PDA

View Full Version : Aluminum iMac Disassembled and First Impressions




MacRumors
Aug 8, 2007, 08:02 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Kodawarisan posted (http://www.kodawarisan.com/k2007_02/archives/2007/08/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa_3.html) a set of disassembly photos of the new aluminum iMac released yesterday:


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/08/08/DSC_3814_300.jpg
(http://www.kodawarisan.com/imac_2007_mid/imac_2007_mid_01.html)

Meanwhile, Gizmodo has posted (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/apple/new-imac-impressions-and-facts-live-from-giz-hq-287508.php) some first impressions about the new iMac. Some highlights are provided:

- The keyboard cable is just high enough that it won't bump into the metal base of the iMac if you push them together on your desk.
- The iMac's aluminum chassis is stamped from a single piece of aluminum.
- The speakers are on the bottom, pointing down at the desk, where the sound bounces off nicely. (They're loud.)
- Can't wall mount the 20". The 24" has an optional VESA mount.
- Screen is extremely glossy

MacRumors readers are discussing the iMac in our iMac forum (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=91).



Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/08/aluminum-imac-disassembled-and-first-impressions/)



kitki83
Aug 8, 2007, 08:02 PM
Let the science BEGIN!!!!

I love the design of the new imac, the black trim is good for movie viewing. Also seems you can paint the black area.

Eidorian
Aug 8, 2007, 08:07 PM
Kodawarisan is the best. :cool:

Zwhaler
Aug 8, 2007, 08:11 PM
"Screen is extremely glossy" :( :(

Daniel75
Aug 8, 2007, 08:15 PM
At least now we know which panel is hidden there:

Model Name LM201WE3(TN)
Active Area [mm] 433.4 x 270.9
Outline Dimension [mm] 459.4 x 296.4
Thickness [mm] 16.5
Resolution 1680 x 1050
Aspect Ratio 16:10
Pixel Pitch [mm] 0.258
Number of Colors 16.7 M, 8bit(FRC)
Luminance [cd/?] 300
Color Saturation (%) 72%
Weight [g] 2500
Contrast Ratio 1000:1
Interface LVDS
Viewing Angle [?,U/D/L/R] 160/160
Color Temperature [K] 6500
Response Time [ms] 5


I wonder if that means that 24'' is using LM240WU3?
Specs (http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com/homeContain/jsp/kor/prd/prd201_j_k.jsp)

jsfried
Aug 8, 2007, 08:16 PM
Does the back panel come off like the last gen imac to gain access to the hard drive?

Rocketman
Aug 8, 2007, 08:18 PM
So if people can disassemble them, how long will it be until people run external eSata and PCIe cables to attach RAIDS and external PCI boxes?

"Hack your iMac" :)

Rocketman

mkrishnan
Aug 8, 2007, 08:29 PM
^^ How is that any different than the previous iMac?

Mmm, I still won't be able to see one till Tuesday at least, but I dunno. As more photos, the back continues to look ugly to me. The front, on the other hand, is slowly growing on me. :)

Eidorian
Aug 8, 2007, 08:31 PM
^^ How is that any different than the previous iMac?

Mmm, I still won't be able to see one till Tuesday at least, but I dunno. As more photos, the back continues to look ugly to me. The front, on the other hand, is slowly growing on me. :)The internals look the same to me.

chr1s60
Aug 8, 2007, 08:32 PM
The screen looks fantastic. I really wanna try one out.

mklos
Aug 8, 2007, 08:40 PM
Does the back panel come off like the last gen imac to gain access to the hard drive?

The last gen iMacs didn't have the feature either. You're thinking of the first gen iMac G5 where the entire back came off to get to the RAM, AirPort Card, Hard Drive, etc. The last gen iMacs you could only take a couple of screws off and get access to the RAM slots under the display, similar to the this new iMac.

I'm wondering how they got that glass out. Does it just pull out with the proper tools? If so I see a potential issue with the glass falling out of the enclosure without any warning.

twoodcc
Aug 8, 2007, 08:41 PM
dang, i wouldn't do that to my imac :eek:

i'm thinking that 2.8 ghz extreme processor in the 24" iMac would be one nice machine :cool:

illicium
Aug 8, 2007, 08:44 PM
I saw in the presentation that there is only one screw to remove to get to the RAM. I am planning on buying a new 24" iMac when Leopard comes out and I would like it to be outfitted with 2 Gigs of RAM but it is $135 in the Apple Store on-line to upgrade to 2 Gigs. What is anyone's experience with buying cheap 3rd party RAM for their iMacs? Currently on newegg there are prices as low as $35 for TechWorks and as low as $45 for Corsair 1 Gig modules. Should it send up a red flag that there is THAT much of a price difference? OR should I be completely safe going with one of those sticks for my upgrade to 2 Gigs?

jsfried
Aug 8, 2007, 08:53 PM
The last gen iMacs didn't have the feature either. You're thinking of the first gen iMac G5 where the entire back came off to get to the RAM, AirPort Card, Hard Drive, etc. The last gen iMacs you could only take a couple of screws off and get access to the RAM slots under the display, similar to the this new iMac.

I'm wondering how they got that glass out. Does it just pull out with the proper tools? If so I see a potential issue with the glass falling out of the enclosure without any warning.


You sure about there? The store I work at has the last gen 24inch on demo and the back comes off to access the hard drive.

Eidorian
Aug 8, 2007, 08:56 PM
You sure about there? The store I work at has the last gen 24inch on demo and the back comes off to access the hard drive.I've never seen that feature.

bennyboi
Aug 8, 2007, 08:59 PM
What is anyone's experience with buying cheap 3rd party RAM for their iMacs? Currently on newegg there are prices as low as $35 for TechWorks and as low as $45 for Corsair 1 Gig modules. Should it send up a red flag that there is THAT much of a price difference? OR should I be completely safe going with one of those sticks for my upgrade to 2 Gigs?

Yes, u can purchase cheap ram, but there are horror stories of doing so and people's macs get fried. The bad news, the warranty is voided because you installed 3rd party hardware. I don't know if it's u installing and/or the 3rd party ram that does it, the warranty does get x'd.
I'm a careless cowboy with my toys, and I install my own ram, but I at least try to purchase the same ram apple uses. memoryx.com will tell you which ram to get if u want to match ram and install yourself.
I could see an unethical person purchasing such ram, and if occuring any troubles, uninstalling such ram and taking it in for repairs? I think I'm just the same as you and would like to pinch some pennies when I don't necessarily have to spend a fortune :rolleyes:

Good luck!

maccompaq
Aug 8, 2007, 08:59 PM
I saw in the presentation that there is only one screw to remove to get to the RAM. I am planning on buying a new 24" iMac when Leopard comes out and I would like it to be outfitted with 2 Gigs of RAM but it is $135 in the Apple Store on-line to upgrade to 2 Gigs. What is anyone's experience with buying cheap 3rd party RAM for their iMacs? Currently on newegg there are prices as low as $35 for TechWorks and as low as $45 for Corsair 1 Gig modules. Should it send up a red flag that there is THAT much of a price difference? OR should I be completely safe going with one of those sticks for my upgrade to 2 Gigs?

Go to OWC to get a 2 Meg stick for $114. 1 meg is $50. Very reliable memory.

I want to take those components and put them in a mini tower with much better cooling to prolong the life of the logic board that seems to haunt iMacs. Anyone else?

beer.coffee
Aug 8, 2007, 09:01 PM
I saw in the presentation that there is only one screw to remove to get to the RAM. I am planning on buying a new 24" iMac when Leopard comes out and I would like it to be outfitted with 2 Gigs of RAM but it is $135 in the Apple Store on-line to upgrade to 2 Gigs. What is anyone's experience with buying cheap 3rd party RAM for their iMacs? Currently on newegg there are prices as low as $35 for TechWorks and as low as $45 for Corsair 1 Gig modules. Should it send up a red flag that there is THAT much of a price difference? OR should I be completely safe going with one of those sticks for my upgrade to 2 Gigs?


Dont skimp on money when it comes to memory! You definitely get what you paid for. I've run numerous memory checks and the cheap stuff definitely has more errors. More errors, more more hang ups and crashes, especially if your doing a lot of video/photo editing or playing games.

My advice is that the extra 20 bucks is well worth it. Your talking about one of the most vital aspect in determining computer performance! Dont skimp!

BIGIRON
Aug 8, 2007, 09:08 PM
I want one of these so bad but the upgradeable nature of the mac pro is calling my name...whats a nerd to do.....

yetanotherdave
Aug 8, 2007, 09:10 PM
In other words:
You are NEVER upgrading that HDD yourself :(

sluthy
Aug 8, 2007, 09:11 PM
Hmm, don't like glossy screens...I'll have to see it in person.

24in, full HD, decent graphics, ability to dual boot Windows (when will Boot Camp allow Linux dual booting/triple booting? Will the 'final' BC have this?). This iMac's starting to sound pretty good, and good value compared to Macs of old. Still don't know if it's value enough compared to PCs though for my next computer.

coumerelli
Aug 8, 2007, 09:19 PM
I saw in the presentation that there is only one screw to remove to get to the RAM. I am planning on buying a new 24" iMac when Leopard comes out and I would like it to be outfitted with 2 Gigs of RAM but it is $135 in the Apple Store on-line to upgrade to 2 Gigs. What is anyone's experience with buying cheap 3rd party RAM for their iMacs? Currently on newegg there are prices as low as $35 for TechWorks and as low as $45 for Corsair 1 Gig modules. Should it send up a red flag that there is THAT much of a price difference? OR should I be completely safe going with one of those sticks for my upgrade to 2 Gigs?

www.crucial.com - fantastic in my experience. They've got a nifty "Memory Advisor tool" to help you pick. This is inexpensive RAM as opposed to cheap RAM - there's a difference.

nostaws
Aug 8, 2007, 09:33 PM
www.crucial.com - fantastic in my experience. They've got a nifty "Memory Advisor tool" to help you pick. This is inexpensive RAM as opposed to cheap RAM - there's a difference.

Good Advice - I too really like crucial - very easy to find the exact ram you need for your mac. I have never had a problem with their RAM

I really like the new iMac - This is the first iMac (since the movable arm/desktop lamp version (I wish I could get that with an intel processor) that may cause me to get a desktop machine.

autechre
Aug 8, 2007, 09:46 PM
Any thoughts on Kingston? I want to upgrade to 4gb and thought about getting this stuff (http://www.memoryexpress.com/index.php?PageTag=&page=file&memx_menu=EmbedProductDetail.php&DisplayProductID=10386&SID=) from my local computer store. I know Kingston is a reputable manufacturer. I would get Micron or Samsung from OWC, but I'm not sure yet, especially because I'm in Canada and have reservations about warranty/customs. And is the warranty really void if you buy third party? That doesn't make sense to me.

Honest thoughts, plz.:D

macenforcer
Aug 8, 2007, 09:50 PM
Looks better with the glass off.

Foxglove9
Aug 8, 2007, 09:51 PM
I bought my Corsair ram for my Macbook off Newegg. It was $55 total for 2GB (1GBx2). Using for a month now and so far works perfectly.

macenforcer
Aug 8, 2007, 09:52 PM
You sure about there? The store I work at has the last gen 24inch on demo and the back comes off to access the hard drive.

Yep. The back comes off only on the 24". That is why the wall mount only works on that model and not the 20" or the 17". Lame huh?

Eidorian
Aug 8, 2007, 09:53 PM
Yep. The back comes off only on the 24". That is why the wall mount only works on that model and not the 20" or the 17". Lame huh?I forgot about the VESA mount on the 24" models.

OutThere
Aug 8, 2007, 09:53 PM
www.crucial.com - fantastic in my experience. They've got a nifty "Memory Advisor tool" to help you pick. This is inexpensive RAM as opposed to cheap RAM - there's a difference.

Crucial is not inexpensive in the slightest. On the contrary, they're typically one of the most expensive you can find.

The memory advisor tool will give you a money-back guarantee that the memory will work in your computer, but they charge for it. If you use the tool, find what you need, and compare the the same piece of RAM found without using the tool on Crucial.com with the one found with the tool, you'll see how much they charge you for the guarantee.

I usually try to find new-in-box crucial memory on eBay, which tends to be much cheaper for the same product.

zorinlynx
Aug 8, 2007, 10:07 PM
Arrgh. They STILL haven't fixed the biggest annoyance: The hard drive is a bitch to replace.

Hard drive failures are common, especially in lab environments where you have a large number of machines to knock that MTBF number down for the total systems. The thought of having to go through this procedure to swap failed hard drive on lab systems really annoys the crap out of me.

This WILL keep the iMac from being adopted in corporate/university/etc. environments where you have a lot of machines and frequent hard disk failures.

Why did you let us down again Apple? Why?

Multimedia
Aug 8, 2007, 10:15 PM
This thing reflects light from all over the place and the keyboard is horrendous. I can't tell you how bad this thing looks because I'm looking at so many reflections of stuff throughout the store behind me that it is pathetic you can't buy this baby matt. It's a lovely piece of art but this is a case of form preceeding function instead of vice versa. Not good. :(

zorinlynx
Aug 8, 2007, 10:22 PM
This thing reflects light from all over the place and the keyboard is horrendous. I can't tell you how bad this thing looks because I'm looking at so many reflections of stuff throughout the store behind me that it is pathetic you can't buy this baby matt. It's a lovely piece of art but this is a case of form preceeding function instead of vice versa. Not good. :(

That's what I don't get.. WHY are they forcing glossy displays on their "consumer" models? They still offer matte on their pro products... What, "consumers" are supposed to suffer with horrid reflections all the time?

Sorry Apple, you lose this time. It's going to be hard to recommend your products in the future. Give us a choice.

age234
Aug 8, 2007, 10:23 PM
For some reason I didn't realize that the whole screen was covered in glass, I thought it was just the black portion around the screen. Oh well.

I haven't seen one in person, but from the pictures it looks great. I was skeptical of glossy screens, but I saw them at an Apple Store and last week got a glossy MacBook (with iWork '06 preinstalled...good move, Sherlock), and I have to say I love it. There are reflections from time to time, but I've already come to not even notice, and you can't beat the brightness and contrast.

Looks great to me.

rbroady
Aug 8, 2007, 10:31 PM
hey well, i guess if your dying for an imac and want a matte screen, you can customize it.

That would be possible right?
:D

Multimedia
Aug 8, 2007, 10:32 PM
Wow! What a difference the "old" keyboard and a matt screen make. It's no contest from where I stand in the Palo Alto Apple Store. This keyboard rocks and I just got my Bluetooth version today that I ordered yesterday from the refurb store for $49 after I saw what is replacing them yesterday morning.

There are ZERO reflections from behind me and looks plenty bright to me. I gotta stick with matt for the rest of my life so I guess I won't be buying any iMacs for this lifetime anyway. My keyboards need to have real traveling distance and cups for my fingers to feel rested in before they press down a significant distance. The "new" iMac is probably the WORST new Mac to come along since I can't remember when. Total disaster from where I stand. :(

Fiveos22
Aug 8, 2007, 10:32 PM
Wow! Look at that cooling system!

I'm sure its all necessary, but its still like the blue ball machine (http://blueballfixed.ytmnd.com/)! Way to go Apple, wring every last drop of energy out of your engineering staff!

brop52
Aug 8, 2007, 10:37 PM
Anyone know what latency apple uses in the 1 GB chip they put in there? Although from what I've seen nowhere is selling better than 5.

Multimedia
Aug 8, 2007, 10:49 PM
I saw in the presentation that there is only one screw to remove to get to the RAM. I am planning on buying a new 24" iMac when Leopard comes out and I would like it to be outfitted with 2 Gigs of RAM but it is $135 in the Apple Store on-line to upgrade to 2 Gigs. What is anyone's experience with buying cheap 3rd party RAM for their iMacs? Currently on newegg there are prices as low as $35 for TechWorks and as low as $45 for Corsair 1 Gig modules. Should it send up a red flag that there is THAT much of a price difference? OR should I be completely safe going with one of those sticks for my upgrade to 2 Gigs?You buy the low end one 1GB stick 24" and ADD 2.8 GHz for $250. Then you buy TWO 2GB sticks from OWC for $230 and you have a really fast dual core iMac with plenty of RAM for the future.

chubad
Aug 8, 2007, 11:10 PM
Wow! What a difference the "old" keyboard and a matt screen make. It's no contest from where I stand in the Palo Alto Apple Store. This keyboard rocks and I just got my Bluetooth version today that I ordered yesterday from the refurb store for $49 after I saw what is replacing them yesterday morning.

There are ZERO reflections from behind me and looks plenty bright to me. I gotta stick with matt for the rest of my life so I guess I won't be buying any iMacs for this lifetime anyway. My keyboards need to have real traveling distance and cups for my fingers to feel rested in before they press down a significant distance. The "new" iMac is probably the WORST new Mac to come along since I can't remember when. Total disaster from where I stand. :(

I totally agree. The glossy screen sucks bigtime and the aesthetics of the thing are horrible. :(

Darkroom
Aug 9, 2007, 12:32 AM
the apple remote no longer sticks to the side via magnets! :( or :)... i'm still not sure how i feel about that...

bokdol
Aug 9, 2007, 01:07 AM
i wonder how easy it was for him to remove the glass. it seems someone could make a matte screen cover to replace the glass or just black trim around the edge instead of the whole screen.

