I recently came into some money and my wife (bless her heart) said that I
should buy a new iMac, as I am forever bemoaning the speed of my 800 MHz
iMac. My response to her was that my Mac wasn't *that* slow, and that I
could wait for the next faster iMac. However, maybe there won't be a faster
one for a year or more. Anyone have any opinion as to whether I should stop
being conservative and splurge for the 2 GHz iMac or should I stay my course
and wait for a 2.5 or 3 GHz iMac. Please note that I would rather not buy a
tower, as I like having my ports easy to access.

Thanks,

Stu
http://stunewsandphotos.blogspot.com/

In article <C04DA9CF.215EE%stumark@verizon.net>,
Stu Mark <stumark@verizon.net> wrote:

> I recently came into some money and my wife (bless her heart) said that I
> should buy a new iMac, as I am forever bemoaning the speed of my 800 MHz
> iMac. My response to her was that my Mac wasn't *that* slow, and that I
> could wait for the next faster iMac. However, maybe there won't be a faster
> one for a year or more. Anyone have any opinion as to whether I should stop
> being conservative and splurge for the 2 GHz iMac or should I stay my course
> and wait for a 2.5 or 3 GHz iMac. Please note that I would rather not buy a
> tower, as I like having my ports easy to access.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stu
> http://stunewsandphotos.blogspot.com/

Always a dilemma in the technology biz... more of an issue though-
regardless of the speed of the new Intel iMacs (and other Intel Mac
products); to get full performance, you need software recompiled for the
Intel CPUs. A number of common Mac apps- Microsoft Office and the
various Adobe products, for instance-- may not be available as
Intel-native versions for a while.

They will run on the new Macs, but much less quickly than would
otherwise be the case.

MS Word is usable on the current iMacs, but if you're a heavy Photoshop
user, you might want to wait until the next version is out... then buy
into new hardware AND new software.

In article <C04DA9CF.215EE%stumark@verizon.net>,
Stu Mark <stumark@verizon.net> wrote:

> I recently came into some money and my wife (bless her heart) said that I
> should buy a new iMac, as I am forever bemoaning the speed of my 800 MHz
> iMac. My response to her was that my Mac wasn't *that* slow, and that I
> could wait for the next faster iMac. However, maybe there won't be a faster
> one for a year or more. Anyone have any opinion as to whether I should stop
> being conservative and splurge for the 2 GHz iMac or should I stay my course
> and wait for a 2.5 or 3 GHz iMac. Please note that I would rather not buy a
> tower, as I like having my ports easy to access.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stu
> http://stunewsandphotos.blogspot.com/

Always a dilemma in the technology biz... more of an issue though-
regardless of the speed of the new Intel iMacs (and other Intel Mac
products); to get full performance, you need software recompiled for the
Intel CPUs. A number of common Mac apps- Microsoft Office and the
various Adobe products, for instance-- may not be available as
Intel-native versions for a while.

They will run on the new Macs, but much less quickly than would
otherwise be the case.

MS Word is usable on the current iMacs, but if you're a heavy Photoshop
user, you might want to wait until the next version is out... then buy
into new hardware AND new software.

"Alan Zisman" <alan@zisman.ca> wrote in message
news:alan-A78BBE.16433127032006@shawnews...
> In article <C04DA9CF.215EE%stumark@verizon.net>,
> Stu Mark <stumark@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I recently came into some money and my wife (bless her heart) said that I
>> should buy a new iMac, as I am forever bemoaning the speed of my 800 MHz
>> iMac. My response to her was that my Mac wasn't *that* slow, and that I
>> could wait for the next faster iMac. However, maybe there won't be a
>> faster
>> one for a year or more. Anyone have any opinion as to whether I should
>> stop
>> being conservative and splurge for the 2 GHz iMac or should I stay my
>> course
>> and wait for a 2.5 or 3 GHz iMac. Please note that I would rather not
>> buy a
>> tower, as I like having my ports easy to access.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Stu
>> http://stunewsandphotos.blogspot.com/
>
> Always a dilemma in the technology biz... more of an issue though-
> regardless of the speed of the new Intel iMacs (and other Intel Mac
> products); to get full performance, you need software recompiled for the
> Intel CPUs. A number of common Mac apps- Microsoft Office and the
> various Adobe products, for instance-- may not be available as
> Intel-native versions for a while.
>
> They will run on the new Macs, but much less quickly than would
> otherwise be the case.
>
> MS Word is usable on the current iMacs, but if you're a heavy Photoshop
> user, you might want to wait until the next version is out... then buy
> into new hardware AND new software.

I would wait to see if the iMac overheat problems have been corrected in the
new systems. A bigger CPU means more heat - and they ran pretty hot
before - up to and including, smoking and catching fire.

