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.
You need Sun level brightness to offset glare on glass- that's why. Like a plasma TV - they're all under glass.
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.
Manufacturers set their monitors and Tvs at a very high brightness, and tune it towards the blue, to make it look bright and contrasty out of the box, and in the store. When people look at them in a store, the brightest and most contrasty look the best to most people (who don't know any better).
If people leave their monitors that way when they set them up, it's responsible for the eyestrain and headaches people get.
You need Sun level brightness to offset glare on glass- that's why. Like a plasma TV - they're all under glass.
You shouldn't be watching Tv with the lights all the way up on the screen, and the windows open to the sun. All manufacturers tell you that, even though most Tvs are matte. Same thing is true when using monitors.
I'm really excited to get my hands on the new iMac. I ordered the 2.8 GHz i7 w/ 8 GB RAM. And I will be zeroing my current iMac out for use at our office. I'll have them side-by-side on the dining room table for speed tests. My favorite test being converting video clips via VisualHub.
I found it interesting that some people mentioned running their monitors at half or lower brightness. I have always preferred the full brightness during the day and only turn it down at night. I actually wish it would go dimmer for those times when you wake up and find the current levels unbearable.
The review was great and I'm looking forward to seeing and feeling a nice performance difference between the new iMac and the last generation.
I'm really excited to get my hands on the new iMac. I ordered the 2.8 GHz i7 w/ 8 GB RAM. And I will be zeroing my current iMac out for use at our office. I'll have them side-by-side on the dining room table for speed tests. My favorite test being converting video clips via VisualHub.
I found it interesting that some people mentioned running their monitors at half or lower brightness. I have always preferred the full brightness during the day and only turn it down at night. I actually wish it would go dimmer for those times when you wake up and find the current levels unbearable.
The review was great and I'm looking forward to seeing and feeling a nice performance difference between the new iMac and the last generation.
Okay, I'll take one! Actually I have three Macs already. Can I justify another??
why not. and if you don't have enough room for it you can store it at my place
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsteeno
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?
all depends on what you are doing on it.
Grandma that is emailing, surfing for knitting patterns and ichatting with the kids, no
someone doing video or photo work where you are shuffling around a zillion toolbars and windows and having to wait for things to render, heck yeah
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4miler
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.
3 reasons jump right up
1. online petitions are a total fail due to the fact that they are very very easy to pad in this age of folks having several email accounts.
2. the glossy ones sell. and sell a lot
3. much of the "glare" you speak of is actually reflection which can be reduced by users who aren't too lazy to make a few adjustments in where the display is placed in a room related to the lights and windows. sometimes a couple of simple tweaks will eliminate the issue.
as for the whole eye strain issue. i love how many of those folks talk about being at the computer for hours non stop and don't consider that such lengthy times is a factor in the fact that they are having strain issues. as much, if not more than the glare.
I thought the 24" display with native hdmi resolution had hit a sweet spot. The pixel size corresponded well with print font sizes at desktop viewing distances.
Does the same font size appear to be about 15% smaller when viewed on the 27 vs the 24?
Does that mean you are upsizing the default web font size or moving the display closer to your eyes?
Do your friends receive larger font emails from you?
Can I assume the improvements to the 27 display technology outweigh any problems in having to upconvert 1080p material to fill the screen?
The 'quad core' option with the ati card seems the way to go. £1700 with a free '30' inch Apple LED?
I'd take that bet. If I hadn't bought this rather nice 24 inch 2008 core 2 duo then I'd be all over it like a rash.
So much for not being able to fit a desktop cpu (Nehelem!) into an iMac. Heh.
The display looks out of this world. I can't wait to see a 27 incher in person.
I like glass screens. I don't understand the fascination with crappy plastic screens that make squiggles when you press on them...and scratch easily when kids write on them with their pencils.
Blue Ray may have been nice. But it's far from a critical mass product. Just buy a PS3 and a big sexy LCD tv?
Far cheaper than a low end iMac.
And you can use it with the tablet when it comes early 2010.
Criticisms?
The price for quad core entry is still fairly outrageous compared to the PC side of things.
There's flat out no way we should be paying £1500 to get quad core. The chips are as cheap as chips.
That's flat out greed, tier marketing whore greeding when you're sat on 30 billion.
Quibble 2? The 4850 IS a LOW end card. Nice performer...but why are we STILL having to pay £1500 to get a LOW end card half a year later since it's intro'?
*Shrugs.
I'll await a bump on the 27 incher re: quad i7 and a better gpu in half a year's time. I hope. And I'll look at it again.
A step in the right direction.
