or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple quietly refreshes iMac line, now up to 3.06GHz
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple quietly refreshes iMac line, now up to 3.06GHz - Page 7

post #241 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastersonics View Post

Maybe a stupid question,

So you guys think the difference in performance between the new 24" iMac and
the 24" 2.4 Ghz is "somewhat" negligible?

I'll be using it mostly for Audio and light video editing.


I'm asking because I can get a Brand NEW 24" 2.4Ghz iMac from a friend for $1,300.


thanks for your help
regards,
Charles

You can get that machine refurbed direct from Apple for 1300, so while it's a good deal it's not a really great one. I think it boils down to your financial situation really. I personally like the idea of the newest machine I can get just so I can sell it down the road for as much as possible, but it's not like there's a huge difference between the two (especially if you don't get the 8800 in the new model).
Anyone for pie?
Reply
Anyone for pie?
Reply
post #242 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Pie Man View Post

You can get that machine refurbed direct from Apple for 1300, so while it's a good deal it's not a really great one. I think it boils down to your financial situation really. I personally like the idea of the newest machine I can get just so I can sell it down the road for as much as possible, but it's not like there's a huge difference between the two (especially if you don't get the 8800 in the new model).


So it's kind of negligible unless I get the Extreme model?


thanks for your help
regards,
Charles
post #243 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I don't think it'll be negligible.

The new 24" iMac comes with a 2.8 ghz cpu more L-2 cache and a better gpu. I think it'll wind up being 15% faster than the older 2.4 ghz 24" iMac.

That's an extrapolation. I look forward to MacWorld testing. The previous debate was whether the 3.0 ghz iMac was going to be noticeably faster than the 2.8 ghz version and whether it was worth the premium price.


Still confused,


thanks for your help
Charles
post #244 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastersonics View Post

Still confused,


thanks for your help
Charles

It's not an easy recommendation though. The older machine is still a pretty solid unit.

I think zinfella does make good points. I can tell you what I'd do, but we don't know for sure which is best for you. If it looks like it's in good shape and it still has several months of warranty left, then it's probably a good deal. If it has some noticeable dings, nicks or scratches that you don't like, then the reconditioned one is probably a better deal, usually reconditioned Macs are in effectively perfect shape.

Based on what you said, I *think* it will still suit you very well for several years.

If you want to be sure about the performance difference, then try waiting a few days for MacWorld magazine to put up a review. They usually compare the new ones against a previous model.
post #245 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastersonics View Post

Still confused,


thanks for your help
Charles

The old iMac( the one your friend will sell to you) has a 2.4 ghz C2D cpu. The new iMac has a a 2.8 ghz cpu. The 400 mhz speed advantage (2.8 -2.4) should translate into a 14.3% faster cpu in the new iMac vs. the old. The new iMacs have other features; more level 2 cache, better gpu and slight architectural enhancements of the cpu, that likely will give it more of speed advantage.

I'm expecting it to be roughly 15% faster. Maybe a little more or a little less. Whether that is enough of a speed boast to justify paying more to get the faster model or not, only you can answer.
post #246 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

The old iMac( the one your friend will sell to you) has a 2.4 ghz C2D cpu. The new iMac has a a 2.8 ghz cpu. The 400 mhz speed advantage (2.8 -2.4) should translate into a 14.3% faster cpu in the new iMac vs. the old. The new iMacs have other features; more level 2 cache, better gpu and slight architectural enhancements of the cpu, that likely will give it more of speed advantage.

I'm expecting it to be roughly 15% faster. Maybe a little more or a little less. Whether that is enough of a speed boast to justify paying more to get the faster model or not, only you can answer.


Hi backtomac

I guess I wasn't clear about which model I was talking.

I'm interested to know the difference between the 24" 3.06 Ghz model with the 8800 and the 24" 2.4 Ghz model.

thanks for your help and sorry for the mix up
Charles
post #247 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastersonics View Post

Hi backtomac

I guess I wasn't clear about which model I was talking.

I'm interested to know the difference between the 24" 3.06 Ghz model with the 8800 and the 24" 2.4 Ghz model.

thanks for your help and sorry for the mix up
Charles

More than 15%. Probably closer to 25%.
post #248 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

More than 15%. Probably closer to 25%.

Ok, thanks backtomac

That's more than negligible

decisions, decisions......


