or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Review: Apple's 27" big screen iMac (late 2009)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review: Apple's 27" big screen iMac (late 2009) - Page 3

post #81 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, plasma is a dead technology. Almost no company is producing them anymore. LCD has caught up in the areas in which it was behind, and is now, with LED backlighting, better in delivering good blacks, an area in which Plasma was always poor. The only plasmas that did deliver good blacks, the last high end, and very expensive Pioneers, were discontinued just 3 months after their introduction, followed shortly after by all of Pioneers plasmas. Pretty much everyone else has followed, or has said they soon will.

Besides, plasma consumes too much power, and gets too hot.

Excuse me, but you're wrong. HAHAHA. Do some research before you puke misinformation.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/01/16...lasma-in-2009/

Notice even the NON-Kuros hove better blacks than the LED LCDs. I barf at LCD. A technology intended for static images. You can't get bright and dark in the same area even on the LED LCDs. I prefer a technology developed with the sole intent of displaying images in motion, than you very much.

Next you'll tell me you need 1080p on a 40"
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
post #82 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by m2002brian View Post

Excuse me, but you're wrong. HAHAHA. Do some research before you puke misinformation.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/01/16...lasma-in-2009/

Notice even the NON-Kuros hove better blacks than the LED LCDs. I barf at LCD. A technology intended for static images. You can't get bright and dark in the same area even on the LED LCDs. I prefer a technology developed with the sole intent of displaying images in motion, than you very much.

Next you'll tell me you need 1080p on a 40"

As though Engadget is the greatest. And be careful of your language.

Plasmas are just a small percentage of the market these days, and a blip isn't going to help them.

The only plasmas regarding blacks were the new Pioneers, which as I said, are no longer around.

Otherwise, despite what you say, LED backlit LCDs like Samsungs, which turn LEDs on and off locally for better contrast and blacks, have plasma beat. Non Kuros plasma have sucky blacks, and I don't know of ANY high end videophile, who uses them, and I know more than a few. Most use front projectors.
post #83 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, plasma is a dead technology. Almost no company is producing them anymore. LCD has caught up in the areas in which it was behind, and is now, with LED backlighting, better in delivering good blacks, an area in which Plasma was always poor. The only plasmas that did deliver good blacks, the last high end, and very expensive Pioneers, were discontinued just 3 months after their introduction, followed shortly after by all of Pioneers plasmas. Pretty much everyone else has followed, or has said they soon will.

Besides, plasma consumes too much power, and gets too hot.

Others feel differently. I have a Samsung plasma and colors in general are more saturated and my set has no trouble producing nice black color. My set also doesn't get unusually hot either.

I would agree that LCDs are taking over the market. I'm not sure why. While I feel plasma sets are slightly better, I can agree that both are pretty close in picture quality nowadays.
post #84 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

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.

I get a lot of light reflected from light colored clothing and skin. Exactly how am I supposed to avoid that? Sit so far back that I can't read the display?

I've never seen my own reflection in a painting at an art gallery, even when standing extremely close to see detail.

Art quality coated glass is out there and a sheet big enough for the 27" iMac goes for under $50 so Apple could easily offer a better display if they wanted to.

The only thing I don't know is the chemical makeup of the coatings. Maybe they use chemicals Apple has eliminated.
post #85 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Others feel differently. I have a Samsung plasma and colors in general are more saturated and my set has no trouble producing nice black color. My set also doesn't get unusually hot either.

I would agree that LCDs are taking over the market. I'm not sure why. While I feel plasma sets are slightly better, I can agree that both are pretty close in picture quality nowadays.

Except with a short time spent with the Kuros, I've never seen a plasma with good blacks. They are all dark grey. Older LCDs had poor blacks as well, but they've gotten better.

The main advantage plasma had over LCD was the wide angle of view. While even now, that's an advantage, it's much less than before.

Saturation also was better, but newer LCDs, particularly those with LED backlights have come even.

But plasma dims as time goes on, more so than do the backlights on LCD panels, though they are better than they are. And while it's also much less of a problem than it used to be, plasma can still get burn-in if one watches things such as CNN or other news channels several hours a day.

I'm not sure what "unusually hot" means. If something is very hot, and is always that way, then it wouldn't be unusual. I'm sure newer plasma are better than old ones were, which got too hot to touch on the top rear.

