Apple releases new iMac desktops with Intel Sandy Bridge CPUs, Thunderbolt ports - Page 5

It's not enough that gloss screens are the best, they need you to accept it too.

(Religious num nuts like Bin Laden are a good analogy).

Yet they DO offer anti-glare on the MacBook Pros, so they know there are a significant number of people who want it. Why they don't give the option (extra $100?) on the iMac is unknowable. It's the only reason I don't have one.

I've compared the glossy and non-glossy MacBook Pros side by side in the Apple Store, and I see no better colors with the glossy screen.

Roughly speaking, what are the licensing differences?


As someone pointed out, it's best to hold onto the existing RAM, you'll want to swap it back in if you ever need servicing. The amount you get from the trade-in isn't very much.


That's what I was thinking. I'd like to get special AR coated glass, none of this shiny or dull stuff.


TB has future potential, which is one reason why I suggested a buddy wait until the iMac was updated.


People on both sides get very enthusiastic, and sometimes it gets to the point of being overbearing. I'm not sure if there are adults anymore, just grown-up children.


Feng shui is a load of diseased BS, but whatever type screen surface or technology you have, it is best to set it it in a way you get the least incident light. A setup that improves the usability of a glossy display would also help a matte display.

Why is it a shame? If Apple listened to their customers they'd probably end up making Windows PCs. Customers are not always right and not always smart.

That being said I prefer matte screen. If they don't make an iMac with matte screen I wouldn't buy one. Easy.

No silly. I meant you get the SSD, swap it for the HD in the iMac and put the HD in the external case. (Sorry, it made perfect sense in my head as I typed the original comment. )

There's an article on Macworld where they say:

"Apple has confirmed to Macworld that the new iMacs can be used as external displays via their Thunderbolt ports. However, to do so, you’ll need a Thunderbolt-equipped Mac, such as one of the early 2011 models of MacBook Pros. Connecting the MacBook Pro to either the 21.5-inch or 27-inch Thunderbolt-equipped iMac will let you use the desktop as a display for the notebook."

http://www.macworld.com/article/1596...play_mode.html

Sorry, I'm just sick of all those pointless petition.

I've love my matte screen PB back then, and I don't like much glare in my screen now. But the brightness on my MPB and 24 inch apple screen make glare disappear and a non-issue while using it. But for common people, glass screen is a zillions time less fragile and more easy to clean than matte plastic screen. You don't have to care about ammonium free cleaning agent that can yellowing your plastic screen over time.

I LOVE the new imacs. Especially now that you can use the 21.5" imac as an external monitor via the Thunderbolt port.

The ONLY thing that sucks is the 21.5" models DO NOT have a BTO option for more than 512GB of video ram. Arggggggggggh.

Apple is literally forcing you to get the 27" imac if you want it. Booooo! Lol.

Gotta complain about something. :-)

Its great you can add a second SSD drive to the 21.5" model tho. Just wish you could get it with the 6970M graphic card with the 1GB option.

Oh well. Cant have EVERYTHING i guess.

Ok. Now that I read this post I think we're both thinking the same thing but I didn't express myself as clearly as you have.

I'm leaning towards the 21.5" model but I already have a new 22" LED LCD for my 1.83GHz C2D Mini (Mini will get regulated to XBMC / Plex duties). Hope I can run Dual Monitors off the Thunderbolt port...

Add my voice to 'not buying until they make it useable'.
Gloss screens are for idiots. It's as simple as that.

I bought my wife a 27" iMac and she had to move her office, block part of a window to be able to use it. Yah, it was stupid to buy it. Not to mention that eye strain is a problem for everyone using them. Even if you don't think your hurting your eyes... You are. Sorry to have to break it to you. Unless you work in a cave with zero reflections... Gloss is a problem. The long term effects on your eyes are not healthy.
Shouldn't have to wear sunglasses to use a computer.

Can we cover them with bovril?

Sorry, didn't mean to upset you, it was a joke, sort of. Feng shui may be bunk but paying attention to it can net you many thousands of extra dollars when selling your home, at least around SoCal that is. As long as your address doesn't have a four in it.

