It seems most people think the future of computing should be based off movies from Philip K. Dick books, so I don?t the idea of a large upright touchscreen display for everyday computing will go away anytime soon.
Maybe not, but raising your head/eyes to look at screen is one thing, but raising your arms/hands to touch screen is going to get tiring real fast.
I could have sworn that 16:10 was the computer dispaly standard these days with the previous standard being 4:3. I wonder what land of make believe that 16:9 was the standard monitor ratio for COMPUTERS.
Well, where did I mention COMPUTERS??? BTW - My 2 year old Dell at work is 16:9.
Quote:
You heard it here folks. Teckstud wants the displays to be glossy to the extreme.
Only you would infer that- my guess is that this has upset you much today:
I never thought of him as a prominent tech' writer. He comes across as 'half-cut' to me.
*Shrugs. Apple just broke 3 million Macs.
Who needs him? He didn't seem to mention the weaknesses of W7? How it's a shameless back to front upside down copy? How it took M$ 9 years to catch up? If you believe it has.
The comparisons are coming in. And Snow Leopard is still comfortably ahead. And we haven't had the Tablet from Apple yet or the ultimate play for the TV living room.
I never thought of him as a prominent tech' writer. He comes across as 'half-cut' to me.
*Shrugs. Apple just broke 3 million Macs.
Who needs him? He didn't seem to mention the weaknesses of W7? How it's a shameless back to front upside down copy? How it took M$ 9 years to catch up? If you believe it has.
The comparisons are coming in. And Snow Leopard is still comfortably ahead. And we haven't had the Tablet from Apple yet or the ultimate play for the TV living room.
Apple are the puck...M$ are desperately chasing.
Meh. Carbon copy losers.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Lemon- Did you play with the mouse yet? Did it live up to your expectations?
I like the new machines but there is not much revolutionary about them. They seem like nice improvements.
And he is right that Apple has to be more competitive in terms of pricing.
Well. I tend to agree with this.
The iMac 27 incher is an object of pure lust for me. (I love my iMac, folks...drools...) However, the entry is still using cheapy cheap cpus. Why not stick the i5s in there? They're very cheap!
And for the price of the 27 inchers...why no i7 as standard?
AND WHY still include a cheap-ass gpu 4657567 (ATi Card...) in the 27 incher entry? Should be a 4850. And with a higher model driver the top end.
I guess, kudos that Apple are FINALLY using desktop components in their iMacs...despite ALL the bollocks that was spoken on these boards (yes, you, you, you and you...and many others who should have known BETTER!) about desktop parts 'wont' (me expert), 'can't' (me run Apple...) etc.
So. We have desktop parts, finally(!). But yeesh. These are cheap parts. Cut the entry price of the iMac by at least a hundred. And put the i5 and i7 in as standard. In fact, the integrated crappics should go and the Ati 4567546 card should go in the entry. Yeesh.
Lemon- Did you play with the mouse yet? Did it live up to your expectations?
Hello Teckstud. No, not yet. I haven't finished 'whack-ter-bat-ing' over it yet. (The pictures online, I mean...)
Haven't managed to get to the Apple Store in Sheffield yet. (Where, hopefully, they're in stock...because it takes 'Square group' ages to get the latest kit in...)
On the mouse, I think it's a ground breaking piece of art. It's innovative. Sure, it's not a logi-tech ball of cheese and plasticine mouse with 12 keyboard buttons for absolutely no reason. But it reminds me of the old 'pro' mouse Apple used to ship with its PowerMacs a few years back with the 'see through' look. It looks sheer simplicity. And I like that. While PC mouse makers are piling on the hardware buttons, Apple are making the 'fluff' disappear. No cables. No clit. No dirt.
Magic Mouse looks gorgeous. I can't wait to see how she handles around the corners...and give her the two finger gesture.
Nice list of new Win7 machines. There is an HP AIO for $599. Not fast, poor resolution, but I know of people that simply don?t need or want a faster machine that can do more. I think that may fit there occasional needs swimmingly.
It's easier to produce a cheaper machine if you don't invest any money in designing it! Take an iMac and spray paint it black and it would look just like that HP, right down to the aluminum stand. So HP didn't spend any money designing their case, they just stole Apple's design; and they put a cheap, low-end, Intel supplied motherboard inside and a low quality LCD panel.
