I really don't think that was the point at all. The criticism was over the general form factor, the straight keyboards are all problematic with regards with what was written. I really don't see anything special about the new keyboards that distinguish them with this regard or would prevent this problem, so how you contest it doesn't make any sense.
I think that we just have to wait and see.
I've read much over the years as to what is considered to be goo, and bad, keyboard design. That changes over the years as well. The scientific literature changes on this also.
A long time ago, typewriter keyboards used the be curved. They pointed towards the center point where the key would hit. Larer, when mechanica had improved, the keyboards were made straight. The writing at the time was the those straight keyboards weren't "natural, and would be bad for typing.
Then, all keyboards were very vertical. The top row of keys were much higher than the bottom row. On some keyboards, as much as 2.5 inches. I have my mom's ols Underwood, and that's how the keys are arranged.
When IBM came out with their executive electric. The keys were much lower on top. The writing back than was that it was poor design. That it qwould be bad for posture, and cause wrist problems.
The Selectric came next. In the beginning the same was said for that, and the literature supported it.
But, since, it has been acknowledged as being the best keyboard ever built.
More modern keyboards have gotten even flatter. The ones on laptops are completely flat, and have been criticised soundly.
But, some people love the MBP keyboard.
Now this one is out.
I simply don't trust the literature, even that in the scientific journals, because it has changed so much over the years.
Do we really know what is best?
Most people using the ergonomic keyboards abandon them because they don't like them. Why? Is it because they simply find the keyboards they grew up with to be more "comfortable", both physically, and mentally, simply because they are used to them?
That's why I say we have to see what happens. There are some qualities that many keyboards have that are supposed to be better, but we really don't know if that's true.
1) I'm not building a DELL. PC = Personal Computer, and this to me, it means getting the best value for my dollar... be it a PC running Windows or Mac OS.
2) I work with Macs all day long and for a long long time now, since Mac's SE back in the Dark Ages. I will not however, blindly endorse their product if it's nothing more than repackaging. Mr. Jobs is very good at doing that.
3) "People buy their Tv's according to both specs and looks", exactly my point, so we should expect less from this redesign iMac in spec?
4) Mr Jobs could have sold me the 20in yesterday if they release OS 10.5 at the same time and throw that in as part of the package.
Ok, so you were saying you could build a do it yourself PC with a Dell monitor. You know what I was referring to.
What people here keep forgetting, is this is a machine designed with a purpose in mind.
It's not an open machine. It's not designed to be an open machine. It's not intended to be an open machine.
Most home users never upgrade their machines. Most office machines are not upgraded. Most schools don't upgrade their machines.
Those are the markets this machine is designed for. They want simple to set up machines. When they get old, or the specs fall too far behind. They replace them.
They aren't interested in getting new graphics card, because sophisticated graphics isn't what they are doing with these machines. They aren't interested in replacing the cpu's. They don't upgrade the HHD's. And they MAY get more memory.
That's exactly what this machine does.
If this machine doesn't suit you, then it isn't the machine for you.
There is little point in criticizing it for that, because that's not the problem here.
If we want to compare this machine to others, we have to compare it to other AIO's. GTW has one, and IBM used to have one. I don't know if they still do, I haven't checked.
That's the only fair comparison. Like to like.
The real problem here is not that Apple does make this machine, but that they don't make the one that a lot of us would want to see.
You know what that is!
So, trying to tear this machine down for what it isn't intended to be, isn't helpful, because it will never be what you want it to be.
It's like criticizing the design of a small car because it won't take eight people with all their luggage.
That's not what it was intended to do.
This is a sleek machine, whether or not some people here like it, that will work well within its design boundaries, and will be easy to use, and look good while doing it.
The glare is so bad in one of the photos that you cannot even see the screen to the left at all...all I see is a reflection of a person's face. Argh!
This tells me that this model is clearly meant for media viewing, as any of us wanting remotely accurate colors on screen will not be able to use the new iMac.
I seriously hope that they will wake up and keep a non-glossy low-end model somewhere and somehow.
I am sort of puzzled at why glossy screens are becoming the new trend. For years, glare was the thing to be avoided which is why you saw monitor hoods and non-reflective surfaces. All of a sudden...people want glare? I don't get it.
