Add my voice to 'not buying until they make it useable'.
Gloss screens are for idiots. It's as simple as that.
I bought my wife a 27" iMac and she had to move her office, block part of a window to be able to use it. Yah, it was stupid to buy it. Not to mention that eye strain is a problem for everyone using them. Even if you don't think your hurting your eyes... You are. Sorry to have to break it to you. Unless you work in a cave with zero reflections... Gloss is a problem. The long term effects on your eyes are not healthy.
Shouldn't have to wear sunglasses to use a computer.
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.
Sorry, didn't mean to upset you, it was a joke, sort of. Feng shui may be bunk but paying attention to it can net you many thousands of extra dollars when selling your home, at least around SoCal that is. As long as your address doesn't have a four in it.
Is the i7 in the 15 inch MBP faster than the i5 in the 21 inch iMac? Or are the laptop/desktop chips rated differently?
The 2.2GHz i7 really seems to hold up well against the iMac's desktop chips:
Geekbench (Cinebench R11) scores:
iMac 21" 2.5GHz i5 quad = 7000 (4.15)
Macbook Pro 2.00GHz i7 = 8800 (4.6)
iMac 27" 3.1GHz i5 quad = 8700 (5.15)
Macbook Pro 2.20GHz i7 = 10200 (5.30)
iMac 21" 2.8GHz i7 quad = 10800 (5.74)
iMac 27" 3.4GHz i7 quad = 12000 (6.88)
A couple of the numbers will be off as they are based on a range of scores but that seems to be roughly where they are coming in and they are sorted by the Cinebench scores, which actually indicate a real-world use as it renders a 3D image.
The 2.8GHz i7 in the BTO 21.5" iMac seems to be a pretty good value chip. This is a 65W chip. If you are into rendering or encoding, you'd be better off with the 21" with the i7 upgrade, which isn't available in the entry 27". Perhaps they are offsetting the cost of the screen with the CPU here. Pretty smart as hardly anyone would care about i5/i7, they still go by GHz numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leppo
So the 'M' in 'AMD Radeon HD 6750M' means it's the mobile version of the chip, correct? How does that compare these days?
It used to be that the iMac was mostly if not entirely made up of mobile components, but it seems like they've been sneaking in desktop parts of a while.
Yeah the iMacs use desktop CPUs, they maybe always have, I'm not sure but it seems mobile GPUs. Even the ones previously were mobile ones but not labelled as such. Makes sense as I don't think they could get a standard GPU in that chassis.
In terms of performance, the 6750M is quite powerful and performs close to a desktop 5750. This is around 1/3 of the highest end desktop GPUs but some of them shove two GPUs in there.
The 6970M in the highest iMac is double the 6750M so should be comparable to a desktop 5870, which is one of the highest-end single cards you get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT
Any relevance to thunderbolt here? I.e., plug in a 10GB dongle and see your iMac speed up?
"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."
I'd expect that since the Thunderbolt ports externalise a PCI connection, you should be able to hook up an SSD outside the machine to use as a boot drive, which gives a better boost than a Vista pen drive, which is just a caching feature.
I'd also expect it to allow manufacturers to built a video input device. Given the low latency, it's probably something companies like Elgato should look into.
It's nice to see them using multiple Thunderbolt ports. That puts to bed the assumption that this would be a single port technology.
OK, here's a question, and it may be very, very dumb. If so, I apologize.
I'm considering selling my iMac 27" C2D, and getting one of these new ones at some point in the near future. If I do so, I obviously want to completely wipe this disk, and REALLY wipe it.
They have a 256GB Solid State Drive option for $600. Just wish they had a 128 GB SSD. That is what you need for OS and applications and desktop. It would be a lot more affordable. I wonder if an aftermarket SSD would be installable. They do seem to have 2 drive bays.
You probably don't want to do this yourself (it's an enormous pain- and very prone to mistakes), but there's a third party solution:
This is a surprisingly 'mild' refresh, and the addition of the Thunderbolt ports is fine, but it's not like there's much use for them at this point (See: the fate of FireWire 800)
Let's see. Much faster CPUs, Dramatically faster GPUs, Addition of Thunderbolt port which will blow away any other external transfer mechanism. Sure, just a 'mild' refresh according to Daharder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
They'll at least have me as part of the installed base of Thunderbolt as soon as they update the MacBook Air and the mini....
