Thank you, yes this is the heart of my problem. I couldn't get the 23" ACD to calibrate properly through the 20"iMac, which completely baffles me. I've been poking around on DPreview but haven't found anyone happily running a color managed system through a new 20" iMac and an external ACD.
I will be bailing out on the iMac. Too bad because it does have many excellent features. Its just suitable for pro photo processing.
I would ask for help directly...alas I only go there to see what cameras to buy but the folks seemed nice enough. If you live near a Apple store you might ask to see if they wouldn't let you calibrate one of their ACDs against one of their 20" iMacs before you dump the iMac. That way if it works there but not with yours you know you have a bum unit and get it replaced under warranty.
I'm sorry the iMac is turning out to be a dud for you and it's quite a bit past your purchase date. Fortunately the resale value isn't horrid but it would have been a lot better if you could just return it.
Yes, Apple could have been more forthcoming about the TN panel in the 20" model.
What happens when you call AppleCare and tell them that the ACD won't calibrate and you think it's the iMac at fault? I presume the ACD calibrates fine on whatever machine it came from.
Who in the world can take one look at the iMac 20" in the store and know that its a TN panel?? Seriously that's ludicrous.
Sorry what it is ludicrous is thinking that just because you are clueless and can not tell the kind of panel by just looking at it that it is impossible for other people to tell.
The technology that has been used to make a panel is very easily identifiable. A telltale of a TN panel is the terrible vertical viewing angle and that you get huge colour shifts and even colour inversion when looking at it from below.
Quote:
Moreover, many of us were relying on the great reputation of the older white iMacs, which were perfectly suitable for doing color managed work
Apple has always used a TN panel in the bottom of the line iMac. Since the 20" is now the bottom of the line it is no surprise that it has a TN panel.
Of course I am not going to buy these models, despite I have waited cash-in-hand for them for over 12 months.
Whiner, liar AND has zero willpower. He sure showed Apple who was boss.
"We hates them, my Precious, we hates them so...the glossy iMacs...they buuuuurns poor Gastroboy's eyses it does...but...yess...we musts buy this glossy 24" iMac...yessss...Gollum Gollum."
Ah, well, he was bested by a Safari proficient cat last go around...what more can one say?
Sorry what it is ludicrous is thinking that just because you are clueless and can not tell the kind of panel by just looking at it that it is impossible for other people to tell.
The technology that has been used to make a panel is very easily identifiable. A telltale of a TN panel is the terrible vertical viewing angle and that you get huge colour shifts and even colour inversion when looking at it from below.
Oh, OK, thanks for setting me straight on that one. I guess I missed the memo that went around to everyone else describing the attributes of all the different kinds of panels that might or might not be installed in an iMac so that -- even though Apple doesn't tell the consumer what kind of panel it is -- I would be immediately able to know it myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor
Apple has always used a TN panel in the bottom of the line iMac. Since the 20" is now the bottom of the line it is no surprise that it has a TN panel.
Again, you have so helpfully enlightened me. I naively assumed that since the previous generation 20" iMac was widely used by photographers, the newer one would certainly be acceptable for that purpose. My understanding is that the older white 20" iMac did not have a TN panel. That was a downgrade in the newer models.
But again thanks for putting me in my place. I'll make sure I go through extensive computer hardware training before purchasing my next Apple or bothering you with my questions.
Oh, OK, thanks for setting me straight on that one. I guess I missed the memo that went around to everyone else describing the attributes of all the different kinds of panels that might or might not be installed in an iMac so that -- even though Apple doesn't tell the consumer what kind of panel it is -- I would be immediately able to know it myself.
Again, you have so helpfully enlightened me. I naively assumed that since the previous generation 20" iMac was widely used by photographers, the newer one would certainly be acceptable for that purpose. My understanding is that the older white 20" iMac did not have a TN panel. That was a downgrade in the newer models.
But again thanks for putting me in my place. I'll make sure I go through extensive computer hardware training before purchasing my next Apple or bothering you with my questions.
Caveat emptor is still in effect. If you aren't up to speed about this stuff, then seek out those that are. Apple, or any PC maker, assumes that you know what you want, so it's not their fault that you made a bad choice. This technology is, and has been, fast moving. What WAS true for some models, may not be true for their replacements.