The glare is so bad in one of the photos that you cannot even see the screen to the left at all...all I see is a reflection of a person's face. Argh!
This tells me that this model is clearly meant for media viewing, as any of us wanting remotely accurate colors on screen will not be able to use the new iMac.
No, what it tells you is that you shouldn't use your iMac in front of a window. If you control the environment properly, a glossy screen like the iMac's will give better colour accuracy, not worse.
Glossy displays on desktops make some sense to me. Think about it, your plasma tvs have a glossy display. With a desktop ypu have control over the setting. Glare can be minimized by how the display is positioned and with shades on windows. With laptops glossy makes less sense as you loose control over the viewing environment. There I feel that matte is best. YMMV.
Two windows in my room, one directly faces the iMac, the other to the right of it. The glare isn't too bad. The sun isn't that great out today, but I'd say it's not any worse than a LCD or Plasma TV, especially when you're sitting in front of the screen. The screens are very bright on these, that might help out... I've got it dimmed down as low as it'll go and I am scared to see what it looks like when I turn the light off tonight.
For the keyboard, I find it quite nice. I've only delt with a Powebook keyboard, so there's not much competition but it's nothing where I'm making too many mistakes. I like the feel of how my hands sit with it the most.
No, what it tells you is that you shouldn't use your iMac in front of a window. If you control the environment properly, a glossy screen like the iMac's will give better colour accuracy, not worse.
Controlling the environment is not always possible. I still think the best of both worlds is the antiglare coating that was used on some higher end CRTs. It's smooth but it's very good at reducing the reflection. You don't get the glare of a typical untreated smooth glass, and you don't get the diffusion effect that dulls the blacks with the textured surfaces. If you can control the environment, that would be even better yet, but at least it's a lot more liveable if you can't.
Understandably, black iMacs and white keyboards clash. However, wouldn't you be even more upset with black iMacs, black keyboards, and white mice?
The color of the mice is just dependent on the color of the material that gets injected into the molds. There's nothing preventing Apple from including a black mouse variation. I think that would be nice.
The main argument I've seen to have white keys was to make them easier to see, which I can understand, I don't know if it's true though. I know someone that has an Apple keyboard with black keys, I'll take a look at it again.
I've looked at photos a hundred times over the past 24 hours, and minute by minute, I loath that black border more and more. BUT... If the entire machine was black, there would be no "border" anymore and I think it would look great. No, not just the computer, but they keyboard, keys and mouse. Make everything black!
That's not to say I like black personally. I think white is nice. But I had the contrast of that black border. So make it all white or all black. But then, all black would be better for reasons I mentioned in a previous post in this thread; namely, you won't see keyboard dirt on black keys. So yes, all black would be best.
And for those of you posting all the glories of glossy, more power to you. But please spare us the TV comparisons. This is not a TV. I won't be looking at it under ideal lighting (i.e., in a dark corner of my room) as I would a TV, nor will I watch the iMac from half way across the room as I would a TV. And not everyone can control lighting conditions. It sounds like a simple solution, but often times in an office environment it is not. But even if you like glossy glare screens, you should still admit that it would have been nicer if Apple had given the rest of us a BTO option to choose a matt screen. Choice is best!
Is it just me but how can you get a completely matte display while still using real glass? Not talking about anti-glare here which is not really matte. I don't think you can get a matte display considering the choice of material here (glass) and I don't think they will make 2 different machines just to give that choice. Not saying matte would not be nice but is it possible considering materials?
So apparently Apple has defied chemistry this time and discovered a new element!
Now can anyone tell me where the new iMac actually has glass on it? Does the black back have a glass coating or is it just around the display?
With all this controversy I won't be upgrading my White iMac, as ugly as I may consider it to be. I continue to question Apple's design philosophies for "consumer-oriented" products. Makes me waste money on Mac/Macbook Pros unnecessarily. The addition of no matte BTO further solidifies my predicament.
No, what it tells you is that you shouldn't use your iMac in front of a window. If you control the environment properly, a glossy screen like the iMac's will give better colour accuracy, not worse.
So all schools should cover their windows and replace their fluorescent lighting? Please. Let's be realistic here.
I can see it now, a small disclaimer on the iMac stating "Must use in a controlled lighting environment".
