First Look: Apple's 27" big screen iMac

[AppleInsider]

Apple has revamped the iMac with a huge, cinematic 16:9 27" screen, fast CPU options, standard wireless keyboard and Magic Mouse, a staggering 16GB RAM capacity, and a new video input feature.

The screen

The biggest feature of the new iMac is its massive screen, which jumps from the previous high end of 24" to 27" and delivers nearly the resolution (2560x1440) of the 30" Cinema Display HD (2560x1600). That's also nearly equivalent to four 13.3" MacBook screens (1280x800) in a single display (compare the photo below). The new iMac is priced $100 less than Apple's standalone big screen however, despite packing in a powerful computer and new LED backlighting.

The new 27" iMac, along with its smaller 21.5" partner, also sport higher quality IPS LCD screen technology, resulting in spectacular color, contrast and wide viewing angles. Like previous models, the glossy screen is covered with a glass panel that extends across the entire top face of the unit.

Last year, Apple was sued over its iMacs with cheaper, 6-bit TN ("twisted nematic") screens, which have a narrower viewing angle and less color accuracy and depth, because some users argued the screens were technically incapable of actually producing the "millions of colors" supported by their graphics cards. The latest models reverse the trend toward cheap displays and instead provide quality IPS ("in-plane switching") panels that deliver the much improved color and wide, 178 degree viewing angles.



The new screens are also LED backlit (unlike the 30" Cinema Display HD), which means they turn on instantly and allow for finer grained control over brightness than conventional cold cathode fluorescent lamp backlighting. LED backlighting is also environmentally friendly because it uses no toxic mercury. Overall, the new machines also meet Energy Star 5.0 and EPEAT Gold standards for energy efficiency and environmentally-sound design, manufacturing, and use of recyclable materials.

The new 27" display is backed by ATI Radeon HD 4670 (or for $150 more, the 4850) graphics hardware equipped with 256MB (or 512MB) of GDDR3 RAM. It supports video output up to 2560x1600, capable of driving a 30" Cinema Display HD. It supports VGA, DVI/HDMI and DisplayPort screens via its standard Mini DisplayPort connector.

A new feature of the 27" iMac is its ability to act as a display for another DisplayPort computer. It is the first and currently the only Mac to support this new capability. The 21.5" iMac doesn't support video input and provides simpler NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics, the same as Apple's MacBook line and Mac mini.



The power specs

The base model ships with 4GB of 1066MHz PC-8500 DDR3 RAM and supplies 4 memory slots capable of expanding that up to 16GB. It also ships with a 1TB 7200 RPM SATA hard drive, which can be upgraded to a 2TB version, and an 8x dual layer DVD SuperDrive.

The $1699 iMac comes equipped with a dual core 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo E7600 processor with 3MB of L2 cache, with the upgrade option of a 3.33GHz Core 2 Duo E8600 with 6MB of L2 cache for $200 more. A $1999 option upgrades the CPU to a "Nehalem" quad core 2.66GHz Core i5 750 processor, or for $200 more, a Core i7 860, both of which include 8MB of L3 cache. Apple benchmarks the high end Nehalem Core i7 as being up to 2.4 times faster than the Core 2 Duo.



The iMac is equipped with a new SD card slot under the DVD drive, and back panel ports provide Gigabit Ethernet, Mini DisplayPort, Firewire 800, four USB 2.0 ports, and hybrid analog/optical digital audio input and output ports.

It also has an IR receiver for use with an Apple Remote (not bundled; the new aluminum remote is a $19 option), a built-in iSight camera and microphone, Bluetooth and 802.11a/b/g/n wireless networking.



Unboxing and accessories

The new iMacs now come standard with a Bluetooth Wireless Keyboard and multitouch Magic Mouse. These can be traded for a compact or full sized (with numeric keypad) USB keyboard and/or a standard USB Apple Mouse (the same model that was formerly referred to as Mighty Mouse).



The keyboard is virtually identical to the MacBook's built-in keyboard, and is slightly modified from Apple's original Bluetooth keyboard in that it now only uses two AA batteries and has moved the wireless receiver to the center of the back panel.

