I guess for most the reason we want a SSD configuration is to (pre)install the OS and (some of) the applications on it for faster disk access performance (e.g. app loading time, etc.) Adding a SSD later as an external storage is kind of defeating the purpose.
Put the SSD into the machine, and put that old HD into the external enclosure.
That way if USB 3 HDD become commonplace as I suspect they will I can plug them into the TB slot using an adaptor and at least be able to get the USB 3 transfer speed.
I think we both mean the same thing, but from opposite viewpoints. I'm referring to the host's point of view, you're referring from the peripheral's point of view. I think we'll see them eventually. There almost aren't any TB devices yet.
Also..TB is like Firewire 800 on steroids. In other words I doubt many people use it now. In a few years, definitely. But it feels before its time. Even FW 800 has that feeling, in respect to most Mac users. Who will be using TB and how much? I am guessing just pros dealing with media or other large datasets, using it to plug into RAIDs or SSDs or some other media input device that saturates bandwidth. But hey. The iMacs are finally priced to move. Not complaining. If was in the market for a desktop I think the iMac would finally be calling my name.
Apple is pushing TB by adding it to their 2011 releases. Without computers with TB installed, peripheral makers have no incentive to produce TB-enabled devices. IOW this is a logical progression. Makers like LaCie, with a line aimed squarely at Apple hardware, will release fast; others will wait a little, watch Apple's sales, and then release. I would expect a moderate range of TB-capable peripherals this year and a whole lot next year. Takes a while for a new technology like this to gan momentum, and the first step is the device maker including the port.
Ordered my new iMac this morning. 27", 3.4GHz i7, Radeon 6970, 8GB RAM (to start, anyway). I wanted the two TB ports - we have 12 TB of NAS here which needs upgrading to a faster connection, so I'm in the market for TB peripherals, for sure.
And there are no spec with 8GB default Ram, adding memory actually means it is expensive even of you do it yourself, since you have to throw away both slot in order to get 8GB.
The new iMac has four memory slots, so you don't have to throw away your included memory.
So the 'M' in 'AMD Radeon HD 6750M' means it's the mobile version of the chip, correct? How does that compare these days? Any guidance here would be extremely helpful.
Someone felt games like SC2 would only run moderately on the new mobile cards, but I find that hard to believe. I know the prior generation with the non mobile cards was running really well on intensive games. That would mean apple downgraded graphics. Anyone have a strong knowledge of these cards want to confirm that games will still run better on these new cards versus last gen iMac? So weird they switched back to M cards again after one refresh of non M. I imagine this means these are some screaming M cards.
NM, I answered my own question from a website with lots of technical language. The summary included this....
"All in all, the Radeon HD 6970M shows an impressive performance. AMD's old top model, the Radeon HD 5870, is surpassed in every benchmark by about 50%—a testament to the new model's formidable performance."
the matte screen is an ugly look compared to a real glass screen
9
peace
I guess I'm not as good-looking as you. With a dark photo or a darkish movie scene, all I see is myself reflected in the glossy monitor (like Bin Laden, I moved out of my cave years ago).
I guess I'm not as good-looking as you. With a dark photo or a darkish movie scene, all I see is myself reflected in the glossy monitor (like Bin Laden, I moved out of my cave years ago).
It's not enough that gloss screens are the best, they need you to accept it too.
(Religious num nuts like Bin Laden are a good analogy).
No it isn't. 1300 people isn't even 1% of their desktop sales last quarter. Hell, it isn't even 1/10th of a percent of their desktop sales. Apple doesn't listen to this group b/c it isn't significant enough to listen to. Even if it is 10x bigger than the petition, it's still under 1% of last quarter's sales. When you look at it from a yearly total, it's completely laughable.
Yet they DO offer anti-glare on the MacBook Pros, so they know there are a significant number of people who want it. Why they don't give the option (extra $100?) on the iMac is unknowable. It's the only reason I don't have one.