It's really too bad that you didn't get a 24" machine, but there's only one person to blame for that. You do photography, so do you buy your photo equipment with the same care that you exercised with the iMac? I'll bet not.
Nobody is wanting to "put you in your place", what you are getting is the proper reaction to what you did, which was to buy blindly. The worst thing that you can now is take your ball and go home. Lick your wounds and stick around, there much to learn here.
I guess I missed the memo that went around to everyone else describing the attributes of all the different kinds of panels that might or might not be installed in an iMac so that -- even though Apple doesn't tell the consumer what kind of panel it is -- I would be immediately able to know it myself.
See you keep getting it wrong. What you missed was the research that any professional should do when buying the tools for his/her trade.
You can laugh as much as you want but what is really laughable is that a so called professional buys blindly critical equipment.
Quote:
I naively assumed that since the previous generation 20" iMac was widely used by photographers, the newer one would certainly be acceptable for that purpose. My understanding is that the older white 20" iMac did not have a TN panel. That was a downgrade in the newer models.
You can call me stupid all you like, but I must be in good company since my research has revealed many people who feel burned after buying the 20" iMac. I did not blindly buy this computer. I did do my research before buying this iMac. I read forums where people raved about them (people are still raving about them.) I have a friend who is a photography professor who assured me that he has a college lab full of calibrated iMacs that are perfect for photography work. What none of us realized is that Apple downgraded the "new" iMacs. Many people are still very confused about this. Again, nowhere does Apple state that the 20" iMac monitor is a TN monitor. Or that the monitor is substantively different than the older iMacs.
Yes, I am guitly of not immediately knowing that a 160 degree viewing angle = inferior TN screen. But in fairness to myself, I am a photographer not a computer whiz. And other photographers had been telling me the iMacs were fine for photo work. Of course now I realize they were talking about the older ones, which I now know is comparing apples to oranges. There are also gradient problems with the screen that are not apparent in the store and certainly no one is pointing them out. Apple still maintains that these screens are performing perfectly well. They are now facing a lawsuit over this issue.
I think this is why people like me are so upset. You do the research. You know of the good reputation. You talk to other photogs who are happily using iMacs. The problems are just not immediately apparent until you get it home to your work envirornment, try to calibrate, try to edit photos, scratch your head, try it all again, borrow a second monitor and see if that helps, and finally realize that its not performing well. And after all that, you are stuck with the machine.
Anyway, thanks to those of you who have offered truly helpful suggestions instead of belittling me.
I waited 10 months till Apple dramatically slashed the price [twice], I got 12 months interest free, they threw in Applecare and a printer AND it was way faster at 2.8Ghz with an adequate 2Gb of RAM. And the retailer threw in another nice shopping card bonus!
It replaced a lovely iMac G5 2.0Ghz model which got screwed by Leopard.
AND I didn't need it to be a color managed workstation for which it is useless.
Yeah they sure got me there!
Now just go back to slagging victims of Apple's misleading marketing.
"Pro" does not begin and end with photography pros. That is your failed assumption.
What "failed assumption"? I wasn't the one who asserted that digital photographers are the "Pros". The idea seems patently nonsense.
In fact given the state of modern cameras I think they can produce quite acceptable images without too much hassle. It is the finished designer or pre-press people who are going to have to turn that image into a reproducible file. That is not going to be achievable on the current iMacs.
You could get much closer with the previous non-glossy models, which I managed to snag at knock down prices when everyone rushed to buy the new shiny toys.
I have been doing this for over 23 years and produced award winning designs on Mac IIcis. We just didn't rely on the screen and restrained our usage to be within what was possible. Unfortunately we are being forced to do that yet again as Apple turns what were good studio workstations into iLifestations.
Those in these forums who choose to be dishonest about what the iMacs can now do, are the same ones who slam the victims of their deception.
What none of us realized is that Apple downgraded the "new" iMacs. Many people are still very confused about this.
They got rid of the 17" model and started selling the 20" for the same price, something had to give and Apple decided quality not their own profits was it.
This is actually where Apple probably like the iMac and I mentioned this when the new one was released. The actual spec of the machine didn't change much at all. In fact, the graphics card in some models was a downgrade too.
