Do you even know when the first bluray player came out? HDMI cables were not cheap and they didn't have a lot of choices, hell I had just got my first receiver about 2 months before that that had HDMI.
Don't preach to me about prices for a cable when I'm in a Mac Forum.
I wasn't preaching, I was confessing. I had to go to BestBuy also when I bought my BDP-S1. Paid $110+ US for the Monster brand because that's all they had. I also bought *gasp* 5 Blu-rays from a retail outlet! I find humor in the 2009s mocking what the 2006s. The curse of the early adopter. Btw, I owned a PS3 at launch and I already posted when I bought the Sony BDP player - the month it hit retail. BD is very cheap compared to early adopters of quality DVD players. I was there for VHS and LD, too.
It's pocket change. My analog interconnects are $500 a pair.
I wasn't preaching, I was confessing. I had to go to BestBuy also when I bought my BDP-S1. Paid $110+ US for the Monster brand because that's all they had. I also bought *gasp* 5 Blu-rays from a retail outlet! I find humor in the 2009s mocking what the 2006s. The curse of the early adopter. Btw, I owned a PS3 at launch and I already posted when I bought the Sony BDP player - the month it hit retail. BD is very cheap compared to early adopters of quality DVD players. I was there for VHS and LD, too.
It's pocket change. My analog interconnects are $500 a pair.
I apologize for the confusion I caused.
Not your fault but Thank You.
I will say, the DivX DVD player had to be one of the worst impulse purchases I've ever made.
At least I still listen to my SACD's now and then.
People who want to own movie do not want to take up hard drive space on their computer. Why does no one get this? A movie is 2GB- 4 in HD for less than stellar quality.
All that space wasted on my hard drive - I don't think so.
For streaming- or renting - OK , I can understand Netflix. But for owning? NO. Give it to me on a disk. NOt some lame digital file on my hard drive.
Who the shit still cares about Blu-ray...I can't believe some of you here are still enamored by such old tech. It's out but it's already old. Cheap high-density SD cards are going to replace Blu-ray within the next 3 years. I guarantee it.
Not unless they get much larger and drop in price 90% or so. The reason while flash memory hasn't replaced optical memory is that no matter how cheap it gets, its still many times more expensive than optical media. Nobody's going to buy a movie (or computer program) where you have to pay $15 more to get it on a SD card.
People who want to own movie do not want to take up hard drive space on their computer. Why does no one get this? A movie is 2GB- 4 in HD for less than stellar quality.
All that space wasted on my hard drive - I don't think so.
For streaming- or renting - OK , I can understand Netflix. But for owning? NO. Give it to me on a disk. NOt some lame digital file on my hard drive.
You ever seen a guy/gal with 2000 movies? They take up a LOT of space so one also could say that with digital files or physical files both take up space. A 2TB HDD is what 199 bucks now? No real worries there.
Listing computer parts and prices from Newegg is utterly irrelevant. Unless you plan to do some serious modding and somehow cram them into the same form factor as an iMac, with comparable OS functionality, features, specs, and support.
You need to compare all-in-one systems from manufacturers like Dell, HP, etc.
Don't want an all-in-one? Hey, that's cool. Some people do. More and more people quite recently, actually.
Heh...when I completely agree with you and think Frank is an ass, it's time to pack it in and go to bed. j/k
It does really put to question his other "analysis" when he's so bizzarely missing the point of the iMac.
It still doesn't change the fact that you have all this potential on the new 27" iMac and nothing to watch on it except iTunes HD, DVDs and 1080p trailers from the Quicktime trailer site. Kind of a waste. Or, if you happen to be editing 1080 on your new iMac, your HD delivery options are limited by the internal superdrive.
Definitely, not to mention the amount of data storage you can save to optical disk.
At this point Apple is being ridiculously ANTI-CONSUMER.
Apple ought to let the consumer decide which model to buy, and give us Blu-ray options reasonably priced.
oh yeah, don't forget bring back Matte screens with NO extra charge.
You ever seen a guy/gal with 2000 movies? They take up a LOT of space so one also could say that with digital files or physical files both take up space. A 2TB HDD is what 199 bucks now? No real worries there.