The iMac ships in a simple box with styrofoam corners, including just a power cable and an accessory box that holds the keyboard, mouse, an introductory booklet, a screen wipe cloth, install and restore DVDs, stickers and regulatory information. A full review with performance benchmarks will be presented next week, so present any questions you'd like to see answered.

Where to Buy

Below is a table of iMac prices from leading Apple Resellers that was extracted from AppleInsider's MacPriceGuide. Currently, ClubMac is offering the lowest prices on the new all-in-one desktops, with savings of between $135 and $208 after a mail-in-rebate and an exclusive 3% discount available only to AppleInsider readers. However, this discount coupon expires at midnight (Oct. 31) and is unlikely return until some time next year.



To see the 3 percent discount and achieve the final prices listed in the table above, you must first add an iMac to your shopping cart after clicking through the links in the table (above). The 3% discount is reflected as "Instant Discount(s)" during checkout at ClubMac, after the items have been placed in your shopping cart.

For similar offers on the remainder of Apple's Mac product line, please see our full-fledged Mac Price Guide.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[brucep]

Error type 11

[nagromme]

Is that the mic I see on the aluminum top surface?

[elroth]

You have lost a lot of respect from me withyour pimping the product you're reviewing at the end of the "review." (I know this is the first look, and not the real review, but you do it for the real reviews too).

So you write a story and tell us how great the computer is, and oh by the way, we can get a special deal if we order it through a link on this page, and doing that makes money for Apple Insider. That turns your entire "review" into an advertisement.

The least you could do is write "advertisement" across the top.

[DocNo42]

This iMac should finally shut people up about the iMac not being "pro" enough or ignoring the pro market (Note I said "Should" - we can only hope people will be reasonable but I don't count on it)

My mom had the original white Intel iMac and while it would normally be more then adequate, she is starting to get more in to Aperture with her digital photography and sadly that box just doesn't have the umph to keep up even with basic use. We visited a local Apple store to check out the new 27" and were simply blown away. The new screen is absolutely GORGEOUS and I am very jealous - I wish Apple would hurry up and update the 30" or make that 27" panel available in a stand-alone display.

Needless to say, I helped her back her system up, we erased it and sold it Since the i7 upgrade is pretty reasonable, even though it's probably overkill we still picked it - it's not like you can add it later and I've never regretted oversizing a system It's on order and will hopefully be shipped closer to the beginning of November rather then the end. She's getting by with her MacBook for now.

This machine, even when fully tricked out, is an incredible value. I still wish Apple would make the video modular so you can upgrade it, but with the CPU choices and the ability to go to 16 gigs of RAM it just got that much harder to justify getting a Mac Pro. I still love mine, but this iMac would have been very hard to pass up, especially with the awesome display. If you are a student or living in a small apartment, the ability to feed in whatever video signal you want for a display is huge - one minute it's a computer, the next it's a TV - awesome feature and long overdue for the iMac's.

If i were to bet nit-picky, my final two complaints are the aforementioned video not being upgradeable, and for storage an eSATA port would be a real boon - esp. if it supported port multiplication. Then you really wouldn't need a Pro for all but those that require additional expansion cards. I also wish they would have offered matte as an option. Not that I want it, but just to shut up the inevitable whining that will now plague this thread and others for what is otherwise an incredible machine.

$100 cheaper then the 30" display - wow....

[nagromme]

Originally Posted by DocNo42

$100 cheaper then the 30" display - wow....

And the SAME price as a Dell 30” display! Which is much lower quality (no LED, no aluminum, no glass, no camera, no speakers) and only has a few more pixels. (And no Mac thrown in.)

[brucep]

Error type 11

[DocNo42]

Originally Posted by elroth

You have lost a lot of respect from me withyour pimping the product you're reviewing at the end of the "review." (I know this is the first look, and not the real review, but you do it for the real reviews too).

Give me a break. This isn't the New York Times (and they even screw up as far as the "purists" are concerned). Like it or not this site (and many others) are supported by ad revenue. I was just on three other photography sites earlier this morning and every single one of them have affiliate links to various resellers at the end of their reviews. If you like "free" content, this is how it works.