Probably within 6 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers85
Can anyone give me any tips on comparing the i5 vs i7 processors?
I use Logic Pro a lot and need to decide if the i7 is worth the upgrade. Also, is it strange that the 15" and 17" MBPs come with i7 default and the iMacs are an additional updgrade? is there any particular reason for that?
Anything a bit more in depth than "they're faster" would be tremendously appreciated.
For a CPU-intensive app like Logic, I'd definitely go with the i7. For $200 (roughly 10% of the price of the bare-bones machine), you get 10% higher clock speed and twice the number of cores. No brainer. Then add $100 for 4 GB more RAM and you're set.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futuristic
If you're not squeamish about getting into the guts of your iMac, you can order RAM from some third party place for considerably less than Apple's BTO price. You might also be able to get some money back for the original RAM.
Unlike some previous models, adding RAM to the current iMac is trivial. You don't have to 'get into the guts' - there's a separate port and it's very easy to get to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT
What was that thing that Microsoft were gibbering about a couple of years ago for Vista?
Hybrid drives !
Weren't they saying how wonderful it would be because you could plug in a flash pendrive externally and it would speed up processing as a RAM cache? I never heard of anyone actually using it.
Any relevance to thunderbolt here? I.e., plug in a 10GB dongle and see your iMac speed up?
Actually, you can get a better hybrid drive from Seagate. The memory is built into the drive itself and doesn't require OS intervention. In my experience, it helps, but isn't really comparable to a real SSD.
The problem with the above solution is that it's limited by USB speeds and requires the OS to get involved - which adds overhead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
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.
It's coming. There will be adapters which allow you to plug a USB 3 device into a TB port.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
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. )
That is the conventional logic, but may no longer apply. Thunderbird is faster than the SSD, so even putting the SSD into an external box may make sense. In fact, one great solution might be to buy an external TB RAID box and add multiple SSD drives (since there will be several, you can choose smaller, less expensive ones). This solution should be even faster than an internal SSD.
OK, here's a question, and it may be very, very dumb. If so, I apologize.
I'm considering selling my iMac 27" C2D, and getting one of these new ones at some point in the near future. If I do so, I obviously want to completely wipe this disk, and REALLY wipe it.
How would I go about this?
Again, thanks in advance.
1) There is a help area on this site and others specifically for technical issues that make better use of these questions for yourself and others.
2) Restart with the included DVD. Run Disk Utility, Format the drive, and zero it out as many times as you wish.
If there are any people who don't like shiny glassy things, it's worth noting.
Okay, it's been noted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iDave
The fact that these people (including myself) keep harping on it means we are genuinely annoyed by the issue. We can't buy iMacs!
Sure you can... you just don't want to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iDave
That's annoying. We'll keep bugging you and Apple about it until something is done. Except for the reflective screen, the new iMacs seem pretty nice, but I can't use one.
The reflective screen issue is no less annoying than continued use of C2D processors in Mac minis, no backlit keyboards in MacBook Airs, crummy integrated GPUs in 13" MacBook Pros, no numeric keypad in the wireless keyboards, no xMac, etc.
The answer you seek is to buy enough stock so that what you think makes a difference and go to Apple shareholder meetings. That's the best way to get what you want from companies.
Barring that, you can start a Facebook page and get everyone who hates glossy screens on iMacs to LIKE you. Use it to set an event date and parade in the streets outside Steve Jobs home like masses of Egyptians did for days on end. Then if you don't get tear-gassed and shot by Pixar green army men snipers, you have a chance of changing the world.
Why no Crossfire option with the mobility Radeon? Once again Apple drags its heels in the graphics dept.
Uh... What? Have you not been paying attention for the past... forever?
Apple couldn't care less about games.
ALTERNATE REPLY:
So now that we finally have a top-level GPU in the iMac instead of mid-level, you decide to whine about something else to satiate your need to complain? Good going.
Really? And you think an iMac should come with SAS. Right... Are you just boasting or what? I have a 50,000 sq. ft. data center hooked up to my iMac. So there.
