No they won't. Think about it. If there was a lot of demand for Blu ray on the Mac there would already be a booming third party BR player market. The only company I can think of that makes BR players targeted for the Mac is LaCie its not even their best selling product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sockdoggy
Maybe Apple will release its own external Blu-Ray player? ie like the HD-DVD attachment for Xbox 360.
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.
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.
Is it really a problem to get a separate web cam? The integrated web cam can't be very easily redirected or repositioned, you move the entire display. If you use an old small DV camcorder, you can probably get better results with zoom, direction and focus capabilities, and probably better sensors too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Most people could only buy one or the other. 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.
I'm not suggesting buy both an iMac and a notebook. I don't know how many people would be seriously considering an iMac vs. a notebook + ACD, they are different use cases.
Quote:
Plus the MBP won't be far behind with quad core processors and 1TB HDD.
Quad core, maybe a year from now. 1TB is the same. At a higher cost too. But neither is a problem now that would merit delaying a larger LED cinema display.
No they won't. Think about it. If there was a lot of demand for Blu ray on the Mac there would already be a booming third party BR player market. The only company I can think of that makes BR players targeted for the Mac is LaCie its not even their best selling product.
FastMac sells very expensive internal drives for Macs, but only Macs with 11.7mm slotl-oading drives and larger. Nothing for any Mac notebook that has come out in several years. LaCie sells an external which has FireWire, but you can also buy any other external drives on the market, providing there is driver support. It just doesn?t make sense when other vendors are having trouble pushing them even with an OS that allows for AACS and isn?t itself trying to compete with the optical format and reduce the need of optical media altogether. Seems like a pointless battle for some to be crying for B-R in Macs.
For people interested in plugging an DVI/HDMI source into this screen, keep in mind that physical connectors are not necessarily adequate for bridging two technologies, and that compatibility isn't always a two way street.
For example, Apple put DVI ports on its pre Mini DP Macs which supplied both VGA (analog) and DVI (digital) video signals. You could use an adapter to extract either VGA or DVI signals. Many models also provided Composite Video signals over the same physical port, so with the appropriate dongle, you could hook your Mac to a TV.
That doesn't mean that you can do the reverse, such as using a VGA-ony computer to drive a DVI display, just because you can find a cable with those physical connectors on each end. VGA is not forwardly compatible with DVI.
Similarly, just because some Macs provided Composite Video through the DVI connector didn't mean they all did. You can't extract signals that aren't there.
The current DisplayPort specification allows for "other" signals to be delivered over a DP cable, potentially audio or USB. Existing Macs apparently do not actually support either, so there's no way to plug MDP into HDMI and get both audio and video output. Audio just isn't there.
Additionally, Macs with MDP connectors don't just provide DP output. They also provide DVI and HDMI-compliant signaling, which is why you can plug in a dongle and export video from a MacBook Air to a DVI display or an HDMI TV.
That doesn't mean that a PS3 can generate a DP signal! Even if you can find an HDMI to DP cable, if the signal isn't being created, it won't be delivered (!).
Based on Apple's wording, video input features on the new 27" iMac allow for DP input, not whatever anyone might want to plug in. You can't wire a VGA connector to a MDP connector and expect your PowerBook G4 will drive the new display.
For the same reason, you will probably also not be able to simply plug in anything else you might want to see on your fancy display. While we're at it, also keep in mind that the resolution of the display won't magically be supported by devices that can only manage something less. To use the full resolution of the display, you have to use a connection technology that supports that bandwidth, which minimally requires dual DVI, HDMI, or DisplayPort.
And of course, it appears that only one of those will actually work.
I'm simply laying the foundation of my logic. If we had the option to either purchase a 27" iMac or a MBP + 30" ADC. Because most people would pick one or the other, more people would choose the MBP + 30" ACD, than would without the option. Which I believe is one of the primary reasons Apple is not yet offering the option.
iMac sales are inevitably going to decline.The MBP is going to flourish for years to come. Its good business for Apple to try and get as much mileage out of the iMac while they can. Even though I think more people would benefit from having a wider ACD option right now.
intel's 2010 roadmap isn't totally clear yet. We do know intel will have 32nm mobile chips, as aggressively as intel has been pushing, quad mobile chips could happen next year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I'm not suggesting buy both an iMac and a notebook. I don't know how many people would be seriously considering an iMac vs. a notebook + ACD, they are different use cases.