It you enjoy a site like this, it's how they stay in business. If you are going to go all ultra-legalistic then stick to consumers reports (which you will have to pay for). Otherwise we need to cut the moral indignation crap.

[Undo Redo]

Originally Posted by brucep

Glass is reflective material . And the glossy display is stunning.

Stunning only in the dark. Were it not for the reflections, I'd buy a new iMac.

[DocNo42]

Originally Posted by nagromme

And the SAME price as a Dell 30” display! Which is much lower quality (no LED, no aluminum, no glass, no camera, no speakers) and only has a few more pixels. (And no Mac thrown in.)

Now here's a thought. I could get a 27" iMac, use it as a display for my Mac Pro and let the iMac essentially be a headless rendering node...

An office full of high end displays that also double as headless rendering nodes. Where's that Homer Drooling icon?!?!?

Ack!!

[DocNo42]

Originally Posted by Undo Redo

Stunning only in the dark. Were it not for the reflections, I'd buy a new iMac.

Sigh - and it begins....

[Undo Redo]

Originally Posted by DocNo42

Sigh - and it begins....

Steve Jobs wears a black turtleneck so he doesn't have to see the reflection of his shirt in his iMac.

[Quadra 610]

Gorgeous. All Apple had to do was tweak the same desgin, and BAM, it looks so much better.

[MacsRGood4U]

Originally Posted by DocNo42

Give me a break. This isn't the New York Times (and they even screw up as far as the "purists" are concerned). Like it or not this site (and many others) are supported by ad revenue. I was just on three other photography sites earlier this morning and every single one of them have affiliate links to various resellers at the end of their reviews. If you like "free" content, this is how it works.

It you enjoy a site like this, it's how they stay in business. If you are going to go all ultra-legalistic then stick to consumers reports (which you will have to pay for). Otherwise we need to cut the moral indignation crap.

Very well said. I actually consider the links and price guide a pretty good service cause it helped me save about $300 on my MBP a few months ago, which was about $150 more than the cheapest prices on price grabber and other compare engines at the time.

MRG

[nagromme]

Originally Posted by Undo Redo

Stunning only in the dark. Were it not for the reflections, I'd buy a new iMac.

I have a matte iMac Core 2 Duo (the old white style) and I prefer the look of matte displays, despite the nice contrast of glossy.

But I’d give a LOT to have glass instead. The glossy look is second-best to me, but still very good—and CLEANABLE. My matte iMac has fingerprint smudges, scratches (some from rags used to clean smudges) and if anyone ever pokes it too hard it will even have a dent or pixel damage. There is no really good way to clean it.

I’d LOVE to have glass that is protected from damage and wipes clean. It would be worth the reflections.

And the reflections are not as bad as some people think—there IS an anti-glare coating on Apple’s glossy screens. And you don’t even notice unless you intentionally look through a dark screen. (Watching movies in a room with lights behind you would be annoying.)

My Air has a glossy screen and it bothered me a little at first—but not as much as I thought, because even bright lights reflect only in a muted blue thanks to the coating. And after a week I never even noticed anymore.

[DocNo42]

Originally Posted by Undo Redo

Steve Jobs wears a black turtleneck so he doesn't have to see the reflection of his shirt in his iMac.

And yet here I sit in front of a glossy display wearing a white shirt with two large windows to my right and no reflections to speak of. Yes, if I had darker images on the screen there would be some noticeable reflections but I can either just overlook them, move my screen or adjust the windows. I realize there are some for whom reflections really are an issue, just like for some people Cilantro tastes like soap (thankfully I'm not one of them - I love Cilantro and can't imaging not being able to enjoy it). But for most, I have found that when pressed (and actually being able to have them use a glossy display rather then just read about all their faults on the Internet) the issue is way overblown.

Do I want reflections? Of course not, but here's the bottom line - there is no perfect display. I find it ironic that matte people who act like any reflections are just an absolute deal killer conveniently forget that even on a matte display reflections happen - they are just diffused! I would much rather have the excellent color and ultra-crisp text of a glossy display and occasionally get distracted by a reflection on a dark screen, then have the always muted color and soft display you get from a matte coating.

