What's the equivalent rez/bpp/Hz matrix for DisplayPort? I'm not seeing anything that suggests that DisplayPort can do anything better right now. HDMI and DisplayPort have very similar bandwidth right now, don't they? I don't know how DisplayPort can magically do much better with (almost) the same bandwidth.
Jeff, lets not get caught up with facts here. DP has some advantages, but not enough to overcome one little thing: people want a single connection standard with both computers and video equipment and HDMI is good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
I have a Dell Optiplex sitting next to me that has dual display ports on its ATI video card
Professional system, you have to order it from Dell business. Also, does it have HDMI ports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
1) HDMI is a consumer standard with royalty fees
2) Display Port is royalty free and compatible with HDMI with an adaptor
That's all you need to know. If your waiting for Apple to integrate and HDMI port on a Mac your going to be waiting a LONG time...
This outrageous fee is $10,000 a year plus at most a quarter per device. I'd double and give Apple a 50 cent piece for their troubles. They paid much more than that designing Mini-DP.
Once upon a time (1999 DVD arrived on the iMac 2 years into DVD history) they were but now profits have overtaken Apple. I can just see the new Microsoft ads going after Apple on lack of Blu-ray both in machines and OS. How will they respond to the public? "Oh we feel Blu-ray is a bag of hurt."
Thanks for the link- I will check this baby out at lunch. I work in close proximity of both Sony Style and Alele in nYC.
I would expect Blu-Ray to come in a Spring refresh of the iMac. They will likely also do an update on transitioning the Intel Core 2 Duo to the Core i5/i7, as nearly all computer companies plan to do in 2010.
I would expect Blu-Ray to come in a Spring refresh of the iMac. They will likely also do an update on transitioning the Intel Core 2 Duo to the Core i5/i7, as nearly all computer companies plan to do in 2010.
You know, I expect the same. It's this waiting and waiting for 2 year old cutting edge technology that is incredibly stupid coming from the self- proclaimed "Think Different Innovator" company.
Blu-ray uses the following video codecs: MPEG-2, H.264/AVC, en SMPTE VC-1.
So the encoding of HD movies on Blu-ray is the same as what Mac OS X supports best, namely H.264.
H.264 content can be downloaded from all over the internet. Like for example Apples movie trailers and Apples iTunes movie store.
The 1080p downloads are really stunning to look at.
The only real difference between Blu-ray and HD H.264 downloads is bandwidth. And in most cases this isn't even perceptible.
So, quit the whining and start downloading.
Your post makes no sense. Where are we going to download (LEGALLY) movies in 1080p?
The CODEC that a format uses has nothing to do with this discussion. Additionally, you are dead wrong about connection speeds required for BR-D quality streaming.
I personally have a 25mbps cable connection with Shaw.ca, and it takes me roughly 3 hours just to DOWNLOAD an 8Gb file. How can I possibly STREAM a 2-hour movie if (in the best case scenario, when traffic is very light in my neighborhood and on the server that I'm downloading from), I can get the file in 3 hours?
Many BR-D movies average 30-45Mbps. Ripped and converted versions are roughly in the 10mbps range but skyrocket to over 30mbps during intense scenes (like when Wall-E is flying outside the spaceship with Eve). Show me a dedicated ISP that offers that kind of speed. My 25mbps doesn't achieve anywhere near the advertised 3.125 megaBYTES per second. I get around 1.25 MAX.
What's the point of an "all-in-one" like the imac if you have to buy an external drive?
I think tons of folks watch movies on their computers. I do. I don't even own a tv per se, just a 28" HD monitor from Dell.
In terms of price point, Sony has an all-in-one WITH BLU-RAY and WITH MULTI-TOUCH 1080p screen on the market for $1300. http://www.engadget.com/tag/vaiol
Next to it, Apple doesn't exactly look like the innovator with their current iMac.
f bliuray bluray is garbage <<apple supplies digital hd right now on a screen that beats any tv made
wow
my old imac of 2 yrs ago looks tired now
i wonder how i can switch out imacs without my wife shooting me ??
me and my buds watch video on macs all the time
i mean all the time
all day
apple had me at hello
congrads to apple and its fine worker's for this fantastic green product
once again apple out shines the universe
idiots here can quip all you want but >>> next quarter mega sales will prove you all to be jealous fools
just like this past 1/4 results shows all you dolts up
my wish list is a carrier less apple controlled >>>>>
You know, I expect the same. It's this waiting and waiting for 2 year old cutting edge technology that is incredibly stupid coming from the self- proclaimed "Think Different Innovator" company.