Bregalad
Aug 9, 2007, 01:14 AM
I totally agree. The glossy screen sucks bigtime and the aesthetics of the thing are horrible. :(

In a lot of environments an all-in-one computer is a good idea, but if you're going to lock people in there have to be choices at the point of purchase like a matte finish on the display.

Getting stuck with Steve Jobs' "selections du jour" is a big reason why I'll never buy an all-in-one. I return his lack of interest in selling a mid-priced box with expansion capabilities by refusing to give Apple my money. I let corporations buy or lease high end Macs and then buy from them when their financial cycle ends. A two year old pro tower is plenty of computer for home use.

I think this trend toward 6-bit displays with a gloss finish is terrible. Beyond the annoying reflections and dithering to get more than a few thousand colors is the simple fact that viewing angles suck on those things. The edges of modern wide displays are at a sufficiently different viewing angle from the middle to distort everything you're looking at, and a small shift in your chair changes the look of the whole screen. I will admit that there are fewer video artifacts on such displays, but video is a tiny fraction of the content I view on my screen.

sas76
Aug 9, 2007, 01:32 AM
This thing reflects light from all over the place and the keyboard is horrendous. I can't tell you how bad this thing looks because I'm looking at so many reflections of stuff throughout the store behind me that it is pathetic you can't buy this baby matt. It's a lovely piece of art but this is a case of form preceeding function instead of vice versa. Not good. :(

How long do you think it will be to someone offers a non reflective stickon screen for the iMac.

Cheers

matticus008
Aug 9, 2007, 01:33 AM
I think this trend toward 6-bit displays
It's an 8-bit panel. Your complaint might be valid for notebooks, but then it wouldn't be a "trend" at all--it's never been any different.
The edges of modern wide displays are at a sufficiently different viewing angle from the middle to distort everything you're looking at
These are contradictory concepts. If the edges are wide enough to shift colors, you're not able to look at them simultaneously with the center. Either you're sitting too close to the display or you mean something else. Your eyes shouldn't travel more than 15 degrees off-center to reach the edge of a display at the recommended viewing distance, and any photograph will show a consistent image across the screen at that distance.
How long do you think it will be to someone offers a non reflective stickon screen for the iMac.
If it truly bothers you, here's a solution: screen cover film (http://www.photodon.com/lcdprotect-sheet.htm#buynow)

CanadaRAM
Aug 9, 2007, 01:41 AM
Any thoughts on Kingston? I want to upgrade to 4gb and thought about getting this stuff (http://www.memoryexpress.com/index.php?PageTag=&page=file&memx_menu=EmbedProductDetail.php&DisplayProductID=10386&SID=) from my local computer store. I know Kingston is a reputable manufacturer. I would get Micron or Samsung from OWC, but I'm not sure yet, especially because I'm in Canada and have reservations about warranty/customs. And is the warranty really void if you buy third party? That doesn't make sense to me.

Honest thoughts, plz.:D

Kingston RAM is good, but the KTA-MBP667/1G /2G are the ones that Kingston recommends for the intel Macs, not the KVR- ValueRAM series.

There are some good options for mail order within Canada too, for Kingston Micron and Samsung.

Evangelion
Aug 9, 2007, 02:20 AM
Wow! What a difference the "old" keyboard and a matt screen make. It's no contest from where I stand in the Palo Alto Apple Store. This keyboard rocks and I just got my Bluetooth version today that I ordered yesterday from the refurb store for $49 after I saw what is replacing them yesterday morning.

Like I said in the other thread: the old Apple Keyboard sucks big time, and I know: I own one. The keys get repeatedly stuck when you try to push them. I constantly had problems with the Apple Keyboard, where I was typing some text, only to notice afterwards that some of the letters were missing because the keyboard got stuck. After talking with other users around the net, they just commented that "yeah, the keyboard does that". Totally unacceptable. I literally punched the keyboard several times when they keys simply would not budge.

As to the gloss.... I wouldn't be one bit surprised if we got an aftermarket matte-solution that replaces the glass in front of the screen.

My keyboards need to have real traveling distance and cups for my fingers to feel rested in before they press down a significant distance.

Again: like I said in the other thread: instead of wasting your money on the old Apple Keyboard, get one of the modern predecessors of the IBM Model M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_M). Sure, it might not look as good as the Apple Keyboard, but since we are talking about keyboards, the function (typing-comfort, speed etc.) is way more important than the form of the keyboard.

Jim Campbell
Aug 9, 2007, 02:52 AM
I totally agree. The glossy screen sucks bigtime and the aesthetics of the thing are horrible. :(

I don't get it ... up until a very few years ago, practically every monitor you could buy was a CRT with glass over the front of it. Strangely, everyone seemed to manage just fine but now ... the merest sniff of a reflection on a screen and everyone seems to freak out ...

Not having a go at anyone, I'm just puzzled.

Cheers

Jim

thevofl
Aug 9, 2007, 03:09 AM
I don't get it ... up until a very few years ago, practically every monitor you could buy was a CRT with glass over the front of it. Strangely, everyone seemed to manage just fine but now ... the merest sniff of a reflection on a screen and everyone seems to freak out ...

I hated it then, and I hate it now. I don't like how things look in it. This is a preference of mine. No one can change that, including Steve Jobs. He may transition all displays to glossy, but it's not going to change my view of glossy screens. I am thankful that when I bought my MBP I had a choice of Matte.

atzeX
Aug 9, 2007, 03:11 AM
I don't get it ... up until a very few years ago, practically every monitor you could buy was a CRT with glass over the front of it. Strangely, everyone seemed to manage just fine but now ... the merest sniff of a reflection on a screen and everyone seems to freak out ...


Jim, all the good CRTs did _not_ reflect. The surfaces are chemical etched to avoid rerflection.

It is cheaper to build glossy LCDs...

The glossy displays will bring you headaches for free!
:(


ps. i do not believe Jobs that the most customers want it glossy!

l33r0y
Aug 9, 2007, 03:21 AM
It's an 8-bit panel.

The 20" is TN Film (6-bit).

The viewing angles for the 24" suggest a S-PVA or S-IPS (8-bit), but I would like confirmation of this before I buy.

Personally I wouldn't by another TN Film based iMac or monitor.

Daniel75
Aug 9, 2007, 03:30 AM
The 20" is TN Film (6-bit).

The viewing angles for the 24" suggest a S-PVA or S-IPS (8-bit), but I would like confirmation of this before I buy.

Personally I wouldn't by another TN Film based iMac or monitor.

Same here. Altho according to specs 20" panel is 8 - bit:

Number of Colors 16.7 M, 8bit(FRC)

[Edit] Sorry - it's 6 - bit and dithering. I can't find much information about all this "8-bit vs 8-bit-FRC" differences tho...

oh- got it:
there are different ways to make a 6-bit panel look like an 8-bit one. The most common method is FRC (frame-rate control) where a pixel is rapidly switched between two adjacent colors to produce the desired one. If implemented well, it is impossible to tell the difference between this and true 8-bit. If not implemented well, it produces artifacts like flickering on certain colors (because your brain can detect the pixels flip-flopping between states

oshoel
Aug 9, 2007, 03:30 AM
"Screen is extremely glossy" :( :(

I don't like glossy displays either, but it looks like that's the way all Apple's displays are heading :mad:

matticus008
Aug 9, 2007, 04:41 AM
It is cheaper to build glossy LCDs...
No, it most certainly is not.
ps. i do not believe Jobs that the most customers want it glossy!
You don't have to take his word for it. Just look at sales numbers. People like them, since consumers give up nothing and get quite a bit in return. Most persnickety whiners have never used them, but even worse can't seem to grasp the relatively simply science that disproves their biggest gripes. There's a small group that prefers the matte finish, and that's fine, but they're a shrinking group. Reflections and glare are completely irrelevant if you've properly adjusted your display. In order to produce a glare, you have to have a considerably brighter light source pointed at the display surface and be looking at it from a non-perpendicular angle. Both of these are poor choices and would make any computer display more difficult to read.

Funny how they tend to be the same people all but demanding a minitower Mac, though.

Jim Campbell
Aug 9, 2007, 04:48 AM
Jim, all the good CRTs did _not_ reflect. The surfaces are chemical etched to avoid rerflection.

If you say so. My stupidly expensive Apple 17" CRT certainly reflected, as has every CRT that I've ever sat in front of.

Please note, I'm not saying that you're wrong, only that I have never encountered this and I imagine I'm not alone in this. People used to deal with reflections very easily ... you just look right through them at what's on the screen!

You may still colour me vaguely mystified.

Cheers

Jim

matticus008
Aug 9, 2007, 04:48 AM
The 20" is TN Film (6-bit).

The viewing angles for the 24" suggest a S-PVA or S-IPS (8-bit), but I would like confirmation of this before I buy.
My mistake; I only looked at the 24" information. Still, though, I do not believe this is a trend "toward" anything--unless the previous 20" model was 8-bit, and I don't believe that to be the case. I've not heard of any instance of a company moving away from 8-bit panels.
If you say so. My stupidly expensive Apple 17" CRT certainly reflected, as has every CRT that I've ever sat in front of.

Please note, I'm not saying that you're wrong, only that I have never encountered this and I imagine I'm not alone in this.
No, you're not wrong. Both the etched surface CRTs and the add-on anti-glare coatings were "glossy" finished (the most common anti-glare covers were basically just polarizing filters that prevented horizontal light from crossing into the CRT's transmission path). They displayed a reflection at off-center angles like everything else. People just have an exceptionally poor memory and don't realize that. There's no magic surface that makes a reflection go away while remaining optically clear--this isn't Star Trek. People are just apparently less likely to notice poor contrast and diminished brightness as an equivalent problem, it seems.

MrCrowbar
Aug 9, 2007, 04:48 AM
I don't like glossy displays either, but it looks like that's the way all Apple's displays are heading :mad:

The glossy display on my Macbook never bothered me. I like having more contrast indoors with artificial lighting. Matte screens just blur the reflecting light so it makes the whole screen brighter. You're not supposed to use your iMac outdoors and most flat TVs are glossy too.

Does the iMac have some coating on the front glass, i.e. do the reflections have a color tint? That should be standard nowadays. Macbooks have it...

I haven't used the new keyboard yet, but I was looking for a desktop keyboard that works like the Macbook but at a liitle angle for comfort. Apple did just that. I'm so used to the laptop layout anyway so I might get the bluetooth one. At least Apple's wireless stuff doesn't require USB dongles.

bigandy
Aug 9, 2007, 05:01 AM
the apple remote no longer sticks to the side via magnets! :( or :)... i'm still not sure how i feel about that...

probably because the remote is now too wide to look good there :p

MrCrowbar
Aug 9, 2007, 05:08 AM
probably because the remote is now too wide to look good there :p

It's also too wide to fit on the left side of the Macbook's screen. Still, there's a magnet to hold the remote. It's useful after presentations. The Pros don't have it tho... I guess it would mess up the aluminum to put the remote up there?

G-Force
Aug 9, 2007, 05:15 AM
My mistake; I only looked at the 24" information. Still, though, I do not believe this is a trend "toward" anything--unless the previous 20" model was 8-bit, and I don't believe that to be the case. I've not heard of any instance of a company moving away from 8-bit panels.
The previous model was 8 bit as far as I know, it had the same panel that Dell 20" display used (16ms).

gnasher729
Aug 9, 2007, 05:22 AM
Yes, u can purchase cheap ram, but there are horror stories of doing so and people's macs get fried. The bad news, the warranty is voided because you installed 3rd party hardware. I don't know if it's u installing and/or the 3rd party ram that does it, the warranty does get x'd.

I have heard stories about RAM not working; I haven't seen anything posted on MacRumors where someone said a Mac was damaged by RAM. And the warranty most definitely does not get voided. What is not covered is any damage that you do while installing the RAM, and what isn't covered is if the RAM doesn't work because it isn't Apple's, but apart from that your warranty is fine.

And should cheap RAM damage your Mac (which I have never heard of), I'm sure you can sue the supplier for the damages.

felixkunze
Aug 9, 2007, 05:24 AM
Initial impressions:
Overall very impressed. It looks beautiful and I didn't like the new design at first but once you see them in person it really is beautiful. Apple's designs tend to grow on me.

Screen - I really prefer the glossy screen. Now I have the glossy brand new 24 inch at my home office and the older 20 inch at my work office, the difference is quite noticable. The old screen looks notably dull but at home the screen is fantastic. Really really nice. The reflections aren't a problem if you are sitting in front of the machine and using it. Only if you are looking from the side or the sun is hitting the screen. And once the screen is on its very good. Also I get the idea that the resolution is better than the old 24 inch but that may have to do with the glossy look.

Audio - Initial impression is that the audio output is of better quality. My personal music preferences are bordering on Audiophile and I'm a lot happier with my new iMac's audio output then my previous machines.

Keyboard - Very good. Its easier to type on if you type very fast (I do around 90 WPM) and its quieter which means you can type while you're on the phone so you can do work calls without having to write everything down on paper. Especially in a setting where you don't necessarily want people to know that you are inputting notes into the computer. For that reason we are upgrading all our work keyboards. Also it feels and looks like its curved but from the side it doesn't look like it is. You'll know what I mean when you use it. I had an initial fear that it would not be comfortable typing so "low down" but it works quite well. Imagine tapping your fingers on the desk to type and that's almost what its like. Only problem is that in the UK Apple stores I've been to now (Regent Street and Bluewater), I can't buy the keyboard separately which means that I still have the old keyboard at work.

Issues:
Remote - I find it kind of annoying that the remote doesn't stick to the side of the screen anymore. I have a (now) old 20" iMac that I use at work and as its a work machine, the remote just sort of gets stored on the iMac. Never used it but I know I won't loose it because it has its pride of place. The remote is also slightly wider now than my 24 inch iMac. Redesign of the remote would be nice but oh well. That's the only thing I don't like.

Oh yeah and there is an issue with viewing the videos on my web gallery but that's .mac's problem, not iMac. In the process of figuring out what is going on with that.

Overall :D:D:
I wish I had filmed the faces of my family as they walked into my office and saw the new iMac. They were in open-mouthed awe :eek: and so was I.
See the pics here (http://gallery.mac.com/felixkunze) of the unboxing

MrCrowbar
Aug 9, 2007, 05:27 AM
Has anyone seen disassembly of the 24" iMacs? Rumor has it you can access the hard drive easily by taking off the backplate...

@felixkunze

Just saw your post. Do me a favor an remove that backplate and make some photos. I wanna see if the hard drive is easy to replace :)

synth3tik
Aug 9, 2007, 05:32 AM
Screen is extremely glossy

Extremely, great vivid colors you'll see but no one else that views your photos/web page/keynote what ever will see.

MrCrowbar
Aug 9, 2007, 05:34 AM
See the pics here (http://gallery.mac.com/felixkunze) of the unboxing

I can't view your video either:
http://tinyurl.com/2bokkp

Make sure you encode it as H.264 quicktime video with AAC audio. I got Flip4Mac and Perian installed but can't play it so it's not my fault :-)

bigandy
Aug 9, 2007, 05:35 AM
Extremely, great vivid colors you'll see but no one else that views your photos/web page/keynote what ever will see.

unless they're one of the huge number of PC users that are also getting lumbered with glossy screens. or macbook users. or glossy MBP users.

there are a huge number of glossy screens out there. consumer types love them. not everyone's a pro, not everyone cares about how accurate colours are on two different machines. nobody cares that someone may not get the rich colour experience that they do on the new iMac.

i do, i'm not tempted by the new iMac because of the glossyness. i need the matte screen, but almost everyone i know wouldn't know the difference they bring to certain work.

Frisco
Aug 9, 2007, 05:47 AM
Yeah glossy screens definitely look so much better. I am glad the iMac now has a glossy screen. The old iMac screen looked dull compared to PCs with glossy screens. Imagine telling a consumer at an Apple store, yeah PCs have more vivid colors, but Macs with matte have more accurate color? Yeah okay they would buy that!

But for professionals I do understand the need for matte screens and I wish Apple would offer it as a build to order option from Apple.com.

Digitaljim
Aug 9, 2007, 05:58 AM
It's an absolute monstrosity. The golden age of Apple design may be over.

I really do find that thing hideous :(

Hairball
Aug 9, 2007, 06:27 AM
I saw in the presentation that there is only one screw to remove to get to the RAM. I am planning on buying a new 24" iMac when Leopard comes out and I would like it to be outfitted with 2 Gigs of RAM but it is $135 in the Apple Store on-line to upgrade to 2 Gigs. What is anyone's experience with buying cheap 3rd party RAM for their iMacs? Currently on newegg there are prices as low as $35 for TechWorks and as low as $45 for Corsair 1 Gig modules. Should it send up a red flag that there is THAT much of a price difference? OR should I be completely safe going with one of those sticks for my upgrade to 2 Gigs?

