With all due respect, the notion of Apple computers being unaffordable for the masses is as antiquated as Blue Ray becoming a standard PC peripheral. People talk as if it's true, but ...
Name a monitor that would work on the Mac Pro that wouldn't on the iMac. There is no "lack of monitor options for the iMac".
I'm not sure what you problem is with factual statements. The iMac is a monitor and thus you get one with every iMac purchase that monitor however can be completely unusable for may tasks that a computer is used for. In effect you don't have an option with the iMac.
The reality is that there is no $2000 xMac after all these years. Putting your hope on the Mac Pro strikes me as a forlorn one given it's a Xeon based workstation.
The Mac Pro has potential here, it is up to Apples marketing to hit the price point. The reality is that it isn't expensive to put a base line XEON into this design. Obviously it depends upon exactly what Apple uses to implement the low end solution but I don't see $2000 as being a problem if they want to do it.
Nothing on the economic end has changed for Apple. A $2000 xMacs makes no more or less sense today than last year or the year before or the decade before.
It makes all the sense in the world if you have a failing product line in the marketplace. The Mac Pro was very much in failure mode and part of that failure was due to the entry level model being an extremely bad value. Now Apple could try to make a machine at the $2500 level that was worth it but that still won't drive sales.
I have, somewhere around here, a Quicksilver PowerMac that's pretty much the last time Apple made an sub $2K xMac.
There are a good number of folks that simply need CPU horsepower and as many cores as they can get. Given that some folks have been holding off on Mac Pro purchases for a while waiting for the refresh means there's significant pent up demand.
I have no doubt that the entire line up will sell well for a couple of months, as you note pent up demand is real. The problem is what comes after that mad rush to the new Pro? Apple could easily end up in the same boat of slow sales as the majority of the workstation market is not high end machines. Frankly it never has been.
I didn't say it was a problem. I said it would benefit Apple to prioritize the higher priced models.
I'm saying something different here, Apple needs to cover the entire workstation market here. Their apparent in ability to do that with the old Mac Pro was a significant problem.
Apple has a i7 + Single GPU solution in their current lineup.
It is unlikely they will be grossly over charging for any model of the new Mac Pro but that doesn't mean that they will offer a cheap model.
Frankly I'm thinking that one of the goals for this new Mac Pro was to address the entry level cost issue. In this day and age I don't consider a $2000 computer to be cheap, especially in a design like this Mac Pro focused only on compute.
I mean a quad core i7 + single GPU iMac will run about as fast as a quad core i7 + single GPU Mac Pro.
Which is fine if you can live with the rest of the iMac. I can't so I don't have an iMac. Apple could easily refactor the iMac into something I'd buy but they seem hell bent on making it less of a desktop machine every year.
Not over priced. Just expensive because it's higher end. Apple will make profit on a $2000 machine. Just less than a $4000 machine at the same margins. This has always been the problem of the xMac...it would lower ASPs.
ASP is a silly discussion as the iPad, the Mini, the MBA and many other things Apple sells lowers the ASP also. None of these lowers the price as much as hardware nobody wants to buy.
Cost is certainly not the point of any Mac much less the Mac Pro. Unless you mean high cost for high performance.
I disagree entirely here, the huge success of MBA is directly due to cost. It is actually a very good buy.
Yes, the iMac offers plenty of performance these days.
…for many users. iMac isn't the solution for everybody.
To hear you guys defend the Mac Pro it's the second coming of Steve Jobs. The rest of us are evidently luddites that abhor the advancement of technology and wish to hang on to our obsolete tech like floppy drives.
Err no, I've not said the new Mac Pro is perfect, but rather have addressed arguments that I see as asinine. There is a difference. As to being Luddites there is very much an element in some of the posts seen on various forums with the casual form of: "the Mac Pro is all new so it must be bad".
It isn't that we are defending Apple here but rather this noise about the new Mac Pro is like a skipping record that says the same thing over and over again. Seriously some of this stuff we hear is almost identical to what was heard back in the day when S100 systems where being replaced with mass production alternatives (yes I've been around that long). So yeah at times it feels like we are dealing with Luddites in general; I'm not sure you fit into that category but clearly you are more focused on the past.
The E3 is a nice little workstation chip. It'd be wonderful in a mini. That's not going to happen either.
