These new iMacs are still missing multi-touch and Blu-Ray although this feature seems to be their answer to BluRay for now. Please give us multi-touch and with the convenient new release of Windows 7 coinciding it seems quite unfortunate.
Keep your fingers off my screen or I'll have to yell at you. No multitouch on the desktop, thank you. Besides that's ergonomically awful (having to reach over your keyboard and desktop to interact with the screen). If you want it for kiosk mode, there are add-ons for that.
Well done, AppleInsider. You have absolutely spectacularly failed to bring any insight to the table regarding this display, and have placed the question (which I heard asked twice in the Apple store today) even more firmly upon everyones lips.
DOES THIS WORK WITH A PASSIVE HDMI INPUT?
Here's a thought. Stop posting trumped up press releases and start, you know, actually trying out products so you can deliver useful information rather than just rehashed marketing spiel.
Whilst we're on the topic of you trumping up press releases to draw traffic, get rid of the visually offensive advertising from your site. I don't want to fix my teeth, I'm not obese, and I don't need high performance de-odorant. It's clear you just want to push through ad revenue and don't give a monkeys about your readership.
These new iMacs are still missing multi-touch and Blu-Ray although this feature seems to be their answer to BluRay for now. Please give us multi-touch and with the convenient new release of Windows 7 coinciding it seems quite unfortunate.
Multi-touch on a desktop monitor is exactly the kind of gimmicky "feature" that the PC world is always using to get some mindshare.
There isn't any earthly reason to have a system that obliges you to reach across your desk to tap or swipe your monitor. Especially now that Apple has implemented touch on their new mouse, putting the control at your hand position where it belongs.
Well done, AppleInsider. You have absolutely spectacularly failed to bring any insight to the table regarding this display, and have placed the question (which I heard asked twice in the Apple store today) even more firmly upon everyones lips.
DOES THIS WORK WITH A PASSIVE HDMI INPUT?
Here's a thought. Stop posting trumped up press releases and start, you know, actually trying out products so you can deliver useful information rather than just rehashed marketing spiel.
Whilst we're on the topic of you trumping up press releases to draw traffic, get rid of the visually offensive advertising from your site. I don't want to fix my teeth, I'm not obese, and I don't need high performance de-odorant. It's clear you just want to push through ad revenue and don't give a monkeys about your readership.
</rant>
It's HDCP compliant. Mini DisplayPort to HDMI adaptors are available. You do the math.
These new iMacs are still missing .... Blu-Ray ....
I am getting tired of the whining re. Blu-Ray. If you need it/want it so badly, why the heck don't you just buy it and hook it up to your iMac!? If it's cheap, it's a no-brainer to do so; if it's not, it's silly of you to expect that Apple will include it and pass that cost on to a buyer who (like me, and apparently millions of others) may not want it.
What's missing is a DMI or HDMI ---> Display port. I've not seen one of those that don't cost almost $200. How do you connect a BluRay player without one?
What's missing is a DMI or HDMI ---> Display port. I've not seen one of those that don't cost almost $200. How do you connect a BluRay player without one?
Not only do these cables exist, but they are also inexpensive.
What's missing is a DMI or HDMI ---> Display port. I've not seen one of those that don't cost almost $200. How do you connect a BluRay player without one?
Has anyone tried plugging one of these into another exact same model (I guess not since it's a bit early)?
When you think about it, when compared to a mac pro with two 30 inches displays, two of these beasts are pretty "cheap" since they are hardly more expensive than the screens themselves. And as others pointed out you only lose a few pixels in the height.
Sure it looks like a waste to use an iMac only for its screen but when you think about it the possibilities to make this worthwile are numerous.
Connect the two via gigabit ethernet and then:
- use the second one as a timemachine target (make use of that terabyte)
- clone your files on the second one to have a backup machine ready to run in case the mainone dies (would require some fiddling to get superduper to do this over the network I guess. I could use rsync over SSH though).
- via gigaibit ethernet you can use remote screen control to launch tasks on the second imac easily, think running windows 7 in vmware without worrying about disk swapping)
- still through the ethernet you could use the cpu of the 'screen imac' to do background processing (eg. distributed XCode builds or some distributed 3D rendering)
Of course you could go with the cheaper 27" model for the screen one and get the more expensive options on the one you'd actually use as your main machine.