About two months ago I bought a 1 gig RAM stick from Crucial and there have been no problems. I unscrewed the two screws, on last gen iMac, snapped the RAM in and put the panel back on and have had no problems. It took about 5 minutes. It actually took more time removing all of the cables to disconnect the Mac.

porky
Aug 9, 2007, 06:57 AM
It's pretty stupid to put such slow videocards on-board if they REALLY want gaming on the mac. An nVidia 8600 is also possible. Why not? It's a lot faster and ain't that much more expensive. Hey a desktop with a removable vga card sounds great but will never happen. So I still need to buy a 600 euro PC for gaming which is a lot faster. Thanks Apple! EA and ID will not understand why you put a 60 euro videocard on-board, if you are serious about gaming on the mac! Yeah C&C3 will work, but what about all the 3D shooters?

vohdoun
Aug 9, 2007, 07:02 AM
The glossy display on my Macbook never bothered me. I like having more contrast indoors with artificial lighting. Matte screens just blur the reflecting light so it makes the whole screen brighter. You're not supposed to use your iMac outdoors and most flat TVs are glossy too.


I love the matte finish. Ever since I got my first big TFT it's been matte. It's amazing the difference seeing no reflection of yourself or other things about the room.
Granted I have a little 19" TFT that is glossy, but I don't have problems with it because it's sheltered in a darker area by the tower.

Doesn't matter where I move the screens that have the matte finish I don't get the problem you speak of. The HDTV is also matte and its amazing the difference how the glare and reflection is gone.

The only thing that bugs me about cleaning the 19" because its glossy is everytime I wipe it you see all the little fibers start sticking to it from static. Sure that wont annoy the majority of people, but I'm picky :)
I don't have that problem with the matte screens, one wipe and its spotless.

unless they're one of the huge number of PC users that are also getting lumbered with glossy screens. or macbook users. or glossy MBP users.

there are a huge number of glossy screens out there. consumer types love them. not everyone's a pro, not everyone cares about how accurate colours are on two different machines. nobody cares that someone may not get the rich colour experience that they do on the new iMac.

i do, i'm not tempted by the new iMac because of the glossyness. i need the matte screen, but almost everyone i know wouldn't know the difference they bring to certain work.

Agreed.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/08/new-imac-keyboard-02.jpg

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/08/new-imac-keyboard-17.jpg

You can see how distracting that would be, you'd need to find the perfect area to sit that from not getting all the reflections.
That would drive me crazy, doesn't matter where I position the matte screens I don't get that!

Don't get me wrong though. The new iMac I think looks beautiful, but thats too glossy for my liking. It's like a show piece. If this is the route the Apple displays are going...

maccompaq
Aug 9, 2007, 07:11 AM
Arrgh. They STILL haven't fixed the biggest annoyance: The hard drive is a bitch to replace.

Hard drive failures are common, especially in lab environments where you have a large number of machines to knock that MTBF number down for the total systems. The thought of having to go through this procedure to swap failed hard drive on lab systems really annoys the crap out of me.

This WILL keep the iMac from being adopted in corporate/university/etc. environments where you have a lot of machines and frequent hard disk failures.

Why did you let us down again Apple? Why?

Apple is not going to get any more money from me until a reasonable tower is produced. I will continue to use my old Mac and my new Compaq.

Multimedia
Aug 9, 2007, 07:12 AM
It's an absolute monstrosity. The golden age of Apple design may be over.

I really do find that thing hideous :(You know it's really great to see that someone in Edinburgh Scotland sees this the same way I do. The more I look at it, the worse it looks to me. Notice that gigantic black :apple: staring at you 24/7? I am still stunned at what a God awful "design" this is. And the keyboard? Unbelievable how anyone can like it. :eek:

whooleytoo
Aug 9, 2007, 07:16 AM
You don't have to take his word for it. Just look at sales numbers.

Are glossy v matte sales figures available? I wouldn't mind seeing them.


People like them, since consumers give up nothing and get quite a bit in return.

They give up nothing, apart from being able to use their screen in many bright environments without glare. Not everyone has complete control over the environment in which they use their computer.


Most persnickety whiners have never used them, but even worse can't seem to grasp the relatively simply science that disproves their biggest gripes.

What science disproves the gripe that there is far more glare on a glossy screen than on a matte?


There's a small group that prefers the matte finish, and that's fine, but they're a shrinking group. Reflections and glare are completely irrelevant if you've properly adjusted your display. In order to produce a glare, you have to have a considerably brighter light source pointed at the display surface and be looking at it from a non-perpendicular angle. Both of these are poor choices and would make any computer display more difficult to read.

It's an ergonomic nightmare to force people to sit still in a certain position so as to avoid glare; especially when non-glare screens are available. The computer should adapt to the user, not the other way around.

And, what happens if you need to show a colleague something on your screen? Do you take turns sitting directly in front of it? Swivel the iMac back and forth?

And the keyboard? Unbelievable how anyone can like it. :eek:

I had high-hopes for the iMac keyboard; I like the idea of it being very flat as I might then be able to type with my wrists resting on the desk without bending my wrist backwards too far. Doesn't sound too promising though..

kwood
Aug 9, 2007, 07:23 AM
Yes, u can purchase cheap ram, but there are horror stories of doing so and people's macs get fried. The bad news, the warranty is voided because you installed 3rd party hardware. I don't know if it's u installing and/or the 3rd party ram that does it, the warranty does get x'd.
I'm a careless cowboy with my toys, and I install my own ram, but I at least try to purchase the same ram apple uses. memoryx.com will tell you which ram to get if u want to match ram and install yourself.
I could see an unethical person purchasing such ram, and if occuring any troubles, uninstalling such ram and taking it in for repairs? I think I'm just the same as you and would like to pinch some pennies when I don't necessarily have to spend a fortune :rolleyes:

Good luck!

I have installed RAM on all of my computers and the only way you can fry the computer is if you don't discharge static. If you do this then RAM cannot fry the computer. The RAM may not work and you may have to put the original RAM back in but that only means the RAM you got needs to be replaced.

Also installing RAM in no way voids your warranty. I have no idea where you got this idea, but you did not read the warranty terms on your Mac if you think this. Why would they advertise 1 screw access to the memory banks if it did void the warranty. Please check this (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=13946) out.

bigandy
Aug 9, 2007, 07:24 AM
Edinburgh Scottland

Where's Scottland? :confused: :p

maccompaq
Aug 9, 2007, 07:27 AM
It's an absolute monstrosity. The golden age of Apple design may be over.

I really do find that thing hideous :(

Tell me about your G5 enclosed Hackintosh. It sounds like what I am after.

PDE
Aug 9, 2007, 07:37 AM
No, it most certainly is not.

You don't have to take his word for it. Just look at sales numbers. People like them, since consumers give up nothing and get quite a bit in return. Most persnickety whiners have never used them, but even worse can't seem to grasp the relatively simply science that disproves their biggest gripes. There's a small group that prefers the matte finish, and that's fine, but they're a shrinking group. Reflections and glare are completely irrelevant if you've properly adjusted your display. In order to produce a glare, you have to have a considerably brighter light source pointed at the display surface and be looking at it from a non-perpendicular angle. Both of these are poor choices and would make any computer display more difficult to read.

Funny how they tend to be the same people all but demanding a minitower Mac, though.

The problem is that Apple doesn't design any of its products so that you can adequately adjust the display to accomodate changes in lighting/reflection. Thye macbooks and macbook pros have very limited display bezel movement and so do the imacs and cinema displays. If you want to sit ergonomically in front of an imac, you need to adjust the display so that it is slightly tilted upward (toward the ceiling light) and there will inevitably be reflections - just like with the laptops.

Reflections ARE there. Whether people get used to them is another issue. Personally, I hate seeing myself all the time and am happy that I'm no longer using a macbook for that very reason. With my matte mbp, I never ever have reflection issues. With the macbook I had them all the time. was it useable? Of course! Was it annoying? Yes! Glossy displays reflect. Period.

L3X
Aug 9, 2007, 07:45 AM
They def. need a matte option. The design doesn't bother me. I would take an all-black version.

I might have to do what Multimedia suggested, a new Mini with an ACD. That would be quite nice actually for a little home desktop.

The keyboards confuse me, why are you going to have a silver/black iMac and a silver/white keyboard...That doesn't make any sense to me and they don't look that good together. The keyboard and mouse should both be black to match the iMac.

oingoboingo
Aug 9, 2007, 07:48 AM
Wow! What a difference the "old" keyboard and a matt screen make. It's no contest from where I stand in the Palo Alto Apple Store. This keyboard rocks and I just got my Bluetooth version today that I ordered yesterday from the refurb store for $49 after I saw what is replacing them yesterday morning.

There are ZERO reflections from behind me and looks plenty bright to me. I gotta stick with matt for the rest of my life so I guess I won't be buying any iMacs for this lifetime anyway. My keyboards need to have real traveling distance and cups for my fingers to feel rested in before they press down a significant distance. The "new" iMac is probably the WORST new Mac to come along since I can't remember when. Total disaster from where I stand. :(

If you're still in the store, give that mini a damned good thrashing. I've just ordered the 2Ghz model and want to know how it performs!

I also have the original Apple BT wireless keyboard and won't be trading it for anything else.

AidenShaw
Aug 9, 2007, 07:57 AM
I want to take those components and put them in a mini tower with much better cooling to prolong the life of the logic board that seems to haunt iMacs. Anyone else?

NFW.

Put cheaper, faster desktop boards and components in the mini-tower...like a quad Kentsfield.

Cloudsurfer
Aug 9, 2007, 07:57 AM
I don't see what everyone's problem is with the glass. We all used CRT displays with glass screens back in the day, but I don't recall anyone complaining about those.

People who call off their purchase because of something so trivial have issues.

Foxglove9
Aug 9, 2007, 08:12 AM
Sure we do. CRT's are big, heavy, and also reflect light. However CRT's don't have viewing angle issues, but LCD's do. That's why glossy can be annoying when positioning the screen to your liking.

The thing is back then we really had no choice so we put up with glare on our CRT's. But now we are all used to the matte LCD screen it's hard to go back.

Glossy isn't bad enough for me to put off a purchase of a computer, but given the choice I'd much rather have the matte screen than glossy. Because it can be annoying depending on where the screen is facing. On my 13.3" macbook I can deal with it, but on a 20-24" screen I don't know, I'd have to see it myself how reflective it is. Especially because I have low ceilings and lots of light sources.

I don't see what everyone's problem is with the glass. We all used CRT displays with glass screens back in the day, but I don't recall anyone complaining about those.

displaced
Aug 9, 2007, 08:22 AM
Where's Scottland? :confused: :p

Just north of Daveland.

:)

SolidShadow
Aug 9, 2007, 08:22 AM
I'm really glad I ponied up and bought a Mac Pro. I was originally going to buy a new imac when they were released but frankly I'm not really impressed with the new imac. Plus my refurb quad 2.66 with 23" monitor cost only slightly more than a maxed out imac. I feel I really got a better deal in the end.

Plus I can easily upgrade anything I want due to the easily removable side panel.

Lesser Evets
Aug 9, 2007, 08:27 AM
Don't die in Japan. Those guys autopsy quick.

I figured that glass screen might have some anti-glare thing going on. What a shame. It would drive me up a wall. As for the apple logo being black, I doubt anyone will see it much after the first day.

The design is nice. But I wouldn't own one because I need expansion of drives and don't want clutter. iMacs are very nice for someone who doesn't load up drives and wants an all around machine that isn't the top line for anything specific. If I was a college student I would be in heaven.... anyone else used to lug their Apple II around with monitor and drives and all the garbage that came with it as a 50+ lbs pile of junk??

gcortega
Aug 9, 2007, 08:29 AM
I just switched over yesterday to mac and bought an iMac yesterday. Very sad to say that my experience has actually been pretty bad. The new iMac is great I bought the 20" 2.4 the only thing is the first one that I bought had a dot on the screen which looked like a dead pixel but when I took it to mac genius they said it was probably that something got stuck in between the glass and the screen.
I got a brand new iMac. It's been working fine today and then guess what? I notice another dot on the screen.

I'm not down with paying 1500 for an apple iMac to have to return it twice already because the screen is screwed up. It's a bit ridiculous to have this happen twice...Not very happy about switching over to apple. http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/smilies/mad.gif
:mad:

Cheffy Dave
Aug 9, 2007, 08:54 AM
Initial impressions:
Overall very impressed. It looks beautiful and I didn't like the new design at first but once you see them in person it really is beautiful. Apple's designs tend to grow on me.

Screen - I really prefer the glossy screen. Now I have the glossy brand new 24 inch at my home office and the older 20 inch at my work office, the difference is quite noticable. The old screen looks notably dull but at home the screen is fantastic. Really really nice. The reflections aren't a problem if you are sitting in front of the machine and using it. Only if you are looking from the side or the sun is hitting the screen. And once the screen is on its very good. Also I get the idea that the resolution is better than the old 24 inch but that may have to do with the glossy look.

Audio - Initial impression is that the audio output is of better quality. My personal music preferences are bordering on Audiophile and I'm a lot happier with my new iMac's audio output then my previous machines.

Keyboard - Very good. Its easier to type on if you type very fast (I do around 90 WPM) and its quieter which means you can type while you're on the phone so you can do work calls without having to write everything down on paper. Especially in a setting where you don't necessarily want people to know that you are inputting notes into the computer. For that reason we are upgrading all our work keyboards. Also it feels and looks like its curved but from the side it doesn't look like it is. You'll know what I mean when you use it. I had an initial fear that it would not be comfortable typing so "low down" but it works quite well. Imagine tapping your fingers on the desk to type and that's almost what its like. Only problem is that in the UK Apple stores I've been to now (Regent Street and Bluewater), I can't buy the keyboard separately which means that I still have the old keyboard at work.

Issues:
Remote - I find it kind of annoying that the remote doesn't stick to the side of the screen anymore. I have a (now) old 20" iMac that I use at work and as its a work machine, the remote just sort of gets stored on the iMac. Never used it but I know I won't loose it because it has its pride of place. The remote is also slightly wider now than my 24 inch iMac. Redesign of the remote would be nice but oh well. That's the only thing I don't like.

Oh yeah and there is an issue with viewing the videos on my web gallery but that's .mac's problem, not iMac. In the process of figuring out what is going on with that.

Overall :D:D:
I wish I had filmed the faces of my family as they walked into my office and saw the new iMac. They were in open-mouthed awe :eek: and so was I.
See the pics here (http://gallery.mac.com/felixkunze) of the unboxing


Nice job! TG I had a paper towel to contain my drool!
:p

brianus
Aug 9, 2007, 09:02 AM
You know it's really great to see that someone in Edinburgh Scottland sees this the same way I do. The more I look at it, the worse it looks to me. Notice that gigantic black :apple: staring at you 24/7? I am still stunned at what a God awful "design" this is. And the keyboard? Unbelievable how anyone can like it. :eek:

New Jersey here, also agreeing. Between this and the hack job that is the Leopard UI, it's like they've given up on producing distinct, simple and aesthetically pleasing designs (black & silver? gee, only every other generic PC manufacturer on the planet uses that color scheme). And the computer doesn't go with the peripherals anymore: silver & black computer, silver & white keyboard, white mouse? It's like it was just slapped together. Oh well, it'll certainly blend right in in Best Buy!

Gasu E.
Aug 9, 2007, 09:14 AM
As more photos, the back continues to look ugly to me. The front, on the other hand, is slowly growing on me. :)

Ah. Recommend then that you always have front of computer facing you while utilizing.

maccompaq
Aug 9, 2007, 09:19 AM
NFW.

Put cheaper, faster desktop boards and components in the mini-tower...like a quad Kentsfield.

I am quite satisfied with my Compaq Athlon 64 at 2.41 Ghz running Windows XP. The most challenging software I use is MSOffice, OpenOffice and Adobe PhotoShop Elements 5.0. The speed is very good for my needs.

My newest Mac is a Blue & White G3 tower at 400 Mhz. PhotoShop 6 running under OS9 is blazing fast. PhotoShop CS under Panther is a little slow. I passed on the G4 tower, because the speed improvement was not sufficient for me to give up my B&W. The G5 hot running chips turned me off. The iMac with it's tight quarters gives off so much heat that logic boards fail with an alarming frequency. I would like to have a faster Mac, but I will not buy a Mac Pro, Mac Mini or iMac. What I need is a Hackintosh with Conroe.

LoganT
Aug 9, 2007, 09:19 AM
I don't know how anyone can hate this design. It looks far more sophisticated and badass compared to the childish design of the G5.

mzd
Aug 9, 2007, 09:27 AM
my understanding is that the magnet for the remote is still there. it has moved so you have to look for it. a new iMac owner in a different thread provided this info.
you can add third party memory with out voiding your warranty. but, if the memory you install is found to be the cause of a problem, then the warranty will not cover it.
solution: remove third party memory before sending it into apple.

Muzzway
Aug 9, 2007, 09:31 AM
Well, I haven't seen the new iMac yet, but I don't think I'll mind the screen much. I still use CRT screens (on my Mini and on the eMac upstairs) so I've never gotten used to matte LCD screens.

brianus
Aug 9, 2007, 09:59 AM
I don't know how anyone can hate this design. It looks far more sophisticated and badass compared to the childish design of the G5.

Childish = thinking 'badass' and 'sophisticated' are the same thing.

koobcamuk
Aug 9, 2007, 09:59 AM
But for professionals I do understand the need for matte screens and I wish Apple would offer it as a build to order option from Apple.com.

I guess they think professionals would not buy an iMac and would go for a Pro.