Hey I'm patiently waiting for the next Mini, that might not be the machine I want now, but a couple of years from now who knows. I'm actually bummed out that Apple has yet to bring OpenCL support to intel GPUs.
Again, the argument in this and other threads here is that all those pro cards are a non issue and pros don't need slots or drive bays or CUDA support. If that's really the case then the new Mac Pro IS simply a drop in replacement for all those empty Mac Pro chassis that exist out there.
It isn't a drop in for an empty chassis as you would need adapters for the monitors or new monitors to leverage the TB ports.
Which would be fine except for the fact that Mac Pro, in its old form, misses most of the workstation market. The vast majority of workstation users simply can not justify a $7000 computer.
I'm not sure what you problem is with factual statements. The iMac is a monitor and thus you get one with every iMac purchase that monitor however can be completely unusable for may tasks that a computer is used for. In effect you don't have an option with the iMac.
Factual statement: you did not list a single monitor that would work on a Mac Pro that would not work attached to the iMac.
Factual statement: you can connect at least two additional monitors to the 27" Mac Pro.
And what are the "many tasks that a computer is used for" that the iMac monitor is completely useless?
Perhaps it is you that has a problem confusing opinion with "fact". The "fact" is that any monitor that you are likely to use on a Mac Pro will work equally well on an iMac.
If you don't have the desk space I'm going to give you the same (impractical) suggestion that you and Marvin provided about the footprint of an external raid: stick the iMac somewhere hidden and run a TB line to your desired monitor (or dock and then monitor).
I would caution you regarding your metrics of quality. "Wide gamut" is often marketing. There are still values that you won't be able to see on any display. What matters is how well values are represented relative to a reference colorspace, how well calibration can be maintained over the life of the display, shadow detail, etc. Do not get caught by manufacturer marketing drivel. Having a wider gamut doesn't mean the discrete points that represent colors will be closer to what is intended. Some of the marketing guys clearly misinterpret the intended use of engineering white papers. I don't think the other issue is a big one. Frankly Apple's displays aren't all that stable. They are better than what you would find with most all in ones, but most all in ones are cheaper anyway. If I wanted to update the cpu within 3 years, the display would definitely be due for the same assuming a critical eye.
Marketing drivel is hard to escape in the computer world. Apple is actual a master of marketing drivel and could open their own Dojo to pass on the secretes they have amassed.
In any event my problem with the iMacs monitor is that it simply doesn't fit every user need and you have to upgrade it with every computer update. People that suggest hiding an iMac behind a desk and attaching your preferred monitor are just plain nuts in my estimation.
That's possible. I'm genuinely curious how they will target this. Keep in mind I'm going off assumption that sales were very slow. The low end one had a ridiculous markup, so I suspect they have "some" wiggle room there.
My point is they have a massive amount of wiggle room in the entry level machine. The old entry level machines where a joke price wise.
Lack of internal bays and PCI cards may be a passive price increase for some people.
Possibly but deletion of that hardware is a price cut for everyone else. Effectively the removal of these parts adds to the wiggle room. Even going to a single fan for the three processors effectively adds wiggle room for price control.
Even if they own a quality DAS solution for backup or performance reasons, they may have to replace it if it's anything other than usb or thunderbolt. I don't think I would try adapters with something like that assuming the existence of any that would even work.
Actually I think Apple has interfacing to disk arrays fully covered. You have USB3, Thunderbolt, FireWire via TB and Ethernet. Accessing storage should not be a problem.
Factual statement: you did not list a single monitor that would work on a Mac Pro that would not work attached to the iMac.
The problem isn't that external monitors don't work, it is rather that you would have to be an idiot to hook one up to an iMac to use in place of the internal monitor.
Factual statement: you can connect at least two additional monitors to the 27" Mac Pro.
Again I really wish you would explain your problem here. The problem with hooking up any of those monitors is that you still have the massive iMac to deal with. I'm beginning to think your problem is you can't think past common desktop usage.
And what are the "many tasks that a computer is used for" that the iMac monitor is completely useless?
This argument is becoming a waste of time, walk into a lab, a manufacturing floor or any other non traditional desktop and try to figure out how you would even implement a massive IMac type machine. For many applications the iMac is a joke.
Perhaps it is you that has a problem confusing opinion with "fact". The "fact" is that any monitor that you are likely to use on a Mac Pro will work equally well on an iMac.
