Indeed, the new iMac feels subjectively faster in terms of surfing the Web with Safari, editing photos in iPhoto or working with other universal applications that have been updated to run natively on Intel-based Macs. Startup times from the familiar Mac chime until the desktop appeared averaged about 20 seconds; the iMac also runs a different version of Mac OS X 10.4.7 -- in this case, build No. 8K1123. Running Xbench, the iMac 24 clocked in with a speed rating of 135.17.
By contrast, the current 17-in. MacBook Pro -- with 2GB RAM, a 2.16GHz Core Duo processor and a stock 120GB 5,400-rpm hard drive -- clocked in with a startup time of 35 seconds and an overall Xbench score of 90.36. The major differences, not surprisingly, were in the CPU test, graphics tests and hard drive speed. The Core 2 Duo processor in the iMac, for instance, zipped to an Xbench score of 118.26, while the laptop clocked in with a rating of 74.92. And I thought my MacBook Pro was fast!
In addition to the new Intel processor, this particular iMac comes with the more expensive graphics card offered by Apple, the Nvidia GeForce 7600 GT, with 256MB of video RAM. While the upgrade costs an extra $125, that extra bit of money not only doubles the amount of video RAM, but it also give buyers "the fastest we've offered in an iMac," according to Metz. "It's a very significant bump." Given the size of the screen and the fact that upgrading video RAM down the road is well-nigh impossible, it's an expense I'd definitely make if I were buying.
As for the 24-in. display, other than the 30-in. Apple Cinema Display -- which is in a league all its own -- I've never seen a screen showed off videos, slide shows and photos as nicely as this one. According to Metz, it's 40 percent brighter than earlier iMac displays, and that extra brightness shows here in the office, where I'm surrounded by windows and bright light from outside. In fact, it makes my 17-in. MacBook Pro look downright dim when the two are placed side by side.
I did note that the resolution, while high, could be even a bit higher given the overall size of the screen. Apple has long been known for trying to keep its screen resolutions to about 100 pixels per inch (PPI). The higher the PPI, the sharper things look -- although they also appear smaller. This particular screen has a PPI of 94. So Apple could safely bump the resolution up on future models and still be in its preferred 100 PPI range. (Hey, I can dream, right?)
For now, Apple officials are focused on the model at hand, which Metz said is aimed at keeping with a "faster is better" theme. Bigger is better, too, she said.
"All users, whether it's me at home working with photos or reading Web pages, [or someone else], we're all multitasking now," she said. "We're doing more. A lot of pros even add a second monitor to have an extended desktop, so the concept [is] that people want more display size. They want more real estate to work with."
The 24-in. display offers 30 percent more screen than the 20-in. model, Metz said, something readily apparent as soon as you pull the iMac from its box. It's the kind of display, she said, that's tailor-made for something like watching DVDs or working with digital graphics. "It is a beautiful system to look at," Metz added.
It also sounds darn good, too. As with earllier iMac iterations, this one has downward-firing speakers that point sound at the desktop. The bigger diplay means bigger speakers, and while it's not likely to replace your AV system at home, the built-in sound system uses four 6-watt digital amplifiers offering a noticeable jump in maximum volume and clarity. The sound from the speakers is about the only sound users will hear by the way. It's as quiet as a mouse.
So, if I were in the market for an iMac, is this one the I'd get? Given my penchant for computing speed and size, I'd have to say yes. But I'd likely cut a few corners when outfitting it in an effort to save a few dollars. According to Metts, the speed difference between the standard 2.16-GHz and the 2.33-GHz chips is linear, meaning most users won't notice a big difference from the extra 170 MHz. While I'm all for getting the fastest processor possible, I'd probably stick with the basic chip and the stock 250GB hard drive. Savings: US$450.
I'd opt, however, for the faster video card with more video RAM -- extra cost $125 -- and I might even go ahead and buy the additional 1GB of RAM I'd want from Apple. Here's why: the iMac comes with 1GB of RAM, but it uses two 512MB RAM modules. To buy my own 2GB of RAM, I'd have to ditch the modules that come with the iMac and try to sell them myself. Yes, Apple's RAM tends to be more expensive, but in this case, getting memory on my own from my usual third-party supplier is going to cost US$284. Apple charges US$175.
Rather than pay more now, and try to recoup some of that expense later by selling the 512MB modules, it's just plain easier to let Apple do the work.
Total cost for my 24-in. iMac: US$2299.
I asked Metz how the new iMac is selling, and whether it is meeting Apple's expectations. She declined to get into specifics, except to say: "It has gotten very favorable response."
If the attention slathered on it here is any sign, I'd say there'll be quite a few of these things showing up on desks and in living rooms and offices in the coming months. Just follow the crowd.
Editor's postscript: I had seen reports late last week that Apple's Boot Camp software wouldn't work on the 24-in. iMac. An updated version, Boot Camp 1.1.1, that the company has just released solves that problem. And no, Release Candidate 1 of Windows Vista wouldn't install. So if you're planning to run Windows on a new iMac, you're stuck with Windows XP for now.