Originally Posted by marcuspablo
How does the Imac 24" screen look when compared to the 24" LED Stand alone? Does the LED spec make for an improved color balance?
Has anyone actually gotten an explantion *from apple* as to why they've gone the glossy route in spite of the huge negative customer feedback? Are there any benefits other than esthetics dictated by the marketing dept.?
I was hoping for a quad processor option or a Core i7 Processor as found on the new macpros. (is this to avoid stepping onto the turf of the Macpro)
Would an SSD option make any sense in an Imac?( faster boot up , less mechanical wear & tear etc...)
Anybody feel as though this release is an intermediary step before a short to midterm redesign that would include these options?
Thanx for any informed thoughts.
I think an in-store visit is needed for that iMac LCD vs Apple LED Monitor. I'll be putting that on my compare list next time I get over to one.
The big question of why Apple (and most models from other computer makers) have gone in a veritable stampede --lemming style-- to the glossy LCD screens is somewhat of a mystery to me.
Back in the CRT days, screen reflectiveness was studied a lot, and eventually, most CRTs either switched to anti-reflective, or had some sort of option to get a anti-reflective, non-glare surface. It was shown in many studies to be better for workers eyes/ ergonomics.
(I worked on both kinds back then. And technically, the anti-reflective screen surface is not really 'matte', a term which applies more to the physical surface of photographs, etc. Though we know what you mean.)
The non-reflective LCD panels I have used seem to be far better ergonomically than the glossy. The glossy ones I have used and tested are, to me, distracting to have to focus away from what is reflected (lights, windows, other people, etc) and onto the screen pixel display. And require a lot of fussing with angles and lights positioning.
What I have heard from reps is a range from 'oh, eventually, you'll just learn to ignore the reflections' to 'angle it properly to minimize reflections' to 'huh, what reflection' to 'it really makes the colors pop'.
Yeah, well pop this! (ahemm, back to reasonableness... apparently you hit my hot button ...
All sidestepping the real question of who thinks it is truly "better", why is it "better", for whom, and why are there no options for anti-reflective for the users who wish it.
My guess is that glossy screens are cheaper for the computer manufacturer (Apple included), that LCD manufacturers find glossy easier to make one a single production line for both HDTV and computer LCD monitors, thus cutting their manufacturing variables down. And recall the Apple marketing release of the Aluminum iMacs really pushed terms like 'shiny' and 'pop' -- as if those were good things in and of themselves -- trying to get us to believe.
It all seems to say that they don't really care about ergonomics and eye relief of their customers any more. Basically a sad, arrogant new trend. At least for those of us with eyes to see. (so to speak)
Re. processors and possible earlier next iMac revision... I think most of the discussion and articles I have seen indicate that higher end cpu chips were just too hot for the thin iMac case with its limitations on heat dissipation. SSD certainly cooler than a spinning HD, though way more expensive for now. But I too hope there will be a sooner than later iMac revision with a substantial cpu upgrade, AND with a non-reflective option.