Thx for the responses. Looking forward to the new machine but, going to hold off until the wireless keyboard is available on the 3-5 business day delivery.
Thought that the old machines would drop by some reasonable amount but have only seen a drop of $50 so not worth it by any means.
One thing that bothers me about this review, and a couple of others, is that they don't compare like to like.
Why compare the old special order, and more expensive 2.33 GHz model with the now much less expensive standard 2.4 GHz model?
If this is going to be properly done, then it should have been the $1995 2.16 GHz model it was compared to. Or they should have gotten (or waited for) the high end 2.8 GHz model. The pricing would have been closer are well, in addition to having the extra 1 GB memory, and larger, slightly faster HHD.
This gives the wrong impression of what this upgraded model actually does when compared to its ancestor, particularly when considering that it's $200 cheaper as well.
And as far as the statements about the glossy screen goes, it's wrong as well.
Color and contrast is more correct on glossy models, everything else being equal. The very last monitors to go matte were the $5,000 and $10,000 color correction models. Why? Because matte surfaces distort color and contrast. It is also, contrary to common opinion, more difficult to remove reflections which DO occur on matte screens. The reflections are not as bright, or as sharp, but they are there nonetheless, and are spread out over a larger area of the screen.
Reflections were much harder to get rid of when screens were curved. A flat screen can be turned just a bit, most of the time, and the reflections will disappear, whereas with the curved screens, matte or not, that was not the case.
While I'm not saying that it's perfect for everyone, it's not nearly as much of a problem as some say either.
This is so wrong, it's hard to know where to begin:
Quote:
The same vivid colors that make the screen "pop" also distort the perceived colors for producers trying to judge how well the image will translate to someone's print ad or DVD. Reflections play even more havoc with accuracy by hiding detail and blending into the on-screen colors. Using a fixed color profile mitigates the problem but just shouldn't be necessary for a system being marketed to both home users and pro customers alike.
He obviously knows little about high end color work or he wouldn't have said that.
PS has, for as long as I remember, had the ability to lower the saturation of the images you are working with, to enable one to see how that image, on screen, would look at print, without changing the actual color of the image itself. That is because EVERY monitor distorts the color compared to CMYK, and some other print technologies (but not for other technologies).
It's simple to do. If you do this kind of print work you know about this (you'd damn well better!).
Go to Color Settings. Click on More Options. Go to the bottom of the dialog box. It will have a box saying Advanced Controls. Go to the first one which is called Desaturate Monitor Color By:. You can then take a sample print standard for the kind of job you are doing. With that print under the proper lighting, click on the selection box in front of the control, you can then adjust the desaturate level until it matches the print.
Of course, first you will have set PS up properly.
Doing this gives you the correct color level you need.
This works better with a glossy screen, as you don't get the slight haze over your image that matte tends to give (more on some screens than others).
I don't know what he means by saying that a "fixed color profile" shouldn't be necessary.
In order to have ANY hope that your color is correct, even for home use, a color profile for your monitor is REQUIRED! SRGB is standard for most monitors, but Apple usually supplies one for their own models.
Just saw one at the Apple Store in Soho. There were such crowds around them I had to wait in line to get at one. Its an absolutely beautiful machine.
I had resigned to not buying another desktop and only having a notebook. I don't need a Mac Pro and I didn't care much for the older iMacs. But I do like having a machine sitting on a desk at home with a larger screen. A 1920x1200 24" screen, dual 2.8Ghz, 1TB HD, that is very tempting. I'll wait until after Leopard perhaps wait for a 3Ghz CPU.
The glossy screen issue is of personal taste. When Apple first offered glossy vs matte. I was absolutely against glossy, but the panels Apple uses are better than the ones used by most PC machines. I became used to them and now really like the cleaner picture and vivid colors.
Since Apple did not offer the option of matte or gloss is obvious the notebooks sell far more glossy than matte. These decisions are not made in a vacuum.
I love the new keyboard. I also felt I could type much faster on it.
Just saw one at the Apple Store in Soho. There were such crowds around them I had to wait in line to get at one. Its an absolutely beautiful machine.
