You having a rough day. I've never seen you so pessimistic before. SCSI? ADB? not even in the same ball park let alone over decade ago. We're talking about today's consumer. There's no good reason to take away the optical drive from the desktop iMac yet. The iMac has plenty of room, the ODD cost Apple probably under $5 each, and the ODD doesn't take anymore resources to support. I'm all for moving on from legacy tech but there's a percentage of uses that find it functional. Now in laptops I totally agree with you but not the iMac.
It is only your opinion, one that is shared with very few. As to room I think you are mistaken that space is not free as you imply. More so one has to judge its value against other uses for that space.
In a nut shell if you are truly interested in moving beyond legacy tech then you really don't want an optical drive in an iMac. Really let's be honest back in their day people did find it hard to part with SCSI, ADB, floppies and what have you. So I'm not really sure what your point is here.
Quote:
I'm not sure what you're meaning when you bring up torrents. I buy DVDs on sale and rip them to my hard disk. All legal so what are you saying.
I don't think the optical drive usage can be compared to the floppy drive. People didn't create their own movies and give them to family and friends on a floppy drive but many still do burn and distribute their creations on CDs/DVDs. It's even a bigger deal to music on CDs where you can make custom printed disc and albums. Maybe cheap thumbs will take the place of the ODD. I don't believe there is less incentive... CDs/DVDs are still one of the best and cheapest way to give out a lot to people for free. The commercial distributors will move the tech along. I'm talking friends and family.
I'm not certain what could possibly require CDs wotprth of space to pass back and forth between friends and family.
Quote:
All I'm saying there is no down side to keeping it in a desktop machine and still a benefit to me and plenty others (which is why I use the egocentricism remark.
Yes we realize you are behind the times. The point is the vast majority of users no longer have a need for Optical drives. Just like we no longer have need for floppies, SCSI or an array of other technologies left behind. Your egocentricism remark is in this case grossly is misplaced and frankly say much about you. Don't be embarrassed though because I can remember back to the days when people did complain about floppies just like you are now.
At least if they ever want a hope in hell of selling me an iMac.
This is one point where I see little value in the common view that the iMac needs a clean back. While it doesn't need load of doors a smart designer should be able to come up with a far more accessible iMac. One that provides for tool free access to the interior. If tools are required at least make sure they are commonly available and don't significantly extend service times.
In any event case changes really need to be a high priority for any new iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGuessSo
Oh sorry, I thought the thread was speculation and/or desires re the next iMacs. I didn't realize changes to the case were off the table.
Actually I would mind if the went back to a base unit with an ARM supporting an LCD. As long as basic servicing could be done trouble free for the commonly serviced parts.
At least if they ever want a hope in hell of selling me an iMac.
This is one point where I see little value in the common view that the iMac needs a clean back. While it doesn't need load of doors a smart designer should be able to come up with a far more accessible iMac. One that provides for tool free access to the interior. If tools are required at least make sure they are commonly available and don't significantly extend service times.
In any event case changes really need to be a high priority for any new iMac.
There might be a number of factors here. For one Apple doesn't like visible seams on these things. I could see a backplate type design, but cost may be an influential factor here. Note a lot of all in ones are similar to the imac cost on the Windows end. Apple's volume may help mitigate costs, but they may just not feel it's crucial (even if I disagree with them).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Actually I would mind if the went back to a base unit with an ARM supporting an LCD. As long as basic servicing could be done trouble free for the commonly serviced parts.
Sturdy arms can be expensive. I think much of that is related to testing costs. It would be really nice to have some adjustability in positioning.
It is only your opinion, one that is shared with very few. As to room I think you are mistaken that space is not free as you imply. More so one has to judge its value against other uses for that space.
In a nut shell if you are truly interested in moving beyond legacy tech then you really don't want an optical drive in an iMac. Really let's be honest back in their day people did find it hard to part with SCSI, ADB, floppies and what have you. So I'm not really sure what your point is here.
I'm not certain what could possibly require CDs wotprth of space to pass back and forth between friends and family.
Yes we realize you are behind the times. The point is the vast majority of users no longer have a need for Optical drives. Just like we no longer have need for floppies, SCSI or an array of other technologies left behind. Your egocentricism remark is in this case grossly is misplaced and frankly say much about you. Don't be embarrassed though because I can remember back to the days when people did complain about floppies just like you are now.