I think it's not the difficulty of waiting so much as it is in budgeting obvious costs in upgrading your iMac to fit a new Blu-ray device once it gets released. It deters people from buying the current release when it's not up to expectations. And iMacs are not like normal computers (like Mac Pro towers) that you can just fit in new drives yourself.
I'm sure Apple had many good reasons for stopping Blu-Ray iMac production that we will never know. I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt because companies these days aren't irrational enough to just decide to pull important features on their computers for the sake of profit.
2) Display Port is royalty free and compatible with HDMI with an adaptor
Does this mean that it might be possible to somehow attach an external video source in 1080p with a HDMI cable to the Display Port video in for perfect external visuals on the new 27 inch iMac?
Does this mean that it might be possible to somehow attach an external video source in 1080p with a HDMI cable to the Display Port video in for perfect external visuals on the new 27 inch iMac?
In theory, but so far Mini-DP and adapters have had very mixed results.
Jeff, lets not get caught up with facts here. DP has some advantages, but not enough to overcome one little thing: people want a single connection standard with both computers and video equipment and HDMI is good enough.
Professional system, you have to order it from Dell business. Also, does it have HDMI ports.
This outrageous fee is $10,000 a year plus at most a quarter per device. I'd double and give Apple a 50 cent piece for their troubles. They paid much more than that designing Mini-DP.
We've had different connections for PCs and home video equipment for decades, and all of a sudden "people" want convergence? I don't buy it.
ALL the Dell monitor we get, the 24" and 20" at my work place have DVI, VGA, and DP ports, and none have HDMI. I think DP is making serious inroads in corporate America. Perhaps the Acers at Tiger Direct have HDMI, but as long as there is that HDMI > DP bridge, i don't see the whining over missing HDMI ports on a freaking iMac as anything more the complaint-itis.
Attention, all people still on the fence about glossy iMacs:
I was a former matte screen snob. I thought it was the bees knees. All I did was web design & dev on a freelance basis, email, internet, MS Office, iMovie, Photoshop, etc. Your basic home set up. Then my iMac G5 died and I was hard up on getting a new Mac. I really wanted an xMac (the real bag of hurt) or a inexpensive Mac Pro or something else I could attach a matte monitor of my liking to. The mini was just too under powered, IMNSHO.
Then I went to the Apple store to check out my options. We fell in love with the iMac 24". Took it home immediately that day, with a free printer to boot. Our desk is right next to a window, and I was prepared to move the living room around to deal with any reflections I was sure to notice. But when we set it up at the desk, we could barely tell there was any reflection unless we really tried. What we did notice was that the display was stunning. It appeared much brighter than the iMac G5 display. In fact, I had to turn it down to about 75% brightness. I was pleasantly surprised with the whole situation and I am now a glossy screen proponent.
Regarding Blu Ray, I am on the fence with it. I would consider getting one strictly for the data storage size. i have no interest in it''s video playback capabilities. But 25GB per disk sounds like a great way to archive our huge photo and home movie collection to put in a safety deposit box.
Blu-ray uses the following video codecs: MPEG-2, H.264/AVC, en SMPTE VC-1.
So the encoding of HD movies on Blu-ray is the same as what Mac OS X supports best, namely H.264.
H.264 content can be downloaded from all over the internet. Like for example Apples movie trailers and Apples iTunes movie store.
The 1080p downloads are really stunning to look at.
The only real difference between Blu-ray and HD H.264 downloads is bandwidth. And in most cases this isn't even perceptible.
So, quit the whining and start downloading.
Pish posh.
A blu-ray will be encoded at 40-45mbits 1080p with lossless 7.1 Dolby True HD or DTS Master HD audio. The best you will get from a download site like iTunes is 4-5mbits 720p with lossy Dolby Digital 5.1 audio.
The difference is akin to going from VHS to DVD, in short, it's massive. If you can't see the difference, invest in a new HDTV, or new eye glasses. Perhaps both.
My big gripe with the lack of BD support in the new iMacs is that my movie collection is almost entirely blu-ray now. I've either replaced or binned almost all of my DVDs, so should I want to watch a film on an iMac my choices are bit-torrent, or nothing. Apple don't even allow their low quality 720p downloads for films outside of the US (they are still Apple TV only), and I doubt a super compressed 720p video would look much good on that epic sized iMac screen anyway.
