iMac 21.5 vs. iMac 24

make it simple on yourself and get the 21.5" with the dedicated graphics card.
You'll be happier with the latest and greatest from Apple, not a has been model.

There is nothing wrong with buying the previous version, if it will get the job done. If you look on the Apple Store +Special Deals+ (refurb) page, you may even be able to get the previous gen model for less. I see the 24-inch 2.66 MHz model with NVIDIA 9400M for $1099, for example. Apple Certified Refurbs look new, and whatever was wrong has been fixed. Because they need to be run and individually retested, I think they may be more reliable than brand new iMac's that roll straight off the factory assembly line and into a box for shipping.

I bought a +Late 2006+ iMac (last of the white iMacs - Apple Certified Refurb) in early 2008, and I am perfectly happy with it, here in late 2009. That's a more than three-year old design at this point, but I have a large external display (of my choosing) attached as my primary screen and Snow Leopard running smoothly; I really can't see how the latest models would improve my personal computing experience. And I bought it for $849, which was a significant financial benefit.

There is one important difference about the screen for the two iMac you are comparing, beyond the resolution numbers and physical size. That is the pixel density, or pixels per inch (PPI). The previous 24-inch iMac is about 94 PPI. The new 21.5-inch iMac is about 102 PPI. So the same size objects (such as text) on the new iMac will look smaller, because each pixel is a bit smaller. This is either good or bad. If you have good eyes, it may be good because things will look sharper. If you have eyes that are more susceptible to strain, it may be bad, because the default text sizes will appear smaller on the screen.

The new iMacs are pretty nice, so I don't think you can go wrong by choosing it. But the previous iMac, especially the ones with 24-inch screen were pretty decent too, and the now lower prices makes them a bargain.

Kenichi Watanabe wrote:

I bought a +Late 2006+ iMac (last of the white iMacs - Apple Certified Refurb) in early 2008, and I am perfectly happy with it, here in late 2009. That's a more than three-year old design at this point, but I have a large external display (of my choosing) attached as my primary screen and Snow Leopard running smoothly; I really can't see how the latest models would improve my personal computing experience.

Kenichi,

I have been waiting for this refresh of the iMac line to replace my ancient G4, and have been reading relevant posts about it. I have some trepidation about moving to an all-in-one after having had a tower, into which I could place PCI cards and hard drives with ease. The paragraph I quoted caught my eye.

You have attached a "large external display" to a computer whose raison d'etre is to be an an all-in-one. Has its integral display failed, or is it too small, or is there another reason you'd get an external monitor for a computer that has one built in? Do you have a dual-monitor setup? If not, does the iMac sit on your desk with the other monitor, or on the floor?

The reason I ask is that the new iMacs have seemingly spectacular displays, and I worry that the computer will become outdated much more quickly than the display, but you seem to be having the opposite experience; for some reason, the computer is perfectly satisfactory, but the display may not be.

Your thoughts?

BC

The iMac is working 100%. I've used a two-screen system since before Mac OS 9 (starting with a Power Mac 8100 that I bought used). Since Apple did not provide a non-AIO system between a Mac mini and Mac Pro where I could have two displays and adequate graphics hardware, my solution was to buy the iMac with the smallest screen, attach the display I wanted to use as the primary screen, and have the iMac off the the right as the secondary screen. It's the 17-inch model, 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo, ATI Radeon X1600 (128mb), and the screen is actually pretty decent for the low-end model. And it is ideal as the second display (1440x900).

If the current 2009 Mac mini was around in early 2008, I probably would have bought it instead, because it has two display ports and the NVIDIA 9400M, which is much better than the previous Intel integrate graphics (with only one video output).

I really like my little iMac, and I hope it lasts for a long time. I can change my primary display up to the size of the previous large iMac display (currently it's only 1600x1200 - I don't like extra wide-screens that much). As long as 2.0 GHz is fast enough and 3GB is enough RAM (only 2GB currently), I'll keep using it.

Just make sure you research the screen integrity of the 24'' prior to purchasing. I have had two iMacs (the first a 20'' replaced in 01/09 with a 24'') which were both terrific devices except for the screen which became yellowish-stainy over time. The first one had various fixes (LCD, logic board, etc) prior to replacement and the superceding 24'' replacement has had the LCD screen replaced times 2, along with the glass, blower fan, and logic board. Now they are replacing that 24'' with a new 27'' iMac which i'm optimistic about. I'm (of course) suggesting all 24'' screens are developing such blemishes but I am not unique as per other similar experiences expressed on the iMac screen boards. Apple has- I should add- been polite and generous with all the repairs and I keep getting more powerful machines as replacements after other reparations fail over time. Food for thought! Good luck. d

In the above post I meant to state: I'm "Not" suggesting all 24''screen are developing such blemishes!

I used to be an Apple dealer back in the stone age. Apple are a very difficult company to work with, a bit like religious fundamentalists. I gave up and have spent 25 years in PC land but now the kids have grown up I decided it might be time to change back, as I am very sure their Mac laptops are better than the equivalent PC laptops. In fact Ziff Davies UK found that the 17" Powerbook Pro was the fastest thing they had running Vista, which, considering Apple don't really care whether it runs Vista or not, is quite impressive.