Actually, my opinions and needs were twisted from the beginning by "Tallest." I am not behind the times. I don't believe both opinions are mutually exclusive or wrong. As for my egocentricism remark. It just was meant to say we look through our own world view. When you back up your percentage claims, I'll be the first to mea culpa it. Nobody really knows for sure what the silent percentage is. That said, Apple has never let legacy anything stop them from innovation so the argument is moot. From the start my post stated I will buy whatever iMac comes out because I need one, AND because I have always believed that Apple knows better than me about the state of computing.
At least if they ever want a hope in hell of selling me an iMac.
This is one point where I see little value in the common view that the iMac needs a clean back. While it doesn't need load of doors a smart designer should be able to come up with a far more accessible iMac. One that provides for tool free access to the interior. If tools are required at least make sure they are commonly available and don't significantly extend service times.
Although I think the iMac's design is excellent, it isn't perfect, nor can it ever be perfect for everyone. IMO It is the best design out there. That said, I agree 100% that the back needs a design allowing easy user access to the subsystems for upgrades and repair. The drive bays are the most important in my mind since I've had 3 drive failures in my 3 year old plus iMac 8,1. Also I've upgraded the the HD size twice. It could have been a lot simpler if there was an access door. I hope the new one will have access but I seriously doubt it will happen.
Although I think the iMac's design is excellent, it isn't perfect, nor can it ever be perfect for everyone. IMO It is the best design out there. That said, I agree 100% that the back needs a design allowing easy user access to the subsystems for upgrades and repair. The drive bays are the most important in my mind since I've had 3 drive failures in my 3 year old plus iMac 8,1. Also I've upgraded the the HD size twice. It could have been a lot simpler if there was an access door. I hope the new one will have access but I seriously doubt it will happen.
Three drive failures in a 3 year old iMac? Are you buying replacement hard drives at the Dollar Store?
There might be a number of factors here. For one Apple doesn't like visible seams on these things. I could see a backplate type design, but cost may be an influential factor here. Note a lot of all in ones are similar to the imac cost on the Windows end. Apple's volume may help mitigate costs, but they may just not feel it's crucial (even if I disagree with them).
I've never been convinced of the economics of an all in one. Packing all,that hardware in there has to add to the cost. For many it is worth it, but as you note the competition really isn't agressive price wise.
Of course part of the problem there is that they don't have to be price agressive. Competition is thin and the segment leader is in the same price range as your stuff. So there is probably lots of incentive take a solid profit.
Quote:
Sturdy arms can be expensive. I think much of that is related to testing costs. It would be really nice to have some adjustability in positioning.
Now that you mention it, adjustability is exactly what was on my mind though not expressed well. That is one big advantage with separate screens and CPU units. It should be easy for Apple to do something here, better than what they have.
Three drive failures in a 3 year old iMac? Are you buying replacement hard drives at the Dollar Store?
It is very easy to get struck by a series of drive failures no matter where you buy your hardware. At work they bought a series of Dell laptops that all had drive failures before the year was out, that was a half dozen machines. At home I went through several SATA drives on one machine before punting both the drives and logic board. In the end the drives just dint work correctly. Now for the most part warranties will take care of much of the issues but the problem on the iMac is the major chore in replacement. It is not something you would expect out of a laptop solution.
Notably people are having lots of problems with certain SSDs. So going solid state isn't always a solution either. If a manufacture has an issue with a specific series of drive you as a user suffer through multiple replacements or you punt and go to a different drive.
In a way this really does suck because it is a sign of a rush to market and poor quality control in many cases. Frankly the warranty does not make up for crap drives and an attitude of shipping now and dealing with customer complaints latter.
The lampshade iMac was by far the best design. they need to go back to that kind of complete flexibility with the monitor, not the rigid set up they've had since, only rocking up and down. That change has to be one of the biggest steps backwards in Mac hardware history, and when you put a lampshade model with the current model side-by-side, you have to agree.
The lampshade imac was universally derided by critics, the mac community and quickly replaced, it was the shortest lived design, and apart from the articulated neck, the build quality was awful.
The lampshade imac was universally derided by critics, the mac community and quickly replaced, it was the shortest lived design, and apart from the articulated neck, the build quality was awful.
/s?
Because that sounds like the opposite of everything I've ever heard or known about it.