The only negative side I see here is how hard it still is to change the HD in the iMac. I really want a Samsung 256GB SDD as my main HD (no, I don't need a terabyte).
That 30" price is the old price from years ago, Apple has never changed it. Today that monitor would be $1499 tops.
It also isn't LED backlit, which would drive the price back up. Either way, it appears to be in the middle with regard to price for a 30" IPS panel right now.
Ever since I read this about this feature, I've been struggling to understand what its real value is - whats the killer scenario. After all, if I have a powerful notebook, I'm not going to run out and buy a new desktop, just so I can get more screen resolution, I'd buy a monitor, not a whole new computer. But then I started to think, what if I had a device with a small screen and not so great computing power that I mostly used away from my desk- like a tablet or a netbook. Then I would have the need to buy a second more powerful computer with a monitor I could plug into and possibly leverage the keyboard and mouse connected to that computer for my portable device. That seems like a more reasonable scenario to me.
Exactly! The AIO display could be a peripheral to a La Tableta.
And the La Tableta could be a peripheral to the AIO.
With the amount of time and development Apple has put into the screens on these new iMacs (bezel-less glass, high quality LED screens, very low price, etc.) it makes me think that new Cinema Displays can't be far off. Considering the 30" display hasn't been updated in years I wonder if they are planning something quite a bit different than just a thinner dumb display with slightly higher specs.
Traditionally, Apple has introduced new Cinema Displays in conjunction with new PowerMacs - which were the natural counterparts - but I wonder if they're shifting the focus and going to pair them with the features in a new Apple TV. They are called Cinema Displays after all. Of course they could build the Apple TV functionality directly into the display itself... but I'm not sure how much different that would be from a 30" iMac and Apple doesn't like to have too much overlap between product categories.
These new iMacs are still missing multi-touch and Blu-Ray although this feature seems to be their answer to BluRay for now. Please give us multi-touch and with the convenient new release of Windows 7 coinciding it seems quite unfortunate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Keep your fingers off my screen or I'll have to yell at you. No multitouch on the desktop, thank you. Besides that's ergonomically awful (having to reach over your keyboard and desktop to interact with the screen). If you want it for kiosk mode, there are add-ons for that.
I am now convinced that MultiTouch will [first] come to the Mac as a [stand-alone] Tablet [computer] that can be used as a peripheral to another computer... even a PC.
With the new ratio I don?t think Apple?s main intention here with the 27? iMac was for notebooks using the iMac as a 2nd display, while the iMac proper is not in use. I think this is meant for media appliances to be connected to it. Otherwise, why not put a powerpassthrough like on the 24? Apple LED Display and sell a cable that combines the MagSafe and DP-to-mDP for simplisity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj
Can you use it as a display with its computer parts sleeping??
Can you use it while the iMac proper is actually off? While it auto sense video input and turn on the display? How do you switch display inputs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by crackedpot
basically it seems to bypass the computer alltogether when using it as an external monitor. In other words the screen is connected to your alternate device but the computer is not, you would then have to get a video capturing device over firewire or usb.
Any DVR with HDMI would work here, especially the ones with Ethernet so you can then send files to your PC for editing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I am getting tired of the whining re. Blu-Ray. If you need it/want it so badly, why the heck don't you just buy it and hook it up to your iMac!? If it's cheap, it's a no-brainer to do so; if it's not, it's silly of you to expect that Apple will include it and pass that cost on to a buyer who (like me, and apparently millions of others) may not want it.
I?m pretty sick of it, too. Each release we get more crybabies when the reality should be setting in for some that Apple does not see it as a viable evolution of data storage on PCs.
I have been a pc user my entire life and purchased an iphone two months ago. I was so impressed that I took the time to look a imac's at a retail store. Fell in love with them and decided to purchase one when I heard about these new imac's. My questions is as follows:
Which system would perform faster, 3.33 Ghz with a dual core or a 2.8Ghz with a quad core i7? Obviously the assumption is with the same video card, ram, etc. Thanks
I have been a pc user my entire life and purchased an iphone two months ago. I was so impressed that I took the time to look a imac's at a retail store. Fell in love with them and decided to purchase one when I heard about these new imac's. My questions is as follows:
Which system would perform faster, 3.33 Ghz with a dual core or a 2.8Ghz with a quad core i7? Obviously the assumption is with the same video card, ram, etc. Thanks
Comments
These new iMacs are still missing multi-touch and Blu-Ray although this feature seems to be their answer to BluRay for now. Please give us multi-touch and with the convenient new release of Windows 7 coinciding it seems quite unfortunate.