All they did was make the screen bigger. You can't do that with other models of computer. With a headless machine, if you sell the same spec or lower as the next revision, you won't get many sales. Having the display tied to the machine allows them to falsify the upgrades.
When a consumer saw the old one vs the new one, they see 'a bigger screen for the same price'. That's all Apple need to shift the machines.
This is probably why they haven't updated their Cinema displays. What else can they do except lower the price?
What I don't get is that they sell the 20" cinema display for £400 and the base Mac Mini for £400. The lowest iMac is £800 and the only real differences are the GPU, HD, DVD burner and isight. I reckon they could easily afford to make the iMac a much better quality machine.
I've posted it before:
That's a Mini at the base of a Cinema display. It just needs some better design to allow for ports and the base would be removable to allow you to upgrade/repair the display.
You can call me stupid all you like, but I must be in good company since my research has revealed many people who feel burned after buying the 20" iMac. I did not blindly buy this computer. I did do my research before buying this iMac. I read forums where people raved about them (people are still raving about them.) I have a friend who is a photography professor who assured me that he has a college lab full of calibrated iMacs that are perfect for photography work. What none of us realized is that Apple downgraded the "new" iMacs. Many people are still very confused about this. Again, nowhere does Apple state that the 20" iMac monitor is a TN monitor. Or that the monitor is substantively different than the older iMacs.
Yes, I am guitly of not immediately knowing that a 160 degree viewing angle = inferior TN screen. But in fairness to myself, I am a photographer not a computer whiz. And other photographers had been telling me the iMacs were fine for photo work. Of course now I realize they were talking about the older ones, which I now know is comparing apples to oranges. There are also gradient problems with the screen that are not apparent in the store and certainly no one is pointing them out. Apple still maintains that these screens are performing perfectly well. They are now facing a lawsuit over this issue.
I think this is why people like me are so upset. You do the research. You know of the good reputation. You talk to other photogs who are happily using iMacs. The problems are just not immediately apparent until you get it home to your work envirornment, try to calibrate, try to edit photos, scratch your head, try it all again, borrow a second monitor and see if that helps, and finally realize that its not performing well. And after all that, you are stuck with the machine.
Anyway, thanks to those of you who have offered truly helpful suggestions instead of belittling me.
I have a brand new (last Friday) 24" iMac, it has no display gradient issue, and I know because I checked it out. I changed the desktop to a light gray, not that stupid Aurora desktop that they're set to. That will show a gradient in a heartbeat, if there is one.
The 24" is very fast for still photography, and I love the glossy screen. I have no reflection issues either. I open images about as fast as I click on them in Aperture 2 and PS CS 3.
If you have a Mac that you aren't satisfied with, then you should have returned it. I would.
I'd have to agree with you there. I've been through a recruitment process for an Apple Store and can say that they don't ask any questions about your knowledge and capability with Macs or test it in any way...the selection process is entirely personality-based. Apple want young people working in their stores because they want to portray themselves as youthful, sexy and energetic. I am nearly 30 yet despite my experience, the interviewer was more concerned about whether I had the "energy" to work in a fast-paced environment. Apple is in real danger of losing respect among its professional users if this is the way it's heading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I've been to a genius bar. I recall seeing quite a few teenagers in there. 'Geniuses' they are not. I think Apple's definition of a genius is that they know what an Apple key and option key are, whereas idiot consumers who can only see a clover and alt don't and they can helpfully explain.
They keep the geniuses in the back doing the repairs.
So the model that you have is the old white 24" and you don't own a ALU 24" as you've been misleading people into believing?
Quote:
AND I didn't need it to be a color managed workstation for which it is useless.
Yeah they sure got me there!
They sure did. You bought a broken 24" white iMac with a bad panel. The model that should have a matte S-IPS panel suitable for soft proofing by anyone's standard.
Quote:
Now just go back to slagging victims of Apple's misleading marketing.
It's what YOU are best at.
I only slag liars. I've been very polite to Hope who has a legitimate beef.
So the model that you have is the old white 24" and you don't own a ALU 24" as you've been misleading people into believing?
Are you laughing at yourself? You have an AMAZING comprehension problem!
