Indeed Lemon Bon Bon, indeed! Ah well, Apple gives with one hand and takes with the other (ya have to love the upsell tactics, they're very effective) Who could resist the i7 with all its speedy goodness?
Its good to know that ThunderButt will keep these machines fairly future proof for a while.
Still no matte screen, but with LED back lighting, I wonder if you could adjust the levels so that you don't notice the glare?
It's the same screen as before, and as a result of glare + inability to color calibrate [engineering doesn't know what brightness you should calibrate from] meant I sent it back to replace with a Mini + Dell matte display. It's incredibly bright [and hard on most eyes] if you crank it up anywhere close to max brightness, unlike previous matte LCD cinema displays. And it is like having a big mirror, so even lowlight backgrounds will bounce off it in a distracting way to me.
Can't understand why Apple acts like it's impossible to deliver a reasonable matte option, when they have a number of BTO options for other things.
And you sound like a bitter little piss who apparently was flowing heavily this afternoon. I don't announce in every forum that I have vision problems and if you'd bothered to read the rest of my post, you would have noticed that I apologized for being cranky that day
Right, after berating mstone for not being blind you kinda sorta apologize for offending folks but don't really care if you do because your sorry excuse is you're old and blind. What? Still cranky today?
Of course you don't announce in every forum that you're blind. No one cares that you have vision problems, on the internet everyone is equal. But it appears that you feel it entitles you to be obnoxious. When folks posted that you can move the screen position to reduce glare they meant for folks with normal vision. You called that idiotic because lo and behold (or not in your case) you're partially blind. So what? It wasn't about you or folks with vision problems.
And frankly, if what you have is tunnel vision you don't know what it's like to be completely blind either and neither do I. There is a world of difference between legally blind and the real thing.
It's the same screen as before, and as a result of glare + inability to color calibrate [engineering doesn't know what brightness you should calibrate from] meant I sent it back to replace with a Mini + Dell matte display.
Which is better than an iMac + Dell display? I guess from a size standpoint but certainly not from a performance standpoint. I have the mini combo at the moment and might just go the 21" iMac instead unless we see a good mini bump in the nearish future.
Right, after berating mstone for not being blind you kinda sorta apologize for offending folks but don't really care if you do because your sorry excuse is you're old and blind. What? Still cranky today?
No, I had my meds and feel much better now.
Of course you don't announce in every forum that you're blind. No one cares that you have vision problems, on the internet everyone is equal. But it appears that you feel it entitles you to be obnoxious. When folks posted that you can move the screen position to reduce glare they meant for folks with normal vision. You called that idiotic because lo and behold (or not in your case) you're partially blind. So what? It wasn't about you or folks with vision problems.
I wouldn't say it's an ENTITLEMENT, more of an age before beauty.
And frankly, if what you have is tunnel vision you don't know what it's like to be completely blind either and neither do I.
I was completely blind before I had a series of operations that restored my sight to where it's at now. If you'll PM me your address, I'd be glad to send you the documentation from my surgeon.
There is a world of difference between legally blind and the real thing.
Not a world of difference nht. In my case, I was pitch-black blind-period. I can see better than shadows now after three operations. And glare for me, and folks that have the same problems I have, is a real problem. But as I stated previously to another member, I hope you never have to experience vision problems.
There is software installed on my computer that I sometimes use to read on-screen text to me. It doesn't always get everything which might explain the three hour lag between my posts. As I stated before, if I offended you, or anyone else, I am sorry. There is a level of frustration here that's hard for others to comprehend.
Which is better than an iMac + Dell display? I guess from a size standpoint but certainly not from a performance standpoint. I have the mini combo at the moment and might just go the 21" iMac instead unless we see a good mini bump in the nearish future.
It's a LOT cheaper to go with a mini [I did a refurb], as well as the obvious space issue. It's also a problem going back & forth between a glossy/matte display, so I have my old 20" cinema display next to the 24" Dell.
Who knows when they'll update the mini - but they're overdue, and I suspect it won't be too long considering everything else has gone SandyBridge.
...What next for the iMac? 6-8 cores next year? When Ivy comes to town? Can monitor sizes get any bigger? Now that it packs some gpu muscle (at last...) will it push further with the next update?
Lemon Bon Bon.
I'm curious about this too. Is there a six-core option in the current or planned CPU lineup? Would Apple be able to retain their margins in the iMac if they went octo-core? Will Ivy Bridge bring significant improvements in the lineup?
Edit: Good grief. 3346 days since I registered and I'm one short of 400 posts...