Quad core, maybe a year from now. 1TB is the same. At a higher cost too. But neither is a problem now that would merit delaying a larger LED cinema display.
Macs need Blu-Ray because you cannot get 1080P movies in iTunes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
FastMac sells very expensive internal drives for Macs, but only Macs with 11.7mm slotl-oading drives and larger. Nothing for any Mac notebook that has come out in several years. LaCie sells an external which has FireWire, but you can also buy any other external drives on the market, providing there is driver support. It just doesn?t make sense when other vendors are having trouble pushing them even with an OS that allows for AACS and isn?t itself trying to compete with the optical format and reduce the need of optical media altogether. Seems like a pointless battle for some to be crying for B-R in Macs.
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
i7 is very impressive. Further that is four cores supporting SMT so you can have eight (8) threads going at a time. Plus SMT is vastly improved over the previous implementations so it is seldom a negative. Overall I7 should be very pleasing.
Of course you question is open ended there are places where i7 might not be all that much better than the old chips. Also the new I series chips are at their best when Turbo Boost can kick in. On top of all that Apple has a very powerful new technology in SL that can leverage the multi core processor very effectively.
That tech is called Grand Central Dispatch or GCD and is described as a system wide thread pool. Once all of the software developers are in the pool individual apps should be able to better leverage hardware resources. Err there is a joke in that last sentence, the developers only have to get in the pool if they are in Vegas.
To put it another way going to i7 keeps the hardware viable for a longer period of time. Especially as software and the OS expands support for multi core processors.
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.
27" with 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo is shipping. Only Core i5/i7 models are not available until the next month.
Macs need Blu-Ray because you cannot get 1080P movies in iTunes!
Then buy a Blu-ray drive for your Mac and run Windows. As of today, that is your only option to watch 1080p Blu-ray video on a 1280x800 resolution, 16:10 ratio, 13? MB. \
You know, these video inputs need to be displayed in a WINDOW OR FULL SCREEN, like the old 7100/AV used to do -- that is the functionality I am still looking for on my Macs...
Then buy a Blu-ray drive for your Mac and run Windows. As of today, that is your only option to watch 1080p Blu-ray video on a 1280x800 resolution, 16:10 ratio, 13? MB. \
I?d wait and read performance reviews first because the faster machine may not even be necessary for your needs,
This I have to disagree on, when buying desktop machines buy as much performance as you can reasonable afford at the time. Performance being the mix of RAM, CPU and GPU requirements. Buying a machine configuration that revolves around the processor doesn't balance your system correctly.
The upgrade approach just doesn't cut it anymore and for many Apple computers isn't even possible. Your goal being to make one investment in the machine that will last atleast until the generation of hardware inside is completely outdated. Or to put it another way plan a purchase to be viable for atleast 3+ years.
Quote:
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.
Yep, i5 & i7 are lightyears ahead of the old Core twos. The new iMacs with these processors are now on my reccomend list. That is I won't feel bad at all to reccomend them to somebody if they fit the users needs. This is something I couldn't do a month ago or even a week ago. Now Apple has gone past my expectations and delivered rather impressive hardware.
Unfortunately there is nothing to reccomend for people that need an XMac. Except for the issue of disk storage these new iMacs are going to be more suitable solutions for more people than ever before.
Same situation. Grab a Blu-ray drive online and play in Windows. Or buy a 27? iMac and run a cable to your iMac from your Blu-ray appliance, assuming it?s close enough.
For people interested in plugging an DVI/HDMI source into this screen, keep in mind that physical connectors are not necessarily adequate for bridging two technologies, and that compatibility isn't always a two way street.
For example, Apple put DVI ports on its pre Mini DP Macs which supplied both VGA (analog) and DVI (digital) video signals. You could use an adapter to extract either VGA or DVI signals. Many models also provided Composite Video signals over the same physical port, so with the appropriate dongle, you could hook your Mac to a TV.
That doesn't mean that you can do the reverse, such as using a VGA-ony computer to drive a DVI display, just because you can find a cable with those physical connectors on each end. VGA is not forwardly compatible with DVI.