You know it's really great to see that someone in Edinburgh Scotland sees this the same way I do. The more I look at it, the worse it looks to me. Notice that gigantic black :apple: staring at you 24/7? I am still stunned at what a God awful "design" this is. And the keyboard? Unbelievable how anyone can like it. :eek:

It's the black border I don't like. Maybe Jobs had a fight with Ive?

I like the kayboard. I want a wireless one for my MB at home.

LoganT
Aug 9, 2007, 10:04 AM
Childish = thinking 'badass' and 'sophisticated' are the same thing.

Wrong. When you wear a suit you look classy and sophisticated. You also look ****ing badass.

koobcamuk
Aug 9, 2007, 10:10 AM
Wrong. When you wear a suit you look classy and sophisticated. You also look ****ing badass.

Hmmmm.... you mean like this kind of badass?

http://www.mattoxphotography.com/billgates.jpg

Digitaljim
Aug 9, 2007, 10:25 AM
Tell me about your G5 enclosed Hackintosh. It sounds like what I am after.

Funny you should say that: I wrote up a perfectly balanced 'showcase' of my Hackintosh project in the Mac Pro forum this morning, but some asshat moderator deleted it.

But i'd definitely recommend this route. A pseudo-Mac Pro for 530 ($1080) and you actually get to choose your components (a 30 GeForce 7300GT in a 1700 machine? Not good enough, Apple :rolleyes:)

LoganT
Aug 9, 2007, 10:30 AM
Hmmmm.... you mean like this kind of badass?

http://www.mattoxphotography.com/billgates.jpg

First of all his suit is navy blue. Second of all it's the biggest geek in the world.

maccompaq
Aug 9, 2007, 10:50 AM
Funny you should say that: I wrote up a perfectly balanced 'showcase' of my Hackintosh project in the Mac Pro forum this morning, but some asshat moderator deleted it.

But i'd definitely recommend this route. A pseudo-Mac Pro for 530 ($1080) and you actually get to choose your components (a 30 GeForce 7300GT in a 1700 machine? Not good enough, Apple :rolleyes:)

I am very interested in your Hackintosh. The price is even better than I expected. Can you give me details? I take it that it runs OSX. If so, I want one bad.

usarioclave
Aug 9, 2007, 10:51 AM
It looks like they used a suction cup to remove the glass. Other threads I've read agree that the screen is held on by magnets. Odd. So could you just pry it off?

The LCD removal looks like they just unscrewed it and lifted it up. Nice.

If that's so, this iMac is substantially easier to upgrade than the previous generation.

CanadaRAM
Aug 9, 2007, 10:58 AM
Anyone know what latency apple uses in the 1 GB chip they put in there? Although from what I've seen nowhere is selling better than 5.

CAS Latency 5 is standard for DDR2-667 SODIMMs

I haven't seen any faster ones available yet. One thing is that there is a huge shortage of fast (DDR2-800 and above) components, it's really hard to get DDR2-800 modules that aren't made out of overclocked 667 components. Generally, to get a lower latency, you use the faster component and reduce its clock speed

(And we don't know in fact if the MAc motherboards will automatically exploit faster latency - Apple has never built this in in the past, and of course there is no BIOS to adjust it yourself.)

iSee
Aug 9, 2007, 11:05 AM
Has anyone seen a more descriptive (in English) disassembly of the iMac?

I'm really curious about exactly what pieces and parts are being used.

Childish = thinking 'badass' and 'sophisticated' are the same thing.

He said sophisticated and badass, meaning it's both things--otherwise it would be a redundant statement.

Don't worry about your mistake, though.

You'll probably catch on to how conjunctions work when you grow up a little. ;)

Deefuzz
Aug 9, 2007, 11:16 AM
The glossy screen being forced upon you is kind of crap.

I'm glad when I got my MBP I had a choice between glossy and matte.

More reason to save towards the Mac Pro.

nemaslov
Aug 9, 2007, 11:35 AM
The glossy screen being forced upon you is kind of crap.

I'm glad when I got my MBP I had a choice between glossy and matte.

More reason to save towards the Mac Pro.

OK when I work on my White iMacs with the window slightly behind me I do not see any reflection whatsoever on the screen. If I look around the screen at the glossy white plastic, I can see some reflection.

These new ones are the opposite. Reflections on the screen, none on the matte surround. I have a macbook glossy too and it is on my desk near me sometimes and I cannot work with it due to the large windows in my studio. Maybe if all I had were glossies? I just wish I had a choice. I'd choose the matte.

I also do presentations and I take my iMac with me on the road. I have an iHugger case for it and it works better than a laptop because of the screen and sound. Each environment is different and I think I would be afraid to take the glossy version with me. I never know what faces the screen and someties there are 6 to 8 people viewing not all straight on. The matte mac works perfectly for this.

Digitaljim
Aug 9, 2007, 11:43 AM
Tell me about your G5 enclosed Hackintosh. It sounds like what I am after.

I am very interested in your Hackintosh. The price is even better than I expected. Can you give me details? I take it that it runs OSX. If so, I want one bad.

Yep, OSX works fine once you get it going. Lots of details at http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page. Follow their guides to components that work (ie. avoid soundblaster sound cards) and hunt a cheap Mac chassis down on ebay.

CasinoOwl
Aug 9, 2007, 11:47 AM
You know it's really great to see that someone in Edinburgh Scotland sees this the same way I do. The more I look at it, the worse it looks to me. Notice that gigantic black :apple: staring at you 24/7? I am still stunned at what a God awful "design" this is. And the keyboard? Unbelievable how anyone can like it. :eek:

The art monsters have spoken. Nothing is personal opinion with you people. It's God Awful and that is that. I guess I must be one of those people people with incredibly poor taste you are mystified and repulsed by. I think the iMac looks great. I can't wait to get one.

mongoos150
Aug 9, 2007, 11:51 AM
This thing reflects light from all over the place and the keyboard is horrendous. I can't tell you how bad this thing looks because I'm looking at so many reflections of stuff throughout the store behind me that it is pathetic you can't buy this baby matt. It's a lovely piece of art but this is a case of form preceeding function instead of vice versa. Not good. :(Myself and others have completely opposite sentiments. The keyboard is ******** awesome, way less fatigue. Feels like you're typing on a flat surface. Also the reflections are not a problem at home. :D

flipperanubi
Aug 9, 2007, 11:57 AM
a

khunsanook
Aug 9, 2007, 12:18 PM
Kingston RAM is good, but the KTA-MBP667/1G /2G are the ones that Kingston recommends for the intel Macs, not the KVR- ValueRAM series.

There are some good options for mail order within Canada too, for Kingston Micron and Samsung.

Yes Kingston might recommend the more expensive "KTA" RAM, but I've been using the "KVR" valueRAM for the past year without a hitch. Great stuff :)

jouster
Aug 9, 2007, 12:36 PM
Arrgh. They STILL haven't fixed the biggest annoyance: The hard drive is a bitch to replace.

They're not going to 'fix' it because it isn't a problem. The iMac is aimed at people who want simplicity and ease of use. If you want a bigger HD, order one from Apple or get a Pro.

autechre
Aug 9, 2007, 12:43 PM
Yes Kingston might recommend the more expensive "KTA" RAM, but I've been using the "KVR" valueRAM for the past year without a hitch. Great stuff :)

Have you been using it in an iMac or a Macbook/pro? I don't see why there would be a problem using it (the KVR), unless I'm missing something...

l33r0y
Aug 9, 2007, 12:51 PM
I just switched over yesterday to mac and bought an iMac yesterday. Very sad to say that my experience has actually been pretty bad. The new iMac is great I bought the 20" 2.4 the only thing is the first one that I bought had a dot on the screen which looked like a dead pixel but when I took it to mac genius they said it was probably that something got stuck in between the glass and the screen.
I got a brand new iMac. It's been working fine today and then guess what? I notice another dot on the screen.

I'm not down with paying 1500 for an apple iMac to have to return it twice already because the screen is screwed up. It's a bit ridiculous to have this happen twice...Not very happy about switching over to apple. http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/smilies/mad.gif
:mad:

Dead or stuck pixels can occur in and LCD, be it a iMac, PC or a TV. It's not Mac specific. The only issue is as its an all-in-one system, the whole machine needs to be returned instead of just the display, which is inconvenient granted - but if you were to return your PC monitor, you still wouldn't be able to use your PC!

dazzer21
Aug 9, 2007, 01:04 PM
...but can I upgrade the processor (Penryn?) when the time comes...?

Eidorian
Aug 9, 2007, 01:07 PM
...but can I upgrade the processor (Penryn?) when the time comes...?Yes, but enjoy opening it up.

jgerry
Aug 9, 2007, 01:45 PM
I'm interested in trying the new keyboards, but it looks too flat to be even remotely useful. I already hate typing on my flat MacBook Pro keyboard compared to my old IBM Model M + wrist pad. Also, why would they release a full keyboard with number pad that's wired via USB, but the Bluetooth wireless keyboard (which I'd definitely be more interested in) not include that? I don't understand that crazy decision at all. Bizarre.

As for the new iMacs? Fugly. I really don't care for the huge black area surrounding the display. NOT elegant and subdued. And count me as one Mac user who cannot stand the trend toward glossy displays. I bought a matte display on my MBP. If I had not had the option of buying matte, I wouldn't have bought the computer.

And this trend towards the cheapie 6-bit displays? Completely unacceptable from a company like Apple that used to pride itself on using better quality components.

Wie Gehts
Aug 9, 2007, 02:08 PM
Oh God...like sausages, I didn't want to know how this things made. It looks like someone threw a ********* of metal and plastic onto a large oven pan and steamrolled over it.
And its stuffed with crumpled metal foil left over from the roswell crashsite.

I want to buy, now I'm turned off. How do you replace a defective drive, God forbid after your warranty or applecare is over?
Do these things come with a keyboard an mouse anymore? Are these Santa Rosa?

I've been sitting on the fence since january. Damn you apple, there's always something not quite right with your product.

Eidorian
Aug 9, 2007, 02:13 PM
I want to buy, now I'm turned off. How do you replace a defective drive, God forbid after your warranty or applecare is over? Apple does it or you get a third party repair.


Do these things come with a keyboard an mouse anymore? They come with the new slim keyboard and the Mighty Mouse


Are these Santa Rosa?Yes they are.

thevofl
Aug 9, 2007, 02:19 PM
Some people can look past this, but it is a complete distraction.

Matte As Choice!

More pics will follow
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/08/new-imac-keyboard-16.jpg

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/08/new-imac-keyboard-17.jpg

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/08/new-imac-keyboard-02.jpg

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/08/new-imac-keyboard-19.jpg

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/08/new-imac-keyboard-01.jpg

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/08/new-imac-keyboard-03.jpg

http://media.arstechnica.com/journals/apple.media/metalimac5.jpg

http://media.arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/aluminum-and-glass-a-review-of-the-new-imac.media/reflection.jpg

mrgreen4242
Aug 9, 2007, 02:25 PM
Yes, u can purchase cheap ram, but there are horror stories of doing so and people's macs get fried. The bad news, the warranty is voided because you installed 3rd party hardware. I don't know if it's u installing and/or the 3rd party ram that does it, the warranty does get x'd.
I'm a careless cowboy with my toys, and I install my own ram, but I at least try to purchase the same ram apple uses. memoryx.com will tell you which ram to get if u want to match ram and install yourself.
I could see an unethical person purchasing such ram, and if occuring any troubles, uninstalling such ram and taking it in for repairs? I think I'm just the same as you and would like to pinch some pennies when I don't necessarily have to spend a fortune :rolleyes:

Good luck!

That's pretty much completely untrue. "Bad" memory isn't going to damage your computer, at worst it will corrupt data on your system until you remove it. Back in the PPC days some Macs were a bit picky about what RAM would work well, but these days you can get pretty much any decent brand as long as it's the right speed and memory type. Head over to Newegg.com and you'll get a good price and be able to read a bunch of reviews from other users. Typically at least one Mac user will chime in and confirm that the memory worked on their system.

The 20" is TN Film (6-bit).

The viewing angles for the 24" suggest a S-PVA or S-IPS (8-bit), but I would like confirmation of this before I buy.

Personally I wouldn't by another TN Film based iMac or monitor.

Anyone know what's in the MacBooks? I thought those were similar tech to the new iMac? Anyways, a bit disappointing, but not a huge blow for most as long as it still looks good.

The art monsters have spoken. Nothing is personal opinion with you people. It's God Awful and that is that. I guess I must be one of those people people with incredibly poor taste you are mystified and repulsed by. I think the iMac looks great. I can't wait to get one.

I'm getting pretty tired of those people too... they don't like it so it MUST be the worst thing ever! It's just notp ossible that some (even most!) prefer a higher contrast screen and are willing and able to adjust the lighting in their rooms a little to get it! Or, worse yet, some people LIKE short travel keys! OMG WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE!

Some people can look past this, but it is a complete distraction.

Matte As Choice!


Only a couple of those came through for me (the ars pics, I think) but what stands out for me is that 1) the screen is off, try turning it on and checking glare, backs a big difference; 2) the first pic is from the angle you'd use it. The glare was less than my anti-glare coated CRT, and really only showed the bright flash. Not that bad, considering the improvement you get in terms of contracst and color saturation.

sinser
Aug 9, 2007, 02:52 PM
I love the matte finish. Ever since I got my first big TFT it's been matte. It's amazing the difference seeing no reflection of yourself or other things about the room.
Granted I have a little 19" TFT that is glossy, but I don't have problems with it because it's sheltered in a darker area by the tower.

Doesn't matter where I move the screens that have the matte finish I don't get the problem you speak of. The HDTV is also matte and its amazing the difference how the glare and reflection is gone.

The only thing that bugs me about cleaning the 19" because its glossy is everytime I wipe it you see all the little fibers start sticking to it from static. Sure that wont annoy the majority of people, but I'm picky :)
I don't have that problem with the matte screens, one wipe and its spotless.



Agreed.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/08/new-imac-keyboard-02.jpg

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/08/new-imac-keyboard-17.jpg

You can see how distracting that would be, you'd need to find the perfect area to sit that from not getting all the reflections.
That would drive me crazy, doesn't matter where I position the matte screens I don't get that!

Don't get me wrong though. The new iMac I think looks beautiful, but thats too glossy for my liking. It's like a show piece. If this is the route the Apple displays are going...


Oh, man it's a true nightmare!!! I can't stop myself from complaining about these glossy screens. I'm really sensitive to on screen reflection, something that I have experienced in the past and that caused me distraction and headache. I can see that some people like glossy screens (but I don't know a single real person that prefers them over matte displays) but I just want the possibility to choose, an option. I wanted an iMac but seems that i'm stuck with my old Powerbook.

MattG
Aug 9, 2007, 02:57 PM
Glossy screen...suddenly I'm pretty happy with my pre-aluminum iMac. ;)

whooleytoo
Aug 9, 2007, 03:00 PM
It seems to me they may have made a conscious decision to make the iMac styling fit in more with consumer electronic design trends?

http://images.apple.com/imac/images/gallery/imackeyboard_3_20070807.jpg

http://www.komplett.ie/img/p/400/326462.jpg

tomd89
Aug 9, 2007, 03:20 PM
The black outline is partly to reduce the visual impact of the chin, if the whole thing was is silver then the chin would look larger than it being in two colours. Also it emphasises the screen and indeed does make it apear as if the screens floating.

Go and see one in an Apple store, they are stunning in person!

whooleytoo
Aug 9, 2007, 03:26 PM
The black outline is partly to reduce the visual impact of the chin, if the whole thing was is silver then the chin would look larger than it being in two colours. Also it emphisises the screen and indeed does make it apear as if the screens floating.

Go and see one in an Apple store

Yup, the black border is very effective at just that, making the chin seem smaller than it is, when it's probably virtually unchanged from the previous model.

(Unfortunately, I don't have the option of visiting an Apple Store, not without flights anyway..);)

Counter
Aug 9, 2007, 03:40 PM
It's a lovely piece of art but this is a case of form preceeding function instead of vice versa. Not good. :(

Form preceding function hits the nail on the head. Many are saying it. Why else would you have flat keys? And I don't particularly like the form either, I think Apple are stagnating design wise.

Easy hard drive out and graphics card fairly easy out (def. not soldered to the board) is a must for the iMac. When is it gonna happen? Yes, iMacs will eat into Mac Pro sales more doing that. But you can't use that as the sole reason to have extremely limited upgradability in your top selling desktop.

skunk
Aug 9, 2007, 03:43 PM
(Unfortunately, I don't have the option of visiting an Apple Store, not without flights anyway..);)Can't you just blag your way into Apple HQ in Cork? ;)

nemaslov
Aug 9, 2007, 04:12 PM
Glossy screen...suddenly I'm pretty happy with my pre-aluminum iMac. ;)

I agree with the matte screens. Maybe you should buy a new White one. They will still be around for awhile and at a discount. Amazon too with free shipping and no tax.

Wie Gehts
Aug 9, 2007, 04:33 PM
Apple does it or you get a third party repair.



Thanks for your answers.
If you're no longer under warranty, I wonder whats the going price that apple (or third party) charges above the cost of the new drive itself?
I always replaced HD's in my desktops myself, but I don't think I'd want to attempt it on an Imac. I like that the MB's hd is easily replaced but I like the SR processor and both 400 and 800 fw ports on the Imac better though.