Yes, Apple has a pretty big profit margin. And it would be nice if they used a bit of that to lower prices a little. But at least some of the higher price of Apple's hardware is due to the fact that they invest money in their designs and generally use higher quality components (but not always) and have higher manufacturing quality standards than many PC makers.
Well, where did I mention COMPUTERS??? BTW - My 2 year old Dell at work is 16:9.
The iMac is a computer so it?s pointless to be comparing it to TVs. When the iMac gets a built in tuner you can start to classify as a TV, until then stop making silly claims that 16:9 monitors have been the standard for TEN years.
Quote:
Only you would infer that- my guess is that this has upset you much today:
I?ve stated many times that Win7 is good and that Vista is also good since SP1, but the damage is done and rebranding and cosmetic change were in order. Try to keep up.
Okay, enough playtime with the troll boy, back to your ignore cage.
"involving or causing a complete or dramatic change?
A display ratio change from 16:10 to 16:9, and desktop-class CPUs over notebook-class CPUs for the first time. I?d define those two things as revolutionary for the iMac line.
The new MacBook?s unibody polycarb chassis may be revolutionary, but we don?t how it?s made. The milled aluminium chassis was surely revolutionary for mass market computing industry.
It really depends at what your looking at. The whole widget, a part that, a conceptual change, or even something that changes the way your competitors do business.
16:10 vs 16:9 is not revolutionary
iMacs used to have desktop CPUs so not revelutionary since they are just getting back to the past.
It's easier to produce a cheaper machine if you don't invest any money in designing it! Take an iMac and spray paint it black and it would look just like that HP, right down to the aluminum stand. So HP didn't spend any money designing their case, they just stole Apple's design; and they put a cheap, low-end, Intel supplied motherboard inside and a low quality LCD panel.
Yes, Apple has a pretty big profit margin. And it would be nice if they used a bit of that to lower prices a little. But at least some of the higher price of Apple's hardware is due to the fact that they invest money in their designs and generally use higher quality components (but not always) and have higher manufacturing quality standards than many PC makers.
Apple also has some benefits in other areas to get their higher margins even while being competitively priced. Like buying bulk higher-end components that others couldn?t sell in such volume as Apple dominates the high end segment. Having more efficient production method. I think HP is killing Dell for that very reason.
Better design team. Read on here recently, ?Good engineering doesn?t cost more than bad engineering.? Less repairs per unit from using more of the same HW would help there. They have even engineered less waste and use more recyclable materials and cost less to ship more product. That seems like a money saver, even if it?s minimal overall.
I don?t know what the other vendors can do with out trying to go Palm?s route and trying to focus on less product and making it premium before trickling down to cheaper ones. The caveat that seems to affect other vendors is the use of Windows, which no one thinks is a premium product yet even the Starter version is reportedly costing $50 from MS to licensed vendors.
?No, they are buying more Macs during the recession?
Excellent rebuttal to Mossberg on this point. Computers are nowadays relatively cheap, even the premium ones. I can recall paying over $4,000 US dollars for a Dell with a 386 processor.
I realize many people don't have a choice but to get a bargain computer. They need one now, and can't afford to pay more. But, if you can wait and save up for a $3,000 premium computer, you're ahead. It's not like you are getting an expensive car for show and prestige.
iMacs used to have desktop CPUs so not revelutionary since they are just getting back to the past.
I did forgot about the G5 iMacs. Anyone know the power supply wattage on those G5s?
Your argument about displays is like saying that moving from SDTVs to higher definition was not revolutionary because computer monitors had been HD for a long time, but when refering to televisions it would be.
People often state revolutionary when a paradigm shift happens. If the other AIOs start to move from 16:10 to 16:9 displays would that shift not then revolutionary.
I totally agree with Walt on this one. Apple needs to reduce the prices. I've owned over a dozen Macs (and a few Apple IIs) and never bought a PC in my life, I'm about to buy a new Mac, but Apple needs to get some more offerings in the sub-$1000 range. The new MacBook should start at $899, and the new iMac $999. And at the very least, Apple needs to upgrade the base MBP config to 250GB HD immediately (with no increase of price), otherwise it's a ridiculous comparison.
I wasn't expecting anything revolutionary design & feature-wise (and we definitely didn't get it), but I was at least hoping for a revolutionary announcement price-wise this month, but no go there either! The Magic mouse is the only really innovative news here. I don't even want to count how many Mighty Mouses I've worn out (that darn track ball just won't stay clean no matter what you do or how many times you try to clean it). So while I can't wait to get my hands on one, they're too expensive also considering how many wireless mice are available for so much less.