This time I added the smiley

The 2.2GHz i7 really seems to hold up well against the iMac's desktop chips:

Geekbench (Cinebench R11) scores:
iMac 21" 2.5GHz i5 quad = 7000 (4.15)
Macbook Pro 2.00GHz i7 = 8800 (4.6)
iMac 27" 3.1GHz i5 quad = 8700 (5.15)
Macbook Pro 2.20GHz i7 = 10200 (5.30)
iMac 21" 2.8GHz i7 quad = 10800 (5.74)
iMac 27" 3.4GHz i7 quad = 12000 (6.88)

A couple of the numbers will be off as they are based on a range of scores but that seems to be roughly where they are coming in and they are sorted by the Cinebench scores, which actually indicate a real-world use as it renders a 3D image.

The 2.8GHz i7 in the BTO 21.5" iMac seems to be a pretty good value chip. This is a 65W chip. If you are into rendering or encoding, you'd be better off with the 21" with the i7 upgrade, which isn't available in the entry 27". Perhaps they are offsetting the cost of the screen with the CPU here. Pretty smart as hardly anyone would care about i5/i7, they still go by GHz numbers.


Yeah the iMacs use desktop CPUs, they maybe always have, I'm not sure but it seems mobile GPUs. Even the ones previously were mobile ones but not labelled as such. Makes sense as I don't think they could get a standard GPU in that chassis.

In terms of performance, the 6750M is quite powerful and performs close to a desktop 5750. This is around 1/3 of the highest end desktop GPUs but some of them shove two GPUs in there.

The 6970M in the highest iMac is double the 6750M so should be comparable to a desktop 5870, which is one of the highest-end single cards you get.


I'd expect that since the Thunderbolt ports externalise a PCI connection, you should be able to hook up an SSD outside the machine to use as a boot drive, which gives a better boost than a Vista pen drive, which is just a caching feature.

I'd also expect it to allow manufacturers to built a video input device. Given the low latency, it's probably something companies like Elgato should look into.

It's nice to see them using multiple Thunderbolt ports. That puts to bed the assumption that this would be a single port technology.

OK, here's a question, and it may be very, very dumb. If so, I apologize.

I'm considering selling my iMac 27" C2D, and getting one of these new ones at some point in the near future. If I do so, I obviously want to completely wipe this disk, and REALLY wipe it.

How would I go about this?

Again, thanks in advance.

You probably don't want to do this yourself (it's an enormous pain- and very prone to mistakes), but there's a third party solution:

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/turnk..._2010_27/MPG1/



Let's see. Much faster CPUs, Dramatically faster GPUs, Addition of Thunderbolt port which will blow away any other external transfer mechanism. Sure, just a 'mild' refresh according to Daharder.


Probably within 6 months.


For a CPU-intensive app like Logic, I'd definitely go with the i7. For $200 (roughly 10% of the price of the bare-bones machine), you get 10% higher clock speed and twice the number of cores. No brainer. Then add $100 for 4 GB more RAM and you're set.


Unlike some previous models, adding RAM to the current iMac is trivial. You don't have to 'get into the guts' - there's a separate port and it's very easy to get to.


Actually, you can get a better hybrid drive from Seagate. The memory is built into the drive itself and doesn't require OS intervention. In my experience, it helps, but isn't really comparable to a real SSD.

The problem with the above solution is that it's limited by USB speeds and requires the OS to get involved - which adds overhead.


It's coming. There will be adapters which allow you to plug a USB 3 device into a TB port.


That is the conventional logic, but may no longer apply. Thunderbird is faster than the SSD, so even putting the SSD into an external box may make sense. In fact, one great solution might be to buy an external TB RAID box and add multiple SSD drives (since there will be several, you can choose smaller, less expensive ones). This solution should be even faster than an internal SSD.

1) There is a help area on this site and others specifically for technical issues that make better use of these questions for yourself and others.

2) Restart with the included DVD. Run Disk Utility, Format the drive, and zero it out as many times as you wish.

SOT

Worth a look...


Apple Will Become A Trillion-Dollar Company, Says Altucher $1,000 a Share


Maybe will get those 60 million iPads sold in CY 2011

Okay, it's been noted.


