Review: Apple 24-inch iMac (aluminum) - Page 2

Adjust the white balance on that camera

Thx for the responses. Looking forward to the new machine but, going to hold off until the wireless keyboard is available on the 3-5 business day delivery.

Thought that the old machines would drop by some reasonable amount but have only seen a drop of $50 so not worth it by any means.

One thing that bothers me about this review, and a couple of others, is that they don't compare like to like.

Why compare the old special order, and more expensive 2.33 GHz model with the now much less expensive standard 2.4 GHz model?

If this is going to be properly done, then it should have been the $1995 2.16 GHz model it was compared to. Or they should have gotten (or waited for) the high end 2.8 GHz model. The pricing would have been closer are well, in addition to having the extra 1 GB memory, and larger, slightly faster HHD.

This gives the wrong impression of what this upgraded model actually does when compared to its ancestor, particularly when considering that it's $200 cheaper as well.

And as far as the statements about the glossy screen goes, it's wrong as well.

Color and contrast is more correct on glossy models, everything else being equal. The very last monitors to go matte were the $5,000 and $10,000 color correction models. Why? Because matte surfaces distort color and contrast. It is also, contrary to common opinion, more difficult to remove reflections which DO occur on matte screens. The reflections are not as bright, or as sharp, but they are there nonetheless, and are spread out over a larger area of the screen.

Reflections were much harder to get rid of when screens were curved. A flat screen can be turned just a bit, most of the time, and the reflections will disappear, whereas with the curved screens, matte or not, that was not the case.

While I'm not saying that it's perfect for everyone, it's not nearly as much of a problem as some say either.

This is so wrong, it's hard to know where to begin:


He obviously knows little about high end color work or he wouldn't have said that.

PS has, for as long as I remember, had the ability to lower the saturation of the images you are working with, to enable one to see how that image, on screen, would look at print, without changing the actual color of the image itself. That is because EVERY monitor distorts the color compared to CMYK, and some other print technologies (but not for other technologies).

It's simple to do. If you do this kind of print work you know about this (you'd damn well better!).

Go to Color Settings. Click on More Options. Go to the bottom of the dialog box. It will have a box saying Advanced Controls. Go to the first one which is called Desaturate Monitor Color By:. You can then take a sample print standard for the kind of job you are doing. With that print under the proper lighting, click on the selection box in front of the control, you can then adjust the desaturate level until it matches the print.

Of course, first you will have set PS up properly.

Doing this gives you the correct color level you need.

This works better with a glossy screen, as you don't get the slight haze over your image that matte tends to give (more on some screens than others).

I don't know what he means by saying that a "fixed color profile" shouldn't be necessary.

In order to have ANY hope that your color is correct, even for home use, a color profile for your monitor is REQUIRED! SRGB is standard for most monitors, but Apple usually supplies one for their own models.

Just saw one at the Apple Store in Soho. There were such crowds around them I had to wait in line to get at one. Its an absolutely beautiful machine.

I had resigned to not buying another desktop and only having a notebook. I don't need a Mac Pro and I didn't care much for the older iMacs. But I do like having a machine sitting on a desk at home with a larger screen. A 1920x1200 24" screen, dual 2.8Ghz, 1TB HD, that is very tempting. I'll wait until after Leopard perhaps wait for a 3Ghz CPU.

The glossy screen issue is of personal taste. When Apple first offered glossy vs matte. I was absolutely against glossy, but the panels Apple uses are better than the ones used by most PC machines. I became used to them and now really like the cleaner picture and vivid colors.

Since Apple did not offer the option of matte or gloss is obvious the notebooks sell far more glossy than matte. These decisions are not made in a vacuum.

I love the new keyboard. I also felt I could type much faster on it.

Simply wrong.

I think it's interesting, as we've had these discussions of matte vs glossy for ages now, and now, the one about the keyboard, that as people actually SEE and USE these, they find out that either they aren't as bad as some have been insisting (glossy), and that they do have advantages (color, contrast).

The keyboard, so far, has received, in reviews, anything from, "It's no worse than the older Pro keyboards", to "It's better than the old Pro keyboards".

As you say, Apple really DOESN'T do these things in a vacuum.

Sometimes, things that look better actually do work better.

I was never in love in the pro keyboards. Now after using the new board I hate it. The flat keys on the new board allow your fingers to freely glide over the keys with little effort. With the old keyboard your fingers have to rise above the molded recession to move to another key. It only takes milliseconds but still it takes a bit more effort. After you type on a keyboard where you no longer have to do that it really becomes noticeable.

