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.
This seems like an ideal feature for Apple's upcoming tablet device. It may even have a usefulness with next year's iPhone refresh.
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
Go with the Quad. The Core I5 and I7 processors have Turbo Boost Mode which means they function at 2.66 or 2.8 across all 4 cores but if your processing needs are light they shut cores down and bump up the megahertz so now your Quad 2.66 is actually running at 3+ Ghz across two cores.
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’d wait and read performance reviews first because the faster machine may not even be necessary for your needs, but the i7 is better despite the lower clock speed. It’s also more future-proof as Apple’s SL and apps start to utilize Grand Central Dispatch more. Better architecture, too.
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.
I'm a newbie in the area of digital signal cables like HDMI and DisplayPort, but the cable I posted has one male mini-DP and one male HDMI connector. Are these cables not two ways, I mean is there a special input connector and an output connector?
The real question now is if Apple will include the HDMI audio channels so that sounds plays through the iMac’s internal speakers. I doubt it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emvee
I'm a newbie in the area of digital signal cables like HDMI and DisplayPort, but the cable I posted has one male mini-DP and one male HDMI connector. Are these cables not two ways, I mean is there a special input connector and an output connector?
Not at all, but the cable you choose has mini-DisplayPort on one end. It needs to be DisplayPort.
Apple created the mini version, which VESA later approved. It’s the exact signaling as DisplayPort, just a smaller port interface.
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.
Apple shocked everyone by putting a 2560x1440 27" panel (which was unheard of until yesterday) in iMacs AND offering the combo machine at a price point that is lower than the previous gen 24" high end iMac. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 3840x2160 32" Cinema display being introduced before the end of January. Would such a display require two display port connections?
P.S. Just as there was a larger (47") 2560x1440 panel out there that was used to build high-end 47" LCD TVs and displays, there is also a large (56") 3840x2160 panel that is currently in production which is used for very expensive display units...
Apple could sell a 30" 2500x1600 LED display for $1500.
The reason they don't is because a 30" monitor for the MacBook Pro would severely undermine sales of the iMac. I imagine they want to give the iMac some time to sell well before they hurt it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2
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.
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.
Any many millions more than you and your millions do want it.
So-
You have to use a Blu-ray machine- connect via an HDMI and adaptor because APple refuses to provide what's universally used. Then you can't use a Blu-ray external drive as the OS doesn't have Blu-ray support yet? Therefor you have to buy Windows too? What a pain in the tuckus. How non-state of the art is that?
Translation: No such luck expecting the Mac to operate in any way shape or form in such a way as to 'snoop' 'redirect' 'save' or in any way access any INBOUND signal. PERHAPS and this is a long-shot Apple *could* have a mechanism in place that would determine if the signal was tagged 'NO COPY' (or whatever term they use in HDMI DRM lingo) and then based on that determine if the iMac could gain access to the signal... Somehow I think its safe to assume that this is not an actual feature of the new iMac...
In short: Until otherwise confirmed its a safe assumption that this is a good approximation of what happens.
Once an INBOUND signal is detected some manor of the following events will take place.
1 - If the iMac is booted it will probably do one of two things:
- Prompt the user that a video signal is now present and to shutdown the system if you wish to view the content. The mac will then 'shutdown' the OS and possibly put the CPU/Mobo into 'half-power' state. But don't take this to mean that the CPU of the iMac actually has access to the signal itself... There are a number of ways that you could engineer a motherboard so that the CPU could be told THAT a signal has been detected and still never provide an electrical PATH to said signal.
- Do nothing at all since for the iMac to work AS a display it must be powered down 1st (this is MY speculation not based on any actual facts).
2 - If the iMac is powered OFF then the iMac will power the display and show the incoming signal (the computer will not boot).
Now as stated above this is ONLY what I believe to be the process based on the fact that Apple would be crazy to allow access to an inbound signal and allowing the computer to run WHILE a protected HDCP signal is being decoded is a HUGE risk and something I don't think Apple would take any chances with.