I had resigned to not buying another desktop and only having a notebook. I don't need a Mac Pro and I didn't care much for the older iMacs. But I do like having a machine sitting on a desk at home with a larger screen. A 1920x1200 24" screen, dual 2.8Ghz, 1TB HD, that is very tempting. I'll wait until after Leopard perhaps wait for a 3Ghz CPU.
The glossy screen issue is of personal taste. When Apple first offered glossy vs matte. I was absolutely against glossy, but the panels Apple uses are better than the ones used by most PC machines. I became used to them and now really like the cleaner picture and vivid colors.
Since Apple did not offer the option of matte or gloss is obvious the notebooks sell far more glossy than matte. These decisions are not made in a vacuum.
I love the new keyboard. I also felt I could type much faster on it.
I think it's interesting, as we've had these discussions of matte vs glossy for ages now, and now, the one about the keyboard, that as people actually SEE and USE these, they find out that either they aren't as bad as some have been insisting (glossy), and that they do have advantages (color, contrast).
The keyboard, so far, has received, in reviews, anything from, "It's no worse than the older Pro keyboards", to "It's better than the old Pro keyboards".
As you say, Apple really DOESN'T do these things in a vacuum.
Sometimes, things that look better actually do work better.
The keyboard, so far, has received, in reviews, anything from, "It's no worse than the older Pro keyboards", to "It's better than the old Pro keyboards".
I was never in love in the pro keyboards. Now after using the new board I hate it. The flat keys on the new board allow your fingers to freely glide over the keys with little effort. With the old keyboard your fingers have to rise above the molded recession to move to another key. It only takes milliseconds but still it takes a bit more effort. After you type on a keyboard where you no longer have to do that it really becomes noticeable.
Could it be something silly like the Radeon 2600 HD Pro actually having better OpenGL support in OSX than in Windows, where most of the current benchmarking has taken place?
Which might a boon to dedicated mac gaming, while still cutting it short to Bootcamp gaming?
Quick note though, I have very little understanding of what makes games tick well so to speak, hardware and software wise, in OSX.
It seems more likely that selecting the 2600 HD is because of video playback. It has full hardware acceleration for several HD codecs, H.264 in particular. With Apple's emphasis on video, it makes some sense. See http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3047. CPU usage during playback is very low.
I was never in love in the pro keyboards. Now after using the new board I hate it. The flat keys on the new board allow your fingers to freely glide over the keys with little effort. With the old keyboard your fingers have to rise above the molded recession to move to another key. It only takes milliseconds but still it takes a bit more effort. After you type on a keyboard where you no longer have to do that it really becomes noticeable.
I don't really like any keyboards after the old Apple Professional model.
I make too many typo's with this "pro" model I have.
Regardless of specs, the new all aluminum case is beautiful and the article writer is wrong...
Well your point is that the case is beautiful.
And I think most people agree that, as a work of art, the iMac is stunning. I do too.
But from a user perspective, the article pointed out that the glossy finish is going to and does reflect a lot of light and behind-the-user reflections.
Apple's own iMac pictures, images, and all the pics from intro show lots of mirror-like reflections of lights, cameras, people etc.
So I think you are right that it is gorgeous to look at.
And I think the reviewer is right that the glossy screen and border has a lot of reflection.
For me, I prefer matte, anti-reflection screen, even if it means I lose a few percent of brightness. I have the brightness of my iMac G5 (matte non-glare screen) turned down as it is.
I hope that Apple offers at least an option to buy an iMac with a non-reflective screen. And still let all who want and love the glossy go for it.
Much like it is possible to buy the MacBook Pro with either a matte-anti-reflective, or a glossy screen.
Anyone with a g5 iMac needs to give these a serious look.
That's what I'm currently using and up until they released the new iMac, I'd have replaced it with another iMac. I was waiting for a faster 20". Now I don't think so. It'll probably be a MacBook Pro now, which I don't particularly like (aluminium - yuck, small hard disk - annoying) but at least it's not the design disaster that the iMac is now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar
That may be true, but businesses may change their mind once support staff sees how difficult it is to take apart and replace even basic components like a hard drive. Then the iMac will just be seen as a Sharper Image catalog showpiece rather than something that can be supported.
I've worked quite a few places and I've yet to work somewhere where the IT dept just swapped a hard disk. They usually swap a whole computer with a spare and repair the old one at their leisure/their repair contract's terms. It'd be a particularly low-rent company that just swapped a hard drive.
