He was using Windows. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that OpenGL on Windows sucks ass whereas the ATi cards on OSX running OpenGL are significantly faster because Apple's OpenGL stack doesn't suck ass.
Apple have been investing a LOT of time in getting OpenGL working superfast on OSX including writing new compilers and re-implementing the OpenGL stack using LLVM.
The ATi card in the iMac seems to be turning in way better scores than that guy's 8800GTS too, which goes to prove it's not just about the hardware. In fact, the previous X1600 on OSX gets pretty close to outclassing the 8800GTS on Windows.
Also, Apple writes the ATi and Nvidia drivers for the cards they include and add to the BTO option.
All other ATi and Nvidia drivers are written by their respective companies.
Apple leverages I/O Kit and as you noted they have a huge investment in OpenGL.
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.
As I said in my previous post, that's a magnet, not the magnet. The difference being, a magnet that just happens to be part of the design (which the magnets beneath the bezel that hold the screen in place are) isn't the same as a magnet Apple intended to be used as a remote dock (as the side magnet on the previous iMac was).
The practical difference is that you can just get the remote to hang there if you try hard enough and it can be knocked off very easily and it is awkwardly positioned, which is quite a bit different from the previous design.
Somebody got the official word from Apple (as in "no, we don't expect you to stick the remote to the machine") somewhere, I'll try to find the link.
Depends on who you ask. A 17 years old sorority girl will say it is while 23 years old university student working with 3D software won't. The only thing that's pro about it is the big 24 inch screen and nothing else.
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.
In Kodwarisan's takeapart of the iMac 20" he revealed that the panel used is the 6bit LG Philips TN Panel, model no. LM201WE3
(note: they also make a 24" model with the same specs as Apple state - also 6bit)
I would hazard a guess at the praise being lauded on the screen as being the Emperor's clothes effect. Ie. if you tell someone it's better and more so that they've spent a wad of cash on it, then it will of course be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
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..
Not really bothered about how it feels. They're much of a muchness and I usually adapt to the feel. I just think it should have matched the screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
From a design standpoint, why do you dislike the new iMac? I've seen it in person and think it looks pretty attractive.
I don't like black and I don't like aluminium. I don't like glossy glass displays either. It's tacky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
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.
Thinking about it, since the panel is matte already, instead of putting matte glass in front of it, just make an aluminium surround with a bevel that replaces the black surround that's currently around the edge of the glass. That would solve most of the design issues for me as long as I could live with the aluminium. That would be quite easy to do and easier to ship in the post too.
Depends on who you ask. A 17 years old sorority girl will say it is while 23 years old university student working with 3D software won't. The only thing that's pro about it is the big 24 inch screen and nothing else.
I find it difficult to judge whether it's "professional", "consumer", or "prosumer".
That judgement really comes down to a generalisation of a professional's or consumer's needs, and then deciding which computer can meet those needs. Why generalise, if you know your specific needs?
If we do generalise, then I have to ask what consumer needs 1000baseT networking or Firewire800?
My wife spent a huge amount on the top of the line PowerMac G4 several years ago. She's a graphic designer and needed the speed. Now it's running slowly and she needs a boost - but we haven't decided if the iMac will do everything she needs, or whether we should spend the extra on a bottom of the line MacPro.
Prosumer vs consumer doesn't really come into it. It's whether it'll help her do her job more effectively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
If she runs CS2 under Rosetta, she will find a slowdown with a number of operations.
I'd recommend waiting until MacWorld in January, if she can, depending on her other uses for the machine. I would imagine that we might see Penyrn then, as well as a better gpu.
Thanks Melgross. Doesn't make the decision easier.... but it's at least more informed . Also... CS2 is only 1 of many programs she uses, the rest of which are all native...
I find it difficult to judge whether it's "professional", "consumer", or "prosumer".
That judgement really comes down to a generalisation of a professional's or consumer's needs, and then deciding which computer can meet those needs. Why generalise, if you know your specific needs?
If we do generalise, then I have to ask what consumer needs 1000baseT networking or Firewire800?
