or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › New 27" iMac designed to also work as a display
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New 27" iMac designed to also work as a display - Page 5

post #161 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBLACK View Post

Your C2D macbook should be able to play 1080p. What kinds of codecs are you using? Sounds like a hardware acceleration problem to me.

The 720p and 1080p files have in the past mostly been mkv files [VLC]. Finally people are ripping Blu striaght to Mac [Perian] compatible AVI files. I may not even need Perian but I suspect I do.

I should add that the 1080p files are especially stingy when I connect my MB to the Aquos via mini DVI/VGA. It's like the MB thinks of the connection as an application and is alloting CPU to make it all work. Well technically the connection of these connectors DOES initialize display settings in the MB somehow. Not quite sure.
post #162 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by success View Post

The 720p and 1080p files have in the past mostly been mkv files [VLC]. Finally people are ripping the Blu striaght to Mac [Perian] compatible AVI files.

I should add that the 1080p files are especially stingy when I've connected my MB to my Aquos via mini DVI/VGA.

I see... No way to decode MKV with a quicktime plugin? I mean, VLC is great, but its reeeeaaalllyyy slow. I have been using it on my media center and under windows 7 its too slow to decode HD. VLC was fast enough when I was running OSX on it (hackintosh :P 1.8ghz C2D) but Quicktime or Windows Media Player both work much better in terms of speed.

OSX really just murders Windows in the graphics department...
post #163 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

First of all, don’t encourage him? Secondly, he’s comparing Blu-ray appliances to IMacs, but not all Macs, just 1/6 of all Macs. Third, iSuppli states that B-R sales in PCs are lackluster and will account for as much as 3.6% this year while speculating that by 2013 16.3% will all that will be had by B-R in PCs. That is over 4 years before the end of 2013 and over a year after the Mayan calendar ends.

With Apple already 10% of the market in the US that is pretty awful for B-R. Finally, I’ve read that half the number of B-R sales are for PS3s, which may or may not be even using the B-R player for movies as the primary focus.

B-R sales are way up, but they coming from pretty low numbers so it’s nothing but marketing spin at this point. When YoY the price of a player cuts in half but the increase in customers is only a fraction of that YoY then you can’t help but think there is a problem. We’ll have to see many quarters of severe upward trend to see that it’s a viable AND desirable optical drive for PCs. Even for home theater it’ll likely be bought as prices fall, but the convenience of digital downloads, streaming and cable/sat on demand services will cut into the optical media rental and purchase business that DVD was master of.

So says the genius who's said in the past that the iPhone doesn't need a better camera, video, cut and paste, MMs, UniBody MacBooks didn't need FireWire, MacBokPros didn't need matte, etc, etc. Dude please give it up - you really spew a lot o data but very little of any consequence.

PP.S.-He also thinks the iPhone does not need a flash for the camera.
post #164 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

yes, and they are all clamouring for blue-ray drives to be included in apple's imac - in addition to the player that they have already purchased.

?? Don'y know - did people clamor for DVD drives when they already had them and before that CD drives when they already had them???
post #165 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBLACK View Post

Ok, I don't know why this is so difficult to understand....

There is a type of video signal, called DISPLAYPORT. This is a physical/electrical standard AND a standard by which information travels, out of a device and into a display. Then, you have DVI/HDMI which is another totally different standard by which information is sent to a display. They are like english and french. They are similar in some ways but not the same. If your display ONLY accepts DisplayPort as input then it wont understand DVI/HDMI signals.

DisplayPort was never designed to understand DVI signals. It was designed to pass them through so that you can connect device with a displayport connector, to a DVI display. When you connect a PC with displayport to a DVI display, the computer is sending a DVI signal though the displayport connector. This is because the connector was designed to do this, but only as a passthrough. DisplayPort was designed to passthrough all kinds of signals, but that doesn't make those signals part of the standard.

The source device, regardless of its physical connections, determines what type of signal it sends because its generating the signal. The device on the receiving end has to be able to support whatever type of signal you are sending to it. If the receiving device ONLY accepts displayport (like the 24 inch apple cinema display, and most likely the new iMac), then it does not accept HDMI, DVI, or VGA.