I've compared the glossy and non-glossy MacBook Pros side by side in the Apple Store, and I see no better colors with the glossy screen.
There are licensing differences between the two and installation/updates are done differently, otherwise they are the same software.
Roughly speaking, what are the licensing differences?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider
What are you talking about? There are 4 slots. Keep the 2, add another 8 and you get 12GB. Only if you want to go all the way up to 16GB will there be a point where you have to discard RAM. RAM that can easily be sold elsewhere.
As someone pointed out, it's best to hold onto the existing RAM, you'll want to swap it back in if you ever need servicing. The amount you get from the trade-in isn't very much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iDave
...an Apple apologist if I ever heard one. Have you ever actually tried to apply such a thing to find out it's impossible to avoid dust and bubbles under the surface?
That's what I was thinking. I'd like to get special AR coated glass, none of this shiny or dull stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic
Also..TB is like Firewire 800 on steroids. In other words I doubt many people use it now. In a few years, definitely. But it feels before its time. Even FW 800 has that feeling, in respect to most Mac users. Who will be using TB and how much? I am guessing just pros dealing with media or other large datasets, using it to plug into RAIDs or SSDs or some other media input device that saturates bandwidth. But hey. The iMacs are finally priced to move. Not complaining. If was in the market for a desktop I think the iMac would finally be calling my name.
TB has future potential, which is one reason why I suggested a buddy wait until the iMac was updated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT
I agree. I come to AppleInsider because it is less childish than many other tech news sites, but it's still quite hard to have a grown up discussion.
People on both sides get very enthusiastic, and sometimes it gets to the point of being overbearing. I'm not sure if there are adults anymore, just grown-up children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Yeah these Mac noobies don't know anything about Feng shui or interior decorating. You are not supposed to sit with your back to the window. Rearrange your furniture properly and you won't have any glare.
Feng shui is a load of diseased BS, but whatever type screen surface or technology you have, it is best to set it it in a way you get the least incident light. A setup that improves the usability of a glossy display would also help a matte display.
That is a significant number of people. And when you get a petition such as this, it usually means 10x as many or more also feel the same way. It is a shame that Apple does not listen to their customers more.
Why is it a shame? If Apple listened to their customers they'd probably end up making Windows PCs. Customers are not always right and not always smart.
That being said I prefer matte screen. If they don't make an iMac with matte screen I wouldn't buy one. Easy.
I guess for most the reason we want a SSD configuration is to (pre)install the OS and (some of) the applications on it for faster disk access performance (e.g. app loading time, etc.) Adding a SSD later as an external storage is kind of defeating the purpose.
No silly. I meant you get the SSD, swap it for the HD in the iMac and put the HD in the external case. (Sorry, it made perfect sense in my head as I typed the original comment. )
The last 27" imac had a mini dvi port so that it could be used as an external monitor. Now that apple has switched to Thunderbolt in both the 27" AND the 21.5" .....does that mean you will you now be able to use the 21.5" as an external monitor too?
Id like to be able to use it as one in the future if i get a macbook pro or air.
Thanks for any reply. :-)
There's an article on Macworld where they say:
"Apple has confirmed to Macworld that the new iMacs can be used as external displays via their Thunderbolt ports. However, to do so, you’ll need a Thunderbolt-equipped Mac, such as one of the early 2011 models of MacBook Pros. Connecting the MacBook Pro to either the 21.5-inch or 27-inch Thunderbolt-equipped iMac will let you use the desktop as a display for the notebook."
I really don't get the hostility. I love my macs, enjoy the pretty, glossy screen, but geez, cut the hyperbole and anonymous, derisive sarcasm. Nobody is crying about anything. The man has a preference. He stated that preference with clarity, and a methodology for helping to make it happen. What on earth is the problem? Things not well at home? Haven't beaten your dog enough lately? Read his comment again. Totally benevolent and constructive. Can't say the same about those who responded.
