Inside, of course, the iMac is all new, with an Intel Core Duo processor, and Intel-based versions of Mac OS X 10.4.4, Front Row, and iLife '06. In day-to-day use, the iMac is virtually indistinguishable from its predecessor: The performance is snappy, especially in the Finder, the bundled applications, and iLife.

Some pieces are missing, however, and these exclusions could make Apple's Intel transition perilous in the short term for long-time Mac users. First, the Classic environment isn't available in the Intel version of Mac OS X; therefore, pre-OS X Mac applications will never run on the new machines. Second, higher-end Apple "pro" applications such as Final Cut Pro will need to be updated to Intel-based versions before they’ll work, and Apple is typically charging for the privilege. (My copy of Final Cut Express HD, for example, won’t run on the new iMac.)

Third, and perhaps most damaging—when you consider that the iMac is billed as a home computer—Mac games typically don't run well, particularly those that are designed for 3D video cards. I've tested DOOM 3, Unreal Tournament 2004, and Halo on the new iMac, and all of them ran so slowly that they were unplayable. (I eventually turned off virtually every graphical feature in Halo and ran it at the lowest possible resolution to achieve a semi-playable experience.) That said, game makers are working to provide Intel-compatible upgrades for the best-selling games, and of course new titles will likely be sold in the Universal Binary format, which lets Mac applications run equally well on Power PC- and Intel-based Macs. Aspyr pledges a free patch for Unreal Tournament 2004 that should be available any day.

One of the big questions about the Intel-based Macs is whether we'll be able to run Windows on the machines and dual-boot between, say, Windows Vista and Mac OS X. Hackers around the world are working on such solutions right now, and I have no doubt that we'll soon see the fruits of their labors. Indeed, I purchased the iMac with the notion that I'd soon be dual-booting between OS X and Windows Vista. When that happens, I'll discuss the details here in Connected Home Media.

Like its predecessor, the new iMac is available in 17" and 21" variants, at prices of $1299 and $1699, respectively. Those prices might seem a bit high compared to similar PCs, but remember that they include the roomy displays and a number of features that most PCs don’t include, such as FireWire, an 8X dual-layer DVD burner, an integrated VGA-quality Web camera, a remote control, and, of course, iLife '06. A fully equipped iMac can set you back north of $2000, but don't be misled: This is a high-quality machine with legs for the future. I highly recommend it, especially if you don't mind living on the edge for the next few months.