No I'm not boasting. The fact that you think I am shows how much Mac fanboyz are content with outdated products. SAS drives are cheap now. Use them!
Yeah, that performance path has died. 15k RPM on a desktop is dumb now, get the best SSD you can afford and be done with it. Or it's a really lame troll.
What are the relative Input/Output operations per drive? A consumer doesn't care about IOPS
but an Enterprise customer would care and a 269 dollar SAS driver isn't quite the bargain if
the performance cannot match SSD in crucial areas.
It's not about getting the absolute best performance. Yes SSD is fastest - it's also the most expensive. SAS drives are cheap now, Apple should be offering them standard on the new Macs as they're better than Sata.
Did you miss the part where I said the new iMacs should come with SAS drives?
No but I didn't miss the part where you said SAS is cheap either. Aren't most of those controllers like a thousand dollars? The drive in a consumer All-in-one which is mostly mobile parts should have an expensive RAID set up? Right... What are you smoking?
It's not about getting the absolute best performance. Yes SSD is fastest - it's also the most expensive. SAS drives are cheap now, Apple should be offering them standard on the new Macs as they're better than Sata for the same price point.
I like SAS because it offers dual ported drives, logic in the chipset (low CPU util) and bidirectional performance but it's still a bit spendy.
I think a SSD cache in front of larger but low spinning disk (5400rpm) is the future.
Comments
Gloss screens are for idiots. It's as simple as that.
I bought my wife a 27" iMac and she had to move her office, block part of a window to be able to use it. Yah, it was stupid to buy it. Not to mention that eye strain is a problem for everyone using them. Even if you don't think your hurting your eyes... You are. Sorry to have to break it to you. Unless you work in a cave with zero reflections... Gloss is a problem. The long term effects on your eyes are not healthy.
Shouldn't have to wear sunglasses to use a computer.
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.
Sorry, didn't mean to upset you, it was a joke, sort of. Feng shui may be bunk but paying attention to it can net you many thousands of extra dollars when selling your home, at least around SoCal that is. As long as your address doesn't have a four in it.
This time I added the smiley
Is the i7 in the 15 inch MBP faster than the i5 in the 21 inch iMac? Or are the laptop/desktop chips rated differently?
The 2.2GHz i7 really seems to hold up well against the iMac's desktop chips:
Geekbench (Cinebench R11) scores:
iMac 21" 2.5GHz i5 quad = 7000 (4.15)
Macbook Pro 2.00GHz i7 = 8800 (4.6)
iMac 27" 3.1GHz i5 quad = 8700 (5.15)
Macbook Pro 2.20GHz i7 = 10200 (5.30)
iMac 21" 2.8GHz i7 quad = 10800 (5.74)
iMac 27" 3.4GHz i7 quad = 12000 (6.88)
A couple of the numbers will be off as they are based on a range of scores but that seems to be roughly where they are coming in and they are sorted by the Cinebench scores, which actually indicate a real-world use as it renders a 3D image.
The 2.8GHz i7 in the BTO 21.5" iMac seems to be a pretty good value chip. This is a 65W chip. If you are into rendering or encoding, you'd be better off with the 21" with the i7 upgrade, which isn't available in the entry 27". Perhaps they are offsetting the cost of the screen with the CPU here. Pretty smart as hardly anyone would care about i5/i7, they still go by GHz numbers.
So the 'M' in 'AMD Radeon HD 6750M' means it's the mobile version of the chip, correct? How does that compare these days?
It used to be that the iMac was mostly if not entirely made up of mobile components, but it seems like they've been sneaking in desktop parts of a while.
Yeah the iMacs use desktop CPUs, they maybe always have, I'm not sure but it seems mobile GPUs. Even the ones previously were mobile ones but not labelled as such. Makes sense as I don't think they could get a standard GPU in that chassis.
In terms of performance, the 6750M is quite powerful and performs close to a desktop 5750. This is around 1/3 of the highest end desktop GPUs but some of them shove two GPUs in there.
The 6970M in the highest iMac is double the 6750M so should be comparable to a desktop 5870, which is one of the highest-end single cards you get.
Any relevance to thunderbolt here? I.e., plug in a 10GB dongle and see your iMac speed up?
"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."
