Best to ignore it. You?ll try to reason with it, but only after it?s too late you?ll realize that you can?t reason with crazy. User CP » Edit Ignore List
I've mentioned before that I believed Apple would release a new type of iMac that the display was a tablet. Reason being is the future for processors are too hot for full fledge laptops and the trend is towards more MacBook Air's and netbooks that don't have a lot of processing power and need to rely upon a desktop machine for the heavy lifting and disk burning etc.
Well it seems that Apple has done something not quite as radical, but along the same lines in the general direction.
By getting people used to hooking their laptops to their desktops with the larger display, Apple can now start reducing the form factor, features, price and processing power of laptops. In the future, you'll have to buy two computers. (which should do wonders for the stock). A netbook/MacBook Air with optional 3G/4G, SSD or SDXC memory cards and a desktop machine with a larger screen and more muscle which doubles as a TV.
Perhaps why the iMac now sports a quad core and why Apple gave Intel LightPeak.
I expected Apple to move a bit faster, given the threat from netbooks and all, perhaps the tablet is not up to speed yet/people rather prefer a real keyboard too. The iMac as a TV sounds a better way to go as well. This is why I say I don't think BluRay movies are coming to Mac's, iMacTV is a serious threat to the device makers and TV industry which Sony is part of.
Apple seems to be tying to push the MacBook Airs, in the attempt to get SSD down and thus the price of the machines, but it's not working with new SDXC memory so cheap and small coming out shortly. So with more SD slots being on Mac's a SD memory based MacBook Air Lite might be coming in the future, even thinner and cheaper, no hard drive and integrated graphics.
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.
The problem with turbo boost is that it assumes a cool running processor to allow for the speed boost to happen in the first place. The second problem is that the computer may actuallly have several things going on at once keeping core sufficently active to nix full Turbo Boost. Even Safari running as the users only app might kill the prospect of full turbo boost, especially if it has a flash process running in conjunction with the normal threads it produces. You have to remember that GCD has the goal of keeping all those cores running as efficiently as possible. So GCD will often act to undermine Turbo Boost.
Given all of that negativity above it still has the potential to deliver really snappy performance. Since the I cores are atleast 20% faster clock for clock the chips running flat out ought to be impressive. I just don't think running flat out will happen all that much. I'm sure it can be made to happen in benchmarking but real world people seldom have only one single threaded app running. You have to remember GCD manages the thread pool system wide. The goal is to keep all hardware threads active.
Best to ignore it. You?ll try to reason with it, but only after it?s too late you?ll realize that you can?t reason with crazy. User CP » Edit Ignore List
Problem is that you'd need an non all-in-one as your new one.
No, iMacs can run a second display too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Probably not. Seeing as how DP in is HDCP compliant, it's pretty unlikely that the signal does anything but go directly to the display.
There are non-encrypted HDMI sources too, but what I can think of are mostly camcorders and computers. There is a PCIe card for capturing HDMI, but it won't touch encrypted HDMI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by james808
I think its more accurate to say that this shows how over-priced and out of date the 30" display is. Given Apple's profits I seriously doubt they are giving away the 27" iMacs.
With special deals, I think a 30" from other brands can be had for $1000.
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.
Why are you posting something lile that to the internet? How likely is another forum member going to go to your computer to touch your computer?
The demo units I've seen in stores looked fine, and I'm sure many hundreds of people touch them. They might have that oleophobic surface on them like what is on the iPhone 3GS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
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.
That assumes the display absolutely has to be vertical and across the desk. And I don't know if either is as justified for computer tasks. Screens these days are now getting close enough to become the desk, and I think looking somewhat down at a slanted desk might be comfortable. Avid showed off an edit station that was like that, it was 30 degrees up from horizontal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by witheredmind
Not only do these cables exist, but they are also inexpensive.
Is there special wiring to declare the direction of the video signal, or does the port or assume that? I think what we need is for people to try it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macshark
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...