[QUOTE=roogie;1126327]I always crack up at the reviews about iMacs that mention professionals being disappointed with them for some reason or another. Any professional knows that the iMac line is for consumers and will be going the obvious Mac Pro route.
/QUOTE]
I'm a professional programmer and web designer. A Mac Pro is complete overkill for that. Waste of space, money and electricity. There's many professions that don't need a Mac Pro and the whole attitude from some people that you're somehow unprofessional using anything less than a MacPro is silly. The iMac is faster than the MacBook Pro. Are users of that laptop also unprofessional?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Penyrn will be out in a couple of months, possibly three at most. By the time Apple intro's machines in January, it could be in them
We may have some surprises then.
Yeah, they'll stick glossy screens in the MacBookPros too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
I don't miss the sleep light one bit and I never understood the point of it aside from looking cool. If the computer is asleep, it's asleep and you can tell that by the screen being off. Why do we need a glowing reminder?
So you can tell the difference between it sleeping and being off. And it IS cool, especially how it's intensity changes depending on how dark the surroundings are - dimmer if it's dark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I think it's interesting, as we've had these discussions of matte vs glossy for ages now, and now, the one about the keyboard, that as people actually SEE and USE these, they find out that either they aren't as bad as some have been insisting (glossy), and that they do have advantages (color, contrast).
The only problem here being that the new iMac has a MATTE LCD display with a GLOSSY glass panel in front of it so you've the worst of both worlds, the anti-glare coating on the panel reducing contrast and the glass in front adding reflections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The keyboard, so far, has received, in reviews, anything from, "It's no worse than the older Pro keyboards", to "It's better than the old Pro keyboards".
As you say, Apple really DOESN'T do these things in a vacuum.
Sometimes, things that look better actually do work better.
Except I think it looks worse. White keys on aluminium when the iMac is aluminium and black plastic? Horrible, horrible, horrible.
To me it seems like they designed the iMac and the keyboard separately. One group followed the white/aluminium Apple aesthetic whilst the other group did the iMac and realised a white surround on the screen would look terrible, so made it black, but didn't tell the keyboard guys. But then it would have needed a black mighty mouse too....
IMHO they should have just stuck to white OR aluminium OR black but mixing all of them is just awful. It looks like a design by committee. It's also the first time I've heard Steve Jobs say something like "consumers love it" when announcing a product. What? so they listen to focus groups now???? That's not Apple.
It's not the first time though. White accessories with the black Macbook? AppleTV being a different size to the Mac Mini and even the Airport Extreme? Apple just seem to be missing the finer details of late. When they did the original iMac, the accessories matched the CPU. It was a complete design. These days they just shove their generic white accessories in with their design.
I hope they're just in a design transition phase and get back to designing the whole and stop listening to focus groups.
Yeah, they'll stick glossy screens in the MacBookPros too.
They already have. They do give you a choice, but I expect we pay just a bit more for the extra SKU's.
I'm not against them offering both for the iMac as well. It's just that there is a lot of nonsense being told about how bad glossy is.
Quote:
The only problem here being that the new iMac has a MATTE LCD display with a GLOSSY glass panel in front of it so you've the worst of both worlds, the anti-glare coating on the panel reducing contrast and the glass in front adding reflections.
I haven't checked the screen. If you are sure about that, it's too bad they went that route. It's strange then, that people do say that the screen has more vibrant color, with better black levels, and more shadow detail.
Quote:
Except I think it looks worse. White keys on aluminium when the iMac is aluminium and black plastic? Horrible, horrible, horrible.
To me it seems like they designed the iMac and the keyboard separately. One group followed the white/aluminium Apple aesthetic whilst the other group did the iMac and realised a white surround on the screen would look terrible, so made it black, but didn't tell the keyboard guys. But then it would have needed a black mighty mouse too....
IMHO they should have just stuck to white OR aluminium OR black but mixing all of them is just awful. It looks like a design by committee. It's also the first time I've heard Steve Jobs say something like "consumers love it" when announcing a product. What? so they listen to focus groups now???? That's not Apple.
