I'm very suspicious of the quality of your assessment regarding the quality of the "panel," as you put it. I don't see any awareness here on the technology you're looking at. Your phrases: " . . . they didn't use the best panel they could . . . Perhaps panel prices will come down and they can use a better quality panel for the same price."
You don't seem to acknowledge that you are looking at the first-ever oxide-backed LCD display for the mass market.at such a size and pixel density, and that there was no possibility of manufacturing such a display until this very time in the evolution of manufacturing technology, and that there is nothing comparable available at any price. And if it is an IGZO-backed display, of course off-angle shifts are going to occur at different rates and colors because of the greatly reduced interference of the transistor matrix that drives the pixels. That's the same reduction in light-blocking behind the pixels that allows the 30% reduction in backlighting energy, and allows the display to run the same heat management hardware as the previous iMac without change.
I don't have a problem with valid criticism of Apple's offerings, but you seem to be ignoring the background rationale for what you are claiming to see, and I don't even know that much about the background myself, yet I can tell there's some missing in your critique. You have to be very rigorous when you're presenting this kind of negative review. Acknowledge the technical reality. Likewise, it would also help if you backed up your assertions on "stuttering" and frame-dropping with a citation or two. If it's common knowledge, I must have missed it. Probably even in the review I just read here : )
I don't care if its the first 5k panel or not...I don't care what the technology is, etc, etc. I'm just saying its not on par with the non-retina display in terms of quality. What is there not to understand about that simple sentence?
Which is why we won't likely see a 5K Apple Cinema Display until TB3 is out with DP 1.3 which will likely mean we need to wait until they update at least one of the Macs with TB3 before we see the 5K ACD hitting shelves.
So, can this be used as a stand-alone monitor when used with a Mac Pro? How about a scenario where I can switch between displaying my Mac Pro and the internal computer. That would be cool and allow me to use my Pro for video editing and then while its doing its thing switch back to the iMac to do normal computer stuff. Just thinking.
No, it cannot. The new retina iMac no longer supports Target Display Mode.
You mean to say DisplayPort 1.2, which is supported by Thunderbolt, does not have enough bandwidth. The iMac will need to support DisplayPort 1.3 for ultra high res displays. That is why Apple had to build their own controller for the internal display in the retina iMac. The Mac Pro has Thunderbolt 2 ports, and can drive 4K displays, but they also have the FirePro cards which are capable of doing it.
I'm well aware of how a fusion drive works thank you very much. Its still a gimmick and flash storage is always better. End of story! YOU WILL NOT CONVINCE ME!
I understand you're stubbornness but the Fusion drive was created to speed up disk access at a time when SSD's were prohibitively expensive. In many ways they still are and getting some speed improvement using a combination of flash and hard disk storage still is a faster solution than using only hard drives. A Fusion drive is generally $200 more for the 128GB flash storage. This gives you either 1TB or 3TB of storage for the iMacs for a lot less than a 512GB or 1TB flash storage module. I don't see the cost of flash storage coming down to anywhere near the cost of hard disks any time soon. For those users who want the biggest bang for their limited bucks, getting a Fusion drive is still the way to go.
As for me, I'm getting a hard disk RAID (at least 6 drives) instead of an SSD/flash storage RAID because the bottleneck becomes the PCIe interface (TB-2 connected) not the drives. As for flash storage always being better, it depends on who manufacturers it.
I don't need convincing, just the facts as I understand them, including what my needs are.
You mean to say DisplayPort 1.2, which is supported by Thunderbolt, does not have enough bandwidth. The iMac will need to support DisplayPort 1.3 for ultra high res displays. That is why Apple had to build their own controller for the internal display in the retina iMac.
And as no Thunderbolt 2 ports support DisplayPort 1.3, nor did Apple swap out to a custom standard run across Thunderbolt 2, Thunderbolt 2 can’t do it.
The Mac Pro has Thunderbolt 2 ports, and can drive 4K displays...