Eidorian
Aug 9, 2007, 04:37 PM
Thanks for your answers.
If you're no longer under warranty, I wonder whats the going price that apple (or third party) charges above the cost of the new drive itself?
I always replaced HD's in my desktops myself, but I don't think I'd want to attempt it on an Imac. I like that the MB's hd is easily replaced but I like the SR processor and both 400 and 800 fw ports on the Imac better though.The local Mac shop here charges $60/hr to do such a repair. Given his quotes on the eMac and iMac G4 I wouldn't expect it to take more then an hour.

mdriftmeyer
Aug 9, 2007, 04:45 PM
I bought my Corsair ram for my Macbook off Newegg. It was $55 total for 2GB (1GBx2). Using for a month now and so far works perfectly.

Corsair and Crucial are both very reliable options, along-side Kingston.

Oh, man it's a true nightmare!!! I can't stop myself from complaining about these glossy screens. I'm really sensitive to on screen reflection, something that I have experienced in the past and that caused me distraction and headache. I can see that some people like glossy screens (but I don't know a single real person that prefers them over matte displays) but I just want the possibility to choose, an option. I wanted an iMac but seems that i'm stuck with my old Powerbook.

I don't use Florescent lighting, overhead. I use a compact florescent inside a lamp off and behind my workstation. My standard CRT has no reflection from behind me since I also don't face it towards the Window with my back to the window.

matticus008
Aug 9, 2007, 04:52 PM
If you want to sit ergonomically in front of an imac, you need to adjust the display so that it is slightly tilted upward (toward the ceiling light)
Utterly untrue. The ergonomic position is a focal triangle with your eyes at the center level of the display. Your line of sight should always be perpendicular to the panel, thus eliminating reflections. Contrary to the popular meme, a glossy panel is not a simple mirror--it itself is a light source, and no reflection can appear unless two criteria are met: 1) a brighter, focused light is directed at the display and 2) a non-perpendicular angle is used to view the surface.

The proof is in the pudding. You can use a glossy MBP outside on a sunny day. You cannot on the matte MBP, without sacrificing readability and contrast to the point of frustration. Flash photography is exactly the sort of exaggerating effect that highlights reflections on surfaces.
With my matte mbp, I never ever have reflection issues.
That's how I know you're not being fair. That is untrue. Under a spotlight or in direct sunlight, a matte MBP is nearly useless. Further, there is no magical way to deflect the light--a bright light shining on the screen distorts the image. You may prefer that to the surface flare, but it is directly contradictory with the "more accurate color" argument.
Are glossy v matte sales figures available? I wouldn't mind seeing them.
I only have actual numbers for Samsung, which I am not obliged to share with the world, but PC World and a number of magazines have been covering the rapidly growing sales of these displays in the consumer market. The most popular HDTVs and LCD monitors are heavily dominated by the glossy finish.
Not everyone has complete control over the environment in which they use their computer.
If they have no control over either the lighting or the placement of their computer, is it really reasonable to expect that they have control over which computer they get? A simple adjustment of a few inches is enough to fix all but the most egregious light problems--light problems that should be resolved anyway, since such intense light isn't good for your eyes in general.
What science disproves the gripe that there is far more glare on a glossy screen than on a matte?
That you can't generate a glare without a combination of incredibly intense light and off-center viewing angles on a surface that is illuminated. The further off-center you go, the less bright the light needs to be. If you have a flare when working at the computer properly, you were working in a situation with washed out performance before. There's no magic to the matte finish--it just spreads the light over a larger area, and a light that bright would be sufficient to distort a matte panel.
It's an ergonomic nightmare to force people to sit still in a certain position so as to avoid glare
It's an ergonomic nightmare to encourage ergonomic usage? This does not compute.
And, what happens if you need to show a colleague something on your screen? Do you take turns sitting directly in front of it? Swivel the iMac back and forth?
How about just standing or sitting next to you? The display is still readable, and it's not as though the colleague wasn't affected by color shift before.

penter
Aug 9, 2007, 06:25 PM
that baby sure doe look sexy when its naked!!!

how much will the previous Gen. of iMacs cost???

flir67
Aug 9, 2007, 06:58 PM
does anybody have a link to show someone taking out their new imac processor yet. it looks from the mr front page link that it is but anybody done it yet and void that lovely warrenty?

thevofl
Aug 9, 2007, 09:01 PM
Utterly untrue. The ergonomic position is a focal triangle with your eyes at the center level of the display. Your line of sight should always be perpendicular to the panel, thus eliminating reflections. Contrary to the popular meme, a glossy panel is not a simple mirror--it itself is a light source, and no reflection can appear unless two criteria are met: 1) a brighter, focused light is directed at the display and 2) a non-perpendicular angle is used to view the surface.

Your view needs to be perpendicular to the flat panel, but there needs to be a slight angle to the monitor allowing for a viewer to slightly glance down. I set up ergonomics for employees of a large call center, and this is how we set it up.

The proof is in the pudding. You can use a glossy MBP outside on a sunny day. You cannot on the matte MBP, without sacrificing readability and contrast to the point of frustration. Flash photography is exactly the sort of exaggerating effect that highlights reflections on surfaces.

I tried to use a friends MacBook outside and I gave up. I decided to walk back to my car and get my MBP. That worked fine. That is all the proof I need.

That's how I know you're not being fair. That is untrue. Under a spotlight or in direct sunlight, a matte MBP is nearly useless. Further, there is no magical way to deflect the light--a bright light shining on the screen distorts the image. You may prefer that to the surface flare, but it is directly contradictory with the "more accurate color" argument.

Under a direct spotlight, nothing is useful.

I only have actual numbers for Samsung, which I am not obliged to share with the world, but PC World and a number of magazines have been covering the rapidly growing sales of these displays in the consumer market. The most popular HDTVs and LCD monitors are heavily dominated by the glossy finish.

Popular does not equal better, otherwise no one would buy a mac.

If they have no control over either the lighting or the placement of their computer, is it really reasonable to expect that they have control over which computer they get? A simple adjustment of a few inches is enough to fix all but the most egregious light problems--light problems that should be resolved anyway, since such intense light isn't good for your eyes in general.

That you can't generate a glare without a combination of incredibly intense light and off-center viewing angles on a surface that is illuminated. The further off-center you go, the less bright the light needs to be. If you have a flare when working at the computer properly, you were working in a situation with washed out performance before. There's no magic to the matte finish--it just spreads the light over a larger area, and a light that bright would be sufficient to distort a matte panel.

It's an ergonomic nightmare to encourage ergonomic usage? This does not compute.

How about just standing or sitting next to you? The display is still readable, and it's not as though the colleague wasn't affected by color shift before.

I, I, I give up on going tit-for-tat.

I just wonder why you are so opposed to the option of matte versus glossy. You say the color is better; I say it is harder to see the color through the reflection.

Who is right? Both. That is it. It is a preference. That's all. I prefer my mouse on the right. (My co-worker wants it on the left. Am I going after that person to say that everything is set up for right-side mousing?)

What is so wrong about Apple offering a matte finish as an option? This means so much to me that I am not going to buy an iMac just for the lack of a matte screen. I may save extra money for a Mac Pro. I may stick to my PowerMac G5. I don't know.

Give us the options. If they did, you could have your glossy, and I could have my matte. We both will be happy. It can be done; see the MBP.

organic bond
Aug 9, 2007, 09:40 PM
...

Popular does not equal better, otherwise no one would buy a mac.

...

I just wonder why you are so opposed to the option of matte versus glossy. You say the color is better; I say it is harder to see the color through the reflection.

Who is right? Both. That is it. It is a preference. That's all. I prefer my mouse on the right. (My co-worker wants it on the left. Am I going after that person to say that everything is set up for right-side mousing?)

What is so wrong about Apple offering a matte finish as an option? This means so much to me that I am not going to buy an iMac just for the lack of a matte screen. I may save extra money for a Mac Pro. I may stick to my PowerMac G5. I don't know.

Give us the options. If they did, you could have your glossy, and I could have my matte. We both will be happy. It can be done; see the MBP.

Exactly!!! I totally agree. Plus this poll says that most Mac users prefer matte screens: http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=527

I just can't stand glossy screens and would not buy a glossy Mac. Why Apple doesn't listen to its users? Too expensive to give an option?

matticus008
Aug 9, 2007, 11:58 PM
Your view needs to be perpendicular to the flat panel, but there needs to be a slight angle to the monitor
Perpendicular and slight angle are mutually exclusive.
Under a direct spotlight, nothing is useful.
Exactly.

I just wonder why you are so opposed to the option of matte versus glossy.
I'm not. I have never said anything of the kind. I'm not opposed to people who prefer matte displays, either. I'm opposed to the melodramatic FUD-spreaders who jump up and down about how horrible the panels are and how their lives have been ruined by the inability to get a matte display. There is virtually no usability difference--such a display requires minor adjustment under point-source (i.e. undeflected) lights, but on the other hand, you can use it outside on bright and sunny days, unlike a matte panel. They're different. Neither one is categorically superior for everyone, but the trend is toward the glossy panels because they provide superior brightness and contrast. In the consumer market, this is more important. It provides a generally superior experience and is preferable to most people; that's the long and the short of it.

90% of the complaining comes from people who have never used or owned such a product, and it's tiresome. You'll find dozens of threads about skeptics who changed their mind after a few days from when the glossy displays first became available. People here are resistant to change--even on keys that haven't existed for 20 years.

Exactly!!! I totally agree. Plus this poll says that most Mac users prefer matte screens: http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=527
No, it doesn't.

thevofl
Aug 10, 2007, 01:40 AM
Perpendicular and slight angle are mutually exclusive.

You are confusing the angle of the monitor's face from vertical and the angle between the monitor and the line of sight. The angle of the monitor's face should be between 15 degrees and 50 degrees off of true vertical (i.e. wall mounted). The line of sight should be perpendicular (or near perpendicular) to the monitor's face.

http://www.office-ergo.com/Guidel2.jpg


I'm opposed to the melodramatic FUD-spreaders who jump up and down about how horrible the panels are and how their lives have been ruined by the inability to get a matte display. There is virtually no usability difference--such a display requires minor adjustment under point-source (i.e. undeflected) lights, but on the other hand, you can use it outside on bright and sunny days, unlike a matte panel. They're different. Neither one is categorically superior for everyone, but the trend is toward the glossy panels because they provide superior brightness and contrast. In the consumer market, this is more important. It provides a generally superior experience and is preferable to most people; that's the long and the short of it.

<irony>"melodramatic"</irony>

You make blanket statements as if they are fact in every case. For example, I have used my matte MBP outside on a sunny day, and I used a friend's MacBook. One was not better than the other. The glossy picked up too much reflection. The matte didn't convey the detail.

Interestingly, when I searched the internet for some data, I found most people wanted matte. Here is an interesting site:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061018-8022.html (Notice how it ends with "While glossy screens may be the current fad, manufacturers would be better served by offering their customers a matte option for all models.")

I went to Fry's Electronics this evening. The glossy over matte is hardly lopsided. Most PCs are glossy. But the stand alone monitors and televisions were mixed. Apple's high-end monitors are matte. (They were last updated after Apple decided to go all glossy for MacBooks. So this is not a trend for Apple.)

90% of the complaining comes from people who have never used or owned such a product, and it's tiresome. You'll find dozens of threads about skeptics who changed their mind after a few days from when the glossy displays first became available. People here are resistant to change--even on keys that haven't existed for 20 years.

I am not going spend a few thousand dollars to "try out" a glossy finish. I have played with it at the store and on a friend's MacBook.

Also, you can find dozens of threads from those who regret their decision.

Change for the sake of change is pointless.

matticus008
Aug 10, 2007, 02:01 AM
You are confusing the angle of the monitor's face from vertical and the angle between the monitor and the line of sight.
No, I'm not. It makes no difference what the monitor's position from vertical is. The only angle of relevance is the viewing angle. Whether the angle is tilted 10 degrees toward the ceiling or 90 degrees doesn't matter.

You're confusing proper placement for ergonomics with placement for reflections. Proper installation location of a monitor has never been an issue in this thread.
The angle of the monitor's face should be between 15 degrees and 50 degrees off of true vertical (i.e. wall mounted).
Irrelevant. That is advice for placement sitting at a desk chair and has nothing to do with overall use in terms of reflectivity. The only ergonomic statement is that the line of sight should be perpendicular to the display.

The 15-50 range doesn't apply to standing, lying down, or partial reclining and isn't the subject of debate.
The glossy picked up too much reflection. The matte didn't convey the detail.
The difference being that you can avoid reflection by moving the display. You cannot avoid ambient light without going into the shade. The greater brightness and contrast simply allows for greater visibility in full sun--it's a simple function of the increased brightness and contrast, not of glossy v. matte (except that the glossy display is what facilitates the enhancement).
Notice how it ends with "While glossy screens may be the current fad, manufacturers would be better served by offering their customers a matte option for all models.")
Notice instead how it says "Lenovo's poll may not reflect the true preference of the buying public in general" and how the methodology is flawed since it didn't ask a true comparison--it only asked for a gut reaction, which is exactly what they received. Some other useful quotes:
"Newer coating technologies are able to reduce glare somewhat while maintaining bright colors and a glossy sheen."
"There are some advantages to having a glossy screen: in particular, outdoor visibility is greatly increased."

And once again, I never opposed offering a choice. You're continuing to attack a series of self-created strawmen, while self-selecting what you want to hear from sources that don't, in fact, say what you think they do.
I went to Fry's Electronics this evening. The glossy over matte is hardly lopsided. Most PCs are glossy. But the stand alone monitors and televisions were mixed.
Seems quite lopsided to me, particularly if you ask which ones are moving faster (hint: it's the glossy ones).
Also, you can find dozens of threads from those who regret their decision.
Such as?
Change for the sake of change is pointless.
Without even assessing the validity of that statement, glossy panels don't qualify as "change for the sake of change." You get better ambient light performance, greater brightness, greater contrast, richer colors, better black levels, and a more durable surface. Color accuracy is not a factor in midmarket consumer products, and the glare issue is grossly overblown.

MindBrain
Aug 10, 2007, 03:26 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Kodawarisan posted (http://www.kodawarisan.com/k2007_02/archives/2007/08/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa_3.html) a set of disassembly photos of the new aluminum iMac released yesterday:


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/08/08/DSC_3814_300.jpg
(http://www.kodawarisan.com/imac_2007_mid/imac_2007_mid_01.html)


So uh can you replace the video card?

thevofl
Aug 10, 2007, 03:41 AM
No, I'm not. It makes no difference what the monitor's position from vertical is. The only angle of relevance is the viewing angle. Whether the angle is tilted 10 degrees toward the ceiling or 90 degrees doesn't matter.

You're confusing proper placement for ergonomics with placement for reflections. Proper installation location of a monitor has never been an issue in this thread.

You assume way too much. The thread above talked about tilting the monitor for ergo reasons and picking up the light from the ceiling.

Irrelevant. That is advice for placement sitting at a desk chair and has nothing to do with overall use in terms of reflectivity. The only ergonomic statement is that the line of sight should be perpendicular to the display.

The 15-50 range doesn't apply to standing, lying down, or partial reclining and isn't the subject of debate.

The difference being that you can avoid reflection by moving the display. You cannot avoid ambient light without going into the shade. The greater brightness and contrast simply allows for greater visibility in full sun--it's a simple function of the increased brightness and contrast, not of glossy v. matte (except that the glossy display is what facilitates the enhancement).

Why do you go on and on and on and on about outside lighting? I don't know of anyone who takes their iMac outside. I'm not saying you can't take it outside. But how often does this really happen?

Notice instead how it says "Lenovo's poll may not reflect the true preference of the buying public in general" and how the methodology is flawed since it didn't ask a true comparison--it only asked for a gut reaction, which is exactly what they received. Some other useful quotes:
"Newer coating technologies are able to reduce glare somewhat while maintaining bright colors and a glossy sheen."
"There are some advantages to having a glossy screen: in particular, outdoor visibility is greatly increased."

Talk about cherry picking quotes.

So I ask you to please supply your data.

And once again, I never opposed offering a choice. You're continuing to attack a series of self-created strawmen, while self-selecting what you want to hear from sources that don't, in fact, say what you think they do.

And you continue to go back to the same thing over and over (see the outside comment above). I have not seen anything from you to support your position.

Seems quite lopsided to me, particularly if you ask which ones are moving faster (hint: it's the glossy ones).

Again, popular doesn't equal better. And I doubt the "it's the glossy ones" statement based on personal observations.

Such as?

I bet in the same place that you can find "dozens of threads about skeptics who changed their mind after a few days from when the glossy displays first became available. "

Without even assessing the validity of that statement, glossy panels don't qualify as "change for the sake of change." You get better ambient light performance, greater brightness, greater contrast, richer colors, better black levels, and a more durable surface. Color accuracy is not a factor in midmarket consumer products, and the glare issue is grossly overblown.

I would hardly call it overblown. You get random reflections, glare, smudges, a good reflection of the viewer. It is quite distracting. If it was such a magnificent invention, why are the high end panels predominantly matte panels?

johnmcboston
Aug 10, 2007, 09:04 AM
I just can't stand glossy screens and would not buy a glossy Mac. Why Apple doesn't listen to its users? Too expensive to give an option?