I'm not sure if you are in denial here or just being argumentative or simply don't have wide exposure to the way computers are used in non traditional desktop environments. It doesn't really matter; the iMac is a no show for these sorts of applications because the monitor is simply too big and attaching a second monitor to an iMac would get you laughed out of the facility.
If you don't have the desk space I'm going to give you the same (impractical) suggestion that you and Marvin provided about the footprint of an external raid: stick the iMac somewhere hidden and run a TB line to your desired monitor (or dock and then monitor).
Which just demonstrates how ridiculous your position is.
Again I really do wish you would explain your problem here.
Because your assertion of fact is wrong and is simply your opinion.
The problem isn't that external monitors don't work, it is rather that you would have to be an idiot to hook one up to an iMac to use in place of the internal monitor.
Why? There are many folks with a dual monitor setup with an iMac. Are they all idiots?
The primary use case for "replacing" the iMac
monitor is a higher quality pro monitor.
Again I really wish you would explain your problem here. The problem with hooking up any of those monitors is that you still have the massive iMac to deal with. I'm beginning to think your problem is you can't think past common desktop usage.
It's a desktop machine. Not a POS device or embedded computer. The 27" iMac is not "massive" and the 21" even smaller.
This argument is becoming a waste of time, walk into a lab, a manufacturing floor or any other non traditional desktop and try to figure out how you would even implement a massive IMac type machine. For many applications the iMac is a joke.
I work in a lab. We have iMacs in our labs. We have iMacs in our clean rooms (manufacturing floor equiv).
Also, in what context is the 21" iMac "massive"? How many factory floors need a high powered machine ON the floor?
I'm not sure if you are in denial here or just being argumentative or simply don't have wide exposure to the way computers are used in non traditional desktop environments.
For many of these applications the supplier provides the support machine (manufacturing floor). For really tight spaces the mini will work but the footprint of a mini+21" monitor is no smaller than a 21" iMac.
There's no denial, I'm simply calling you on your bullshit. You don't AIOs. We get it. But the examples you provide are laughable.
It doesn't really matter; the iMac is a no show for these sorts of applications because the monitor is simply too big and attaching a second monitor to an iMac would get you laughed out of the facility.
These are tiny tiny percentages of the use cases for a desktop. First 99% of these use cases required windows or Linux because of the applications and no Mac is well suited. For the remaining tiny fraction very few of these use cases require the power of the 27"' iMac AND do not have the space for a 27" monitor AND for which the iMac display is unsuited.
Which just demonstrates how ridiculous your position is.
My position is simple: you assert opinion as fact and support it with really rare edge cases as if they were common.
Given I work in some of those edge cases I know your assertion is bullshit. The iMac is fine in our labs and production facilities when any Mac is viable due to software. In the cases where it is not the Mini or MBP works.
You have to come up with a scenario where the iMac clearly doesn't work as a desktop machine as opposed to an embedded computer for process control or a headless server.
You have to come up with a scenario where the iMac clearly doesn't work as a desktop machine as opposed to an embedded computer for process control or a headless server.
Would a living room/home theater computer count? Is that common yet? In that setting the computer uses the TV as the display, so the screen on an AIO is redundant and the size makes it impractical. Fortunately there's a mini for that, but the current model is pretty weak in the graphics department.
BTW, I'm not arguing against the value or utility of the iMac in general, I'm just seeing if I can meet your challenge.
Would a living room/home theater computer count? Is that common yet? In that setting the computer uses the TV as the display, so the screen on an AIO is redundant and the size makes it impractical. Fortunately there's a mini for that, but the current model is pretty weak in the graphics department.
I am eager to see what an updated Mac mini brings to the table graphics-wise, as I would LOVE to have one as a HTPC/WoW box…
Would a living room/home theater computer count? Is that common yet? In that setting the computer uses the TV as the display, so the screen on an AIO is redundant and the size makes it impractical. Fortunately there's a mini for that, but the current model is pretty weak in the graphics department.
BTW, I'm not arguing against the value or utility of the iMac in general, I'm just seeing if I can meet your challenge.
I used to do HTPCs "back in the day" but nowadays I use aTV and Roku.
For the living room home theater the optimal machine is the mini. Neither the iMac nor the xMac are good for this application. The iMac has a redundant screen. The xMac will be noisy, large and power hungry in comparison to the mini.
That said, lets look at common HTPC use cases.
The living room is the primary one. Probably 80-90% of the cases based on the HTPC forum on AVS. Use a mini if you want an OSX based HTPC.
