<strong>All you guys who have seen these in the stores: Which ones have you gone to? I thought Steve said they would be in stores in 2 weeks, but I guess he meant they would be shiping in 2 weeks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Palisades in West Nyack, NY.
They usually havre a display model or two even when Steve says they won't be in stores yet.
[quote]As far as the graphics cards go, I am wondering why they didn't just use the 64MB NVIDIA Ti 200. It's an affordable yet powerful AGP card. What's with this MX shite?<hr></blockquote>
Agreed completely...the GF3 Ti 200 is a far superior card for about 2/3 the price.
The reason Apple couldn't use a Ti card like the Ti 200 is that for some reason the GF3 Ti 200 and 500 aren't compatible with Macs. I find this surprising, since the Titanium versions are identical to the vanilla GF3 (which is Mac compatible) except for the core and memory clocks...no architecture changes to the core at all.
Can anyone shed some light on this? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Also note that the nv17 (GF4MX) is a pin compatible replacement for the nv15 (GF2MX), whilst the Gf3 (any flavor nv20) is not. This was an extremely easy upgrade for them to do, expect it to fliter to all iMacs soon, possibly to the eMac aswell, it's just a chip and driver swap, no redesign neccessary. Easy. The 32Mb is on the main board, not on a chip package with the GPU, changing it would involve fiddling the memory bus a tad, leaving it at 32, once again, means that the GF4MX is a aimple swap on the production line.
The 17" screen is thinner then the 15" and the halo has no visible screws in front. I can't help but think in looking at it that the iMac was really meant for a widescreen. The proportions are much better in my opinion.
I just saw a new 17" iMac at the Apple Store in NH. Very Nice! If anything it makes the 15" look a little out of proportion. Any thoughts on the widescreen and 1440x900 being bad for gaming? I'm not a hardcore gamer but would the res/size mess up the look of the game or what? Any thoughts?
<strong> Any thoughts on the widescreen and 1440x900 being bad for gaming? I'm not a hardcore gamer but would the res/size mess up the look of the game or what? Any thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good question...
I believe most games will 'adapt' to what ever rez you want to run, but I would still like to see Q3 or Jedi Knight (when it comes out) on it.
Also, how will video mirroring work? On apples Tech details of the iMac?s it says the same thing about the 17" as it does about the 15". "It will output the same rez that is on the LCD. But how does this work with 1440x900? No CRT's can display that rez... so does anyone know what it does? It would be nice if it spanned, but if I know apple they neutered that capability...
It wasn't on the one I tried.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have to disagree with this. I spent time with one today at the Palo Alto store and it had at least 1 degree of play from one extreme to the other.
The extra length of the screen makes it look worse than the 15 inch model's, but I was never happy with the amount of play in that model's monitor either. Hopefully they'll refine the manufacturing process and get it rock solid.
A store employee caught me fiddling with it and said "Yeah, it's a preproduction model." I don't know if I believe him.
Just spent some time with the new 17" widescreen iMac at the San Diego Apple store (they have one display model set up).
AMAZING!
And 10.2 is really nice. I used the new Sherlock to find a Chili's restaurant nearby.
Very slick. I'd used Watson and liked it, but I like it being from Apple and part of the OS itself and included.
The display was gorgeous...perfect resolution. I launched Illustrator 10, lined up all the palettes the way I like and STILL had plenty of room on the side to see the desktop, hard drive, extra space, e-mail, etc.
Regarding the "play" in the arm, I have to agree that it did seem a bit floppy and not as stiff/smooth as my iMac at home. My iMac moves wonderfully, but it's solid and the screen doesn't easily tilt or lose orientation as easily as the 17" iMac I was playing on at the store.
Could be the results of being tugged on all weekend, or simply a new manufacturing/assembly issue or tweak.
Isn't bad (and not a "deal killer" by any means), but definitely a little more loose than what I'm used to.
The glass "halo" comes all the way in to the edge of the display now (the 15" model's glass "halo" stops at the edge of the white display frame).
Also, there are no screws around the sides of the display, giving it a super clean, tight look.
It was easy to notice these two things becase a 15" iMac was sitting directly beside the 17" and made comparing the two easy.
<strong>What do you mean? I've never noticed anything like that. I've been really happy with my iMac's screen (color, sharpness, no dead pixels, etc.).
Is this a product-wide thing, or just a random, "some do it , some don't" problem?
The display is the best thing on my iMac. That and iTunes.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Go out to the store again and compare the 17 inch ASD and 17 iMac screens to the 15 inch ASD and 15 inch iMac screens. Drag windows really fast.