I'm not fond of either technology though. I'm willing to give up the thinness for my rear projection DLP with RGB LED backlighting. My 61" is less expensive than either plasma or LCD, and has a number of advantages. The 61" model I have has better color that either of the others, and only uses 224 watts, which is little for a 61" set.

I don't know what I'll do when this one is ready for the farm though, as it's also a dead end technology.
post #86 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


I'm not sure what "unusually hot" means. .

I can touch my set while its on. It doesn't get any hotter than an Apple TV.
post #87 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, plasma is a dead technology. Almost no company is producing them anymore. LCD has caught up in the areas in which it was behind, and is now, with LED backlighting, better in delivering good blacks, an area in which Plasma was always poor. The only plasmas that did deliver good blacks, the last high end, and very expensive Pioneers, were discontinued just 3 months after their introduction, followed shortly after by all of Pioneers plasmas. Pretty much everyone else has followed, or has said they soon will.

Besides, plasma consumes too much power, and gets too hot.

Wow, Mel! Someone should tell Panasonic and Samsung.

Most unbiased observers feel that while LCD sets have made great strides, they still don't measure up to plasmas in terms of blackness, motion blur and viewing angle. Also the newer plasmas use less power than older models, so they're improving.

Pioneer got out of plasma because they were catering to the the high end market, which wasn't big enough to support them.

Getting back on topic, ever since I replaced my original Mac SE I've always had an expandable desktop Mac and, dating from a Powerbook Duo 280, a laptop for a second computer. Presently I have a MacPro and a seven-year-old Titanium Powerbook, which I was planning on replacing with a MacBook Pro before yearend. But, after examining my laptop usage which is tethered in a home network 99.9% of the timeand having a chance to play with a 27" iMac several times, I ordered a 27" i7 iMac. I just hope the wait isn't as long as it was when I order my PowerMac G5.

I'm finding that my iPod Touch meets my mobile needs, so goodbye laptop, hello iMac.
post #88 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post

Wow, Mel! Someone should tell Panasonic and Samsung.

Maybe you've noticed that Samsung is spending most of its efforts on selling its new line of LED backlit Tvs. Sets, by the way, which are rated as some of the best, picturewise in all reviews.

Quote:
Most unbiased observers feel that while LCD sets have made great strides, they still don't measure up to plasmas in terms of blackness, motion blur and viewing angle. Also the newer plasmas use less power than older models, so they're improving.

I don't know about that. While I see some articles about how much better the black in plasmas are today compared to the dismal blacks of even a couple of years ago, I don't see those deep blacks in actual sets. Yes, better than before, but every technology is better than before.

I see viewing angle as being the only real advantage they have, and it's less than before.

Quote:
Pioneer got out of plasma because they were catering to the the high end market, which wasn't big enough to support them.

Pioneer made sets for differing quality levels. They're not the only ones to drop out.

In addition, the reason why plasmas have made a temporary comeback is because the medium sized models have dropped a lot in price. As LCDs in those sizes drop as much, plasma sales will continue to fall.

I also don't expect companies that still make them, mostly now by Samsung and LG, to say anything other than, they're great, we intend to make them for the medium term, blah blah.
post #89 of 118
Why would a company like Panasonic or Samsung keep making plasma sets if LCDs are just as good and cheaper to build?? Interesting huh?

It's a rhetorical question you don't have to lie back.

My guess is Samsung is marketing the heck out of LCD so they can stop building more expensive plasmas.
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
post #90 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by m2002brian View Post

Why would a company like Panasonic or Samsung keep making plasma sets if LCDs are just as good and cheaper to build?? Interesting huh?

It's a rhetorical question you don't have to lie back.

At the 40 to 50" size, plus or minus, plasmas have recently come down in price more than LCDs have because of the high demand for LCD panels. Cheaper means sales. They might as well sell them if they're making profits.
post #91 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

Art quality coated glass is out there and a sheet big enough for the 27" iMac goes for under $50 so Apple could easily offer a better display if they wanted to.

The only thing I don't know is the chemical makeup of the coatings. Maybe they use chemicals Apple has eliminated.