The equipment room is probably the next largest. In this domain most folks have a small rack of AV gear that serves their front projector and it really depends on the build. Some are tight and built under stairs or something. Others are more roomy. A 21" iMac is pretty decent in this regard as a lot of the time it can be hard to actually see the primary screen from where the rack is. Given the xMac form factor it's no more rackable than the iMac and also requires a screen. I'd say it's a toss up and I'd lean toward the mini or a 21" iMac.
Dorm Room/RV HTPC was an interesting niche for a couple years. One that the older display port based 27" iMac was actually well suited for. The 27" size isn't a bad one for the confines of an RV or dorm. With a kanex box you could hook up your PS3 for a very small footprint PC/Blue Ray/gaming media center. Too bad the newer TB based 27" iMacs can't do this. An xMac would now be better in this use case if 3D performance is a requirement...although with most larger screen displays the 1080p max resolution isn't that taxing even for a mini. If Apple added HDMI input (unlikely) to the iMac I would say that the iMac would be better once again.
Conference Room HTPC. We have an iMac for this. Primary video goes to the front projector. The iMac local display is used by the support staff. No particular advantage for an xMac.
For me, two (almost three) problems with projectors…
One - Usually requires a darkened room for best image brightness…
Two - That whole thing with people blocking the projector beam on occasion…
Three - A decent screen is an extra expense; this can be avoided by proper prep of the wall that is to be projected onto; but then you have the expense of the prep & the hassle of doing it all over again if/when you move the projector…
The first two can be solved by going the back-projection method; but then there not only the added cost of the screen, but you need a room behind the screen to place the projector into (which could be used for some storage I suppose)… This room can be made almost half as short by using a specific mirror to 'fold' the projector beam length…
If I hit the Lotto, yeah, I would be all over a HUGE back projection system (and my THX portion of the rig would go severely upscale as well), but until then a decent-sized HDTV flat-panel will do…!
Marketing drivel is hard to escape in the computer world. Apple is actual a master of marketing drivel and could open their own Dojo to pass on the secretes they have amassed.
The idea of a dojo makes me laugh. Regarding my prior point though, I was trying to explain that pushing the boundaries of a set of discrete points will not necessarily lead to a better representation of them either perceptually (assuming a lack of color blindness) or measured as a variation between scalars in xyz Cie 1931 color models. It does make for a larger spread between data points, but it depends upon discrete data being both well aligned with both the desired results and the measurement devices commonly used to compensate for drift. I would never suggest anyone buy a display based solely on a volumetric description of its gamut.
If it had some poorly aligned hues and I just increased their chroma, it would not improve anything. I could prove that with something as simple as paper swatches. Ideally you are able to get both a representation that aligns well with reference values as well as a strong correlation between various pieces of hardware. It pretty much works that way in any field as you won't have laboratory grade instruments there.
Well, i guess it depends on how big you want to get, what you can afford and what quality you want. The best is probably too expensive for 99.9 percent of the users out there. 100"? That's large for a TV, but not for a projection system. They can go LARGE, check out the Meridian Reference Projector.
http://www.meridian-audio.com/en/collections/products/810-reference-video-system/33/ It will handle up to 23 Feet wide. Now, THAT'S a screen! Unfortunately, the Meridian Reference projector will set you back several hundred grand. then you have to get the Reference Home Theater system which is another several hundred grand and then a big screen, and then you have to have a BIG room with proper room treatment and seats to have the ultimate experience......... :-)
Pfft. Projection? Please. We have a Panasonic 103" Plasma! Only $50,000.
Plasma isn't as good as a Meridian Reference projection system. Those are what the big boys use at the Film Production studios in their reference theaters.
Heck, they have one of those at the local sports bar. Nothing special about a 103 inch Panasonic. The Meridian goes up to 23 FEET wide and makes the Panasonic look dinky. Plus the Reference Projector has better black levels. It's basically about as good as you can get at this point in time.
And it would crater iMac sales. Why would you EVER buy a $1,999 27" iMac if that Mac Pro was $2K? You wouldn't so that's not happening.
Some people would. And lots do; the AIOs actually sell pretty well.
Less expense; the display is included. Less clutter. Fewer cables. Nothing to worry about... go in, buy one machine, have a complete computer system. Thus the idea of all-in-one. Does it solve every user's needs? Of course not.