2 TB wouldn't cover 75 BDs and you still need player software and hardware and a protected delivery system if you plan to not use a disc.
that's true, good for the couple of matte iMacs 24 I have still value.
but a real shame such superb machines are marred by the no matte option and that rather off putting black border. eff that border apple and make it and to end screen as a mac should be.
Displayport is being included on many new graphics cards. Just go and look at the new ones coming out.
None that come with a computer that is available retail, mostly on FireGL or Quadro, and good luck trying to find a DP display. Displayport has had years and its not gaining any traction. Even Apple's efforts haven't been able to jump start it. I'm sorry, but HDMI is the connector that's moving forward.
Definitely, not to mention the amount of data storage you can save to optical disk.
At this point Apple is being ridiculously ANTI-CONSUMER.
Apple ought to let the consumer decide which model to buy, and give us Blu-ray options reasonably priced.
oh yeah, don't forget bring back Matte screens with NO extra charge.
To this point, I think Apple will deliver the player capability first through a quicktime add-on and then close after, the hardware option. Why deliver native BD movie playback when Windows doesn't. Offer the option and keep the consumer buying the next thing. Was it any different with DVD?
For anyone still thinking the 27" iMac is expensive.
1. If a 27" LED-backlit IPS display with 2560x1440 resolution did exist as a standalone product, you could probably never find one that would cost less than 1000 dollars.
2. If 1 is true, then rest of the top-of-the-line 27" iMac costs 1000 dollars.
3. I don't think it's possible to build your own box for 1000 dollars.
I think sargeantjackass (his name escapes me and I can't be bothered to go back a few pages to find it) tried to get a price tag on a computer with similar components and concluded that a computer similar to the iMac but without a display would cost 1100-1200 dollars.
Of course, this is a flawed price analysis because he thinks he's getting a better deal by already having a display laying around in his closet. Sure he's paying less for the computer, but that's akin to saying that one can build an even cheaper computer if one had a few HDDs, an ODD, some RAM, and a mobo laying around in one's closet, and all that's left to pay is the CPU.
You can't make a computer price comparison if you omit a component...especially if it's the most expensive component.
One can certainly argue that most consumers don't need such a high-quality display though. But then, one could argue many things such as not needing a quad-core CPU all the way to not needing 1TB of storage.
What is relevant here is that building a PC that has the *exact* specs as the 27" iMac would probably cost the same or more. The 27" iMac would almost certainly be sexier since it's a sleek all-in-one while the PC would be a beige box with a bunch of wires going from the box to the display and the box and display to a outlet.
TBH, the 27" iMac is probably the best deal to come from Apple since the Mac Pro (2006) and I doubt we'll see a deal like that from Apple for a loooong time.
It still doesn't change the fact that you have all this potential on the new 27" iMac and nothing to watch on it except iTunes HD, DVDs and 1080p trailers from the Quicktime trailer site. Kind of a waste. Or, if you happen to be editing 1080 on your new iMac, your HD delivery options are limited by the internal superdrive.
Or you use a FW Blu-Ray burner and stop incessantly whining about not having an internal burner that would be dog slow anyway because it's a slim drive. Wait, i forget...you're the guy who won't get a 3rd party BR drive for a mac pro because you'd rather overpay Apple for it.
What you should be complaining about is the lack of eSATA to hook it up to a blu-ray duplicator.
Or you use a FW Blu-Ray burner and stop incessantly whining about not having an internal burner that would be dog slow anyway because it's a slim drive. Wait, i forget...you're the guy who won't get a 3rd party BR drive for a mac pro because you'd rather overpay Apple for it.
What you should be complaining about is the lack of eSATA to hook it up to a blu-ray duplicator.
Dude a Blu-ray drive should be put in the dang thing. Stop with your stupid excuses for it not.
Comments
Do you even know when the first bluray player came out? HDMI cables were not cheap and they didn't have a lot of choices, hell I had just got my first receiver about 2 months before that that had HDMI.
Don't preach to me about prices for a cable when I'm in a Mac Forum.
I wasn't preaching, I was confessing. I had to go to BestBuy also when I bought my BDP-S1. Paid $110+ US for the Monster brand because that's all they had. I also bought *gasp* 5 Blu-rays from a retail outlet! I find humor in the 2009s mocking what the 2006s. The curse of the early adopter. Btw, I owned a PS3 at launch and I already posted when I bought the Sony BDP player - the month it hit retail. BD is very cheap compared to early adopters of quality DVD players. I was there for VHS and LD, too.