I'd expect that since the Thunderbolt ports externalise a PCI connection, you should be able to hook up an SSD outside the machine to use as a boot drive, which gives a better boost than a Vista pen drive, which is just a caching feature.
I'd also expect it to allow manufacturers to built a video input device. Given the low latency, it's probably something companies like Elgato should look into.
It's nice to see them using multiple Thunderbolt ports. That puts to bed the assumption that this would be a single port technology.
I'm considering selling my iMac 27" C2D, and getting one of these new ones at some point in the near future. If I do so, I obviously want to completely wipe this disk, and REALLY wipe it.
How would I go about this?
Again, thanks in advance.
Go to Apple Apple store to get all the options
There IS an 8 GB option - 16 GB for the 27"
There is also a keyboard with numeric pad option.
They have a 256GB Solid State Drive option for $600. Just wish they had a 128 GB SSD. That is what you need for OS and applications and desktop. It would be a lot more affordable. I wonder if an aftermarket SSD would be installable. They do seem to have 2 drive bays.
You probably don't want to do this yourself (it's an enormous pain- and very prone to mistakes), but there's a third party solution:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/turnk..._2010_27/MPG1/
This is a surprisingly 'mild' refresh, and the addition of the Thunderbolt ports is fine, but it's not like there's much use for them at this point (See: the fate of FireWire 800)
Let's see. Much faster CPUs, Dramatically faster GPUs, Addition of Thunderbolt port which will blow away any other external transfer mechanism. Sure, just a 'mild' refresh according to Daharder.
They'll at least have me as part of the installed base of Thunderbolt as soon as they update the MacBook Air and the mini....
Probably within 6 months.
Can anyone give me any tips on comparing the i5 vs i7 processors?
I use Logic Pro a lot and need to decide if the i7 is worth the upgrade. Also, is it strange that the 15" and 17" MBPs come with i7 default and the iMacs are an additional updgrade? is there any particular reason for that?
Anything a bit more in depth than "they're faster" would be tremendously appreciated.
For a CPU-intensive app like Logic, I'd definitely go with the i7. For $200 (roughly 10% of the price of the bare-bones machine), you get 10% higher clock speed and twice the number of cores. No brainer. Then add $100 for 4 GB more RAM and you're set.
If you're not squeamish about getting into the guts of your iMac, you can order RAM from some third party place for considerably less than Apple's BTO price. You might also be able to get some money back for the original RAM.
Unlike some previous models, adding RAM to the current iMac is trivial. You don't have to 'get into the guts' - there's a separate port and it's very easy to get to.
What was that thing that Microsoft were gibbering about a couple of years ago for Vista?
Hybrid drives !
Weren't they saying how wonderful it would be because you could plug in a flash pendrive externally and it would speed up processing as a RAM cache? I never heard of anyone actually using it.
Any relevance to thunderbolt here? I.e., plug in a 10GB dongle and see your iMac speed up?
Actually, you can get a better hybrid drive from Seagate. The memory is built into the drive itself and doesn't require OS intervention. In my experience, it helps, but isn't really comparable to a real SSD.
The problem with the above solution is that it's limited by USB speeds and requires the OS to get involved - which adds overhead.
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.
It's coming. There will be adapters which allow you to plug a USB 3 device into a TB port.
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.
That is the conventional logic, but may no longer apply. Thunderbird is faster than the SSD, so even putting the SSD into an external box may make sense. In fact, one great solution might be to buy an external TB RAID box and add multiple SSD drives (since there will be several, you can choose smaller, less expensive ones). This solution should be even faster than an internal SSD.
OK, here's a question, and it may be very, very dumb. If so, I apologize.
I'm considering selling my iMac 27" C2D, and getting one of these new ones at some point in the near future. If I do so, I obviously want to completely wipe this disk, and REALLY wipe it.
How would I go about this?
Again, thanks in advance.
1) There is a help area on this site and others specifically for technical issues that make better use of these questions for yourself and others.
2) Restart with the included DVD. Run Disk Utility, Format the drive, and zero it out as many times as you wish.
Worth a look...
Apple Will Become A Trillion-Dollar Company, Says Altucher ? $1,000 a Share
Maybe will get those 60 million iPads sold in CY 2011
If there are any people who don't like shiny glassy things, it's worth noting.