Quote:
They sure did. You bought a broken 24" white iMac with a bad panel. The model that should have a matte S-IPS panel suitable for soft proofing by anyone's standard.
There you go again!
Quote:
I only slag liars. I've been very polite to Hope who has a legitimate beef.
Seems like you blame her for being stupid enough to listen to what you and others say. Given the above, she would be wise to just let you fade into the background noise. I'd say she is the one who has been exceptionally polite.
I'd have to agree with you there. I've been through a recruitment process for an Apple Store and can say that they don't ask any questions about your knowledge and capability with Macs or test it in any way...the selection process is entirely personality-based. Apple want young people working in their stores because they want to portray themselves as youthful, sexy and energetic. I am nearly 30 yet despite my experience, the interviewer was more concerned about whether I had the "energy" to work in a fast-paced environment. Apple is in real danger of losing respect among its professional users if this is the way it's heading.
The other thing they want is PC users or recent ex PC users. They "relate" better to potential switchers. So if you know more about a PC than a Mac, you're the man for Apple.
I even got AppleCare "support" the other day from a PC user who predictably and instinctively asked me what anti-virus software I was using. Needless to say his advice was useless and painfully slow. On my third attempt I got someone who wasn't just reading from the response manual.
What I don't get is that they sell the 20" cinema display for £400 and the base Mac Mini for £400. The lowest iMac is £800 and the only real differences are the GPU, HD, DVD burner and isight.
And microphone, speakers, N wireless card, firewire 800 , keyboard and mouse.
Are you laughing at yourself? You have an AMAZING comprehension problem!
You said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy
Apple seems hell bent on shaking off its critical professional base in favor of the newly suckered in, easily duped amateurs it now targets. Essentially it wants a more manipulatable consumer who is attracted to the superficial and will buy into a cycle of "fashion statements" and get rid of them when they don't look "Hot" anymore.
In otherwords the same "Junk" computing as PCs.
Ofcourse I am not going to buy these models, despite I have waited cash-in-hand for them for over 12 months.
In a thread about the ALU 24" iMac.
So you are either lying about not buying any ALU iMac with a glossy screen or lying that you have a different model. Yes, there's the newer model but the screen is still the same "junk" "fashion statement" as before.
Quote:
Seems like you blame her for being stupid enough to listen to what you and others say. Given the above, she would be wise to just let you fade into the background noise. I'd say she is the one who has been exceptionally polite.
You know, the words to the left of the post indicate the author of the post. You might find that Vinea =/= to Londor. Yes, she has been polite and I wish she had gotten better technical help here.
Of course, the only self-professed "pro" has done ZIPPO in helping her by attaching an ACD or other monitor to his iMac and seeing if the ACD or other monitor calibrates on his 24" iMac.
Given your behavior and lack of knowledge, it strikes me that you're more likely a poser that a pro. I don't think you'd recognize a Spyder if it walked up and calibrated you in the ass.
I did not buy any of the iMacs in the previous posting. Nor did I suffer all the problems that the purchasers of those models suffered.
I have a studio full of computers and told you over and over again what I have bought and most importantly why.
The glossy screens are still unusable for color managed work, not just because they are glossy but because they suffer from excessive contrast, glare and inconsistent lighting. A fact which is patently obvious to all but the most persistent denialists. A fact that is so obvious you do not need to use color calibration to prove it, though several posters on other forums have.
I do not have to buy and test unwanted equipment, just to prove you wrong. You only have to go to Apple's own forums to find other users who have the same experience as the original OP.
In my long career I spent over 2 years setting up pre-press for local printers, and getting paid handsomely for it. Long enough to recognise wankers who like to quote model numbers and hardware whilst ignoring what they are supposed to do. I have also cast around in several forums asking for any pre-press people or users with pre-press experience who would recommend the current iMacs for color work. I have had a lot of viewers and no takers.
It would seem you yourself wouldn't either but you remain ambivalent, putting it down to luck of the drawer and if I, or the OP, just kept going back for another iMac we just might get lucky. An odd way of looking at Apple's quality control, that a model patently unsuited for Pro work may by happenstance have accidently been built good enough.
I have also cast around in several forums asking for any pre-press people or users with pre-press experience who would recommend the current iMacs for color work. I have had a lot of viewers and no takers.