It's pocket change. My analog interconnects are $500 a pair.
I apologize for the confusion I caused.
I wasn't preaching, I was confessing. I had to go to BestBuy also when I bought my BDP-S1. Paid $110+ US for the Monster brand because that's all they had. I also bought *gasp* 5 Blu-rays from a retail outlet! I find humor in the 2009s mocking what the 2006s. The curse of the early adopter. Btw, I owned a PS3 at launch and I already posted when I bought the Sony BDP player - the month it hit retail. BD is very cheap compared to early adopters of quality DVD players. I was there for VHS and LD, too.
It's pocket change. My analog interconnects are $500 a pair.
I apologize for the confusion I caused.
Not your fault but Thank You.
I will say, the DivX DVD player had to be one of the worst impulse purchases I've ever made.
At least I still listen to my SACD's now and then.
I'm out of here for the evening.
The new iMac needs a Blu-ray and I don't give a crap what anybody on here says.
2 years into DVD and Apple was THERE. Apple is not cutting edge anymore with this almost HD ready iMac.
All that space wasted on my hard drive - I don't think so.
For streaming- or renting - OK , I can understand Netflix. But for owning? NO. Give it to me on a disk. NOt some lame digital file on my hard drive.
Who the shit still cares about Blu-ray...I can't believe some of you here are still enamored by such old tech. It's out but it's already old. Cheap high-density SD cards are going to replace Blu-ray within the next 3 years. I guarantee it.
Not unless they get much larger and drop in price 90% or so. The reason while flash memory hasn't replaced optical memory is that no matter how cheap it gets, its still many times more expensive than optical media. Nobody's going to buy a movie (or computer program) where you have to pay $15 more to get it on a SD card.
People who want to own movie do not want to take up hard drive space on their computer. Why does no one get this? A movie is 2GB- 4 in HD for less than stellar quality.
All that space wasted on my hard drive - I don't think so.
For streaming- or renting - OK , I can understand Netflix. But for owning? NO. Give it to me on a disk. NOt some lame digital file on my hard drive.
You ever seen a guy/gal with 2000 movies? They take up a LOT of space so one also could say that with digital files or physical files both take up space. A 2TB HDD is what 199 bucks now? No real worries there.
Not even close to an accurate comparison.
Listing computer parts and prices from Newegg is utterly irrelevant. Unless you plan to do some serious modding and somehow cram them into the same form factor as an iMac, with comparable OS functionality, features, specs, and support.
You need to compare all-in-one systems from manufacturers like Dell, HP, etc.
Don't want an all-in-one? Hey, that's cool. Some people do. More and more people quite recently, actually.
Heh...when I completely agree with you and think Frank is an ass, it's time to pack it in and go to bed.
It does really put to question his other "analysis" when he's so bizzarely missing the point of the iMac.
It still doesn't change the fact that you have all this potential on the new 27" iMac and nothing to watch on it except iTunes HD, DVDs and 1080p trailers from the Quicktime trailer site. Kind of a waste. Or, if you happen to be editing 1080 on your new iMac, your HD delivery options are limited by the internal superdrive.
Definitely, not to mention the amount of data storage you can save to optical disk.
At this point Apple is being ridiculously ANTI-CONSUMER.
Apple ought to let the consumer decide which model to buy, and give us Blu-ray options reasonably priced.
oh yeah, don't forget bring back Matte screens with NO extra charge.
You ever seen a guy/gal with 2000 movies? They take up a LOT of space so one also could say that with digital files or physical files both take up space. A 2TB HDD is what 199 bucks now? No real worries there.
2 TB wouldn't cover 75 BDs and you still need player software and hardware and a protected delivery system if you plan to not use a disc.
And no matte and still ugly black border- puke.
I now have to wait 6 more months.
that's true, good for the couple of matte iMacs 24 I have still value.
but a real shame such superb machines are marred by the no matte option and that rather off putting black border. eff that border apple and make it and to end screen as a mac should be.
again shame for the no matte option.
Displayport is being included on many new graphics cards. Just go and look at the new ones coming out.