Too bad that Apple isn't following the pricing "Trend", because consumers are. Loyal Apple customers who know the value still cringe when they see capable PCs for half the price. No, they're not a Mac, but in today's economy, price matters! ...especially if Apple wants their growth trend to continue to accelerate.
Let me get this straight. Are you telling me, as a consumer, I should put up with all the Windows system disadvantages so I could save $200 up front? My computing time is worth way more than that. As a Mac user who knows the difference, it's not going to happen.
I doubt the lighting in your home is the same as in the store.
I was in an Apple Store today - I used the 27" iMac for around 20 minutes. My eyes started to lose focus, and I started to get a headache. I'll try it again at least two more times, but I'm skeptical I could live with it. I think it's too big with that much reflection. It's not only because of what you see reflected, but that your eyes have to constantly adjust to the image. Younger people and those with no perceptual problems may be fine with it.
For me, I've been waiting for this upgrade to buy a tricked-out iMac, but it looks like I'll have to get a mini instead for now, and a non-glare 20-24" display. I wish I could use the display on my iMac G5 (still a very nice display), and run the mini through it. Anyone know if it's possible?
I like the new mouse - not having a center button or side buttons is a concern, but the scrolling works great, and I think the right-click vs. left-click feeling will be okay in the long run.
Comments
It seems most people think the future of computing should be based off movies from Philip K. Dick books, so I don?t the idea of a large upright touchscreen display for everyday computing will go away anytime soon.
Maybe not, but raising your head/eyes to look at screen is one thing, but raising your arms/hands to touch screen is going to get tiring real fast.
Mossberg the Moron.
These latest two products are perhaps two of the most revolutionary products ever released onto the public. He needs to go back to journalism school.
I like the new machines but there is not much revolutionary about them. They seem like nice improvements.
And he is right that Apple has to be more competitive in terms of pricing.
If the white model was $800 that would be a big deal.
I could have sworn that 16:10 was the computer dispaly standard these days with the previous standard being 4:3. I wonder what land of make believe that 16:9 was the standard monitor ratio for COMPUTERS.
Well, where did I mention COMPUTERS??? BTW - My 2 year old Dell at work is 16:9.
You heard it here folks. Teckstud wants the displays to be glossy to the extreme.
Only you would infer that- my guess is that this has upset you much today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/te...h/22pogue.html
Don't worry, it should only get worse. Personally, I don't care at all.
I never thought of him as a prominent tech' writer. He comes across as 'half-cut' to me.
*Shrugs. Apple just broke 3 million Macs.
Who needs him? He didn't seem to mention the weaknesses of W7? How it's a shameless back to front upside down copy? How it took M$ 9 years to catch up? If you believe it has.
The comparisons are coming in. And Snow Leopard is still comfortably ahead. And we haven't had the Tablet from Apple yet or the ultimate play for the TV living room.
Apple are the puck...M$ are desperately chasing.
Meh. Carbon copy losers.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I like the new machines but there is not much revolutionary about them. They seem like nice improvements.
And he is right that Apple has to be more competitive in terms of pricing.
If the white model was $800 that would be a big deal.
The prior model is going for $899 they told me in the store today.
I think Mossberg has lost it.
I never thought of him as a prominent tech' writer. He comes across as 'half-cut' to me.
*Shrugs. Apple just broke 3 million Macs.
Who needs him? He didn't seem to mention the weaknesses of W7? How it's a shameless back to front upside down copy? How it took M$ 9 years to catch up? If you believe it has.
The comparisons are coming in. And Snow Leopard is still comfortably ahead. And we haven't had the Tablet from Apple yet or the ultimate play for the TV living room.
Apple are the puck...M$ are desperately chasing.
Meh. Carbon copy losers.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Lemon- Did you play with the mouse yet? Did it live up to your expectations?
I like the new machines but there is not much revolutionary about them. They seem like nice improvements.
And he is right that Apple has to be more competitive in terms of pricing.
Well. I tend to agree with this.
The iMac 27 incher is an object of pure lust for me. (I love my iMac, folks...drools...) However, the entry is still using cheapy cheap cpus. Why not stick the i5s in there? They're very cheap!