It seems more likely that selecting the 2600 HD is because of video playback. It has full hardware acceleration for several HD codecs, H.264 in particular. With Apple's emphasis on video, it makes some sense. See http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3047. CPU usage during playback is very low.

I don't really like any keyboards after the old Apple Professional model.

I make too many typo's with this "pro" model I have.

Well your point is that the case is beautiful.

And I think most people agree that, as a work of art, the iMac is stunning. I do too.

But from a user perspective, the article pointed out that the glossy finish is going to and does reflect a lot of light and behind-the-user reflections.
Apple's own iMac pictures, images, and all the pics from intro show lots of mirror-like reflections of lights, cameras, people etc.

So I think you are right that it is gorgeous to look at.
And I think the reviewer is right that the glossy screen and border has a lot of reflection.

For me, I prefer matte, anti-reflection screen, even if it means I lose a few percent of brightness. I have the brightness of my iMac G5 (matte non-glare screen) turned down as it is.

I hope that Apple offers at least an option to buy an iMac with a non-reflective screen. And still let all who want and love the glossy go for it.
Much like it is possible to buy the MacBook Pro with either a matte-anti-reflective, or a glossy screen.

That's what I'm currently using and up until they released the new iMac, I'd have replaced it with another iMac. I was waiting for a faster 20". Now I don't think so. It'll probably be a MacBook Pro now, which I don't particularly like (aluminium - yuck, small hard disk - annoying) but at least it's not the design disaster that the iMac is now.



I've worked quite a few places and I've yet to work somewhere where the IT dept just swapped a hard disk. They usually swap a whole computer with a spare and repair the old one at their leisure/their repair contract's terms. It'd be a particularly low-rent company that just swapped a hard drive.


[QUOTE=roogie;1126327]I always crack up at the reviews about iMacs that mention professionals being disappointed with them for some reason or another. Any professional knows that the iMac line is for consumers and will be going the obvious Mac Pro route.
/QUOTE]

I'm a professional programmer and web designer. A Mac Pro is complete overkill for that. Waste of space, money and electricity. There's many professions that don't need a Mac Pro and the whole attitude from some people that you're somehow unprofessional using anything less than a MacPro is silly. The iMac is faster than the MacBook Pro. Are users of that laptop also unprofessional?




Yeah, they'll stick glossy screens in the MacBookPros too.



So you can tell the difference between it sleeping and being off. And it IS cool, especially how it's intensity changes depending on how dark the surroundings are - dimmer if it's dark.




The only problem here being that the new iMac has a MATTE LCD display with a GLOSSY glass panel in front of it so you've the worst of both worlds, the anti-glare coating on the panel reducing contrast and the glass in front adding reflections.



Except I think it looks worse. White keys on aluminium when the iMac is aluminium and black plastic? Horrible, horrible, horrible.

To me it seems like they designed the iMac and the keyboard separately. One group followed the white/aluminium Apple aesthetic whilst the other group did the iMac and realised a white surround on the screen would look terrible, so made it black, but didn't tell the keyboard guys. But then it would have needed a black mighty mouse too....

IMHO they should have just stuck to white OR aluminium OR black but mixing all of them is just awful. It looks like a design by committee. It's also the first time I've heard Steve Jobs say something like "consumers love it" when announcing a product. What? so they listen to focus groups now???? That's not Apple.

It's not the first time though. White accessories with the black Macbook? AppleTV being a different size to the Mac Mini and even the Airport Extreme? Apple just seem to be missing the finer details of late. When they did the original iMac, the accessories matched the CPU. It was a complete design. These days they just shove their generic white accessories in with their design.

I hope they're just in a design transition phase and get back to designing the whole and stop listening to focus groups.

They already have. They do give you a choice, but I expect we pay just a bit more for the extra SKU's.

I'm not against them offering both for the iMac as well. It's just that there is a lot of nonsense being told about how bad glossy is.


I haven't checked the screen. If you are sure about that, it's too bad they went that route. It's strange then, that people do say that the screen has more vibrant color, with better black levels, and more shadow detail.


This is personal taste. I don't like the look of black keys on natural anodized aluminum. But, I do like the way the black screen and case look.

Of course, we were talking about the way the keyboard feels..

From a design standpoint, why do you dislike the new iMac? I've seen it in person and think it looks pretty attractive.