The iMac I bought cost just shy of $3000. Would you suggest then that the Mac Pro must come in over that?
Some people would. And lots do; the AIOs actually sell pretty well.
Less expense; the display is included. Less clutter. Fewer cables. Nothing to worry about... go in, buy one machine, have a complete computer system. Thus the idea of all-in-one. Does it solve every user's needs? Of course not.
The iMac I bought cost just shy of $3000. Would you suggest then that the Mac Pro must come in over that?
Yea mine was 2900, it would have been $3,549 but I purchased the 32GB RAM and 256GB SSD drive separately, Apple charges more than twice the market price for these things, especially memory. Anyway, yes I expect the MacPro to start around 3,000, 2,000 no way, I couldn't even build a halfway decent XEON machine for that.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper
With all due respect, the notion of Apple computers being unaffordable for the masses is as antiquated as Blue Ray becoming a standard PC peripheral. People talk as if it's true, but ...
That model isn't really aimed at the masses.
I'm not sure what you problem is with factual statements. The iMac is a monitor and thus you get one with every iMac purchase that monitor however can be completely unusable for may tasks that a computer is used for. In effect you don't have an option with the iMac.
It isn't that we are defending Apple here but rather this noise about the new Mac Pro is like a skipping record that says the same thing over and over again. Seriously some of this stuff we hear is almost identical to what was heard back in the day when S100 systems where being replaced with mass production alternatives (yes I've been around that long). So yeah at times it feels like we are dealing with Luddites in general; I'm not sure you fit into that category but clearly you are more focused on the past. Hey I'm patiently waiting for the next Mini, that might not be the machine I want now, but a couple of years from now who knows. I'm actually bummed out that Apple has yet to bring OpenCL support to intel GPUs.
Which would be fine except for the fact that Mac Pro, in its old form, misses most of the workstation market. The vast majority of workstation users simply can not justify a $7000 computer.
Factual statement: you did not list a single monitor that would work on a Mac Pro that would not work attached to the iMac.
Factual statement: you can connect at least two additional monitors to the 27" Mac Pro.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/03/apple-imac-hands-on-with-dual-30-inch-displays-video/
And what are the "many tasks that a computer is used for" that the iMac monitor is completely useless?
Perhaps it is you that has a problem confusing opinion with "fact". The "fact" is that any monitor that you are likely to use on a Mac Pro will work equally well on an iMac.
If you don't have the desk space I'm going to give you the same (impractical) suggestion that you and Marvin provided about the footprint of an external raid: stick the iMac somewhere hidden and run a TB line to your desired monitor (or dock and then monitor).
/shrug
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
In any event my problem with the iMacs monitor is that it simply doesn't fit every user need and you have to upgrade it with every computer update. People that suggest hiding an iMac behind a desk and attaching your preferred monitor are just plain nuts in my estimation. My point is they have a massive amount of wiggle room in the entry level machine. The old entry level machines where a joke price wise. Possibly but deletion of that hardware is a price cut for everyone else. Effectively the removal of these parts adds to the wiggle room. Even going to a single fan for the three processors effectively adds wiggle room for price control. Actually I think Apple has interfacing to disk arrays fully covered. You have USB3, Thunderbolt, FireWire via TB and Ethernet. Accessing storage should not be a problem.
The problem isn't that external monitors don't work, it is rather that you would have to be an idiot to hook one up to an iMac to use in place of the internal monitor. Again I really wish you would explain your problem here. The problem with hooking up any of those monitors is that you still have the massive iMac to deal with. I'm beginning to think your problem is you can't think past common desktop usage. This argument is becoming a waste of time, walk into a lab, a manufacturing floor or any other non traditional desktop and try to figure out how you would even implement a massive IMac type machine. For many applications the iMac is a joke. I'm not sure if you are in denial here or just being argumentative or simply don't have wide exposure to the way computers are used in non traditional desktop environments. It doesn't really matter; the iMac is a no show for these sorts of applications because the monitor is simply too big and attaching a second monitor to an iMac would get you laughed out of the facility. Which just demonstrates how ridiculous your position is.
Because your assertion of fact is wrong and is simply your opinion.
Why? There are many folks with a dual monitor setup with an iMac. Are they all idiots?
The primary use case for "replacing" the iMac
monitor is a higher quality pro monitor.
It's a desktop machine. Not a POS device or embedded computer. The 27" iMac is not "massive" and the 21" even smaller.