It doesn't sound like it would be an anti-glare option though, rather just a way to cut the reflections. There's no way they would do the same as the laptops. It's fine leaving a 15" TN panel unprotected as it doesn't cost that much to replace. That's not the case for a 27" IPS panel. If they do go with anti-reflective treatment, I'd expect it will be a standard treatment of the glass like they apply to glasses...
I'm looking at a 26" non-glass "exposed" monitor right now. There's a 30" non-glass monitor in the room next to my office, and I have a 27" non-glass monitor at home. I've never owned, nor worked on, an LCD monitor with reflective shiny glass on it. There already are a lot of large monitors on the market in a wide array of price ranges, sans reflective surface, and have been for a long time. In fact, non-glass, "unprotected" large monitors were the standard before everyone started slapping glass on the front of them and turning monitors into annoying-ass mirrors. I see no difference in risk of screen damage to an iMac , than a monitor of the same size. Shiny monitors are a case of a particular form desired by a particular market, outweighing function—not driven by it.
non-glass, "unprotected" large monitors were the standard before everyone started slapping glass on the front of them and turning monitors into annoying-ass mirrors. I see no difference in risk of screen damage to an iMac , than a monitor of the same size. Shiny monitors are a case of a particular form desired by a particular market, outweighing function?not driven by it.
I dislike the mirror-effect too but an iMac display is stuck to a computer and the matte panels are far more easily marked. They get dusty so they get wiped and then get smear marks all over them that can't be shifted. Glass on the other hand is very durable and you can scrub it as hard as you like and it will look as new as the day you bought it.
The glass also isn't purposefully shiny, it's a side-effect. Glass is used for better transmission. Anti-reflective glass, unlike matte panels will do an even better job. That's one reason they use anti-reflective coatings in eyeglasses.
Matte panels diffuse light so they decrease light transmission. It has a nice side-effect of reducing glare but the best scenario is maximum light transmission with as close to zero reflection as possible.
Three drive failures in a 3 year old iMac? Are you buying replacement hard drives at the Dollar Store?
Two of the failures were done through Apple Care. The upgrades were also Apple Care. They also replaced the display screen and the optical drive in this iMac.
I tried to tell the Apple Genius that heat is killing all these subsystems, even showed them a print out of the iStat temperatures. Drive bays, CPU, and GPU all average ~ 140 to 170 F at idle. They refused to say that's too hot. Everyone I talked to at the Apple store said those temps are normal. I believe the heat is the problem.
That said, the computer runs perfectly and I'm using it right now. I expect the new HD to cook again and I become the poster child of backup. I got my money's worth out of Apple Care but all that was a hassle. What do you think on those temps?
I dislike the mirror-effect too but an iMac display is stuck to a computer and the matte panels are far more easily marked. They get dusty so they get wiped and then get smear marks all over them that can't be shifted. Glass on the other hand is very durable and you can scrub it as hard as you like and it will look as new as the day you bought it.
The glass also isn't purposefully shiny, it's a side-effect. Glass is used for better transmission. Anti-reflective glass, unlike matte panels will do an even better job. That's one reason they use anti-reflective coatings in eyeglasses.
Matte panels diffuse light so they decrease light transmission. It has a nice side-effect of reducing glare but the best scenario is maximum light transmission with as close to zero reflection as possible.
Reflective glass repels dust and particulate matter in the air? Your iMac isn't just shiny, it sounds to be magic, too. Touch the screen of an iMac (or iPhone, iPad, iTouch, etc.) then touch a matte screen monitor and tell me which one shows smudges more. The fact that glass monitors on iMacs are shiny is because Jobs decided the iMac should look more like an iPhone, because he decided that's what consumers want (as in non-design professionals). It's why walking into an Apple store is like walking into a house of mirrors. Many consumers are attracted to shiny things (as are chimps and kittens). They rush to ooh and ah whenever the glint of reflected light off of bling in any form is detected, be it ear ring, hair clip, the trim of a car door, or a computer. It has little to do with function. The glass has the effect of making colors seem richer to some, but that also alters the color—not something you want if your a professional designer. Even if you believe the glass has "better transmission" how much "better" is an image seen through the reflection of what's behind you? I'd say having even a partial image on screen blended with whatever is in the room over your shoulder, is a pretty poor image, even if it seems more saturated.