Sorry, I'm just sick of all those pointless petition.
I've love my matte screen PB back then, and I don't like much glare in my screen now. But the brightness on my MPB and 24 inch apple screen make glare disappear and a non-issue while using it. But for common people, glass screen is a zillions time less fragile and more easy to clean than matte plastic screen. You don't have to care about ammonium free cleaning agent that can yellowing your plastic screen over time.
I think we both mean the same thing, but from opposite viewpoints. I'm referring to the host's point of view, you're referring from the peripheral's point of view. I think we'll see them eventually. There almost aren't any TB devices yet.
Ok. Now that I read this post I think we're both thinking the same thing but I didn't express myself as clearly as you have.
I LOVE the new imacs. Especially now that you can use the 21.5" imac as an external monitor via the Thunderbolt port.
The ONLY thing that sucks is the 21.5" models DO NOT have a BTO option for more than 512GB of video ram. Arggggggggggh.
Apple is literally forcing you to get the 27" imac if you want it. Booooo! Lol.
Gotta complain about something. :-)
Its great you can add a second SSD drive to the 21.5" model tho. Just wish you could get it with the 6970M graphic card with the 1GB option.
Oh well. Cant have EVERYTHING i guess.
I'm leaning towards the 21.5" model but I already have a new 22" LED LCD for my 1.83GHz C2D Mini (Mini will get regulated to XBMC / Plex duties). Hope I can run Dual Monitors off the Thunderbolt port...
Comments
Now that you bring this up
I guess for most the reason we want a SSD configuration is to (pre)install the OS and (some of) the applications on it for faster disk access performance (e.g. app loading time, etc.) Adding a SSD later as an external storage is kind of defeating the purpose.
Put the SSD into the machine, and put that old HD into the external enclosure.
No I mean USB 3 to TB.
That way if USB 3 HDD become commonplace as I suspect they will I can plug them into the TB slot using an adaptor and at least be able to get the USB 3 transfer speed.
I think we both mean the same thing, but from opposite viewpoints. I'm referring to the host's point of view, you're referring from the peripheral's point of view. I think we'll see them eventually. There almost aren't any TB devices yet.
Also..TB is like Firewire 800 on steroids. In other words I doubt many people use it now. In a few years, definitely. But it feels before its time. Even FW 800 has that feeling, in respect to most Mac users. Who will be using TB and how much? I am guessing just pros dealing with media or other large datasets, using it to plug into RAIDs or SSDs or some other media input device that saturates bandwidth. But hey. The iMacs are finally priced to move. Not complaining. If was in the market for a desktop I think the iMac would finally be calling my name.
Apple is pushing TB by adding it to their 2011 releases. Without computers with TB installed, peripheral makers have no incentive to produce TB-enabled devices. IOW this is a logical progression. Makers like LaCie, with a line aimed squarely at Apple hardware, will release fast; others will wait a little, watch Apple's sales, and then release. I would expect a moderate range of TB-capable peripherals this year and a whole lot next year. Takes a while for a new technology like this to gan momentum, and the first step is the device maker including the port.
Ordered my new iMac this morning. 27", 3.4GHz i7, Radeon 6970, 8GB RAM (to start, anyway). I wanted the two TB ports - we have 12 TB of NAS here which needs upgrading to a faster connection, so I'm in the market for TB peripherals, for sure.
The keyboard option with a numeric keypad is noticeably absent. So no more wired options
Still no matte screen, but with LED back lighting, I wonder if you could adjust the levels so that you don't notice the glare?
Wired Keyboard with Numerical Keypad is Free Option at the Apple Store.
It is a shame that Apple does not listen to their customers more.
LOL - Market research is exactly why Apple products are becoming more and more successful.
Blu-ray would have been nice but wasn't expected.
Or... ever will be by anyone with a clue.
a 30" would have been very nice, shame.
As much as I hate it, 16:10 is out, 16:9 is in. A 30" was never going to happen.
