Matte is not the same as anti-reflective is not the same as anti-glare.
This.
I don't want a matte screen, I just don't want a mirror. The semi-gloss look of the Air screens seems about the right balance to me, they are still quite useable in a brightly lit room. Compare and contrast to a (standard, glass panelled) Macbook Pro screen in the same room.
I don't want a matte screen, I just don't want a mirror. The semi-gloss look of the Air screens seems about the right balance to me, they are still quite useable in a brightly lit room. Compare and contrast to a (standard, glass panelled) Macbook Pro screen in the same room.
Couldn't agree more. The air display is a glossy display, but it is nowhere near the reflectiveness of the current iMac or Macbook Pro (glossy version). The issue with these products is that they put an additional layer of glass on the front. On the iMac, when the glass in front is removed with packing tape (or suction cups...), the reflectiveness is DRAMATICALLY reduced! Issue being then you sacrifice the beauty of the product, which I'm sure is a big reason many people buy Apple products.
It's all but certain that the new MBPs will drop the ODD, but how about the iMac? I was surprised when the Mac mini dropped the ODD so we know that Apple is clearly looking to phase out this obsolescing component.
out! if you want it, it's an external like the MBA, maybe w/ a $20 price drop. [remember all of those usb floppy drives that were released after the original iMac came out?]
out! if you want it, it's an external like the MBA, maybe w/ a $20 price drop. [remember all of those usb floppy drives that were released after the original iMac came out?]
Once Apple gets rid of the ODD across the line, including the Mac Pro (if it survives), I'd like for them to update OS X to support HDCP for Blu-ray and release an external DVD/Blu-ray drive. That would piss off so many people.
I don't want a matte screen, I just don't want a mirror. The semi-gloss look of the Air screens seems about the right balance to me, they are still quite useable in a brightly lit room. Compare and contrast to a (standard, glass panelled) Macbook Pro screen in the same room.
Please. I'm using a matte MacBook Pro right now. It's awesome. And yes, I also have a MacBook Air with the semi-glossy screen. It's still reflective.
Been waiting for this refresh. 2012 is going to be the year of new Apple gear for me: my new iPad is "preparing for shipment" as I write this, and I'm planning on upgrading to a 27" iMac as well as a new iPhone when they're released in the coming months.
Except... "Done right the Mac Pros replacement could be 2-3x faster than today's machine in several smaller boxes.
A single box cold be much faster, the only reason for additional boxes would be for disk arrays.
It is probably to early but that Super chip with built in Infiniband would be just the nuts for this sort of box. Think about it each box becomes a module that can be plugged into an Infiniband network. There is just so much happening technology wise that I suspect whatever Apple does deliver, this year, will be quickly eclipsed by the coming hardware.
A single box cold be much faster, the only reason for additional boxes would be for disk arrays.
That's not true. Using the scheme begin proposed (essentially stackable boxes) offers a great deal of flexibility, as well. Lets's say that you're CPU-limited. Simply add a box with a couple of CPUs. Or maybe a box with a couple of GPUs. Or maybe you're limited by the number of ports. Add a box with a couple of Ethernet or Thunderbolt or USB ports. Or a box with one or more hard drives. Or a box with an optical drive. And when it's time to upgrade, you can keep the storage box and simply replace the CPU box. Thunderbolt would make all of that possible.
Now, I don't really see it happening - it adds a layer of complexity in the purchasing decision that goes against the grain of what Apple has been doing for a decade. But it is an interesting concept. In particular, I could see an interesting niche market for small business or departmental servers.
Apple has nothing to gain by spending time supporting USB3... not when they have Thunderbolt.
Their port allocation includes usb ports including within the TB display. usb accessories including things like mice and keyboards are cheap. TB peripherals would be expensive. There's no reason not to include usb 3 support.
Neither a MacPro nor an iMac have ever been ahead of their time. Unless you count Apple getting marginal first dibs at new gen Intel CPU's. But then they go and mess it up with crappy GPU's that are behind the times and grossly over-priced.
My best guess at another iteration of a MacPro (if one ever materialises) is that it will be completely outshone computationally by $1200.00 PC's.
There's no Steve Jobs to weave magic silken webs now, Apple are all alone.
Neither a MacPro nor an iMac have ever been ahead of their time.
Not ahead of their time, but they offered high quality internal parts and durability much like the workstation Z800 offerings from HP. BTW Mac Pros and Z800s are priced almost identically when configured the same. I have both in my facility and they are comparable at all levels. In 15 years of Mac desktop usage (from Quadras to MacPros) I have had almost no hardware failures in the Macs. The PCs tend to lose their power supplies fairly regularly (except the HPs). I have had one Mac power supply fail in that time. $1200 homebuilt PCs don't last and don't offer the same level of performance.
Of course the big advantage to the MacPro is that is runs OS X.
Not ahead of their time, but they offered high quality internal parts and durability much like the workstation Z800 offerings from HP. BTW Mac Pros and Z800s are priced almost identically when configured the same. I have both in my facility and they are comparable at all levels. In 15 years of Mac desktop usage (from Quadras to MacPros) I have had almost no hardware failures in the Macs. The PCs tend to lose their power supplies fairly regularly (except the HPs). I have had one Mac power supply fail in that time. $1200 homebuilt PCs don't last and don't offer the same level of performance.