Again, I've been using large non-glass LCDs as long as they've existed, and despite the fact that you make them sound too fragile to use, many others have and do, use them every day. The original assertion I responded to was something along the lines of large screens unprotected by glass, wouldn't be feasible on an iMac. I'm pointing out that isn't so. I would advise you to keep your fingers off of any screen, but you can clean a matte screen of any size without it turning into fluff and blowing away like dandelion seeds on a warm breeze, as you seem to suggest. Since most people aren't going to fire golf balls at a desktop rig, a matte screen on an iMac (like it used to have) would be as durable as anyone needs it to be.
Reflective glass repels dust and particulate matter in the air? Your iMac isn't just shiny, it sounds to be magic, too.
It's mainly easier to clean but it actually does attract less dust than matte displays perhaps due to the separation between the glass and the panel, reducing the static charge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut
The glass has the effect of making colors seem richer to some, but that also alters the color—not something you want if your a professional designer.
Clear, high transmission glass does nothing whatsoever to the colours. The panel and backlight are affecting the colour saturation. Matte coatings affect the colours of the panel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut
Even if you believe the glass has "better transmission" how much "better" is an image seen through the reflection of what's behind you?
I agree the reflected overlay is very bad but it's not a matter of belief that an untreated glass overlay transmits light better than a matte coating. Matte coatings are rough in order to diffuse light. I personally prefer the appearance of it as it gives the appearance of paper but the ideal scenario is accurate transmission from the panel with no reflected overlays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut
Again, I've been using large non-glass LCDs as long as they've existed, and despite the fact that you make them sound too fragile to use, many others have and do, use them every day. The original assertion I responded to was something along the lines of large screens unprotected by glass, wouldn't be feasible on an iMac. I'm pointing out that isn't so.
It's fine for people who look after their equipment. For families who have kids sharing their iMac and poking the screen, an unprotected 27" IPS panel is not a good scenario. The glass is very easy to wipe down and more durable. You also don't get that butt-clench when a client decides to hover a pen tip at your screen when pointing out a change.
It's mainly easier to clean but it actually does attract less dust than matte displays perhaps due to the separation between the glass and the panel, reducing the static charge.
Clear, high transmission glass does nothing whatsoever to the colours. The panel and backlight are affecting the colour saturation. Matte coatings affect the colours of the panel.
I agree the reflected overlay is very bad but it's not a matter of belief that an untreated glass overlay transmits light better than a matte coating. Matte coatings are rough in order to diffuse light. I personally prefer the appearance of it as it gives the appearance of paper but the ideal scenario is accurate transmission from the panel with no reflected overlays.
It's fine for people who look after their equipment. For families who have kids sharing their iMac and poking the screen, an unprotected 27" IPS panel is not a good scenario. The glass is very easy to wipe down and more durable. You also don't get that butt-clench when a client decides to hover a pen tip at your screen when pointing out a change.
I'm fine with Apple creating products that are "kid friendly" but I don't think needs of professionals should be superceded by parents worrying about grungy brat fingers. Offer both of us a choice. I have no problem saying, "please don't touch the monitor" or "careful with that pen, please" to anyone, client or my boss, who decides to come at my screen like it's white board.
To say that a layer of glass somehow gets less dirty than the screen behind it would get without it, is silly (see glass top table for reference). There is nothing special about an LCD screen behind glass. It's pretty much the same monitor minus a sheet of glass, which is just another layer of material between your eyes and light shining through liquid crystals?just one more thing for the light to have to pass through. Notice in previous post, I said "seems" more saturated to some, not "is" more saturated (back to the point of if it being a matter of form over function). Anti-glare glass reduces glare as far as sheets of glass go, but it does affect the color. That's why most design professionals prefer an lcd monitor with no glass to create reflections, and no anti-glare glass to alter color.
Again, an LCD behind any glass is just an LCD with another layer of material light has to pass through to reach your eyes. Not that any of that is really a huge difference, it's just that you seem to imply with the "increased transmission" statement that glass covered monitors somehow improve image quality. The real deal breaker is the reflection. If you want to argue that glass offers a higher degree of protection for the screen behind it (your original assertion)?well, of course. But it comes at a cost to image quality in order to solve a problem that doesn't really exist (non-protected LCDs being too fragile). The other imaginings you offered about glass smudging less (good lord) attracting less dust, and "transmission" is just silly. The only perceptable advantage glass would have as far as image quality might (and it's a mighty big "might") occur if the panel itself was made of glass (like a plasma TV) where the light is emitted directly from the glass surface with nothing between it and light coming through the liquid crystal it contains. Since that it isn't how LCDs are constructed, it's a mute point.