This is why you cant connect a DVI source to a displayport display. A device won't accept DVI signals, just because it supports displayport. They are completely different standards, both physically and electrically. The only reason that HDMI and DVI are cross compatible is because they use the same basic standard to send information, and they are electrically compatible.

Now, of course you could build a display that accepts DVI and DisplayPort, but it would require hardware to decode each different standard, just like displays with DVI and VGA plugs on them. TV's require even more hardware to convert all the different signal standards its expected to understand.

Apple displays, as far as I know have never had hardware like this in them.

Does the transfer work with the sound signal, forget the video signal. Will the iMac's speakers work with this confabulated connection?
post #166 of 223
Heads up! He's about to appear live on the Today Show with his touchscreens and 7. I hope I can keep my breakfast down.
post #167 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The primary advantage of what I'm talking about is the ability to disconnect the computer from the monitor/keyboard and take it with you.

Its true it costs more but with the MBP + ACD you get to have it both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Given the costs you're better off with the uber iMac and a MBP than the 30" ACD. $1800 for the ACD vs $2200 for the iMac? For $400 that's a no brainer.

The only thing that argues against a slate tablet killing notebooks is the lack of a keyboard when mobile. Hard to work on a document at the local Starbucks with just your finger for input on the display surface.

Does anyone really do serious work at *$? I mean, really? At *$?

OK, maybe 1 or 2 people out of a thousand is actually doing serious work at *$, but most of them either have their MacBook out so people will look at them and think, "Cool, MacBook," to do a little mindless web surfing while they ingest sugary stimulants, because they are hauling the $@# ^#$# thing around all day so they feel obligated to pull it out and type on it, and a few in the corners looking at porn.

I think over the next few years, once the current wave of laptop buyers has lived with their laptops for 3-4 years and has also had some time to live with smartphones, esp. iPhones, and maybe tablets, the trend of switching to laptops from desktops may very well reverse. Most of these people just aren't using these laptops for anything while mobile that they couldn't very easily do on an iPhone just as well, and the iPhone is entirely trivial to carry around, so the laptop will spend more time sitting home alone.

Yes, there will always be people who will need laptops -- because they need to work when traveling, or because it's easier to take work home with them, students, ... -- but a lot of people may decide they'd be happier with a desktop with a larger screen and an iPhone (or tablet) than with a laptop.

I think it's very possible that smartphones (and maybe tablets) will shake up the personal computer market over the next several years, and we may well see a resurgence of desktop sales, and a corresponding decline in laptops.

(But I don't see the need to display your tablet screen on an iMac screen as some have posited. Just syncing it or accessing it like a USB drive so you can use your Mac apps on its data would be much more efficient.)
post #168 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Does the transfer work with the sound signal, forget the video signal. Will the iMac's speakers work with this confabulated connection?

I'd guess, if OSX can run in the backround you would have to input sound though the input jack or USB. Does the ACD carry sound over displayport? If it does I'd guess apple would want the iMac working the same way.

In any case, as long as OSX can run in the background you can have sound through the speakers even if it doesn't work with displayport. Any RCA to Jack adapter would do it.

If OSX can't run when using it as a display, then I don't know.
post #169 of 223
I'm happy to see them switching to IPS displays, with the prices they charge there is almost no excuse for it not to be a standard. This will seriously make me consider an iMac for graphic design work. Now if they could just make the Mac Pro more reasonable in price, we'd have a full line up and macs at a decent price.
post #170 of 223
I just read a CNET review of the new iMac. It DOES NOT accept HDMI/DVI or VGA signals. Only DisplayPort. Apparently some vendors are planning on releasing adapters for this soon.
post #171 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That 30" price is the old price from years ago, Apple has never changed it. Today that monitor would be $1499 tops.

and the new iMac is already available for $1549 on this site.

And part of the difference in price between the 27" iMac and the 30 inch cinema display is the difference between having a product that will sell in the millions vs a product that will sell in the 10 thousands.
post #172 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBLACK View Post

I just read a CNET review of the new iMac. It DOES NOT accept HDMI/DVI or VGA signals. Only DisplayPort. Apparently some vendors are planning on releasing adapters for this soon.