It's not the first time though. White accessories with the black Macbook? AppleTV being a different size to the Mac Mini and even the Airport Extreme? Apple just seem to be missing the finer details of late. When they did the original iMac, the accessories matched the CPU. It was a complete design. These days they just shove their generic white accessories in with their design.
I hope they're just in a design transition phase and get back to designing the whole and stop listening to focus groups.
This is personal taste. I don't like the look of black keys on natural anodized aluminum. But, I do like the way the black screen and case look.
Of course, we were talking about the way the keyboard feels..
T. It'll probably be a MacBook Pro now, which I don't particularly like (aluminium - yuck, small hard disk - annoying) but at least it's not the design disaster that the iMac is now.
.
From a design standpoint, why do you dislike the new iMac? I've seen it in person and think it looks pretty attractive.
As a G5 owner, it really sheds light on the internal upgrades that the Imac line has undergone. I would invariably get one today, but iLife 08 runs great on my 20" G5 and really i don't like the glossy screen AS THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE
I had a macbook for awhile, but as it seemed to fall in to the "toy" category as you astutely mentioned, I shipped that baby on the eBay.
iThink the new iMac's look great, i didn't know about the Geforce graphics card, but I am not complaining, the graphic cards in macs have been a-w-f-u-l until this most recent upgrade.
but man, that glossy sheen, major mistake. Many people can only put their desktop in a single location in the house, and if their is glare, they WILL NOT keep their iMac. iWouldn't, you wouldn't, the glossy only option is ridiculous, its akin to when ipods only worked on macs, it automatically turns off "switchers" and will slam the door shut on the halo affect Apple has been experiencing from the ipod, and iphone.
Please offer matte finish Apple, what's the difference to you, to me it means holding on to my g5 for a few more years and warning people about the imac, instead of encouraging them to buy, buy, buy.
I have one more year of college left and would like to buy a mac after I graduate (or maybe right before to get the student discount). I do graphic design mostly using Adobe programs such as Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign and Flash. I would like to get an iMac because the Mac Pro is both way out of my league financially and also not necessary for the kind of work I do. Does anyone think there will be changes to the iMac in the time between now and next summer? I know they don't usually totally overhaul machines that quickly, but do they sometimes make internal upgrades in shorter time frames?
I haven't actually seen the new iMac in real life, but I have never been a huge fan of glossy laptop screens so it would be nice if that somehow became an option (although since its a glass plate, I'm thinking it would probably be too much to change).
the graphic cards in macs have been a-w-f-u-l until this most recent upgrade.
With respect to the whole graphics card debate. Most of you guys who complain have little to no objectivity or perspective to base your complaint on. Its only based on spec sheets and numbers not the practicality of the situation.
The truth is that intel GMA is the most widely used GPU in the world. Over 60% of computers shipped have integrated graphics. The overwhelming majority of people are fine with that and don't know the difference.
The iMac's GPU is better than intel GMA. It can do most of what's needed to be done, its only failing is that its not cutting edge. The Nvidia 8800 is far better than the 8600/8700. There will always be a better card Apple could have used. The question is that better card really necessary for the market?
Does anyone think there will be changes to the iMac in the time between now and next summer? I know they don't usually totally overhaul machines that quickly, but do they sometimes make internal upgrades in shorter time frames?
Yes there will be changes. By next summer intel will be using a different motherboard, chipset, and processor. More than likely an upgraded GPU and more storage by then. Their will be changes the next year after that and on and on.
For those of you who just HATE the glossy glass, as it seems that it's just held on with magnets, it's possible that someone will offer matte glass to replace the one that came with the machine.
If so, and they can keep to price reasonable, it might be something to think about.
I'm even thinking about doing it myself. Also, possibly feet for the keyboard.
It depends on the pricing I can work up. I haven't looked at it yet.
Those prone to losing their Apple Remote or depending on the sleep light will be disappointed, however. The thick metal prevents the Mac maker from installing either a magnet or a light inside the case, eliminating two minor but appreciated advantages from the past.
I hate to break it to you AI, but the magnet is still present. While you are correct that it can't go through the aluminum, I think the reason for that is not the thickness of the aluminum, but rather the fact that aluminum is not magnetic.
The magnet is present, but it's not on the side, it's just round the corner on the front, under the thin glass.