Given the mind boggling cost of these new iMacs the lack of a modern optical drive is bizarre and inexcusable. While downloading video is without a doubt the future, no service currently offers downloads that are even 1/4 of the quality of blu-ray, so for now, and I suspect for several years to come, blu-ray is the only serious option for HD fans.
That you can also get a BD drive on a PC so easily and for so little additional cost makes Apple look even sillier.
Does this mean that it might be possible to somehow attach an external video source in 1080p with a HDMI cable to the Display Port video in for perfect external visuals on the new 27 inch iMac?
Works for me on the mini but YMMV based on what HDTV you have.
If you're not doing a lot of applications that are benefitting from Quad Core (like Final Cut ) then you're better off with higher mgz dual core processing because it'll take apps that aren't leveraging multiple threads heavily and run them faster.
No. The Core i5/7 etc is a newer architecture as such it is going to be faster than the C2D architecture regardless of the number of cores/clock speed.
To me, that is the big story. Once again the iMac is hobbled by its GPU.
Remember those financials Apple released yesterday, know why they were so good? Because Apple still pulls the same BS. Do you want the best video card available in a iMac? Then you have the buy the largest, most expensive model. No 4850 on the smaller machine. There no technical reason for this unless you consider maintaining Apple's huge profits a technical reason.
-kpluck
The 4850 isn't even the best anymore. The 5000 series has been out for a little while now......
In terms of price point, Sony has an all-in-one WITH BLU-RAY and WITH MULTI-TOUCH 1080p screen on the market for $1300. http://www.engadget.com/tag/vaiol
Even SONY has been dropping Blu-ray in some of its offerings because it is not reliable.*
One major problem that is coming more to light is that Blu-ray writers are more unreliable vs other means when it comes to reading the disk on another player.
In addition, the error rate writing to a Blu-ray disc is higher than CD/DVD's.
Now that may seem miniscule to some, but having to redo a backup because the Blu-ray writer or I faulted is a lot harder to take at $10-20 for a new blank disk vs a DVD disk at a quarter.
Imagine backing up you life's work on a disk that may not work on your next computer or Blu-ray player.
I think I will wait a while longer before I would recommend that road.
Attention, all people still on the fence about glossy iMacs:
I was a former matte screen snob. I thought it was the bees knees. All I did was web design & dev on a freelance basis, email, internet, MS Office, iMovie, Photoshop, etc. Your basic home set up. Then my iMac G5 died and I was hard up on getting a new Mac. I really wanted an xMac (the real bag of hurt) or a inexpensive Mac Pro or something else I could attach a matte monitor of my liking to. The mini was just too under powered, IMNSHO.
Then I went to the Apple store to check out my options. We fell in love with the iMac 24". Took it home immediately that day, with a free printer to boot. Our desk is right next to a window, and I was prepared to move the living room around to deal with any reflections I was sure to notice. But when we set it up at the desk, we could barely tell there was any reflection unless we really tried. What we did notice was that the display was stunning. It appeared much brighter than the iMac G5 display. In fact, I had to turn it down to about 75% brightness. I was pleasantly surprised with the whole situation and I am now a glossy screen proponent.
Regarding Blu Ray, I am on the fence with it. I would consider getting one strictly for the data storage size. i have no interest in it''s video playback capabilities. But 25GB per disk sounds like a great way to archive our huge photo and home movie collection to put in a safety deposit box.
I will reserve judgement until I actually see this new LED screen, which the 24" lacked.
Even SONY has been dropping Blu-ray in some of its offerings because it is not reliable.*
One major problem that is coming more to light is that Blu-ray writers are more unreliable vs other means when it comes to reading the disk on another player.
In addition, the error rate writing to a Blu-ray disc is higher than CD/DVD's.
Now that may seem miniscule to some, but having to redo a backup because the Blu-ray writer or I faulted is a lot harder to take at $10-20 for a new blank disk vs a DVD disk at a quarter.
Imagine backing up you life's work on a disk that may not work on your next computer or Blu-ray player.
I think I will wait a while longer before I would recommend that road.
Comments
What's the equivalent rez/bpp/Hz matrix for DisplayPort? I'm not seeing anything that suggests that DisplayPort can do anything better right now. HDMI and DisplayPort have very similar bandwidth right now, don't they? I don't know how DisplayPort can magically do much better with (almost) the same bandwidth.
Jeff, lets not get caught up with facts here. DP has some advantages, but not enough to overcome one little thing: people want a single connection standard with both computers and video equipment and HDMI is good enough.