Fact:
- People boot Macs into Linux all the time!
- People hack OS X to run on TONS of different (non-Apple) hardware
Combine the two mind-shares and throw in a DASH a general desire by MANY on the net to circumvent HDCP and unless Apple made the possibility to CAPTURE the decoded HDMI signal ELECTRICALLY IMPOSSIBLE (aka hardware designed to make SURE it couldn't happen) then the net.hackers would have a field day and overnight TENS/HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of 'unexpected' iMac sales would occur overnight and very shortly following this bonanza the lawsuits would fly faster then light itself.
Sorry but as much as I'd like to think otherwise... I'm pretty sure Apple designed the hardware in such a way that the decoded signal would NEVER be seen by the CPU/Mobo no matter what OS was running at the time ... not ever.
I?d wait and read performance reviews first because the faster machine may not even be necessary for your needs, but the i7 is better despite the lower clock speed. It?s also more future-proof as Apple?s SL and apps start to utilize Grand Central Dispatch more. Better architecture, too.
Agreed: this feature will allow someone to buy an iMac, and then in x years when they upgrade, use it as a second screen.
By the time that 2nd iMac is replaced (assuming current trends) the old one is either old enough that the display isn't great, or else the newest iMac would (by then) allow triple-monitors.
Not thinking big enough! With 10GB coming via light port some day this could very well be the beginning of moving towards cooperative horsepower! Imagine if one day plugging your laptop into your iMac suddenly expanded the specks of your laptop while simultaneously (if you chose) syncing your laptop settings & files with the iMac! You're data would be backed up & for those with multiple computer users in the household the independent functionality would mean your spouse can use the iMac when you're away on business!
I hope Apple really digs deep into the possibilities of this feature!
Apple shocked everyone by putting a 2560x1440 27" panel (which was unheard of until yesterday) in iMacs AND offering the combo machine at a price point that is lower than the previous gen 24" high end iMac. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 3840x2160 36" Cinema display being introduced before the end of January. Would such a display require two display port connections?
The 27? iMac has a 108.79ppi. A 36? display at 3840x2160 would have an even higher 122.38ppi. Usually it goes down as you go larger, but a new ACD would be more professional focused that this 27? iMac, so I don?t think it?s impossible.
DisplayPort v1.2, which should be released this year, will include the mini-DP port interface in the spec, and allow for double the bandwidth bringing the resolution to 3840 x 2160 with a colour depth of 30 bits per pixel.
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.
Chill out, man. The 27" iMacs are not yet available (not until next month). So nobody has been able to test them (other than Apple engineers). This story is basically a heads-up to start thinking about it.
I really, truly hope so - but if not, most HDMI devices will also let you just get an optical cable and input sound into the iMac that way, no?
No way of knowing without actually testing, but I?d wager that the audio isn?t set up on the DP video in and that only the display input changes on the 27? iMac. Maybe you can switch something in OS X so that audio comes in over USB or mic interface will push audio out through the speakers, but we don?t know how it will even handle the switching at this point.
From what I understand when four cores are not needed, the i7 in the iMac will switch to duo cores and run at 3.44GHz. Which I can see validating the switch to quad core for Apple without sacrificing speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I?d wait and read performance reviews first because the faster machine may not even be necessary for your needs, but the i7 is better despite the lower clock speed. It?s also more future-proof as Apple?s SL and apps start to utilize Grand Central Dispatch more. Better architecture, too.
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.
anantksundaram, please stop making rational comments. It really throws the whole Comments section out of whack.
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?
I had been looking for a DCI to display port adapter for user with my old MBP. Old being early 2008. They are just becoming available, but I haven't tried one yet. I need a cash infusion to actually go out and purchase a display port driven display.
So a HDMI to display port adapter should be pretty easy to do now. The tech is basically the same as DVI.
Comments
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.
