http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/ Engadget Comments for iMac (mid 2010) Core i3 review http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
But really, these look like great computers and it was a great refresh for the iMac line.]]>Aug 2nd 2010 5:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/can this computer get any better?
(maybe an i5 or i7 but its still good)]]>Aug 2nd 2010 5:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/It seems to vary wildly
]]>Aug 2nd 2010 5:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
Any ostentatious post regarding sentiment (or anti-sentiment) towards any product without sound reasoning is frowned upon.]]>Aug 2nd 2010 5:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Aug 2nd 2010 5:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Aug 2nd 2010 5:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
I'd get one if it were a little bit less.]]>Aug 2nd 2010 5:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/I would like to see apple actually make something different from the exterior. I know a lot of people are going to disagree but the iPod touch,MacBook pro, Mac pro, air, haven't been refreshed in their outside shell, but only from the inside. If componen ts really are getting smaller and more efficient, I think designs should follow. JUST my opinion.]]>Aug 2nd 2010 5:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Aug 2nd 2010 5:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Aug 2nd 2010 5:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/As an experienced apple buyer I must tell you that these internal updates are the best, all the power and upgrades without the bugs of a Rev A product. The product design is still 5 years ahead of the competition. Although I somehow doubt any other manufacture will ever catch up to the build quality and material Apple uses.]]>Aug 2nd 2010 5:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Aug 2nd 2010 6:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
Don't uckApple's comments always disapear?]]>Aug 2nd 2010 6:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Aug 2nd 2010 6:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
im only bothered by the gfx card, it's over 2 years old? in a computer thats a week old?]]>Aug 2nd 2010 6:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
The iMac is about the only non-overpriced Apple product.]]>Aug 2nd 2010 6:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
I can't say that I like Apple as a company, but the new entry-level iMac looks really nice for that price.]]>Aug 2nd 2010 6:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Aug 2nd 2010 6:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
That's what she...said?]]>Aug 2nd 2010 6:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Aug 2nd 2010 6:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Aug 2nd 2010 6:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Aug 2nd 2010 6:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
HP's 200xt All-in-One has equal specs for a lot less. And yes, it does have a 21.5" 1080p LED display (no glare). And no, I'm not an HP fanboy- I build my own rigs. But I know a good deal when I see one.

@the people who say Apple has great build quality

Apple doesn't build the computers!!!! It's Foxconn thats building them. So.... Yeah.... Foxconn... building what you spent $30000000000000000 on. And I'm not some poor kid who lives in his moms basement. I'm a private school kid (meaning that almost every other kid I know uses a Mac. Especially the Asians...). Well, you now know where your shiny glorified box comes from...]]>Aug 2nd 2010 7:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Aug 2nd 2010 7:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
Of course, for 99% of people (Apple and non-Apple alike) couldn't tell you the difference between an IPS or TN. They certainly wouldn't pay hundreds of dollars more for it.

I've come to the conclusion that Apple is actually underpricing their products. It's clear after reading these posts that Apple fans will gladly pay MORE. To be excited about a machine that stays the same sans a bump in the processor/GPU speaks volumes about what Apple consumers want.

There's nothing wrong with that, I just don't understand why the folks at Cupertino don't charge more. If people will happily pay a $300 premium for an Apple desktop today, I'd be willing to bet that you could talk them into a $500 premium.]]>Aug 2nd 2010 7:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
Personally don't think this really deserves a review, mainly because it is a simple hardware refresh, but we all know how much engadget loves apple products, so i guess i should have expected it more.]]>Aug 2nd 2010 7:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Aug 2nd 2010 8:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
"9/10? how do you give somethin near perfect when it has OSX, the worst desktop OS out right now?"

There is no more superior OS on Earth right now than OS X. Works flawlessly, has zero viruses, and is intuitive/user-friendly.]]>Aug 2nd 2010 8:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
While I agree that OSX is more stable and altogether preferable to people that have given it a chance, there are a few viruses circulating Macs. It's just that they're uncommon and generally simple to remove.]]>Aug 2nd 2010 8:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
Nilay, there's nothing wrong with the SD card. You're holding it wrong. ]]>Aug 2nd 2010 8:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Really.. I bought one of these for an SFF shuttle rig of mine a while back. Great card with good performance vs power usage ratio. Probably why they are using it. I doubt they could throw something way more powerful in there without generating too much heat.