Keep your fingers off my screen or I'll have to yell at you. No multitouch on the desktop, thank you. Besides that's ergonomically awful (having to reach over your keyboard and desktop to interact with the screen). If you want it for kiosk mode, there are add-ons for that.
DOES THIS WORK WITH A PASSIVE HDMI INPUT?
Here's a thought. Stop posting trumped up press releases and start, you know, actually trying out products so you can deliver useful information rather than just rehashed marketing spiel.
Whilst we're on the topic of you trumping up press releases to draw traffic, get rid of the visually offensive advertising from your site. I don't want to fix my teeth, I'm not obese, and I don't need high performance de-odorant. It's clear you just want to push through ad revenue and don't give a monkeys about your readership.
</rant>
These new iMacs are still missing multi-touch and Blu-Ray although this feature seems to be their answer to BluRay for now. Please give us multi-touch and with the convenient new release of Windows 7 coinciding it seems quite unfortunate.
Multi-touch on a desktop monitor is exactly the kind of gimmicky "feature" that the PC world is always using to get some mindshare.
There isn't any earthly reason to have a system that obliges you to reach across your desk to tap or swipe your monitor. Especially now that Apple has implemented touch on their new mouse, putting the control at your hand position where it belongs.
EDIT: Yeah, what Malax said.
Well done, AppleInsider. You have absolutely spectacularly failed to bring any insight to the table regarding this display, and have placed the question (which I heard asked twice in the Apple store today) even more firmly upon everyones lips.
DOES THIS WORK WITH A PASSIVE HDMI INPUT?
Here's a thought. Stop posting trumped up press releases and start, you know, actually trying out products so you can deliver useful information rather than just rehashed marketing spiel.
Whilst we're on the topic of you trumping up press releases to draw traffic, get rid of the visually offensive advertising from your site. I don't want to fix my teeth, I'm not obese, and I don't need high performance de-odorant. It's clear you just want to push through ad revenue and don't give a monkeys about your readership.
</rant>
It's HDCP compliant. Mini DisplayPort to HDMI adaptors are available. You do the math.
These new iMacs are still missing .... Blu-Ray ....
I am getting tired of the whining re. Blu-Ray. If you need it/want it so badly, why the heck don't you just buy it and hook it up to your iMac!? If it's cheap, it's a no-brainer to do so; if it's not, it's silly of you to expect that Apple will include it and pass that cost on to a buyer who (like me, and apparently millions of others) may not want it.
The computer is basically free. The 27" iMac costs less than the 30" cinema HD display. Is another 160 vertical pixels worth another $100?
YES!
I'm totally against these smaller displays. Put black bars at the top or bottom when displaying 16:9 material if you must, but give us the pixels.
What's missing is a DMI or HDMI ---> Display port. I've not seen one of those that don't cost almost $200. How do you connect a BluRay player without one?
Not only do these cables exist, but they are also inexpensive.
Mini DisplayPort to Mini DisplayPort - $5.81
Mini DisplayPort to HDMI - $8.42
http://www.monoprice.com/products/se...ayport&x=0&y=0
What's missing is a DMI or HDMI ---> Display port. I've not seen one of those that don't cost almost $200. How do you connect a BluRay player without one?
Wouldn't this one do the trick? http://www.monoprice.com/products/pr...seq=1&format=2
When you think about it, when compared to a mac pro with two 30 inches displays, two of these beasts are pretty "cheap" since they are hardly more expensive than the screens themselves. And as others pointed out you only lose a few pixels in the height.
Sure it looks like a waste to use an iMac only for its screen but when you think about it the possibilities to make this worthwile are numerous.
Connect the two via gigabit ethernet and then:
- use the second one as a timemachine target (make use of that terabyte)
- clone your files on the second one to have a backup machine ready to run in case the mainone dies (would require some fiddling to get superduper to do this over the network I guess. I could use rsync over SSH though).