As I said it's just too bad Apple didn't offer matte as an option, but I'm sure companies will offer matte films that do the same thing as a factory matte coating. There is nothing intrinsically special about a matte display from the factory and people who refuse to put a matte coating on a glossy display to achieve the same result are just being obstinate. For years anti-glare coating or screens were the norm on glossy CRT displays - even the flat color Sony Trinitron displays that Apple used to sell back in the day. Thank god the Internet wasn't as prevalent in those days or I'm sure the shadow mask wires that were faintly visible in the lower and upper thirds of those displays would be the ultimate deal killers

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by DocNo42

Give me a break. This isn't the New York Times (and they even screw up as far as the "purists" are concerned). Like it or not this site (and many others) are supported by ad revenue. I was just on three other photography sites earlier this morning and every single one of them have affiliate links to various resellers at the end of their reviews. If you like "free" content, this is how it works.

It you enjoy a site like this, it's how they stay in business. If you are going to go all ultra-legalistic then stick to consumers reports (which you will have to pay for). Otherwise we need to cut the moral indignation crap.

Spot on! (Perhaps AI should offer a non-ad-supported subscription version: let's see how many of these 'morally indignant' types would sign on).

[Rob55]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Spot on! (Perhaps AI should offer a non-ad-supported subscription version: let's see how many of these 'morally indignant' types would sign on).

Now I would be all over that. Question is, how much for a monthly/annual subscription to AI? $2.95/month or $29.95/annually? More, less?

[extremeskater]

Originally Posted by brucep

The sales pitch at the end is tacky !!

The rest of the article is spot on correct.
The real truth is if you can buy an education discount.
They don;t check >>> i got my MBP w/a touch at full discount but i paid full tax also .

Yet my MBP15 was special made w/the 3,02 ghz chip < a 2 week wait and shipped direct from factory to my house >>>>
And avoid try to taxes by internet shopping << i missed that one >>
Also apple updates and refines its products endlessly 'so special order it and it will be made to order fresh and you may get a free boost or improvement as opposed to a warehoused imac,

I would opt for the apple w\ the quad core which give a 70 percent video boost according to C W
a late november wait by the way.
>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...3&pageNumber=5 <<<
This article also points out a sweet spot price model that allows a you to get a full bang for your buck imac but you give up little in the way of power .

No matter where you buy or what you buy this uni body imac equals any hd tv set on the market .

peace 9

Doesn't really matter if it equal the best HD set on teh market bacause it doesnt really have the ability to playback HD content for the expection of trailers. Which is really a waste for this screen.

[Chris_CA]

Originally Posted by Undo Redo

Stunning only in the dark. Were it not for the reflections, I'd buy a new iMac.

And you have used one (a glossy display) for more than a few minutes in your normal environment?

[kotatsu]

It's a great machine in so many ways, except one - no blu-ray. I will not pay so much money for a system with a 10 year old optical drive.

Add a blu-ray burner, and I buy. Until then, I have Windows 7 to keep my old PC running for as long as it takes.

[cliphord]

Originally Posted by Rob55

Now I would be all over that. Question is, how much for a monthly/annual subscription to AI? $2.95/month or $29.95/annually? More, less?

I wouldn't pay $29.99, honestly. Now, they could trick me by charging $1.99/month. That price point seems to sucker me in (evidence: my iTunes TV library).

Anyway, obviously the previous poster has never read any online news sites. Every NYT article has text links in the article's body.

[cliphord]

Originally Posted by kotatsu

It's a great machine in so many ways, except one - no blu-ray. I will not pay so much money for a system with a 10 year old optical drive.

Add a blu-ray burner, and I buy. Until then, I have Windows 7 to keep my old PC running for as long as it takes.

I often wonder if the "Blu-Ray disappointment" would be so great if Apple/tech rumors sites didn't insist it was coming this refresh. Who the hell buys Blu-Ray movies anyway?

[kotatsu]

Originally Posted by cliphord

I often wonder if the "Blu-Ray disappointment" would be so great if Apple/tech rumors sites didn't insist it was coming this refresh. Who the hell buys Blu-Ray movies anyway?

