has branded the consumer with the ideas of innovation, quality, and consistency...even if it does come with a price.

There are plenty of useful things to do on a Mac. I build Web sites on mine, have dinked around with the SDK, the de-facto video editor is Final Cut...I don't use it, but I do record with Studio Logic 8 a very hi-powered recording app. Go to the Berekely School of Music and browse around and notice how much the Mac OS is used in recording. All of the professional musicians I know use Mac's, but then they are just musicians. There is just as much to do on a Mac as there is on a Win PC. Well, actually more since you can actually dual boot a Mac into Windows. Go and figure.

First of all, i just watched CSI:NY, and all i see is unbranded computers. You cant do more on mac, you can run games, do things like CUDA, windows can dual boot as well, with its own os though, do you have proof of this 3 years pc and 5 years mac? I hate to say it, but i bought a dell Inspiron 3100 around 5-6 years back, when i dindt not about building your own computers, it hasnt crashed on my once.

I bought a MAC because I just could bare the idea of having to use Vista and I would have opted for LINUX if it wasn't for the fact that I couldn't load Flash on a 64-bit OS. So MAC was the only option to avoid Vista. This defection from many users is mentioned by Steve Jobs in his Keynote last year that thanks to Microsoft, Apple are selling more products. As Windows7 approaches I am looking for a new gaming computer. I want OSX for the time I am not playing games as I find it a far better operating system and then boot in Windows to play my games. Bottom line OSX can't play games as effectively as a windows based system. But here is my dilemma.
I've been using Windows based systems since 1996 and started with Win95. in '99 I even worked for a computer company where I built many machines but even to this day I've never liked the Windows OS. Dispite howmuch I don't want to buy a normal PC runing windows, I just can't justify buying a MAC. The OSX maybe faster than Windows but that isn't going to help me when playing games. The other point is that an iMAC ships with a Mobile GPU which just isn't going to cut it for fast 3D rendering so I have to upgrade to the HD4850, which lets be honest is a joke when the upgrade price is the same cost for a HD4870 on its own. The final nail in the iMAC's coffin for me is the CPU. How can Apple justify $1200 for a computer when I can build my own PC for $800, with a Q9550 and HD4870. Now if Apple sold an OEM licence with a guide on what hardware is compatible then Microsoft would start to have a real problem on their hands.

TBH; For the future as soon as LINUX can cater for all of my everyday needs then purely for price alone it will be bye bye Apple. and I'll run a Windows/Linux setup.

Windows XP and Vista are pitifully unstable virus catchers that crash continuously. Mac OSX blows away Windows every step of the way, stable with no virus worry. As for the hardware, show me one PC that comes close to the pleasing aesthetics of an iMac. Anyone who claim Windows has never frozen or crashed is simply lying. Windows users must be sadists who truly love punishment.

Typical mac user. Computer is so slow he's two months late replying to the topic.

Mac no viruses? You are an idiot.

You must have cried yourself to sleep the night after the blackhat convention when the Mac was hacked in a few hours and Vista lasted till the next day.

All this whining back and forth and STILL no one has answered one of the original questions...GT130 or HD4850???? The only answer I was looking for and after reading all of this nonsense...I don't even care anymore!