It's all in the response time and the 15 inchers have 35 ms response times vs 25 ms on the larger displays.
Well, maybe if I did THAT I might notice something. I'd like to think that I'm not going to get TOO bent out of shape of 10ms...or truly notice it.
If all I did was stand around and drag windows around on 15" and 17" Apple LCDs, I believe I'd have to kill myself.
Maybe in a side-by-side thing, I'd notice some difference? But here, at home, it's never jumped out at me or made me go "jeez, this screen SUCKS!".
Next time I'm there, however, I'll do it and see if I can detect some differences.
I'd love to get one of those widescreen iMacs (especially after today), but it will be in 2003 when they hit 1GHz or so and have a few more substantial updates/tweaks (bigger harddrive, faster bus, updated/tweaked SuperDrive(?), video card, etc.).
I did notice that 10.2 looks a bit different than previous versions of OS X. The metallics are smoother, but the buttons and gloss effects are crisper. The type is more crisp as well. No stripes on the menus and the Dock isn't as heavily frosted (or striped) as well.
Just seems really tight and refined...like a true, honest-to-goodness OS!
I've got a widescreen iMac on order. I can't wait to get it. The guy at the apple store told me to save my receipt and when Jag ships I'll get it for $19.99. Sweet! I didn't notice any screen wobble or looseness at the Apple Store. I also didn't notice any ghosting. Of course I wasn't looking for any problems with it. I prefer to just use my Mac and enjoy it rather than putting it through a C.S.I.-type testing program to find evidence of not being perfect.
[quote]The glass "halo" comes all the way in to the edge of the display now (the 15" model's glass "halo" stops at the edge of the white display frame).
[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Do you mean the glass is now on top of the white border? Because I still see a white border in all the pics of the 17" iMac.
How much of a speed difference is there between the 17" imac and the bottom of the line pro model. I know the pro model has a 133mhz system bus and the imac has only a 100mhz system bus does this make much difference in over all performance? Basically if I were to order the 800mhz pro g4 with a super drive, 80gig drive and a 17" cinema display it would work out to almost $2000 more. what are the benefits to warrant this huge price gap? I'm planning on buying in a couple of weeks and am still not sure which one to get. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Do you mean the glass is now on top of the white border? Because I still see a white border in all the pics of the 17" iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, the clear glass "halo" covers the white frame around the display now, coming in right to the edge of the display area itself.
A subtle, barely noticeable change. Like I said, had it not been sitting next to a 15" model, I probably wouldn't have noticed. It just hit me as I was looking back and forth between the two.
<strong>How much of a speed difference is there between the 17" imac and the bottom of the line pro model. I know the pro model has a 133mhz system bus and the imac has only a 100mhz system bus does this make much difference in over all performance? Basically if I were to order the 800mhz pro g4 with a super drive, 80gig drive and a 17" cinema display it would work out to almost $2000 more. what are the benefits to warrant this huge price gap? I'm planning on buying in a couple of weeks and am still not sure which one to get. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I went to the online Apple Store and configured a G4 system that was as close, spec-wise, as I could get to the new 17" iMac.
I got the 800MHz G4, SuperDrive, 80GB hard drive and an Apple 17" Studio Display.
It came to $2898.
Granted, I couldn't compare the video card all, nor is the 17" Studio Display the same resolution and all as the new iMac display. But you get the idea: $900 more.
Boils down to economics, type of work you do and personal style preferences.
If money isn't a real factor (in other words $900 is no big deal), you're a Photoshop/video/3D guy and you need every bit of power (133MHz bus) you can get (plus to have the expandability of the tower), then get the G4.
If you're simply a "regular user" (no heavy duty graphic apps or processes) and you like the all-in-one style, then it's a VERY easy decision.
For what it's worth, I'm a graphics guy and I've got the 15" SuperDrive iMac and routinely use Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, InDesign, SnapzPro, iPhoto, iTunes, Suitcase, surf, e-mail, etc. and have never had a problem or felt "bogged down".
Think about it: less than a year ago, an 800MHz G4 was THE top dog and thing to have. It hasn't suddenly started to "suck" in just the past few months.
Probably boils down to what you do with your Mac, and then economics.
I knew I could do everything I wanted to do (and then some) on a nice G4-based all-in-one iMac, so I bought it.
And have been happy as a clam and have not regretted it one bit.
It's plenty fast. Don't listen to all the speed freaks out there. They're a disturbed breed and nothing will ever be fast enough for them.