Charles
post #249 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Interesting comment from seemingly knowledgeable Edgadget poster:

"Montevina" (35/45 series northbridges) is the name of the platform that suceeds to the "Santa Rosa" (965 northbridge), NOT the processor.
In fact, both the "Santa Rosa" and "Montevina" can use either the refreshed 800MHz FSB "Merom" (65nm) or "Penryn" (45nm) Core 2's -as long as they are Socket P compatible-.
The "Montevina" brings mostly a official 1066MHz FSB and lower-voltage DDR3 (1.5v, instead of DDR2's 1.8v) options, but the former already exists unofficially in Santa Rosa, and the CPU's of each platform should be interchangeable pending BIOS/EFI updates -same socket/pin layout, as i said above-.
This is further complicated by the fact that both "Santa Rosa" and "Montevina" chipsets can decrease their FSB's clockspeeds independently from the CPU core clockspeed, pending bandwidth utilization patterns. That's why a Core 2 "Santa Rosa"-based CPU can be used at full speed while its FSB may run at just 400MHz, instead of the 800MHz standard speed.

DDR3-1333 will only improve integrated graphics (an area where clocks, not access latency, play a key role) performance and slightly lower the overall power consumption. Due to increased latencies of the DDR3 technology, you'll be hard pressed to find anything else running faster versus the bog-standard DDR2-667.

So, in short, future "Montevina"-based iMac's/Macbook's/Macbook Pro's will use basically the same CPU's as the "Santa Rosa" platform refresh currently shipping with "Penryn" 45nm Core 2's. The extra 266MHz for the FSB are therefore perfectly negligible in the performance department compared to any recent "Santa Rosa"-based 45nm Core 2 "Penryn". Only a hypothetical mobile quad-core CPU would benefit from it under certain conditions, but the "Penryn" model they've announced for this iMac isn't one, so...

Sorry for the somewhat lengthy post, but it'll be useful if it avoids any upgrade-rush mistakes for many ill-informed or confused buyers out there.


Solipsism,

If I understand the "seemingly knowledgable Endgadget Poster" correctly:

The current Santa Rosa implementation will have already incorporated most of the meaningful Montevina innovations, performance wise. The biggest area for improvement would be the DDR3 memory-improving integrated graphics. However, all four models come with either the ATI or NVidia graphics, this becomes a moot point.

What's left is the wiz-bang features.
post #250 of 363
däng, i was again, to no avail hoping for apple to give us the ÜBER-iMac with the 30" HD screen. pleeeeaze, i need more screen real estate...
post #251 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastersonics View Post

Ok, thanks backtomac

That's more than negligible

decisions, decisions......


Charles

Take into consideration the RAM and HD in the used unit vs. going new or refurbed. The point I was making earlier is sometimes brute CPU gains seem tiny when listed as % gains, but when you use the machine, it feels a lot snappier than the listed 10 or 15% gain. The way Apple bundles their products, you usually get an upgrade on HD size, graphics card performance, a faster CPU with more cache, etc. True, the CPU is only 15% faster, but this machine will probably feel like more than that.

The reason for this is the way we use our computers vs. the way they test them. Often, we'll load up several Apps at the same time and rarely restart. Such use responds very well to added RAM and faster Hard Drives. Be sure you're comparing the major components when deciding which to buy.

A 2.4 Ghz model will outperform a 2.8 Ghz model if it has double the RAM and you keep a dozen or more Apps open all the time. It's easy gobble 2 GB RAM if you use Photoshop, Parallels, Safari with dozens of windows open, etc. In that case, the extra oomph of the CPU will be hammered by the OS's use of Virtual Memory.

For what it's worth, that $1300 2.4 sounds pretty good to me! RAM is cheap. Load it up.
post #252 of 363
I want an iMac, or should I say I need an iMac. My G4 laptop is old after 3 years so I don't want to buy another Laptop if all I'm getting is 3 years. So I want to get a desktop. The problem is I have two choices, the iMac at $2000 which has the worse screen in computer history

http://www.engadget.com/photos/apple...arking/778579/

Or a Mac Pro for $3700

I'm starting to hate Apple.
post #253 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawporta View Post

I want an iMac, or should I say I need an iMac. My G4 laptop is old after 3 years so I don't want to buy another Laptop if all I'm getting is 3 years. So I want to get a desktop. The problem is I have two choices, the iMac at $2000 which has the worse screen in computer history

http://www.engadget.com/photos/apple...arking/778579/

Or a Mac Pro for $3700

I'm starting to hate Apple.

