or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Mac mini supply drying up, could signal Ivy Bridge update
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mac mini supply drying up, could signal Ivy Bridge update - Page 2

post #41 of 169
It isn't "better" it is a different platform. It's most important features that you can match into the monitor of your choice. The use of the word better here is misplaced in my opinion,itis like asking how is a MBP better than an IMac or how an AIR is better than either. User needs really dictate which is better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

Can someone explain to me why a Mac Mini is better than an iMac?  I'm genuinely curious.

Hope it's true, though. I see that many, many people have been waiting on this.
Yes, it should be a excellent update bringing with it modern I/O, a nice performance boost and possibly cooler operation.
Quote:
EDIT: The analyst has been wrong on 3 out of 4, so far.  Why's he worth quoting?  lol.gif

None or them are worth quoting but then we would have a boring rumors site. Plus stock outs are a real metric, they can be caused by many things but the timing would seem to indicate that a Mini update is near.
post #42 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Many of us are thinking Haswell at this point.

We can wish but Haswell is another year away.

There is lots of talk about Intel making significant improvements to their 22nm process, maybe they have a new stepping coming that is even cooler than the current Ivy Bridge. More wishful thinking I know but even if they only drop 5 watts off the overall output it would make for cooler Macs.
post #43 of 169
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
We can wish but Haswell is another year away.

 

Well, yeah, next year. So they could be waiting for that, allowing the very next iMac to have a retina display on both models. Then the iMac will go from being, at the time, almost unpurchaseable to being the only desktop computer available worth purchasing

post #44 of 169

Compared to iMac, Mac mini has inferior spec and costs more when comparably equipped. Having said that, I prefer Mac mini simply because it is headless. I had two iMacs in the past and both died due to dust accumulation (which in turn caused the logic board to fail). Mini is much easier to open and service and cheaper to replace (since you do not need to purchase the screen, keyboard, and pointing device again). And it is more ideal for hooking up to home theater or use as a server.

post #45 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

Can someone explain to me why a Mac Mini is better than an iMac?  I'm genuinely curious.

 

Hope it's true, though. I see that many, many people have been waiting on this.

 

EDIT: The analyst has been wrong on 3 out of 4, so far.  Why's he worth quoting?  lol.gif

 

While the iMac is a great machine and a great value, for some purposes the Mac Mini is better.  There are three purposes that I can think of: pro graphic design, headless servers, and media servers.

 

A) Professional graphic design.  iMac displays aren't good enough for this for a few reasons:

1) they are too glossy and reflective.  If your desk is in a position such that you have a window at your back, the iMac screens show too many reflections that make it hard to read the screen. You can buy third party displays that have a matte surface which eliminate the reflections.

2) iMac displays are very good for consumer screens, but they aren't the best for a designer. Mainly it is because they supersaturated the colors to make them "pop" more, but a pro designer needs accuracy, not "pop".  NEC monitors, for example, have much more accurate color reproduction. 

3) Also, iMac monitors cannot be color calibrated to the same degree that a pro monitor, with internally programmable color LUTs can be calibrated.

 

B) headless servers

The Mac Mini can run in an office or a home as a headless server. You can use it to share files, run calendar and contact servers, monitor home security, etc. For this use, usually it is preferable to have a machine that is small and unobtrusive and can be tucked away on a shelf somewhere.

 

C) home theater/media server

If you want to use a Mac as a DVR, you don't want a screen because you want to put it in your media center with other home theater components.

post #46 of 169
It is about time something happen. The whole line up is a relic from another century.

That being said though one box likely wouldn't do it. Rather an updated iMac and an XMac would cover many needs. I only suggest keeping an all in one because it does sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Just scrap the entire desktop line.

Replace it with one box that can take everything from integrated crappics, to mainstream gpu to high end gpu.  i3 to i7.  Job done.

1 box.  That should be enough streamlining for even Apple to cope with...

Yeesh.  One desktop to go with the one sodding monitor they make...

Lemon Bon Bon.
post #47 of 169

Ugh these updates need to happen soon.

 

My current computer is from 2007, a Compaq core 2 duo 1.8 that I am running as Hackintosh but it's on it's last legs, heck in system profiler it now shows up as a 1.2 ghz and the fans are constantly going like it's a jet engine!

 

I really want to give Apple my money but I want a good machine that will last a long time and be good spec to handle some hardcore photoshop.

 

I am really keeping an eye on what is coming up and trying to decide if I continue the Hackintosh route due to lack of a decent machine from Apple, or hopefully get an official machine.

