By not using a glossy screen you are obviously unable to see the real you.
I know your new here, so you might want to pay attention to the guy who predicted the Apple stock plummet right on time... and it isn't over yet.
I haven't been wrong in 20 years - so I don't need a 'glossy screen' or your armature quips - to see what's real.
Im guessing your just another 'run of the mill' fanboi who got caught staring at his own reflection on an Apple display that you couldn't see the truth.
Your probably still thinking $1000+ stock is due in a few months like the other blind zealots here were predicting - while slagging me as some hater for predicting this exact consequence. (Go ahead- check them out... Unless tallest shill has deleted them like other voices of reason).
You can't give your loyal customers and partners the middle finger and expect to stay on top - riding a patent portfolio.
Consumer fatigue is a bitch - and that was Samsung and Googles strategy all along.
$380 shares by summer.
ffs... Glossy displays... Right up there with the puck mouse and Apple HiFi - and refreshing your tower computer every 6 years.
Say hello to Sony 2.0
You can't give your loyal customers and partners the middle finger and expect to stay on top - riding a patent portfolio.
Consumer fatigue is a bitch - and that was Samsung and Googles strategy all along.
$380 shares by summer.
People probably are fatigued with all the iDevices. But in the past what Apple has done at this point is disrupt a whole new market. If they can do that again you could still see a share recovery. It depends on whether it was Steve doing that or not.
The concept is based around machines like the Mini, MBA and 13" MBP that have integrated GPUs that aren't suitable for gaming or graphics intensive professional apps. Leveraging TB to have a GPU in that large display would allow for people to buy a cheaper Mac.
As I mentioned, very compelling for a MBA; personally I expect the 13" MBP to disappear soon - the only real benefit is the optical drive, and the new MBPs ditched them. Reduction of size & weight by elimination of the GPU & battery capacity needed when portable, coupled with the capacity to drive a big display properly when docked would be excellent.
For a Mini, it doesn't make sense to me - a reduction in cost of the computer is not enough to cover the GPU in the monitor; portability is not an issue.
Quote:
Besides length electromagnetic interference or snooping are other considerations.
Is there any evidence these are real considerations for using Thunderbolt? I have not heard any suggestion that TB is particularly susceptible to interference. Certainly, there are environments (i.e., high-energy laboratories) that could affect TB, but these would also affect almost every other part of the machine. As far as snooping goes, is there any evidence that it can be intercepted, any more than ethernet, USB, video cables, or the sound of typing on a keyboard? Plausible, sure, but not an issue for 99.999% of users. The few that are so paranoid are better off simply not using a computer, period.
Please, Apple, make the height on this display equal to the height of the 27" iMac. Presently, they don't match, which looks (and worse, functions) poorly.
Also, give us back the ability to mount iMacs and these monitors on arms via VESA mounts.
The IPS displays at the 27" size have been lowering in price over the past year. AnandTech has reviewed many of them. None as nice as the AOC here but if you don't care about that you can get one that's a fraction of what Apple charges. I recall one they bought which allowed them to pay extra to get one with no dead pixels in it, if that tells you anything about the level of quality one is dealing with. Apple also calibrates their displays fairly well at the factory which I don't think many vendors will do.
Except that it's possible to buy a 27" IPS display and a colorimeter calibrator for less than an Apple display. Also, the color on Apple displays tends to drift, so at some point it will need calibrating anyways.
The only thing Apple displays are good for is fanboys who need their display to match their computer. There is no other reason to buy one.
Please, Apple, make the height on this display equal to the height of the 27" iMac. Presently, they don't match, which looks (and worse, functions) poorly.
Also, give us back the ability to mount iMacs and these monitors on arms via VESA mounts.
I have to agree with respect to VESA mounts. This is just another example of Apples desktop engineering being less than user focused. Even half the effort that goes into the laptops would be wonderful.
The reason usb 3 has not happened on the mac pro right now is because the sandy bridge xeons dont support usb 3 natively. Apple has been waiting till the ivy bridge versions come out which do support usb 3 natively because usb is a processor function and is supported by the cpu directly, unlike firewire and thunderbolt which have there own stand alone platform processor independent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Thank you! That is the reason for it, but iForgot.