So all good news then. Nope, not at all. Got a 24" Mac 3 weeks ago (Apple then significantly upgrade the range, increase the size of the monitor and add an SD card 1 week later. Heigh ho). They also send the wrong keyboard. They ship the right one and let me keep the first one. Brownie points to Apple.

Initially, I'm impressed, especially when I attach my IPS HP 24" screen and rotate it. I had assumed this was not possible as there was no info on the net about it. The reason there is no info on the net is that it is so stupidly easy to do, no one could ever have a question about it. And wow!! Brilliant setup with 24" horizontal and portraits screens next to each other. iWork presentation for a customer using Keynote and Wow again. Using Spaces to toggle desktops with browsers open at the right pages. Wow. Controlling it from an iPod. Wow.

Then the crashes started. First with Garageband, then with Pages after editing someone else's doctoral thesis for 3 hours. That hurt. A lot. No autosave. 2 days later a repeat with Numbers, then more frequent crashes. Go through diagnosis with Apple. They are not interested in doing anything other than diagnosis tests I can do myself. They offer to collect the machine and return it. It'll take a couple of weeks. I can get it to crash reliably in about a minute using either Corel SketchPad or Garageband, but they're not interested in that. I can't talk to anyone who can understand the output of the crash diagnosis dialogue. I can talk to an authorised reseller but after doing that I still have no choice but to give up the machine for 3-4 days for offline diagnosis. It's a memory problem somewhere. . .

So now, I'm back using Microsoft software with autosave (it DOES run a lot better on Macs but still) and I have a machine that isn't suitable for everyday use until I go through a return to base procedure.

So you notice all the other little things. Like there is no choice in Pages as to how you edit styles. Very silly and annoying. I have a Pages document with a blank page I can't get rid of. There's no # key legend on the keyboard and no forward delete. There's no desktop management for two monitors which will allow the menu bar to move with the active window. Networking directories on PCs to access them from Macs is easy, not so the other way round. And iTunes, synching and copyright. Ouch. Gimme Windows media player anytime. The screen fonts on my fabulous HP monitor aren't as crisp as they are on Vista because Apple prefer to give you an accurate rendition of the type rather than the most legible possible character forms.

And that's Apple land. A land of evangelism. We're right. You're wrong. Join us and do things our way. You'll prefer it. You definitely will. They say.

And because they look much more closely at what users actually do, they do get more things right than Microsoft. But they don't listen. They're recognisably the same awkward company I dealt with years ago. All the problems are small and irritating (apart from the service - take a lesson from HP please)

I don't think I've made the right decision. I think there's more and better coming userwards in PC land. But for the time being I'm going to get this thing fixed (or sue if it can't be improved beyond its current state) and stick with it.

But I'm not throwing any PCs out.

sgemelos,

I was recently considering the same thing you are now. I was trying to decide between the new $1,499 iMac (which is $1,409 with my EPP pricing) or a what used to be the top of the line 24" iMac ($1,349 refurb... they're not always available, but if you keep an eye on the refurb page, they pop up on occasion and are qgone just as quickly.) In my case, the previous gen iMac even has slightly better specs. Both have 3.06 processors, but the 24" has a 512MB NVIDIA video card as opposed to the new iMac with a 256MB ATI.

So better specs for slightly less money. And on top of that, I was convinced I would prefer the 16x10 aspect ratio over the 16x9 since I am an avid photographer and widescreen is not ideal.

But I ended up getting the new model. And I did it for the claims of better speakers, the backlit display (although my brother has a 24" model and it also looks amazing), the new mouse and keyboard, and well, just because it's the latest thing. (The new iMac replaced an iMac G5 that I bought just before the Intels came out - I knew they were coming, but I wanted to extend the life of all my PowerPC software - and so it's been a while since I actually got to see MY computer on the Apple splash page.) Plus, both machines were more than capable of doing what I need them to do: run all the iLife applications smoothly, surf the web, and play the occasional game

And it's a good feeling, albeit a mostly emotional one. I even like the sleek look of the 16x9 format, which I was skeptical about.

No matter what you buy, I'm sure you'll enjoy it, so my advice would be to get the one that appeals to you the most. Let your heart help choose if your head can't decide. And I seriously doubt you'll be disappointed no matter which way you go.

I would also highly suggest you get Applecare. (You don't have to buy it right way, just sometime within the first year.) That way if you have any problems with any part of the computer, including the screen, you're covered for three years.

Enjoy your new iMac!

Buy AppleCare.

http://lacomputercompany.com/cgi-bin/rpcart/featured.cgi?group=appcare

As if you haven't hear it enough....BUY APPLECARE!

Regards,

Roger

I read this older post and now wonder if there is any more thought about the refurbished 24" 2.66 v. the refurbished 21.5" 3.06.

I would prefer the 24" because it's larger for older eyes with presbyopia, 16x10, and has a bit larger HD. The 21.5" would be better because it accepts more memory (especially since I have 2 x 2GB of the proper memory sitting here) and has a faster processor.

Any thoughts?