First Look: Apple's 27" big screen iMac

2456713

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 244
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


    Now I would be all over that. Question is, how much for a monthly/annual subscription to AI? $2.95/month or $29.95/annually? More, less?



    I wouldn't pay $29.99, honestly. Now, they could trick me by charging $1.99/month. That price point seems to sucker me in (evidence: my iTunes TV library).



    Anyway, obviously the previous poster has never read any online news sites. Every NYT article has text links in the article's body.
  • Reply 22 of 244
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post


    It's a great machine in so many ways, except one - no blu-ray. I will not pay so much money for a system with a 10 year old optical drive.



    Add a blu-ray burner, and I buy. Until then, I have Windows 7 to keep my old PC running for as long as it takes.



    I often wonder if the "Blu-Ray disappointment" would be so great if Apple/tech rumors sites didn't insist it was coming this refresh. Who the hell buys Blu-Ray movies anyway?
  • Reply 23 of 244
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cliphord View Post


    I often wonder if the "Blu-Ray disappointment" would be so great if Apple/tech rumors sites didn't insist it was coming this refresh. Who the hell buys Blu-Ray movies anyway?



    What an odd thing to say. How else is one to get high quality HD content that will play on many devices? Blu-ray is the only option, and it looks and sounds *amazing*.



    I haven't bought a DVD in years, and have a good sized BD collection.
  • Reply 24 of 244
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,290member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cliphord View Post


    I often wonder if the "Blu-Ray disappointment" would be so great if Apple/tech rumors sites didn't insist it was coming this refresh. Who the hell buys Blu-Ray movies anyway?



    I do. But let me be perfectly clear, I do not want a Blu-ray drive on my Mac to watch movies. I need one for HD content delivery. Considering Final Cut Studio is designed to do this on a semi-pro/pro level, I would have thought a BR burner for the Mac Pro at least would have been a no-brainer. And yes, I'm disappointed every time there's a refresh and there's still no Blu-ray burner. My luck, I'll buy a 3rd party burner and Apple will add the option next year.
  • Reply 25 of 244
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Undo Redo View Post


    Stunning only in the dark. Were it not for the reflections, I'd buy a new iMac. \





    Tell me about it. My eyes and head hurts just thinking about it.





    Add a extra $30 for a anti-glare film and that wallet spot on my arse hurts too.





    Don't get a piece of dust under that film, you'll have to pull the whole mess off and reapply.



    Then the heat of the display will just cook the film, one has to buy another and another and another.





    But LOOK MA IT'S SO SHINY!!! I know how women with high heel shoes feels now.





    Apple will learn one day, that they are seriously jeopardizing their market and customer interest in computers by having these glossy/reflective displays.



    Sure some people buy them on impulse, which 80% of luxury item sales are, but if the customer is constantly annoyed and can't see the screen, it lessons the interest in computers over time. This translates into loss future sales. Who want's to sit in front of a machine that bothers them so much physically?



    Make a device that's more comforting to use and more people will use it longer. It just makes sense.



    Right now we have a rather large portion of the population retiring/getting older due to the post baby boom generation (why the debate on health care) these people (myself included) have deteriorating eyesight. Glossy screens make a hell of a lot of problems for us, we know because we dealt with glossy CRT displays. And I had young eyes then and wondered wtf was bothering me when I used the CRTS for work.



    Apple would do good if they catered a bit more attention to the older market, after all we are the ones with cash. Credit is gone, the younger types have high unemployment for the next ten years because of the recession brought on by the failed government sponsored socialized sub-prime lending.



    Glossy LCD's are cheaper to make, it eliminates the step of the LCD maker of applying a matte film to the panel. This is why we are punished a extra $50 for wanting a matte display on those few Mac's that have it.



    And the new iMac's don't have a matte LCD under the glass, it's a glossy LCD. So forget that angle.





    If you want to hear more rantings, and intelligent points on the matter, visit this guys site



    http://macmatte.wordpress.com/
  • Reply 26 of 244
    AI has proven time and time again they will report unfavorable information regarding Apple and it's products. They have credibility. Period. The question is: Will they hide bad info in order to improve the ad revenue and the answer is no.
  • Reply 27 of 244
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,290member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    Tell me about it. My eyes and head hurts just thinking about it.





    Add a extra $30 for a anti-glare film and that wallet spot on my arse hurts too.





    Don't get a piece of dust under that film, you'll have to pull the whole mess off and reapply.



    Then the heat of the display will just cook the film, one has to buy another and another and another.





    But LOOK MA IT'S SO SHINY!!! I know how women with high heel shoes feels now.





    Apple will learn one day, that they are seriously jeopardizing their market and customer interest in computers by having these glossy/reflective displays.