Interesting, let's see what Belkin can come up with!
post #173 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBLACK View Post

I just read a CNET review of the new iMac. It DOES NOT accept HDMI/DVI or VGA signals. Only DisplayPort. Apparently some vendors are planning on releasing adapters for this soon.

adapters are already on sale for months

any mac can slave the new imac
or even double the workspce witha large screen config
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #174 of 223
Countdown for Lenovo and Dell to copy this format.
post #175 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I'm thinking that the display port in bypasses the computer and treats the screen like a dumb monitor. That way, it can still be HDCP compliant without OS level "trusted computing" and copy protection hassles.

From - A look inside Apple's new 27-inch iMac (teardown photos):

"The new hardware is also designed to work as an external display. However, the Mini DisplayPort connector signal goes through the hardware's logic board, so the iMac must be powered on to play video from an external source."

Would I be correct in assuming that if the computer died, there would be no way to use the iMac as a monitor?
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #176 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBLACK View Post

I see... No way to decode MKV with a quicktime plugin? I mean, VLC is great, but its reeeeaaalllyyy slow. I have been using it on my media center and under windows 7 its too slow to decode HD. VLC was fast enough when I was running OSX on it (hackintosh :P 1.8ghz C2D) but Quicktime or Windows Media Player both work much better in terms of speed.

OSX really just murders Windows in the graphics department...

VLC doesn't access any of the hardware acceleration for decoding, iirc. It does it all in software. As for MKV files, they are simply a container (like .mov). They can contain any combination of video and audio codecs. The problem is that most programs don't know how to read the files to access the codecs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBLACK View Post

jeezzz dude... get some anti-glare film... or a life.

I think a few places sell anti-glare film for iMacs now.
http://www.photodon.com/c/LCD-Protective-Films.html

I mean, everybody is freaking out about this when we have been staring into glass CRT's for the past 50 f**king years with no problem.



I could not have said it better myself.
post #177 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBLACK View Post

I just read a CNET review of the new iMac. It DOES NOT accept HDMI/DVI or VGA signals. Only DisplayPort. Apparently some vendors are planning on releasing adapters for this soon.

So, for all intents and purposes, all this does is allow you to use the iMac as a display for you Macbook assuming a double sided cable ever shows.
post #178 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

From - A look inside Apple's new 27-inch iMac (teardown photos):

"The new hardware is also designed to work as an external display. However, the Mini DisplayPort connector signal goes through the hardware's logic board, so the iMac must be powered on to play video from an external source."

Would I be correct in assuming that if the computer died, there would be no way to use the iMac as a monitor?

Depends on why it dies and how that relates to the video path. Maybe it works without the video card? Maybe not. Who knows until someone is brave enough to ripp off those warranty stickers.
post #179 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

So, for all intents and purposes, all this does is allow you to use the iMac as a display for you Macbook assuming a double sided cable ever shows.

Belkin

http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProdu...duct_Id=405348

Wayyyy overpriced, but there will be more soon.

As for connecting other devices to the 27 inch iMac, like a PS3 or other DVI source, its possible with conversion. This is proven to work well with the 24 inch ACD, however its expensive at this point. I expect there will be a rush to get cheaper, better versions of these to market soon.

Basically, these boxes do what the hardware inside your HDTV does, just externally without screwing with HDCP. Some TV's are not so careful and you can extract the unencrypted HDMI signal. I'm guessing apple doesn't want to include this hardware because of the cost and complexity of it.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=801855
post #180 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBLACK View Post

jeezzz dude... get some anti-glare film... or a life.

I think a few places sell anti-glare film for iMacs now.
http://www.photodon.com/c/LCD-Protective-Films.html

I mean, everybody is freaking out about this when we have been staring into glass CRT's for the past 50 f**king years with no problem.

Films cannot be applied without embedding dust particles and bubbles. Think cheap, peeling, bubbly tint job on your car windows except you HAVE to stare at it all the time because that's the point of a computer display.