You guys are 100% wrong here. USB3 was tied to the chipset, not the processors. With Xeon EP chipsets, you get one per tick/tock cycle, meaning Ivy Bridge E5s do not gain any special features. They don't change anything regarding thunderbolt. They don't natively integrate usb3 unless intel completely changes course this late, and that is not likely. Sandy Bridge workstations from other vendors include usb3 using third party chipsets, as that is the only option until Haswell Xeons.
Quote:
Ivy bridge xeons just barely came out late late last fall. To make a professional machine like the mac pro that is super stable and able to be a workhorse 24/7 takes time. It will happen and the new one that comes out this year will have usb 3 and thunderbolt with ivy bridge xeons.
You're confusing EP and EN. The ivy bridge xeons that came out year were based on the same thing you see in the imacs today. They're based on mainstream chip designs with a few extra PCI lanes. Apple has never used these in the mac pro. They're common in micro-servers and a couple lighter workstations, but the performance is no better than what Apple already offers. They only go up to 4 cores. They are capped at 20 PCI lanes instead of 40 or 80. In terms of time required, other brands released workstations based on these a long time ago. It doesn't take as long as you suggest to validate hardware.
I really want to upgrade my 30" cinema display where are the big 30" stylish monitors apple? Two 30" thunderbolt displays daisy chained to my mac book pro is what I want.
This is a manufacturing issue. Think vertically. Horizontally all the screens are 2560 pixels. The manufacturing line can produce more screens if they cut the screens every 1440 pixels rather than every 1600 vertically. So they can make more screens cheaper, appealing to more customers
Also consider production yield. More bad pixels in 2560x1600 than 1440. The manufacturer has to throw away less screens therefore making 2560x1440 27" LCDs cheaper to produce and lower retail prices and higher market demand. Win win for the manufacturer.
The same applies to the diminishing availability of 1920x1200 screens VS 1920x1080 screens, but they can market those lesser screens as FullHD.
Weird thing, I have a Dell 2410 1920x1200 that still sells now for more than I paid for it in 2009. Not so weird if you understand the above.
Who cares how thin it is? I'd rather have a better screen, more TB lanes, and USB 3.0 than "thinner". When you're using the display it's impossible to know whether it's 1" thin or 2" thin anyways.
Also, I'd appreciate it if Apple stopped hiding ports like USB in hard to see and reach places. On my Dell I can insert a flash drive without moving from my chair. On an iMac/TB display, I have to give the display a reach-around to do the same thing. This is another case of Ive's lack of practical sense.
I think it's safe to say that Apple does. No need to go into to the many valid reasons as to how a thinner and lighter display saves costs (that can be added to other parts to make a better display) and how they think it makes it more attractive to the majority of users.
Also, I'd appreciate it if Apple stopped hiding ports like USB in hard to see and reach places.
I disagree. I've been using the SD slot on the back of my mini for over a year now and it slides in beautifully. At first I thought it was poor design myself as well, but using the ports on the backside gives me no trouble. At all.
I disagree. I've been using the SD slot on the back of my mini for over a year now and it slides in beautifully. At first I thought it was poor design myself as well, but using the ports on the backside gives me no trouble. At all.
So you believe there is no ergonomic difference between plugging a flash drive into the front of say, a Mac Pro, versus plugging it into the back of an iMac?
I think it's safe to say that Apple does. No need to go into to the many valid reasons as to how a thinner and lighter display saves costs (that can be added to other parts to make a better display) and how they think it makes it more attractive to the majority of users.
My point was regarding the purchase of a new display. If the feature set is the same, but one is slightly thinner, what is the advantage to the consumer? The new TB displays promise to have less glare, which is a good reason to wait for one. Waiting because they're a bit thinner is just stupid.
I disagree. I've been using the SD slot on the back of my mini for over a year now and it slides in beautifully. At first I thought it was poor design myself as well, but using the ports on the backside gives me no trouble. At all.