I don't know why you say it "shocked" everyone, it's not a mass murder. Custom resolutions really aren't that big of a deal, it's just not an off the shelf part. I think any of the panel manufacturers would be happy to make one for anyone that's willing to either buy a certain number of units or pay more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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.
That doesn't really add up. A MacBook Pro + 30" ACD would still be at least $3000 all told, a little less if you go with the 13" model. And that's going with the 2.x Ghz units and a small hard drive. I doubt that would hurt the $1699 iMac with a 1TB drive, or a quad core for $2000.
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?
Doesn't this alternative suggestion require the CPU to still be working on the audio while displaying the external video source?
Another issue: on WP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort) I read that "The DisplayPort video signal is not compatible with DVI or HDMI, but a DisplayPort connector can pass these signals through." Would this suggest that let's say once you succeeded in inputting the HDMI signal from an external 1080p device, the iMac won't be able to display it since it is a different (probably not compatible) signal type?
Wish there was an actual iMac available to simply test these potential solutions!
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.
Actually these new iMacs kinda prove that point as the overall price of these displays is actually fairly cheap. Like all new tech LED driven LCDs where expensive upon introduction. That is fine but the underlying tech is cheaper and cleaner.
Don't be fooled by cheap hardware marketed at high prices. People fall for this in part due to LEDs increasing the quality of the display in most cases. Again that doesn't imply that the hardware is intrinsincly more expensive.
Doesn't this alternative suggestion require the CPU to still be working while displaying the external video source?
Another issue: on WP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort) I read that "The DisplayPort video signal is not compatible with DVI or HDMI, but a DisplayPort connector can pass these signals through." Would this suggest that let's say once you succeeded in inputting the HDMI signal from an external 1080p device, the iMac won't be able to display it since it is a different (probably not compatible) signal type?
Wish there was an actual iMac available to simply test these potential solutions!
DVI and HDMI use the same video signaling. DP is different, but DP can interpret DVI and HDMI singlaing, thus making it compatible. But that only applies to receiving the older standard. You can send a DP signal to HDMI or DVI and have the signaling correctly interpreted.
None of this is an issue with the iMac?s monitor having a DP video input from a TiVo or PS3, for example. If you tried to connect a 2nd monitor to the iMac that was an HDTV that only had component, DVI and HDMI you would be out of luck without a very complex and expensive convertor.
ALL Macs should support this feature -- I have to imagine it's a matter of a simple firmware update to existing models... Can anyone confirm this? Is this feature part of the DisplayPort standard, or an Apple proprietary addition? TIA!
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.
Have to hack EFI, that's where all the decisions are going to go down. It acts as a gatekeeper between OS calls and hardware. (any OS)
EFI and it's GUID partition are part of Trusted Computing which verifies what can be done with your machine. Internet access will be needed by EFI to verify keys/hardware etc so a server has to be set up too with cracks etc. (good going with that for long)
Should be interesting, I always wondered why Apple allowed full screen record in Snow Leopard. But with no OS running while HDCP content is playing...
I think some HDCP keys were cracked or something, because Sony bricked a lot of PS3 BluRays with a firmware update. A lawsuit is ongoing and perhaps this is why Apple may have pulled BluRays from the new iMac's too.
Actually these new iMacs kinda prove that point as the overall price of these displays is actually fairly cheap. Like all new tech LED driven LCDs where expensive upon introduction. That is fine but the underlying tech is cheaper and cleaner.
Don't be fooled by cheap hardware marketed at high prices. People fall for this in part due to LEDs increasing the quality of the display in most cases. Again that doesn't imply that the hardware is intrinsincly more expensive.
Dave
I'm aware of the higher markups on LED displays. The Engineering association I belong to gets a cost plus a percentage discount at an electronics chain. I could get the new LED backlit TVs at over 20% off retail while getting less than 5% off a non LED backlit TV. However, the LED backlit TV still cost significantly more even with the larger discount. As far as I can tell LED does actually cost more to produce right now, just not as much more as we see in the retail prices, but the cost will obviously drop as production ramps up.