Re: glass CRT's
... and people stopped using them in part for this. Now flat panels are being reverted to mimic the deficiency for no coherent reason at all ... other than it reminds micro-brained, minimal users of their iPhone.

An iMac is not an iPhone. Forcing uniform design across disparate products for no other reason than some detached concept of making a product styling "statement" is a sign of degenerate design.
post #181 of 223
just had a look on the belkin website and found this:

Belkin HDMI to Mini Display Port Adaptor
http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProdu...duct_Id=508267

I think its new, couldn't seem to find it anywhere else except Belkin's website.

Quote:
Belkins new HDMI to Mini DisplayPort Adapter allows you to view HD content from your Blu-ray player, PS3, or cable box on your Apple LED-backlit widescreen monitor.

The adapter takes High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) content and converts it to the Mini DisplayPort format needed for the new MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, and new Mac desktops.

Because it enables high definition AV performance on your Apple LED-backlit Display, the Belkin HDMI to Mini DisplayPort Adapter provides you the option to use it like a digital TV.

This part of the product description doesn't specify the new iMac specifically, however under the features tab it mentions:
Quote:
Belkins Mini DisplayPort to Mini DisplayPort cable can also be used independent of the Adapter to extend the video from your MacBook to your iMac LED-backlit display for an expanded desktop.

Which is at least recognizing that the 27" imac exists. It would be good to see what price this ends up on the shelves at (I'd say over $100 if its an active converter), and hopefully someone can pick one up and try it out.

Dying to see some youtube videos of people getting their xbox/ps3s going on their imac display! Its the deciding factor on me purchasing one! get to it people!
post #182 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBLACK View Post

I just read a CNET review of the new iMac. It DOES NOT accept HDMI/DVI or VGA signals. Only DisplayPort. Apparently some vendors are planning on releasing adapters for this soon.

Unless it's a different review from this one, that's not exactly what it says--

It says

Quote:
Unfortunately, the dual Mini DisplayPort cable from Belkin won't let you input video from other devices. For that you'll have to wait until January. Details on what Belkin's cooking up are scant, so we can't offer much information about the forthcoming adapter other than that it's on the way and it does more than connect two Macs. But given that you can output the iMac over HDMI, DVI, and other formats with the Mini DisplayPort adapter cable, we'd expect that any updated input adapter would include those formats as well. Our hope is that, similar to all-in-ones from a variety of PC vendors, the new cable from Belkin will allow you to input video to the iMac from game consoles, cable boxes, Blu-ray players, HD camcorders, and other such devices currently bound to your television. The appeal of such capability should be obvious, but we'll unfortunately have to wait until the adapter hits before we can test it out.

So they had a mdp to mdp cable, which doesn't let you hook up much but another Mac, and they think Belkin is coming out with an adapter that will enable other formats.

But's that a little different from just flatly declaring that the mdp on the iMac doesn't accept HDMI/DVI. For that, they would have needed to test that particular configuration, which they apparently didn't. Or, if they did, they don't mention it.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #183 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

So, for all intents and purposes, all this does is allow you to use the iMac as a display for you Macbook assuming a double sided cable ever shows.

Far to little information available to come to that conclusion.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #184 of 223
I can agree because of smartphones people don't have to carry notebooks as much. But smartphons will not reverse the desktop/notebook sales trend. Desktops had their day and its over.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I think over the next few years, once the current wave of laptop buyers has lived with their laptops for 3-4 years and has also had some time to live with smartphones, esp. iPhones, and maybe tablets, the trend of switching to laptops from desktops may very well reverse. Most of these people just aren't using these laptops for anything while mobile that they couldn't very easily do on an iPhone just as well, and the iPhone is entirely trivial to carry around, so the laptop will spend more time sitting home alone.
post #185 of 223
Apple just reported 3 million computers sold this past quarter, the most its ever sold in its history. Of those 3 million only 700,000 were desktops. Apple does not sell that many iMacs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

And part of the difference in price between the 27" iMac and the 30 inch cinema display is the difference between having a product that will sell in the millions vs a product that will sell in the 10 thousands.
post #186 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Unless it's a different review from this one, that's not exactly what it says--

It says



So they had a mdp to mdp cable, which doesn't let you hook up much but another Mac, and they think Belkin is coming out with an adapter that will enable other formats.