What an odd thing to say. How else is one to get high quality HD content that will play on many devices? Blu-ray is the only option, and it looks and sounds *amazing*.

I haven't bought a DVD in years, and have a good sized BD collection.

[Rob55]

Originally Posted by cliphord

I often wonder if the "Blu-Ray disappointment" would be so great if Apple/tech rumors sites didn't insist it was coming this refresh. Who the hell buys Blu-Ray movies anyway?

I do. But let me be perfectly clear, I do not want a Blu-ray drive on my Mac to watch movies. I need one for HD content delivery. Considering Final Cut Studio is designed to do this on a semi-pro/pro level, I would have thought a BR burner for the Mac Pro at least would have been a no-brainer. And yes, I'm disappointed every time there's a refresh and there's still no Blu-ray burner. My luck, I'll buy a 3rd party burner and Apple will add the option next year.

[MacTripper]

Originally Posted by Undo Redo

Stunning only in the dark. Were it not for the reflections, I'd buy a new iMac.

Tell me about it. My eyes and head hurts just thinking about it.


Add a extra $30 for a anti-glare film and that wallet spot on my arse hurts too.


Don't get a piece of dust under that film, you'll have to pull the whole mess off and reapply.

Then the heat of the display will just cook the film, one has to buy another and another and another.


But LOOK MA IT'S SO SHINY!!! I know how women with high heel shoes feels now.


Apple will learn one day, that they are seriously jeopardizing their market and customer interest in computers by having these glossy/reflective displays.

Sure some people buy them on impulse, which 80% of luxury item sales are, but if the customer is constantly annoyed and can't see the screen, it lessons the interest in computers over time. This translates into loss future sales. Who want's to sit in front of a machine that bothers them so much physically?

Make a device that's more comforting to use and more people will use it longer. It just makes sense.

Right now we have a rather large portion of the population retiring/getting older due to the post baby boom generation (why the debate on health care) these people (myself included) have deteriorating eyesight. Glossy screens make a hell of a lot of problems for us, we know because we dealt with glossy CRT displays. And I had young eyes then and wondered wtf was bothering me when I used the CRTS for work.

Apple would do good if they catered a bit more attention to the older market, after all we are the ones with cash. Credit is gone, the younger types have high unemployment for the next ten years because of the recession brought on by the failed government sponsored socialized sub-prime lending.

Glossy LCD's are cheaper to make, it eliminates the step of the LCD maker of applying a matte film to the panel. This is why we are punished a extra $50 for wanting a matte display on those few Mac's that have it.

And the new iMac's don't have a matte LCD under the glass, it's a glossy LCD. So forget that angle.


If you want to hear more rantings, and intelligent points on the matter, visit this guys site

http://macmatte.wordpress.com/

[8CoreWhore]

AI has proven time and time again they will report unfavorable information regarding Apple and it's products. They have credibility. Period. The question is: Will they hide bad info in order to improve the ad revenue and the answer is no.

[Rob55]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

Tell me about it. My eyes and head hurts just thinking about it.


Add a extra $30 for a anti-glare film and that wallet spot on my arse hurts too.


Don't get a piece of dust under that film, you'll have to pull the whole mess off and reapply.

Then the heat of the display will just cook the film, one has to buy another and another and another.


But LOOK MA IT'S SO SHINY!!! I know how women with high heel shoes feels now.


Apple will learn one day, that they are seriously jeopardizing their market and customer interest in computers by having these glossy/reflective displays.

Sure some people buy them on impulse, which 80% of luxury item sales are, but if the customer is constantly annoyed and can't see the screen, it lessons the interest in computers over time. This translates into loss future sales. Who want's to sit in front of a machine that bothers them so much physically?

Make a device that's more comforting to use and more people will use it longer. It just makes sense.

Right now we have a rather large portion of the population retiring/getting older due to the post baby boom generation (why the debate on health care) these people (myself included) have deteriorating eyesight. Glossy screens make a hell of a lot of problems for us, we know because we dealt with glossy CRT displays. And I had young eyes then and wondered wtf was bothering me when I used the CRTS for work.