Comments
You having a rough day. I've never seen you so pessimistic before. SCSI? ADB? not even in the same ball park let alone over decade ago. We're talking about today's consumer. There's no good reason to take away the optical drive from the desktop iMac yet. The iMac has plenty of room, the ODD cost Apple probably under $5 each, and the ODD doesn't take anymore resources to support. I'm all for moving on from legacy tech but there's a percentage of uses that find it functional. Now in laptops I totally agree with you but not the iMac.
It is only your opinion, one that is shared with very few. As to room I think you are mistaken that space is not free as you imply. More so one has to judge its value against other uses for that space.
In a nut shell if you are truly interested in moving beyond legacy tech then you really don't want an optical drive in an iMac. Really let's be honest back in their day people did find it hard to part with SCSI, ADB, floppies and what have you. So I'm not really sure what your point is here.
I'm not sure what you're meaning when you bring up torrents. I buy DVDs on sale and rip them to my hard disk. All legal so what are you saying.
I don't think the optical drive usage can be compared to the floppy drive. People didn't create their own movies and give them to family and friends on a floppy drive but many still do burn and distribute their creations on CDs/DVDs. It's even a bigger deal to music on CDs where you can make custom printed disc and albums. Maybe cheap thumbs will take the place of the ODD. I don't believe there is less incentive... CDs/DVDs are still one of the best and cheapest way to give out a lot to people for free. The commercial distributors will move the tech along. I'm talking friends and family.
I'm not certain what could possibly require CDs wotprth of space to pass back and forth between friends and family.
All I'm saying there is no down side to keeping it in a desktop machine and still a benefit to me and plenty others (which is why I use the egocentricism remark.
Yes we realize you are behind the times. The point is the vast majority of users no longer have a need for Optical drives. Just like we no longer have need for floppies, SCSI or an array of other technologies left behind. Your egocentricism remark is in this case grossly is misplaced and frankly say much about you. Don't be embarrassed though because I can remember back to the days when people did complain about floppies just like you are now.
This is one point where I see little value in the common view that the iMac needs a clean back. While it doesn't need load of doors a smart designer should be able to come up with a far more accessible iMac. One that provides for tool free access to the interior. If tools are required at least make sure they are commonly available and don't significantly extend service times.
In any event case changes really need to be a high priority for any new iMac.
Oh sorry, I thought the thread was speculation and/or desires re the next iMacs. I didn't realize changes to the case were off the table.
Actually I would mind if the went back to a base unit with an ARM supporting an LCD. As long as basic servicing could be done trouble free for the commonly serviced parts.
At least if they ever want a hope in hell of selling me an iMac.
This is one point where I see little value in the common view that the iMac needs a clean back. While it doesn't need load of doors a smart designer should be able to come up with a far more accessible iMac. One that provides for tool free access to the interior. If tools are required at least make sure they are commonly available and don't significantly extend service times.
In any event case changes really need to be a high priority for any new iMac.
There might be a number of factors here. For one Apple doesn't like visible seams on these things. I could see a backplate type design, but cost may be an influential factor here. Note a lot of all in ones are similar to the imac cost on the Windows end. Apple's volume may help mitigate costs, but they may just not feel it's crucial (even if I disagree with them).
Actually I would mind if the went back to a base unit with an ARM supporting an LCD. As long as basic servicing could be done trouble free for the commonly serviced parts.
Sturdy arms can be expensive. I think much of that is related to testing costs. It would be really nice to have some adjustability in positioning.
It is only your opinion, one that is shared with very few. As to room I think you are mistaken that space is not free as you imply. More so one has to judge its value against other uses for that space.
In a nut shell if you are truly interested in moving beyond legacy tech then you really don't want an optical drive in an iMac. Really let's be honest back in their day people did find it hard to part with SCSI, ADB, floppies and what have you. So I'm not really sure what your point is here.
I'm not certain what could possibly require CDs wotprth of space to pass back and forth between friends and family.
Yes we realize you are behind the times. The point is the vast majority of users no longer have a need for Optical drives. Just like we no longer have need for floppies, SCSI or an array of other technologies left behind. Your egocentricism remark is in this case grossly is misplaced and frankly say much about you. Don't be embarrassed though because I can remember back to the days when people did complain about floppies just like you are now.