I know there are no drivers to view bluray movies in Mac OS. But can you theoretically connect an external bluray drive (not a bluray player), and watch movies in Vista/Windows 7 (bootcamp) using an external bluray drive? I think one won't be able to pass 5.1 audio, but can one theoretically still see a commercial bluray movie using bootcamp with regular stereo audio using windows drivers and software?
I would buy the 27" model instead of the 21.5" if the above setup were possible (and can hold off buying an HDTV with a bluray player for a longer time). Would be nice to enjoy those netflix bluray rentals. I cannot keep a full bluray player like PS3 in my bedroom; it has to be a small external drive (like from Lacie etc.). Any idea?
Sorry if the question seems silly, but I haven't kept pace with windows side of things for years now.
P.S. - For those wondering, Windows is not an extra cost for me cause of heavy subsidy by my university.
ALL Macs should support this feature -- I have to imagine it's a matter of a simple firmware update to existing models... Can anyone confirm this? Is this feature part of the DisplayPort standard, or an Apple proprietary addition? TIA!
It has nothing to with DP, except that it?s using DP for the video input. They could have used HDMI or VGA. It?s just the monitor being switched to accept input from a different source. Like having a KVM Switch that is only switching the video input.
There are still plenty of apps that would benefit more from one 3.4GHz core than four 2.8GHz cores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Given all of that negativity above it still has the potential to deliver really snappy performance. Since the I cores are atleast 20% faster clock for clock the chips running flat out ought to be impressive. I just don't think running flat out will happen all that much. I'm sure it can be made to happen in benchmarking but real world people seldom have only one single threaded app running. You have to remember GCD manages the thread pool system wide. The goal is to keep all hardware threads active.
The scenario that appeals to me is two 27" side by side, one running Logic and the other acting as a Logic Node for distributed processing. Hopefully there would also be a keyboard shortcut (or something similiar) to act like a KVM switch so you can switch between 1 x 2 head and 2 x 1 head...
Well, I am still waiting to purchase a large monitor, at least 30 inches, which has iSight capability built in. I don't want or need a CPU included. It appears closer to the day when this might happen as iMacs are now sporting 27 inch LED backlit screens. A thirty incher is not that much bigger.
I think most people who value a 27"-30" monitor are not looking for the lowest cost solution. Most people would not need both MBP and an iMac. Looking at the current sales trends portability is more important than screen size and processing power. You don't agree that if given the option, enough people would choose the MacBook + ADC to negatively impact over all iMac sales.
Plus the MBP won't be far behind with quad core processors and 1TB HDD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
That doesn't really add up. A MacBook Pro + 30" ACD would still be at least $3000 all told, a little less if you go with the 13" model. And that's going with the 2.x Ghz units and a small hard drive. I doubt that would hurt the $1699 iMac with a 1TB drive, or a quad core for $2000.
Comments
Complete and utter bullshit.
Best to ignore it. You?ll try to reason with it, but only after it?s too late you?ll realize that you can?t reason with crazy. User CP » Edit Ignore List
Well it seems that Apple has done something not quite as radical, but along the same lines in the general direction.
By getting people used to hooking their laptops to their desktops with the larger display, Apple can now start reducing the form factor, features, price and processing power of laptops. In the future, you'll have to buy two computers. (which should do wonders for the stock). A netbook/MacBook Air with optional 3G/4G, SSD or SDXC memory cards and a desktop machine with a larger screen and more muscle which doubles as a TV.
Perhaps why the iMac now sports a quad core and why Apple gave Intel LightPeak.
I expected Apple to move a bit faster, given the threat from netbooks and all, perhaps the tablet is not up to speed yet/people rather prefer a real keyboard too. The iMac as a TV sounds a better way to go as well. This is why I say I don't think BluRay movies are coming to Mac's, iMacTV is a serious threat to the device makers and TV industry which Sony is part of.
Apple seems to be tying to push the MacBook Airs, in the attempt to get SSD down and thus the price of the machines, but it's not working with new SDXC memory so cheap and small coming out shortly. So with more SD slots being on Mac's a SD memory based MacBook Air Lite might be coming in the future, even thinner and cheaper, no hard drive and integrated graphics.