And there are no spec with 8GB default Ram, adding memory actually means it is expensive even of you do it yourself, since you have to throw away both slot in order to get 8GB.
The new iMac has four memory slots, so you don't have to throw away your included memory.
So the 'M' in 'AMD Radeon HD 6750M' means it's the mobile version of the chip, correct? How does that compare these days? Any guidance here would be extremely helpful.
Someone felt games like SC2 would only run moderately on the new mobile cards, but I find that hard to believe. I know the prior generation with the non mobile cards was running really well on intensive games. That would mean apple downgraded graphics. Anyone have a strong knowledge of these cards want to confirm that games will still run better on these new cards versus last gen iMac? So weird they switched back to M cards again after one refresh of non M. I imagine this means these are some screaming M cards.
NM, I answered my own question from a website with lots of technical language. The summary included this....
"All in all, the Radeon HD 6970M shows an impressive performance. AMD's old top model, the Radeon HD 5870, is surpassed in every benchmark by about 50%—a testament to the new model's formidable performance."
wow
powerful cheap machines
finally the graphics get stronger
the matte screen is an ugly look compared to a real glass screen
9
peace
I guess I'm not as good-looking as you. With a dark photo or a darkish movie scene, all I see is myself reflected in the glossy monitor (like Bin Laden, I moved out of my cave years ago).
I guess I'm not as good-looking as you. With a dark photo or a darkish movie scene, all I see is myself reflected in the glossy monitor (like Bin Laden, I moved out of my cave years ago).
It's not enough that gloss screens are the best, they need you to accept it too.
(Religious num nuts like Bin Laden are a good analogy).
No it isn't. 1300 people isn't even 1% of their desktop sales last quarter. Hell, it isn't even 1/10th of a percent of their desktop sales. Apple doesn't listen to this group b/c it isn't significant enough to listen to. Even if it is 10x bigger than the petition, it's still under 1% of last quarter's sales. When you look at it from a yearly total, it's completely laughable.
Yet they DO offer anti-glare on the MacBook Pros, so they know there are a significant number of people who want it. Why they don't give the option (extra $100?) on the iMac is unknowable. It's the only reason I don't have one.
I've compared the glossy and non-glossy MacBook Pros side by side in the Apple Store, and I see no better colors with the glossy screen.
There are licensing differences between the two and installation/updates are done differently, otherwise they are the same software.
Roughly speaking, what are the licensing differences?
What are you talking about? There are 4 slots. Keep the 2, add another 8 and you get 12GB. Only if you want to go all the way up to 16GB will there be a point where you have to discard RAM. RAM that can easily be sold elsewhere.
As someone pointed out, it's best to hold onto the existing RAM, you'll want to swap it back in if you ever need servicing. The amount you get from the trade-in isn't very much.
That's what I was thinking. I'd like to get special AR coated glass, none of this shiny or dull stuff.
Also..TB is like Firewire 800 on steroids. In other words I doubt many people use it now. In a few years, definitely. But it feels before its time. Even FW 800 has that feeling, in respect to most Mac users. Who will be using TB and how much? I am guessing just pros dealing with media or other large datasets, using it to plug into RAIDs or SSDs or some other media input device that saturates bandwidth. But hey. The iMacs are finally priced to move. Not complaining. If was in the market for a desktop I think the iMac would finally be calling my name.
TB has future potential, which is one reason why I suggested a buddy wait until the iMac was updated.
I agree. I come to AppleInsider because it is less childish than many other tech news sites, but it's still quite hard to have a grown up discussion.
People on both sides get very enthusiastic, and sometimes it gets to the point of being overbearing. I'm not sure if there are adults anymore, just grown-up children.
Yeah these Mac noobies don't know anything about Feng shui or interior decorating. You are not supposed to sit with your back to the window. Rearrange your furniture properly and you won't have any glare.