I visited a local printers not too long and the pre-press department was full of G5 towers attached to matte screens. There were a couple of white iMacs around. The design department was between G5 towers and G4 towers. Hardly any iMacs at all and this company has over £2 million turnover a year.
It seems overkill to me to have so many towers like that for pre-press (there had to be 10-15) yet Apple don't give them any other option.
Comments
Thank you, yes this is the heart of my problem. I couldn't get the 23" ACD to calibrate properly through the 20"iMac, which completely baffles me. I've been poking around on DPreview but haven't found anyone happily running a color managed system through a new 20" iMac and an external ACD.
I will be bailing out on the iMac. Too bad because it does have many excellent features. Its just suitable for pro photo processing.
I would ask for help directly...alas I only go there to see what cameras to buy but the folks seemed nice enough. If you live near a Apple store you might ask to see if they wouldn't let you calibrate one of their ACDs against one of their 20" iMacs before you dump the iMac. That way if it works there but not with yours you know you have a bum unit and get it replaced under warranty.
I'm sorry the iMac is turning out to be a dud for you and it's quite a bit past your purchase date. Fortunately the resale value isn't horrid but it would have been a lot better if you could just return it.
Yes, Apple could have been more forthcoming about the TN panel in the 20" model.
What happens when you call AppleCare and tell them that the ACD won't calibrate and you think it's the iMac at fault? I presume the ACD calibrates fine on whatever machine it came from.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=77665
Who in the world can take one look at the iMac 20" in the store and know that its a TN panel?? Seriously that's ludicrous.
Sorry what it is ludicrous is thinking that just because you are clueless and can not tell the kind of panel by just looking at it that it is impossible for other people to tell.
The technology that has been used to make a panel is very easily identifiable. A telltale of a TN panel is the terrible vertical viewing angle and that you get huge colour shifts and even colour inversion when looking at it from below.
Moreover, many of us were relying on the great reputation of the older white iMacs, which were perfectly suitable for doing color managed work
Apple has always used a TN panel in the bottom of the line iMac. Since the 20" is now the bottom of the line it is no surprise that it has a TN panel.
Wow - this thread is almost as fun to read as the last "gastroboy's obsessive hatred for glossy iMacs" thread:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=77665
Of course I am not going to buy these models, despite I have waited cash-in-hand for them for over 12 months.
Whiner, liar AND has zero willpower. He sure showed Apple who was boss.
"We hates them, my Precious, we hates them so...the glossy iMacs...they buuuuurns poor Gastroboy's eyses it does...but...yess...we musts buy this glossy 24" iMac...yessss...Gollum Gollum."
Ah, well, he was bested by a Safari proficient cat last go around...what more can one say?
Sorry what it is ludicrous is thinking that just because you are clueless and can not tell the kind of panel by just looking at it that it is impossible for other people to tell.
The technology that has been used to make a panel is very easily identifiable. A telltale of a TN panel is the terrible vertical viewing angle and that you get huge colour shifts and even colour inversion when looking at it from below.
Oh, OK, thanks for setting me straight on that one. I guess I missed the memo that went around to everyone else describing the attributes of all the different kinds of panels that might or might not be installed in an iMac so that -- even though Apple doesn't tell the consumer what kind of panel it is -- I would be immediately able to know it myself.
Apple has always used a TN panel in the bottom of the line iMac. Since the 20" is now the bottom of the line it is no surprise that it has a TN panel.
Again, you have so helpfully enlightened me. I naively assumed that since the previous generation 20" iMac was widely used by photographers, the newer one would certainly be acceptable for that purpose. My understanding is that the older white 20" iMac did not have a TN panel. That was a downgrade in the newer models.
But again thanks for putting me in my place. I'll make sure I go through extensive computer hardware training before purchasing my next Apple or bothering you with my questions.
Oh, OK, thanks for setting me straight on that one. I guess I missed the memo that went around to everyone else describing the attributes of all the different kinds of panels that might or might not be installed in an iMac so that -- even though Apple doesn't tell the consumer what kind of panel it is -- I would be immediately able to know it myself.