Sure you can... you just don't want to.


The answer you seek is to buy enough stock so that what you think makes a difference and go to Apple shareholder meetings. That's the best way to get what you want from companies.

Barring that, you can start a Facebook page and get everyone who hates glossy screens on iMacs to LIKE you. Use it to set an event date and parade in the streets outside Steve Jobs home like masses of Egyptians did for days on end. Then if you don't get tear-gassed and shot by Pixar green army men snipers, you have a chance of changing the world.

Or you do what I do - keep using your old white iMac until it dies and then switch to Linux or Win 7.

Uh... What? Have you not been paying attention for the past... forever?

Apple couldn't care less about games.

ALTERNATE REPLY:

So now that we finally have a top-level GPU in the iMac instead of mid-level, you decide to whine about something else to satiate your need to complain? Good going.

Gotcha. Thank you very much.

No I'm not boasting. The fact that you think I am shows how much Mac fanboyz are content with outdated products. SAS drives are cheap now. Use them!

300GB 15k sas drive = $269.99
240GB SSD drive = $649.99

Must be nice to have money to burn...

How much is an SAS controller card and which Mac Pro do you have it installed in? Cheap I tell you cheap!

Did you miss the part where I said the new iMacs should come with SAS drives?

What are the relative Input/Output operations per drive? A consumer doesn't care about IOPS
but an Enterprise customer would care and a 269 dollar SAS driver isn't quite the bargain if
the performance cannot match SSD in crucial areas.

It's not about getting the absolute best performance. Yes SSD is fastest - it's also the most expensive. SAS drives are cheap now, Apple should be offering them standard on the new Macs as they're better than Sata.

No but I didn't miss the part where you said SAS is cheap either. Aren't most of those controllers like a thousand dollars? The drive in a consumer All-in-one which is mostly mobile parts should have an expensive RAID set up? Right... What are you smoking?

I like SAS because it offers dual ported drives, logic in the chipset (low CPU util) and bidirectional performance but it's still a bit spendy.

I think a SSD cache in front of larger but low spinning disk (5400rpm) is the future.

Either you're being purposefully obtuse, or you really don't get it. I never said anything about Raid now did I? You can get SAS controllers built into the cheapest piece of crap Asus board these days. It's not a huge effort for Apple to add one to an iMac logic board.

I'll agree with you there. Hybrid drives do seem to have a lot of promise.

Agreed, Third party SSDs are significantly faster than Apple's offerings and they are slightly cheaper as well. Also, many tasks are CPU and/or GPU intense and an SSD isn't going to make up for slower processing (e.g. Video editing) and you can't change the CPU down the road. SSDs give you faster boot time (big deal, I reboot only when updates force me to) and open programs faster but may or may not improve speed working in the program.

So it has no USB 3, and no blu-ray drive eh? What is it with Apple and their total failure to support modern standards?

A thunderbolt port might be useful someday, but buy an external HD now and it will have USB 3 on it, not thunderbolt. And a DVD drive? Seriously Apple? You're still crippling your PCs with optical drives which are over 15 years old?

I suppose but if you are going to go cheap why use SAS at all? SAS is a common RAID setup not a common consumer configuration. I don't see the price point being the same either. You can get a pretty good 1TB SATA drive for a hundred bucks which will most likely outlast the computer itself.

SAS is just a technology. Raid can be used with Sata, SAS, SCSI, SSD etc. Yes SAS originated in the Enterprise environment, but it's now at a price point that there's no reason not to use it in consumer machines.

I'm wondering if they've axed the mini-display port line-in. I had been considering the iMac for some time as I could use it for an external monitor with my MBP. The power cable looks singular in purpose so I'm not clear on whether they axed that functionality or if the TB ports will allow for a display signal to be piped into the system...

Thunderbolt enable Macs (which currently means just the newest MBP) can utilize Target Display Mode. Older mini-displayport Macs cannot.

3rd party devices like the Belkin AV360 will not work with Thunderbolt iMacs.

Pro vs Consumer. End of story

That's ridiculous.