As a G5 owner, it really sheds light on the internal upgrades that the Imac line has undergone. I would invariably get one today, but iLife 08 runs great on my 20" G5 and really i don't like the glossy screen AS THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE

I had a macbook for awhile, but as it seemed to fall in to the "toy" category as you astutely mentioned, I shipped that baby on the eBay.

iThink the new iMac's look great, i didn't know about the Geforce graphics card, but I am not complaining, the graphic cards in macs have been a-w-f-u-l until this most recent upgrade.

but man, that glossy sheen, major mistake. Many people can only put their desktop in a single location in the house, and if their is glare, they WILL NOT keep their iMac. iWouldn't, you wouldn't, the glossy only option is ridiculous, its akin to when ipods only worked on macs, it automatically turns off "switchers" and will slam the door shut on the halo affect Apple has been experiencing from the ipod, and iphone.

Please offer matte finish Apple, what's the difference to you, to me it means holding on to my g5 for a few more years and warning people about the imac, instead of encouraging them to buy, buy, buy.

You're right.

I have one more year of college left and would like to buy a mac after I graduate (or maybe right before to get the student discount). I do graphic design mostly using Adobe programs such as Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign and Flash. I would like to get an iMac because the Mac Pro is both way out of my league financially and also not necessary for the kind of work I do. Does anyone think there will be changes to the iMac in the time between now and next summer? I know they don't usually totally overhaul machines that quickly, but do they sometimes make internal upgrades in shorter time frames?

I haven't actually seen the new iMac in real life, but I have never been a huge fan of glossy laptop screens so it would be nice if that somehow became an option (although since its a glass plate, I'm thinking it would probably be too much to change).

With respect to the whole graphics card debate. Most of you guys who complain have little to no objectivity or perspective to base your complaint on. Its only based on spec sheets and numbers not the practicality of the situation.

The truth is that intel GMA is the most widely used GPU in the world. Over 60% of computers shipped have integrated graphics. The overwhelming majority of people are fine with that and don't know the difference.

The iMac's GPU is better than intel GMA. It can do most of what's needed to be done, its only failing is that its not cutting edge. The Nvidia 8800 is far better than the 8600/8700. There will always be a better card Apple could have used. The question is that better card really necessary for the market?

Yes there will be changes. By next summer intel will be using a different motherboard, chipset, and processor. More than likely an upgraded GPU and more storage by then. Their will be changes the next year after that and on and on.

For those of you who just HATE the glossy glass, as it seems that it's just held on with magnets, it's possible that someone will offer matte glass to replace the one that came with the machine.

If so, and they can keep to price reasonable, it might be something to think about.

I'm even thinking about doing it myself. Also, possibly feet for the keyboard.

It depends on the pricing I can work up. I haven't looked at it yet.

I hate to break it to you AI, but the magnet is still present. While you are correct that it can't go through the aluminum, I think the reason for that is not the thickness of the aluminum, but rather the fact that aluminum is not magnetic.

The magnet is present, but it's not on the side, it's just round the corner on the front, under the thin glass.

Owmygod ThunkDifferent, I recommend you reading Mellgross post (at the beginning of the second page)!

The so called hallelujah matte screen is a disaster in sunlight! Every morning I have to keep my curtains down as the sunlight makes my clean matte 20" cinema display look dusty and unreadable. Okay, there's no glare, but all the colours just fade away in the sun!

Maybe you should try this with your G5 and experience it yourself

Also, Apple writes the ATi and Nvidia drivers for the cards they include and add to the BTO option.

All other ATi and Nvidia drivers are written by their respective companies.

Apple leverages I/O Kit and as you noted they have a huge investment in OpenGL.

Microsoft doesn't.

As I said in my previous post, that's a magnet, not the magnet. The difference being, a magnet that just happens to be part of the design (which the magnets beneath the bezel that hold the screen in place are) isn't the same as a magnet Apple intended to be used as a remote dock (as the side magnet on the previous iMac was).

The practical difference is that you can just get the remote to hang there if you try hard enough and it can be knocked off very easily and it is awkwardly positioned, which is quite a bit different from the previous design.

Somebody got the official word from Apple (as in "no, we don't expect you to stick the remote to the machine") somewhere, I'll try to find the link.

Depends on who you ask. A 17 years old sorority girl will say it is while 23 years old university student working with 3D software won't. The only thing that's pro about it is the big 24 inch screen and nothing else.

