Review: Apple's 27" big screen iMac (late 2009)

2456

Comments

  • myapplelovemyapplelove Posts: 1,515member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 4miler View Post


    How can Apple persist in refusing to bring back matte, anti-glare screens to the iMac. The petition website at http://macmatte.wordpress.com has now hundreds of people who want to buy the new iMacs, but cannot because of the lack of matte screens.



    It's not just a matter of accepting things that cannot change -- if our eyes start hurting, and headaches develop, no matter how much we want to conform, we CANNOT.



    This can't be stressed enough. We have kept pushing for it and will shall continue to do so.



    They should at least bring some anti-glare option with the glass on top if they don't want to get rid of the glass. Older CRTs where not as reflective, and they were not glossy. Why can't they keep the glass but ditch the glossy and bring reflections down to minimum. Surely other people here will vouch for that their old crts were not as bad as these glossy glassy screens. That said you can't partly avoid the glares by tilting the machines. But this is just a half measure.



    Like I said we have pressed on with this, we got the matte for the macbook pro, we shall keep pressing on, voicing our concerns and we ll get what we want. Of course it has to be sooner rather than later. Sadly the general industry consensus on glossy isn't helping our cause.



    Quote:

    and leave it running in the background as a server or distributed processing node.



    Now can someone explain this to me? Thanks!
  • teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post


    Like I said we have pressed on with this, we got the matte for the macbook pro, we shall keep pressing on, voicing our concerns and we ll get what we want. Of course it has to be sooner rather than later. Sadly the general industry consensus on glossy isn't helping our cause.



    I know - I can't believe that Apple , the innovator, has copied Dell with this glass crap. Thank you Al GORE.
  • abrooksabrooks Posts: 66member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post




    Now can someone explain this to me? Thanks!



    Believe the reviewer was suggesting that you could plug another Mac into the iMac and use that computer while the iMac does some hard work.
  • jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,927member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Yet another example of Aple not giving us what we want and should have- a full universal blue tooth keyboard.



    It's disappointing, but there are other companies that make 101+ key Bluetooth keyboards, maybe not the Apple styling.



    I must say, I'm tempted with the new 27", it's maybe 90% of what I want. I can make the remaining 10% work, maybe a little less than ideal, I need to figure that out. But I can wait, I really don't need it yet.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,504member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gsteeno View Post


    The 27" model is screaming for me to buy, but when I compared the iMac models on the Apple site, I saw the 21.5" models differ by only the hard drive and graphics. And I'm guessing that most of the $-difference is due to the graphics. So my question, is that really worth the extra $300?



    If it is, then I can talk myself into justifying the entry 27" for the extra $200.



    If it's not, then the entry level 21.5" is maybe a 1st choice. Anyway, I don't have the practical knowledge in assessing the value going to separate ATI vs. integrated NVIDIA.



    Would appreciate anyone chiming in with their thoughts.



    Cheers.



    It seems as though that's the only difference.



    You do want the ATI card.
  • ktappektappe Posts: 634member
    "all at a new lower price"



    No, it's not. We had two 24" iMacs on order when the new 27" came out to replace them in the lineup. Unlike previous years where Apple would substitute the new models for the discontinued older ones, this time Apple held up our order saying "The new model costs more; you must issue us a new P.O. with the higher price reflected on it." So I can't fathom where your "lower price" claim comes from.
  • garamondgaramond Posts: 107member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    It should have been 5 out of 5. So sad.



    So you can't make up your own opinion about a product, and instead base your shopping on the number of stars in AppleInsiders reviews?
  • nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    What does ?partial sleep? refer to? Screen dimmed but not off? Full screen sleep but not system sleep? HD sleep but not system sleep? Or the moments when the machine is in the process of entering sleep but not quite there yet (like when disconnecting from Time Capsule)?
  • jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,927member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ktappe View Post


    "all at a new lower price"



    No, it's not. We had two 24" iMacs on order when the new 27" came out to replace them in the lineup. Unlike previous years where Apple would substitute the new models for the discontinued older ones, this time Apple held up our order saying "The new model costs more; you must issue us a new P.O. with the higher price reflected on it." So I can't fathom where your "lower price" claim comes from.



    I thought the older 3GHz C2D iMacs were priced at something like $2499, now starting at $1699.



    Did you order the default models or request a build to order?
  • nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 4miler View Post


    How can Apple persist in refusing to bring back matte, anti-glare screens to the iMac. The petition website at http://macmatte.wordpress.com has now hundreds of people who want to buy the new iMacs, but cannot because of the lack of matte screens.



    It's not just a matter of accepting things that cannot change -- if our eyes start hurting, and headaches develop, no matter how much we want to conform, we CANNOT.



    Some people claim to get headaches from anti-glare screens (which is what the iMac has?it?s coated, not pure mirror glass). In some cases that may happen. But I?m skeptical that that is truly the cause for all the people who claim it. We can work ourselves up into believing things, but I use a matte iMac every day and I still get headaches at times?it?s what happens sometimes when looking at fine detail a few feet away for long hours.