Please offer matte finish Apple, what's the difference to you, to me it means holding on to my g5 for a few more years and warning people about the imac, instead of encouraging them to buy, buy, buy.
Owmygod ThunkDifferent, I recommend you reading Mellgross post (at the beginning of the second page)!
The so called hallelujah matte screen is a disaster in sunlight! Every morning I have to keep my curtains down as the sunlight makes my clean matte 20" cinema display look dusty and unreadable. Okay, there's no glare, but all the colours just fade away in the sun!
Maybe you should try this with your G5 and experience it yourself ?
Comments
Thought that the old machines would drop by some reasonable amount but have only seen a drop of $50 so not worth it by any means.
Why compare the old special order, and more expensive 2.33 GHz model with the now much less expensive standard 2.4 GHz model?
If this is going to be properly done, then it should have been the $1995 2.16 GHz model it was compared to. Or they should have gotten (or waited for) the high end 2.8 GHz model. The pricing would have been closer are well, in addition to having the extra 1 GB memory, and larger, slightly faster HHD.
This gives the wrong impression of what this upgraded model actually does when compared to its ancestor, particularly when considering that it's $200 cheaper as well.
And as far as the statements about the glossy screen goes, it's wrong as well.
Color and contrast is more correct on glossy models, everything else being equal. The very last monitors to go matte were the $5,000 and $10,000 color correction models. Why? Because matte surfaces distort color and contrast. It is also, contrary to common opinion, more difficult to remove reflections which DO occur on matte screens. The reflections are not as bright, or as sharp, but they are there nonetheless, and are spread out over a larger area of the screen.
Reflections were much harder to get rid of when screens were curved. A flat screen can be turned just a bit, most of the time, and the reflections will disappear, whereas with the curved screens, matte or not, that was not the case.
While I'm not saying that it's perfect for everyone, it's not nearly as much of a problem as some say either.
This is so wrong, it's hard to know where to begin:
The same vivid colors that make the screen "pop" also distort the perceived colors for producers trying to judge how well the image will translate to someone's print ad or DVD. Reflections play even more havoc with accuracy by hiding detail and blending into the on-screen colors. Using a fixed color profile mitigates the problem but just shouldn't be necessary for a system being marketed to both home users and pro customers alike.
He obviously knows little about high end color work or he wouldn't have said that.
PS has, for as long as I remember, had the ability to lower the saturation of the images you are working with, to enable one to see how that image, on screen, would look at print, without changing the actual color of the image itself. That is because EVERY monitor distorts the color compared to CMYK, and some other print technologies (but not for other technologies).
It's simple to do. If you do this kind of print work you know about this (you'd damn well better!).
Go to Color Settings. Click on More Options. Go to the bottom of the dialog box. It will have a box saying Advanced Controls. Go to the first one which is called Desaturate Monitor Color By:. You can then take a sample print standard for the kind of job you are doing. With that print under the proper lighting, click on the selection box in front of the control, you can then adjust the desaturate level until it matches the print.
Of course, first you will have set PS up properly.
Doing this gives you the correct color level you need.
This works better with a glossy screen, as you don't get the slight haze over your image that matte tends to give (more on some screens than others).
I don't know what he means by saying that a "fixed color profile" shouldn't be necessary.
In order to have ANY hope that your color is correct, even for home use, a color profile for your monitor is REQUIRED! SRGB is standard for most monitors, but Apple usually supplies one for their own models.
I had resigned to not buying another desktop and only having a notebook. I don't need a Mac Pro and I didn't care much for the older iMacs. But I do like having a machine sitting on a desk at home with a larger screen. A 1920x1200 24" screen, dual 2.8Ghz, 1TB HD, that is very tempting. I'll wait until after Leopard perhaps wait for a 3Ghz CPU.
The glossy screen issue is of personal taste. When Apple first offered glossy vs matte. I was absolutely against glossy, but the panels Apple uses are better than the ones used by most PC machines. I became used to them and now really like the cleaner picture and vivid colors.
Since Apple did not offer the option of matte or gloss is obvious the notebooks sell far more glossy than matte. These decisions are not made in a vacuum.
I love the new keyboard. I also felt I could type much faster on it.
Regardless of the positives that the new iMac has going for it, glossy is not an option for folks who rely on true-color accuracy,
Simply wrong.