But's that a little different from just flatly declaring that the mdp on the iMac doesn't accept HDMI/DVI. For that, they would have needed to test that particular configuration, which they apparently didn't. Or, if they did, they don't mention it.

Yeah, but it's fairly obvious if you actually understand how the hardware works. One of the cost factors in building high def displays is the hardware used to convert different signals into a format that can be displayed on the screen. The iMac always had the advantage
of skipping this step because it's display is built in. Yes, it can output different formats but that's different. When going to the primary display, the proccess is simplified. This means less hardware. Thats why there was no way to hack a video input in the past. The hardware to convert the signals isn't there.
post #187 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBLACK View Post

Yeah, but it's fairly obvious if you actually understand how the hardware works. One of the cost factors in building high def displays is the hardware used to convert different signals into a format that can be displayed on the screen. The iMac always had the advantage
of skipping this step because it's display is built in. Yes, it can output different formats but that's different. When going to the primary display, the proccess is simplified. This means less hardware. Thats why there was no way to hack a video input in the past. The hardware to convert the signals isn't there.

Except you have no idea what hardware, or software for that matter, the new iMacs may involve. Until now the hardware to input any kind of video signal at all wasn't there either.

You're making an assumption about what the review means based on what you know about previous generation hardware and software. I'm saying we don't know what Apple has in mind.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #188 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBLACK View Post

Yeah, but it's fairly obvious if you actually understand how the hardware works. One of the cost factors in building high def displays is the hardware used to convert different signals into a format that can be displayed on the screen. The iMac always had the advantage
of skipping this step because it's display is built in. Yes, it can output different formats but that's different. When going to the primary display, the proccess is simplified. This means less hardware. Thats why there was no way to hack a video input in the past. The hardware to convert the signals isn't there.

iMacs were never a way to get a cheap TV, I think most of the desire was about finding additional uses so you don't need to get additional screens for other things, especially for smaller spaces. The extra chip and input jacks would cost more but I really doubt it was prohibitive. A 24" 1920x1200 computer monitor I bought last year was offered in two versions, in a pure monitor form (I think only DVI/VGA or also with additional component and HDMI inputs, optical & analog audio in, HD tuner and a TV remote for only $60 more. It's actually a pretty nifty setup and well worth the extra money.
post #189 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

iMacs were never a way to get a cheap TV, I think most of the desire was about finding additional uses so you don't need to get additional screens for other things, especially for smaller spaces. The extra chip and input jacks would cost more but I really doubt it was prohibitive. A 24" 1920x1200 computer monitor I bought last year was offered in two versions, in a pure monitor form (I think only DVI/VGA or also with additional component and HDMI inputs, optical & analog audio in, HD tuner and a TV remote for only $60 more. It's actually a pretty nifty setup and well worth the extra money.

Yeah, so that's an extra $60 dollars for that hardware, plus the additional costs accociated with adding hdcp support, and displayport (which apple already had to do). The dvi interface would have to be dual link. Also, the quality of scaling can differ greatly between different displays, depending on the quality of hardware they use.

It gets so complicated that some TV sets are starting to use things like cell processors to handle all the different signals and stuff.
post #190 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Desktops had their day and its over.

Perhaps this day will come in the distant future. Desktops still remain the most comfortable way for someone to work on text documents, spreadsheets, app development, graphics design, certain games, and if the computer is set up in a room fit for watching a movie...then watching a movie.

Doing some of this stuff on a tiny notebook screen or an iPhone/iPod touch simply doesn't make sense.

There is no trend per se...just that the people that don't particularly care for writing, programming, designing, certain types of gaming or watching movies on a computer have been coming out in droves to buy MacBooks and the iPhone/iPod touch. They're usually students that don't use their computer for school but rather music and web surfing.
post #191 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

Perhaps this day will come in the distant future. Desktops still remain the most comfortable way for someone to work on text documents, spreadsheets, app development, graphics design, certain games, and if the computer is set up in a room fit for watching a movie...then watching a movie.