"Alan Zisman" <alan@zisman.ca> wrote in message
news:alan-A78BBE.16433127032006@shawnews...
> In article <C04DA9CF.215EE%stumark@verizon.net>,
> Stu Mark <stumark@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I recently came into some money and my wife (bless her heart) said that I
>> should buy a new iMac, as I am forever bemoaning the speed of my 800 MHz
>> iMac. My response to her was that my Mac wasn't *that* slow, and that I
>> could wait for the next faster iMac. However, maybe there won't be a
>> faster
>> one for a year or more. Anyone have any opinion as to whether I should
>> stop
>> being conservative and splurge for the 2 GHz iMac or should I stay my
>> course
>> and wait for a 2.5 or 3 GHz iMac. Please note that I would rather not
>> buy a
>> tower, as I like having my ports easy to access.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Stu
>> http://stunewsandphotos.blogspot.com/
>
> Always a dilemma in the technology biz... more of an issue though-
> regardless of the speed of the new Intel iMacs (and other Intel Mac
> products); to get full performance, you need software recompiled for the
> Intel CPUs. A number of common Mac apps- Microsoft Office and the
> various Adobe products, for instance-- may not be available as
> Intel-native versions for a while.
>
> They will run on the new Macs, but much less quickly than would
> otherwise be the case.
>
> MS Word is usable on the current iMacs, but if you're a heavy Photoshop
> user, you might want to wait until the next version is out... then buy
> into new hardware AND new software.

I would wait to see if the iMac overheat problems have been corrected in the
new systems. A bigger CPU means more heat - and they ran pretty hot
before - up to and including, smoking and catching fire.

On 3/30/06 9:10 AM, in article cuSWf.2705$L7.1840@bignews2.bellsouth.net,
"zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:

>
> "Alan Zisman" <alan@zisman.ca> wrote in message
> news:alan-A78BBE.16433127032006@shawnews...
>> In article <C04DA9CF.215EE%stumark@verizon.net>,
>> Stu Mark <stumark@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I recently came into some money and my wife (bless her heart) said that I
>>> should buy a new iMac, as I am forever bemoaning the speed of my 800 MHz
>>> iMac. My response to her was that my Mac wasn't *that* slow, and that I
>>> could wait for the next faster iMac. However, maybe there won't be a
>>> faster
>>> one for a year or more. Anyone have any opinion as to whether I should
>>> stop
>>> being conservative and splurge for the 2 GHz iMac or should I stay my
>>> course
>>> and wait for a 2.5 or 3 GHz iMac. Please note that I would rather not
>>> buy a
>>> tower, as I like having my ports easy to access.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Stu
>>> http://stunewsandphotos.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Always a dilemma in the technology biz... more of an issue though-
>> regardless of the speed of the new Intel iMacs (and other Intel Mac
>> products); to get full performance, you need software recompiled for the
>> Intel CPUs. A number of common Mac apps- Microsoft Office and the
>> various Adobe products, for instance-- may not be available as
>> Intel-native versions for a while.
>>
>> They will run on the new Macs, but much less quickly than would
>> otherwise be the case.
>>
>> MS Word is usable on the current iMacs, but if you're a heavy Photoshop
>> user, you might want to wait until the next version is out... then buy
>> into new hardware AND new software.
>
> I would wait to see if the iMac overheat problems have been corrected in the
> new systems. A bigger CPU means more heat - and they ran pretty hot
> before - up to and including, smoking and catching fire.
>
>

I¹ve been thinking about buying one of the new iMacs in a month or two to
replace my 20² 1.25 GHz G4 iMac. However, your response (above) worried me.
This is the first I¹ve heard about an iMac overheating problem. To which
iMac does that apply ‹ the new Core Duo 2.0 GHz one? What are people¹s
complaints about this, and is everyone experiencing it? Do you think
they¹ll release a faster model soon?

Thanks.

On 3/30/06 9:10 AM, in article cuSWf.2705$L7.1840@bignews2.bellsouth.net,
"zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:

>
> "Alan Zisman" <alan@zisman.ca> wrote in message
> news:alan-A78BBE.16433127032006@shawnews...
>> In article <C04DA9CF.215EE%stumark@verizon.net>,
>> Stu Mark <stumark@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I recently came into some money and my wife (bless her heart) said that I
>>> should buy a new iMac, as I am forever bemoaning the speed of my 800 MHz
>>> iMac. My response to her was that my Mac wasn't *that* slow, and that I
>>> could wait for the next faster iMac. However, maybe there won't be a
>>> faster
>>> one for a year or more. Anyone have any opinion as to whether I should
>>> stop
>>> being conservative and splurge for the 2 GHz iMac or should I stay my
>>> course
>>> and wait for a 2.5 or 3 GHz iMac. Please note that I would rather not
>>> buy a
>>> tower, as I like having my ports easy to access.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Stu
>>> http://stunewsandphotos.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Always a dilemma in the technology biz... more of an issue though-
>> regardless of the speed of the new Intel iMacs (and other Intel Mac
>> products); to get full performance, you need software recompiled for the
>> Intel CPUs. A number of common Mac apps- Microsoft Office and the
>> various Adobe products, for instance-- may not be available as
>> Intel-native versions for a while.
>>
>> They will run on the new Macs, but much less quickly than would
>> otherwise be the case.
>>
>> MS Word is usable on the current iMacs, but if you're a heavy Photoshop
>> user, you might want to wait until the next version is out... then buy
>> into new hardware AND new software.
>
> I would wait to see if the iMac overheat problems have been corrected in the
> new systems. A bigger CPU means more heat - and they ran pretty hot
> before - up to and including, smoking and catching fire.
>
>