A Apple netbook is coming.
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.
The problem with turbo boost is that it assumes a cool running processor to allow for the speed boost to happen in the first place. The second problem is that the computer may actuallly have several things going on at once keeping core sufficently active to nix full Turbo Boost. Even Safari running as the users only app might kill the prospect of full turbo boost, especially if it has a flash process running in conjunction with the normal threads it produces. You have to remember that GCD has the goal of keeping all those cores running as efficiently as possible. So GCD will often act to undermine Turbo Boost.
Given all of that negativity above it still has the potential to deliver really snappy performance. Since the I cores are atleast 20% faster clock for clock the chips running flat out ought to be impressive. I just don't think running flat out will happen all that much. I'm sure it can be made to happen in benchmarking but real world people seldom have only one single threaded app running. You have to remember GCD manages the thread pool system wide. The goal is to keep all hardware threads active.
Dave
Best to ignore it. You?ll try to reason with it, but only after it?s too late you?ll realize that you can?t reason with crazy. User CP » Edit Ignore List
thank you!
Problem is that you'd need an non all-in-one as your new one.
No, iMacs can run a second display too.
Probably not. Seeing as how DP in is HDCP compliant, it's pretty unlikely that the signal does anything but go directly to the display.
There are non-encrypted HDMI sources too, but what I can think of are mostly camcorders and computers. There is a PCIe card for capturing HDMI, but it won't touch encrypted HDMI.
I think its more accurate to say that this shows how over-priced and out of date the 30" display is. Given Apple's profits I seriously doubt they are giving away the 27" iMacs.
With special deals, I think a 30" from other brands can be had for $1000.
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.
Why are you posting something lile that to the internet? How likely is another forum member going to go to your computer to touch your computer?
The demo units I've seen in stores looked fine, and I'm sure many hundreds of people touch them. They might have that oleophobic surface on them like what is on the iPhone 3GS.
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.
That assumes the display absolutely has to be vertical and across the desk. And I don't know if either is as justified for computer tasks. Screens these days are now getting close enough to become the desk, and I think looking somewhat down at a slanted desk might be comfortable. Avid showed off an edit station that was like that, it was 30 degrees up from horizontal.
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
Is there special wiring to declare the direction of the video signal, or does the port or assume that? I think what we need is for people to try it.
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...
I don't know why you say it "shocked" everyone, it's not a mass murder. Custom resolutions really aren't that big of a deal, it's just not an off the shelf part. I think any of the panel manufacturers would be happy to make one for anyone that's willing to either buy a certain number of units or pay more.
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.
That doesn't really add up. A MacBook Pro + 30" ACD would still be at least $3000 all told, a little less if you go with the 13" model. And that's going with the 2.x Ghz units and a small hard drive. I doubt that would hurt the $1699 iMac with a 1TB drive, or a quad core for $2000.
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?
Doesn't this alternative suggestion require the CPU to still be working on the audio while displaying the external video source?
Another issue: on WP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort) I read that "The DisplayPort video signal is not compatible with DVI or HDMI, but a DisplayPort connector can pass these signals through." Would this suggest that let's say once you succeeded in inputting the HDMI signal from an external 1080p device, the iMac won't be able to display it since it is a different (probably not compatible) signal type?
Wish there was an actual iMac available to simply test these potential solutions!
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
Actually these new iMacs kinda prove that point as the overall price of these displays is actually fairly cheap. Like all new tech LED driven LCDs where expensive upon introduction. That is fine but the underlying tech is cheaper and cleaner.
Don't be fooled by cheap hardware marketed at high prices. People fall for this in part due to LEDs increasing the quality of the display in most cases. Again that doesn't imply that the hardware is intrinsincly more expensive.
Dave
Doesn't this alternative suggestion require the CPU to still be working while displaying the external video source?