Again, you have so helpfully enlightened me. I naively assumed that since the previous generation 20" iMac was widely used by photographers, the newer one would certainly be acceptable for that purpose. My understanding is that the older white 20" iMac did not have a TN panel. That was a downgrade in the newer models.
But again thanks for putting me in my place. I'll make sure I go through extensive computer hardware training before purchasing my next Apple or bothering you with my questions.
Caveat emptor is still in effect. If you aren't up to speed about this stuff, then seek out those that are. Apple, or any PC maker, assumes that you know what you want, so it's not their fault that you made a bad choice. This technology is, and has been, fast moving. What WAS true for some models, may not be true for their replacements.
It's really too bad that you didn't get a 24" machine, but there's only one person to blame for that. You do photography, so do you buy your photo equipment with the same care that you exercised with the iMac? I'll bet not.
Nobody is wanting to "put you in your place", what you are getting is the proper reaction to what you did, which was to buy blindly. The worst thing that you can now is take your ball and go home. Lick your wounds and stick around, there much to learn here.
I guess I missed the memo that went around to everyone else describing the attributes of all the different kinds of panels that might or might not be installed in an iMac so that -- even though Apple doesn't tell the consumer what kind of panel it is -- I would be immediately able to know it myself.
See you keep getting it wrong. What you missed was the research that any professional should do when buying the tools for his/her trade.
You can laugh as much as you want but what is really laughable is that a so called professional buys blindly critical equipment.
I naively assumed that since the previous generation 20" iMac was widely used by photographers, the newer one would certainly be acceptable for that purpose. My understanding is that the older white 20" iMac did not have a TN panel. That was a downgrade in the newer models.
"Assuming" is the road to cock-ups.
Yes, I am guitly of not immediately knowing that a 160 degree viewing angle = inferior TN screen. But in fairness to myself, I am a photographer not a computer whiz. And other photographers had been telling me the iMacs were fine for photo work. Of course now I realize they were talking about the older ones, which I now know is comparing apples to oranges. There are also gradient problems with the screen that are not apparent in the store and certainly no one is pointing them out. Apple still maintains that these screens are performing perfectly well. They are now facing a lawsuit over this issue.
I think this is why people like me are so upset. You do the research. You know of the good reputation. You talk to other photogs who are happily using iMacs. The problems are just not immediately apparent until you get it home to your work envirornment, try to calibrate, try to edit photos, scratch your head, try it all again, borrow a second monitor and see if that helps, and finally realize that its not performing well. And after all that, you are stuck with the machine.
Anyway, thanks to those of you who have offered truly helpful suggestions instead of belittling me.
Actually I didn't buy that model.
I waited 10 months till Apple dramatically slashed the price [twice], I got 12 months interest free, they threw in Applecare and a printer AND it was way faster at 2.8Ghz with an adequate 2Gb of RAM. And the retailer threw in another nice shopping card bonus!
It replaced a lovely iMac G5 2.0Ghz model which got screwed by Leopard.
AND I didn't need it to be a color managed workstation for which it is useless.
Yeah they sure got me there!
Now just go back to slagging victims of Apple's misleading marketing.
It's what YOU are best at.
"Pro" does not begin and end with photography pros. That is your failed assumption.
What "failed assumption"? I wasn't the one who asserted that digital photographers are the "Pros". The idea seems patently nonsense.
In fact given the state of modern cameras I think they can produce quite acceptable images without too much hassle. It is the finished designer or pre-press people who are going to have to turn that image into a reproducible file. That is not going to be achievable on the current iMacs.
You could get much closer with the previous non-glossy models, which I managed to snag at knock down prices when everyone rushed to buy the new shiny toys.
I have been doing this for over 23 years and produced award winning designs on Mac IIcis. We just didn't rely on the screen and restrained our usage to be within what was possible. Unfortunately we are being forced to do that yet again as Apple turns what were good studio workstations into iLifestations.
Those in these forums who choose to be dishonest about what the iMacs can now do, are the same ones who slam the victims of their deception.
Amazing!
What none of us realized is that Apple downgraded the "new" iMacs. Many people are still very confused about this.
They got rid of the 17" model and started selling the 20" for the same price, something had to give and Apple decided quality not their own profits was it.