I just received a nice big sample of Museum glass, the expensive stuff where the reflection percentage is down to 0.5% from the 8% found on regular glass. Priced a sheet for the new 27" iMac and it's more like $150, not including cutting, painting the border and R&R the metal strips on the back. I'm sure it would be great for a framed piece of artwork, but on the iMac, it's a no-go. Even holding it in from of my older Mac with a matte screen, I can see myself, the window behind me, the tree outside and the frinkin' squirrel sitting in the tree! I can only imagine it would be worse with the glossy LCD screen that Apple is putting on the iMac now. I had high hopes for this stuff, but now am shopping for a new room darkening shade. Take care!
post #92 of 118
Actually, those are two reasons I am happy with the machine. The last thing I want is BLue Ray's highly restrictive DRM licensing, which requires the hardware maker to lock down all aspects of the system even when Blue Ray isn't in use, to hinder the performance of my fancy new computer. If you want BLue Ray, buy an external one. It is better for you, and better for me. You should ask yourself when has Sony ever did anything consumer friendly? This is the company that without it's users permission installed secret DRM software.

As far as Matte screens go, I don't really see the appeal. These new screens show all media content better, especially movies. Along time ago, Glossy screens really stank because if you titled the angle of your head, the picture would lose focus. That isn't the case anymore.



Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

No Matte
No Blu-ray
No Want.

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

I'll wait til its gets 5 like the iPhone did 2 years after release. Hopefully this rating will come sooner for the iMac.
post #93 of 118
If it's ever sunny here again this winter/fall I'll take some photos's (no flash) of a matte screen and a glossy screen in the sun. I'm willing to bet the glossy one will be easier to see.

Matte screens diffuse the light across the entire screen. While, glossy does not.
I have been able to use my Macbook outdoors with NO backlight on at all.
I also used to have a Compaq with a matte screen. You couldn't see a damn thing outdoor. So, from my experience, Glossy (or clear coated) worked better in sunlight. If there are reflections, I have to really focus on them instead of the content on screen.

(not my pic) Notice the one on the Bottom, that's the matte screen. Can't even read it!
http://ruggedpcreview.com/images/del...atte_large.jpg
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
post #94 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Actually, those are two reasons I am happy with the machine. The last thing I want is BLue Ray's highly restrictive DRM licensing, which requires the hardware maker to lock down all aspects of the system even when Blue Ray isn't in use, to hinder the performance of my fancy new computer. If you want BLue Ray, buy an external one. It is better for you, and better for me. You should ask yourself when has Sony ever did anything consumer friendly? This is the company that without it's users permission installed secret DRM software.

As far as Matte screens go, I don't really see the appeal. These new screens show all media content better, especially movies. Along time ago, Glossy screens really stank because if you titled the angle of your head, the picture would lose focus. That isn't the case anymore.

I don't understand what the downside would be to having Apple offer a BR drive as an option. In order to play anything in video now, you have DRM. The only other DRM you would be getting is what would allow BR playback. It doesn't affect anything else.

You guys are setting up a straw dog.
post #95 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

No Matte
No Blu-ray
No Want.

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

I'll wait til its gets 5 like the iPhone did 2 years after release. Hopefully this rating will come sooner for the iMac.

Really? Every post from you has to be the same BULLSHIT?
post #96 of 118
Hey AppleInsider...when people shop for a Mac, they aren't interested in PC's. So stop comparing them to PC's and giving them a CON in your review because they don't have a TV tuner or Blu Ray drive...two things most people don't want to pay for in a Mac or a PC. Then you recommend an expensive PS3 instead of a less expensive stand-alone BD player?

You forgot your shameless plug to get people to buy from your advertisers too.
post #97 of 118
Seriously, what the heck I thought this was about the iMac? But, since we're there. It's always interesting to see how so many people know so much about technology and which is better, isn't that why we are using Apple products? But in the world of TV's Plasma TV's are far better at producing an accurate picture, with good colour and blacks, and no smearing than LCD's. LCD's are good at being popular because the "good" brands make LCD's. Sony.... lol. It is a very astute observation that Panasonic and Samsung make both. Hmm, wonder why? Lemmings, Windows won the first 20 years of computing (for mainstream users), VHS beat out Beta, Blu-Ray is going to lose to digital, and Both LCD and Plasma are going to lose out to OLED displays.