I work in a lab. We have iMacs in our labs. We have iMacs in our clean rooms (manufacturing floor equiv).
Also, in what context is the 21" iMac "massive"? How many factory floors need a high powered machine ON the floor?
For many of these applications the supplier provides the support machine (manufacturing floor). For really tight spaces the mini will work but the footprint of a mini+21" monitor is no smaller than a 21" iMac.
There's no denial, I'm simply calling you on your bullshit. You don't AIOs. We get it. But the examples you provide are laughable.
These are tiny tiny percentages of the use cases for a desktop. First 99% of these use cases required windows or Linux because of the applications and no Mac is well suited. For the remaining tiny fraction very few of these use cases require the power of the 27"' iMac AND do not have the space for a 27" monitor AND for which the iMac display is unsuited.
My position is simple: you assert opinion as fact and support it with really rare edge cases as if they were common.
Given I work in some of those edge cases I know your assertion is bullshit. The iMac is fine in our labs and production facilities when any Mac is viable due to software. In the cases where it is not the Mini or MBP works.
You have to come up with a scenario where the iMac clearly doesn't work as a desktop machine as opposed to an embedded computer for process control or a headless server.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
You have to come up with a scenario where the iMac clearly doesn't work as a desktop machine as opposed to an embedded computer for process control or a headless server.
Would a living room/home theater computer count? Is that common yet? In that setting the computer uses the TV as the display, so the screen on an AIO is redundant and the size makes it impractical. Fortunately there's a mini for that, but the current model is pretty weak in the graphics department.
BTW, I'm not arguing against the value or utility of the iMac in general, I'm just seeing if I can meet your challenge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Would a living room/home theater computer count? Is that common yet? In that setting the computer uses the TV as the display, so the screen on an AIO is redundant and the size makes it impractical. Fortunately there's a mini for that, but the current model is pretty weak in the graphics department.
I am eager to see what an updated Mac mini brings to the table graphics-wise, as I would LOVE to have one as a HTPC/WoW box…
I am thinking Mac mini (HDMI out) > Onkyo HT-S9400THX > HDTV flat-panel…
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Would a living room/home theater computer count? Is that common yet? In that setting the computer uses the TV as the display, so the screen on an AIO is redundant and the size makes it impractical. Fortunately there's a mini for that, but the current model is pretty weak in the graphics department.
BTW, I'm not arguing against the value or utility of the iMac in general, I'm just seeing if I can meet your challenge.
I used to do HTPCs "back in the day" but nowadays I use aTV and Roku.
For the living room home theater the optimal machine is the mini. Neither the iMac nor the xMac are good for this application. The iMac has a redundant screen. The xMac will be noisy, large and power hungry in comparison to the mini.
That said, lets look at common HTPC use cases.
The living room is the primary one. Probably 80-90% of the cases based on the HTPC forum on AVS. Use a mini if you want an OSX based HTPC.
The equipment room is probably the next largest. In this domain most folks have a small rack of AV gear that serves their front projector and it really depends on the build. Some are tight and built under stairs or something. Others are more roomy. A 21" iMac is pretty decent in this regard as a lot of the time it can be hard to actually see the primary screen from where the rack is. Given the xMac form factor it's no more rackable than the iMac and also requires a screen. I'd say it's a toss up and I'd lean toward the mini or a 21" iMac.
Dorm Room/RV HTPC was an interesting niche for a couple years. One that the older display port based 27" iMac was actually well suited for. The 27" size isn't a bad one for the confines of an RV or dorm. With a kanex box you could hook up your PS3 for a very small footprint PC/Blue Ray/gaming media center. Too bad the newer TB based 27" iMacs can't do this. An xMac would now be better in this use case if 3D performance is a requirement...although with most larger screen displays the 1080p max resolution isn't that taxing even for a mini. If Apple added HDMI input (unlikely) to the iMac I would say that the iMac would be better once again.
Conference Room HTPC. We have an iMac for this. Primary video goes to the front projector. The iMac local display is used by the support staff. No particular advantage for an xMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
I am eager to see what an updated Mac mini brings to the table graphics-wise, as I would LOVE to have one as a HTPC/WoW box…
I am thinking Mac mini (HDMI out) > Onkyo HT-S9400THX > HDTV flat-panel…
Dont think small.
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666386163
100"+ baby.