And your comment about color accuracy is just plain wrong. It's well established that the glossy screen setup oversaturates the colors in order to improve contrast.
So all schools should cover their windows and replace their fluorescent lighting? Please. Let's be realistic here.
I can see it now, a small disclaimer on the iMac stating "Must use in a controlled lighting environment".
And your comment about color accuracy is just plain wrong. It's well established that the glossy screen setup oversaturates the colors in order to improve contrast.
I hope Melgross is reading this thread. Because he used to be a professional in the field, and he seems to think that glossy = better colour accuracy. I defer to his hands-on knowledge.
The point I was making was that if you really care about colour accuracy and the like you have to control your lighting environment, no matter what type of display you have.
For casual use, the odd reflection here or there is not that much of an issue.
Having said all that, it would have been nice if Apple had offered the option of a matte display. But that might be difficult with the glass frontage.
If we want to compare this machine to others, we have to compare it to other AIO's. GTW has one, and IBM used to have one. I don't know if they still do, I haven't checked.
That's the only fair comparison. Like to like.
I think it's fine to compare the iMac to your average pc. They are both personal micro computers targeted for home and office use: like to like.
After all, why would Techboy be considering a PC over an iMac if the PC couldn't fulfill what the iMac does? If you take the housings off, the internal components are all basically the same. Some parts are even interchangeable because the technology is the same.
It has nothing to do with openness to upgrading. It's all about value.
To me, the Mac is the Mercedes Benz of the personal computer market. Any car will get you there, but the Benz will get you there in style. The average Benz owner isn't a grease monkey...he's not even going to change his own oil, and couldn't care less about what happens under the hood as long as it works.
This is the Mac owner...they value style over substance, and at a premium. And if Apple is content with this, then there's nothing wrong with it...the market exists, but it will always be small. They sure do look nice though.
I hope Melgross is reading this thread. Because he used to be a professional in the field, and he seems to think that glossy = better colour accuracy. I defer to his hands-on knowledge.
The point I was making was that if you really care about colour accuracy and the like you have to control your lighting environment, no matter what type of display you have.
For casual use, the odd reflection here or there is not that much of an issue.
Having said all that, it would have been nice if Apple had offered the option of a matte display. But that might be difficult with the glass frontage.
Both gloss and matte are bad, though for somewhat different reasons. Matte is not the only treatment option to cut down on reflections, I think it's a cop-out treatment. There are other surface treatments available. My IBM P202 monitor has such a treatment and it's been great.
Comments
I really don't think that was the point at all. The criticism was over the general form factor, the straight keyboards are all problematic with regards with what was written. I really don't see anything special about the new keyboards that distinguish them with this regard or would prevent this problem, so how you contest it doesn't make any sense.
I think that we just have to wait and see.
I've read much over the years as to what is considered to be goo, and bad, keyboard design. That changes over the years as well. The scientific literature changes on this also.
A long time ago, typewriter keyboards used the be curved. They pointed towards the center point where the key would hit. Larer, when mechanica had improved, the keyboards were made straight. The writing at the time was the those straight keyboards weren't "natural, and would be bad for typing.
Then, all keyboards were very vertical. The top row of keys were much higher than the bottom row. On some keyboards, as much as 2.5 inches. I have my mom's ols Underwood, and that's how the keys are arranged.
When IBM came out with their executive electric. The keys were much lower on top. The writing back than was that it was poor design. That it qwould be bad for posture, and cause wrist problems.
The Selectric came next. In the beginning the same was said for that, and the literature supported it.
But, since, it has been acknowledged as being the best keyboard ever built.
More modern keyboards have gotten even flatter. The ones on laptops are completely flat, and have been criticised soundly.
But, some people love the MBP keyboard.
Now this one is out.
I simply don't trust the literature, even that in the scientific journals, because it has changed so much over the years.
Do we really know what is best?
Most people using the ergonomic keyboards abandon them because they don't like them. Why? Is it because they simply find the keyboards they grew up with to be more "comfortable", both physically, and mentally, simply because they are used to them?
That's why I say we have to see what happens. There are some qualities that many keyboards have that are supposed to be better, but we really don't know if that's true.
Wilco, you are an idiot. Why don't you just get over it.
And, I'm willing to risk getting warned, or even banned, to say it.