I have a Dell Optiplex sitting next to me that has dual display ports on its ATI video card
Professional system, you have to order it from Dell business. Also, does it have HDMI ports.
1) HDMI is a consumer standard with royalty fees
2) Display Port is royalty free and compatible with HDMI with an adaptor
That's all you need to know. If your waiting for Apple to integrate and HDMI port on a Mac your going to be waiting a LONG time...
This outrageous fee is $10,000 a year plus at most a quarter per device. I'd double and give Apple a 50 cent piece for their troubles. They paid much more than that designing Mini-DP.
Once upon a time (1999 DVD arrived on the iMac 2 years into DVD history) they were but now profits have overtaken Apple. I can just see the new Microsoft ads going after Apple on lack of Blu-ray both in machines and OS. How will they respond to the public? "Oh we feel Blu-ray is a bag of hurt."
Thanks for the link- I will check this baby out at lunch. I work in close proximity of both Sony Style and Alele in nYC.
I would expect Blu-Ray to come in a Spring refresh of the iMac. They will likely also do an update on transitioning the Intel Core 2 Duo to the Core i5/i7, as nearly all computer companies plan to do in 2010.
In response to the Blu-ray whining.
Blu-ray uses the following video codecs: MPEG-2, H.264/AVC, en SMPTE VC-1.
So the encoding of HD movies on Blu-ray is the same as what Mac OS X supports best, namely H.264.
H.264 content can be downloaded from all over the internet. Like for example Apples movie trailers and Apples iTunes movie store.
The 1080p downloads are really stunning to look at.
The only real difference between Blu-ray and HD H.264 downloads is bandwidth. And in most cases this isn't even perceptible.
So, quit the whining and start downloading.
Isn't perceptible?????
What the hell are you on? Put down the Apple pipe- please!
I would expect Blu-Ray to come in a Spring refresh of the iMac. They will likely also do an update on transitioning the Intel Core 2 Duo to the Core i5/i7, as nearly all computer companies plan to do in 2010.
You know, I expect the same. It's this waiting and waiting for 2 year old cutting edge technology that is incredibly stupid coming from the self- proclaimed "Think Different Innovator" company.
In response to the Blu-ray whining.
Blu-ray uses the following video codecs: MPEG-2, H.264/AVC, en SMPTE VC-1.
So the encoding of HD movies on Blu-ray is the same as what Mac OS X supports best, namely H.264.
H.264 content can be downloaded from all over the internet. Like for example Apples movie trailers and Apples iTunes movie store.
The 1080p downloads are really stunning to look at.
The only real difference between Blu-ray and HD H.264 downloads is bandwidth. And in most cases this isn't even perceptible.
So, quit the whining and start downloading.
Your post makes no sense. Where are we going to download (LEGALLY) movies in 1080p?
The CODEC that a format uses has nothing to do with this discussion. Additionally, you are dead wrong about connection speeds required for BR-D quality streaming.
I personally have a 25mbps cable connection with Shaw.ca, and it takes me roughly 3 hours just to DOWNLOAD an 8Gb file. How can I possibly STREAM a 2-hour movie if (in the best case scenario, when traffic is very light in my neighborhood and on the server that I'm downloading from), I can get the file in 3 hours?
Many BR-D movies average 30-45Mbps. Ripped and converted versions are roughly in the 10mbps range but skyrocket to over 30mbps during intense scenes (like when Wall-E is flying outside the spaceship with Eve). Show me a dedicated ISP that offers that kind of speed. My 25mbps doesn't achieve anywhere near the advertised 3.125 megaBYTES per second. I get around 1.25 MAX.
What's the point of an "all-in-one" like the imac if you have to buy an external drive?
I think tons of folks watch movies on their computers. I do. I don't even own a tv per se, just a 28" HD monitor from Dell.
In terms of price point, Sony has an all-in-one WITH BLU-RAY and WITH MULTI-TOUCH 1080p screen on the market for $1300. http://www.engadget.com/tag/vaiol
Next to it, Apple doesn't exactly look like the innovator with their current iMac.
f bliuray bluray is garbage <<apple supplies digital hd right now on a screen that beats any tv made
wow
my old imac of 2 yrs ago looks tired now
i wonder how i can switch out imacs without my wife shooting me ??
me and my buds watch video on macs all the time
i mean all the time
all day
apple had me at hello
congrads to apple and its fine worker's for this fantastic green product
once again apple out shines the universe
idiots here can quip all you want but >>> next quarter mega sales will prove you all to be jealous fools
just like this past 1/4 results shows all you dolts up
my wish list is a carrier less apple controlled >>>>>
nanophone>
You know, I expect the same. It's this waiting and waiting for 2 year old cutting edge technology that is incredibly stupid coming from the self- proclaimed "Think Different Innovator" company.