Actually, my opinions and needs were twisted from the beginning by "Tallest." I am not behind the times. I don't believe both opinions are mutually exclusive or wrong. As for my egocentricism remark. It just was meant to say we look through our own world view. When you back up your percentage claims, I'll be the first to mea culpa it. Nobody really knows for sure what the silent percentage is. That said, Apple has never let legacy anything stop them from innovation so the argument is moot. From the start my post stated I will buy whatever iMac comes out because I need one, AND because I have always believed that Apple knows better than me about the state of computing.
At least if they ever want a hope in hell of selling me an iMac.
This is one point where I see little value in the common view that the iMac needs a clean back. While it doesn't need load of doors a smart designer should be able to come up with a far more accessible iMac. One that provides for tool free access to the interior. If tools are required at least make sure they are commonly available and don't significantly extend service times.
Although I think the iMac's design is excellent, it isn't perfect, nor can it ever be perfect for everyone. IMO It is the best design out there. That said, I agree 100% that the back needs a design allowing easy user access to the subsystems for upgrades and repair. The drive bays are the most important in my mind since I've had 3 drive failures in my 3 year old plus iMac 8,1. Also I've upgraded the the HD size twice. It could have been a lot simpler if there was an access door. I hope the new one will have access but I seriously doubt it will happen.
Although I think the iMac's design is excellent, it isn't perfect, nor can it ever be perfect for everyone. IMO It is the best design out there. That said, I agree 100% that the back needs a design allowing easy user access to the subsystems for upgrades and repair. The drive bays are the most important in my mind since I've had 3 drive failures in my 3 year old plus iMac 8,1. Also I've upgraded the the HD size twice. It could have been a lot simpler if there was an access door. I hope the new one will have access but I seriously doubt it will happen.
Three drive failures in a 3 year old iMac? Are you buying replacement hard drives at the Dollar Store?
There might be a number of factors here. For one Apple doesn't like visible seams on these things. I could see a backplate type design, but cost may be an influential factor here. Note a lot of all in ones are similar to the imac cost on the Windows end. Apple's volume may help mitigate costs, but they may just not feel it's crucial (even if I disagree with them).
I've never been convinced of the economics of an all in one. Packing all,that hardware in there has to add to the cost. For many it is worth it, but as you note the competition really isn't agressive price wise.
Of course part of the problem there is that they don't have to be price agressive. Competition is thin and the segment leader is in the same price range as your stuff. So there is probably lots of incentive take a solid profit.
Sturdy arms can be expensive. I think much of that is related to testing costs. It would be really nice to have some adjustability in positioning.
Now that you mention it, adjustability is exactly what was on my mind though not expressed well. That is one big advantage with separate screens and CPU units. It should be easy for Apple to do something here, better than what they have.
Three drive failures in a 3 year old iMac? Are you buying replacement hard drives at the Dollar Store?
It is very easy to get struck by a series of drive failures no matter where you buy your hardware. At work they bought a series of Dell laptops that all had drive failures before the year was out, that was a half dozen machines. At home I went through several SATA drives on one machine before punting both the drives and logic board. In the end the drives just dint work correctly. Now for the most part warranties will take care of much of the issues but the problem on the iMac is the major chore in replacement. It is not something you would expect out of a laptop solution.
Notably people are having lots of problems with certain SSDs. So going solid state isn't always a solution either. If a manufacture has an issue with a specific series of drive you as a user suffer through multiple replacements or you punt and go to a different drive.
In a way this really does suck because it is a sign of a rush to market and poor quality control in many cases. Frankly the warranty does not make up for crap drives and an attitude of shipping now and dealing with customer complaints latter.
The lampshade iMac was by far the best design. they need to go back to that kind of complete flexibility with the monitor, not the rigid set up they've had since, only rocking up and down. That change has to be one of the biggest steps backwards in Mac hardware history, and when you put a lampshade model with the current model side-by-side, you have to agree.
The lampshade imac was universally derided by critics, the mac community and quickly replaced, it was the shortest lived design, and apart from the articulated neck, the build quality was awful.
The lampshade imac was universally derided by critics, the mac community and quickly replaced, it was the shortest lived design, and apart from the articulated neck, the build quality was awful.
/s?
Because that sounds like the opposite of everything I've ever heard or known about it.