Article Information

Email this Article Printer-Friendly

Reader Comments
Why on Earth do you care whether Windows will run on an iMac? You have, right out of the box, possibly the world's greatest computing experience, yet you want to run an "also ran" OS on it? I don't get it. Charles Buxton -January 31, 2006 There are times when you have some specialized software that is not available on OS X. I hope something comes out that would let you run some of these applications without having to load Windows on the Mac. I hate the thought of compromising security by running Windows on the Mac. Kevin Bataille -January 31, 2006 Charles - Given that Paul is a technology journalist who reports on various different systems and OSes, I would imagine fitting multiple OSes into one box would be of particular use to him. Now grow up. tom a -February 1, 2006 Charles It would provide them with the best of both worlds. A productive working operatingsystem, that does not chrash isn´t as prone to virus and adwares as windows and the ability to boot into windows then they wánt to play the latest non mac game. The lack of games are a major factor in the low markedshare. Funny because Apple computers was thought of as play toys jens blidd -February 1, 2006 Dual-booting is fine in some cases - a stop-gap measure for most - but you lose the possibility to dynamically cut and paste content between Windows and Mac OS X applications, and there's also the time lost in rebooting between operating systems, which is a pity when OS X (XP, Vista) offers good stability and long uptime. Emulators, such as Virtual PC, GuestPC and WinTel (google these for more info) are a better solution, especially as these become fine-tuned for the two cores sported by the Core Duo; imagine each core separately running an OS at full speed. Dynamic copy-pasting; peripherals, optical disc drive, data and internet connections are shared by the two OS's. On PowerPC chips, PC/Windows emulators run at a fraction of the actual processor speed; on an Intel Core Duo, the performance overhead is a lot less of a penalty. Better yet: an interesting open-source solution in the works is DarWINE: http://darwine.opendarwin.org/ Based on WINE (a recursive acronym: Wine Is Not an Emulator) for Linux, DarWINE would enable users to run Windows applications on Mac OS X without having to install Windows at all. Still in development and not yet in Universal Binary form, DarWINE holds a lot of promises. Robert Emslie -February 1, 2006 I have two "critical" applications which require the Windows o/s. So I have to maintain two platforms, and it is a pain. I would very much appreciate the ability to be able to run Windows on my Mac hardware. Of course I prefer O/S 10 but it doesn't do everything I need! DBS -February 1, 2006 Robert, feel free to contact me if you'd like to write up a little article about DarWINE--jbovberg@connectedhomemag.com. Jason Bovberg -February 1, 2006 Why would you want to run Windows on a Mac? hmm, let me see now, because that's the OS everyone else uses? Because it's better? Because more software is on Windows? Mark -February 1, 2006 Hey everyone, they dropped the price on the 20inch iMac G5 down to $1,499. I think thats value right there. Andre Da Costa -February 1, 2006 Hey Andre, Where did you see price drop for 20" Mac. basu -February 1, 2006 Jason: "because that's the OS everyone else uses?" - besides the fact that it's not true, why should that even begin to be an argument? And "Because it's better" is not an argument either, since not one of the people that question Windows on a Mac thinks Windows is better. "Because more software is on Windows" is possibly the most ridiculous reason. You can't really load all software on your computer anyway. What matters is that the apps _you_ want is on your computer. And that goes of Mac-only apps as well as Windows-only. iLife is just one example. Not available on Windows. So grow up. Sverker -February 1, 2006 Sorry - my last comment was to Mark, not Jason. Sorry, Jason! Sverker -February 1, 2006 Here Basu: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060131210455.shtml Andre Da Costa -February 1, 2006 Mark - you lost me at "better." Paul, last paragraph, should be 20" not 21". Chris -February 2, 2006 Jason, I just mailed you about your article offer, hope you respond soon. Robert Emslie -February 3, 2006 You have to remeber that Intel Core is Vanderpool enabled. This means you should be able to run windows in Xen see wikipedia Alexander -February 4, 2006 I'd like to see Windows run on Duo-based Macs in order to have the best of both worlds. There are programs written for Windows which either don't exist on the Mac (e.g. MS Access), or are much cheaper and more functional (e.g. Nero versus Toast, which is a rip off). Windows is far more stable than Mac OS X in my experience (I have PowerMac G4, G5 and iMac - they crash all the time, more than my Dell Inspiron laptop, and are slower). Macs on the other hand are designed and built beautifully. And now that they are to all intents and purposes PCs on the inside (Apple have lost the 'argument' on this one), it makes perfect sense to allow them to be PCs on the outside. If you prefer being ripped off for software, then by all means boot up to Mac OS X. Spiffer -February 28, 2006 there are advantages to having an intel based mac, firs off, they are now up to speed in the processing department, second off, now you can dual boot windows there are more and more people who will get one, who previously wouldn't because of fear of not being able to run their Ms products, this allows them to see the OS and give apple a chance to be a competetor to windows. and now there are moves to try and get native windows programs to run from inside mac os, which in my eye is a good thing, it means there will nolonger be programs running on one or the other, but running on both and then the only choice is which you prefer, apple do have the advantage when this happens as mac os x tiger and soon to be out panther are amazingly stable, fast and intuative os's compared to windows. I should know, i own an imac 20" intel. and am a technical support consultant for pc's. wraith2021 -March 14, 2007 I highly recommed VMware Fusion, with its unity ability it can take the windows apps your running and put them i the mac environment, these apps are then expose compatible Adrian -January 2, 2008 READER COMMENTS: We want to hear what you have to say about this article!     Acceptable Use Policy Your Comments (required): Your email is only used if our editors need to contact you. It is not used or stored for any other purpose, nor posted with your comments. Enter the text from the image below Please refresh the page if you have trouble reading this text.