You can get a new iMac for $1100, not $2000, that will be better than your G4 in every way.

A Mac Pro costs $2700 for the 2x4-core system.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #254 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawporta View Post

I want an iMac, or should I say I need an iMac. My G4 laptop is old after 3 years so I don't want to buy another Laptop if all I'm getting is 3 years. So I want to get a desktop. The problem is I have two choices, the iMac at $2000 which has the worse screen in computer history

http://www.engadget.com/photos/apple...arking/778579/

Or a Mac Pro for $3700

I'm starting to hate Apple.

the link you've shown does not prove nor disprove your statement "worse screen in computer history"

While I do see reflections on the screen, that comes from the placement and ambient light of the room.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #255 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

Take into consideration the RAM and HD in the used unit vs. going new or refurbed. The point I was making earlier is sometimes brute CPU gains seem tiny when listed as % gains, but when you use the machine, it feels a lot snappier than the listed 10 or 15% gain. The way Apple bundles their products, you usually get an upgrade on HD size, graphics card performance, a faster CPU with more cache, etc. True, the CPU is only 15% faster, but this machine will probably feel like more than that.

The reason for this is the way we use our computers vs. the way they test them. Often, we'll load up several Apps at the same time and rarely restart. Such use responds very well to added RAM and faster Hard Drives. Be sure you're comparing the major components when deciding which to buy.

A 2.4 Ghz model will outperform a 2.8 Ghz model if it has double the RAM and you keep a dozen or more Apps open all the time. It's easy gobble 2 GB RAM if you use Photoshop, Parallels, Safari with dozens of windows open, etc. In that case, the extra oomph of the CPU will be hammered by the OS's use of Virtual Memory.

For what it's worth, that $1300 2.4 sounds pretty good to me! RAM is cheap. Load it up.




Thanks Bugsnw
I was thinking about the same
but want it to run it by you guys to be certain

If I get the 2.4Ghz one I will definitely max it up to 4GB of RAM.

thanks,
Charles
post #256 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

While I do see reflections on the screen, that comes from the placement and ambient light of the room.

But in that case, it doesn't look like it can be remedied by the usual suggestions that are bandied about. OK, one might move the screen one way, but there's a window there. Move it the other way, there's another window there. Most of the suggestions I see really sound like blaming the room to me.
post #257 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastersonics View Post

My friend decided to go with a 8 core Mac Pro so he's basically giving this iMac away.
What you guys think?

regards,
Charles

I've done a considerable amount of pro audio work over the years.

It depends on what you mean by audio work. If youare doing tweo channel, almost any model, including the Mini will be fine. If you are doing multi-channel, it depends on how many channels, and what plug-ins you are using.

The relationship is simple with audio, the more channels, and the more plug-ins working on those channels at once, the more power you will need.

Generally, I would say that that model is fine, but without knowing more, such as what programs you intend to use, with which plug-ins, it's impossible to know for sure.
post #258 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

But in that case, it doesn't look like it can be remedied by the usual suggestions that are bandied about. OK, one might move the screen one way, but there's a window there. Move it the other way, there's another window there. Most of the suggestions I see really sound like blaming the room to me.

But, it is the room.

Look, even matter screens are affected by these strong reflections. You don't realize it, because the reflections are spread out over a large area on the screen, and so are muted. They also are diffracted into the matte, and bounce around under the surface behind the matte surface, spreading out over the entire area of the screen. this is why matte screens are incapable of showing a true black (as much as an LCD can have, that is), and lower the saturation, and purity of the image. The light from behind the surface, coming out from the LCD is also bounced around, and comes out all over the screen.

Don't be fooled, as some seem to be, that you aren't affected when you have a matte screen. you are. You just don't notice it.

And as someone here said about not being bothered by reflections from glossy screens, the fact that it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean that you aren't being affected by it.

I prefer glossy screens for some purposes because I know what the reflections are, and what they are doing, but I can't really tell in the case of matte.

And that's why hi end color monitors always used to be glossy.
post #259 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I've done a considerable amount of pro audio work over the years.

It depends on what you mean by audio work. If youare doing tweo channel, almost any model, including the Mini will be fine. If you are doing multi-channel, it depends on how many channels, and what plug-ins you are using.

The relationship is simple with audio, the more channels, and the more plug-ins working on those channels at once, the more power you will need.