But the cpu and gpu? Penny pinching. The i7 should have been standard on the top two models at least.
I thought the 24" display with native hdmi resolution had hit a sweet spot. The pixel size corresponded well with print font sizes at desktop viewing distances.
Does the same font size appear to be about 15% smaller when viewed on the 27 vs the 24?
Does that mean you are upsizing the default web font size or moving the display closer to your eyes?
Do your friends receive larger font emails from you?
Can I assume the improvements to the 27 display technology outweigh any problems in having to upconvert 1080p material to fill the screen?
There are no problems in upscaling. It simply looks a bit better. Very high end video systems have been upscaling for a couple of decades. Even cheap DVD players will upscale to 1080i. It simply isn't a problem.
You may also be interested to know that the next larger video resolution being considered, and that I've seen the prototypes for, are 2560 x 1440. So this will be ready for that when it comes.
The fonts seem about the same tome. The larger screen is bigger than you think.
since this great machine is ~the price of a 30" cinema display (less 150 vertical pixels), but with a computer attached, would anyone know if there is a way to make 2 of these work together as one, perhaps? we know it can be used as display only, but a synch operation will make for a dual monitor, dual quad-core 2.8 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 2 TB powerhouse! (at 1/3 the price of a MP with 2x30" CD) ...
since this great machine is ~the price of a 30" cinema display (less 150 vertical pixels), but with a computer attached, would anyone know if there is a way to make 2 of these work together as one, perhaps? we know it can be used as display only, but a synch operation will make for a dual monitor, dual quad-core 2.8 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 2 TB powerhouse! (at 1/3 the price of a MP with 2x30" CD) ...
You could take the DP output from one and plug it into the input of the other. It would act as another monitor for the first one. Just set it up in the Monitors panel.
Since the i7 is a BTO option, does that mean other retailers (other than apple) won't sell it? I'm deciding between the i5 and i7. I can get the education discount from apple, but will still have to pay tax (7% for me). So the price difference between the i5 (from online vendors) and i7 (from apple) is $350 for me. Any ideas on whether it is worth it? Any online place I can get the i7 from?
Since the i7 is a BTO option, does that mean other retailers (other than apple) won't sell it? I'm deciding between the i5 and i7. I can get the education discount from apple, but will still have to pay tax (7% for me). So the price difference between the i5 (from online vendors) and i7 (from apple) is $350 for me. Any ideas on whether it is worth it? Any online place I can get the i7 from?
1. What did you do to contribute and change? It least those guys are trying to make things better, make the difference.
2. Cocaine sells even more.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)." - Notebook, 1904, Mark Twain"
Additionally, they (Apple) would have made even more money and more sales (simply because I would have bought it ) if thy were offering matte option.
3. This one is totally wrong. Absolutely.
Thank you for educating us that "glare" is a reflection. *cough* When did you learn it? So that you can proudly tell about it in your post.
Laziness have nothing to do with comfort end effective use. How about your working place (think - your table has a fixed position). Think again. Think about at least 10 other situations.
Related to what you are talking about Eye strain issue:
You never start looking for a cause changing many parameters simultaneously. Simply said, those people working long hours do not have eye stain problem on matte screen. This means that long hours is not a significant cause of eye stain.
If you change a parameter - a matte screen to a glossy - you are getting an eye stain in just a friction of the time you are usually have been working without having eye stain issue. This means that glossy option has a significant impact on eye stain (even if you work shorter time than usually).
I am not sure that this logic could be understood by everyone, especially by those who believe that if something sells good than it is good for you.
Additionally, glossy screens are bad for colors adjusting and any decent photo editing. So your efficiency reduces with glossy screens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
.....
3 reasons jump right up
1. online petitions are a total fail due to the fact that they are very very easy to pad in this age of folks having several email accounts.
2. the glossy ones sell. and sell a lot
3. much of the "glare" you speak of is actually reflection which can be reduced by users who aren't too lazy to make a few adjustments in where the display is placed in a room related to the lights and windows. sometimes a couple of simple tweaks will eliminate the issue.
as for the whole eye strain issue. i love how many of those folks talk about being at the computer for hours non stop and don't consider that such lengthy times is a factor in the fact that they are having strain issues. as much, if not more than the glare.
Two reasons I went with the larger screen: 1. for my freelance work (pixels count a lot when doing Photoshop, Illustrator, or Web stuff). 2. now I have an external monitor for the MBP.
Whether that's worth it or not is up to you.
Performance wise in CS3 or CS4, is the gap between 27 i7 core still wide with the MacPro ?
Granted, the MacPro will get me around 6000 $, but the performance boost and upgradable capacity might be worth it.