But until OLED displays are mainstream, If you have to watch something, and have it look as good as possible, Plasma wins hands down. The whole argument that they are glossy is a pretty old red herring, as almost all of the Tv's on the market today, have the same front covering glass regardless of if they are LCD or Plasma.
post #98 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by superd View Post

Seriously, what the heck I thought this was about the iMac? But, since we're there. It's always interesting to see how so many people know so much about technology and which is better, isn't that why we are using Apple products? But in the world of TV's Plasma TV's are far better at producing an accurate picture, with good colour and blacks, and no smearing than LCD's. LCD's are good at being popular because the "good" brands make LCD's. Sony.... lol. It is a very astute observation that Panasonic and Samsung make both. Hmm, wonder why? Lemmings, Windows won the first 20 years of computing (for mainstream users), VHS beat out Beta, Blu-Ray is going to lose to digital, and Both LCD and Plasma are going to lose out to OLED displays.

But until OLED displays are mainstream, If you have to watch something, and have it look as good as possible, Plasma wins hands down. The whole argument that they are glossy is a pretty old red herring, as almost all of the Tv's on the market today, have the same front covering glass regardless of if they are LCD or Plasma.

Are they dissing reflective coatings on TV's now too? I like the matte screen on my biggest set (a sony). Works very well. What's odd is I don't even notice reflections on my iMac, but they drive me nuts on my TV. Maybe a distance thing. To each his own. I prefer the glossy on a computer screen.

I need to go check out these OLED's, but it would be hard to compare given their small screen size. I own 3 current HDTV's. One LCD, one LCOS, and one Plasma. I just retired a rear projection.

The rear projection had great blacks, but I couldn't compare it directly with the others (got rid of it before the latest 3). It was plagued with alignment issues. Good riddance.

The LCD looks great with digital only images. Poor blacks though. When your shining a back light on your display, it tends to kill your blacks. Still suffers from that 'pixelated' look on analog sources. Looks good only on digital (less of a concern these days).

Plasma looks great on analog (can someone tell me why this is? I never looked into it, but it's got a fantastic picure on older analog over digital. It has great blacks, and excellent 1080p output over pure digital.

The LCOS display also has good blacks (projection technology, which makes sense). Too many problems with the lcos color however. It's been replaced twice by the factory. I won't be buying another.

Given the choice and the size of TV's I currently buy, I would buy another plasma, or possibly an LCD. I haven't looked at LCD in the last year, but from what I see they are indeed getting better blacks than they used to. I'll be curious to see how well the new 27" does when it gets here Monday.

On topic (seriously), has anyone benchmarked the new i7's yet? Any word on the displayport input functionality glitch that was reported where it only supported input from another display port?
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #99 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

No Matte
No Blu-ray
No Want.

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

I'll wait til its gets 5 like the iPhone did 2 years after release. Hopefully this rating will come sooner for the iMac.


No E-Sata Connection
new Design
No height Adjustment
Glossy screen I hate it. No Upgrade waiting for the next version
post #100 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by delizazam View Post

No E-Sata Connection
new Design
No height Adjustment
Glossy screen I hate it. No Upgrade waiting for the next version

Why is E-Sata so important to some people? Your internal drive will be doing the bulk of your work I would think. The only benefit to e-sata that I'm aware of is it's faster with external drives. I use an external drive on my HTPC mini, but I only need it to be able to stream 1080P which easily fits within the USB or Firewire speeds.

Not trolling. I'm honestly curious as to what applications people are using these external drives for.

The others are minimal. If you really wanted matte on a late model Mac, you could always just buy a Mac pro for $2300 from Amazon and whatever external monitor you wanted, or just buy an after market matte option.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #101 of 118
My i7 iMac arrived yesterday and it's a beast. The monitor just blows you away. Much finer brightness adjustments that allow it to go uncomfortably bright to dim enough to use upon just waking up. This will be my first iMac that I turn the brightness down a few notches below full brightness.

Some quick observations: the mouse is wonderful in your hand. Scrolling is smooth and similar to the iPhone in momentum when you flick. But even with the settings on mouse speed on high and acceleration turned on, I find myself lifting the mouse to get another swipe at it to get the mouse across the screen. It's just a matter of technique, of course, but this 27" is going to take more aggressive moves than my 24".

After sleep, when you return to the Mac, the mouse will sometimes take an extra moment to start functioning. I've lost the connection a couple times during use. Probably some typical issues with bluetooth. I prefer the Logitech USB Wireless mice, not only for the above but for the extra buttons.