Generally, I would say that that model is fine, but without knowing more, such as what programs you intend to use, with which plug-ins, it's impossible to know for sure.


Hi Mel

I'll be doing up to 32 channels in Pro Tools and Logic 8
will be using Reason 4 with Waves and URS plugins.

what you think?

thanks,
Charles
post #260 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But, it is the room.

Look, even matter screens are affected by these strong reflections. You don't realize it, because the reflections are spread out over a large area on the screen, and so are muted. They also are diffracted into the matte, and bounce around under the surface behind the matte surface, spreading out over the entire area of the screen. this is why matte screens are incapable of showing a true black (as much as an LCD can have, that is), and lower the saturation, and purity of the image. The light from behind the surface, coming out from the LCD is also bounced around, and comes out all over the screen.

Don't be fooled, as some seem to be, that you aren't affected when you have a matte screen. you are. You just don't notice it.

And as someone here said about not being bothered by reflections from glossy screens, the fact that it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean that you aren't being affected by it.

I prefer glossy screens for some purposes because I know what the reflections are, and what they are doing, but I can't really tell in the case of matte.

And that's why hi end color monitors always used to be glossy.

I think both ways are sub-par for these reasons. My CRTs have something on them that's got a multicoating effect, and they weren't necessarily high end. I have a Viewsonic, an IBM, Compaq and Sony monitor that have it. It's smooth glass but cancels out most glare.
post #261 of 363
I too like the glossy screen over the matte. If one is into graphics, professionally, why aren't they working in an area setup for that type of work, and/or using a hood. I mean if one is serious, that's what they do, not whine about something that they can control. Showing that glossy screen iMac in that nightmare of a room for graphics is the silliest thing I've seen in awhile. My issue is still the uneven light, not the glossy screen that gives great color, but please people, use some common sense, and pay attention to where the iMac is used, if you don't want distracting glare.

Moreover, I would expect a graphics pro to be using Mac Pro, not an iMac.
post #262 of 363
This glossy vs. matte screen debate will never end, it's like a political or religious debate. That being said I can see the benefits of both. I am a graphic designer by trade so the visual elements of my machines are important. I have a matte screen on my MBP which is fine by me because it is what I have always used. On the other hand I have the 24" glossy screen on my imac and I love it. If the new imacs would have come with a glossy vs. matte option I would have opted for the glossy.

I have never had a problem with excessive glare or reflection, I suspect those that do are working directly in front of an open window or below an intense light source. Once you key in on the reflections I'm sure it is hard to become numb to them. I imagine it being comparable to listening to a presentation and noticing the speaker saying "umm" after every third word...once you key in on it you can't help but be annoyed.
post #263 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastersonics View Post

Hi Mel

I'll be doing up to 32 channels in Pro Tools and Logic 8
will be using Reason 4 with Waves and URS plugins.

what you think?

thanks,
Charles

While I did work in 8 channels a while ago with PPC G4 machines using Waves, and had no problems, I'm not personally familiar with the URS product.

I have also done 16 channels in Pro Tools on my dual 2 GHz G5 Powermac, also with Waves, and other products, also without a problem.

I've found that those I know are using Pro Tools with 24 and more channels with some heavy mods, and are doing it with dual, and four core Intel Mac Pro's without any difficulties, but 8 GB is the norm.

I do think that 32 channels might be pushing the 2.4 GHz product. It's difficult to say if the faster machines would be good here.

If you use Pro Tools you can ask what they think over there, as they are very helpful. They are often testing machines.

As for Logic, I have it, but haven't used it for too much. I'm not sure who at Apple might be able to help out on this.
post #264 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I think both ways are sub-par for these reasons. My CRTs have something on them that's got a multicoating effect, and they weren't necessarily high end. I have a Viewsonic, an IBM, Compaq and Sony monitor that have it. It's smooth glass but cancels out most glare.

In the "old" days, coating a screen was impossible, due to the technology's cost. Later on, it began to happen.
post #265 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmoopy.design View Post

This glossy vs. matte screen debate will never end, it's like a political or religious debate. That being said I can see the benefits of both. I am a graphic designer by trade so the visual elements of my machines are important. I have a matte screen on my MBP which is fine by me because it is what I have always used. On the other hand I have the 24" glossy screen on my imac and I love it. If the new imacs would have come with a glossy vs. matte option I would have opted for the glossy.