Comments
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.
You need Sun level brightness to offset glare on glass- that's why. Like a plasma TV - they're all under glass.
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.
Manufacturers set their monitors and Tvs at a very high brightness, and tune it towards the blue, to make it look bright and contrasty out of the box, and in the store. When people look at them in a store, the brightest and most contrasty look the best to most people (who don't know any better).
If people leave their monitors that way when they set them up, it's responsible for the eyestrain and headaches people get.
You need Sun level brightness to offset glare on glass- that's why. Like a plasma TV - they're all under glass.
You shouldn't be watching Tv with the lights all the way up on the screen, and the windows open to the sun. All manufacturers tell you that, even though most Tvs are matte. Same thing is true when using monitors.
I found it interesting that some people mentioned running their monitors at half or lower brightness. I have always preferred the full brightness during the day and only turn it down at night. I actually wish it would go dimmer for those times when you wake up and find the current levels unbearable.
The review was great and I'm looking forward to seeing and feeling a nice performance difference between the new iMac and the last generation.
You need Sun level brightness to offset glare on glass- that's why. Like a plasma TV - they're all under glass.
you must be joking
pleasae don't make stuff up
what you mean to say is you need diffused light to off set the glare
glass reflects
I'm really excited to get my hands on the new iMac. I ordered the 2.8 GHz i7 w/ 8 GB RAM. And I will be zeroing my current iMac out for use at our office. I'll have them side-by-side on the dining room table for speed tests. My favorite test being converting video clips via VisualHub.
I found it interesting that some people mentioned running their monitors at half or lower brightness. I have always preferred the full brightness during the day and only turn it down at night. I actually wish it would go dimmer for those times when you wake up and find the current levels unbearable.
The review was great and I'm looking forward to seeing and feeling a nice performance difference between the new iMac and the last generation.
I think you want Shades for Mac.
Heath
- Greg
you must be joking
pleasae don't make stuff up
what you mean to say is you need diffused light to off set the glare
glass reflects
I'm talking underneath the glass- shooting out.
Thanks for the input re: the value in dedicated graphics for 21.5" iMac. Appreciate it.
- Greg
I'd be interested in knowing what you decide.
Okay, I'll take one! Actually I have three Macs already. Can I justify another??
why not. and if you don't have enough room for it you can store it at my place
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?
all depends on what you are doing on it.
Grandma that is emailing, surfing for knitting patterns and ichatting with the kids, no
someone doing video or photo work where you are shuffling around a zillion toolbars and windows and having to wait for things to render, heck yeah
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.
3 reasons jump right up
1. online petitions are a total fail due to the fact that they are very very easy to pad in this age of folks having several email accounts.
2. the glossy ones sell. and sell a lot
3. much of the "glare" you speak of is actually reflection which can be reduced by users who aren't too lazy to make a few adjustments in where the display is placed in a room related to the lights and windows. sometimes a couple of simple tweaks will eliminate the issue.
as for the whole eye strain issue. i love how many of those folks talk about being at the computer for hours non stop and don't consider that such lengthy times is a factor in the fact that they are having strain issues. as much, if not more than the glare.
Does the same font size appear to be about 15% smaller when viewed on the 27 vs the 24?
Does that mean you are upsizing the default web font size or moving the display closer to your eyes?
Do your friends receive larger font emails from you?
Can I assume the improvements to the 27 display technology outweigh any problems in having to upconvert 1080p material to fill the screen?
The 'quad core' option with the ati card seems the way to go. £1700 with a free '30' inch Apple LED?
I'd take that bet. If I hadn't bought this rather nice 24 inch 2008 core 2 duo then I'd be all over it like a rash.
So much for not being able to fit a desktop cpu (Nehelem!) into an iMac. Heh.
The display looks out of this world. I can't wait to see a 27 incher in person.
I like glass screens. I don't understand the fascination with crappy plastic screens that make squiggles when you press on them...and scratch easily when kids write on them with their pencils.
Blue Ray may have been nice. But it's far from a critical mass product. Just buy a PS3 and a big sexy LCD tv?
Far cheaper than a low end iMac.
And you can use it with the tablet when it comes early 2010.
Criticisms?
The price for quad core entry is still fairly outrageous compared to the PC side of things.
There's flat out no way we should be paying £1500 to get quad core. The chips are as cheap as chips.
That's flat out greed, tier marketing whore greeding when you're sat on 30 billion.
Quibble 2? The 4850 IS a LOW end card. Nice performer...but why are we STILL having to pay £1500 to get a LOW end card half a year later since it's intro'?