Similarly, just because some Macs provided Composite Video through the DVI connector didn't mean they all did. You can't extract signals that aren't there.
The current DisplayPort specification allows for "other" signals to be delivered over a DP cable, potentially audio or USB. Existing Macs apparently do not actually support either, so there's no way to plug MDP into HDMI and get both audio and video output. Audio just isn't there.
Additionally, Macs with MDP connectors don't just provide DP output. They also provide DVI and HDMI-compliant signaling, which is why you can plug in a dongle and export video from a MacBook Air to a DVI display or an HDMI TV.
That doesn't mean that a PS3 can generate a DP signal! Even if you can find an HDMI to DP cable, if the signal isn't being created, it won't be delivered (!).
Based on Apple's wording, video input features on the new 27" iMac allow for DP input, not whatever anyone might want to plug in. You can't wire a VGA connector to a MDP connector and expect your PowerBook G4 will drive the new display.
For the same reason, you will probably also not be able to simply plug in anything else you might want to see on your fancy display. While we're at it, also keep in mind that the resolution of the display won't magically be supported by devices that can only manage something less. To use the full resolution of the display, you have to use a connection technology that supports that bandwidth, which minimally requires dual DVI, HDMI, or DisplayPort.
And of course, it appears that only one of those will actually work.
1++++
Finally, someone who can correctly explain the video input situation on the new 27" iMac (thank you Glockpop). Those who have suggested that you'll just need a simple adapter cable need to read what is written above. I hope this puts to rest some of the misguided statements that have previously been made on this topic.
The best we can hope for is that Apple will sell some range of custom adapters/converters that will allow users to connect DVI or HDMI devices to this new iMac. Either that, or Apple has added special circuitry inside of the new iMac that can detect the form of video signal that it is receiving and switch in the correct DVI/HDMI path to drive the display. Without either or both of the above you won't be able to attach a DVI/HDMI device to the display without using a fairly expensive video converter (which still may not work very well because of the high native resolution of the 27" iMac's display). If you want to see what may be required you can follow the link below (a $180 DVI to Mini DisplayPort video converter):
Comments
Maybe Apple will release its own external Blu-Ray player? ie like the HD-DVD attachment for Xbox 360.
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!
ah if only we had matte too across the board the apple world would have been near perfect.
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.
Is it really a problem to get a separate web cam? The integrated web cam can't be very easily redirected or repositioned, you move the entire display. If you use an old small DV camcorder, you can probably get better results with zoom, direction and focus capabilities, and probably better sensors too.
Most people could only buy one or the other. 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.
I'm not suggesting buy both an iMac and a notebook. I don't know how many people would be seriously considering an iMac vs. a notebook + ACD, they are different use cases.
Plus the MBP won't be far behind with quad core processors and 1TB HDD.
Quad core, maybe a year from now. 1TB is the same. At a higher cost too. But neither is a problem now that would merit delaying a larger LED cinema display.
No they won't. Think about it. If there was a lot of demand for Blu ray on the Mac there would already be a booming third party BR player market. The only company I can think of that makes BR players targeted for the Mac is LaCie its not even their best selling product.
FastMac sells very expensive internal drives for Macs, but only Macs with 11.7mm slotl-oading drives and larger. Nothing for any Mac notebook that has come out in several years. LaCie sells an external which has FireWire, but you can also buy any other external drives on the market, providing there is driver support. It just doesn?t make sense when other vendors are having trouble pushing them even with an OS that allows for AACS and isn?t itself trying to compete with the optical format and reduce the need of optical media altogether. Seems like a pointless battle for some to be crying for B-R in Macs.
For example, Apple put DVI ports on its pre Mini DP Macs which supplied both VGA (analog) and DVI (digital) video signals. You could use an adapter to extract either VGA or DVI signals. Many models also provided Composite Video signals over the same physical port, so with the appropriate dongle, you could hook your Mac to a TV.
That doesn't mean that you can do the reverse, such as using a VGA-ony computer to drive a DVI display, just because you can find a cable with those physical connectors on each end. VGA is not forwardly compatible with DVI.