Wow. Looks like I missed a good forum fight here yesterday. :)

Played in the Apple store yesterday, and have to say a glossy screen is the only reason I'm questioning buying a new machine. It's really annoying, but it is annoying enough? Am I really going to regret it in 2 months or so? (it would also be my first Intel machine, which is a reason I want to finally upgrade). If it were a matte screen I would own it already.

Hey, maybe we can pop the glass off like the disassembly picture and have a matted life again. :-)

Foxglove9
Aug 10, 2007, 09:44 AM
Hey, maybe we can pop the glass off like the disassembly picture and have a matted life again. :-)

If it is legal I'm sure some company will make something like that, but unless you do it in a truly dust-free environment, you'll have dust under your screen and it will annoy the heck out of you more so than a glossy finish.

armani
Aug 10, 2007, 11:50 AM
If you say so. My stupidly expensive Apple 17" CRT certainly reflected, as has every CRT that I've ever sat in front of.

Please note, I'm not saying that you're wrong, only that I have never encountered this and I imagine I'm not alone in this. People used to deal with reflections very easily ... you just look right through them at what's on the screen!

You may still colour me vaguely mystified.

Cheers

Jim

You are absolutely right. I still have crt at home and does reflect. I bought new iMac 24" for my son two days ago. Yes, there is a reflection, but it is only if you focus on it. It reminds me stereo viewing. Just don't look at the reflection and look at what is on the screen. Screen does look great and bright. I was setting up the iMac and was going back and forth to my laptop and it looked dim after iMac. On iMac I put the brightness to min and it is still very bright. DVDs and pictures look very good. I deal with video editing and I don't find glare a big problem. My son does not notice it all. Design-wise it looks great. I was skeptical at first, but it does look good in person. I don't know how it was on previous models, but the top gets quite warm, but I guess it is because of aluminum, as it absorbs the heat. The keyboard I find very nice, absolutely quite. The only thing I don't use is the mouse, I hate one button ones, I don't know why apple still uses them. It looks funny though now, apple computer and microsoft mouse (works great).

mathwhiz90601
Aug 10, 2007, 12:29 PM
... The only thing I don't use is the mouse, I hate one button ones, I don't know why apple still uses them. It looks funny though now, apple computer and microsoft mouse (works great).

The Mighty Mouse isn't one button really.... you can have right-clicking on it.

Plus it's got a track/scroll ball! :) The one thing I like about PCs...

armani
Aug 10, 2007, 12:35 PM
The Mighty Mouse isn't one button really.... you can have right-clicking on it.

Plus it's got a track/scroll ball! :) The one thing I like about PCs...

Really, how??

Gaelic1
Aug 10, 2007, 12:39 PM
I saw in the presentation that there is only one screw to remove to get to the RAM. I am planning on buying a new 24" iMac when Leopard comes out and I would like it to be outfitted with 2 Gigs of RAM but it is $135 in the Apple Store on-line to upgrade to 2 Gigs. What is anyone's experience with buying cheap 3rd party RAM for their iMacs? Currently on newegg there are prices as low as $35 for TechWorks and as low as $45 for Corsair 1 Gig modules. Should it send up a red flag that there is THAT much of a price difference? OR should I be completely safe going with one of those sticks for my upgrade to 2 Gigs?
I just bought 4 Gb of Ram from OWC for $233.94. That's a long way from Apple's pricing. I've used them before and it worked out with no problems.

whooleytoo
Aug 10, 2007, 12:47 PM
Really, how??

It's actually a 4 button mouse: left, right, push trackball, and squeeze sides. You can set these buttons' functions in the Keyboard & Mouse preference pane in System Preferences.

armani
Aug 10, 2007, 12:53 PM
It's actually a 4 button mouse: left, right, push trackball, and squeeze sides. You can set these buttons' functions in the Keyboard & Mouse preference pane in System Preferences.

I did open preferences and it only gave me few options: Tracking speed, double click speed, scrolling speed and primary button (left/right). I looked on apple site and it looks different, with a lot of options. Am I missing something on my mac? It is probably offtop.....sorry.

whooleytoo
Aug 10, 2007, 12:57 PM
I did open preferences and it only gave me few options: Tracking speed, double click speed, scrolling speed and primary button (left/right). I looked on apple site and it looks different, with a lot of options. Am I missing something on my mac? It is probably offtop.....sorry.

Have you upgraded your version of OSX?

My guess is you either need to install the drivers which came on the CD with the Mighty Mouse, or upgrade (for free, via Software Update) to a version of OSX which includes those drivers.

armani
Aug 10, 2007, 01:13 PM
Have you upgraded your version of OSX?

My guess is you either need to install the drivers which came on the CD with the Mighty Mouse, or upgrade (for free, via Software Update) to a version of OSX which includes those drivers.

I upgraded it when we first started the computer. Yesterday I checked for updates and it said there were no updates. That is weird. And there were two cd's only, install disc 1 and 2.

kingtj
Aug 10, 2007, 01:58 PM
I'm still sorry to hear about your problems! I slowly migrated over to Apple products back in 2000 and 2001, when I started working for a guy who was using them. I was blown away by how far they'd come from the "bad old days" of 1996 or so, when I bought a Mac Performa with MacOS 8.1 on it to experiment with. (Ick... I sold it in 2 months and went back to my Windows PCs!)

I'm using all Macs now, save for an old PC full-tower I've upgraded things in here and there over the years, to keep it "viable". But it's quickly becoming little more than a spare computer for my 5 year old to play her Internet kids' games on.

I've had great experiences with the quality of Apple's products, overall, but the few exceptions I had were with newly released products of theirs. (EG. Bought a Macbook Pro in the first month they were released, and it was completely dead on arrival! Then, the second one had battery problems, and then the bluetooth quit working in it a while ago too!) But to Apple's credit, everything was replaced under warranty with good, working equipment.

For what it's worth, reports are coming out that the 24" iMacs have a far superior LCD panel in them than the 20'" models. (Much more contrast, brightness, etc.) Sucks, because I'm just about to buy a new iMac myself, but I just can't quite afford a 24" model right now. I think the higher-end 20" configuration is about right for me.



I just switched over yesterday to mac and bought an iMac yesterday. Very sad to say that my experience has actually been pretty bad. The new iMac is great I bought the 20" 2.4 the only thing is the first one that I bought had a dot on the screen which looked like a dead pixel but when I took it to mac genius they said it was probably that something got stuck in between the glass and the screen.
I got a brand new iMac. It's been working fine today and then guess what? I notice another dot on the screen.

I'm not down with paying 1500 for an apple iMac to have to return it twice already because the screen is screwed up. It's a bit ridiculous to have this happen twice...Not very happy about switching over to apple. http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/smilies/mad.gif
:mad:

BuzWeaver
Aug 10, 2007, 02:40 PM
They copied the Black and Gray color from PC's.

mongoos150
Aug 10, 2007, 02:42 PM
They copied the Black and Gray color from PC's.Yeah. Because gray-and-black was never before used together until PC boxes rolled around. You can't "copy" something as common as a color scheme. That would be like saying Honda copied Ford Motor Company by having headlights on their vehicles. :rolleyes:

BuzWeaver
Aug 10, 2007, 02:48 PM
Yeah. Because gray-and-black was never before used together until PC boxes rolled around. You can't "copy" something as common as a color scheme. That would be like saying Honda copied Ford Motor Company by having headlights on their vehicles. :rolleyes:

The irony.

k2k koos
Aug 10, 2007, 03:45 PM
Im impressed with the iMac.

Starting at $1199,-

Now take the Mac mini (base $599,-), add a 20" cinema dispaly ($599,-), add a keyboard and a mouse ($49,- each)
total: $1298,-
YOu get a nice looking system, but with inferior specs to the iMac, for more money..... (slower processor, inferior graphics card, smaller and slower harddisk, no FW 800, no "n' draft airport, need I go on?

Apple should adjust a few prices on the display, and the base Mac mini (both should go down to at least $499,-) And still you'd only be saving about $100,- and get an inferior system. (personally, I think the mini back to 499, and the display should go to 399, that would be highly competitive, and a great package for the money $996,- including keyboard and mouse..., now that is worth considering :-) )

Of course I know that the Mac mini is designed for those switching to the Mac platform, without having to spend high end prices, but still, for those who would like to build their own system with Apple hardware, around a mini, get a bad deal..... and will have to switch to an iMac (be stupid not too)
:apple:

maccompaq
Aug 10, 2007, 04:16 PM
Im impressed with the iMac.

Starting at $1199,-

Now take the Mac mini (base $599,-), add a 20" cinema dispaly ($599,-), add a keyboard and a mouse ($49,- each)
total: $1298,-
YOu get a nice looking system, but with inferior specs to the iMac, for more money..... (slower processor, inferior graphics card, smaller and slower harddisk, no FW 800, no "n' draft airport, need I go on?

Apple should adjust a few prices on the display, and the base Mac mini (both should go down to at least $499,-) And still you'd only be saving about $100,- and get an inferior system. (personally, I think the mini back to 499, and the display should go to 399, that would be highly competitive, and a great package for the money $996,- including keyboard and mouse..., now that is worth considering :-) )

Of course I know that the Mac mini is designed for those switching to the Mac platform, without having to spend high end prices, but still, for those who would like to build their own system with Apple hardware, around a mini, get a bad deal..... and will have to switch to an iMac (be stupid not too)
:apple:

Why not use desktop components, that are cheaper and faster than the components in the Mini and iMac and put them in a mini tower? Apple could buy the mini tower case from Dell and have Dell put on the Apple logo. (Just kidding). Price the Apple Maxi Mini at $599 without keyboard and mouse to make more profit than on the Mini.

Ron Aldrich
Aug 10, 2007, 05:05 PM
It's also too wide to fit on the left side of the Macbook's screen. Still, there's a magnet to hold the remote. It's useful after presentations. The Pros don't have it tho... I guess it would mess up the aluminum to put the remote up there?

I'm guessing that the main reason they dropped the magnet is because aluminum is a very poor conductor of magnetic fields (it actually is repelled by a magnetic field). If the aluminum is thin enough I suppose it would be possible to get a field through it, but it would take a rather expensive rare earth magnet to do it.

matticus008
Aug 10, 2007, 05:49 PM
And you continue to go back to the same thing over and over (see the outside comment above). I have not seen anything from you to support your position.
The position that the overblown histrionics are childish and inappropriate? The threads speak for themselves. Why do you feel you have to malign a perfectly sensible, customer-pleasing product in order to make a point?

I understand why you need to rail against reflections--it's the only place you can get traction. Color accuracy certainly doesn't work. Some other, equally destructive acts to color accuracy on matte panels: overbright lighting washing out the panel, adjusting the tilt or cross angle of the panel, adjusting the brightness setting on the panel, switching to a different brand of panel. To top it off, the color gamut on these panels is unimpressive to begin with, and any real professional knows it.

But you see, if you feel the colors are oversaturated, you can recalibrate the glossy display to suit your tastes. You can't fix a consumer matte panel's weaker black levels, lower contrast or brightness limitations.

What I don't understand is why there needs to be validation for your view. Why can't you just say that you don't like them? I don't like the MacBook keyboards. I don't like the MacBook Pro name. I don't like the black Apple logo. I don't need to justify myself by maligning the products and throwing tantrums on the Internet, talking about how this glossy business is inferior, a business disaster, or how I'll be taking my money to another vendor (as if anyone cared), or how it's a conspiracy to get people to buy up, or how it ruins my life with a piece of broken technology. None of that is true. If you could do your "professional" graphics work on the old iMac, you can do it on the new one.
Again, popular doesn't equal better. And I doubt the "it's the glossy ones" statement based on personal observations.
Popular also doesn't equal worse. Your "personal" observations about PCs and HDTVs is also contrary to your view: Samsung's best-selling HDTVs are glossy. Plasma panels are glossy. Most LCoS DLPs are glossy. Glossy PCs and glossy HDTVs outsell matte ones in the consumer bend, and it's obvious to see why.

Suppose the glossy offerings existed first, and these matte ones were the new option. Would a consumer say "yes, please, give me weaker colors, grey-blacks, lower brightness, worse contrast, and a harder-to-clean and less durable surface"? Of course not. The few people truly bothered that much by the occasional reflection might well choose them, but most people are capable of making the proper adjustments.

If a business made a choice to offer just one, it's pretty clear which would be the better choice for the widest audience. Hence the iMac.
I bet in the same place that you can find "dozens of threads about skeptics who changed their mind after a few days from when the glossy displays first became available. "
You're evading the question, but I'll take the bait:
Here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=330081&highlight=glossy+screen)
here
(http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=340030&highlight=glossy+screen)
Here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=327480&highlight=glossy+screen)
Here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=204463&highlight=glossy+screen)
Here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=224519&highlight=glossy+screen)

Not to belabor the point or anything, but the number of people switching back to matte after having owned or used extensively a glossy one...well, you can basically count them on two hands. The detractors are basing their expert opinions on photos and Apple Store walk-bys.
If it was such a magnificent invention, why are the high end panels predominantly matte panels?
Because professional panels have different needs and are used in controlled environments. The lighting is designed, the screens are professionally calibrated using tools more expensive than your computer, and they are not touched or tweaked. Consumer panels are meant to be used in the home, outside of lab-like control, and people neither want to pay nor care for the color accuracy offered by high-end displays. You know this because even if you step away from the glossy v. matte issue, the color gamut and product consistency are inferior from the outset.

mavherzog
Aug 11, 2007, 12:24 AM
I'm guessing that the main reason they dropped the magnet is because aluminum is a very poor conductor of magnetic fields (it actually is repelled by a magnetic field). If the aluminum is thin enough I suppose it would be possible to get a field through it, but it would take a rather expensive rare earth magnet to do it.
Just stick the remote on the front edge (much like you'd do with a MacBook). The magnets that hold the glass in place should be able to hold the remote as well. (just a guess as I don't have a new iMac)

greg555
Aug 11, 2007, 04:11 AM
I'm currently using a ViewSonic PF790 CRT. It has some sort of real AR (anti-reflection) coating on it. If I shine my flashlight at the screen I see a fairly dim blue-tinted reflection except where the kids have put finger prints on the screen. There the quarter-wave coating is no longer quarter-wave and I get a white reflection.

So it is possible to make a glossy screen that doesn't have a lot of reflections. I have one.

I have also used glossy CRTs that don't have AR coating and they are annoying. I.E. you can see the reflection of your white shirt in the dark portions of the screen, etc.

Cheers - Greg


I don't see what everyone's problem is with the glass. We all used CRT displays with glass screens back in the day, but I don't recall anyone complaining about those.

People who call off their purchase because of something so trivial have issues.

wyrmintheapple
Aug 11, 2007, 04:50 AM
Hmm, don't like glossy screens...I'll have to see it in person.

24in, full HD, decent graphics, ability to dual boot Windows (when will Boot Camp allow Linux dual booting/triple booting? Will the 'final' BC have this?). This iMac's starting to sound pretty good, and good value compared to Macs of old. Still don't know if it's value enough compared to PCs though for my next computer.

You CAN dual boot/triple boot linux. When you put the XP CD in the drive, once boot camp has made your new partition it restarts and boots the XP CD to start the install. Pop in a Linux disk, hold down C and install to the Partition BootCamp made. Real simple.
BootCamp does not DO anything other than repartition the disk and make you a driver CD. Windows does not run IN or UNDER BootCamp. The firmware on the intel Mac's now contain a CSM for Booting with BIOS support and they'll actually do this without BootCamp, or even having Mac OS anything installed. No, the final version of BootCamp will not support Linux, since the only thing preventing it running Linux is your lack of understanding of what BootCamp actually does.

gregorsamsa
Aug 11, 2007, 09:05 AM
Wow! What a difference the "old" keyboard and a matt screen make. It's no contest from where I stand in the Palo Alto Apple Store. This keyboard rocks and I just got my Bluetooth version today that I ordered yesterday from the refurb store for $49 after I saw what is replacing them yesterday morning.

There are ZERO reflections from behind me and looks plenty bright to me. I gotta stick with matt for the rest of my life so I guess I won't be buying any iMacs for this lifetime anyway. My keyboards need to have real traveling distance and cups for my fingers to feel rested in before they press down a significant distance. The "new" iMac is probably the WORST new Mac to come along since I can't remember when. Total disaster from where I stand. :(

Agreed. Of course it's about personal taste, etc., but every previous Mac I can remember has said "wow" to me; these new iMacs just jar my perception. Unsightly PC towers hidden under one's desk is one thing, but being unable to appreciate the design/style of the AIO atop your desk for years to come, well, a purchase is very unlikely in these circumstances. I could live with the black Apple sign & rear panel, but that black frame... if only consumers had a choice here.

Apple have given us some aesthetically timeless-looking computers, but these just remind me of certain inexpensive LCD TVs that have been around for years & which I wouldn't buy in any circumstances. I'll therefore be looking to buy either a new Mini or a refurb white iMac instead.

TBi
Aug 11, 2007, 08:58 PM
(Unfortunately, I don't have the option of visiting an Apple Store, not without flights anyway..);)

The O2 store on Pana will hopefully have one on display soon. Or else maybe one of the many 3 shops which have mac's!

Thunderbird
Aug 12, 2007, 01:34 AM
The position that the overblown histrionics are childish and inappropriate?

Which overblown histrionics?

What I don't understand is why there needs to be validation for your view. Why can't you just say that you don't like them?