 

We need to see more i7's in the ranges rather than i5's, I'd take a spec'ed up MAc mini with a i7 3770, SSD and hard drive combo!

post #48 of 169

Thanks for the replies, I was genuinely curious about the iMac vs Mac Mini, as I'm still pretty new to the Mac world.  Hope you all get your updates soon, 18 months is a very long time in computer terms, for sure!  

 

I went with my first iMac earlier this year, but I wasn't willing to wait on the spec bump because my old Dell died.  A retina iMac would make me kick myself, though, if they released one this fall.

post #49 of 169
Originally Posted by Smarky View Post

I really want to give Apple my money but I want a good machine that will last a long time and be good spec to handle some hardcore photoshop.

 

How does the current model not fit that bill?

post #50 of 169
As much as I'd like to see you move to real Apple hardware I think the likely hood of a professional class mid level machine is thin. Note that is exactly what I've been asking for, for years on the forums. If some of the rumors are true iMac will be vastly improved with a new screen technology. However it isn't the sort of machine I could recommend for professional usage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarky View Post

Ugh these updates need to happen soon.

My current computer is from 2007, a Compaq core 2 duo 1.8 that I am running as Hackintosh but it's on it's last legs, heck in system profiler it now shows up as a 1.2 ghz and the fans are constantly going like it's a jet engine!

I really want to give Apple my money but I want a good machine that will last a long time and be good spec to handle some hardcore photoshop.

I am really keeping an eye on what is coming up and trying to decide if I continue the Hackintosh route due to lack of a decent machine from Apple, or hopefully get an official machine.

We need to see more i7's in the ranges rather than i5's, I'd take a spec'ed up MAc mini with a i7 3770, SSD and hard drive combo!

The big problem with the Mini is power. The little box can only dissipate so much power and frankly doesn't have excess power supply capacity. Unfortunately for this go around Haswell isn't ready for the Mini. Haswell would be almost ideal for a Mini from the standpoint of professional use.
post #51 of 169
I can remember waiting 8 months for my G5 iMac. Ordered it on the day it was announced many years ago.

Now I'm waiting for an update to replace that G5 and am past the 8 month G5 wait.

I can appreciate Apple's focus on the mobile and notebook markets, but they can walk and chew gum at the same time so it isn't unreasonable (I hope) to expect new desktops in October.
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
post #52 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenaustus View Post

I can remember waiting 8 months for my G5 iMac. Ordered it on the day it was announced many years ago.
Now I'm waiting for an update to replace that G5 and am past the 8 month G5 wait.
I can appreciate Apple's focus on the mobile and notebook markets, but they can walk and chew gum at the same time so it isn't unreasonable (I hope) to expect new desktops in October.

 

Maybe Jony's team has been too busy, which means the new Macs might be a redesign? ;-)

post #53 of 169

I think the Mini is better than the iMac because of the choices it gives to the user. That is the only reason, because we can't get a high spec Mini  ,,,yet.

 

Since 2007 I've kept up with computer hardware. That started because I wanted a new computer. The Mini back then was a year and a half old. The one that came out was disappointing to almost all of the forum members. Sure it was an improvement and so were the subsequent updates. The complaints stemmed from the updates not being up to date in the industry. Apple was months to a year behind what was available. They do that regularly with their desktop models.

 

Apple leads Microsoft in software most of the time in the desktop area. They don't lead Linux in ideas but they do polish things very well.

 

I'm buying two things this year, a tablet and a computer. I know the brand of computer will probably be a System 76 because they offer more horsepower per dollar than Apple. They really do a wonderful job putting things together. They're ahead of Apple in processor speed by a long shot with their consumer devices. If the new Mini is on the cutting edge in their price point then I'll have to consider it. I'm not anti-Apple but I'm pro good deal and pro quality. Apple needs to compete for my money.

 

My Apple software has given me a great experience. I now know that software doesn't have to regularly freeze up the computer. I know that better alternatives to Microsoft exist. I also now know that often I get a better experience than Leopard using Linux.

 

Most Apple users started with Windows. They opened their minds and tried Apple. They found it better. Frustrated Apple buyers should remember to keep their minds open to new experiences. They should try Linux. It just might help them to get the computer speed they want with a wonderful OS that isn't from Microsoft. A long time ago Apple users didn't have all of the day to day programs available to them because the Apple OS wasn't compatible with Windows stuff. Linux is far beyond that problem. Sure some things aren't directly available for Linux but Linux can run Windows in a virtual environment just like OS X.

 

If the new Mini isn't what you'd hoped for I'm sure you can find hardware out there that suits your needs. Just put Linux on it and take off. It's free.
 

post #54 of 169
Quote:
Apples lack of updates on their entire desktop line is ridiculous, you can forgive them for not following the 3-6 month schedule of their competitors but 18 months + takes the piss.
Quote:
iMac: 18 months old already, and the processor they're rumored to be putting in to the next update is already nearly 8 months old.