I think it's not the difficulty of waiting so much as it is in budgeting obvious costs in upgrading your iMac to fit a new Blu-ray device once it gets released. It deters people from buying the current release when it's not up to expectations. And iMacs are not like normal computers (like Mac Pro towers) that you can just fit in new drives yourself.
I'm sure Apple had many good reasons for stopping Blu-Ray iMac production that we will never know. I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt because companies these days aren't irrational enough to just decide to pull important features on their computers for the sake of profit.
1) HDMI is a consumer standard with royalty fees
2) Display Port is royalty free and compatible with HDMI with an adaptor
Does this mean that it might be possible to somehow attach an external video source in 1080p with a HDMI cable to the Display Port video in for perfect external visuals on the new 27 inch iMac?
Does this mean that it might be possible to somehow attach an external video source in 1080p with a HDMI cable to the Display Port video in for perfect external visuals on the new 27 inch iMac?
In theory, but so far Mini-DP and adapters have had very mixed results.
Jeff, lets not get caught up with facts here. DP has some advantages, but not enough to overcome one little thing: people want a single connection standard with both computers and video equipment and HDMI is good enough.
Professional system, you have to order it from Dell business. Also, does it have HDMI ports.
This outrageous fee is $10,000 a year plus at most a quarter per device. I'd double and give Apple a 50 cent piece for their troubles. They paid much more than that designing Mini-DP.
We've had different connections for PCs and home video equipment for decades, and all of a sudden "people" want convergence? I don't buy it.
ALL the Dell monitor we get, the 24" and 20" at my work place have DVI, VGA, and DP ports, and none have HDMI. I think DP is making serious inroads in corporate America. Perhaps the Acers at Tiger Direct have HDMI, but as long as there is that HDMI > DP bridge, i don't see the whining over missing HDMI ports on a freaking iMac as anything more the complaint-itis.
I was a former matte screen snob. I thought it was the bees knees. All I did was web design & dev on a freelance basis, email, internet, MS Office, iMovie, Photoshop, etc. Your basic home set up. Then my iMac G5 died and I was hard up on getting a new Mac. I really wanted an xMac (the real bag of hurt) or a inexpensive Mac Pro or something else I could attach a matte monitor of my liking to. The mini was just too under powered, IMNSHO.
Then I went to the Apple store to check out my options. We fell in love with the iMac 24". Took it home immediately that day, with a free printer to boot. Our desk is right next to a window, and I was prepared to move the living room around to deal with any reflections I was sure to notice. But when we set it up at the desk, we could barely tell there was any reflection unless we really tried. What we did notice was that the display was stunning. It appeared much brighter than the iMac G5 display. In fact, I had to turn it down to about 75% brightness. I was pleasantly surprised with the whole situation and I am now a glossy screen proponent.
Regarding Blu Ray, I am on the fence with it. I would consider getting one strictly for the data storage size. i have no interest in it''s video playback capabilities. But 25GB per disk sounds like a great way to archive our huge photo and home movie collection to put in a safety deposit box.
In response to the Blu-ray whining.
Blu-ray uses the following video codecs: MPEG-2, H.264/AVC, en SMPTE VC-1.
So the encoding of HD movies on Blu-ray is the same as what Mac OS X supports best, namely H.264.
H.264 content can be downloaded from all over the internet. Like for example Apples movie trailers and Apples iTunes movie store.
The 1080p downloads are really stunning to look at.
The only real difference between Blu-ray and HD H.264 downloads is bandwidth. And in most cases this isn't even perceptible.
So, quit the whining and start downloading.
Pish posh.
A blu-ray will be encoded at 40-45mbits 1080p with lossless 7.1 Dolby True HD or DTS Master HD audio. The best you will get from a download site like iTunes is 4-5mbits 720p with lossy Dolby Digital 5.1 audio.
The difference is akin to going from VHS to DVD, in short, it's massive. If you can't see the difference, invest in a new HDTV, or new eye glasses. Perhaps both.
My big gripe with the lack of BD support in the new iMacs is that my movie collection is almost entirely blu-ray now. I've either replaced or binned almost all of my DVDs, so should I want to watch a film on an iMac my choices are bit-torrent, or nothing. Apple don't even allow their low quality 720p downloads for films outside of the US (they are still Apple TV only), and I doubt a super compressed 720p video would look much good on that epic sized iMac screen anyway.