It doesn't sound like it would be an anti-glare option though, rather just a way to cut the reflections. There's no way they would do the same as the laptops. It's fine leaving a 15" TN panel unprotected as it doesn't cost that much to replace. That's not the case for a 27" IPS panel. If they do go with anti-reflective treatment, I'd expect it will be a standard treatment of the glass like they apply to glasses...
I'm looking at a 26" non-glass "exposed" monitor right now. There's a 30" non-glass monitor in the room next to my office, and I have a 27" non-glass monitor at home. I've never owned, nor worked on, an LCD monitor with reflective shiny glass on it. There already are a lot of large monitors on the market in a wide array of price ranges, sans reflective surface, and have been for a long time. In fact, non-glass, "unprotected" large monitors were the standard before everyone started slapping glass on the front of them and turning monitors into annoying-ass mirrors. I see no difference in risk of screen damage to an iMac , than a monitor of the same size. Shiny monitors are a case of a particular form desired by a particular market, outweighing function—not driven by it.
non-glass, "unprotected" large monitors were the standard before everyone started slapping glass on the front of them and turning monitors into annoying-ass mirrors. I see no difference in risk of screen damage to an iMac , than a monitor of the same size. Shiny monitors are a case of a particular form desired by a particular market, outweighing function?not driven by it.
I dislike the mirror-effect too but an iMac display is stuck to a computer and the matte panels are far more easily marked. They get dusty so they get wiped and then get smear marks all over them that can't be shifted. Glass on the other hand is very durable and you can scrub it as hard as you like and it will look as new as the day you bought it.
The glass also isn't purposefully shiny, it's a side-effect. Glass is used for better transmission. Anti-reflective glass, unlike matte panels will do an even better job. That's one reason they use anti-reflective coatings in eyeglasses.
Matte panels diffuse light so they decrease light transmission. It has a nice side-effect of reducing glare but the best scenario is maximum light transmission with as close to zero reflection as possible.
Three drive failures in a 3 year old iMac? Are you buying replacement hard drives at the Dollar Store?
Two of the failures were done through Apple Care. The upgrades were also Apple Care. They also replaced the display screen and the optical drive in this iMac.
I tried to tell the Apple Genius that heat is killing all these subsystems, even showed them a print out of the iStat temperatures. Drive bays, CPU, and GPU all average ~ 140 to 170 F at idle. They refused to say that's too hot. Everyone I talked to at the Apple store said those temps are normal. I believe the heat is the problem.
That said, the computer runs perfectly and I'm using it right now. I expect the new HD to cook again and I become the poster child of backup. I got my money's worth out of Apple Care but all that was a hassle. What do you think on those temps?
I dislike the mirror-effect too but an iMac display is stuck to a computer and the matte panels are far more easily marked. They get dusty so they get wiped and then get smear marks all over them that can't be shifted. Glass on the other hand is very durable and you can scrub it as hard as you like and it will look as new as the day you bought it.
The glass also isn't purposefully shiny, it's a side-effect. Glass is used for better transmission. Anti-reflective glass, unlike matte panels will do an even better job. That's one reason they use anti-reflective coatings in eyeglasses.
Matte panels diffuse light so they decrease light transmission. It has a nice side-effect of reducing glare but the best scenario is maximum light transmission with as close to zero reflection as possible.
Reflective glass repels dust and particulate matter in the air? Your iMac isn't just shiny, it sounds to be magic, too. Touch the screen of an iMac (or iPhone, iPad, iTouch, etc.) then touch a matte screen monitor and tell me which one shows smudges more. The fact that glass monitors on iMacs are shiny is because Jobs decided the iMac should look more like an iPhone, because he decided that's what consumers want (as in non-design professionals). It's why walking into an Apple store is like walking into a house of mirrors. Many consumers are attracted to shiny things (as are chimps and kittens). They rush to ooh and ah whenever the glint of reflected light off of bling in any form is detected, be it ear ring, hair clip, the trim of a car door, or a computer. It has little to do with function. The glass has the effect of making colors seem richer to some, but that also alters the color—not something you want if your a professional designer. Even if you believe the glass has "better transmission" how much "better" is an image seen through the reflection of what's behind you? I'd say having even a partial image on screen blended with whatever is in the room over your shoulder, is a pretty poor image, even if it seems more saturated.