I can see that on the mini, on the new iMac, I don't so much. Besides, on the iMac, it's more awkward to make connections without standing up and looking behind the screen.
My point was regarding the purchase of a new display. If the feature set is the same, but one is slightly thinner, what is the advantage to the consumer? The new TB displays promise to have less glare, which is a good reason to wait for one. Waiting because they're a bit thinner is just stupid.
Sure, if that's all they changed but as Apple ever just made a product thinner with no other changes added? I can't think of any. You already mention the lowered glare in the display, but also consider USB 3.0 added to take advantage of all the Macs that shipped last year with Ivy Bridge.
There will be other changes but most of them we may never realize. If they remove FW (which I think is highly likely) but then add better speakers, better color accuracy, brighter backlight and the like we'll see it on the spec sheet; but other changes like better internal HW we may never know about. I'd like the price to drop by $100 but I'm guessing that won't happen because a quality 27" display from Dell isn't much cheaper than the ATD yet looks a lot worse and is likely poorly configured at the factory.
So you believe there is no ergonomic difference between plugging a flash drive into the front of say, a Mac Pro, versus plugging it into the back of an iMac?
Interesting.
I have an open jack on a USB hub.
I switched away from a tower to recover a few cubic feet of space under my desk, and eliminate the uncomfortable heat it generates.
Waiting because they're a bit thinner is just stupid.
So you believe there is no ergonomic difference between plugging a flash drive into the front of say, a Mac Pro, versus plugging it into the back of an iMac?
I can see that on the mini, on the new iMac, I don't so much. Besides, on the iMac, it's more awkward to make connections without standing up and looking behind the screen.
I don't have any experience with an iMac (never used one) but the FW & USB ports on the back of my ACD go unused. I've tried them out, but yes, they seem like a hassle. That might be the case with USB on the back of a mini as well; I've only used the SD Card slot, and that works easy for me.
That's about the only solution for most Macs. It's sort of ugly to have a hub and a bunch of wires on the desk, Ive would have been wise to design some accessable ports on Macs to pretty up the desktop. He's really a shortsighted designer.
That's about the only solution for most Macs. It's sort of ugly to have a hub and a bunch of wires on the desk, Ive would have been wise to design some accessable ports on Macs to pretty up the desktop. He's really a shortsighted designer.
Either way, I need the hub because I have more devices than connectors, and it's not such a bad thing to hide the more permanent cables. A hub is better than having 4+ cords dangling in plain sight.
Comments
I know your new here, so you might want to pay attention to the guy who predicted the Apple stock plummet right on time... and it isn't over yet.
I haven't been wrong in 20 years - so I don't need a 'glossy screen' or your armature quips - to see what's real.
Im guessing your just another 'run of the mill' fanboi who got caught staring at his own reflection on an Apple display that you couldn't see the truth.
Your probably still thinking $1000+ stock is due in a few months like the other blind zealots here were predicting - while slagging me as some hater for predicting this exact consequence. (Go ahead- check them out... Unless tallest shill has deleted them like other voices of reason).
You can't give your loyal customers and partners the middle finger and expect to stay on top - riding a patent portfolio.
Consumer fatigue is a bitch - and that was Samsung and Googles strategy all along.
$380 shares by summer.
ffs... Glossy displays... Right up there with the puck mouse and Apple HiFi - and refreshing your tower computer every 6 years.
Say hello to Sony 2.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain
You can't give your loyal customers and partners the middle finger and expect to stay on top - riding a patent portfolio.
Consumer fatigue is a bitch - and that was Samsung and Googles strategy all along.
$380 shares by summer.
People probably are fatigued with all the iDevices. But in the past what Apple has done at this point is disrupt a whole new market. If they can do that again you could still see a share recovery. It depends on whether it was Steve doing that or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The concept is based around machines like the Mini, MBA and 13" MBP that have integrated GPUs that aren't suitable for gaming or graphics intensive professional apps. Leveraging TB to have a GPU in that large display would allow for people to buy a cheaper Mac.