Feng shui is a load of diseased BS, but whatever type screen surface or technology you have, it is best to set it it in a way you get the least incident light. A setup that improves the usability of a glossy display would also help a matte display.
That is a significant number of people. And when you get a petition such as this, it usually means 10x as many or more also feel the same way. It is a shame that Apple does not listen to their customers more.
Why is it a shame? If Apple listened to their customers they'd probably end up making Windows PCs. Customers are not always right and not always smart.
That being said I prefer matte screen. If they don't make an iMac with matte screen I wouldn't buy one. Easy.
I guess for most the reason we want a SSD configuration is to (pre)install the OS and (some of) the applications on it for faster disk access performance (e.g. app loading time, etc.) Adding a SSD later as an external storage is kind of defeating the purpose.
No silly. I meant you get the SSD, swap it for the HD in the iMac and put the HD in the external case. (Sorry, it made perfect sense in my head as I typed the original comment.
Question...
The last 27" imac had a mini dvi port so that it could be used as an external monitor. Now that apple has switched to Thunderbolt in both the 27" AND the 21.5" .....does that mean you will you now be able to use the 21.5" as an external monitor too?
Id like to be able to use it as one in the future if i get a macbook pro or air.
Thanks for any reply. :-)
There's an article on Macworld where they say:
"Apple has confirmed to Macworld that the new iMacs can be used as external displays via their Thunderbolt ports. However, to do so, you’ll need a Thunderbolt-equipped Mac, such as one of the early 2011 models of MacBook Pros. Connecting the MacBook Pro to either the 21.5-inch or 27-inch Thunderbolt-equipped iMac will let you use the desktop as a display for the notebook."
http://www.macworld.com/article/1596...play_mode.html
I really don't get the hostility. I love my macs, enjoy the pretty, glossy screen, but geez, cut the hyperbole and anonymous, derisive sarcasm. Nobody is crying about anything. The man has a preference. He stated that preference with clarity, and a methodology for helping to make it happen. What on earth is the problem? Things not well at home? Haven't beaten your dog enough lately? Read his comment again. Totally benevolent and constructive. Can't say the same about those who responded.
Sorry, I'm just sick of all those pointless petition.
I've love my matte screen PB back then, and I don't like much glare in my screen now. But the brightness on my MPB and 24 inch apple screen make glare disappear and a non-issue while using it. But for common people, glass screen is a zillions time less fragile and more easy to clean than matte plastic screen. You don't have to care about ammonium free cleaning agent that can yellowing your plastic screen over time.
The ONLY thing that sucks is the 21.5" models DO NOT have a BTO option for more than 512GB of video ram. Arggggggggggh.
Apple is literally forcing you to get the 27" imac if you want it. Booooo! Lol.
Gotta complain about something. :-)
Its great you can add a second SSD drive to the 21.5" model tho. Just wish you could get it with the 6970M graphic card with the 1GB option.
Oh well. Cant have EVERYTHING i guess.
I think we both mean the same thing, but from opposite viewpoints. I'm referring to the host's point of view, you're referring from the peripheral's point of view. I think we'll see them eventually. There almost aren't any TB devices yet.
Ok. Now that I read this post I think we're both thinking the same thing but I didn't express myself as clearly as you have.
I LOVE the new imacs. Especially now that you can use the 21.5" imac as an external monitor via the Thunderbolt port.
The ONLY thing that sucks is the 21.5" models DO NOT have a BTO option for more than 512GB of video ram. Arggggggggggh.
Apple is literally forcing you to get the 27" imac if you want it. Booooo! Lol.
Gotta complain about something. :-)
Its great you can add a second SSD drive to the 21.5" model tho. Just wish you could get it with the 6970M graphic card with the 1GB option.
Oh well. Cant have EVERYTHING i guess.
I'm leaning towards the 21.5" model but I already have a new 22" LED LCD for my 1.83GHz C2D Mini (Mini will get regulated to XBMC / Plex duties). Hope I can run Dual Monitors off the Thunderbolt port...