Of course the big advantage to the MacPro is that is runs OS X.
I wasn't taking issue with Apple build quality. Just the idea some people have that Apple products are extra special. They are generally superbly built.
I wasn't taking issue with Apple build quality. Just the idea some people have that Apple products are extra special. They are generally superbly built.
I use Macs because of OS X.
Well they are a little special. I think the price always confuses casual onlookers because they don't realize the things are built for heavy use, super reliability and long life. No, they don't hit the bleeding edge, but they do what we need them to do day in and day out.
I hope we get either one more round of updates, or a completely new rethink of the workstation model done the Apple way. Imagine what we might get if Apple applied the same thinking to the MacPro that they do to the iPad and iPhone. Not the iOS part, but the hardware part.
I don't know why no one has mentioned it but wasn't there an article released when lion came out that indicated it was the last OS X upgrade that would cost anything? There was something about apple budgeting a portion of every Lion sale in a way that they could make all subsequent OS X editions free upgrades. That means they could release hardware/software completely independent from each other. iMacs could release well ahead of Mountain Lion, and those who bought at release would just upgrade for free in ML comes out months later.
I don't know why no one has mentioned it but wasn't there an article released when lion came out that indicated it was the last OS X upgrade that would cost anything?
If there was, they were morons for saying it. There's no real indication nor proof of that, and I personally hope that it ISN'T the case.
Because something like that just screams "forced obsolescence".
Not planned, mind. Forced. In that if your machine ships with 10.8, you get 10.9 and 10.10 but not OS XI.
This is sort of a bad example given that OS XI wouldn't work on classical (read: modern) computers, but you understand the parallel I'm making, yeah? The iOS thing?
If there was, they were morons for saying it. There's no real indication nor proof of that, and I personally hope that it ISN'T the case.
Because something like that just screams "forced obsolescence".
Not planned, mind. Forced. In that if your machine ships with 10.8, you get 10.9 and 10.10 but not OS XI.
This is sort of a bad example given that OS XI wouldn't work on classical (read: modern) computers, but you understand the parallel I'm making, yeah? The iOS thing?
I'll be honest, I do not at all get what you are saying. I never said it would be a forced upgrade, just a free one. I mean at only $30 for an OS it is nearly that now. What does the cost of the update have to do with wether or not the update renders anything obsolete?
Comments
Matte is not the same as anti-reflective is not the same as anti-glare.
This.
I don't want a matte screen, I just don't want a mirror. The semi-gloss look of the Air screens seems about the right balance to me, they are still quite useable in a brightly lit room. Compare and contrast to a (standard, glass panelled) Macbook Pro screen in the same room.
In case Apple decision influencers are reading this board:
If Apple makes an anti-reflective screen iMac at similar price points to current models, I will almost certainly buy one!
This.
I don't want a matte screen, I just don't want a mirror. The semi-gloss look of the Air screens seems about the right balance to me, they are still quite useable in a brightly lit room. Compare and contrast to a (standard, glass panelled) Macbook Pro screen in the same room.
Couldn't agree more. The air display is a glossy display, but it is nowhere near the reflectiveness of the current iMac or Macbook Pro (glossy version). The issue with these products is that they put an additional layer of glass on the front. On the iMac, when the glass in front is removed with packing tape (or suction cups...), the reflectiveness is DRAMATICALLY reduced! Issue being then you sacrifice the beauty of the product, which I'm sure is a big reason many people buy Apple products.
It's all but certain that the new MBPs will drop the ODD, but how about the iMac? I was surprised when the Mac mini dropped the ODD so we know that Apple is clearly looking to phase out this obsolescing component.
out! if you want it, it's an external like the MBA, maybe w/ a $20 price drop. [remember all of those usb floppy drives that were released after the original iMac came out?]
out! if you want it, it's an external like the MBA, maybe w/ a $20 price drop. [remember all of those usb floppy drives that were released after the original iMac came out?]
Once Apple gets rid of the ODD across the line, including the Mac Pro (if it survives), I'd like for them to update OS X to support HDCP for Blu-ray and release an external DVD/Blu-ray drive. That would piss off so many people.
Apple has nothing to gain by spending time supporting USB3... not when they have Thunderbolt.
Thunderbolt isn't a replacement for USB.
Mac Pro??
Still awesome, still ahead of its time.
This.
I don't want a matte screen, I just don't want a mirror. The semi-gloss look of the Air screens seems about the right balance to me, they are still quite useable in a brightly lit room. Compare and contrast to a (standard, glass panelled) Macbook Pro screen in the same room.
Please. I'm using a matte MacBook Pro right now. It's awesome. And yes, I also have a MacBook Air with the semi-glossy screen. It's still reflective.
OK! I agree with that...
Except... "Done right the Mac Pros replacement could be 2-3x faster than today's machine in several smaller boxes.
A single box cold be much faster, the only reason for additional boxes would be for disk arrays.