- via gigaibit ethernet you can use remote screen control to launch tasks on the second imac easily, think running windows 7 in vmware without worrying about disk swapping)
- still through the ethernet you could use the cpu of the 'screen imac' to do background processing (eg. distributed XCode builds or some distributed 3D rendering)
Of course you could go with the cheaper 27" model for the screen one and get the more expensive options on the one you'd actually use as your main machine.
The only negative side I see here is how hard it still is to change the HD in the iMac. I really want a Samsung 256GB SDD as my main HD (no, I don't need a terabyte).
The computer is basically free. The 27" iMac costs less than the 30" cinema HD display. Is another 160 vertical pixels worth another $100?
That 30" price is the old price from years ago, Apple has never changed it. Today that monitor would be $1499 tops.
It also isn't LED backlit, which would drive the price back up. Either way, it appears to be in the middle with regard to price for a 30" IPS panel right now.
http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/s-ips-lcd-list.php
Problem is that you'd need an non all-in-one as your new one.
Why? Use an AIO as a display connected to your AIO!
Ever since I read this about this feature, I've been struggling to understand what its real value is - whats the killer scenario. After all, if I have a powerful notebook, I'm not going to run out and buy a new desktop, just so I can get more screen resolution, I'd buy a monitor, not a whole new computer. But then I started to think, what if I had a device with a small screen and not so great computing power that I mostly used away from my desk- like a tablet or a netbook. Then I would have the need to buy a second more powerful computer with a monitor I could plug into and possibly leverage the keyboard and mouse connected to that computer for my portable device. That seems like a more reasonable scenario to me.
Exactly! The AIO display could be a peripheral to a La Tableta.
And the La Tableta could be a peripheral to the AIO.
Co-Peripherals = synergy!
*
Traditionally, Apple has introduced new Cinema Displays in conjunction with new PowerMacs - which were the natural counterparts - but I wonder if they're shifting the focus and going to pair them with the features in a new Apple TV. They are called Cinema Displays after all. Of course they could build the Apple TV functionality directly into the display itself... but I'm not sure how much different that would be from a 30" iMac and Apple doesn't like to have too much overlap between product categories.
These new iMacs are still missing multi-touch and Blu-Ray although this feature seems to be their answer to BluRay for now. Please give us multi-touch and with the convenient new release of Windows 7 coinciding it seems quite unfortunate.
Keep your fingers off my screen or I'll have to yell at you. No multitouch on the desktop, thank you. Besides that's ergonomically awful (having to reach over your keyboard and desktop to interact with the screen). If you want it for kiosk mode, there are add-ons for that.
I am now convinced that MultiTouch will [first] come to the Mac as a [stand-alone] Tablet [computer] that can be used as a peripheral to another computer... even a PC.
*
Can you use it as a display with its computer parts sleeping??
Can you use it while the iMac proper is actually off? While it auto sense video input and turn on the display? How do you switch display inputs?
basically it seems to bypass the computer alltogether when using it as an external monitor. In other words the screen is connected to your alternate device but the computer is not, you would then have to get a video capturing device over firewire or usb.
Any DVR with HDMI would work here, especially the ones with Ethernet so you can then send files to your PC for editing.
I am getting tired of the whining re. Blu-Ray. If you need it/want it so badly, why the heck don't you just buy it and hook it up to your iMac!? If it's cheap, it's a no-brainer to do so; if it's not, it's silly of you to expect that Apple will include it and pass that cost on to a buyer who (like me, and apparently millions of others) may not want it.
I?m pretty sick of it, too. Each release we get more crybabies when the reality should be setting in for some that Apple does not see it as a viable evolution of data storage on PCs.
Wouldn't this one do the trick? http://www.monoprice.com/products/pr...seq=1&format=2
It would, but the input is DisplayPort, while the output is mini-DisplayPort, so look for the even more common (male)DP-to-(male)HDMI cable.
Which system would perform faster, 3.33 Ghz with a dual core or a 2.8Ghz with a quad core i7? Obviously the assumption is with the same video card, ram, etc. Thanks
I have been a pc user my entire life and purchased an iphone two months ago. I was so impressed that I took the time to look a imac's at a retail store. Fell in love with them and decided to purchase one when I heard about these new imac's. My questions is as follows:
Which system would perform faster, 3.33 Ghz with a dual core or a 2.8Ghz with a quad core i7? Obviously the assumption is with the same video card, ram, etc. Thanks
The 2.8GHz Quad-Core, without doubts!