HD Trailers look strangely small on this monitor. Super clear and colorful and the sound is much better than the 24.

Someone asked about font sizes. I did a very brief sync of preferences and bookmarks just to check a few things out and play around. I found I had to bump up the font size in Safari (command-+) one notch to make it comfortable. I imagine I'm going to have to tweak a few apps to accommodate this higher res monitor.

The speed is intoxicating. Everything just snaps. It feels much faster at most things so I'm looking forward to more grueling tasks rather than just playing around here and there.

Now it's time to clear it out and start fresh.
post #102 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

Some quick observations: the mouse is wonderful in your hand. Scrolling is smooth and similar to the iPhone in momentum when you flick. But even with the settings on mouse speed on high and acceleration turned on, I find myself lifting the mouse to get another swipe at it to get the mouse across the screen. It's just a matter of technique, of course, but this 27" is going to take more aggressive moves than my 24".

Download BTT to get a GUI interface where you can set tracking speed more than double what the Apple control panel allows.

http://blog.boastr.net/

Oh, you can also fine-tune your Magic Mouse gestures with this and enable middle-click functionality to get Exposé back.
post #103 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Why would a Blu-ray player need DisplayPort when HDTVs use universal HDMI? Does AI mean Blu-ray readers?

I think he means BluRay players. This iMac has the ability to plug an external BluRay player into it to use the screen for BluRay features. DisplayPort is the next version of HDMI as it supports HDMI content. It also has better throughput, and resolution so it's the next step. In this Apple was ahead of the game like they were with USB.
post #104 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by webraider View Post

I think he means BluRay players. This iMac has the ability to plug an external BluRay player into it to use the screen for BluRay features. DisplayPort is the next version of HDMI as it supports HDMI content. It also has better throughput, and resolution so it's the next step. In this Apple was ahead of the game like they were with USB.

Except that the iMac only responds to exact 2560x1440 resolution. How many BluRay players can output at that resolution? ZERO.

And there is currently only one adapter solution that would allow a BluRay or PS3 to connect to the 27" iMac, and the combination of devices it requires will cost you over $400.

So no, Apple is not ahead of the game. All they had to do (and they didn't) was build scaling into the iMac display input. In its current implementation, this feature is more like putting USB into a computer but not allowing any non-Apple devices to connect to it. In other words, next to useless.
post #105 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Except that the iMac only responds to exact 2560x1440 resolution. How many BluRay players can output at that resolution? ZERO.

And there is currently only one adapter solution that would allow a BluRay or PS3 to connect to the 27" iMac, and the combination of devices it requires will cost you over $400.

So no, Apple is not ahead of the game. All they had to do (and they didn't) was build scaling into the iMac display input. In its current implementation, this feature is more like putting USB into a computer but not allowing any non-Apple devices to connect to it. In other words, next to useless.

The player doesn't need to do that. Players on computers have never had to do that. either the computer does it when you set it to "full screen", or the graphics card does it.
post #106 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So no, Apple is not ahead of the game. All they had to do (and they didn't) was build scaling into the iMac display input. In its current implementation, this feature is more like putting USB into a computer but not allowing any non-Apple devices to connect to it. In other words, next to useless.

What I meant was they are ahead of the game in standardizing on DisplayPort (and Mini Display port) as a video connection standard "In General". In the case of the iMac you are right, but in the case of the regular 24inch Apple Cinema Display it makes sense. When Apple finally decides to add BluRay support, they'll do it with the supported standards. Thus When they start to include in the MacPro's, the Display port that ships on it is current with all HDMI standards.

The BluRay player will play fine on the imac screen fyi. It will look as good as most High Def tv's even with the higher resolution. This is a feature Apple has specifically indicated as a function for the Connection.
post #107 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The player doesn't need to do that. Players on computers have never had to do that. either the computer does it when you set it to "full screen", or the graphics card does it.

He was talking about the display input on the iMac in target display mode. Not playing Blu-Ray through the OS.
post #108 of 118
The 27" iMac is great but the glossy screen is really beginning to wear out my eyes.