I have never had a problem with excessive glare or reflection, I suspect those that do are working directly in front of an open window or below an intense light source. Once you key in on the reflections I'm sure it is hard to become numb to them. I imagine it being comparable to listening to a presentation and noticing the speaker saying "umm" after every third word...once you key in on it you can't help but be annoyed.

In all but the highest situations, standards have really dropped. It's too bad.

At home, we get this crowd that thinks, "This is my room, man, I ain't gonna do nuttin'. It's 'cause I like it that way."

I guess we have to give up on them.
post #266 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

In the "old" days, coating a screen was impossible, due to the technology's cost. Later on, it began to happen.

I do have hope for LCDs though. My newest camcorder has an LCD screen that has a similar look. The screen is even useable outdoors.
post #267 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

the link you've shown does not prove nor disprove your statement "worse screen in computer history"

While I do see reflections on the screen, that comes from the placement and ambient light of the room.

More to the point that is not the screen, but the glass cover that this guy hates.

They should think before they write.
post #268 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

More to the point that is not the screen, but the glass cover that this guy hates.

They should think before they write.

More to the point, anyone who puts their monitor directly opposite a window knowing it isn't a matte surface is an idiot.
post #269 of 363
MacWorld has posted their preliminary benchmarks. The 3.06GHz iMac is a great alternative to a Mac Pro if you aren't interested in upgrading. I was surprised at how poorly the new 2.4GHz iMac did again the Aug 2007 2.4Ghz iMac.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1332...enchmarks.html
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #270 of 363
Nice link Solipism.

The 3ghz iMac looks like a helluva machine if you're not hung up on the display.
post #271 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

MacWorld has posted their preliminary benchmarks. The 3.06GHz iMac is a great alternative to a Mac Pro if you aren't interested in upgrading. I was surprised at how poorly the new 2.4GHz iMac did again the Aug 2007 2.4Ghz iMac.

The old 2.4GHz model they tested was a mid-level model with 2GB of RAM and Radeon 2600 graphics, vs. the new low-end model with 1GB of RAM and a Radeon 2400. That's why it did better.
post #272 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

The old 2.4GHz model they tested was a mid-level model with 2GB of RAM and Radeon 2600 graphics, vs. the new low-end model with 1GB of RAM and a Radeon 2400. That's why it did better.

True, but I thought the 800Mhz RAM, 1066MHz FSB and 6MB L2 Cache would affect non-GPU intensive apps more positively.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #273 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

True, but I thought the 800Mhz RAM, 1066MHz FSB and 6MB L2 Cache would affect non-GPU intensive apps more positively.

The new model did 9.5% better in the MPEG compression test despite the same CPU clock speed. Seems pretty good to me.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #274 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

True, but I thought the 800Mhz RAM, 1066MHz FSB and 6MB L2 Cache would affect non-GPU intensive apps more positively.

These things don't have as much influence as you might think.

Most work doesn't stress the memory subsystems. When it does, then there will be a difference. Otherwise, clock speed is in an overbearing position.
post #275 of 363
Here is a Geekbenck rating of all 4 new iMac models.
http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2008/...ance-may-2008/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

The new model did 9.5% better in the MPEG compression test despite the same CPU clock speed. Seems pretty good to me.

Point taken.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #276 of 363
You have to hold down the Control key (or right click) and choose to open in a new window or tab when you click the Edit button.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #277 of 363
Well, strange as it may seem, I've just ordered two 4 GB RAM upgrades for the 3.06 24" iMac's from OWC I haven't as yet ordered.

I'm awaiting some word on these machines on Macfixit, and MacInTouch first, to see if any little problems that will affect their use shows up.
post #278 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

More to the point, anyone who puts their monitor directly opposite a window knowing it isn't a matte surface is an idiot.

I wouldn't go that far, but.

I would rephrase it toanyone who puts their monitor, gloss or matte directly opposite a window, and complains about the glare or reflection is just ignorant.

Interesting that I can walk into some of the biggest ad agencies in the world, with dozens of monitors, both matte and glossy, and find some are preferred over others for whatever reason. However, there was never a rule that it is a 'must be this type of screen only. Although the main board rooms, particularly for client meeting/presentations were invariably furnished with gloss screens. In any even, if anybody did complain, it was a, "turn or tilt the damn thing stupid."

Also interesting that many of the complaints about the glossy screens come from people that have never even seen one, let alone used one, yet come across like they had a PhD in Physics. Those that have had or are having issues, perhaps a little direction will help.