Sony projectors are a bit pricey. So for $1500 you can still get a 100" screen + 1080p projector. The Benq w1070 seems decent and under $1K.
http://www.amazon.com/BenQ-W1070-Theater-Projector-Silver/dp/B00A2T6X0K
For me, two (almost three) problems with projectors…
One - Usually requires a darkened room for best image brightness…
Two - That whole thing with people blocking the projector beam on occasion…
Three - A decent screen is an extra expense; this can be avoided by proper prep of the wall that is to be projected onto; but then you have the expense of the prep & the hassle of doing it all over again if/when you move the projector…
The first two can be solved by going the back-projection method; but then there not only the added cost of the screen, but you need a room behind the screen to place the projector into (which could be used for some storage I suppose)… This room can be made almost half as short by using a specific mirror to 'fold' the projector beam length…
If I hit the Lotto, yeah, I would be all over a HUGE back projection system (and my THX portion of the rig would go severely upscale as well), but until then a decent-sized HDTV flat-panel will do…!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Marketing drivel is hard to escape in the computer world. Apple is actual a master of marketing drivel and could open their own Dojo to pass on the secretes they have amassed.
The idea of a dojo makes me laugh. Regarding my prior point though, I was trying to explain that pushing the boundaries of a set of discrete points will not necessarily lead to a better representation of them either perceptually (assuming a lack of color blindness) or measured as a variation between scalars in xyz Cie 1931 color models. It does make for a larger spread between data points, but it depends upon discrete data being both well aligned with both the desired results and the measurement devices commonly used to compensate for drift. I would never suggest anyone buy a display based solely on a volumetric description of its gamut.
If it had some poorly aligned hues and I just increased their chroma, it would not improve anything. I could prove that with something as simple as paper swatches. Ideally you are able to get both a representation that aligns well with reference values as well as a strong correlation between various pieces of hardware. It pretty much works that way in any field as you won't have laboratory grade instruments there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Dont think small.
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666386163
100"+ baby.
Sony projectors are a bit pricey. So for $1500 you can still get a 100" screen + 1080p projector. The Benq w1070 seems decent and under $1K.
http://www.amazon.com/BenQ-W1070-Theater-Projector-Silver/dp/B00A2T6X0K
Well, i guess it depends on how big you want to get, what you can afford and what quality you want. The best is probably too expensive for 99.9 percent of the users out there. 100"? That's large for a TV, but not for a projection system. They can go LARGE, check out the Meridian Reference Projector.
http://www.meridian-audio.com/en/collections/products/810-reference-video-system/33/ It will handle up to 23 Feet wide. Now, THAT'S a screen! Unfortunately, the Meridian Reference projector will set you back several hundred grand. then you have to get the Reference Home Theater system which is another several hundred grand and then a big screen, and then you have to have a BIG room with proper room treatment and seats to have the ultimate experience......... :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Dont think small.
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666386163
100"+ baby.
Pfft. Projection? Please. We have a Panasonic 103" Plasma! Only $50,000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Pfft. Projection? Please. We have a Panasonic 103" Plasma! Only $50,000.
Plasma isn't as good as a Meridian Reference projection system. Those are what the big boys use at the Film Production studios in their reference theaters.
Heck, they have one of those at the local sports bar. Nothing special about a 103 inch Panasonic. The Meridian goes up to 23 FEET wide and makes the Panasonic look dinky. Plus the Reference Projector has better black levels. It's basically about as good as you can get at this point in time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
[...] Plus the Reference Projector has better black levels.
A projector has better black levels than a plasma display? That seems contrary to the laws of physics...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
And it would crater iMac sales. Why would you EVER buy a $1,999 27" iMac if that Mac Pro was $2K? You wouldn't so that's not happening.
Some people would. And lots do; the AIOs actually sell pretty well.
Less expense; the display is included. Less clutter. Fewer cables. Nothing to worry about... go in, buy one machine, have a complete computer system. Thus the idea of all-in-one. Does it solve every user's needs? Of course not.
The iMac I bought cost just shy of $3000. Would you suggest then that the Mac Pro must come in over that?
Yea mine was 2900, it would have been $3,549 but I purchased the 32GB RAM and 256GB SSD drive separately, Apple charges more than twice the market price for these things, especially memory. Anyway, yes I expect the MacPro to start around 3,000, 2,000 no way, I couldn't even build a halfway decent XEON machine for that.