You're safe. They haven't banned him yet despite all the comments he's made.
1) I'm not building a DELL. PC = Personal Computer, and this to me, it means getting the best value for my dollar... be it a PC running Windows or Mac OS.
2) I work with Macs all day long and for a long long time now, since Mac's SE back in the Dark Ages. I will not however, blindly endorse their product if it's nothing more than repackaging. Mr. Jobs is very good at doing that.
3) "People buy their Tv's according to both specs and looks", exactly my point, so we should expect less from this redesign iMac in spec?
4) Mr Jobs could have sold me the 20in yesterday if they release OS 10.5 at the same time and throw that in as part of the package.
Ok, so you were saying you could build a do it yourself PC with a Dell monitor. You know what I was referring to.
What people here keep forgetting, is this is a machine designed with a purpose in mind.
It's not an open machine. It's not designed to be an open machine. It's not intended to be an open machine.
Most home users never upgrade their machines. Most office machines are not upgraded. Most schools don't upgrade their machines.
Those are the markets this machine is designed for. They want simple to set up machines. When they get old, or the specs fall too far behind. They replace them.
They aren't interested in getting new graphics card, because sophisticated graphics isn't what they are doing with these machines. They aren't interested in replacing the cpu's. They don't upgrade the HHD's. And they MAY get more memory.
That's exactly what this machine does.
If this machine doesn't suit you, then it isn't the machine for you.
There is little point in criticizing it for that, because that's not the problem here.
If we want to compare this machine to others, we have to compare it to other AIO's. GTW has one, and IBM used to have one. I don't know if they still do, I haven't checked.
That's the only fair comparison. Like to like.
The real problem here is not that Apple does make this machine, but that they don't make the one that a lot of us would want to see.
You know what that is!
So, trying to tear this machine down for what it isn't intended to be, isn't helpful, because it will never be what you want it to be.
It's like criticizing the design of a small car because it won't take eight people with all their luggage.
That's not what it was intended to do.
This is a sleek machine, whether or not some people here like it, that will work well within its design boundaries, and will be easy to use, and look good while doing it.
This tells me that this model is clearly meant for media viewing, as any of us wanting remotely accurate colors on screen will not be able to use the new iMac.
I seriously hope that they will wake up and keep a non-glossy low-end model somewhere and somehow.
I am sort of puzzled at why glossy screens are becoming the new trend. For years, glare was the thing to be avoided which is why you saw monitor hoods and non-reflective surfaces. All of a sudden...people want glare? I don't get it.
The glare is so bad in one of the photos that you cannot even see the screen to the left at all...all I see is a reflection of a person's face. Argh!
This tells me that this model is clearly meant for media viewing, as any of us wanting remotely accurate colors on screen will not be able to use the new iMac.
No, what it tells you is that you shouldn't use your iMac in front of a window. If you control the environment properly, a glossy screen like the iMac's will give better colour accuracy, not worse.
PS Mr H beat me to it.
For the keyboard, I find it quite nice. I've only delt with a Powebook keyboard, so there's not much competition but it's nothing where I'm making too many mistakes. I like the feel of how my hands sit with it the most.
Is it just me or is the guy (black shirt, arms crossed) in the 5th Photo down the guy from the iLife '08 Video???
I was trying to figure out where I've seen him before. Thanks, I can sleep now.
No, what it tells you is that you shouldn't use your iMac in front of a window. If you control the environment properly, a glossy screen like the iMac's will give better colour accuracy, not worse.
Controlling the environment is not always possible. I still think the best of both worlds is the antiglare coating that was used on some higher end CRTs. It's smooth but it's very good at reducing the reflection. You don't get the glare of a typical untreated smooth glass, and you don't get the diffusion effect that dulls the blacks with the textured surfaces. If you can control the environment, that would be even better yet, but at least it's a lot more liveable if you can't.
Understandably, black iMacs and white keyboards clash. However, wouldn't you be even more upset with black iMacs, black keyboards, and white mice?
The color of the mice is just dependent on the color of the material that gets injected into the molds. There's nothing preventing Apple from including a black mouse variation. I think that would be nice.
The main argument I've seen to have white keys was to make them easier to see, which I can understand, I don't know if it's true though. I know someone that has an Apple keyboard with black keys, I'll take a look at it again.