My wife spent a huge amount on the top of the line PowerMac G4 several years ago. She's a graphic designer and needed the speed. Now it's running slowly and she needs a boost - but we haven't decided if the iMac will do everything she needs, or whether we should spend the extra on a bottom of the line MacPro.
Prosumer vs consumer doesn't really come into it. It's whether it'll help her do her job more effectively.
Thanks Melgross. Doesn't make the decision easier.... but it's at least more informed . Also... CS2 is only 1 of many programs she uses, the rest of which are all native...
Actually I agree with you, I think it's all based on circumstance and viewpoint.
The machine comes across looking much more like a professional machine than a consumer PC. Someone mentioned before that they think it looks tacky, fair enough, that's all personal taste, but I always thought the previous white plastic iMacs looked awfully tacky. These ones IMO are beautiful. Not stoked on the keyboards, but I've yet to try one.
Anyway, any of these machines would beat my current one by leaps and bounds, and the additional power would really help my creative process.
I'm a professional, and these machines would be perfect for me, as I can't afford a Mac Pro. Thus, for me, the new iMac is a professional machine.
For a high-school kid that just wants to edit his or her skateboarding videos, it's a consumer machine.
If she runs CS2 under Rosetta, she will find a slowdown with a number of operations.
I'd recommend waiting until MacWorld in January, if she can, depending on her other uses for the machine.
I would imagine that we might see Penyrn then, as well as a better gpu.
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.
If you edit large files in PS, then either get a intel mac with CS3 or not at all. Performance is not that great on my 24" iMac 2.33 GHz 1st gen with 3 GB ram and adobe cs.
Slick new designScreen is gorgeous in specific circumstances.Very fast, especially for converts from PowerPC Macs.Keyboard is a tangible improvement over the old model.One RAM slot is finally free for an upgrade.Less expensive than the old model.
Cons:
Glossy screen can be distracting; no option for matte.Only 1GB of memory standard.Radeon HD 2600 Pro is underpowered versus its NVIDIA alternative.No Apple Remote magnet or sleep light.
As for the issues surrounding the glossy screen, we should keep in mind that we have more glossy screens (CRTs) out there than matte. As we have found in the graphic industry, it is just a matter of placement, adjusting the lighting and as Apple outlines in the new iMac manual, "Understanding Ergonomics."
In any event, I would prefer doing my own due diligence, i.e., reading peer-reviewed article by respected experts and my personal real-world experience, rather than take the word of bloggers who often unintentionally misquote and misunderstand, or worse, intentionally mislead.
If you edit large files in PS, then either get a intel mac with CS3 or not at all. Performance is not that great on my 24" iMac 2.33 GHz 1st gen with 3 GB ram and adobe cs.
He's talking about getting this one, or waiting a bit for a later upgrade.
As for the issues surrounding the glossy screen, we should keep in mind that we have more glossy screens (CRTs) out there than matte. As we have found in the graphic industry, it is just a matter of placement, adjusting the lighting and as Apple outlines in the new iMac manual, "Understanding Ergonomics."
In any event, I would prefer doing my own due diligence, i.e., reading peer-reviewed article by respected experts and my personal real-world experience, rather than take the word of bloggers who often unintentionally misquote and misunderstand, or worse, intentionally mislead.
I agree. And, so far, all of the reviews found the quality of the image to be very good, and the reflections to be a minor issue.
TDM and migration assistant work fine over Firewire 800. That is how I set up my last two Apple laptops. With laptops the problem is that with 2.5" drives at 5400 rpm, you don't see a difference between Firewire 400 and 800.
My wife spent a huge amount on the top of the line PowerMac G4 several years ago. She's a graphic designer and needed the speed. Now it's running slowly and she needs a boost - but we haven't decided if the iMac will do everything she needs, or whether we should spend the extra on a bottom of the line MacPro.
…Also... CS2 is only 1 of many programs she uses, the rest of which are all native...
Even the built-in graphics of the 950 in the Mini and MacBook is perfectly fine for HD.
What does this means? Every GPU from the last 4-5 years is capable to forward to the display the decoded HD content, but it does not decode it by itself. This happens in the CPU.