<strong>The 17" also doesn't leave obvious ghosted images like the 15" </strong><hr></blockquote>
Tee-hee. You made me hyper-sensitive to this phenomena on my 15" LCD iMac a few months back, Eugene, and it was the first thing I noticed was better about the 17" screen at MWNY.
I do wish I had a widescreen for all these palettes, inspectors and whatnot. But my product upgrade cycle is close to pscates' and alas, I will wait it out. Next time I think I'll break the bank and go for a 21" monitor on whatever it is I get.
Regarding the "play" in the arm, I have to agree that it did seem a bit floppy and not as stiff/smooth as my iMac at home. My iMac moves wonderfully, but it's solid and the screen doesn't easily tilt or lose orientation as easily as the 17" iMac I was playing on at the store.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm...wondering if Apple simply just put a larger 17" screen on without any adjustments made to the arm. If so...sounds like a potential hack to my 15" iMac
Not really, I'd be too chicken and too incompetent to try anything like that. Anyone?
Comments
<strong>All you guys who have seen these in the stores: Which ones have you gone to? I thought Steve said they would be in stores in 2 weeks, but I guess he meant they would be shiping in 2 weeks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Palisades in West Nyack, NY.
They usually havre a display model or two even when Steve says they won't be in stores yet.
<strong>
Palisades in West Nyack, NY.
They usually havre a display model or two even when Steve says they won't be in stores yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a 17" iMac in the Clarendon store (outside of Washington D.C.) I didn't inspect it but it looked impressive.
Agreed completely...the GF3 Ti 200 is a far superior card for about 2/3 the price.
The reason Apple couldn't use a Ti card like the Ti 200 is that for some reason the GF3 Ti 200 and 500 aren't compatible with Macs. I find this surprising, since the Titanium versions are identical to the vanilla GF3 (which is Mac compatible) except for the core and memory clocks...no architecture changes to the core at all.
Can anyone shed some light on this? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong> Any thoughts on the widescreen and 1440x900 being bad for gaming? I'm not a hardcore gamer but would the res/size mess up the look of the game or what? Any thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good question...
I believe most games will 'adapt' to what ever rez you want to run, but I would still like to see Q3 or Jedi Knight (when it comes out) on it.
Also, how will video mirroring work? On apples Tech details of the iMac?s it says the same thing about the 17" as it does about the 15". "It will output the same rez that is on the LCD. But how does this work with 1440x900? No CRT's can display that rez... so does anyone know what it does? It would be nice if it spanned, but if I know apple they neutered that capability...
<strong>
It wasn't on the one I tried.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have to disagree with this. I spent time with one today at the Palo Alto store and it had at least 1 degree of play from one extreme to the other.
The extra length of the screen makes it look worse than the 15 inch model's, but I was never happy with the amount of play in that model's monitor either. Hopefully they'll refine the manufacturing process and get it rock solid.
A store employee caught me fiddling with it and said "Yeah, it's a preproduction model." I don't know if I believe him.
AMAZING!
And 10.2 is really nice. I used the new Sherlock to find a Chili's restaurant nearby.
Very slick. I'd used Watson and liked it, but I like it being from Apple and part of the OS itself and included.
The display was gorgeous...perfect resolution. I launched Illustrator 10, lined up all the palettes the way I like and STILL had plenty of room on the side to see the desktop, hard drive, extra space, e-mail, etc.
Regarding the "play" in the arm, I have to agree that it did seem a bit floppy and not as stiff/smooth as my iMac at home. My iMac moves wonderfully, but it's solid and the screen doesn't easily tilt or lose orientation as easily as the 17" iMac I was playing on at the store.
Could be the results of being tugged on all weekend, or simply a new manufacturing/assembly issue or tweak.
Isn't bad (and not a "deal killer" by any means), but definitely a little more loose than what I'm used to.
The glass "halo" comes all the way in to the edge of the display now (the 15" model's glass "halo" stops at the edge of the white display frame).
Also, there are no screws around the sides of the display, giving it a super clean, tight look.
It was easy to notice these two things becase a 15" iMac was sitting directly beside the 17" and made comparing the two easy.
I dig that wide screen!
:eek:
Is this a product-wide thing, or just a random, "some do it , some don't" problem?
The display is the best thing on my iMac. That and iTunes.
<strong>What do you mean? I've never noticed anything like that. I've been really happy with my iMac's screen (color, sharpness, no dead pixels, etc.).