None that come with a computer that is available retail, mostly on FireGL or Quadro, and good luck trying to find a DP display. Displayport has had years and its not gaining any traction. Even Apple's efforts haven't been able to jump start it. I'm sorry, but HDMI is the connector that's moving forward.
Definitely, not to mention the amount of data storage you can save to optical disk.
At this point Apple is being ridiculously ANTI-CONSUMER.
Apple ought to let the consumer decide which model to buy, and give us Blu-ray options reasonably priced.
oh yeah, don't forget bring back Matte screens with NO extra charge.
To this point, I think Apple will deliver the player capability first through a quicktime add-on and then close after, the hardware option. Why deliver native BD movie playback when Windows doesn't. Offer the option and keep the consumer buying the next thing. Was it any different with DVD?
1. If a 27" LED-backlit IPS display with 2560x1440 resolution did exist as a standalone product, you could probably never find one that would cost less than 1000 dollars.
2. If 1 is true, then rest of the top-of-the-line 27" iMac costs 1000 dollars.
3. I don't think it's possible to build your own box for 1000 dollars.
I think sargeantjackass (his name escapes me and I can't be bothered to go back a few pages to find it) tried to get a price tag on a computer with similar components and concluded that a computer similar to the iMac but without a display would cost 1100-1200 dollars.
Of course, this is a flawed price analysis because he thinks he's getting a better deal by already having a display laying around in his closet. Sure he's paying less for the computer, but that's akin to saying that one can build an even cheaper computer if one had a few HDDs, an ODD, some RAM, and a mobo laying around in one's closet, and all that's left to pay is the CPU.
You can't make a computer price comparison if you omit a component...especially if it's the most expensive component.
One can certainly argue that most consumers don't need such a high-quality display though. But then, one could argue many things such as not needing a quad-core CPU all the way to not needing 1TB of storage.
What is relevant here is that building a PC that has the *exact* specs as the 27" iMac would probably cost the same or more. The 27" iMac would almost certainly be sexier since it's a sleek all-in-one while the PC would be a beige box with a bunch of wires going from the box to the display and the box and display to a outlet.
TBH, the 27" iMac is probably the best deal to come from Apple since the Mac Pro (2006) and I doubt we'll see a deal like that from Apple for a loooong time.
"Note also, the i5 & i7 processors are not yet available - according to the Apple website, these machines won't start shipping until November."
What! More waiting!?! This is harder than Zen!!!
It still doesn't change the fact that you have all this potential on the new 27" iMac and nothing to watch on it except iTunes HD, DVDs and 1080p trailers from the Quicktime trailer site. Kind of a waste. Or, if you happen to be editing 1080 on your new iMac, your HD delivery options are limited by the internal superdrive.
Or you use a FW Blu-Ray burner and stop incessantly whining about not having an internal burner that would be dog slow anyway because it's a slim drive. Wait, i forget...you're the guy who won't get a 3rd party BR drive for a mac pro because you'd rather overpay Apple for it.
What you should be complaining about is the lack of eSATA to hook it up to a blu-ray duplicator.
If so, is there any way to hook up a DVI macbook to it?
Thanks.
Or you use a FW Blu-Ray burner and stop incessantly whining about not having an internal burner that would be dog slow anyway because it's a slim drive. Wait, i forget...you're the guy who won't get a 3rd party BR drive for a mac pro because you'd rather overpay Apple for it.
What you should be complaining about is the lack of eSATA to hook it up to a blu-ray duplicator.
Dude a Blu-ray drive should be put in the dang thing. Stop with your stupid excuses for it not.
Anyone know if the new iMac can also be used as an external monitor?
If so, is there any way to hook up a DVI macbook to it?
Thanks.
Apple refused to put HDMI on anything except their idiotic APpleTV.
My first real disappointment of the day
"Note also, the i5 & i7 processors are not yet available - according to the Apple website, these machines won't start shipping until November."
What! More waiting!?! This is harder than Zen!!!
Good - you should READ reviews on it first and actually look at it first before blindly ordering anything.
Anyone know if the new iMac can also be used as an external monitor?
If so, is there any way to hook up a DVI macbook to it?
Thanks.
The displayport is output only to a 2nd monitor. I don't think they saw using an iMac as just a display.