And for the price of the 27 inchers...why no i7 as standard?
AND WHY still include a cheap-ass gpu 4657567 (ATi Card...) in the 27 incher entry? Should be a 4850. And with a higher model driver the top end.
I guess, kudos that Apple are FINALLY using desktop components in their iMacs...despite ALL the bollocks that was spoken on these boards (yes, you, you, you and you...and many others who should have known BETTER!) about desktop parts 'wont' (me expert), 'can't' (me run Apple...) etc.
So. We have desktop parts, finally(!). But yeesh. These are cheap parts. Cut the entry price of the iMac by at least a hundred. And put the i5 and i7 in as standard. In fact, the integrated crappics should go and the Ati 4567546 card should go in the entry. Yeesh.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Lemon- Did you play with the mouse yet? Did it live up to your expectations?
Hello Teckstud. No, not yet. I haven't finished 'whack-ter-bat-ing' over it yet.
Haven't managed to get to the Apple Store in Sheffield yet. (Where, hopefully, they're in stock...because it takes 'Square group' ages to get the latest kit in...)
On the mouse, I think it's a ground breaking piece of art. It's innovative. Sure, it's not a logi-tech ball of cheese and plasticine mouse with 12 keyboard buttons for absolutely no reason. But it reminds me of the old 'pro' mouse Apple used to ship with its PowerMacs a few years back with the 'see through' look. It looks sheer simplicity. And I like that. While PC mouse makers are piling on the hardware buttons, Apple are making the 'fluff' disappear. No cables. No clit. No dirt.
Magic Mouse looks gorgeous. I can't wait to see how she handles around the corners...and give her the two finger gesture.
I'm getting quite moist thinking about it...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Nice list of new Win7 machines. There is an HP AIO for $599. Not fast, poor resolution, but I know of people that simply don?t need or want a faster machine that can do more. I think that may fit there occasional needs swimmingly.
It's easier to produce a cheaper machine if you don't invest any money in designing it! Take an iMac and spray paint it black and it would look just like that HP, right down to the aluminum stand. So HP didn't spend any money designing their case, they just stole Apple's design; and they put a cheap, low-end, Intel supplied motherboard inside and a low quality LCD panel.
Yes, Apple has a pretty big profit margin. And it would be nice if they used a bit of that to lower prices a little. But at least some of the higher price of Apple's hardware is due to the fact that they invest money in their designs and generally use higher quality components (but not always) and have higher manufacturing quality standards than many PC makers.
Well, where did I mention COMPUTERS??? BTW - My 2 year old Dell at work is 16:9.
The iMac is a computer so it?s pointless to be comparing it to TVs. When the iMac gets a built in tuner you can start to classify as a TV, until then stop making silly claims that 16:9 monitors have been the standard for TEN years.
Only you would infer that- my guess is that this has upset you much today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/te...h/22pogue.html
Don't worry, it should only get worse. Personally, I don't care at all.
Reading comprehension issues again?
www.rif.org
I?ve stated many times that Win7 is good and that Vista is also good since SP1, but the damage is done and rebranding and cosmetic change were in order. Try to keep up.
Okay, enough playtime with the troll boy, back to your ignore cage.
"involving or causing a complete or dramatic change?
A display ratio change from 16:10 to 16:9, and desktop-class CPUs over notebook-class CPUs for the first time. I?d define those two things as revolutionary for the iMac line.
The new MacBook?s unibody polycarb chassis may be revolutionary, but we don?t how it?s made. The milled aluminium chassis was surely revolutionary for mass market computing industry.
It really depends at what your looking at. The whole widget, a part that, a conceptual change, or even something that changes the way your competitors do business.
16:10 vs 16:9 is not revolutionary
iMacs used to have desktop CPUs so not revelutionary since they are just getting back to the past.
It's easier to produce a cheaper machine if you don't invest any money in designing it! Take an iMac and spray paint it black and it would look just like that HP, right down to the aluminum stand. So HP didn't spend any money designing their case, they just stole Apple's design; and they put a cheap, low-end, Intel supplied motherboard inside and a low quality LCD panel.
Yes, Apple has a pretty big profit margin. And it would be nice if they used a bit of that to lower prices a little. But at least some of the higher price of Apple's hardware is due to the fact that they invest money in their designs and generally use higher quality components (but not always) and have higher manufacturing quality standards than many PC makers.