This is actually where Apple probably like the iMac and I mentioned this when the new one was released. The actual spec of the machine didn't change much at all. In fact, the graphics card in some models was a downgrade too.
All they did was make the screen bigger. You can't do that with other models of computer. With a headless machine, if you sell the same spec or lower as the next revision, you won't get many sales. Having the display tied to the machine allows them to falsify the upgrades.
When a consumer saw the old one vs the new one, they see 'a bigger screen for the same price'. That's all Apple need to shift the machines.
This is probably why they haven't updated their Cinema displays. What else can they do except lower the price?
What I don't get is that they sell the 20" cinema display for £400 and the base Mac Mini for £400. The lowest iMac is £800 and the only real differences are the GPU, HD, DVD burner and isight. I reckon they could easily afford to make the iMac a much better quality machine.
I've posted it before:
That's a Mini at the base of a Cinema display. It just needs some better design to allow for ports and the base would be removable to allow you to upgrade/repair the display.
You can call me stupid all you like, but I must be in good company since my research has revealed many people who feel burned after buying the 20" iMac. I did not blindly buy this computer. I did do my research before buying this iMac. I read forums where people raved about them (people are still raving about them.) I have a friend who is a photography professor who assured me that he has a college lab full of calibrated iMacs that are perfect for photography work. What none of us realized is that Apple downgraded the "new" iMacs. Many people are still very confused about this. Again, nowhere does Apple state that the 20" iMac monitor is a TN monitor. Or that the monitor is substantively different than the older iMacs.
Yes, I am guitly of not immediately knowing that a 160 degree viewing angle = inferior TN screen. But in fairness to myself, I am a photographer not a computer whiz. And other photographers had been telling me the iMacs were fine for photo work. Of course now I realize they were talking about the older ones, which I now know is comparing apples to oranges. There are also gradient problems with the screen that are not apparent in the store and certainly no one is pointing them out. Apple still maintains that these screens are performing perfectly well. They are now facing a lawsuit over this issue.
I think this is why people like me are so upset. You do the research. You know of the good reputation. You talk to other photogs who are happily using iMacs. The problems are just not immediately apparent until you get it home to your work envirornment, try to calibrate, try to edit photos, scratch your head, try it all again, borrow a second monitor and see if that helps, and finally realize that its not performing well. And after all that, you are stuck with the machine.
Anyway, thanks to those of you who have offered truly helpful suggestions instead of belittling me.
I have a brand new (last Friday) 24" iMac, it has no display gradient issue, and I know because I checked it out. I changed the desktop to a light gray, not that stupid Aurora desktop that they're set to. That will show a gradient in a heartbeat, if there is one.
The 24" is very fast for still photography, and I love the glossy screen. I have no reflection issues either. I open images about as fast as I click on them in Aperture 2 and PS CS 3.
If you have a Mac that you aren't satisfied with, then you should have returned it. I would.
I've been to a genius bar. I recall seeing quite a few teenagers in there. 'Geniuses' they are not. I think Apple's definition of a genius is that they know what an Apple key and option key are, whereas idiot consumers who can only see a clover and alt don't and they can helpfully explain.
They keep the geniuses in the back doing the repairs.
vinea
Actually I didn't buy that model.
So the model that you have is the old white 24" and you don't own a ALU 24" as you've been misleading people into believing?
AND I didn't need it to be a color managed workstation for which it is useless.
Yeah they sure got me there!
They sure did. You bought a broken 24" white iMac with a bad panel. The model that should have a matte S-IPS panel suitable for soft proofing by anyone's standard.
Now just go back to slagging victims of Apple's misleading marketing.
It's what YOU are best at.
I only slag liars. I've been very polite to Hope who has a legitimate beef.
So the model that you have is the old white 24" and you don't own a ALU 24" as you've been misleading people into believing?
Are you laughing at yourself? You have an AMAZING comprehension problem!
They sure did. You bought a broken 24" white iMac with a bad panel. The model that should have a matte S-IPS panel suitable for soft proofing by anyone's standard.
There you go again!
I only slag liars. I've been very polite to Hope who has a legitimate beef.
Seems like you blame her for being stupid enough to listen to what you and others say. Given the above, she would be wise to just let you fade into the background noise. I'd say she is the one who has been exceptionally polite.