Given the mind boggling cost of these new iMacs the lack of a modern optical drive is bizarre and inexcusable. While downloading video is without a doubt the future, no service currently offers downloads that are even 1/4 of the quality of blu-ray, so for now, and I suspect for several years to come, blu-ray is the only serious option for HD fans.
That you can also get a BD drive on a PC so easily and for so little additional cost makes Apple look even sillier.
Does this mean that it might be possible to somehow attach an external video source in 1080p with a HDMI cable to the Display Port video in for perfect external visuals on the new 27 inch iMac?
Works for me on the mini but YMMV based on what HDTV you have.
If you're not doing a lot of applications that are benefitting from Quad Core (like Final Cut ) then you're better off with higher mgz dual core processing because it'll take apps that aren't leveraging multiple threads heavily and run them faster.
No. The Core i5/7 etc is a newer architecture as such it is going to be faster than the C2D architecture regardless of the number of cores/clock speed.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...i5,2410-2.html
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/801/4
To me, that is the big story. Once again the iMac is hobbled by its GPU.
Remember those financials Apple released yesterday, know why they were so good? Because Apple still pulls the same BS. Do you want the best video card available in a iMac? Then you have the buy the largest, most expensive model. No 4850 on the smaller machine. There no technical reason for this unless you consider maintaining Apple's huge profits a technical reason.
-kpluck
The 4850 isn't even the best anymore. The 5000 series has been out for a little while now......
In terms of price point, Sony has an all-in-one WITH BLU-RAY and WITH MULTI-TOUCH 1080p screen on the market for $1300. http://www.engadget.com/tag/vaiol
Even SONY has been dropping Blu-ray in some of its offerings because it is not reliable.*
One major problem that is coming more to light is that Blu-ray writers are more unreliable vs other means when it comes to reading the disk on another player.
In addition, the error rate writing to a Blu-ray disc is higher than CD/DVD's.
Now that may seem miniscule to some, but having to redo a backup because the Blu-ray writer or I faulted is a lot harder to take at $10-20 for a new blank disk vs a DVD disk at a quarter.
Imagine backing up you life's work on a disk that may not work on your next computer or Blu-ray player.
I think I will wait a while longer before I would recommend that road.
* http://www.current.com.au/2009/09/22...VAYYNOVMX.html
Attention, all people still on the fence about glossy iMacs:
I was a former matte screen snob. I thought it was the bees knees. All I did was web design & dev on a freelance basis, email, internet, MS Office, iMovie, Photoshop, etc. Your basic home set up. Then my iMac G5 died and I was hard up on getting a new Mac. I really wanted an xMac (the real bag of hurt) or a inexpensive Mac Pro or something else I could attach a matte monitor of my liking to. The mini was just too under powered, IMNSHO.
Then I went to the Apple store to check out my options. We fell in love with the iMac 24". Took it home immediately that day, with a free printer to boot. Our desk is right next to a window, and I was prepared to move the living room around to deal with any reflections I was sure to notice. But when we set it up at the desk, we could barely tell there was any reflection unless we really tried. What we did notice was that the display was stunning. It appeared much brighter than the iMac G5 display. In fact, I had to turn it down to about 75% brightness. I was pleasantly surprised with the whole situation and I am now a glossy screen proponent.
Regarding Blu Ray, I am on the fence with it. I would consider getting one strictly for the data storage size. i have no interest in it''s video playback capabilities. But 25GB per disk sounds like a great way to archive our huge photo and home movie collection to put in a safety deposit box.
I will reserve judgement until I actually see this new LED screen, which the 24" lacked.
Even SONY has been dropping Blu-ray in some of its offerings because it is not reliable.*
One major problem that is coming more to light is that Blu-ray writers are more unreliable vs other means when it comes to reading the disk on another player.
In addition, the error rate writing to a Blu-ray disc is higher than CD/DVD's.
Now that may seem miniscule to some, but having to redo a backup because the Blu-ray writer or I faulted is a lot harder to take at $10-20 for a new blank disk vs a DVD disk at a quarter.
Imagine backing up you life's work on a disk that may not work on your next computer or Blu-ray player.
I think I will wait a while longer before I would recommend that road.
* http://www.current.com.au/2009/09/22...VAYYNOVMX.html
Man, you really had to stretch to pull that out of your bag of Apple tricks- didn't you.
This is the first time this has ever been mentioned. Good try.