I can hear Steve.. If you see 3 loud fans, you blew it.]]>Aug 2nd 2010 8:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
Sure, once 2008 calls and requests their GPUs back.]]>Aug 2nd 2010 9:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Matte option and hardware calibration for display, please! As today, iMac is useless for serious photo editing or graphics design. But it looks great!]]>Aug 2nd 2010 10:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/The processor is 32nm already...]]>Aug 2nd 2010 11:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
My problem with Mac OSX is more the security issues with Safari (which is built in meaning most people use it) but its definitely not the fastest. They have a more standard platform so Windows 7 computers can look slow in comparison if you aren't getting the same tier purchase, but thats not the point.

I don't think that Apple makes bad products most of the time. I, however, do NOT agree with the direction that Apple is taking developers and consumers alike and I do NOT agree with the overall company.

Honestly I think this is where most Apple haters stand. It's undeniable that when you have such a unified hardware platform that you will be able to do some very nice things with it, but what does that ultimately mean when it comes down to Apple having a share like Microsoft does. It means that the conversion process will be so difficult that Apple will be the new Microsoft of owning your soul.

Everything you buy from Apple will only work on your Apple products and everything (developer side) you purchase from Apple will be locked into more Apple Products

Its much like Face-Talk, no Android device will ever see this technology and thats not because Android couldn't handle it, its because Apple won't share technology to improve innovation. That's like Google saying that Google Nav and Google Maps and Google Voice and Google Search and Google Mail and Youtube will only work on Android devices.

Where would the world be if everything was like that. It would be a war of patients and polarizing products.

I say lets unify technology together and get some good stuff coming out of it.

(This is why I am Pro-Google on its overall business strategy, and yes I know Google has its own flaws, but its undeniable that they lead the way when it comes to sharing resources)]]>Aug 3rd 2010 1:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
Is this computer available yet or are these the press demos, only? I would be very curious about if anything has changed regarding noise since the last revision.

I bought the 21.5 IMac 2 times: in December 2009 and Feb 2010 and had to return them: it emitted a nerve-wrecking high-pitched noise which in my opinion everybody should be able to hear in a quiet home-office surrounding and with ears that are still capable of hearing high frequencies in general. This prevented me from switching.. too bad :-(]]>Aug 3rd 2010 3:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/What an irony! You wrote an anti-Apple comment and you got downranked. And thus you proved your point! lol]]>Aug 3rd 2010 4:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
That's what she said?]]>Aug 3rd 2010 4:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
Apple very much tries to support open standards, especially when it benefits them directly.]]>Aug 3rd 2010 5:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/"The product design is still 5 years ahead of the competition."

HAHAHA. Good one.]]>Aug 3rd 2010 6:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Aug 3rd 2010 6:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
I think you're confusing the 'locked-in' model Apple uses for the iPhone App Store with OS X (which even includes Boot Camp, so you can run Windows if you want). Apple has already said that FaceTime (aka Face Talk) will be open so it may appear on Android. Remember also that Apple campaigned hard for record labels to allow iTunes to sell DRM free music. I'm trying to say the locked down App Store is not 100% indicative of the Apple way of thinking.

Comparing Apple with Google is difficult, since Google is a completely different business - an advertising company who only makes money through collecting user information and selling ad space. Google offers a free OS and other software (not hardware) in order to sell advertising space, by driving users towards their ad supported services, search being the biggest money spinner. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it makes a comparison with Apple, who make money from selling complete products (hardware, sofware and stores like iTunes, the book store and the app store) quite difficult.

Also, iOS devices (which really stemmed from the iPod) are very different from the iMac and OS X in terms of the freedom of the user. ]]>Aug 3rd 2010 9:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Is that a mobile 4670 or a desktop one? Big difference. ]]>Aug 3rd 2010 9:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
> There is no more superior OS on Earth right now than OS X.
> Works flawlessly, has zero viruses, and is intuitive/user-friendly.

As an OS, any Debian based Linux is better.

Whether or not MacOS works flawlessly is entirely dependent on how far you want to deviate from the basic bundleware and what hardware you choose.

It handily beats Windows but that's not saying much. ]]>Aug 3rd 2010 10:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
Okay, well I didn't know about the FaceTime thing, but I still do think my post has merit.

Btw, BootCamp does not support an argument against mine because its Apple running other peoples hardware, not Mac OSX running on a Windows machine.

But I do not think they have tried to make open standards, look at H.264 or their software patient portfolio that they readily use to sue on a regular basis.

Like the fact that HTC got sued just says after multitouch was put into the Android OS after rumors leaked out that Apple said they would sue Google if they ever put multitouch into there platform.