The current version of the iMac is not yet eighteen months old.
post #55 of 169
Originally Posted by zunx View Post
- Quiet. You do not hear it.

 

When you're not doing things with it. Same with the iMac and Mac Pro, when you're not doing things.


Actually, the All-in-One desktop computers should not exist, since they force to throw away a perfectly working display. They are anti-ecological.

 

Other than the blindingly obvious idea of using it as a standalone display once the computer is outdated, since you can, and it's easy as pie.

 

- You can purchase a matte display instead of the HORRIBLE glossy ones of the iMac. It is a health and productivity issue.

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

- It is powerful enough.
 

Right! For many people it is! And the BYOKDM is still a selling point for switchers.

post #56 of 169
Put in the A10 5800k APU with Hypertransport and add an on-board 7700M* second GPGPU and you've got a little pocket rocket for GCD to pass off all it's OpenCL ready code to chomp on.

Make that as a build option and it will fly off the shelf.

* Radeon 7700M has full support for OpenCL 1.2 which would give the system more shelf life than the 7600M.
Edited by mdriftmeyer - 10/8/12 at 3:20pm
post #57 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

 

Easy.  It allows me to buy a separate NON-REFLECTIVE display.

 

Currently, Apple doesn't make a consumer-grade machine that I can use, other than the mini.  It seems some people can learn to disregard the reflections in their displays, but apparently my eyes are actually wired to my brain such that I get an accurate picture of what's in front of me at all times.  There ARE reflections in those frickin' glossy displays (in virtually all "normal" environments), it's just a matter of whether or not you can learn to ignore them.

 

So you'll buy a weaker performing computer because you haven't ever heard of buying a anti-reflective film to solve the glare problem without compromising the computing power. A matt screen OPTION would be best for a minority opinion such as yours, although I doubt Apple will comply for 10% of the small iMac market. The 90% rest of us like our smooth glass (reflective) screens.

post #58 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surothog View Post

Hurry up and make computers, Apple!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cashxx View Post

the computers are on the back burner and not worth attention anymore. Pissing me off!

 

 

Wondering where your computer went?  Haven't you heard?  Apple Computer, Inc. got rid of 'computer'.  Now it's just Apple, Inc. </sarcasm>

 

 

Same sentiment here too.  My current iMac has seen better days.  Unfortunately, so has Apple's!  When Apple finally does release new iMac will it contain soon to be outdated Intel processors?  500+ days since last refresh?   Ive and crew better put out something that makes one 'cream in their jeans'!  Of course the same was speculated for the iPhone that had over 400 days before finally being refreshed and all that came out was a souped up iP4.

 

Grrrrrr...

/

/

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #59 of 169
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

Of course the same was speculated for the iPhone that had over 400 days before finally being refreshed and all that came out was a souped up iP4.

 

Good thing that's a lie.

post #60 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

How does the current model not fit that bill?

The current model fits the bill for me, but with it being 446 days old, it's due to be refreshed soon, and as long as I waited this long, I can wait a little longer to get the latest and greatest.

post #61 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

my eyes are actually wired to my brain such that I get an accurate picture of what's in front of me at all times.  There ARE reflections in those frickin' glossy displays (in virtually all "normal" environments), it's just a matter of whether or not you can learn to ignore them.

 

Interesting, so do you see double vision all the time, as that will be the most accurate picture, one from each eye?

Usually the brain processes and combines these two pictures to create the artificial single image that we "see".

post #62 of 169
Originally Posted by Cheesehead Dave View Post
The current model fits the bill for me, but with it being 446 days old, it's due to be refreshed soon, and as long as I waited this long, I can wait a little longer to get the latest and greatest.

 

Yep. Agreed.

post #63 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

How does the current model not fit that bill?

 

Precisely!  The current model does not fit the bill Apple charges!  Over 500 days and no refresh, yet, with newer components out in market for months now!  It may be new, but it's OLD!

/

/

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #64 of 169
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post
The current model does not fit the bill Apple charges!

 

*Timshot.png*

post #65 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

Precisely!  The current model does not fit the bill Apple charges!  Over 500 days and no refresh, yet, with newer components out in market for months now!  It may be new, but it's OLD!
/
/

Really? So 446 is over 500? You must have done well in math class. /s

In any event, you can expect this. Today's computers are more powerful than most people need - especially entry level users. The benefit of updating entry level computers annually is minimal. The average Mini buyer gets essentially no benefit at all.