As I mentioned, very compelling for a MBA; personally I expect the 13" MBP to disappear soon - the only real benefit is the optical drive, and the new MBPs ditched them. Reduction of size & weight by elimination of the GPU & battery capacity needed when portable, coupled with the capacity to drive a big display properly when docked would be excellent.
For a Mini, it doesn't make sense to me - a reduction in cost of the computer is not enough to cover the GPU in the monitor; portability is not an issue.
Quote:
Besides length electromagnetic interference or snooping are other considerations.
Is there any evidence these are real considerations for using Thunderbolt? I have not heard any suggestion that TB is particularly susceptible to interference. Certainly, there are environments (i.e., high-energy laboratories) that could affect TB, but these would also affect almost every other part of the machine. As far as snooping goes, is there any evidence that it can be intercepted, any more than ethernet, USB, video cables, or the sound of typing on a keyboard? Plausible, sure, but not an issue for 99.999% of users. The few that are so paranoid are better off simply not using a computer, period.
Also, give us back the ability to mount iMacs and these monitors on arms via VESA mounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The IPS displays at the 27" size have been lowering in price over the past year. AnandTech has reviewed many of them. None as nice as the AOC here but if you don't care about that you can get one that's a fraction of what Apple charges. I recall one they bought which allowed them to pay extra to get one with no dead pixels in it, if that tells you anything about the level of quality one is dealing with. Apple also calibrates their displays fairly well at the factory which I don't think many vendors will do.
edit: There we go: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5885/the-achieva-shimian-qh270-a-350-27inch-wqhd-sips-display
Except that it's possible to buy a 27" IPS display and a colorimeter calibrator for less than an Apple display. Also, the color on Apple displays tends to drift, so at some point it will need calibrating anyways.
The only thing Apple displays are good for is fanboys who need their display to match their computer. There is no other reason to buy one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrifle
Please, Apple, make the height on this display equal to the height of the 27" iMac. Presently, they don't match, which looks (and worse, functions) poorly.
Also, give us back the ability to mount iMacs and these monitors on arms via VESA mounts.
I have to agree with respect to VESA mounts. This is just another example of Apples desktop engineering being less than user focused. Even half the effort that goes into the laptops would be wonderful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
The reason usb 3 has not happened on the mac pro right now is because the sandy bridge xeons dont support usb 3 natively. Apple has been waiting till the ivy bridge versions come out which do support usb 3 natively because usb is a processor function and is supported by the cpu directly, unlike firewire and thunderbolt which have there own stand alone platform processor independent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Thank you! That is the reason for it, but iForgot.
You guys are 100% wrong here. USB3 was tied to the chipset, not the processors. With Xeon EP chipsets, you get one per tick/tock cycle, meaning Ivy Bridge E5s do not gain any special features. They don't change anything regarding thunderbolt. They don't natively integrate usb3 unless intel completely changes course this late, and that is not likely. Sandy Bridge workstations from other vendors include usb3 using third party chipsets, as that is the only option until Haswell Xeons.
Quote:
Ivy bridge xeons just barely came out late late last fall. To make a professional machine like the mac pro that is super stable and able to be a workhorse 24/7 takes time. It will happen and the new one that comes out this year will have usb 3 and thunderbolt with ivy bridge xeons.
You're confusing EP and EN. The ivy bridge xeons that came out year were based on the same thing you see in the imacs today. They're based on mainstream chip designs with a few extra PCI lanes. Apple has never used these in the mac pro. They're common in micro-servers and a couple lighter workstations, but the performance is no better than what Apple already offers. They only go up to 4 cores. They are capped at 20 PCI lanes instead of 40 or 80. In terms of time required, other brands released workstations based on these a long time ago. It doesn't take as long as you suggest to validate hardware.
This is a manufacturing issue. Think vertically. Horizontally all the screens are 2560 pixels. The manufacturing line can produce more screens if they cut the screens every 1440 pixels rather than every 1600 vertically. So they can make more screens cheaper, appealing to more customers
Also consider production yield. More bad pixels in 2560x1600 than 1440. The manufacturer has to throw away less screens therefore making 2560x1440 27" LCDs cheaper to produce and lower retail prices and higher market demand. Win win for the manufacturer.