Again, I've been using large non-glass LCDs as long as they've existed, and despite the fact that you make them sound too fragile to use, many others have and do, use them every day. The original assertion I responded to was something along the lines of large screens unprotected by glass, wouldn't be feasible on an iMac. I'm pointing out that isn't so. I would advise you to keep your fingers off of any screen, but you can clean a matte screen of any size without it turning into fluff and blowing away like dandelion seeds on a warm breeze, as you seem to suggest. Since most people aren't going to fire golf balls at a desktop rig, a matte screen on an iMac (like it used to have) would be as durable as anyone needs it to be.
Reflective glass repels dust and particulate matter in the air? Your iMac isn't just shiny, it sounds to be magic, too.
It's mainly easier to clean but it actually does attract less dust than matte displays perhaps due to the separation between the glass and the panel, reducing the static charge.
The glass has the effect of making colors seem richer to some, but that also alters the color—not something you want if your a professional designer.
Clear, high transmission glass does nothing whatsoever to the colours. The panel and backlight are affecting the colour saturation. Matte coatings affect the colours of the panel.
Even if you believe the glass has "better transmission" how much "better" is an image seen through the reflection of what's behind you?
I agree the reflected overlay is very bad but it's not a matter of belief that an untreated glass overlay transmits light better than a matte coating. Matte coatings are rough in order to diffuse light. I personally prefer the appearance of it as it gives the appearance of paper but the ideal scenario is accurate transmission from the panel with no reflected overlays.
Again, I've been using large non-glass LCDs as long as they've existed, and despite the fact that you make them sound too fragile to use, many others have and do, use them every day. The original assertion I responded to was something along the lines of large screens unprotected by glass, wouldn't be feasible on an iMac. I'm pointing out that isn't so.
It's fine for people who look after their equipment. For families who have kids sharing their iMac and poking the screen, an unprotected 27" IPS panel is not a good scenario. The glass is very easy to wipe down and more durable. You also don't get that butt-clench when a client decides to hover a pen tip at your screen when pointing out a change.
It's mainly easier to clean but it actually does attract less dust than matte displays perhaps due to the separation between the glass and the panel, reducing the static charge.
Clear, high transmission glass does nothing whatsoever to the colours. The panel and backlight are affecting the colour saturation. Matte coatings affect the colours of the panel.
I agree the reflected overlay is very bad but it's not a matter of belief that an untreated glass overlay transmits light better than a matte coating. Matte coatings are rough in order to diffuse light. I personally prefer the appearance of it as it gives the appearance of paper but the ideal scenario is accurate transmission from the panel with no reflected overlays.
It's fine for people who look after their equipment. For families who have kids sharing their iMac and poking the screen, an unprotected 27" IPS panel is not a good scenario. The glass is very easy to wipe down and more durable. You also don't get that butt-clench when a client decides to hover a pen tip at your screen when pointing out a change.
I'm fine with Apple creating products that are "kid friendly" but I don't think needs of professionals should be superceded by parents worrying about grungy brat fingers. Offer both of us a choice. I have no problem saying, "please don't touch the monitor" or "careful with that pen, please" to anyone, client or my boss, who decides to come at my screen like it's white board.
To say that a layer of glass somehow gets less dirty than the screen behind it would get without it, is silly (see glass top table for reference). There is nothing special about an LCD screen behind glass. It's pretty much the same monitor minus a sheet of glass, which is just another layer of material between your eyes and light shining through liquid crystals?just one more thing for the light to have to pass through. Notice in previous post, I said "seems" more saturated to some, not "is" more saturated (back to the point of if it being a matter of form over function). Anti-glare glass reduces glare as far as sheets of glass go, but it does affect the color. That's why most design professionals prefer an lcd monitor with no glass to create reflections, and no anti-glare glass to alter color.
Again, an LCD behind any glass is just an LCD with another layer of material light has to pass through to reach your eyes. Not that any of that is really a huge difference, it's just that you seem to imply with the "increased transmission" statement that glass covered monitors somehow improve image quality. The real deal breaker is the reflection. If you want to argue that glass offers a higher degree of protection for the screen behind it (your original assertion)?well, of course. But it comes at a cost to image quality in order to solve a problem that doesn't really exist (non-protected LCDs being too fragile). The other imaginings you offered about glass smudging less (good lord) attracting less dust, and "transmission" is just silly. The only perceptable advantage glass would have as far as image quality might (and it's a mighty big "might") occur if the panel itself was made of glass (like a plasma TV) where the light is emitted directly from the glass surface with nothing between it and light coming through the liquid crystal it contains. Since that it isn't how LCDs are constructed, it's a mute point.