I don't care if its the first 5k panel or not...I don't care what the technology is, etc, etc. I'm just saying its not on par with the non-retina display in terms of quality. What is there not to understand about that simple sentence?
That simple sentence is wrong, because it's not on par with a non retina display anyway, it's better simply by the fact that it's uhd.
Color shifting is a particular problem with non-ips panels, namely MVA panels, that are otherwise much superior in terms of contrast. Color shifting is inherently not an IPS issue. So it was either your impression, or maybe a panel that wasn't optimal. It happens even for NEC or EIZO, and they price their models more than apple sells the whole computer for, none of them btw, have managed to laminate the glass at 27". Another extra advantage that you won't find anywhere.
I won't even go into how shit samsung's displays are, they make the panels, and they produce shit displays, unless NEC or EIZO take hold of them.
Have you actually compared other panels by dell or even sharp that came up first with the technology to begin with. Didn't think so.
You are getting custom electronics for it to work with a display port standard not yet finalised, 5k and a whole computer thrown in, and you base your criticism by what you considered as colour shifting. ok.
That almost sounds like a compliment. I thought you wanted Apple to stop doing anything else until they invented some much improved battery tech.
I have the impression Benjamin is like me, a Mac guy above everything else when it comes to Apple matters - time and again, the Mac not only proves to be Apple's cash cow, but also its long-standing lifeline. iPods are now gone, the iPad is close to reaching saturation levels, while the iPhone is still very popular - but which product line has ALWAYS been there since the mid-80s, the dark early 90s as well as Apple's prosperous 21st century? The Mac.
I don't care if its the first 5k panel or not...I don't care what the technology is, etc, etc. I'm just saying its not on par with the non-retina display in terms of quality. What is there not to understand about that simple sentence?
Stamps foot ,crosses arms and flounces out of thread . . .
Best iMac screen- ever. The previous version's doesn't even come close. Whoever said otherwise must have bought the prior version in the last 3-6 months and has sour grapes.
Ordered i7, 3TB Fusion, 295 iMac on Halloween and still waiting for shipment. Will install 16 GB RAM for a 24 GB total and will possibly upgrade to 32 GB. But I hope 24 GB is enoughfor Photoshop.
Why does Apple still keep all ports in the back is beyond common sense. Front ports, or at least side ports are essential for transferring footage to your computer, especially when your job includes hooking-up multiple video cameras on a daily basis. Port hubs aren't as good as direct connection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MazeCookie
Is that a question you really need answering? ...
There is no side... have you even seen an iMac before?
And if Apple made front ports, it would be one of the ugliest things ever made. Common sense goes a long way.
I cannot imagine why they did not meet their $10,000 goal. But this seems to have been worked out well:
I think the reason for our difference of opinion is over the definition of incremental. It doesn't necessarily mean small. It means adding to what is existing, and that can be small or big. Revolutionary would imply a new form factor, which the 5k iMac isn't.
So changing the external casing is revolutionary to you, but massive internal changes are merely increments. :sigh:
Changing the external casing isn't changing the form factor; It’s an incremental change.
Going from the MacBook to the iPhone was a change in form factor.
Changing the external casing isn't changing the form factor; It’s an incremental change.
Going from the MacBook to the iPhone was a change in form factor.
No.
Yes.
The MacBook was Apple's smallest mobile computer until they brought out the iPhone. The iPod couldn't be classified as such then, as it was only an mp3 player, even though it had some token extra functionality.
The same can be said of the iPad, if you find calling the iPhone a computer too far of a stretch. That's what a change in form factor is; not a simple redesign of external casing.
The MacBook was Apple's smallest mobile computer until they brought out the iPhone. The iPod couldn't be classified as such then, as it was only an mp3 player, even though it had some token extra functionality.
The same can be said of the iPad, if you find calling the iPhone a computer too far of a stretch. That's what a change in form factor is; not a simple redesign of external casing.
Are you purposely being daft?
