according to well-connected KGI analyst Ming-Chi Kuo.
can someone please enroll the AI writers and editor into a journalism class so they can at least try to avoid using the same old signature phrases every time they refer to certain topics?
It sounds like you're wanting the iMac to be treated as a professional-level machine, when in reality it is not, and never has been. Your issues with it are exactly what the Mac Pro is meant to address.
Most iMac users will never crank-up their machines to fan-blasting levels consistently. Sure, there may be the occasional one, but should Apple engineer the systems to address the 1-2% of those times? I don't think so.
I occasionally get the fans going on my 2009 iMac when I'm working on some serious photography edits in Lightroom and Photoshop. That's maybe once every week or two. All the other times, it's used as my workstation for coding. Completely acceptable to me. On those rare occasions I play a video game on it (rare), it takes quite a bit to get those fans going. At least Apple makes a concerted effort to make the fans as quite as possible.
I'm happy with their design. It's efficient, looks good, and fast for its market segment. Done. Skylake will make it even better from what I continue to read. Bring it on!
The iMac has been treated as a professional-level computer by many people, especially those who's work can't justify spending the $8K or more necessary to build a proper Mac Pro. The only time a Mac Pro beats the performance of an iMac is when running an application that consistently uses multiple CPUs/cores. Otherwise the iMac keeps up just fine. Professional users have been asking for something in between an iMac and Mac Pro for years but Apple won't deliver anything so a souped up iMac has had to do.
As far as getting my fans going on my 2009 iMac 24", I rarely hear them. Maybe it's because my office rarely gets above 70 degrees.
Question: Why are there still so many 2009 iMacs in use????
Apple claims its “Retina” displays have the same resolution as the human eye. If that’s really true how could a human eye detect the difference between ‘Retina’ and ‘8K’? I’m not buying this one little bit.
Apple claims its “Retina” displays have the same resolution as the human eye. If that’s really true how could a human eye detect the difference between ‘Retina’ and ‘8K’? I’m not buying this one little bit.
The rumor is not that they'll go with 8K, it's that they'll use a new type of phosphor that gives better color reproduction.
Apple claims its “Retina” displays have the same resolution as the human eye. If that’s really true how could a human eye detect the difference between ‘Retina’ and ‘8K’? I’m not buying this one little bit.
That whole area is iffy to be sure. I can sure as hell tell the difference. I have been wondering lately how good electronic view finders are in the mirrorless cameras for this same reason.
Apple claims its “Retina” displays have the same resolution as the human eye. If that’s really true how could a human eye detect the difference between ‘Retina’ and ‘8K’? I’m not buying this one little bit.
I think Kuo's "well-connectedness" should be called into question.
I think Apple needs to come out with a 4-5K Apple Cinema Display. That's something that's seriously lacking in their lineup. I bought an LG UltraWide monitor instead and it's great but I would have preferred an Apple product with the built in TB hub.
And I think the hold-up has been the manufacturing capacity of the display makers. The transition to oxide backplane technology has not been easy.
Or so I believe from my not-so-well-connected position, not in Taipei, but LA.
Comments
Yep, about as well as any Windows ever did. Nuff said ... I judge it in comparison to OS X so obviously that's unfair.
I still would advise those whose livings depend entirely on Windows to buy a Mac and start learning.
can someone please enroll the AI writers and editor into a journalism class so they can at least try to avoid using the same old signature phrases every time they refer to certain topics?
It sounds like you're wanting the iMac to be treated as a professional-level machine, when in reality it is not, and never has been. Your issues with it are exactly what the Mac Pro is meant to address.
Most iMac users will never crank-up their machines to fan-blasting levels consistently. Sure, there may be the occasional one, but should Apple engineer the systems to address the 1-2% of those times? I don't think so.
I occasionally get the fans going on my 2009 iMac when I'm working on some serious photography edits in Lightroom and Photoshop. That's maybe once every week or two. All the other times, it's used as my workstation for coding. Completely acceptable to me. On those rare occasions I play a video game on it (rare), it takes quite a bit to get those fans going. At least Apple makes a concerted effort to make the fans as quite as possible.
I'm happy with their design. It's efficient, looks good, and fast for its market segment. Done. Skylake will make it even better from what I continue to read. Bring it on!
The iMac has been treated as a professional-level computer by many people, especially those who's work can't justify spending the $8K or more necessary to build a proper Mac Pro. The only time a Mac Pro beats the performance of an iMac is when running an application that consistently uses multiple CPUs/cores. Otherwise the iMac keeps up just fine. Professional users have been asking for something in between an iMac and Mac Pro for years but Apple won't deliver anything so a souped up iMac has had to do.
As far as getting my fans going on my 2009 iMac 24", I rarely hear them. Maybe it's because my office rarely gets above 70 degrees.
Question: Why are there still so many 2009 iMacs in use????
that isn't the same as being good. I can't imagine Jobs ever had a team goal of "working fine".
Apple claims its “Retina” displays have the same resolution as the human eye. If that’s really true how could a human eye detect the difference between ‘Retina’ and ‘8K’? I’m not buying this one little bit.
Exactly. Seems he is becoming quite the Microsoft apologist.
Apple claims its “Retina” displays have the same resolution as the human eye. If that’s really true how could a human eye detect the difference between ‘Retina’ and ‘8K’? I’m not buying this one little bit.
The rumor is not that they'll go with 8K, it's that they'll use a new type of phosphor that gives better color reproduction.
That whole area is iffy to be sure. I can sure as hell tell the difference. I have been wondering lately how good electronic view finders are in the mirrorless cameras for this same reason.
Meanwhile white laser seems to offer potential for new technology in the next few years.
that isn't the same as being good. I can't imagine Jobs ever had a team goal of "working fine".
Quote:Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy
Exactly. Seems he is becoming quite the Microsoft apologist.
Aw c'mon guys - he just left out that little sarcasm thingy...hey, so did you two!
I think Kuo's "well-connectedness" should be called into question.
To add to this wish list, i'd love a 34", 21:9, 8K iMac to match the LG monitor I have.
Craig and Tim do; which is why they ship buggy crap these days. Windows is far more performance optimized than OS X.
And I think the hold-up has been the manufacturing capacity of the display makers. The transition to oxide backplane technology has not been easy.
Or so I believe from my not-so-well-connected position, not in Taipei, but LA.
I do not know what you mean by this at all. Explain?
LED phosphor material called KSF - is that the same as the Quantum Dot layers being introduced on a lot of flat screen TV's this year?
...27 inch way too big.
Surely you jest.
I'd love to see a 21:9 iMac with the same 13" (+/-) image height of the 27" model (but I'm just dreaming).
I want a gold one!
Best