That's not to say I like black personally. I think white is nice. But I had the contrast of that black border. So make it all white or all black. But then, all black would be better for reasons I mentioned in a previous post in this thread; namely, you won't see keyboard dirt on black keys. So yes, all black would be best.
And for those of you posting all the glories of glossy, more power to you. But please spare us the TV comparisons. This is not a TV. I won't be looking at it under ideal lighting (i.e., in a dark corner of my room) as I would a TV, nor will I watch the iMac from half way across the room as I would a TV. And not everyone can control lighting conditions. It sounds like a simple solution, but often times in an office environment it is not. But even if you like glossy glare screens, you should still admit that it would have been nicer if Apple had given the rest of us a BTO option to choose a matt screen. Choice is best!
Now can anyone tell me where the new iMac actually has glass on it? Does the black back have a glass coating or is it just around the display?
With all this controversy I won't be upgrading my White iMac, as ugly as I may consider it to be. I continue to question Apple's design philosophies for "consumer-oriented" products. Makes me waste money on Mac/Macbook Pros unnecessarily. The addition of no matte BTO further solidifies my predicament.
No, what it tells you is that you shouldn't use your iMac in front of a window. If you control the environment properly, a glossy screen like the iMac's will give better colour accuracy, not worse.
So all schools should cover their windows and replace their fluorescent lighting? Please. Let's be realistic here.
I can see it now, a small disclaimer on the iMac stating "Must use in a controlled lighting environment".
And your comment about color accuracy is just plain wrong. It's well established that the glossy screen setup oversaturates the colors in order to improve contrast.
So all schools should cover their windows and replace their fluorescent lighting? Please. Let's be realistic here.
I can see it now, a small disclaimer on the iMac stating "Must use in a controlled lighting environment".
And your comment about color accuracy is just plain wrong. It's well established that the glossy screen setup oversaturates the colors in order to improve contrast.
I hope Melgross is reading this thread. Because he used to be a professional in the field, and he seems to think that glossy = better colour accuracy. I defer to his hands-on knowledge.
The point I was making was that if you really care about colour accuracy and the like you have to control your lighting environment, no matter what type of display you have.
For casual use, the odd reflection here or there is not that much of an issue.
Having said all that, it would have been nice if Apple had offered the option of a matte display. But that might be difficult with the glass frontage.
If we want to compare this machine to others, we have to compare it to other AIO's. GTW has one, and IBM used to have one. I don't know if they still do, I haven't checked.
That's the only fair comparison. Like to like.
I think it's fine to compare the iMac to your average pc. They are both personal micro computers targeted for home and office use: like to like.
After all, why would Techboy be considering a PC over an iMac if the PC couldn't fulfill what the iMac does? If you take the housings off, the internal components are all basically the same. Some parts are even interchangeable because the technology is the same.
It has nothing to do with openness to upgrading. It's all about value.
To me, the Mac is the Mercedes Benz of the personal computer market. Any car will get you there, but the Benz will get you there in style. The average Benz owner isn't a grease monkey...he's not even going to change his own oil, and couldn't care less about what happens under the hood as long as it works.
This is the Mac owner...they value style over substance, and at a premium. And if Apple is content with this, then there's nothing wrong with it...the market exists, but it will always be small. They sure do look nice though.
I hope Melgross is reading this thread. Because he used to be a professional in the field, and he seems to think that glossy = better colour accuracy. I defer to his hands-on knowledge.
The point I was making was that if you really care about colour accuracy and the like you have to control your lighting environment, no matter what type of display you have.
For casual use, the odd reflection here or there is not that much of an issue.
Having said all that, it would have been nice if Apple had offered the option of a matte display. But that might be difficult with the glass frontage.
Both gloss and matte are bad, though for somewhat different reasons. Matte is not the only treatment option to cut down on reflections, I think it's a cop-out treatment. There are other surface treatments available. My IBM P202 monitor has such a treatment and it's been great.
So apparently Apple has defied chemistry this time and discovered a new element!
It is pretty lame. Element 14 is Silicon, but it's not glass.
Now can anyone tell me where the new iMac actually has glass on it? Does the black back have a glass coating or is it just around the display?
The back face looks to be just plastic. I don't think glass makes sense back there. I think it's just for the front face.