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.
There are no such drivers for Mac OS X as far as I know. The previous X1600 had also HD-decoding capabilities but Apple never enabled them. From the DVD era Apple showed its will to move every media decoding on the CPU. This still holds and I am waiting for anyone to prove me wrong with the new models.
There are no such drivers for Mac OS X as far as I know. The previous X1600 had also HD-decoding capabilities but Apple never enabled them. From the DVD era Apple showed its will to move every media decoding on the CPU. This still holds and I am waiting for anyone to prove me wrong with the new models.
It would seem unlikely too given they're best buddies with Intel now and Intel's credo is to make the CPU do as much as possible so that you always need a faster one (from Intel of course).
What does this means? Every GPU from the last 4-5 years is capable to forward to the display the decoded HD content, but it does not decode it by itself. This happens in the CPU.
The 950 can do this in hardware, just as most gpus can.
Even the built-in graphics of the 950 in the Mini and MacBook is perfectly fine for HD.
Better cards are only required for playing higher end 3D games, or running polygon intensive 3D programs such as Shake, etc.
I did a big of HD work today on my new iMac and I have to say it worked rather well and looked great.
My opinion, the new iMac looks greats the "glossy' screen in real life use has no reflection problems in a regular home setting. Ive been using this thing pretty much non stop for the last three days.
Macs in general have never been gaming systems and most likely never will be gaming systems. Gaming gpu's are become a joke they are not cost effective at all, consider you can buy and entire PS3 for the same price as a 8800gtx video card.
Even hardcore pc gamers like myself can't justify having to upgrade every six months ot play pc games.
Comments
He was using Windows. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that OpenGL on Windows sucks ass whereas the ATi cards on OSX running OpenGL are significantly faster because Apple's OpenGL stack doesn't suck ass.
Apple have been investing a LOT of time in getting OpenGL working superfast on OSX including writing new compilers and re-implementing the OpenGL stack using LLVM.
The ATi card in the iMac seems to be turning in way better scores than that guy's 8800GTS too, which goes to prove it's not just about the hardware. In fact, the previous X1600 on OSX gets pretty close to outclassing the 8800GTS on Windows.
Also, Apple writes the ATi and Nvidia drivers for the cards they include and add to the BTO option.
All other ATi and Nvidia drivers are written by their respective companies.
Apple leverages I/O Kit and as you noted they have a huge investment in OpenGL.
Microsoft doesn't.
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.
As I said in my previous post, that's a magnet, not the magnet. The difference being, a magnet that just happens to be part of the design (which the magnets beneath the bezel that hold the screen in place are) isn't the same as a magnet Apple intended to be used as a remote dock (as the side magnet on the previous iMac was).
The practical difference is that you can just get the remote to hang there if you try hard enough and it can be knocked off very easily and it is awkwardly positioned, which is quite a bit different from the previous design.
Somebody got the official word from Apple (as in "no, we don't expect you to stick the remote to the machine") somewhere, I'll try to find the link.
The 24" iMac is really seen as a prosumer device.
Depends on who you ask. A 17 years old sorority girl will say it is while 23 years old university student working with 3D software won't. The only thing that's pro about it is the big 24 inch screen and nothing else.
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.
In Kodwarisan's takeapart of the iMac 20" he revealed that the panel used is the 6bit LG Philips TN Panel, model no. LM201WE3
http://www.kodawarisan.com/imac_2007...07_mid_01.html
The full specs are at http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com/homeCon...hilips_LCD.PDF
(note: they also make a 24" model with the same specs as Apple state - also 6bit)
I would hazard a guess at the praise being lauded on the screen as being the Emperor's clothes effect. Ie. if you tell someone it's better and more so that they've spent a wad of cash on it, then it will of course be better.
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..
Not really bothered about how it feels. They're much of a muchness and I usually adapt to the feel. I just think it should have matched the screen.
From a design standpoint, why do you dislike the new iMac? I've seen it in person and think it looks pretty attractive.
I don't like black and I don't like aluminium. I don't like glossy glass displays either. It's tacky.
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.