In Kodwarisan's takeapart of the iMac 20" he revealed that the panel used is the 6bit LG Philips TN Panel, model no. LM201WE3

http://www.kodawarisan.com/imac_2007...07_mid_01.html

The full specs are at http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com/homeCon...hilips_LCD.PDF

(note: they also make a 24" model with the same specs as Apple state - also 6bit)

I would hazard a guess at the praise being lauded on the screen as being the Emperor's clothes effect. Ie. if you tell someone it's better and more so that they've spent a wad of cash on it, then it will of course be better.


Not really bothered about how it feels. They're much of a muchness and I usually adapt to the feel. I just think it should have matched the screen.



I don't like black and I don't like aluminium. I don't like glossy glass displays either. It's tacky.




Thinking about it, since the panel is matte already, instead of putting matte glass in front of it, just make an aluminium surround with a bevel that replaces the black surround that's currently around the edge of the glass. That would solve most of the design issues for me as long as I could live with the aluminium. That would be quite easy to do and easier to ship in the post too.

(check out the grass) Hehe!!

It's magnetic there at the sides, but not really enough to hold the remote.

I find it difficult to judge whether it's "professional", "consumer", or "prosumer".
That judgement really comes down to a generalisation of a professional's or consumer's needs, and then deciding which computer can meet those needs. Why generalise, if you know your specific needs?

If we do generalise, then I have to ask what consumer needs 1000baseT networking or Firewire800?

My wife spent a huge amount on the top of the line PowerMac G4 several years ago. She's a graphic designer and needed the speed. Now it's running slowly and she needs a boost - but we haven't decided if the iMac will do everything she needs, or whether we should spend the extra on a bottom of the line MacPro.

Prosumer vs consumer doesn't really come into it. It's whether it'll help her do her job more effectively.


Thanks Melgross. Doesn't make the decision easier.... but it's at least more informed . Also... CS2 is only 1 of many programs she uses, the rest of which are all native...

Actually I agree with you, I think it's all based on circumstance and viewpoint.
The machine comes across looking much more like a professional machine than a consumer PC. Someone mentioned before that they think it looks tacky, fair enough, that's all personal taste, but I always thought the previous white plastic iMacs looked awfully tacky. These ones IMO are beautiful. Not stoked on the keyboards, but I've yet to try one.

Anyway, any of these machines would beat my current one by leaps and bounds, and the additional power would really help my creative process.
I'm a professional, and these machines would be perfect for me, as I can't afford a Mac Pro. Thus, for me, the new iMac is a professional machine.
For a high-school kid that just wants to edit his or her skateboarding videos, it's a consumer machine.

Jimzip

If you edit large files in PS, then either get a intel mac with CS3 or not at all. Performance is not that great on my 24" iMac 2.33 GHz 1st gen with 3 GB ram and adobe cs.

Add to the above, Macworld's just posted another glowing review. (http://www.macworld.com/2007/08/revi...imac/index.php)

As for the issues surrounding the glossy screen, we should keep in mind that we have more glossy screens (CRTs) out there than matte. As we have found in the graphic industry, it is just a matter of placement, adjusting the lighting and as Apple outlines in the new iMac manual, "Understanding Ergonomics."

In any event, I would prefer doing my own due diligence, i.e., reading peer-reviewed article by respected experts and my personal real-world experience, rather than take the word of bloggers who often unintentionally misquote and misunderstand, or worse, intentionally mislead.

He's talking about getting this one, or waiting a bit for a later upgrade.

I agree. And, so far, all of the reviews found the quality of the image to be very good, and the reflections to be a minor issue.

Apple's wide touch pad idea http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-975...ml?tag=nl.e501

It may get better ----- or worse.

TDM and migration assistant work fine over Firewire 800. That is how I set up my last two Apple laptops. With laptops the problem is that with 2.5" drives at 5400 rpm, you don't see a difference between Firewire 400 and 800.

Why wait. Things have changed. Even having to use Photoshop CS2 under Rosetta since OS X 10.4.8 is faster yet. http://www.macworld.com/2006/11/firs...etta/index.php

What does this means? Every GPU from the last 4-5 years is capable to forward to the display the decoded HD content, but it does not decode it by itself. This happens in the CPU.

There are no such drivers for Mac OS X as far as I know. The previous X1600 had also HD-decoding capabilities but Apple never enabled them. From the DVD era Apple showed its will to move every media decoding on the CPU. This still holds and I am waiting for anyone to prove me wrong with the new models.

It would seem unlikely too given they're best buddies with Intel now and Intel's credo is to make the CPU do as much as possible so that you always need a faster one (from Intel of course).

The 950 can do this in hardware, just as most gpus can.