Doing some of this stuff on a tiny notebook screen or an iPhone/iPod touch simply doesn't make sense.

There is no trend per se...just that the people that don't particularly care for writing, programming, designing, certain types of gaming or watching movies on a computer have been coming out in droves to buy MacBooks and the iPhone/iPod touch. They're usually students that don't use their computer for school but rather music and web surfing.

Uh...you DO realize that his point is that you CAN connect a MB/MBP to a 30" ACD, kb and mouse?

Or a 34" 1080p LG HDTV which is what I sometimes do (mostly it's hooked up to my mini as its primary monitor).

The difference is cost. You can get a lot more iMac than you can with a MB/MBP. The top end MBP costs the same as a bottom end Mac Pro.
post #192 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I can agree because of smartphones people don't have to carry notebooks as much. But smartphons will not reverse the desktop/notebook sales trend. Desktops had their day and its over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Uh...you DO realize that his point is that you CAN connect a MB/MBP to a 30" ACD, kb and mouse?

Or a 34" 1080p LG HDTV which is what I sometimes do (mostly it's hooked up to my mini as its primary monitor).

The difference is cost. You can get a lot more iMac than you can with a MB/MBP. The top end MBP costs the same as a bottom end Mac Pro.

I use desktops because I don't really need much in terms of portability. I have a netbook that I tether to my iPhone and thats all I need. My desktop is used for video editing, photos and graphics, and as a file server. It's always left running so I need something really quiet. The iMac is really the only thing on the market that works well for me.
post #193 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBLACK View Post

Yeah, so that's an extra $60 dollars for that hardware, plus the additional costs accociated with adding hdcp support, and displayport (which apple already had to do). The dvi interface would have to be dual link. Also, the quality of scaling can differ greatly between different displays, depending on the quality of hardware they use.

It gets so complicated that some TV sets are starting to use things like cell processors to handle all the different signals and stuff.

The HDCP support is already covered in that $60 on my monitor. The scaling of that board works pretty well in the set that I have. A heavy duty processor likely isn't for the display conversion, the TV you're talking about is probably the one that is an 8 channel DVR built-in, it can record 8 programs at a time.

Dual link DVI is a good point, but I'm pretty sure monitors less expensive cheaper than Apple's include DP and DL-DVI.
post #194 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by galto123 View Post

Films cannot be applied without embedding dust particles and bubbles. Think cheap, peeling, bubbly tint job on your car windows except you HAVE to stare at it all the time because that's the point of a computer display.

Re: glass CRT's
... and people stopped using them in part for this. Now flat panels are being reverted to mimic the deficiency for no coherent reason at all ... other than it reminds micro-brained, minimal users of their iPhone.

An iMac is not an iPhone. Forcing uniform design across disparate products for no other reason than some detached concept of making a product styling "statement" is a sign of degenerate design.

I think there is more to it than that. In order to properly change from glossy to matte, the LCD panel itself would have to be changed. This would probably increase costs having to carry both product lines. The reason they use the glossy display is because they have a little more depth to them. Deeper blacks look a little nicer. Consumers really seem to like them. It's a minority of people who really don't want it.

The only point I was trying to make, is that its kinda stupid to go around telling other people not to buy iMacs because you personally don't like them, and have some kind of twisted idea in your head that scaring away potential customers will somehow fix your problems. It wont. This is what people on the internet like to call FUD. Maybe you heard of this?

If you really want your matte display iMac, why not put your time to better use?

you could...

Write a letter to apple?
Get other people to write apple?
Start a blog or forum?
Start a petition?

You know, enough people ask nicely and maybe Apple could find a way to accommodate you. I don't think they would have a problem adding matte displays if sales are good and there is a large minority of sane customers who really want it.
post #195 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The HDCP support is already covered in that $60 on my monitor. The scaling of that board works pretty well in the set that I have. A heavy duty processor likely isn't for the display conversion, the TV you're talking about is probably the one that is an 8 channel DVR built-in, it can record 8 programs at a time.