I¹ve been thinking about buying one of the new iMacs in a month or two to
replace my 20² 1.25 GHz G4 iMac. However, your response (above) worried me.
This is the first I¹ve heard about an iMac overheating problem. To which
iMac does that apply ‹ the new Core Duo 2.0 GHz one? What are people¹s
complaints about this, and is everyone experiencing it? Do you think
they¹ll release a faster model soon?

Thanks.

"spat" <spat@mchsi.com> wrote
> This is the first I¹ve heard about an iMac overheating problem. To which
> iMac does that apply < the new Core Duo 2.0 GHz one? What are people¹s
> complaints about this, and is everyone experiencing it? Do you think
> they¹ll release a faster model soon?

Don't think my Core Duo 2.0 is overheating -- when I put my hands on the
back, I only feel the very slightest extra warmth in one area, almost too
little to detect.

mack
austin

"spat" <spat@mchsi.com> wrote
> This is the first I¹ve heard about an iMac overheating problem. To which
> iMac does that apply < the new Core Duo 2.0 GHz one? What are people¹s
> complaints about this, and is everyone experiencing it? Do you think
> they¹ll release a faster model soon?

Don't think my Core Duo 2.0 is overheating -- when I put my hands on the
back, I only feel the very slightest extra warmth in one area, almost too
little to detect.

mack
austin

Thanks, that's encouraging.


On 3/31/06 2:36 PM, in article 2pgXf.47792$1Z5.21609@tornado.texas.rr.com,
"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:

>
> "spat" <spat@mchsi.com> wrote
>> This is the first I¹ve heard about an iMac overheating problem. To which
>> iMac does that apply < the new Core Duo 2.0 GHz one? What are people¹s
>> complaints about this, and is everyone experiencing it? Do you think
>> they¹ll release a faster model soon?
>
> Don't think my Core Duo 2.0 is overheating -- when I put my hands on the
> back, I only feel the very slightest extra warmth in one area, almost too
> little to detect.
>
> mack
> austin
>
>

Thanks, that's encouraging.


On 3/31/06 2:36 PM, in article 2pgXf.47792$1Z5.21609@tornado.texas.rr.com,
"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:

>
> "spat" <spat@mchsi.com> wrote
>> This is the first I¹ve heard about an iMac overheating problem. To which
>> iMac does that apply < the new Core Duo 2.0 GHz one? What are people¹s
>> complaints about this, and is everyone experiencing it? Do you think
>> they¹ll release a faster model soon?
>
> Don't think my Core Duo 2.0 is overheating -- when I put my hands on the
> back, I only feel the very slightest extra warmth in one area, almost too
> little to detect.
>
> mack
> austin
>
>

In article <C04DA9CF.215EE%stumark@verizon.net>,
Stu Mark <stumark@verizon.net> wrote:

> I recently came into some money and my wife (bless her heart) said that I
> should buy a new iMac, as I am forever bemoaning the speed of my 800 MHz
> iMac. My response to her was that my Mac wasn't *that* slow, and that I
> could wait for the next faster iMac. However, maybe there won't be a faster
> one for a year or more. Anyone have any opinion as to whether I should stop
> being conservative and splurge for the 2 GHz iMac or should I stay my course
> and wait for a 2.5 or 3 GHz iMac. Please note that I would rather not buy a
> tower, as I like having my ports easy to access.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stu
> http://stunewsandphotos.blogspot.com/

Buy the new iMac. 800 mhz is slooow and you will be more productive if
you don't have this question buzzing around your skull for the next year
or so. The needy person you give the old one to will drive you to the
airport at least once out of gratitude and that will also save you a lot
of time.

In article <C04DA9CF.215EE%stumark@verizon.net>,
Stu Mark <stumark@verizon.net> wrote:

> I recently came into some money and my wife (bless her heart) said that I
> should buy a new iMac, as I am forever bemoaning the speed of my 800 MHz
> iMac. My response to her was that my Mac wasn't *that* slow, and that I
> could wait for the next faster iMac. However, maybe there won't be a faster
> one for a year or more. Anyone have any opinion as to whether I should stop
> being conservative and splurge for the 2 GHz iMac or should I stay my course
> and wait for a 2.5 or 3 GHz iMac. Please note that I would rather not buy a
> tower, as I like having my ports easy to access.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stu
> http://stunewsandphotos.blogspot.com/

Buy the new iMac. 800 mhz is slooow and you will be more productive if
you don't have this question buzzing around your skull for the next year
or so. The needy person you give the old one to will drive you to the
airport at least once out of gratitude and that will also save you a lot
of time.