It's more surprising that they haven't upgrade the Pro any time recently, but much of the delay was lack of availability of significant faster Xeon chips from Intel. I don't know what has held them up for the past 6 months or so.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #66 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

Can someone explain to me why a Mac Mini is better than an iMac?  I'm genuinely curious.

It's not. Depending on your needs

Most of our office uses iMacs but we do have a couple of guys that use Mac Minis connected to Cintiqs because they find it easier to do their fine detail work that way. And since everything is processed off a render farm the local power is less important.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #67 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post
Frustrated Apple buyers should remember to keep their minds open to new experiences. They should try Linux.

 

OH GOD NO!!!

 

Those who become frustrated with OS X are likely to become suicidal after using Linux.

 

Even the most popular of distros, Ubuntu and its derivatives, are a frightening mishmash.

It's not even straightforward to install on EFI Macs.

Of course, life will be a lot easier if you pay for support and don't try updating your software, in which case you may as well go for the polish of OS X or Windows.

 

I speak from the experience of maintaining a Mythbuntu system.

Each software update carries with it the worry it will break something else.

EVERY SINGLE distro upgrade I've carried out on the machine, from 9.10 to 12.04 has brought a major headache WITHOUT FAIL, from messing up the graphics and GUI drivers to corrupting the boot loaders.  Each issue took much time and study of machine and Ubuntu forums to fix.

 

These are headaches people with a life other than sitting with their computers avoid by using OS X and Windows.

post #68 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGizmo View Post

iMac: 18 months old already, and the processor they're rumored to be putting in to the next update is already nearly 8 months old.

I can't speak for all but since I run my business off these machines I'd rather an 8 month old stable processor than a fresh on the market possibly unstable one.
Edited by charlituna - 10/8/12 at 5:22pm

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #69 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

 It seems some people can learn to disregard the reflections in their displays, but apparently my eyes are actually wired to my brain such that I get an accurate picture of what's in front of me at all times.  

So are mine. But unlike you my brain is wired to know how to position lights to avoid reflections.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #70 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

How does the current model not fit that bill?

It likely would, but who wants to have something better come along in six months

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #71 of 169
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post
It likely would, but who wants to have something better come along in six months

 

Six months is WAY too long a time to be waiting.

post #72 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

So are mine. But unlike you my brain is wired to know how to position lights to avoid reflections.

And how do you reposition the sun?
post #73 of 169
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post
And how do you reposition the sun?

 

Wait for the Earth to spin a little more.

 

And if you weren't just a ball of gas yourself, you'd know why that's an immeasurably foolish question, one so unworthy of a serious answer that it's also unworthy of using the correct state of matter in this self-referential retort.

post #74 of 169
Great minds think alike!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Put in the A10 5800k APU with Hypertransport and add an on-board 7700M* second GPGPU and you've got a little pocket rocket for GCD to pass off all it's OpenCL ready code to chomp on.
AMD has some nice processor solutions with their APUs. Even without the discrete GpU they handle OpenCL well. Often they will actually perform better than intel when that capability can be leveraged.
Quote:
Make that as a build option and it will fly off the shelf.
* Radeon 7700M has full support for OpenCL 1.2 which would give the system more shelf life than the 7600M.

It will fly off the shelf if priced right. I would have no problem with a Mini like machine built on AMD hardware. The only iffy thing is Thunderbolt but I'd be just as happy with two Gigabit Ethernet ports.
post #75 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

Can someone explain to me why a Mac Mini is better than an iMac?  I'm genuinely curious.

 

Hope it's true, though. I see that many, many people have been waiting on this.

 

EDIT: The analyst has been wrong on 3 out of 4, so far.  Why's he worth quoting?  lol.gif

Cause you can take it with you from one place to another.  Good for business and professionals and people who live in more than one place or move around and it serves as an entertainment center with a tv and a remote trackpad and keyboard from 30 feet away and its cheaper than an imac and you can use a different screen than an imac.  Is that good enough.

post #76 of 169
Smallwheels has a point but I don't see the two systems as being even remotely comparable in terms of ease of use. Before 2008 I was running Linux as my primary OS and had been since since well before RedHat introduced Fedora. So I have Linux experience up the kazoo. It is a fantastic OS if you have the technical ability and most importantly don't mind a huge amount of time spent maintaining your system. MacOS brings you much of the goodness of Linux through its UNiX systems but without all of the hassles. More importantly each update to Mac OS breaks the very minimal of software, this dramatically cuts maintenance time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA View Post

OH GOD NO!!!