Just saw one at the Apple Store in Soho. There were such crowds around them I had to wait in line to get at one. Its an absolutely beautiful machine.
I had resigned to not buying another desktop and only having a notebook. I don't need a Mac Pro and I didn't care much for the older iMacs. But I do like having a machine sitting on a desk at home with a larger screen. A 1920x1200 24" screen, dual 2.8Ghz, 1TB HD, that is very tempting. I'll wait until after Leopard perhaps wait for a 3Ghz CPU.
The glossy screen issue is of personal taste. When Apple first offered glossy vs matte. I was absolutely against glossy, but the panels Apple uses are better than the ones used by most PC machines. I became used to them and now really like the cleaner picture and vivid colors.
Since Apple did not offer the option of matte or gloss is obvious the notebooks sell far more glossy than matte. These decisions are not made in a vacuum.
I love the new keyboard. I also felt I could type much faster on it.
I think it's interesting, as we've had these discussions of matte vs glossy for ages now, and now, the one about the keyboard, that as people actually SEE and USE these, they find out that either they aren't as bad as some have been insisting (glossy), and that they do have advantages (color, contrast).
The keyboard, so far, has received, in reviews, anything from, "It's no worse than the older Pro keyboards", to "It's better than the old Pro keyboards".
As you say, Apple really DOESN'T do these things in a vacuum.
Sometimes, things that look better actually do work better.
The keyboard, so far, has received, in reviews, anything from, "It's no worse than the older Pro keyboards", to "It's better than the old Pro keyboards".
I was never in love in the pro keyboards. Now after using the new board I hate it. The flat keys on the new board allow your fingers to freely glide over the keys with little effort. With the old keyboard your fingers have to rise above the molded recession to move to another key. It only takes milliseconds but still it takes a bit more effort. After you type on a keyboard where you no longer have to do that it really becomes noticeable.
Could it be something silly like the Radeon 2600 HD Pro actually having better OpenGL support in OSX than in Windows, where most of the current benchmarking has taken place?
Which might a boon to dedicated mac gaming, while still cutting it short to Bootcamp gaming?
Quick note though, I have very little understanding of what makes games tick well so to speak, hardware and software wise, in OSX.
It seems more likely that selecting the 2600 HD is because of video playback. It has full hardware acceleration for several HD codecs, H.264 in particular. With Apple's emphasis on video, it makes some sense. See http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3047. CPU usage during playback is very low.
I was never in love in the pro keyboards. Now after using the new board I hate it. The flat keys on the new board allow your fingers to freely glide over the keys with little effort. With the old keyboard your fingers have to rise above the molded recession to move to another key. It only takes milliseconds but still it takes a bit more effort. After you type on a keyboard where you no longer have to do that it really becomes noticeable.
I don't really like any keyboards after the old Apple Professional model.
I make too many typo's with this "pro" model I have.
Regardless of specs, the new all aluminum case is beautiful and the article writer is wrong...
Well your point is that the case is beautiful.
And I think most people agree that, as a work of art, the iMac is stunning. I do too.
But from a user perspective, the article pointed out that the glossy finish is going to and does reflect a lot of light and behind-the-user reflections.
Apple's own iMac pictures, images, and all the pics from intro show lots of mirror-like reflections of lights, cameras, people etc.
So I think you are right that it is gorgeous to look at.
And I think the reviewer is right that the glossy screen and border has a lot of reflection.
For me, I prefer matte, anti-reflection screen, even if it means I lose a few percent of brightness. I have the brightness of my iMac G5 (matte non-glare screen) turned down as it is.
I hope that Apple offers at least an option to buy an iMac with a non-reflective screen. And still let all who want and love the glossy go for it.
Much like it is possible to buy the MacBook Pro with either a matte-anti-reflective, or a glossy screen.
Anyone with a g5 iMac needs to give these a serious look.
That's what I'm currently using and up until they released the new iMac, I'd have replaced it with another iMac. I was waiting for a faster 20". Now I don't think so. It'll probably be a MacBook Pro now, which I don't particularly like (aluminium - yuck, small hard disk - annoying) but at least it's not the design disaster that the iMac is now.
That may be true, but businesses may change their mind once support staff sees how difficult it is to take apart and replace even basic components like a hard drive. Then the iMac will just be seen as a Sharper Image catalog showpiece rather than something that can be supported.