Thinking about it, since the panel is matte already, instead of putting matte glass in front of it, just make an aluminium surround with a bevel that replaces the black surround that's currently around the edge of the glass. That would solve most of the design issues for me as long as I could live with the aluminium. That would be quite easy to do and easier to ship in the post too.
I'm trying it right now and it just isn't happening.
(check out the grass) Hehe!!
It's magnetic there at the sides, but not really enough to hold the remote.
Depends on who you ask. A 17 years old sorority girl will say it is while 23 years old university student working with 3D software won't. The only thing that's pro about it is the big 24 inch screen and nothing else.
I find it difficult to judge whether it's "professional", "consumer", or "prosumer".
That judgement really comes down to a generalisation of a professional's or consumer's needs, and then deciding which computer can meet those needs. Why generalise, if you know your specific needs?
If we do generalise, then I have to ask what consumer needs 1000baseT networking or Firewire800?
My wife spent a huge amount on the top of the line PowerMac G4 several years ago. She's a graphic designer and needed the speed. Now it's running slowly and she needs a boost - but we haven't decided if the iMac will do everything she needs, or whether we should spend the extra on a bottom of the line MacPro.
Prosumer vs consumer doesn't really come into it. It's whether it'll help her do her job more effectively.
If she runs CS2 under Rosetta, she will find a slowdown with a number of operations.
I'd recommend waiting until MacWorld in January, if she can, depending on her other uses for the machine. I would imagine that we might see Penyrn then, as well as a better gpu.
Thanks Melgross. Doesn't make the decision easier.... but it's at least more informed
I find it difficult to judge whether it's "professional", "consumer", or "prosumer".
That judgement really comes down to a generalisation of a professional's or consumer's needs, and then deciding which computer can meet those needs. Why generalise, if you know your specific needs?
If we do generalise, then I have to ask what consumer needs 1000baseT networking or Firewire800?
My wife spent a huge amount on the top of the line PowerMac G4 several years ago. She's a graphic designer and needed the speed. Now it's running slowly and she needs a boost - but we haven't decided if the iMac will do everything she needs, or whether we should spend the extra on a bottom of the line MacPro.
Prosumer vs consumer doesn't really come into it. It's whether it'll help her do her job more effectively.
Thanks Melgross. Doesn't make the decision easier.... but it's at least more informed
Actually I agree with you, I think it's all based on circumstance and viewpoint.
The machine comes across looking much more like a professional machine than a consumer PC. Someone mentioned before that they think it looks tacky, fair enough, that's all personal taste, but I always thought the previous white plastic iMacs looked awfully tacky. These ones IMO are beautiful. Not stoked on the keyboards, but I've yet to try one.
Anyway, any of these machines would beat my current one by leaps and bounds, and the additional power would really help my creative process.
I'm a professional, and these machines would be perfect for me, as I can't afford a Mac Pro. Thus, for me, the new iMac is a professional machine.
For a high-school kid that just wants to edit his or her skateboarding videos, it's a consumer machine.
Jimzip
If she runs CS2 under Rosetta, she will find a slowdown with a number of operations.
I'd recommend waiting until MacWorld in January, if she can, depending on her other uses for the machine.
I would imagine that we might see Penyrn then, as well as a better gpu.
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.
If you edit large files in PS, then either get a intel mac with CS3 or not at all. Performance is not that great on my 24" iMac 2.33 GHz 1st gen with 3 GB ram and adobe cs.
Pros:
Slick new designScreen is gorgeous in specific circumstances.Very fast, especially for converts from PowerPC Macs.Keyboard is a tangible improvement over the old model.One RAM slot is finally free for an upgrade.Less expensive than the old model.
Cons:
Glossy screen can be distracting; no option for matte.Only 1GB of memory standard.Radeon HD 2600 Pro is underpowered versus its NVIDIA alternative.No Apple Remote magnet or sleep light.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Add to the above, Macworld's just posted another glowing review. (http://www.macworld.com/2007/08/revi...imac/index.php)
As for the issues surrounding the glossy screen, we should keep in mind that we have more glossy screens (CRTs) out there than matte. As we have found in the graphic industry, it is just a matter of placement, adjusting the lighting and as Apple outlines in the new iMac manual, "Understanding Ergonomics."