Dual link DVI is a good point, but I'm pretty sure monitors less expensive cheaper than Apple's include DP and DL-DVI.

Of course, the hardware to do the same thing for the iMac would have to be more powerful and probably more expensive because it's driving a lot more pixels.

HDCP would have been there, before the $60 option. All DVI displays should have that. There has to be some kind of decoder/scaler in there, even with just DVI. The $60 is probably just for a fancier one (plus a few connectors). Older iMac's do not need HDCP for the built-in display because there is no DVI signal internally. Otherwise you would be able to just solder a cable to the motherboard and use it as a display or extract the signal.

There are definitely some cheap displays out there that can do all this stuff. The hardware isn't necessarily expensive, however the quality can range from really good (and expensive) to really crappy. I think most displays upscale by simply adding in extra rows and columns of pixels. A lot of TV's do that. You can't tell from a distance but up close it can suck. This would be very noticeable on an IPS display.

I can see why Apple would want to force there displays to run native. Can't count the number of times I have noticed someone was running their LCD at the wrong resolution.

...they do use the cell for exactly that. I'm not sure how much of it is done by the cell. Probably other chips in there too. DVR functions would probably require a lot of compression/conversion, which the cell is perfect for. The demo I saw had 8 separate HD streams downscaled and displayed at once, which is just really cool.
post #196 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

DisplayPort as a standard is compatible with DVI/HDMI...The DP spec was designed to understand HDMI...

Wrong and completely wrong. DisplayPort allows for the pass through of other video signals but that doesn't mean that it "was designed to understand HDMI."

You are correct, however, in stating that no one at this time really knows what provisions Apple has included (or has not included) for support of HDMI/DVI inputs. But it isn't going to simply work unless Apple has taken an active hand in making it do so. Well, that's not completely true, since it would be possible for a third-party to independently produce an HDMI/DVI video converter and video scaler that would work with the iMac's Mini DisplayPort input. But any such device would likely cost several hundred dollars.
post #197 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by CavalierAU View Post

just had a look on the belkin website and found this:

Belkin HDMI to Mini Display Port Adaptor
http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProdu...duct_Id=508267

I think its new, couldn't seem to find it anywhere else except Belkin's website.


This part of the product description doesn't specify the new iMac specifically, however under the features tab it mentions:

Which is at least recognizing that the 27" imac exists. It would be good to see what price this ends up on the shelves at (I'd say over $100 if its an active converter), and hopefully someone can pick one up and try it out.

Dying to see some youtube videos of people getting their xbox/ps3s going on their imac display! Its the deciding factor on me purchasing one! get to it people!

That's an interesting link and it does seem to indicate that Belkin is going to offer a converter that will allow HDMI input into the new 27" iMac. The statements about the new MacBook Pro and MacBook Air, however, don't make much sense -- are they suggesting that a new MacBook will also offer video input?
post #198 of 223
You are right. I recently bought a 15" MBP with 3.06Ghz processor and 500GB HDD It cost $3,200.

But I have a computer that's more powerful than my previous Power Mac and I can carry it around everywhere I go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

The difference is cost. You can get a lot more iMac than you can with a MB/MBP. The top end MBP costs the same as a bottom end Mac Pro.
post #199 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by CavalierAU View Post

Dying to see some youtube videos of people getting their xbox/ps3s going on their imac display! Its the deciding factor on me purchasing one! get to it people!

I sent an e-mail to iFixit to see if they could test it which they have. They found out that just a simple HDMI-mDP cable doesn't do the trick to display PS3 (slim) video on the iMac. Too bad!

What is the way to find out if Apple is planning some kind of adapter for this? And to find out what type of (conversion) hardware they already included in the iMac? Clearly a lot of people will be wanting this!
post #200 of 223
it will only be perfect if the input screen can be assigned as a space..

i'll wait until the PS3 can book hooked on it... or it's gonna be a 21.5" with an HD TV..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › New 27" iMac designed to also work as a display