The same applies to the diminishing availability of 1920x1200 screens VS 1920x1080 screens, but they can market those lesser screens as FullHD.
Weird thing, I have a Dell 2410 1920x1200 that still sells now for more than I paid for it in 2009. Not so weird if you understand the above.
Who cares how thin it is? I'd rather have a better screen, more TB lanes, and USB 3.0 than "thinner". When you're using the display it's impossible to know whether it's 1" thin or 2" thin anyways.
Also, I'd appreciate it if Apple stopped hiding ports like USB in hard to see and reach places. On my Dell I can insert a flash drive without moving from my chair. On an iMac/TB display, I have to give the display a reach-around to do the same thing. This is another case of Ive's lack of practical sense.
I think it's safe to say that Apple does. No need to go into to the many valid reasons as to how a thinner and lighter display saves costs (that can be added to other parts to make a better display) and how they think it makes it more attractive to the majority of users.
I disagree. I've been using the SD slot on the back of my mini for over a year now and it slides in beautifully. At first I thought it was poor design myself as well, but using the ports on the backside gives me no trouble. At all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
I disagree. I've been using the SD slot on the back of my mini for over a year now and it slides in beautifully. At first I thought it was poor design myself as well, but using the ports on the backside gives me no trouble. At all.
So you believe there is no ergonomic difference between plugging a flash drive into the front of say, a Mac Pro, versus plugging it into the back of an iMac?
Interesting.
Quote:
Spoketh SolipsismX:
I think it's safe to say that Apple does. No need to go into to the many valid reasons as to how a thinner and lighter display saves costs (that can be added to other parts to make a better display) and how they think it makes it more attractive to the majority of users.
My point was regarding the purchase of a new display. If the feature set is the same, but one is slightly thinner, what is the advantage to the consumer? The new TB displays promise to have less glare, which is a good reason to wait for one. Waiting because they're a bit thinner is just stupid.
I can see that on the mini, on the new iMac, I don't so much. Besides, on the iMac, it's more awkward to make connections without standing up and looking behind the screen.
Sure, if that's all they changed but as Apple ever just made a product thinner with no other changes added? I can't think of any. You already mention the lowered glare in the display, but also consider USB 3.0 added to take advantage of all the Macs that shipped last year with Ivy Bridge.
There will be other changes but most of them we may never realize. If they remove FW (which I think is highly likely) but then add better speakers, better color accuracy, brighter backlight and the like we'll see it on the spec sheet; but other changes like better internal HW we may never know about. I'd like the price to drop by $100 but I'm guessing that won't happen because a quality 27" display from Dell isn't much cheaper than the ATD yet looks a lot worse and is likely poorly configured at the factory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
NO NO! same design as an iMac p+but but a 680m inside that thing along with fiber TB cables!!
Absolutely. I'd buy that even without fiber TB cables.
The bonus for Apple is that they just made monitors something you replace before they roll over and die.
I have an open jack on a USB hub.
I switched away from a tower to recover a few cubic feet of space under my desk, and eliminate the uncomfortable heat it generates.
Wait, who was saying that?
I don't have any experience with an iMac (never used one) but the FW & USB ports on the back of my ACD go unused. I've tried them out, but yes, they seem like a hassle. That might be the case with USB on the back of a mini as well; I've only used the SD Card slot, and that works easy for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I have an open jack on a USB hub.
That's about the only solution for most Macs. It's sort of ugly to have a hub and a bunch of wires on the desk, Ive would have been wise to design some accessable ports on Macs to pretty up the desktop. He's really a shortsighted designer.
Either way, I need the hub because I have more devices than connectors, and it's not such a bad thing to hide the more permanent cables. A hub is better than having 4+ cords dangling in plain sight.
Wow. Just wow.Shortsighted indeed.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_ive#Honours_and_awards