Apple would do good if they catered a bit more attention to the older market, after all we are the ones with cash. Credit is gone, the younger types have high unemployment for the next ten years because of the recession brought on by the failed government sponsored socialized sub-prime lending.

Glossy LCD's are cheaper to make, it eliminates the step of the LCD maker of applying a matte film to the panel. This is why we are punished a extra $50 for wanting a matte display on those few Mac's that have it.

And the new iMac's don't have a matte LCD under the glass, it's a glossy LCD. So forget that angle.

Not saying I wouldn't buy a matte-screened option if one was available, I probably would. However, having a glossy-screened iMac for the last 2 years, I can honestly say it doesn't bother me at all. Not only that, but I have a 20" Cinema display right next to my iMac and I can't say one is more fatiguing to look at than the other. I do not discount, though, that many do have issues with the glossy-screens. Not sure what Apple is thinking by almost totally ignoring the matte screen crowd.

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by extremeskater

Doesn't really matter if it equal the best HD set on teh market bacause it doesnt really have the ability to playback HD content for the expection of trailers. Which is really a waste for this screen.

Unless you play back HD content with it.

[Rob55]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

Unless you play back HD content with it.

Aside from the 720p stuff from Apple and any content you make yourself, where are you getting HD content to play on it? (Ripped Blu-ray movies don't count).

[quinney]

I don't care about the ads, but I might pay $29.95 a year to read this site if the moderators would delete all the repetitive puling about matte screens and blu-ray.

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by Rob55

Aside from the 720p stuff from Apple and any content you make yourself, where are you getting HD content to play on it? (Ripped Blu-ray movies don't count).

Why does that matter? The content is *there* and your Mac has the ability to play them. VLC will play any format, including native Blu Ray, .mkv. MPEG-TS, everything.

How the consumer procures them is another matter. But if you mean through the usual channels, like a working 3rd party Blu Ray drive (if they even exist for OS X) or HD movies in 720p from the iTunes store and whatnot, then yes, there aren't a whole lot of other options.

Aside from that, though, there is plenty of very high quality HD content available for playback on OS X. The ability is certainly there.

[Rob55]

Originally Posted by quinney

I don't care about the ads, but I might pay $29.95 a year to read this site if the moderators would delete all the repetitive puling about matte screens and blu-ray.

But those may be genuine concerns for other "paying" subscribers.

[quinney]

Originally Posted by Rob55

But those may be genuine concerns for other "paying" subscribers.

Undoubtedly, but do they need to read the same things hundreds of times in dozens of different threads?

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by nagromme

But I’d give a LOT to have glass instead. The glossy look is second-best to me, but still very good—and CLEANABLE. My matte iMac has fingerprint smudges, scratches (some from rags used to clean smudges) and if anyone ever pokes it too hard it will even have a dent or pixel damage. There is no really good way to clean it.

Not true in my opinion. I buy anti-reflective disposeable lens wipes, I've not damaged any screen yet with them. I've also not heard of anyone denting a screen or damaging pixels except maybe when being abusive. As long as you're not being stupid about the pressure, the risk is negligible.

And the reflections are not as bad as some people think—there IS an anti-glare coating on Apple’s glossy screens. And you don’t even notice unless you intentionally look through a dark screen. (Watching movies in a room with lights behind you would be annoying.)

It's there, but it's not very strong though. The Rayleigh coatings that were on my old CRT was markedly stronger than anything I've seen on any computer LCD.

Originally Posted by cliphord

I often wonder if the "Blu-Ray disappointment" would be so great if Apple/tech rumors sites didn't insist it was coming this refresh. Who the hell buys Blu-Ray movies anyway?

It's nearly 20% of the movie optical disc market now.

Originally Posted by DocNo42

As I said it's just too bad Apple didn't offer matte as an option, but I'm sure companies will offer matte films that do the same thing as a factory matte coating. There is nothing intrinsically special about a matte display from the factory and people who refuse to put a matte coating on a glossy display to achieve the same result are just being obstinate. For years anti-glare coating or screens were the norm on glossy CRT displays - even the flat color Sony Trinitron displays that Apple used to sell back in the day.