It is probably to early but that Super chip with built in Infiniband would be just the nuts for this sort of box. Think about it each box becomes a module that can be plugged into an Infiniband network. There is just so much happening technology wise that I suspect whatever Apple does deliver, this year, will be quickly eclipsed by the coming hardware.
A single box cold be much faster, the only reason for additional boxes would be for disk arrays.
That's not true. Using the scheme begin proposed (essentially stackable boxes) offers a great deal of flexibility, as well. Lets's say that you're CPU-limited. Simply add a box with a couple of CPUs. Or maybe a box with a couple of GPUs. Or maybe you're limited by the number of ports. Add a box with a couple of Ethernet or Thunderbolt or USB ports. Or a box with one or more hard drives. Or a box with an optical drive. And when it's time to upgrade, you can keep the storage box and simply replace the CPU box. Thunderbolt would make all of that possible.
Now, I don't really see it happening - it adds a layer of complexity in the purchasing decision that goes against the grain of what Apple has been doing for a decade. But it is an interesting concept. In particular, I could see an interesting niche market for small business or departmental servers.
Apple has nothing to gain by spending time supporting USB3... not when they have Thunderbolt.
Their port allocation includes usb ports including within the TB display. usb accessories including things like mice and keyboards are cheap. TB peripherals would be expensive. There's no reason not to include usb 3 support.
Still awesome, still ahead of its time.
WTF are you talking about?
Neither a MacPro nor an iMac have ever been ahead of their time. Unless you count Apple getting marginal first dibs at new gen Intel CPU's. But then they go and mess it up with crappy GPU's that are behind the times and grossly over-priced.
My best guess at another iteration of a MacPro (if one ever materialises) is that it will be completely outshone computationally by $1200.00 PC's.
There's no Steve Jobs to weave magic silken webs now, Apple are all alone.
But then they go and mess it up with crappy GPU's that are behind the times and grossly over-priced.
The GPUs for the past two models have been quite current.
My best guess at another iteration of a MacPro (if one ever materialises) is that it will be completely outshone computationally by $1200.00 PC's.
Sure it will.
There's no Steve Jobs to weave magic silken webs now, Apple are all alone.
Implying the Mac Pro was ALWAYS on the cusp of "fricktacular awesomeness" when he was alive.
WTF are you talking about?
Neither a MacPro nor an iMac have ever been ahead of their time.
Not ahead of their time, but they offered high quality internal parts and durability much like the workstation Z800 offerings from HP. BTW Mac Pros and Z800s are priced almost identically when configured the same. I have both in my facility and they are comparable at all levels. In 15 years of Mac desktop usage (from Quadras to MacPros) I have had almost no hardware failures in the Macs. The PCs tend to lose their power supplies fairly regularly (except the HPs). I have had one Mac power supply fail in that time. $1200 homebuilt PCs don't last and don't offer the same level of performance.
Of course the big advantage to the MacPro is that is runs OS X.
Not ahead of their time, but they offered high quality internal parts and durability much like the workstation Z800 offerings from HP. BTW Mac Pros and Z800s are priced almost identically when configured the same. I have both in my facility and they are comparable at all levels. In 15 years of Mac desktop usage (from Quadras to MacPros) I have had almost no hardware failures in the Macs. The PCs tend to lose their power supplies fairly regularly (except the HPs). I have had one Mac power supply fail in that time. $1200 homebuilt PCs don't last and don't offer the same level of performance.
Of course the big advantage to the MacPro is that is runs OS X.
I wasn't taking issue with Apple build quality. Just the idea some people have that Apple products are extra special. They are generally superbly built.
I use Macs because of OS X.
I wasn't taking issue with Apple build quality. Just the idea some people have that Apple products are extra special. They are generally superbly built.
I use Macs because of OS X.
Well they are a little special. I think the price always confuses casual onlookers because they don't realize the things are built for heavy use, super reliability and long life. No, they don't hit the bleeding edge, but they do what we need them to do day in and day out.
I hope we get either one more round of updates, or a completely new rethink of the workstation model done the Apple way. Imagine what we might get if Apple applied the same thinking to the MacPro that they do to the iPad and iPhone. Not the iOS part, but the hardware part.
I don't know why no one has mentioned it but wasn't there an article released when lion came out that indicated it was the last OS X upgrade that would cost anything?
If there was, they were morons for saying it.
Because something like that just screams "forced obsolescence".
Not planned, mind. Forced. In that if your machine ships with 10.8, you get 10.9 and 10.10 but not OS XI.
This is sort of a bad example given that OS XI wouldn't work on classical (read: modern) computers, but you understand the parallel I'm making, yeah? The iOS thing?
If there was, they were morons for saying it.
Because something like that just screams "forced obsolescence".
Not planned, mind. Forced. In that if your machine ships with 10.8, you get 10.9 and 10.10 but not OS XI.
This is sort of a bad example given that OS XI wouldn't work on classical (read: modern) computers, but you understand the parallel I'm making, yeah? The iOS thing?
I'll be honest, I do not at all get what you are saying. I never said it would be a forced upgrade, just a free one. I mean at only $30 for an OS it is nearly that now. What does the cost of the update have to do with wether or not the update renders anything obsolete?