In any event, I would prefer doing my own due diligence, i.e., reading peer-reviewed article by respected experts and my personal real-world experience, rather than take the word of bloggers who often unintentionally misquote and misunderstand, or worse, intentionally mislead.
If you edit large files in PS, then either get a intel mac with CS3 or not at all. Performance is not that great on my 24" iMac 2.33 GHz 1st gen with 3 GB ram and adobe cs.
He's talking about getting this one, or waiting a bit for a later upgrade.
Add to the above, Macworld's just posted another glowing review. (http://www.macworld.com/2007/08/revi...imac/index.php)
As for the issues surrounding the glossy screen, we should keep in mind that we have more glossy screens (CRTs) out there than matte. As we have found in the graphic industry, it is just a matter of placement, adjusting the lighting and as Apple outlines in the new iMac manual, "Understanding Ergonomics."
In any event, I would prefer doing my own due diligence, i.e., reading peer-reviewed article by respected experts and my personal real-world experience, rather than take the word of bloggers who often unintentionally misquote and misunderstand, or worse, intentionally mislead.
I agree. And, so far, all of the reviews found the quality of the image to be very good, and the reflections to be a minor issue.
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.
Apple's wide touch pad idea http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-975...ml?tag=nl.e501
It may get better ----- or worse.
If TDM supports Firewire 800, even better!
TDM and migration assistant work fine over Firewire 800. That is how I set up my last two Apple laptops. With laptops the problem is that with 2.5" drives at 5400 rpm, you don't see a difference between Firewire 400 and 800.
My wife spent a huge amount on the top of the line PowerMac G4 several years ago. She's a graphic designer and needed the speed. Now it's running slowly and she needs a boost - but we haven't decided if the iMac will do everything she needs, or whether we should spend the extra on a bottom of the line MacPro.
…Also... CS2 is only 1 of many programs she uses, the rest of which are all native...
Why wait. Things have changed. Even having to use Photoshop CS2 under Rosetta since OS X 10.4.8 is faster yet. http://www.macworld.com/2006/11/firs...etta/index.php
The gpu is perfectly fine for HD.
Even the built-in graphics of the 950 in the Mini and MacBook is perfectly fine for HD.
What does this means? Every GPU from the last 4-5 years is capable to forward to the display the decoded HD content, but it does not decode it by itself. This happens in the CPU.
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.
There are no such drivers for Mac OS X as far as I know. The previous X1600 had also HD-decoding capabilities but Apple never enabled them. From the DVD era Apple showed its will to move every media decoding on the CPU. This still holds and I am waiting for anyone to prove me wrong with the new models.
There are no such drivers for Mac OS X as far as I know. The previous X1600 had also HD-decoding capabilities but Apple never enabled them. From the DVD era Apple showed its will to move every media decoding on the CPU. This still holds and I am waiting for anyone to prove me wrong with the new models.
It would seem unlikely too given they're best buddies with Intel now and Intel's credo is to make the CPU do as much as possible so that you always need a faster one (from Intel of course).
What does this means? Every GPU from the last 4-5 years is capable to forward to the display the decoded HD content, but it does not decode it by itself. This happens in the CPU.
The 950 can do this in hardware, just as most gpus can.
The gpu is perfectly fine for HD.
Even the built-in graphics of the 950 in the Mini and MacBook is perfectly fine for HD.
Better cards are only required for playing higher end 3D games, or running polygon intensive 3D programs such as Shake, etc.
I did a big of HD work today on my new iMac and I have to say it worked rather well and looked great.
My opinion, the new iMac looks greats the "glossy' screen in real life use has no reflection problems in a regular home setting. Ive been using this thing pretty much non stop for the last three days.
Macs in general have never been gaming systems and most likely never will be gaming systems. Gaming gpu's are become a joke they are not cost effective at all, consider you can buy and entire PS3 for the same price as a 8800gtx video card.
Even hardcore pc gamers like myself can't justify having to upgrade every six months ot play pc games.