For sure you don't put your TV in opposite the front window. Most cases, you turn down or even turn off all the lights when you are watching a movie. Ever notice that most TVs were placed below eye level. Only recently with plasma and LCD screens did wall mounting and thus positioning the screen above eye level become popular. And when we got our first one, remember how much we had to re-adjust our room lights and curtains. For those of you that still have a drive-in theatre nearby, check out how the movie screen is placed relative to where the sun sets.

And, one other suggestion, there are a lot of web sites that will help, including Apple: http://www.apple.com/about/ergonomics/vision.html (I would personally recommend that everybody bookmark it and check it over once in awhile, particularly after you have rearranged your monitor/office/furnishings.

In addition, if you have the luxury to visit an Apple store, don't make your final screen choice or negate one because of the glare or reflection observed while standing in front of it. Have it put or position yourself as it/you would be ideally placed/recommended. In most cases, the Apple stores are so lit that tilting the screen will be sufficient to reduce glare. However, if Apple were to do what Sony does to display their highend screens, a 'dark' room would be really show off the beauty of the iMac.
post #279 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

I wouldn't go that far, but.

I would rephrase it toanyone who puts their monitor, gloss or matte directly opposite a window, and complains about the glare or reflection is just ignorant.

Interesting that I can walk into some of the biggest ad agencies in the world, with dozens of monitors, both matte and glossy, and find some are preferred over others for whatever reason. However, there was never a rule that it is a 'must be this type of screen only. Although the main board rooms, particularly for client meeting/presentations were invariably furnished with gloss screens. In any even, if anybody did complain, it was a, "turn or tilt the damn thing stupid."

Also interesting that many of the complaints about the glossy screens come from people that have never even seen one, let alone used one, yet come across like they had a PhD in Physics. Those that have had or are having issues, perhaps a little direction will help.

For sure you don't put your TV in opposite the front window. Most cases, you turn down or even turn off all the lights when you are watching a movie. Ever notice that most TVs were placed below eye level. Only recently with plasma and LCD screens did wall mounting and thus positioning the screen above eye level become popular. And when we got our first one, remember how much we had to re-adjust our room lights and curtains. For those of you that still have a drive-in theatre nearby, check out how the movie screen is placed relative to where the sun sets.

And, one other suggestion, there are a lot of web sites that will help, including Apple: http://www.apple.com/about/ergonomics/vision.html (I would personally recommend that everybody bookmark it and check it over once in awhile, particularly after you have rearranged your monitor/office/furnishings.

In addition, if you have the luxury to visit an Apple store, don't make your final screen choice or negate one because of the glare or reflection observed while standing in front of it. Have it put or position yourself as it/you would be ideally placed/recommended. In most cases, the Apple stores are so lit that tilting the screen will be sufficient to reduce glare. However, if Apple were to do what Sony does to display their highend screens, a 'dark' room would be really show off the beauty of the iMac.

I was intentionally inciteful to challenge people to actually think before they do their usual, as you pointed out with the dig on Physics, speaking as if they are the Oracles for the Monitor World.

Give me a glossy, glive me a matte. Glossy is nice to be able to not worry about damaging the screen when you are touching it--inevitably so when you are trying to explain something to someone.

I want better quality LCD Panels as the baseline for computer systems.

The junk they are dumping on the industry and pawning them off as HD makes me wanna throw up.

It's their little scam to recoup any and all R&D on LCD panel development. It floods the market and eliminates CRT displays and forces everyone to then pay a hefty price if they want a color quality display.
post #280 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

I was intentionally inciteful to challenge people to actually think before they do their usual, as you pointed out with the dig on Physics, speaking as if they are the Oracles for the Monitor World.

Give me a glossy, glive me a matte. Glossy is nice to be able to not worry about damaging the screen when you are touching it--inevitably so when you are trying to explain something to someone.

I want better quality LCD Panels as the baseline for computer systems.

The junk they are dumping on the industry and pawning them off as HD makes me wanna throw up.

It's their little scam to recoup any and all R&D on LCD panel development. It floods the market and eliminates CRT displays and forces everyone to then pay a hefty price if they want a color quality display.

Unfortunately, right now we are a bad period, monitorwise. LCD is a compromise. I just can't wait until we can get OLEDs.

I've seen the Sony OLED Tv, and it is amazing, and I don't say that often.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple quietly refreshes iMac line, now up to 3.06GHz