Does anybody have a link for a matte film cover I can tryout?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #109 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Hey AppleInsider...when people shop for a Mac, they aren't interested in PC's. So stop comparing them to PC's and giving them a CON in your review because they don't have a TV tuner or Blu Ray drive...two things most people don't want to pay for in a Mac or a PC. Then you recommend an expensive PS3 instead of a less expensive stand-alone BD player?

That's not true! I was interested to buy top iMac configuration and actually went into an Apple store to get one. When I realized new iMacs lack TV tuner I was stunned. This was 2300$+ configuration (with a company discount).
The sales person also told me that the stand cannot be removed (attached to motherboard or something like that), so if I want to wall mount iMac the stand will be hanging there. I mean how stupid is that?? So I am interested in an objective all-in-one PCs vs. iMac comparison.
post #110 of 118
Has anyone else noticed the max wireless connect speed was bumped up to 300 Mbit/s? I was just browsing the network config and noticed it connected at 300 instead of 270.

I find the mouse irritates my hand. The edges are too sharp. Clicks are better (less vague), but it's still too easy to not get a proper right click. I'll keep at it for a few days to see if I adjust or not.

Display is beautiful and man is it bright.

Very fast..easily twice as fast as the 3.06 iMac.

One odd piece to note: This iMac doesnt' seem to be affected by the Virtual Software noise introduced in 10.6 that everyone was experiencing when using USB audio.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #111 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moler View Post

That's not true! I was interested to buy top iMac configuration and actually went into an Apple store to get one. When I realized new iMacs lack TV tuner I was stunned. This was 2300$+ configuration (with a company discount).
The sales person also told me that the stand cannot be removed (attached to motherboard or something like that), so if I want to wall mount iMac the stand will be hanging there. I mean how stupid is that?? So I am interested in an objective all-in-one PCs vs. iMac comparison.

There is a vesa wall mount for the 27" iMac, see here. For some unknown reason there isn't a vesa mount kit for the old 20 " iMac or the new 21.5" iMac.
post #112 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

There is a vesa wall mount for the 27" iMac, see here. For some unknown reason there isn't a vesa mount kit for the old 20 " iMac or the new 21.5" iMac.

Thanks for the link!
It says there that the stand CAN be removed so "genius" from the Apple store gave me wrong information that the stand cannot be removed since it is welded to the motherboard.
post #113 of 118
Anyone know of:

Reviews comparing benchmarks of the new i7 iMac to all current Mac models, including newest Mac Minis?

Any viable 3rd party solution to add matte finish to glossy screen 27" iMac?

Thanks.
post #114 of 118
Review links can be found in the other iMac thread. I'm also looking for a screen solution as well.

By the way, I bought my 27" a few days after they were announced. Today I got my first low battery warning on the Magic Mouse.

That's less than a month. Is that normal? This is my first wireless mouse.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #115 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moler View Post

Thanks for the link!
It says there that the stand CAN be removed so "genius" from the Apple store gave me wrong information that the stand cannot be removed since it is welded to the motherboard.

Knowing Apple, he probably just assumed everything was welded to the motherboard...
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #116 of 118
For those of you on the 27" and the Magic Mouse, if you still think the magic mouse acceleration is too slow, even with the tracking speed turned all the way up, you can use MouseZoom.

Works like a charm. I'm kind of surprised that Apple didn't get that one right out of the box. It should be a no brainer that folks would need a bit more speed to get across all that real estate.

You may also have trouble putting Windows 7 on this box. I hit this issue on the 64 bit version of Windows 7. Not sure if it also affects the 32 bit version but I suspect it does. Apparently the buillt in ATI driver causes a black screen when installing (after the files are copied over and it is finalizing the installation. If you experience this, you must either boot into repair mode using the Windows 7 CD (use the command prompt option) or just install NTFS-3G and delete the ATI driver file from OS X side.

The files to delete are in the System32 directory: C\Windows\\System32\\Drivers\\ATI*.sys

Just delete any ATI*.SYS files in that directory and boot back into Windows.

After that your install can continue without issue.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #117 of 118
this was long overdue - and from the look the quad core versions hold some serious firepower. haven't been excited in a long time like that. perfect for hd video editing/rendering and intense audio production. i compiled some benchmarks for these new babies here. now get me my quad-core laptop already !
post #118 of 118
Picked up my stock, Core i5 today. Fantastic!
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Review: Apple's 27" big screen iMac (late 2009)