The iPhone is a new product category. The MBP with an ODD to the MBP sans the ODD is the same product category with a new form factor. Form factor is the physical size and shape of a particular piece of computer hardware.
Comments
I'm very suspicious of the quality of your assessment regarding the quality of the "panel," as you put it. I don't see any awareness here on the technology you're looking at. Your phrases: " . . . they didn't use the best panel they could . . . Perhaps panel prices will come down and they can use a better quality panel for the same price."
You don't seem to acknowledge that you are looking at the first-ever oxide-backed LCD display for the mass market.at such a size and pixel density, and that there was no possibility of manufacturing such a display until this very time in the evolution of manufacturing technology, and that there is nothing comparable available at any price. And if it is an IGZO-backed display, of course off-angle shifts are going to occur at different rates and colors because of the greatly reduced interference of the transistor matrix that drives the pixels. That's the same reduction in light-blocking behind the pixels that allows the 30% reduction in backlighting energy, and allows the display to run the same heat management hardware as the previous iMac without change.
I don't have a problem with valid criticism of Apple's offerings, but you seem to be ignoring the background rationale for what you are claiming to see, and I don't even know that much about the background myself, yet I can tell there's some missing in your critique. You have to be very rigorous when you're presenting this kind of negative review. Acknowledge the technical reality. Likewise, it would also help if you backed up your assertions on "stuttering" and frame-dropping with a citation or two. If it's common knowledge, I must have missed it. Probably even in the review I just read here : )
I don't care if its the first 5k panel or not...I don't care what the technology is, etc, etc. I'm just saying its not on par with the non-retina display in terms of quality. What is there not to understand about that simple sentence?
Which is why we won't likely see a 5K Apple Cinema Display until TB3 is out with DP 1.3 which will likely mean we need to wait until they update at least one of the Macs with TB3 before we see the 5K ACD hitting shelves.
So, can this be used as a stand-alone monitor when used with a Mac Pro? How about a scenario where I can switch between displaying my Mac Pro and the internal computer. That would be cool and allow me to use my Pro for video editing and then while its doing its thing switch back to the iMac to do normal computer stuff. Just thinking.
No, it cannot. The new retina iMac no longer supports Target Display Mode.
Thunderbolt 2 doesn’t have enough bandwidth.
The Display Port doesn't have enough bandwidth...I don't think its necessarily Thunderbolt 2. Its the port they use. Display Port 1.3 fixes this.
Thunderbolt 2 doesn’t have enough bandwidth.
You mean to say DisplayPort 1.2, which is supported by Thunderbolt, does not have enough bandwidth. The iMac will need to support DisplayPort 1.3 for ultra high res displays. That is why Apple had to build their own controller for the internal display in the retina iMac. The Mac Pro has Thunderbolt 2 ports, and can drive 4K displays, but they also have the FirePro cards which are capable of doing it.
I'm well aware of how a fusion drive works thank you very much. Its still a gimmick and flash storage is always better. End of story! YOU WILL NOT CONVINCE ME!
I understand you're stubbornness but the Fusion drive was created to speed up disk access at a time when SSD's were prohibitively expensive. In many ways they still are and getting some speed improvement using a combination of flash and hard disk storage still is a faster solution than using only hard drives. A Fusion drive is generally $200 more for the 128GB flash storage. This gives you either 1TB or 3TB of storage for the iMacs for a lot less than a 512GB or 1TB flash storage module. I don't see the cost of flash storage coming down to anywhere near the cost of hard disks any time soon. For those users who want the biggest bang for their limited bucks, getting a Fusion drive is still the way to go.
As for me, I'm getting a hard disk RAID (at least 6 drives) instead of an SSD/flash storage RAID because the bottleneck becomes the PCIe interface (TB-2 connected) not the drives. As for flash storage always being better, it depends on who manufacturers it.
I don't need convincing, just the facts as I understand them, including what my needs are.
And as no Thunderbolt 2 ports support DisplayPort 1.3, nor did Apple swap out to a custom standard run across Thunderbolt 2, Thunderbolt 2 can’t do it.