    Sure some people buy them on impulse, which 80% of luxury item sales are, but if the customer is constantly annoyed and can't see the screen, it lessons the interest in computers over time. This translates into loss future sales. Who want's to sit in front of a machine that bothers them so much physically?



    Make a device that's more comforting to use and more people will use it longer. It just makes sense.



    Right now we have a rather large portion of the population retiring/getting older due to the post baby boom generation (why the debate on health care) these people (myself included) have deteriorating eyesight. Glossy screens make a hell of a lot of problems for us, we know because we dealt with glossy CRT displays. And I had young eyes then and wondered wtf was bothering me when I used the CRTS for work.



    Apple would do good if they catered a bit more attention to the older market, after all we are the ones with cash. Credit is gone, the younger types have high unemployment for the next ten years because of the recession brought on by the failed government sponsored socialized sub-prime lending.



    Glossy LCD's are cheaper to make, it eliminates the step of the LCD maker of applying a matte film to the panel. This is why we are punished a extra $50 for wanting a matte display on those few Mac's that have it.



    And the new iMac's don't have a matte LCD under the glass, it's a glossy LCD. So forget that angle.



    Not saying I wouldn't buy a matte-screened option if one was available, I probably would. However, having a glossy-screened iMac for the last 2 years, I can honestly say it doesn't bother me at all. Not only that, but I have a 20" Cinema display right next to my iMac and I can't say one is more fatiguing to look at than the other. I do not discount, though, that many do have issues with the glossy-screens. Not sure what Apple is thinking by almost totally ignoring the matte screen crowd.
  • Reply 28 of 244
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post


    Doesn't really matter if it equal the best HD set on teh market bacause it doesnt really have the ability to playback HD content for the expection of trailers. Which is really a waste for this screen.



    Unless you play back HD content with it.
  • Reply 29 of 244
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,290member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Unless you play back HD content with it.



    Aside from the 720p stuff from Apple and any content you make yourself, where are you getting HD content to play on it? (Ripped Blu-ray movies don't count).
  • Reply 30 of 244
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    I don't care about the ads, but I might pay $29.95 a year to read this site if the moderators would delete all the repetitive puling about matte screens and blu-ray.
  • Reply 31 of 244
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


    Aside from the 720p stuff from Apple and any content you make yourself, where are you getting HD content to play on it? (Ripped Blu-ray movies don't count).



    Why does that matter? The content is *there* and your Mac has the ability to play them. VLC will play any format, including native Blu Ray, .mkv. MPEG-TS, everything.



    How the consumer procures them is another matter. But if you mean through the usual channels, like a working 3rd party Blu Ray drive (if they even exist for OS X) or HD movies in 720p from the iTunes store and whatnot, then yes, there aren't a whole lot of other options.



    Aside from that, though, there is plenty of very high quality HD content available for playback on OS X. The ability is certainly there.
  • Reply 32 of 244
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,290member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    I don't care about the ads, but I might pay $29.95 a year to read this site if the moderators would delete all the repetitive puling about matte screens and blu-ray.



    But those may be genuine concerns for other "paying" subscribers.
  • Reply 33 of 244
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


    But those may be genuine concerns for other "paying" subscribers.



    Undoubtedly, but do they need to read the same things hundreds of times in dozens of different threads?
  • Reply 34 of 244
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post


    But I’d give a LOT to have glass instead. The glossy look is second-best to me, but still very good—and CLEANABLE. My matte iMac has fingerprint smudges, scratches (some from rags used to clean smudges) and if anyone ever pokes it too hard it will even have a dent or pixel damage. There is no really good way to clean it.



    Not true in my opinion. I buy anti-reflective disposeable lens wipes, I've not damaged any screen yet with them. I've also not heard of anyone denting a screen or damaging pixels except maybe when being abusive. As long as you're not being stupid about the pressure, the risk is negligible.



    Quote:

    And the reflections are not as bad as some people think—there IS an anti-glare coating on Apple’s glossy screens. And you don’t even notice unless you intentionally look through a dark screen. (Watching movies in a room with lights behind you would be annoying.)



    It's there, but it's not very strong though. The Rayleigh coatings that were on my old CRT was markedly stronger than anything I've seen on any computer LCD.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cliphord View Post


    I often wonder if the "Blu-Ray disappointment" would be so great if Apple/tech rumors sites didn't insist it was coming this refresh. Who the hell buys Blu-Ray movies anyway?



    It's nearly 20% of the movie optical disc market now.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    As I said it's just too bad Apple didn't offer matte as an option, but I'm sure companies will offer matte films that do the same thing as a factory matte coating. There is nothing intrinsically special about a matte display from the factory and people who refuse to put a matte coating on a glossy display to achieve the same result are just being obstinate. For years anti-glare coating or screens were the norm on glossy CRT displays - even the flat color Sony Trinitron displays that Apple used to sell back in the day.