*Shrugs.
I'll await a bump on the 27 incher re: quad i7 and a better gpu in half a year's time. I hope. And I'll look at it again.
A step in the right direction.
But the cpu and gpu? Penny pinching. The i7 should have been standard on the top two models at least.
And the i5? Standard on the entry models.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I thought the 24" display with native hdmi resolution had hit a sweet spot. The pixel size corresponded well with print font sizes at desktop viewing distances.
Does the same font size appear to be about 15% smaller when viewed on the 27 vs the 24?
Does that mean you are upsizing the default web font size or moving the display closer to your eyes?
Do your friends receive larger font emails from you?
Can I assume the improvements to the 27 display technology outweigh any problems in having to upconvert 1080p material to fill the screen?
There are no problems in upscaling. It simply looks a bit better. Very high end video systems have been upscaling for a couple of decades. Even cheap DVD players will upscale to 1080i. It simply isn't a problem.
You may also be interested to know that the next larger video resolution being considered, and that I've seen the prototypes for, are 2560 x 1440. So this will be ready for that when it comes.
The fonts seem about the same tome. The larger screen is bigger than you think.
since this great machine is ~the price of a 30" cinema display (less 150 vertical pixels), but with a computer attached, would anyone know if there is a way to make 2 of these work together as one, perhaps? we know it can be used as display only, but a synch operation will make for a dual monitor, dual quad-core 2.8 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 2 TB powerhouse! (at 1/3 the price of a MP with 2x30" CD) ...
You could take the DP output from one and plug it into the input of the other. It would act as another monitor for the first one. Just set it up in the Monitors panel.
Since the i7 is a BTO option, does that mean other retailers (other than apple) won't sell it? I'm deciding between the i5 and i7. I can get the education discount from apple, but will still have to pay tax (7% for me). So the price difference between the i5 (from online vendors) and i7 (from apple) is $350 for me. Any ideas on whether it is worth it? Any online place I can get the i7 from?
This is the first one I checked, MacMall:
http://www.macmall.com/n/macNavLinks-macNavLinks.224
Scroll down for the listings.
I'm sure others will have them, as well as Apple's online store.
This is the first one I checked, MacMall:
http://www.macmall.com/n/macNavLinks-macNavLinks.224
Scroll down for the listings.
I'm sure others will have them, as well as Apple's online store.
Thanks!! I didn't realize Macmall sold all configs. This is great help
1. What did you do to contribute and change? It least those guys are trying to make things better, make the difference.
2. Cocaine sells even more.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)." - Notebook, 1904, Mark Twain"
Additionally, they (Apple) would have made even more money and more sales (simply because I would have bought it
3. This one is totally wrong. Absolutely.
Thank you for educating us that "glare" is a reflection. *cough* When did you learn it? So that you can proudly tell about it in your post.
Laziness have nothing to do with comfort end effective use. How about your working place (think - your table has a fixed position). Think again. Think about at least 10 other situations.
Related to what you are talking about Eye strain issue:
You never start looking for a cause changing many parameters simultaneously. Simply said, those people working long hours do not have eye stain problem on matte screen. This means that long hours is not a significant cause of eye stain.
If you change a parameter - a matte screen to a glossy - you are getting an eye stain in just a friction of the time you are usually have been working without having eye stain issue. This means that glossy option has a significant impact on eye stain (even if you work shorter time than usually).
I am not sure that this logic could be understood by everyone, especially by those who believe that if something sells good than it is good for you.
Additionally, glossy screens are bad for colors adjusting and any decent photo editing. So your efficiency reduces with glossy screens.
.....
3 reasons jump right up
1. online petitions are a total fail due to the fact that they are very very easy to pad in this age of folks having several email accounts.
2. the glossy ones sell. and sell a lot
3. much of the "glare" you speak of is actually reflection which can be reduced by users who aren't too lazy to make a few adjustments in where the display is placed in a room related to the lights and windows. sometimes a couple of simple tweaks will eliminate the issue.
as for the whole eye strain issue. i love how many of those folks talk about being at the computer for hours non stop and don't consider that such lengthy times is a factor in the fact that they are having strain issues. as much, if not more than the glare.
Two reasons I went with the larger screen: 1. for my freelance work (pixels count a lot when doing Photoshop, Illustrator, or Web stuff). 2. now I have an external monitor for the MBP.
Whether that's worth it or not is up to you.
Performance wise in CS3 or CS4, is the gap between 27 i7 core still wide with the MacPro ?
Granted, the MacPro will get me around 6000 $, but the performance boost and upgradable capacity might be worth it.
What do you say ?