I'd have to agree with you there. I've been through a recruitment process for an Apple Store and can say that they don't ask any questions about your knowledge and capability with Macs or test it in any way...the selection process is entirely personality-based. Apple want young people working in their stores because they want to portray themselves as youthful, sexy and energetic. I am nearly 30 yet despite my experience, the interviewer was more concerned about whether I had the "energy" to work in a fast-paced environment. Apple is in real danger of losing respect among its professional users if this is the way it's heading.
The other thing they want is PC users or recent ex PC users. They "relate" better to potential switchers. So if you know more about a PC than a Mac, you're the man for Apple.
I even got AppleCare "support" the other day from a PC user who predictably and instinctively asked me what anti-virus software I was using. Needless to say his advice was useless and painfully slow. On my third attempt I got someone who wasn't just reading from the response manual.
What I don't get is that they sell the 20" cinema display for £400 and the base Mac Mini for £400. The lowest iMac is £800 and the only real differences are the GPU, HD, DVD burner and isight.
And microphone, speakers, N wireless card, firewire 800 , keyboard and mouse.
Are you laughing at yourself? You have an AMAZING comprehension problem!
You said this:
Apple seems hell bent on shaking off its critical professional base in favor of the newly suckered in, easily duped amateurs it now targets. Essentially it wants a more manipulatable consumer who is attracted to the superficial and will buy into a cycle of "fashion statements" and get rid of them when they don't look "Hot" anymore.
In otherwords the same "Junk" computing as PCs.
Ofcourse I am not going to buy these models, despite I have waited cash-in-hand for them for over 12 months.
In a thread about the ALU 24" iMac.
So you are either lying about not buying any ALU iMac with a glossy screen or lying that you have a different model. Yes, there's the newer model but the screen is still the same "junk" "fashion statement" as before.
Seems like you blame her for being stupid enough to listen to what you and others say. Given the above, she would be wise to just let you fade into the background noise. I'd say she is the one who has been exceptionally polite.
You know, the words to the left of the post indicate the author of the post. You might find that Vinea =/= to Londor. Yes, she has been polite and I wish she had gotten better technical help here.
Of course, the only self-professed "pro" has done ZIPPO in helping her by attaching an ACD or other monitor to his iMac and seeing if the ACD or other monitor calibrates on his 24" iMac.
Given your behavior and lack of knowledge, it strikes me that you're more likely a poser that a pro. I don't think you'd recognize a Spyder if it walked up and calibrated you in the ass.
I did not buy any of the iMacs in the previous posting. Nor did I suffer all the problems that the purchasers of those models suffered.
I have a studio full of computers and told you over and over again what I have bought and most importantly why.
The glossy screens are still unusable for color managed work, not just because they are glossy but because they suffer from excessive contrast, glare and inconsistent lighting. A fact which is patently obvious to all but the most persistent denialists. A fact that is so obvious you do not need to use color calibration to prove it, though several posters on other forums have.
I do not have to buy and test unwanted equipment, just to prove you wrong. You only have to go to Apple's own forums to find other users who have the same experience as the original OP.
In my long career I spent over 2 years setting up pre-press for local printers, and getting paid handsomely for it. Long enough to recognise wankers who like to quote model numbers and hardware whilst ignoring what they are supposed to do. I have also cast around in several forums asking for any pre-press people or users with pre-press experience who would recommend the current iMacs for color work. I have had a lot of viewers and no takers.
It would seem you yourself wouldn't either but you remain ambivalent, putting it down to luck of the drawer and if I, or the OP, just kept going back for another iMac we just might get lucky. An odd way of looking at Apple's quality control, that a model patently unsuited for Pro work may by happenstance have accidently been built good enough.
I have also cast around in several forums asking for any pre-press people or users with pre-press experience who would recommend the current iMacs for color work. I have had a lot of viewers and no takers.
I visited a local printers not too long and the pre-press department was full of G5 towers attached to matte screens. There were a couple of white iMacs around. The design department was between G5 towers and G4 towers. Hardly any iMacs at all and this company has over £2 million turnover a year.
It seems overkill to me to have so many towers like that for pre-press (there had to be 10-15) yet Apple don't give them any other option.