Many people are saying they don't like them, and giving reasons. Apparently you don't like THAT.

I don't need to justify myself by maligning the products and throwing tantrums on the Internet,

What tantrums? Talk about strawmen. :rolleyes:

or how it ruins my life with a piece of broken technology.

Who said glossy screens ruined their life? Now who's being melodramatic :rolleyes:

Not to belabor the point or anything

You've been belaboring the point over several posts in different threads. Why do YOU feel the need to keep trying to validate your defense of glossy screens? Try look in the mirror (or glossy screen) before chastising other people for what you yourself are doing.

The detractors are basing their expert opinions on photos and Apple Store walk-bys.

B.S. People who don't like glossy screens are basing their opnions on actually viewing them, first hand, with their own eyes. The reason they haven't switched back is because they chose not to buy the glossy screened computers in the first place.

k2k koos
Aug 12, 2007, 08:23 AM
I guess the road is open to an all Black iMac, with silver (brushed ALu) Apple logo on the front, and as Steve said these new iMacs look more Pro than the previous line up, perhaps an all Black version is the PRO of tomorrow...
Even if it isn't , I'd sure like to see a black one released, it would blend that screen in very nicely :-) :apple:

wilmor42
Aug 12, 2007, 03:21 PM
Sooo...
for those of you that have seen the original link on the first post..

i guess if the glass part of the screen is only held on by magnets then its feasable to suggest that some company could in the near future manufacture a not so glossy or indeed matte subsititute replacement part for these new machines.. there's some money to be made there for sure.. im sure people that prefer a matte screen (i know i would im planning on hooking one up to my 20" ACD and i dont really like the idea of having one glossy screen and one matte-just asking for some eye trouble there) would invest in such a product, what do you think?

next.. how to get rid of that awful black apple logo :rolleyes: ...
perhaps a light brush of a small angle grinder could improve the look..

matticus008
Aug 12, 2007, 04:41 PM
Which overblown histrionics?
"is Apple really trying to kick all their cheap stuff down so that students like me who work with graphics and digital arts HAVE TO get those professional macs?"
"The problem is that with a 24" mirror in front of you, you will always see the reflection of *something* no matter which way you point it."
"Try staring at it 14 hours a day, 6 days a week and tell me how your eyes are."
"It is cheaper to build glossy LCDs...The glossy displays will bring you headaches for free!"
"I just can't stand glossy screens and would not buy a glossy Mac. Why Apple doesn't listen to its users?"

There's just a brief selection for you of all the posts you seemed to have skimmed over when choosing to respond here. Either you don't know what histrionic means or you have some bizarre sensitivity that includes my posts, which are calm and rational. I haven't attacked matte panels. I haven't attacked people for liking matte panels. The same can't be said for the other side in this argument.

Who said glossy screens ruined their life? Now who's being melodramatic :rolleyes:
"This just pushes people who use their macs all day up past the $3000 bracket if they want a decent-size screen. "It's an all-in-one world", so long as you don't use the computer for too long (or in an office)"
"WHY are they forcing glossy displays on their "consumer" models? [...] What, "consumers" are supposed to suffer with horrid reflections all the time?"

I can keep going about the evil conspiracy and give you some of the posts about people threatening to take their money elsewhere and how they're being forced away from Macs to do their "professional" work on midrange displays with mediocre color gamuts.
You've been belaboring the point over several posts in different threads. Why do YOU feel the need to keep trying to validate your defense of glossy screens?
I'm not validating anything. It's called counterpoint. As I've said countless times, it doesn't matter what your preference is. I use both types of displays. It does matter that people are trying to convince others that they're inferior, broken technology. They're not. It's as simple as that.

People look to these forums for advice and buying tips, and if all they hear is the dull roar of some people complaining about a display technology they've never actually used, spreading myths and complaints that simply aren't true, those potential customers will get bad information. A glossy panel is in no way technically inferior to a matte panel. They're not cheaper, lower-quality, or less useful to "professionals" than any other relatively low-end panel. The only flaw, and an overblown one at that, is that shiny things reflect. But it's not a mirror. It's a light source, which counters almost any glare that would be produced on a glass mirror.
The reason they haven't switched back is because they chose not to buy the glossy screened computers in the first place.
...and therefore do not have the requisite experience to make determinations for others. The people that have owned and used them extensively have delivered quite strong support on the whole. Does it seem valid to you that people who have never owned a Macintosh should come on here and tell everyone to buy a Dell because they couldn't figure out a Mac in the five minutes they spent with one in the store?

maccompaq
Aug 12, 2007, 05:17 PM
I was hoping for a new Mac Mini Maxi, but no luck. All of my Macs and Compaqs are user serviceable, and I have had to replace hard drives and optical drives in them myself. Because I really want to have a new Mac when Leopard is released, I will probably have to buy an iMac. A Mac Mini is lacking and a Mac Pro is overkill.

Reading about the crisp display on the glossy iMac, I am anxious to have a look at it. Also, I want to try out the new keyboard for myself. Then I will make my own judgement about the screen and the keyboard.

I recently read a post by someone here: "Do not buy iWork 08 because Numbers does not do error checks on extreme scientific calculations". I wonder how many people will now avoid the marvelous new iWork because of that careless post. Probably 99.9% of users would not even use a function like that or even be aware that it exists.

3D-Troll
Aug 12, 2007, 05:35 PM
Checked out the new iMac in the store, they finally had them on display. All I could see were lights and iPhone displays. The glossy display is just awful.
As for the keyboard ... I never really like the Apple designs, I got the Logitech Mac keyboard and mouse combo and like it a lot.

Steffen

Thunderbird
Aug 12, 2007, 06:45 PM
"is Apple really trying to kick all their cheap stuff down so that students like me who work with graphics and digital arts HAVE TO get those professional macs?"
"The problem is that with a 24" mirror in front of you, you will always see the reflection of *something* no matter which way you point it."
"Try staring at it 14 hours a day, 6 days a week and tell me how your eyes are."
"It is cheaper to build glossy LCDs...The glossy displays will bring you headaches for free!"
"I just can't stand glossy screens and would not buy a glossy Mac. Why Apple doesn't listen to its users?"

There's just a brief selection for you of all the posts you seemed to have skimmed over when choosing to respond here. Either you don't know what histrionic means or you have some bizarre sensitivity that includes my posts, which are calm and rational.

Sounds like you don't know what histrionic means. Either that, or you are hyper-sensitive to any form of disagreement and simply see drama everywhere. Histrionic NOUN: Overemotional exaggerated behavior calculated for effect: dramatics, melodramatics, theatrical (used in plural), theatrics. See FEELINGS, STYLE.

None of the quotes you selected are examples of histrionics. The first quote is merely rhetorical, questioning Apple's motives for their product positioning. It may be conspiratorial, but not histrionic. The second is making a claim about the mirror-like quality of the glossy screen --which may or may not be true; the third is an example of sarcasm, as is the fourth; the fifth quote is stating an opinion and again asking a rhetorical question. No melodrama, nothing "overblown", no hyper-emotionality. Nothing to see here... move along.

I haven't attacked matte panels. I haven't attacked people for liking matte panels. The same can't be said for the other side in this argument.

But you've attacked people who dare to complain about glossy panels:

"Most persnickety whiners have never used them, but even worse can't seem to grasp the relatively simply science that disproves their biggest gripes."

"This just pushes people who use their macs all day up past the $3000 bracket if they want a decent-size screen. "It's an all-in-one world", so long as you don't use the computer for too long (or in an office)"
"WHY are they forcing glossy displays on their "consumer" models? [...] What, "consumers" are supposed to suffer with horrid reflections all the time?"

And you think this expression of frustration with a display is equivalent to saying "their lives are ruined?" Can you not see the exaggeration you have projected onto this?

I'm not validating anything. It's called counterpoint.

Right, it's always different when you do it. Then allow other people the same opportunity for their "counterpoint" without interrogating their motives.

People look to these forums for advice and buying tips, and if all they hear is the dull roar of some people complaining about a display technology they've never actually used, spreading myths and complaints that simply aren't true, those potential customers will get bad information.

But it's not "all they here". As you yourself pointed out, there are a lot of posts by people who rather like the glossy screens and are quite happy with them. There is no shortage of positive reports. Others state they don't like the reflections in a glossy screen: how is this "bad information"? It's one thing to correct someone on technical matters, but who's to say their visual preference is incorrect?

...and therefore do not have the requisite experience to make determinations for others. The people that have owned and used them extensively have delivered quite strong support on the whole. Does it seem valid to you that people who have never owned a Macintosh should come on here and tell everyone to buy a Dell because they couldn't figure out a Mac in the five minutes they spent with one in the store?

Your analogy doesn't hold, as nobody here is telling other people they SHOULD buy a matte screen. No one is making determinations for others. You seem to be reading too much into what people are actually saying on this topic, not to mention how they are saying it. Nor is technical proficiency at using program applications analogous to visual preferences for screen coatings. If some people are really bothered by the reflections from a glossy screen, something immediately noticeable, then there is no need to accuse them of never having used one or experienced them, much less not having owned one.

Most of the people who have posted negative reports have stated their reasons, and most of those have based their judgements on first hand direct experience. It's simply offensive to accuse them of not having used a glossy screen or had no experience with one. Indeed why would someone who disliked glossy screens after using one in a store or at a friend's go out and buy one? Just to see if they could get used to it? That's an expensive gamble. The people who ended up buying glossy screens are the ones who, likewise tried them out in a store or at a friend's and decided they liked them. Naturally, those who bought them, liked them. But you don't need to buy one to decide whether you like them or not. That makes no sense.

matticus008
Aug 12, 2007, 08:35 PM
None of the quotes you selected are examples of histrionics.
If those aren't, then certainly none of mine are, and yet you seem to perceive differently.
But you've attacked people who dare to complain about glossy panels
That is not an attack. It's an observation, and nowhere does it lump "people who complain about glossy panels" into the group of people being discussed.
And you think this expression of frustration with a display is equivalent to saying "their lives are ruined?" Can you not see the exaggeration you have projected onto this?
Do you need more quotes? Having to buy a $3000 computer to get a decent screen isn't overblown and exaggerated? Refusing to buy an iMac and getting a PC for "professional" work because the iMac is glossy isn't a grotesquely overblown way of creating drama? Calling the machines useless isn't melodramatic? You sure have some twisted definitions. "I'm a longtime Mac user and I'll never buy another Apple again if they don't give us a matte iMac/complaint du jour" is a common theme on these threads, and it's overblown, childish, and histrionic. If you don't like something, don't buy it. Feel free to say you don't like it. But don't try to make other people think the product is broken just because it's not your taste.
Then allow other people the same opportunity for their "counterpoint" without interrogating their motives.
Then do it. No one has backed up their complaints of inferiority with rational information, because there is no such deficiency.
It's one thing to correct someone on technical matters, but who's to say their visual preference is incorrect?
I wouldn't know. I have stated countless times that visual preference is an unobjectionable personal choice. My problem is with the accusation that the displays are worse in some tangible way, which is, again, clearly stated.
then there is no need to accuse them of never having used one or experienced them, much less not having owned one.
There's no point for them to claim that these displays are a step backward either, or that they're inadequate in any technical measure, but you don't seem to have a problem with that.
But you don't need to buy one to decide whether you like them or not. That makes no sense.
You're arguing a point no one's making. The people I take exception to are calling them technically inferior products worthless for people who use computers for more than ten minutes at a time, and it's wrong. They're not simply saying "I don't like them." They're saying "no one should like them and anyone who does doesn't know what a good display is and we want them gone forever."

Maxx Power
Aug 12, 2007, 08:52 PM
They should have used the back panel as a heatsink with fins to passively cool some of the components, that was my idea a while back for an integrated computer.

Also, NeoVo was one of the first (if not THE first) company to offer glass protected LCD monitors, but unfortunately their products didn't do so well. People who first picked up on the whole LCD technology were really fed up with the glare of the CRT's. I was my self.

The right direction to go would be to go with tri-coloured LED backlit panels with a colour gamut much much greater than an conventional CRT, or OLED's, or even a very mundane technology by Samsung whereby the backlight is LEDs on a grid, and each 64x64 pixel grid's backlight LED can be individually adjusted in brightness to correlate with the relative black-level in that 64x64 grid, that technology looks better than most tube TV's.

Frisco
Aug 12, 2007, 09:12 PM
Bottom line: Apple F*cked up big time. Many companies are now buying PCs because of the matte iMac screen. They need the matte screen and simply can't afford the MacPro.

I will be switching myself-making a 360 myself--bad pun intended. Apple is no better than Microsoft. I choose MS because I have more choice, for less $

Think Different :rolleyes:

appleforever
Aug 12, 2007, 09:41 PM
You sure about there? The store I work at has the last gen 24inch on demo and the back comes off to access the hard drive.

I know for fact the back doesn't come off on the 24" you must open the computer from the front. And remove the LCD to access the hard drive.

mavherzog
Aug 13, 2007, 12:09 AM
I know for fact the back doesn't come off on the 24" you must open the computer from the front. And remove the LCD to access the hard drive.
Having just read the installation directions for attaching the VESA mount adapter (which does NOT, BTW, require the back to be removed), I am very curious as to why this is not available for all iMac models (20" and the previous model 17").

Oh, and, I am inclined to believe you that you can only access the hdd from the front. :)

thevofl
Aug 13, 2007, 12:55 AM
Matticus008,

I usually don't get into an endless debate with people on boards. And this has delved into one. I started this debate primarily because of your arrogant tone and view on this board.

Let me start out by saying that yes, the contrast is better on the glossy. The colors are better. There, you have it. BUT, I do not see a drastic improvement over the matte. In fact, in my opinion, it is negligible.

In my previous posts I have been just as dismissive of your argument because you are extremely dismissive of others:
My problem is with the accusation that the displays are worse in some tangible way

It may be hard to imagine to you, but some people actually believe that seeing ambient reflections is worse than a little loss of contrast. To them, and to me, it is quite tangible. Hence, the displays are worse.

But you don't understand this. You have your own set of standards and expect everyone to hold them with the same priority as you do. You make your statements about the industry as if you have spoke to every single professional. This weekend, I asked three of my closest friends in the graphic design / video editing business on their screens. All three use a matte screen. One adamantly hates the reflection found with glossy screens. One doesn't care one way or the other and uses the one that his company provides. The last one has a 30" Apple Monitor; he prefers the matte screen. I asked each one, if would they buy a glossy. Two said no, despite the clarity improvement. The third didn't care. Also, the adamant one said that there is nothing he can do on a glossy screen that he can't on a matte screen.

"Better" is a highly subjective term. Some of us--both professionals and consumers, uneducated and highly educated, Mac users and PC users--prefer Matte over Glossy. Some of us are upset with Apple on changing the screen type; some having strong reactions. I was going to buy a new iMac, had the credit card ready. Once I heard that the screen was glossy, I had to rethink my plan. It means THAT much to me.

You dismiss this approach by minimizing this response as: someone who hasn't tried it, someone who is not a sophisticated professional, or someone who is resistant to change. You don't know me. You don't know my background. I have been on a matte monitor for a long time. I have matte glass on my pictures hanging on my wall. I have a 40" Sony matte HD TV. This is because I do not like glossy. I do not think that glossy is better. This is my opinion, and I am not saying my opinion is better than yours, better than anyone else's, or any other group of people's. I don't think anyone else's opinion is better than mine either.

People are going to have their legitimate opinions.

Now let the nitpicking begin.

Maxx Power
Aug 13, 2007, 01:10 AM
Matticus008,

I usually don't get into an endless debate with people on boards. And this has delved into one. I started this debate primarily because of your arrogant tone and view on this board.

Let me start out by saying that yes, the contrast is better on the glossy. The colors are better. There, you have it. BUT, I do not see a drastic improvement over the matte. In fact, in my opinion, it is negligible.

In my previous posts I have been just as dismissive of your argument because you are extremely dismissive of others:


It may be hard to imagine to you, but some people actually believe that seeing ambient reflections is worse than a little loss of contrast. To them, and to me, it is quite tangible. Hence, the displays are worse.

But you don't understand this. You have your own set of standards and expect everyone to hold them with the same priority as you do. You make your statements about the industry as if you have spoke to every single professional. This weekend, I asked three of my closest friends in the graphic design / video editing business on their screens. All three use a matte screen. One adamantly hates the reflection found with glossy screens. One doesn't care one way or the other and uses the one that his company provides. The last one has a 30" Apple Monitor; he prefers the matte screen. I asked each one, if would they buy a glossy. Two said no, despite the clarity improvement. The third didn't care. Also, the adamant one said that there is nothing he can do on a glossy screen that he can't on a matte screen.

"Better" is a highly subjective term. Some of us--both professionals and consumers, uneducated and highly educated, Mac users and PC users--prefer Matte over Glossy. Some of us are upset with Apple on changing the screen type; some having strong reactions. I was going to buy a new iMac, had the credit card ready. Once I heard that the screen was glossy, I had to rethink my plan. It means THAT much to me.

You dismiss this approach by minimizing this response as: someone who hasn't tried it, someone who is not a sophisticated professional, or someone who is resistant to change. You don't know me. You don't know my background. I have been on a matte monitor for a long time. I have matte glass on my pictures hanging on my wall. I have a 40" Sony matte HD TV. This is because I do not like glossy. I do not think that glossy is better. This is my opinion, and I am not saying my opinion is better than yours, better than anyone else's, or any other group of people's. I don't think anyone else's opinion is better than mine either.