Would like to see an IMAC with a few more options. A good start would be Gloss or Matte screen, 64GB SSD to be used as a Boot Drive with a HDD etc.
While the IMAC is a dynamic piece of equipment Apple seems to be paying less attention to it as sales are flat to down at around 750000 per year.
Where did you get this number for ANNUAL iMac sales from? The below quote from this past quarter's conference call notes at Macworld stated, that while desktop sales are a lower percentage of total Mac sales, they were still over 1,000,000 LAST QUARTER. It doesn't break out how many Mini's and MacPro's were in the total, but I doubt they made up over three quarters of that total.
"Mac Sales
Apple sold 3.76 million Macs during the second quarter, an increase of 28 percent over the 2.9 million Macs sold during the year-ago period. That set a record for Mac sales during the March quarter, Oppenheimer said. In particular, Mac sales compared favorably with the overall PC market, which contracted at a rate of 3 percent during the quarter, according to figures from IDC. That marks the twentieth consecutive quarter that Apple has outgrown the PC market, although sales numbers were*below those posted by Apple for the last two quarters.
Laptops continue to be the big driver for Mac sales, with the 2.7 million portables making up 73 percent of the Macs sold during the quarter. In addition to the February revamp of the MacBook Pro line, Apple also reaped the benefits of last year?s MacBook Air updates. The 1 million desktops sold were only more than during one of the last five quarters."
You can also purchase iMacs with a 256GB SSD + 1TB (or 2 TB) HD today if you want to use an SSD for your startup volume, and the traditional hard drive just for data (go to Apple Store online).
Whatever, my gaming PC I built which puts the iMac to shame cost a hell of a lot less. And yes, I use both PC's and Macs - been using Macs since the SE.
The point I was trying to make is that Apple should offer SAS as a middle range option instead of forcing consumers to choose between slower SATA and fast but expensive SSD. But apparently people on here are just to stupid to understand.
I thought I'd come back and see how this "conversation" went. Wow. I see what you did there.
I think it takes a mature person to understand that other people aren't stupid for not having the same opinion. But maybe you're unwilling to accept such a thought.
I think we understand that SAS is a middle ground in terms of price/performance, you don't even seem to try to understand there might be several reasons why it's not compatible with the the iMac ethos. You also need to understand that an iMac isn't intended to compete with a purpose-built game PC on the same turf, you're trying to make it be something it isn't.
Comments
Lemon Bon Bon.
Its good to know that ThunderButt will keep these machines fairly future proof for a while.
Still no matte screen, but with LED back lighting, I wonder if you could adjust the levels so that you don't notice the glare?
It's the same screen as before, and as a result of glare + inability to color calibrate [engineering doesn't know what brightness you should calibrate from] meant I sent it back to replace with a Mini + Dell matte display. It's incredibly bright [and hard on most eyes] if you crank it up anywhere close to max brightness, unlike previous matte LCD cinema displays. And it is like having a big mirror, so even lowlight backgrounds will bounce off it in a distracting way to me.
Can't understand why Apple acts like it's impossible to deliver a reasonable matte option, when they have a number of BTO options for other things.
And you sound like a bitter little piss who apparently was flowing heavily this afternoon. I don't announce in every forum that I have vision problems and if you'd bothered to read the rest of my post, you would have noticed that I apologized for being cranky that day
Right, after berating mstone for not being blind you kinda sorta apologize for offending folks but don't really care if you do because your sorry excuse is you're old and blind. What? Still cranky today?
Of course you don't announce in every forum that you're blind. No one cares that you have vision problems, on the internet everyone is equal. But it appears that you feel it entitles you to be obnoxious. When folks posted that you can move the screen position to reduce glare they meant for folks with normal vision. You called that idiotic because lo and behold (or not in your case) you're partially blind. So what? It wasn't about you or folks with vision problems.
And frankly, if what you have is tunnel vision you don't know what it's like to be completely blind either and neither do I. There is a world of difference between legally blind and the real thing.
It's the same screen as before, and as a result of glare + inability to color calibrate [engineering doesn't know what brightness you should calibrate from] meant I sent it back to replace with a Mini + Dell matte display.
Which is better than an iMac + Dell display? I guess from a size standpoint but certainly not from a performance standpoint. I have the mini combo at the moment and might just go the 21" iMac instead unless we see a good mini bump in the nearish future.
Right, after berating mstone for not being blind you kinda sorta apologize for offending folks but don't really care if you do because your sorry excuse is you're old and blind. What? Still cranky today?
No, I had my meds and feel much better now.