If Apple honestly thinks that multitouch technology is truly innovative and intelligent property then there is something really wrong with them.

But regardless, on the hardware side, there is no argument, everything Apple works with Apple only products and they do thinks like pay car manufactures to put in iPod hookups rather than simple AUX cables or a USB for multiple standards. They go around to companies and do things like this to close out the competition from catching up.

Most people would never buy a Zune simply because nothing works with it, not because its a bad product. ]]>Aug 3rd 2010 10:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
Everyone sues everyone else to try and protect IP, that's just the way of the world nowadays. I don't think Apple is any worse than anyone else. I blame the lawyers!

When you say Apple products only work with Apple products, I guess that's true in the sense that they do not license their OS to work with other machines. It's also true that the iPod/iPhone/iPad use a proprietory connector, although that is licensed to third party accessory makers for a fee. But you can use iOS devices on PCs.

As I said, I think the comparison with Google is difficult because Google software is free to the end user - remember Google Maps is bundled with iOS devices. Apple were happy to work with Google (and even have them on their board of directors) when they didn't compete, but Google entered the mobile OS market and things changed.

Google's OS is designed to drive you towards Google services like gmail, maps, etc so they can sell space to advertisers. Google are equally as protective of their intellectual property - their search algoryhms - because that's their business.

I'm not saying I think there's anything wrong with preferring Google and the advantages an Android phone has over the iPhone particularly in terms of the hardware and software freedom, but this is an article about the iMac, not mobile phones. I don't think your arguments really relate to the iMac or OS X.]]>Aug 3rd 2010 12:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
1) FaceTime is open to whoever want to implement it.

2) You can't even begin to compare iOS user mode to OS X because they're 2 different industries. Apple will most likely keep their technologies in-brand with iOS, but not OS X, against other platforms. Look at Safari, QuickTime, Mobile Me.

3) What you're not quite getting is that Google sells ads. Buy downloading a free application, you agree to have Google take information from your computer and use sell it to distributors. That's a very sketchy business, but all you see is, "Free" and "Open." Of course it's open, THEY SELL ADS! Apple sells hardware. The difference between Apple and HP is that, Apple has control over what their computers can do. iWork is a fantastic Suite, why should Apple release that for Windows when Apple is trying to sell ease of use in OS X? It just doesn't work. The only hardware Google had, failed in the Nexus One. Multi-Touch is an Apple technology in cellphones. It makes iOS "easier to use."

4) I don't know what you mean with your car example. My car can connect through USB or Bluetooth. USB is a standard that most products use to connect through. If you're referring to Apple's 30 pin connector, well, you're point has no clout because plenty of phones running Android use proprietary connectors. In fact, I saw an Android phone with a 2.5mm headphone jack. No, it's not proprietary, but you can bet if someone was looking for headphone replacements, they're going to buy from the company selling the phone.

Lastly, I have to reiterate that Apple works on many different fronts, all of which, use different strategy. Apple is on top of their mobile platform war, that's why they can afford to keep all mobile applications and services within Apple products. OS X is completely different. Apple is behind and the regularly release open services, like Google, because they just want an instal base. Of course, the instal base is used for different reasons (Apple: Get users interest in more Apple products, Google: Get users free content so they can sell more Ads).]]>Aug 3rd 2010 2:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/
"If Apple honestly thinks that multitouch technology is truly innovative and intelligent property then there is something really wrong with them."

How is it NOT truly innovative? And how is there something wrong with Apple for thinking that it is? Now just about every smart phone is implementing multitouch. Apple did it first in their phones. People loved it. That's innovation. SO you hate Apple. Great. But stop being in denial about their ability to innovate.

"But regardless, on the hardware side, there is no argument, everything Apple works with Apple only products"

Another example of how uninformed (perhaps intentionally) you are. I've used lots of non-Apple-branded peripherals on all my Apple-branded devices over the years. Please, do some research before making stupid claims like this. It makes you an easy target for people who actually know better.]]>Aug 3rd 2010 2:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/Aug 3rd 2010 3:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/imac-mid-2010-core-i3-review/yeah cause os x is plagued with issues right. all those exploits. it looks horrible too. not to mention the fact that is written specifically for the hardware it runs on. what is it like to have to run virus software, and malware scanners all the time? does that slow down your already inefficient os? it's nice to have a computer than can run any/every piece of software on the market... no matter what os it is written for.]]>Aug 3rd 2010 5:37PM