Similarly, just because some Macs provided Composite Video through the DVI connector didn't mean they all did. You can't extract signals that aren't there.
The current DisplayPort specification allows for "other" signals to be delivered over a DP cable, potentially audio or USB. Existing Macs apparently do not actually support either, so there's no way to plug MDP into HDMI and get both audio and video output. Audio just isn't there.
Additionally, Macs with MDP connectors don't just provide DP output. They also provide DVI and HDMI-compliant signaling, which is why you can plug in a dongle and export video from a MacBook Air to a DVI display or an HDMI TV.
That doesn't mean that a PS3 can generate a DP signal! Even if you can find an HDMI to DP cable, if the signal isn't being created, it won't be delivered (!).
Based on Apple's wording, video input features on the new 27" iMac allow for DP input, not whatever anyone might want to plug in. You can't wire a VGA connector to a MDP connector and expect your PowerBook G4 will drive the new display.
For the same reason, you will probably also not be able to simply plug in anything else you might want to see on your fancy display. While we're at it, also keep in mind that the resolution of the display won't magically be supported by devices that can only manage something less. To use the full resolution of the display, you have to use a connection technology that supports that bandwidth, which minimally requires dual DVI, HDMI, or DisplayPort.
And of course, it appears that only one of those will actually work.
So, will the new 27" iMac work, with cable adaptors as necessary, as a display with my late 2006 MacBook Pro (Core 2 Duo) that has a DVI port?
As the article replies have been stating, it will. You can get a $5 cable from Monoprice that is (male)DVI-to-(male)DP. []Easy peezy.[/I]
This capability ups the ante on getting resolution independence completed in Mac OS X.
Just to add another aspect to this thread?"providing a 2560x1440 native resolution".
This capability ups the ante on getting resolution independence completed in Mac OS X.
very true. more so than ever.
iMac sales are inevitably going to decline.The MBP is going to flourish for years to come. Its good business for Apple to try and get as much mileage out of the iMac while they can. Even though I think more people would benefit from having a wider ACD option right now.
intel's 2010 roadmap isn't totally clear yet. We do know intel will have 32nm mobile chips, as aggressively as intel has been pushing, quad mobile chips could happen next year.
I'm not suggesting buy both an iMac and a notebook. I don't know how many people would be seriously considering an iMac vs. a notebook + ACD, they are different use cases.
Quad core, maybe a year from now. 1TB is the same. At a higher cost too. But neither is a problem now that would merit delaying a larger LED cinema display.
FastMac sells very expensive internal drives for Macs, but only Macs with 11.7mm slotl-oading drives and larger. Nothing for any Mac notebook that has come out in several years. LaCie sells an external which has FireWire, but you can also buy any other external drives on the market, providing there is driver support. It just doesn?t make sense when other vendors are having trouble pushing them even with an OS that allows for AACS and isn?t itself trying to compete with the optical format and reduce the need of optical media altogether. Seems like a pointless battle for some to be crying for B-R in Macs.
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
i7 is very impressive. Further that is four cores supporting SMT so you can have eight (8) threads going at a time. Plus SMT is vastly improved over the previous implementations so it is seldom a negative. Overall I7 should be very pleasing.
Of course you question is open ended there are places where i7 might not be all that much better than the old chips. Also the new I series chips are at their best when Turbo Boost can kick in. On top of all that Apple has a very powerful new technology in SL that can leverage the multi core processor very effectively.
That tech is called Grand Central Dispatch or GCD and is described as a system wide thread pool. Once all of the software developers are in the pool individual apps should be able to better leverage hardware resources. Err there is a joke in that last sentence, the developers only have to get in the pool if they are in Vegas.
To put it another way going to i7 keeps the hardware viable for a longer period of time. Especially as software and the OS expands support for multi core processors.
Dave
For more DP details...
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.
27" with 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo is shipping. Only Core i5/i7 models are not available until the next month.
Macs need Blu-Ray because you cannot get 1080P movies in iTunes!
Then buy a Blu-ray drive for your Mac and run Windows. As of today, that is your only option to watch 1080p Blu-ray video on a 1280x800 resolution, 16:10 ratio, 13? MB.