Is this a product-wide thing, or just a random, "some do it , some don't" problem?
The display is the best thing on my iMac. That and iTunes.
Go out to the store again and compare the 17 inch ASD and 17 iMac screens to the 15 inch ASD and 15 inch iMac screens. Drag windows really fast.
It's all in the response time and the 15 inchers have 35 ms response times vs 25 ms on the larger displays.
If all I did was stand around and drag windows around on 15" and 17" Apple LCDs, I believe I'd have to kill myself.
Maybe in a side-by-side thing, I'd notice some difference? But here, at home, it's never jumped out at me or made me go "jeez, this screen SUCKS!".
Next time I'm there, however, I'll do it and see if I can detect some differences.
I'd love to get one of those widescreen iMacs (especially after today), but it will be in 2003 when they hit 1GHz or so and have a few more substantial updates/tweaks (bigger harddrive, faster bus, updated/tweaked SuperDrive(?), video card, etc.).
I did notice that 10.2 looks a bit different than previous versions of OS X. The metallics are smoother, but the buttons and gloss effects are crisper. The type is more crisp as well. No stripes on the menus and the Dock isn't as heavily frosted (or striped) as well.
Just seems really tight and refined...like a true, honest-to-goodness OS!
Can't wait to put Jaguar on my iMac...
[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Do you mean the glass is now on top of the white border? Because I still see a white border in all the pics of the 17" iMac.
<strong>
Do you mean the glass is now on top of the white border? Because I still see a white border in all the pics of the 17" iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, the clear glass "halo" covers the white frame around the display now, coming in right to the edge of the display area itself.
A subtle, barely noticeable change. Like I said, had it not been sitting next to a 15" model, I probably wouldn't have noticed. It just hit me as I was looking back and forth between the two.
<strong>How much of a speed difference is there between the 17" imac and the bottom of the line pro model. I know the pro model has a 133mhz system bus and the imac has only a 100mhz system bus does this make much difference in over all performance? Basically if I were to order the 800mhz pro g4 with a super drive, 80gig drive and a 17" cinema display it would work out to almost $2000 more. what are the benefits to warrant this huge price gap? I'm planning on buying in a couple of weeks and am still not sure which one to get.
Well, I went to the online Apple Store and configured a G4 system that was as close, spec-wise, as I could get to the new 17" iMac.
I got the 800MHz G4, SuperDrive, 80GB hard drive and an Apple 17" Studio Display.
It came to $2898.
Granted, I couldn't compare the video card all, nor is the 17" Studio Display the same resolution and all as the new iMac display. But you get the idea: $900 more.
Boils down to economics, type of work you do and personal style preferences.
If money isn't a real factor (in other words $900 is no big deal), you're a Photoshop/video/3D guy and you need every bit of power (133MHz bus) you can get (plus to have the expandability of the tower), then get the G4.
If you're simply a "regular user" (no heavy duty graphic apps or processes) and you like the all-in-one style, then it's a VERY easy decision.
For what it's worth, I'm a graphics guy and I've got the 15" SuperDrive iMac and routinely use Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, InDesign, SnapzPro, iPhoto, iTunes, Suitcase, surf, e-mail, etc. and have never had a problem or felt "bogged down".
Think about it: less than a year ago, an 800MHz G4 was THE top dog and thing to have. It hasn't suddenly started to "suck" in just the past few months.
Probably boils down to what you do with your Mac, and then economics.
I knew I could do everything I wanted to do (and then some) on a nice G4-based all-in-one iMac, so I bought it.
And have been happy as a clam and have not regretted it one bit.
It's plenty fast. Don't listen to all the speed freaks out there. They're a disturbed breed and nothing will ever be fast enough for them.
<strong>The 17" also doesn't leave obvious ghosted images like the 15"
Tee-hee.
I do wish I had a widescreen for all these palettes, inspectors and whatnot. But my product upgrade cycle is close to pscates' and alas, I will wait it out. Next time I think I'll break the bank and go for a 21" monitor on whatever it is I get.
<strong>
Regarding the "play" in the arm, I have to agree that it did seem a bit floppy and not as stiff/smooth as my iMac at home. My iMac moves wonderfully, but it's solid and the screen doesn't easily tilt or lose orientation as easily as the 17" iMac I was playing on at the store.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm...wondering if Apple simply just put a larger 17" screen on without any adjustments made to the arm. If so...sounds like a potential hack to my 15" iMac
Not really, I'd be too chicken and too incompetent to try anything like that. Anyone?