Those who become frustrated with OS X are likely to become suicidal after using Linux.
Linux does require a bit of gray matter between the ears but for some applications it can be a stable as a rock. It really is a great power user system.
Quote:
Even the most popular of distros, Ubuntu and its derivatives, are a frightening mishmash.
I really never understood Ubuntus popularity. I actually consider it a terrible distro.
Quote:
It's not even straightforward to install on EFI Macs.
Of course, life will be a lot easier if you pay for support and don't try updating your software, in which case you may as well go for the polish of OS X or Windows.
The updating issues really does blow with Linux. This is why I went the Mac route, I've been updating my MBP since 2008 and it just gets better and better with very few update glitches. It is a huge benefit if you don't want to spend days maintaining a system after an update.
Quote:
I speak from the experience of maintaining a Mythbuntu system.
Each software update carries with it the worry it will break something else.
Yep! However core features aren't as brittle.
Quote:
EVERY SINGLE distro upgrade I've carried out on the machine, from 9.10 to 12.04 has brought a major headache WITHOUT FAIL, from messing up the graphics and GUI drivers to corrupting the boot loaders.  Each issue took much time and study of machine and Ubuntu forums to fix.
Don't use Ubuntu!
Quote:
These are headaches people with a life other than sitting with their computers avoid by using OS X and Windows.
Exactly why I went with a MBP in 2008, I needed one machine that would work reliably. However I still have Linux machines in the house. They have their good points. Linux based hardware can be trouble free if put to work to run undisturbed.
post #77 of 169
Why would you expect a cheaper product to be "better?"

The Mac Mini is entry level, and does a good job for it's price. I don't think it's meant to compete with the iMac, or there would be faster configurations.

That said, it's fast enough for most people IMO.
post #78 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

 

Easy.  It allows me to buy a separate NON-REFLECTIVE display.

 

Currently, Apple doesn't make a consumer-grade machine that I can use, other than the mini.  It seems some people can learn to disregard the reflections in their displays, but apparently my eyes are actually wired to my brain such that I get an accurate picture of what's in front of me at all times.  There ARE reflections in those frickin' glossy displays (in virtually all "normal" environments), it's just a matter of whether or not you can learn to ignore them.

 

Oh, iirc there is the BTO option on the MacBook Pro, but that forces waay too many pixels.  The current 15" models already require me to wear reading glasses, I'm not going to get something where the dot pitch is even smaller.  Why on earth did they remove the ability to order a "standard" 1440x900-ish matte display on the 15"?  Weird.

 

Oh, and plus the other reasons above, i.e. headless, home-theatre, etc.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Yeah, because an iMac sure doesn't afford that opti… oh. wait.

 

 

Turning on and actually using the display helps with that.

 

 

Seen the retina MacBook Pro? That's what a Haswell iMac will be like.

 

None of what you wrote here made any sense at all within the context of what I wrote.  Serious Twilight Zone moment.

No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #79 of 169
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post
None of what you wrote here made any sense at all within the context of what I wrote.

 

Only if you ignore the things that I said, or choose not to put them into context, is that the case.

 

The iMac affords the ability to buy whatever the heck display you want.

 

Reflections on the iMac's screen are abated when the screen is actually on.

 

The retina MacBook Pro, in addition to operating at a resolution seen as 1440x900, has diminished glossiness from all previous models. The argument against glass-covered displays being therefore rendered further moot.

post #80 of 169
Quote:

So you'll buy a weaker performing computer because you haven't ever heard of buying a anti-reflective film to solve the glare problem without compromising the computing power. A matt screen OPTION would be best for a minority opinion such as yours, although I doubt Apple will comply for 10% of the small iMac market. The 90% rest of us like our smooth glass (reflective) screens.

 

As for buying a weaker performing computer, I guess you weren't following closely enough or taking what I said literally enough.  The reflections make the glossy machines unusable (for me).  So given the choice between a weaker performing computer and a computer that's unusable, there really is no choice.

 

Putting one of those piece-of-shit plastic-wrap things over a display isn't an option, they obscure detail.  Good matte screens, with no glass, can be clear and sharp.  Been using them for many years, typing on one right now.

 

As for Apple going back to a default matte screen, I think you're right, although I don't believe for a minute the preference ratio is 90%/10%.  From the various surveys that went out a few years back it was more like 50/50.  In reality, it's probably more like a 10-80-10, with the 80% not really caring much one way or another.

 

The problem isn't that they don't make matte as the default, the problem is that they don't offer matte at all, even BTO for their desktop line.  Neither for their consumer portable line.  The only offering that I'm aware of is a too-tight dot-pitch BTO on the MacBook Pro, which again, isn't an option for me.

No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Mac mini supply drying up, could signal Ivy Bridge update