I've worked quite a few places and I've yet to work somewhere where the IT dept just swapped a hard disk. They usually swap a whole computer with a spare and repair the old one at their leisure/their repair contract's terms. It'd be a particularly low-rent company that just swapped a hard drive.
[QUOTE=roogie;1126327]I always crack up at the reviews about iMacs that mention professionals being disappointed with them for some reason or another. Any professional knows that the iMac line is for consumers and will be going the obvious Mac Pro route.
/QUOTE]
I'm a professional programmer and web designer. A Mac Pro is complete overkill for that. Waste of space, money and electricity. There's many professions that don't need a Mac Pro and the whole attitude from some people that you're somehow unprofessional using anything less than a MacPro is silly. The iMac is faster than the MacBook Pro. Are users of that laptop also unprofessional?
Penyrn will be out in a couple of months, possibly three at most. By the time Apple intro's machines in January, it could be in them
We may have some surprises then.
Yeah, they'll stick glossy screens in the MacBookPros too.
I don't miss the sleep light one bit and I never understood the point of it aside from looking cool. If the computer is asleep, it's asleep and you can tell that by the screen being off. Why do we need a glowing reminder?
So you can tell the difference between it sleeping and being off. And it IS cool, especially how it's intensity changes depending on how dark the surroundings are - dimmer if it's dark.
I think it's interesting, as we've had these discussions of matte vs glossy for ages now, and now, the one about the keyboard, that as people actually SEE and USE these, they find out that either they aren't as bad as some have been insisting (glossy), and that they do have advantages (color, contrast).
The only problem here being that the new iMac has a MATTE LCD display with a GLOSSY glass panel in front of it so you've the worst of both worlds, the anti-glare coating on the panel reducing contrast and the glass in front adding reflections.
The keyboard, so far, has received, in reviews, anything from, "It's no worse than the older Pro keyboards", to "It's better than the old Pro keyboards".
As you say, Apple really DOESN'T do these things in a vacuum.
Sometimes, things that look better actually do work better.
Except I think it looks worse. White keys on aluminium when the iMac is aluminium and black plastic? Horrible, horrible, horrible.
To me it seems like they designed the iMac and the keyboard separately. One group followed the white/aluminium Apple aesthetic whilst the other group did the iMac and realised a white surround on the screen would look terrible, so made it black, but didn't tell the keyboard guys. But then it would have needed a black mighty mouse too....
IMHO they should have just stuck to white OR aluminium OR black but mixing all of them is just awful. It looks like a design by committee. It's also the first time I've heard Steve Jobs say something like "consumers love it" when announcing a product. What? so they listen to focus groups now???? That's not Apple.
It's not the first time though. White accessories with the black Macbook? AppleTV being a different size to the Mac Mini and even the Airport Extreme? Apple just seem to be missing the finer details of late. When they did the original iMac, the accessories matched the CPU. It was a complete design. These days they just shove their generic white accessories in with their design.
I hope they're just in a design transition phase and get back to designing the whole and stop listening to focus groups.
Yeah, they'll stick glossy screens in the MacBookPros too.
They already have. They do give you a choice, but I expect we pay just a bit more for the extra SKU's.
I'm not against them offering both for the iMac as well. It's just that there is a lot of nonsense being told about how bad glossy is.
The only problem here being that the new iMac has a MATTE LCD display with a GLOSSY glass panel in front of it so you've the worst of both worlds, the anti-glare coating on the panel reducing contrast and the glass in front adding reflections.
I haven't checked the screen. If you are sure about that, it's too bad they went that route. It's strange then, that people do say that the screen has more vibrant color, with better black levels, and more shadow detail.
Except I think it looks worse. White keys on aluminium when the iMac is aluminium and black plastic? Horrible, horrible, horrible.
To me it seems like they designed the iMac and the keyboard separately. One group followed the white/aluminium Apple aesthetic whilst the other group did the iMac and realised a white surround on the screen would look terrible, so made it black, but didn't tell the keyboard guys. But then it would have needed a black mighty mouse too....
IMHO they should have just stuck to white OR aluminium OR black but mixing all of them is just awful. It looks like a design by committee. It's also the first time I've heard Steve Jobs say something like "consumers love it" when announcing a product. What? so they listen to focus groups now???? That's not Apple.