4K isn’t 5K.
I don't care if its the first 5k panel or not...I don't care what the technology is, etc, etc. I'm just saying its not on par with the non-retina display in terms of quality. What is there not to understand about that simple sentence?
That simple sentence is wrong, because it's not on par with a non retina display anyway, it's better simply by the fact that it's uhd.
Color shifting is a particular problem with non-ips panels, namely MVA panels, that are otherwise much superior in terms of contrast. Color shifting is inherently not an IPS issue. So it was either your impression, or maybe a panel that wasn't optimal. It happens even for NEC or EIZO, and they price their models more than apple sells the whole computer for, none of them btw, have managed to laminate the glass at 27". Another extra advantage that you won't find anywhere.
I won't even go into how shit samsung's displays are, they make the panels, and they produce shit displays, unless NEC or EIZO take hold of them.
Have you actually compared other panels by dell or even sharp that came up first with the technology to begin with. Didn't think so.
You are getting custom electronics for it to work with a display port standard not yet finalised, 5k and a whole computer thrown in, and you base your criticism by what you considered as colour shifting. ok.
That almost sounds like a compliment. I thought you wanted Apple to stop doing anything else until they invented some much improved battery tech.
I have the impression Benjamin is like me, a Mac guy above everything else when it comes to Apple matters - time and again, the Mac not only proves to be Apple's cash cow, but also its long-standing lifeline. iPods are now gone, the iPad is close to reaching saturation levels, while the iPhone is still very popular - but which product line has ALWAYS been there since the mid-80s, the dark early 90s as well as Apple's prosperous 21st century? The Mac.
And may it long continue to be so.
Stamps foot ,crosses arms and flounces out of thread . . .
Yeah but too bad they threw the iPod classic under the bus. The iPod classic was the game changer for Apple.
Ordered i7, 3TB Fusion, 295 iMac on Halloween and still waiting for shipment. Will install 16 GB RAM for a 24 GB total and will possibly upgrade to 32 GB. But I hope 24 GB is enough for Photoshop.
Why does Apple still keep all ports in the back is beyond common sense. Front ports, or at least side ports are essential for transferring footage to your computer, especially when your job includes hooking-up multiple video cameras on a daily basis. Port hubs aren't as good as direct connection.
Is that a question you really need answering? ...
There is no side... have you even seen an iMac before?
And if Apple made front ports, it would be one of the ugliest things ever made. Common sense goes a long way.
I cannot imagine why they did not meet their $10,000 goal. But this seems to have been worked out well:
They could be available in the future.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/huback-plug-play-no-more-turning-imac
I cannot imagine why they did not meet their $10,000 goal. But this seems to have been worked out well:
They could be available in the future.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/huback-plug-play-no-more-turning-imac
Pretty quirky, shame they didn't meet their goal. I can imagine these being sold in the future. Apple retail stores would eat these up.
I think the reason for our difference of opinion is over the definition of incremental. It doesn't necessarily mean small. It means adding to what is existing, and that can be small or big. Revolutionary would imply a new form factor, which the 5k iMac isn't.
So changing the external casing is revolutionary to you, but massive internal changes are merely increments. :sigh:
Changing the external casing isn't changing the form factor; It’s an incremental change.
Going from the MacBook to the iPhone was a change in form factor.
No.
Changing the external casing isn't changing the form factor; It’s an incremental change.
Going from the MacBook to the iPhone was a change in form factor.
No.
Yes.
The MacBook was Apple's smallest mobile computer until they brought out the iPhone. The iPod couldn't be classified as such then, as it was only an mp3 player, even though it had some token extra functionality.
The same can be said of the iPad, if you find calling the iPhone a computer too far of a stretch. That's what a change in form factor is; not a simple redesign of external casing.
Are you purposely being daft?
The iPhone is a new product category. The MBP with an ODD to the MBP sans the ODD is the same product category with a new form factor. Form factor is the physical size and shape of a particular piece of computer hardware.