Apple also has some benefits in other areas to get their higher margins even while being competitively priced. Like buying bulk higher-end components that others couldn?t sell in such volume as Apple dominates the high end segment. Having more efficient production method. I think HP is killing Dell for that very reason.
Better design team. Read on here recently, ?Good engineering doesn?t cost more than bad engineering.? Less repairs per unit from using more of the same HW would help there. They have even engineered less waste and use more recyclable materials and cost less to ship more product. That seems like a money saver, even if it?s minimal overall.
I don?t know what the other vendors can do with out trying to go Palm?s route and trying to focus on less product and making it premium before trickling down to cheaper ones. The caveat that seems to affect other vendors is the use of Windows, which no one thinks is a premium product yet even the Starter version is reportedly costing $50 from MS to licensed vendors.
?No, they are buying more Macs during the recession?
Excellent rebuttal to Mossberg on this point. Computers are nowadays relatively cheap, even the premium ones. I can recall paying over $4,000 US dollars for a Dell with a 386 processor.
I realize many people don't have a choice but to get a bargain computer. They need one now, and can't afford to pay more. But, if you can wait and save up for a $3,000 premium computer, you're ahead. It's not like you are getting an expensive car for show and prestige.
16:10 vs 16:9 is not revolutionary
iMacs used to have desktop CPUs so not revelutionary since they are just getting back to the past.
I did forgot about the G5 iMacs. Anyone know the power supply wattage on those G5s?
Your argument about displays is like saying that moving from SDTVs to higher definition was not revolutionary because computer monitors had been HD for a long time, but when refering to televisions it would be.
People often state revolutionary when a paradigm shift happens. If the other AIOs start to move from 16:10 to 16:9 displays would that shift not then revolutionary.
Mossberg the Moron.
These latest two products are perhaps two of the most revolutionary products ever released onto the public. He needs to go back to journalism school.
Which is why Mossberg is a paid columnist, respected tech analyst, and... you are not?
Let us know when you are.
I totally agree with Walt on this one. Apple needs to reduce the prices. I've owned over a dozen Macs (and a few Apple IIs) and never bought a PC in my life, I'm about to buy a new Mac, but Apple needs to get some more offerings in the sub-$1000 range. The new MacBook should start at $899, and the new iMac $999. And at the very least, Apple needs to upgrade the base MBP config to 250GB HD immediately (with no increase of price), otherwise it's a ridiculous comparison.
I wasn't expecting anything revolutionary design & feature-wise (and we definitely didn't get it), but I was at least hoping for a revolutionary announcement price-wise this month, but no go there either! The Magic mouse is the only really innovative news here. I don't even want to count how many Mighty Mouses I've worn out (that darn track ball just won't stay clean no matter what you do or how many times you try to clean it). So while I can't wait to get my hands on one, they're too expensive also considering how many wireless mice are available for so much less.
Too bad that Apple isn't following the pricing "Trend", because consumers are. Loyal Apple customers who know the value still cringe when they see capable PCs for half the price. No, they're not a Mac, but in today's economy, price matters! ...especially if Apple wants their growth trend to continue to accelerate.
Let me get this straight. Are you telling me, as a consumer, I should put up with all the Windows system disadvantages so I could save $200 up front? My computing time is worth way more than that. As a Mac user who knows the difference, it's not going to happen.
I doubt the lighting in your home is the same as in the store.
I was in an Apple Store today - I used the 27" iMac for around 20 minutes. My eyes started to lose focus, and I started to get a headache. I'll try it again at least two more times, but I'm skeptical I could live with it. I think it's too big with that much reflection. It's not only because of what you see reflected, but that your eyes have to constantly adjust to the image. Younger people and those with no perceptual problems may be fine with it.
For me, I've been waiting for this upgrade to buy a tricked-out iMac, but it looks like I'll have to get a mini instead for now, and a non-glare 20-24" display. I wish I could use the display on my iMac G5 (still a very nice display), and run the mini through it. Anyone know if it's possible?
I like the new mouse - not having a center button or side buttons is a concern, but the scrolling works great, and I think the right-click vs. left-click feeling will be okay in the long run.
...you get what you pay for...
Maybe not, but raising your head/eyes to look at screen is one thing, but raising your arms/hands to touch screen is going to get tiring real fast.
Are you recommending a butt-based touch screen for couch potatoes? Would be much easier than having to get off our collective duffs...