It's not the first time though. White accessories with the black Macbook? AppleTV being a different size to the Mac Mini and even the Airport Extreme? Apple just seem to be missing the finer details of late. When they did the original iMac, the accessories matched the CPU. It was a complete design. These days they just shove their generic white accessories in with their design.
I hope they're just in a design transition phase and get back to designing the whole and stop listening to focus groups.
This is personal taste. I don't like the look of black keys on natural anodized aluminum. But, I do like the way the black screen and case look.
Of course, we were talking about the way the keyboard feels..
T. It'll probably be a MacBook Pro now, which I don't particularly like (aluminium - yuck, small hard disk - annoying) but at least it's not the design disaster that the iMac is now.
.
From a design standpoint, why do you dislike the new iMac? I've seen it in person and think it looks pretty attractive.
I had a macbook for awhile, but as it seemed to fall in to the "toy" category as you astutely mentioned, I shipped that baby on the eBay.
iThink the new iMac's look great, i didn't know about the Geforce graphics card, but I am not complaining, the graphic cards in macs have been a-w-f-u-l until this most recent upgrade.
but man, that glossy sheen, major mistake. Many people can only put their desktop in a single location in the house, and if their is glare, they WILL NOT keep their iMac. iWouldn't, you wouldn't, the glossy only option is ridiculous, its akin to when ipods only worked on macs, it automatically turns off "switchers" and will slam the door shut on the halo affect Apple has been experiencing from the ipod, and iphone.
Please offer matte finish Apple, what's the difference to you, to me it means holding on to my g5 for a few more years and warning people about the imac, instead of encouraging them to buy, buy, buy.
i didn't know about the Geforce graphics card,
You're right.
I haven't actually seen the new iMac in real life, but I have never been a huge fan of glossy laptop screens so it would be nice if that somehow became an option (although since its a glass plate, I'm thinking it would probably be too much to change).
the graphic cards in macs have been a-w-f-u-l until this most recent upgrade.
With respect to the whole graphics card debate. Most of you guys who complain have little to no objectivity or perspective to base your complaint on. Its only based on spec sheets and numbers not the practicality of the situation.
The truth is that intel GMA is the most widely used GPU in the world. Over 60% of computers shipped have integrated graphics. The overwhelming majority of people are fine with that and don't know the difference.
The iMac's GPU is better than intel GMA. It can do most of what's needed to be done, its only failing is that its not cutting edge. The Nvidia 8800 is far better than the 8600/8700. There will always be a better card Apple could have used. The question is that better card really necessary for the market?
Does anyone think there will be changes to the iMac in the time between now and next summer? I know they don't usually totally overhaul machines that quickly, but do they sometimes make internal upgrades in shorter time frames?
Yes there will be changes. By next summer intel will be using a different motherboard, chipset, and processor. More than likely an upgraded GPU and more storage by then. Their will be changes the next year after that and on and on.
If so, and they can keep to price reasonable, it might be something to think about.
I'm even thinking about doing it myself. Also, possibly feet for the keyboard.
It depends on the pricing I can work up. I haven't looked at it yet.
Those prone to losing their Apple Remote or depending on the sleep light will be disappointed, however. The thick metal prevents the Mac maker from installing either a magnet or a light inside the case, eliminating two minor but appreciated advantages from the past.
I hate to break it to you AI, but the magnet is still present. While you are correct that it can't go through the aluminum, I think the reason for that is not the thickness of the aluminum, but rather the fact that aluminum is not magnetic.
The magnet is present, but it's not on the side, it's just round the corner on the front, under the thin glass.
Please offer matte finish Apple, what's the difference to you, to me it means holding on to my g5 for a few more years and warning people about the imac, instead of encouraging them to buy, buy, buy.
Owmygod ThunkDifferent, I recommend you reading Mellgross post (at the beginning of the second page)!
The so called hallelujah matte screen is a disaster in sunlight! Every morning I have to keep my curtains down as the sunlight makes my clean matte 20" cinema display look dusty and unreadable. Okay, there's no glare, but all the colours just fade away in the sun!
Maybe you should try this with your G5 and experience it yourself ?