    That was not really a glossy display. Glossy is shiny by definition. They were smooth surfaces though, they almost didn't reflect light because of the multiple layers of sub-wavelength coatings. What little was reflected was usually a very faint tinge of blue or violet.



    Quote:

    Thank god the Internet wasn't as prevalent in those days or I'm sure the shadow mask wires that were faintly visible in the lower and upper thirds of those displays would be the ultimate deal killers



    When was this? Trinitrons were still big earlier in this decade, the internet was pretty big then. Since you didn't notice, those wires were deal killers for some people.
  • Reply 35 of 244
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    You have lost a lot of respect from me withyour pimping the product you're reviewing at the end of the "review." (I know this is the first look, and not the real review, but you do it for the real reviews too).



    So you write a story and tell us how great the computer is, and oh by the way, we can get a special deal if we order it through a link on this page, and doing that makes money for Apple Insider. That turns your entire "review" into an advertisement.



    The least you could do is write "advertisement" across the top.



    For crying out loud let these guys make their honest living. This is a lovely site, it has some great people working and posting in the forums, it has the most accurate and timely (and complete) rumors on the web that I know of and they don't have effing exon or mobil financing them. They have to make their money somehow. So what's wrong with publishing their sponsor in the end of the review. Why shouldn't they? If I were in the states I would see to it that I bought from their sponsor so I could support this site.



    That godawful place that is macrumors has maybe 50 times or so the membership (but about 1/50 of the quality) and routinely plugs their sponsors in lieu of real rumors has obtrusive advertisement and all sorts of nasties that I can't be bothered to go into. Go over there and complain, but not to these guys who are always very discreet in their placements.



    What is in bad taste is not that but your response.
  • Reply 36 of 244
    mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member
    Apple had it right when they incorporated the computer guts into the display. Every other computer maker copies Apple on that.



    The natural evolution is the marriage of a computer with a television. The computer manufacturers should realize that if they already haven't.
  • Reply 37 of 244
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post




    The matte whiners need to switch to dell .




    As one of the matte fans, it's not a matter of a little whining.



    I have sensitive eyes & glare causes severe strain. IT HURTS to use a glossy display!!!



    For what Apple charges for their products, there's no reason they can't spend an extra buck on non-reflective glass (it's available if they bothered).



    When my matte iMac dies, it looks like Apple is giving me three options: Go used, go Dell, or go Amish.

    Too bad one can't be Apple.
  • Reply 38 of 244
    woeiwoei Posts: 3member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    The new 27" display is backed by ATI Radeon HD 4670 (or for $150 more, the 4850) graphics hardware equipped with 256MB (or 512MB) of GDDR3 RAM. It supports video output up to 2560x1600, capable of driving a 30" Cinema Display HD. It supports VGA, DVI/HDMI and DisplayPort screens via its standard Mini DisplayPort connector.



    I'm a bit confused by this statement. Does this mean that the card can drive an external monitor up to a resolution of 2560x1600, next to the iMacs's own native 2560x1440 resolution, or that the total maximum resolution is limited to 2560x1600 ?



    Concretely, since I already own a 24" ACD screen (mini-display port), I'm wondering whether I can attach it to a 27" iMac to get a grand total resolution of 4480x2640, and do so at reasonable performance.



    I know, it would be a rather obscene resolution. A couple of years ago I was still stuck at 800x600 on a 15" CRT. How times change :-)
  • Reply 39 of 244
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Unless you play back HD content with it.



    There is very little HD content available for downloading, even more so for streaming because most users do not have the bandwidth to stream HD content.



    Yet again Apple created a device that can only be used in an all Apple world. You can not plug an PS3 or Xbox 360 in the system, which is foolish seeing your average Gateway monitor can perform this function. Blu Ray is not available from Apple while its available from HP, Dell and Sony.



    This is typical Apple, build something that doesn't support what the rest fo the world uses. You can try to put any slant on this you want but there isn't anyone (except you) that doesnt think this entire display port issues is beyond stupid.



    Even in the dark deep woods of Canada you may have heard of something called HDMI. You know the standard the rest of the world uses. You cant site quality or premium this time because there isnt any more premium then HDMI.
  • Reply 40 of 244
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    You have lost a lot of respect from me withyour pimping the product you're reviewing at the end of the "review." (I know this is the first look, and not the real review, but you do it for the real reviews too).



    So you write a story and tell us how great the computer is, and oh by the way, we can get a special deal if we order it through a link on this page, and doing that makes money for Apple Insider. That turns your entire "review" into an advertisement.



    The least you could do is write "advertisement" across the top.



    I don't agree. If you review a product and then offer readers an opportunity of a good deal then what's wrong with that. You don't have to buy one.



    The internets one big advertising board anyway so i'm surprised your disappointed in the post.
Sign In or Register to comment.