Of course you don't announce in every forum that you're blind. No one cares that you have vision problems, on the internet everyone is equal. But it appears that you feel it entitles you to be obnoxious. When folks posted that you can move the screen position to reduce glare they meant for folks with normal vision. You called that idiotic because lo and behold (or not in your case) you're partially blind. So what? It wasn't about you or folks with vision problems.
I wouldn't say it's an ENTITLEMENT, more of an age before beauty.
And frankly, if what you have is tunnel vision you don't know what it's like to be completely blind either and neither do I.
I was completely blind before I had a series of operations that restored my sight to where it's at now. If you'll PM me your address, I'd be glad to send you the documentation from my surgeon.
There is a world of difference between legally blind and the real thing.
Not a world of difference nht. In my case, I was pitch-black blind-period. I can see better than shadows now after three operations. And glare for me, and folks that have the same problems I have, is a real problem. But as I stated previously to another member, I hope you never have to experience vision problems.
There is software installed on my computer that I sometimes use to read on-screen text to me. It doesn't always get everything which might explain the three hour lag between my posts. As I stated before, if I offended you, or anyone else, I am sorry. There is a level of frustration here that's hard for others to comprehend.
Which is better than an iMac + Dell display? I guess from a size standpoint but certainly not from a performance standpoint. I have the mini combo at the moment and might just go the 21" iMac instead unless we see a good mini bump in the nearish future.
It's a LOT cheaper to go with a mini [I did a refurb], as well as the obvious space issue. It's also a problem going back & forth between a glossy/matte display, so I have my old 20" cinema display next to the 24" Dell.
Who knows when they'll update the mini - but they're overdue, and I suspect it won't be too long considering everything else has gone SandyBridge.
...What next for the iMac? 6-8 cores next year? When Ivy comes to town? Can monitor sizes get any bigger? Now that it packs some gpu muscle (at last...) will it push further with the next update?
Lemon Bon Bon.
I'm curious about this too. Is there a six-core option in the current or planned CPU lineup? Would Apple be able to retain their margins in the iMac if they went octo-core? Will Ivy Bridge bring significant improvements in the lineup?
Edit: Good grief. 3346 days since I registered and I'm one short of 400 posts...
While the IMAC is a dynamic piece of equipment Apple seems to be paying less attention to it as sales are flat to down at around 750000 per year.
Would like to see an IMAC with a few more options. A good start would be Gloss or Matte screen, 64GB SSD to be used as a Boot Drive with a HDD etc.
While the IMAC is a dynamic piece of equipment Apple seems to be paying less attention to it as sales are flat to down at around 750000 per year.
Where did you get this number for ANNUAL iMac sales from? The below quote from this past quarter's conference call notes at Macworld stated, that while desktop sales are a lower percentage of total Mac sales, they were still over 1,000,000 LAST QUARTER. It doesn't break out how many Mini's and MacPro's were in the total, but I doubt they made up over three quarters of that total.
"Mac Sales
Apple sold 3.76 million Macs during the second quarter, an increase of 28 percent over the 2.9 million Macs sold during the year-ago period. That set a record for Mac sales during the March quarter, Oppenheimer said. In particular, Mac sales compared favorably with the overall PC market, which contracted at a rate of 3 percent during the quarter, according to figures from IDC. That marks the twentieth consecutive quarter that Apple has outgrown the PC market, although sales numbers were*below those posted by Apple for the last two quarters.
Laptops continue to be the big driver for Mac sales, with the 2.7 million portables making up 73 percent of the Macs sold during the quarter. In addition to the February revamp of the MacBook Pro line, Apple also reaped the benefits of last year?s MacBook Air updates. The 1 million desktops sold were only more than during one of the last five quarters."
You can also purchase iMacs with a 256GB SSD + 1TB (or 2 TB) HD today if you want to use an SSD for your startup volume, and the traditional hard drive just for data (go to Apple Store online).
Whatever, my gaming PC I built which puts the iMac to shame cost a hell of a lot less. And yes, I use both PC's and Macs - been using Macs since the SE.
The point I was trying to make is that Apple should offer SAS as a middle range option instead of forcing consumers to choose between slower SATA and fast but expensive SSD. But apparently people on here are just to stupid to understand.
I thought I'd come back and see how this "conversation" went. Wow. I see what you did there.
I think it takes a mature person to understand that other people aren't stupid for not having the same opinion. But maybe you're unwilling to accept such a thought.
I think we understand that SAS is a middle ground in terms of price/performance, you don't even seem to try to understand there might be several reasons why it's not compatible with the the iMac ethos. You also need to understand that an iMac isn't intended to compete with a purpose-built game PC on the same turf, you're trying to make it be something it isn't.