    I?m in the minority that prefers the look of matte, and the glare is indeed much less than an anti-glare glass screen. I?m happy I still have my matte iMac. But I?m doubtful that many people actually suffer medical conditions over it. (If anything, focussing your eyes beyond your display is the exercise they tell people to do to prevent headaches.) Some may, such as yourself, but I doubt it?s a market Apple needs to worry about when so many people prefer glossy. And remember, for every one of the hundreds who signs an online petition that they will never buy an iMac? some of them go out and buy one anyway. They prefer matte, but they don?t truly all medically require it.



    Also, I?d give up matte for the sake of glass that is protective and easily cleanable. My nice matte screen has dust, scratches and permanent smudges from cleaning. If it were glass it would still look brand new. And I?ve seen how easily a careless impact can seriously damage the soft plastic of an LCD, affecting the pixels inside. I want my expensive purchases to have more solidity than that!
  • webpoet73webpoet73 Posts: 112member
    Interesting... am in the middle of discussing with my fiancee about selling my current iMac and secondary monitor for a 27" iMac, probably the C2D version. The i5 would be really sweet but possibly overkill...



    I keep my house dark, so the glossy screen doesn't bother me. My plasma TV has a glossy screen, too... that's just where quite a bit of the consumer electronics and computer industry is headed... I agree that should be an option for those few who want it. Maybe not enough want it to warrant the option?
  • teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Garamond View Post


    So you can't make up your own opinion about a product, and instead base your shopping on the number of stars in AppleInsiders reviews?



    If it's only getting 4 of 5 stars from our totally biased friends at AI then you know it's bad.



    I stated the 2 most important reason right there in my

    post!
  • ronin48ronin48 Posts: 1member
    The previous generation 24" iMac screen is brighter than the new 27" inch iMac screen.



    24"

    Glossy fluorescent backlit 16:10 widescreen TFT active matrix display with "IPS technology" and a native resolution of 1920x1200. Apple also reports a "typical" brightness of 385 cd/m2, contrast ratio of 750:1, and viewing angle of 178 degrees horizontal and 178 degrees vertical.



    27"

    Glossy LED-backlit 16:9 widescreen TFT active matrix display with "IPS technology" and a native resolution of 2560x1440. Apple also reports a "typical" brightness of 375 cd/m2, and viewing angle of 178 degrees horizontal and 178 degrees vertical.
  • teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    It's disappointing, but there are other companies that make 101+ key Bluetooth keyboards, maybe not the Apple styling.



    I must say, I'm tempted with the new 27", it's maybe 90% of what I want. I can make the remaining 10% work, maybe a little less than ideal, I need to figure that out. But I can wait, I really don't need it yet.



    Just buy the full keyboard with the cord like I did- it's fantastic!!!!!
  • teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    The best thing about this new iMac is it's back. Gone is the fugly cheap black plastic from the last model.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,504member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ronin48 View Post


    The previous generation 24" iMac screen is brighter than the new 27" inch iMac screen.



    24"

    Glossy fluorescent backlit 16:10 widescreen TFT active matrix display with "IPS technology" and a native resolution of 1920x1200. Apple also reports a "typical" brightness of 385 cd/m2, contrast ratio of 750:1, and viewing angle of 178 degrees horizontal and 178 degrees vertical.



    27"

    Glossy LED-backlit 16:9 widescreen TFT active matrix display with "IPS technology" and a native resolution of 2560x1440. Apple also reports a "typical" brightness of 375 cd/m2, and viewing angle of 178 degrees horizontal and 178 degrees vertical.



    That's meaningless.



    Neither screen should ever be used at more than half the brightness, likely less. The two are so close as to make measurements between any two screens have a greater difference than between the specs themselves.
  • teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by abrooks View Post


    Believe the reviewer was suggesting that you could plug another Mac into the iMac and use that computer while the iMac does some hard work.



    And this is like useful for 0.9999% of it's actual users? Thank you Apple. What exactly is it that Apples laptop screens incapable of rendering?
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,504member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    And this is like useful for 0.9999% of it's actual users? Thank you Apple. What exactly is it that Apples laptop screens incapable of rendering?



    ??? 0.9999% of it's users means less than 1%, is that what you were trying to say?
  • jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,927member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    That's meaningless.



    Neither screen should ever be used at more than half the brightness, likely less. The two are so close as to make measurements between any two screens have a greater difference than between the specs themselves.



    I've never understood the fascination with brightness. There was a time when it really did matter, but, I've not needed more than half except where I'm outdoors, which isn't where a desktop display is commonly used. Most of the time, I have my current ACD set to the lowest setting.
  • teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    ??? 0.9999% of it's users means less than 1%, is that what you were trying to say?



    Exactly- I know plenty ofy people with MBP's and have never seen them have any need to hook it to a larger screen. Was this feature built for 13 " users?
Sign In or Register to comment.