This seems like an ideal feature for Apple's upcoming tablet device. It may even have a usefulness with next year's iPhone refresh.
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
Go with the Quad. The Core I5 and I7 processors have Turbo Boost Mode which means they function at 2.66 or 2.8 across all 4 cores but if your processing needs are light they shut cores down and bump up the megahertz so now your Quad 2.66 is actually running at 3+ Ghz across two cores.
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’d wait and read performance reviews first because the faster machine may not even be necessary for your needs, but the i7 is better despite the lower clock speed. It’s also more future-proof as Apple’s SL and apps start to utilize Grand Central Dispatch more. Better architecture, too.
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.
I'm a newbie in the area of digital signal cables like HDMI and DisplayPort, but the cable I posted has one male mini-DP and one male HDMI connector. Are these cables not two ways, I mean is there a special input connector and an output connector?
I'm a newbie in the area of digital signal cables like HDMI and DisplayPort, but the cable I posted has one male mini-DP and one male HDMI connector. Are these cables not two ways, I mean is there a special input connector and an output connector?
Not at all, but the cable you choose has mini-DisplayPort on one end. It needs to be DisplayPort.
Apple created the mini version, which VESA later approved. It’s the exact signaling as DisplayPort, just a smaller port interface.
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.
Apple shocked everyone by putting a 2560x1440 27" panel (which was unheard of until yesterday) in iMacs AND offering the combo machine at a price point that is lower than the previous gen 24" high end iMac. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 3840x2160 32" Cinema display being introduced before the end of January. Would such a display require two display port connections?
P.S. Just as there was a larger (47") 2560x1440 panel out there that was used to build high-end 47" LCD TVs and displays, there is also a large (56") 3840x2160 panel that is currently in production which is used for very expensive display units...
The reason they don't is because a 30" monitor for the MacBook Pro would severely undermine sales of the iMac. I imagine they want to give the iMac some time to sell well before they hurt it.
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
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.
Any many millions more than you and your millions do want it.
So-
You have to use a Blu-ray machine- connect via an HDMI and adaptor because APple refuses to provide what's universally used. Then you can't use a Blu-ray external drive as the OS doesn't have Blu-ray support yet? Therefor you have to buy Windows too? What a pain in the tuckus. How non-state of the art is that?
1 - The display is HDCP compliant
Translation: No such luck expecting the Mac to operate in any way shape or form in such a way as to 'snoop' 'redirect' 'save' or in any way access any INBOUND signal. PERHAPS and this is a long-shot Apple *could* have a mechanism in place that would determine if the signal was tagged 'NO COPY' (or whatever term they use in HDMI DRM lingo) and then based on that determine if the iMac could gain access to the signal... Somehow I think its safe to assume that this is not an actual feature of the new iMac...
In short: Until otherwise confirmed its a safe assumption that this is a good approximation of what happens.
Once an INBOUND signal is detected some manor of the following events will take place.
1 - If the iMac is booted it will probably do one of two things:
- Prompt the user that a video signal is now present and to shutdown the system if you wish to view the content. The mac will then 'shutdown' the OS and possibly put the CPU/Mobo into 'half-power' state. But don't take this to mean that the CPU of the iMac actually has access to the signal itself... There are a number of ways that you could engineer a motherboard so that the CPU could be told THAT a signal has been detected and still never provide an electrical PATH to said signal.
- Do nothing at all since for the iMac to work AS a display it must be powered down 1st (this is MY speculation not based on any actual facts).
2 - If the iMac is powered OFF then the iMac will power the display and show the incoming signal (the computer will not boot).
Now as stated above this is ONLY what I believe to be the process based on the fact that Apple would be crazy to allow access to an inbound signal and allowing the computer to run WHILE a protected HDCP signal is being decoded is a HUGE risk and something I don't think Apple would take any chances with.
Fact:
- People boot Macs into Linux all the time!