Another issue: on WP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort) I read that "The DisplayPort video signal is not compatible with DVI or HDMI, but a DisplayPort connector can pass these signals through." Would this suggest that let's say once you succeeded in inputting the HDMI signal from an external 1080p device, the iMac won't be able to display it since it is a different (probably not compatible) signal type?
Wish there was an actual iMac available to simply test these potential solutions!
DVI and HDMI use the same video signaling. DP is different, but DP can interpret DVI and HDMI singlaing, thus making it compatible. But that only applies to receiving the older standard. You can send a DP signal to HDMI or DVI and have the signaling correctly interpreted.
None of this is an issue with the iMac?s monitor having a DP video input from a TiVo or PS3, for example. If you tried to connect a 2nd monitor to the iMac that was an HDTV that only had component, DVI and HDMI you would be out of luck without a very complex and expensive convertor.
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.
Have to hack EFI, that's where all the decisions are going to go down. It acts as a gatekeeper between OS calls and hardware. (any OS)
EFI and it's GUID partition are part of Trusted Computing which verifies what can be done with your machine. Internet access will be needed by EFI to verify keys/hardware etc so a server has to be set up too with cracks etc. (good going with that for long)
Should be interesting, I always wondered why Apple allowed full screen record in Snow Leopard. But with no OS running while HDCP content is playing...
I think some HDCP keys were cracked or something, because Sony bricked a lot of PS3 BluRays with a firmware update. A lawsuit is ongoing and perhaps this is why Apple may have pulled BluRays from the new iMac's too.
Actually these new iMacs kinda prove that point as the overall price of these displays is actually fairly cheap. Like all new tech LED driven LCDs where expensive upon introduction. That is fine but the underlying tech is cheaper and cleaner.
Don't be fooled by cheap hardware marketed at high prices. People fall for this in part due to LEDs increasing the quality of the display in most cases. Again that doesn't imply that the hardware is intrinsincly more expensive.
Dave
I'm aware of the higher markups on LED displays. The Engineering association I belong to gets a cost plus a percentage discount at an electronics chain. I could get the new LED backlit TVs at over 20% off retail while getting less than 5% off a non LED backlit TV. However, the LED backlit TV still cost significantly more even with the larger discount. As far as I can tell LED does actually cost more to produce right now, just not as much more as we see in the retail prices, but the cost will obviously drop as production ramps up.
I would buy the 27" model instead of the 21.5" if the above setup were possible (and can hold off buying an HDTV with a bluray player for a longer time). Would be nice to enjoy those netflix bluray rentals. I cannot keep a full bluray player like PS3 in my bedroom; it has to be a small external drive (like from Lacie etc.). Any idea?
Sorry if the question seems silly, but I haven't kept pace with windows side of things for years now.
P.S. - For those wondering, Windows is not an extra cost for me cause of heavy subsidy by my university.
ALL Macs should support this feature -- I have to imagine it's a matter of a simple firmware update to existing models... Can anyone confirm this? Is this feature part of the DisplayPort standard, or an Apple proprietary addition? TIA!
It has nothing to with DP, except that it?s using DP for the video input. They could have used HDMI or VGA. It?s just the monitor being switched to accept input from a different source. Like having a KVM Switch that is only switching the video input.
Given all of that negativity above it still has the potential to deliver really snappy performance. Since the I cores are atleast 20% faster clock for clock the chips running flat out ought to be impressive. I just don't think running flat out will happen all that much. I'm sure it can be made to happen in benchmarking but real world people seldom have only one single threaded app running. You have to remember GCD manages the thread pool system wide. The goal is to keep all hardware threads active.
Dave
There seems to be a ton of discussion/speculation with this display in port so I think Apple will shed some light on it sooner than later.
Can't believe my old login still works!
Plus the MBP won't be far behind with quad core processors and 1TB HDD.
That doesn't really add up. A MacBook Pro + 30" ACD would still be at least $3000 all told, a little less if you go with the 13" model. And that's going with the 2.x Ghz units and a small hard drive. I doubt that would hurt the $1699 iMac with a 1TB drive, or a quad core for $2000.