Okay, it's been noted.
The fact that these people (including myself) keep harping on it means we are genuinely annoyed by the issue. We can't buy iMacs!
Sure you can... you just don't want to.
That's annoying. We'll keep bugging you and Apple about it until something is done. Except for the reflective screen, the new iMacs seem pretty nice, but I can't use one.
The reflective screen issue is no less annoying than continued use of C2D processors in Mac minis, no backlit keyboards in MacBook Airs, crummy integrated GPUs in 13" MacBook Pros, no numeric keypad in the wireless keyboards, no xMac, etc.
The answer you seek is to buy enough stock so that what you think makes a difference and go to Apple shareholder meetings. That's the best way to get what you want from companies.
Barring that, you can start a Facebook page and get everyone who hates glossy screens on iMacs to LIKE you. Use it to set an event date and parade in the streets outside Steve Jobs home like masses of Egyptians did for days on end. Then if you don't get tear-gassed and shot by Pixar green army men snipers, you have a chance of changing the world.
...
I don't see Apple changing back to Matte screens in the consumer market because 1) most consumers do not care, and 2) gloss costs less.
Matte screen users have options. You can buy a Mac Pro or a Mac Mini and bring your own monitor.
Or you do what I do - keep using your old white iMac until it dies and then switch to Linux or Win 7.
Why no Crossfire option with the mobility Radeon? Once again Apple drags its heels in the graphics dept.
Uh... What? Have you not been paying attention for the past... forever?
Apple couldn't care less about games.
ALTERNATE REPLY:
So now that we finally have a top-level GPU in the iMac instead of mid-level, you decide to whine about something else to satiate your need to complain? Good going.
1) There is a help area on this site and others specifically for technical issues that make better use of these questions for yourself and others.
2) Restart with the included DVD. Run Disk Utility, Format the drive, and zero it out as many times as you wish.
Gotcha. Thank you very much.
Really? And you think an iMac should come with SAS. Right... Are you just boasting or what? I have a 50,000 sq. ft. data center hooked up to my iMac. So there.
No I'm not boasting. The fact that you think I am shows how much Mac fanboyz are content with outdated products. SAS drives are cheap now. Use them!
Yeah, that performance path has died. 15k RPM on a desktop is dumb now, get the best SSD you can afford and be done with it. Or it's a really lame troll.
300GB 15k sas drive = $269.99
240GB SSD drive = $649.99
Must be nice to have money to burn...
300GB 15k sas drive = $269.99
240GB SSD drive = $649.99
Must be nice to have money to burn...
How much is an SAS controller card and which Mac Pro do you have it installed in? Cheap I tell you cheap!
How much is an SAS controller card and which Mac Pro do you have it installed in? Cheap I tell you cheap!
Did you miss the part where I said the new iMacs should come with SAS drives?
300GB 15k sas drive = $269.99
240GB SSD drive = $649.99
Must be nice to have money to burn...
What are the relative Input/Output operations per drive? A consumer doesn't care about IOPS
but an Enterprise customer would care and a 269 dollar SAS driver isn't quite the bargain if
the performance cannot match SSD in crucial areas.
What are the relative Input/Output operations per drive? A consumer doesn't care about IOPS
but an Enterprise customer would care and a 269 dollar SAS driver isn't quite the bargain if
the performance cannot match SSD in crucial areas.
It's not about getting the absolute best performance. Yes SSD is fastest - it's also the most expensive. SAS drives are cheap now, Apple should be offering them standard on the new Macs as they're better than Sata.
Did you miss the part where I said the new iMacs should come with SAS drives?
No but I didn't miss the part where you said SAS is cheap either. Aren't most of those controllers like a thousand dollars? The drive in a consumer All-in-one which is mostly mobile parts should have an expensive RAID set up? Right... What are you smoking?
It's not about getting the absolute best performance. Yes SSD is fastest - it's also the most expensive. SAS drives are cheap now, Apple should be offering them standard on the new Macs as they're better than Sata for the same price point.
I like SAS because it offers dual ported drives, logic in the chipset (low CPU util) and bidirectional performance but it's still a bit spendy.
I think a SSD cache in front of larger but low spinning disk (5400rpm) is the future.