That was not really a glossy display. Glossy is shiny by definition. They were smooth surfaces though, they almost didn't reflect light because of the multiple layers of sub-wavelength coatings. What little was reflected was usually a very faint tinge of blue or violet.

Thank god the Internet wasn't as prevalent in those days or I'm sure the shadow mask wires that were faintly visible in the lower and upper thirds of those displays would be the ultimate deal killers

When was this? Trinitrons were still big earlier in this decade, the internet was pretty big then. Since you didn't notice, those wires were deal killers for some people.

[myapplelove]

Originally Posted by elroth

You have lost a lot of respect from me withyour pimping the product you're reviewing at the end of the "review." (I know this is the first look, and not the real review, but you do it for the real reviews too).

So you write a story and tell us how great the computer is, and oh by the way, we can get a special deal if we order it through a link on this page, and doing that makes money for Apple Insider. That turns your entire "review" into an advertisement.

The least you could do is write "advertisement" across the top.

For crying out loud let these guys make their honest living. This is a lovely site, it has some great people working and posting in the forums, it has the most accurate and timely (and complete) rumors on the web that I know of and they don't have effing exon or mobil financing them. They have to make their money somehow. So what's wrong with publishing their sponsor in the end of the review. Why shouldn't they? If I were in the states I would see to it that I bought from their sponsor so I could support this site.

That godawful place that is macrumors has maybe 50 times or so the membership (but about 1/50 of the quality) and routinely plugs their sponsors in lieu of real rumors has obtrusive advertisement and all sorts of nasties that I can't be bothered to go into. Go over there and complain, but not to these guys who are always very discreet in their placements.

What is in bad taste is not that but your response.

[MacTel]

Apple had it right when they incorporated the computer guts into the display. Every other computer maker copies Apple on that.

The natural evolution is the marriage of a computer with a television. The computer manufacturers should realize that if they already haven't.

[sippincider]

Originally Posted by brucep

The matte whiners need to switch to dell .

As one of the matte fans, it's not a matter of a little whining.

I have sensitive eyes & glare causes severe strain. IT HURTS to use a glossy display!!!

For what Apple charges for their products, there's no reason they can't spend an extra buck on non-reflective glass (it's available if they bothered).

When my matte iMac dies, it looks like Apple is giving me three options: Go used, go Dell, or go Amish.
Too bad one can't be Apple.

[Woei]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The new 27" display is backed by ATI Radeon HD 4670 (or for $150 more, the 4850) graphics hardware equipped with 256MB (or 512MB) of GDDR3 RAM. It supports video output up to 2560x1600, capable of driving a 30" Cinema Display HD. It supports VGA, DVI/HDMI and DisplayPort screens via its standard Mini DisplayPort connector.

I'm a bit confused by this statement. Does this mean that the card can drive an external monitor up to a resolution of 2560x1600, next to the iMacs's own native 2560x1440 resolution, or that the total maximum resolution is limited to 2560x1600 ?

Concretely, since I already own a 24" ACD screen (mini-display port), I'm wondering whether I can attach it to a 27" iMac to get a grand total resolution of 4480x2640, and do so at reasonable performance.

I know, it would be a rather obscene resolution. A couple of years ago I was still stuck at 800x600 on a 15" CRT. How times change :-)

[extremeskater]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

Unless you play back HD content with it.

There is very little HD content available for downloading, even more so for streaming because most users do not have the bandwidth to stream HD content.

Yet again Apple created a device that can only be used in an all Apple world. You can not plug an PS3 or Xbox 360 in the system, which is foolish seeing your average Gateway monitor can perform this function. Blu Ray is not available from Apple while its available from HP, Dell and Sony.

This is typical Apple, build something that doesn't support what the rest fo the world uses. You can try to put any slant on this you want but there isn't anyone (except you) that doesnt think this entire display port issues is beyond stupid.

Even in the dark deep woods of Canada you may have heard of something called HDMI. You know the standard the rest of the world uses. You cant site quality or premium this time because there isnt any more premium then HDMI.