- People hack OS X to run on TONS of different (non-Apple) hardware
Combine the two mind-shares and throw in a DASH a general desire by MANY on the net to circumvent HDCP and unless Apple made the possibility to CAPTURE the decoded HDMI signal ELECTRICALLY IMPOSSIBLE (aka hardware designed to make SURE it couldn't happen) then the net.hackers would have a field day and overnight TENS/HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of 'unexpected' iMac sales would occur overnight and very shortly following this bonanza the lawsuits would fly faster then light itself.
Sorry but as much as I'd like to think otherwise... I'm pretty sure Apple designed the hardware in such a way that the decoded signal would NEVER be seen by the CPU/Mobo no matter what OS was running at the time ... not ever.
I?d wait and read performance reviews first because the faster machine may not even be necessary for your needs, but the i7 is better despite the lower clock speed. It?s also more future-proof as Apple?s SL and apps start to utilize Grand Central Dispatch more. Better architecture, too.
Your first sensible post in ages.
The real question now is if Apple will include the HDMI audio channels so that sounds plays through the iMac?s internal speakers. I doubt it
I really, truly hope so - but if not, most HDMI devices will also let you just get an optical cable and input sound into the iMac that way, no?
Agreed: this feature will allow someone to buy an iMac, and then in x years when they upgrade, use it as a second screen.
By the time that 2nd iMac is replaced (assuming current trends) the old one is either old enough that the display isn't great, or else the newest iMac would (by then) allow triple-monitors.
Not thinking big enough! With 10GB coming via light port some day this could very well be the beginning of moving towards cooperative horsepower! Imagine if one day plugging your laptop into your iMac suddenly expanded the specks of your laptop while simultaneously (if you chose) syncing your laptop settings & files with the iMac! You're data would be backed up & for those with multiple computer users in the household the independent functionality would mean your spouse can use the iMac when you're away on business!
I hope Apple really digs deep into the possibilities of this feature!
Apple shocked everyone by putting a 2560x1440 27" panel (which was unheard of until yesterday) in iMacs AND offering the combo machine at a price point that is lower than the previous gen 24" high end iMac. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 3840x2160 36" Cinema display being introduced before the end of January. Would such a display require two display port connections?
The 27? iMac has a 108.79ppi. A 36? display at 3840x2160 would have an even higher 122.38ppi. Usually it goes down as you go larger, but a new ACD would be more professional focused that this 27? iMac, so I don?t think it?s impossible.
DisplayPort v1.2, which should be released this year, will include the mini-DP port interface in the spec, and allow for double the bandwidth bringing the resolution to 3840 x 2160 with a colour depth of 30 bits per pixel.
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.
Chill out, man. The 27" iMacs are not yet available (not until next month). So nobody has been able to test them (other than Apple engineers). This story is basically a heads-up to start thinking about it.
I really, truly hope so - but if not, most HDMI devices will also let you just get an optical cable and input sound into the iMac that way, no?
No way of knowing without actually testing, but I?d wager that the audio isn?t set up on the DP video in and that only the display input changes on the 27? iMac. Maybe you can switch something in OS X so that audio comes in over USB or mic interface will push audio out through the speakers, but we don?t know how it will even handle the switching at this point.
I?d wait and read performance reviews first because the faster machine may not even be necessary for your needs, but the i7 is better despite the lower clock speed. It?s also more future-proof as Apple?s SL and apps start to utilize Grand Central Dispatch more. Better architecture, too.
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.
anantksundaram, please stop making rational comments. It really throws the whole Comments section out of whack.
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?
I had been looking for a DCI to display port adapter for user with my old MBP. Old being early 2008. They are just becoming available, but I haven't tried one yet. I need a cash infusion to actually go out and purchase a display port driven display.
So a HDMI to display port adapter should be pretty easy to do now. The tech is basically the same as DVI.
Dave
Any many millions more than you and your millions do want it.
So-
Complete and utter bullshit.
Complete and utter bullshit.
Learning how to block certain users can increase your enjoyment of the site immeasurably.