Then buy a Blu-ray drive for your Mac and run Windows. As of today, that is your only option to watch 1080p Blu-ray video on a 1280x800 resolution, 16:10 ratio, 13? MB.
I?d wait and read performance reviews first because the faster machine may not even be necessary for your needs,
This I have to disagree on, when buying desktop machines buy as much performance as you can reasonable afford at the time. Performance being the mix of RAM, CPU and GPU requirements. Buying a machine configuration that revolves around the processor doesn't balance your system correctly.
The upgrade approach just doesn't cut it anymore and for many Apple computers isn't even possible. Your goal being to make one investment in the machine that will last atleast until the generation of hardware inside is completely outdated. Or to put it another way plan a purchase to be viable for atleast 3+ years.
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.
Yep, i5 & i7 are lightyears ahead of the old Core twos. The new iMacs with these processors are now on my reccomend list. That is I won't feel bad at all to reccomend them to somebody if they fit the users needs. This is something I couldn't do a month ago or even a week ago. Now Apple has gone past my expectations and delivered rather impressive hardware.
Unfortunately there is nothing to reccomend for people that need an XMac. Except for the issue of disk storage these new iMacs are going to be more suitable solutions for more people than ever before.
Dave
Dave
Nah, 17" 1920x1200 native! ;-)
Same situation. Grab a Blu-ray drive online and play in Windows. Or buy a 27? iMac and run a cable to your iMac from your Blu-ray appliance, assuming it?s close enough.
For people interested in plugging an DVI/HDMI source into this screen, keep in mind that physical connectors are not necessarily adequate for bridging two technologies, and that compatibility isn't always a two way street.
For example, Apple put DVI ports on its pre Mini DP Macs which supplied both VGA (analog) and DVI (digital) video signals. You could use an adapter to extract either VGA or DVI signals. Many models also provided Composite Video signals over the same physical port, so with the appropriate dongle, you could hook your Mac to a TV.
That doesn't mean that you can do the reverse, such as using a VGA-ony computer to drive a DVI display, just because you can find a cable with those physical connectors on each end. VGA is not forwardly compatible with DVI.
Similarly, just because some Macs provided Composite Video through the DVI connector didn't mean they all did. You can't extract signals that aren't there.
The current DisplayPort specification allows for "other" signals to be delivered over a DP cable, potentially audio or USB. Existing Macs apparently do not actually support either, so there's no way to plug MDP into HDMI and get both audio and video output. Audio just isn't there.
Additionally, Macs with MDP connectors don't just provide DP output. They also provide DVI and HDMI-compliant signaling, which is why you can plug in a dongle and export video from a MacBook Air to a DVI display or an HDMI TV.
That doesn't mean that a PS3 can generate a DP signal! Even if you can find an HDMI to DP cable, if the signal isn't being created, it won't be delivered (!).
Based on Apple's wording, video input features on the new 27" iMac allow for DP input, not whatever anyone might want to plug in. You can't wire a VGA connector to a MDP connector and expect your PowerBook G4 will drive the new display.
For the same reason, you will probably also not be able to simply plug in anything else you might want to see on your fancy display. While we're at it, also keep in mind that the resolution of the display won't magically be supported by devices that can only manage something less. To use the full resolution of the display, you have to use a connection technology that supports that bandwidth, which minimally requires dual DVI, HDMI, or DisplayPort.
And of course, it appears that only one of those will actually work.
1++++
Finally, someone who can correctly explain the video input situation on the new 27" iMac (thank you Glockpop). Those who have suggested that you'll just need a simple adapter cable need to read what is written above. I hope this puts to rest some of the misguided statements that have previously been made on this topic.
The best we can hope for is that Apple will sell some range of custom adapters/converters that will allow users to connect DVI or HDMI devices to this new iMac. Either that, or Apple has added special circuitry inside of the new iMac that can detect the form of video signal that it is receiving and switch in the correct DVI/HDMI path to drive the display. Without either or both of the above you won't be able to attach a DVI/HDMI device to the display without using a fairly expensive video converter (which still may not work very well because of the high native resolution of the 27" iMac's display). If you want to see what may be required you can follow the link below (a $180 DVI to Mini DisplayPort video converter):
http://www.atlona.com/Atlona-DVI-to-...r-p-17859.html