People are going to have their legitimate opinions.

Now let the nitpicking begin.

Bright Blue LED's, Glossy Screens, Shiny Plastics, Aluminum (so called "brushed metal" for somethings), fast 6 bit panels, what's the next fad ?

Now, where do I get those oversized spoilers and racing stripes to go with my short throw shifter and my Sorny CD player playing music that requires only tweeters and subwoofers ?

matticus008
Aug 13, 2007, 04:07 AM
I started this debate primarily because of your arrogant tone and view on this board.
That's your perception, and it's where you made your first mistake. I have little sympathy for people who are offended by the "tone" of text on the Internet. My "arrogant view" is that people should be able to have a preference without being melodramatic about it. There is no physical deficiency and no error in judgment in the decision to offer such a display. There's no need to try to create one. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I don't like them and I would prefer a diffuse glow over a hard reflection." But those aren't the posts I've responded to. Instead, they claim that they can't see through the "mirror" (patently false) while working at the computer and such machines have no places in serious work.

You got one more, right here:
Bottom line: Apple F*cked up big time. Many companies are now buying PCs because of the matte iMac screen. They need the matte screen and simply can't afford the MacPro.

In my previous posts I have been just as dismissive of your argument because you are extremely dismissive of others:
Tangible, i.e. physical, factual. As opposed to preferential, e.g. "some people actually believe that seeing ambient reflections is worse than a little loss of contrast." The latter is not the subject of my discussion, no matter how hard you try to make it.
You have your own set of standards and expect everyone to hold them with the same priority as you do.
On the contrary, I expect people to have different priorities. That is the entire point of my comments. Preference does not translate to technical superiority. I have not attacked matte panels. I have not stated a personal, categorical preference. I have used, and for the foreseeable future will continue to use, both.
You dismiss this approach by minimizing this response as: someone who hasn't tried it, someone who is not a sophisticated professional, or someone who is resistant to change.
No, I haven't, and if you'd paid closer attention you would see that. Everyone else can. You continue to carve bones to pick where there are none. For the 90th time, people who don't like the panels don't have to buy them. They don't have to like them. But it is inaccurate and absurd to claim that they are not usable, inferior, defective, deficient, or in any way interfere with people's work.

flashy-cat
Aug 13, 2007, 05:18 AM
I saw in the presentation that there is only one screw to remove to get to the RAM. I am planning on buying a new 24" iMac when Leopard comes out and I would like it to be outfitted with 2 Gigs of RAM but it is $135 in the Apple Store on-line to upgrade to 2 Gigs. What is anyone's experience with buying cheap 3rd party RAM for their iMacs? Currently on newegg there are prices as low as $35 for TechWorks and as low as $45 for Corsair 1 Gig modules. Should it send up a red flag that there is THAT much of a price difference? OR should I be completely safe going with one of those sticks for my upgrade to 2 Gigs?

Would recommend fitting yourself, but use a respected brand supplier like www.crucial.co.uk.

I fitted a 1 gig stick from them no problem.

BKKbill
Aug 13, 2007, 08:01 AM
Bottom line: Apple F*cked up big time. Many companies are now buying PCs because of the matte iMac screen. They need the matte screen and simply can't afford the MacPro.

I will be switching myself-making a 360 myself--bad pun intended. Apple is no better than Microsoft. I choose MS because I have more choice, for less $

Think Different :rolleyes:

I see you still haven't had time to get that U on your keyboard repaired. Maybe you should just try one of the new thiny ones. Oh and the iMac doesn't have a matte screen :p

gamac
Aug 13, 2007, 08:38 AM
This:

"Hence, the displays are worse."

should really be this:

Hence, in my opinion, the displays are worse.

We all have opinions on this topic, and none of them are ultimately true for everyone.

Maxx Power
Aug 13, 2007, 12:35 PM
This:

"Hence, the displays are worse."

should really be this:

Hence, in my opinion, the displays are worse.

We all have opinions on this topic, and none of them are ultimately true for everyone.

Suppose everyone had the exact same background knowledge when it comes to making a certain logical decision, then, depending on your absolute speed of reasoning, sooner or later, we would all arrive at the same logical conclusion.

If I'm not mistaken, just about all the panels produced that needs a glossy surface (with thin film coatings) to enhance colours and contrast are TN 6 bit panels. This might explain why Apple didn't use a glossy surface in its products before. The MacBook uses TN panels, and the new iMacs uses TN panels for at least one size, where as the older models had reportedly either IPS or PVA or MVA panels in the 20 incher.

gamac
Aug 13, 2007, 01:20 PM
... and the new 24 inch iMac is either IPS, IPVA or MVA.

So are you half right or half wrong.

Everyone sees things (color/shade/light/etc.) differently. Two people looking at the same two displays at the same time may not come to the same conclusion as to which is better.

I stand by my comment "We all have opinions on this topic, and none of them are ultimately true for everyone."

I think it probably just boils down to personal preference.

thevofl
Aug 13, 2007, 06:05 PM
That's your perception, and it's where you made your first mistake. I have little sympathy for people who are offended by the "tone" of text on the Internet. My "arrogant view" is that people should be able to have a preference without being melodramatic about it. There is no physical deficiency and no error in judgment in the decision to offer such a display. There's no need to try to create one. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I don't like them and I would prefer a diffuse glow over a hard reflection." But those aren't the posts I've responded to. Instead, they claim that they can't see through the "mirror" (patently false) while working at the computer and such machines have no places in serious work.

You got one more, right here:



Tangible, i.e. physical, factual. As opposed to preferential, e.g. "some people actually believe that seeing ambient reflections is worse than a little loss of contrast." The latter is not the subject of my discussion, no matter how hard you try to make it.

On the contrary, I expect people to have different priorities. That is the entire point of my comments. Preference does not translate to technical superiority. I have not attacked matte panels. I have not stated a personal, categorical preference. I have used, and for the foreseeable future will continue to use, both.

No, I haven't, and if you'd paid closer attention you would see that. Everyone else can. You continue to carve bones to pick where there are none. For the 90th time, people who don't like the panels don't have to buy them. They don't have to like them. But it is inaccurate and absurd to claim that they are not usable, inferior, defective, deficient, or in any way interfere with people's work.

Arrogance. Pure and simple. Everything is defined on YOUR terms

Here's a tangible rebuttal that was brought to my attention. In the office where my friend does digital design for print, all screens are matte. This is because Matte screens are more accurate, more in line with how the designs are reproduced in print. Seeing colors in a glossy screen is not accurate for
print. In that office glossy is inferior, deficient, and does interfere with people's work.

Preference is tangible. Tangible defined as:
1. capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.
2. real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary: the tangible benefits of sunshine.
3. definite; not vague or elusive: no tangible grounds for suspicion.
4. (of an asset) having actual physical existence, as real estate or chattels, and therefore capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms.

Seeing a reflection is not imaginary nor visionary nor vague nor elusive. It is tangible, despite your statement otherwise. But you only see what you want to see.

This whole argument is like buying a top of the line house next to an airport. You are getting a great house and can be advertised as such. But the location sucks. An argument can be made that the great house overshadows the location problem. But there are people who wouldn't have that location no matter how good the house is.

Three of one, or a quarter dozen of another. There is enough people on both sides to send the message to Apple that they should offer it as an option.

matticus008
Aug 13, 2007, 07:12 PM
This is because Matte screens are more accurate, more in line with how the designs are reproduced in print.
No. More accurate displays are matte. Matte displays are not automatically more accurate because they're matte. A square is a rectangle...

A consumer panel is wildly inaccurate to begin with. Adding or taking away a gloss panel is not going to affect color accuracy any more than any of the panel's other limitations. The iMac doesn't have a very accurate panel to begin with. Taking the glossy coat away isn't going to get it any closer to "true" color.
In that office glossy is inferior, deficient, and does interfere with people's work.
Again, it's not that glossy screens are inferior in that office. It's that displays with high color accuracy are superior. An iMac panel, with or without a gloss coating, does not have the high color accuracy needed for the job. Correlation is not causation. They're not using simple consumer panels in that office, and if they are, they're not that serious about color accuracy. They'll be using professionally-calibrated S-IPS panels with SWOP certification, ideally at 10-bit depth for their mission critical work, all in a controlled environment. That high-end panel is absolutely going to be a matte panel.

If they're not going to go the whole nine yards, it doesn't matter whether the panel is matte or glossy, because it's inadequate either way. If you don't have a good color gamut and you don't have all the other pieces in place, you've got inaccurate color. It doesn't matter whether that color inaccuracy is due to gloss oversaturation (which you can correct by calibrating the display), narrow gamut, incomplete gamut, panel tint, or the use of a lower pixel depth.

Glossy panels limit the potential for color accuracy, which is why you don't see them at the absolute high end. They are not a greater limit than the other compromises made in low-cost consumer units and in fact are the weakest limit in such a circumstance, as you can "cool" the colors down by calibrating the gamma to your taste.
Preference is tangible. Tangible defined as:
Tangible as in physical, hard fact, a universal property associated with the product as I already specified (specifications, materials, physics). Preference is opinion which is definitively not tangible. There's no accounting for taste, as they say.
This whole argument is like buying a top of the line house next to an airport. You are getting a great house and can be advertised as such. But the location sucks.
Yes, but your beef is with the location and not with the house. The parallel here would be trying to find fault with the house itself instead of just saying that you don't like the location. It's purely a matter of preference, not of one being a better product. Better for you != superior product. For all practical purposes, it's like saying a silver toaster is better than a black one.

You're getting a great consumer-level panel and it's advertised as such. There's nothing wrong with it. With or without the glossy coat, it's not suitable for professionals--hence its consumer-level status and price. You don't like it, fine. You don't like that you don't have a choice, fine. That doesn't mean it sucks or that people are settling for less or that anyone's being coerced into buying something more expensive.

Maxx Power
Aug 13, 2007, 09:01 PM
... and the new 24 inch iMac is either IPS, IPVA or MVA.

So are you half right or half wrong.

Everyone sees things (color/shade/light/etc.) differently. Two people looking at the same two displays at the same time may not come to the same conclusion as to which is better.

I stand by my comment "We all have opinions on this topic, and none of them are ultimately true for everyone."

I think it probably just boils down to personal preference.

As for the 24" I'm aware that no TN panels come in 24" sizes, last time I checked.

As for the personal preferences, there is a great reason why we have almost identical perceptions, it makes socializing possible from a biological and evolutionary perspective. There are people who are colour blind, or significantly deviate in perception in one way or another, however, I'm referring to people who are perhaps only one standard deviation away from the norm. It is known that the perceptions from person to person does deviate in the sensor level, however, there isn't nearly as much visual deviations as there is, say, taste. There are "super tasters" and regulars as far as taste is concerned as a sense. The human neurological processing capabilities on the visual information makes sure that if you were raised by humans, you see things identical to them (short of deficiencies, like colour blindness). This also, for a vast amount of people, transfers biases automatically via childhood indoctrination.

What I was talking about was that, most differing opinions arise from a lack of mutual information or a common background that they can both utilize to draw conclusions on. Opinions for any one person can swing greatly given a variation in facts known at the time of decision. These accounts for most differences in opinions, and is the driving factor in consumerism and voting.

For example, I doubt most people who preferred glossy actually know the whole gamut of differences between glossy and matte types of screens, other than what they learn from, of course, advertisements. AND, even if everyone knew the differences, few would have the handy engineering/scientific background to have a firm grasp on what the technical measurements translate into, in terms of real world use for their intended purpose.

That's what I was talking about.

gamac
Aug 13, 2007, 10:03 PM
This is actually very funny:

"For example, I doubt most people who preferred glossy actually know the whole gamut of differences between glossy and matte types of screens, other than what they learn from, of course, advertisements. AND, even if everyone knew the differences, few would have the handy engineering/scientific background to have a firm grasp on what the technical measurements translate into, in terms of real world use for their intended purpose."

We are talking about an all-in-one computer configured/priced for average consumer use (word processing, email, internet, video , music, photography, light gaming, etc.). The entire system probably cost about 1/3 that of a high-end professional graphic designers display alone.

I think that "most people" just want what looks best to them. Personally, I prefer a matte finish for some tasks and a glossy finish for others. The iMac comes in glossy; either way would have been fine with me.

There is a far wider difference in the senses of sight and sound (and thus preferences) in any group of people than you appear willing to acknowledge. Try letting any two, three, or a hundred people independently set up a stereo system's sound or HD TV's picture. I doubt you will get two exactly the same. Many of them will be dramatically different. If your married, just try this with your wife, that should do it.

It is all about personal preference. My preference is the superior display to me. Your preference is the superior display to you. "most people" don't care about the actual technology of the display, they just care about how it looks to them.

You appear to be saying that the technical specifications on the display (24") are OK; you just want one with a different finish (matte/glossy). That's OK. Just don't think that only yourself and a select few are capable of true enlightenment.

Although, I guess this signature could explain where you're coming from: "Compare your lives to mine and then kill yourselves."

Maxx Power
Aug 14, 2007, 12:21 AM
This is actually very funny:

"For example, I doubt most people who preferred glossy actually know the whole gamut of differences between glossy and matte types of screens, other than what they learn from, of course, advertisements. AND, even if everyone knew the differences, few would have the handy engineering/scientific background to have a firm grasp on what the technical measurements translate into, in terms of real world use for their intended purpose."

We are talking about an all-in-one computer configured/priced for average consumer use (word processing, email, internet, video , music, photography, light gaming, etc.). The entire system probably cost about 1/3 that of a high-end professional graphic designers display alone.

I think that "most people" just want what looks best to them. Personally, I prefer a matte finish for some tasks and a glossy finish for others. The iMac comes in glossy; either way would have been fine with me.

There is a far wider difference in the senses of sight and sound (and thus preferences) in any group of people than you appear willing to acknowledge. Try letting any two, three, or a hundred people independently set up a stereo system's sound or HD TV's picture. I doubt you will get two exactly the same. Many of them will be dramatically different. If your married, just try this with your wife, that should do it.

It is all about personal preference. My preference is the superior display to me. Your preference is the superior display to you. "most people" don't care about the actual technology of the display, they just care about how it looks to them.

You appear to be saying that the technical specifications on the display (24") are OK; you just want one with a different finish (matte/glossy). That's OK. Just don't think that only yourself and a select few are capable of true enlightenment.

Although, I guess this signature could explain where you're coming from: "Compare your lives to mine and then kill yourselves."

While I'm not going to elaborate about the differences in perception anymore, you should just keep in mind that sensory nerves and neuro processing that are "alike" are what allowed human kinds to bond societally in such a large manner. All organisms which live in packs exhibit this sort of pattern.

You are right on the opinions though, personal preference as you put it. However, in my view, everyone is entitled to an opinion. That opinion may not be anymore viable than someone else's depending on a large number of factors. To restate this in a way that relates to what my theme was - there isn't such a thing as universal equalism of opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but they can't all be equally correct, viable, or "enlightened", whatever the qualifiers are. Experience for individuals is stratified, from those who had the greatest exposure to a topic of judgement, along with the greatest intelligence and inquisitiveness (a trait actually controlled in part by a gene) to actually digest the most perceivable in every experience, to those who are least experienced, and combined with a heavily hobbled intelligence and inquisitiveness to be the least qualified to make a good opinion thereafter. Now, whether or not your opinion is valid in anyway, is your sole judgement IF you don't make that opinion public. This stratification is used, for example, heavily by the marketing industry to target, obscure, misinform, and selectively pick audiences for consumerism. You can judge when and where this is done, and whether or not this is good or bad.

Relating this to what you said, "most people who just want to buy something that 'looks' good" in my interpretation means "most people don't have the necessary knowledge and experience to make an informed and therefore more valid opinion when it comes to purchasing things". What you appear to be saying is "average computers for average people". While that is a very compact way to phrase what I already iterated in the above paragraph, I wanted to offer you my "insight", since there is a reason why "average people" make "average choices". And if you think I'm implying that I'm insightful, you have over read. I just like "insights".

As for as the sig goes. that's a quote from Bender in Futurama. It represents Bender, and I find him frequently putting a cold, logical and hilarious spin on things humans do.

shanmui1
Aug 14, 2007, 02:54 AM
@ Matticus,

I've read thru your posts and I've one question : since you are far from being a deranged fanboi, just how much are you being paid to be an Apple schill to spam this board?

thevofl
Aug 14, 2007, 04:19 AM
Tangible as in physical, hard fact, a universal property associated with the product as I already specified (specifications, materials, physics). Preference is opinion which is definitively not tangible. There's no accounting for taste, as they say.

Well seeing a reflection is optics, which technically is a part of physics. The reflection can be seen in the materials used. So yes, it is tangible. Whether or not your preference is to ignore the physics of optics caused by the materials used is your opinion.

Yes, but your beef is with the location and not with the house. The parallel here would be trying to find fault with the house itself instead of just saying that you don't like the location.

OK I don't like the tangible reflections from a glossy screen. For all practical purposes, the better analogy would be painting with oils versus painting with watercolors.

The most popular HDTVs and LCD monitors are heavily dominated by the glossy finish.

I went to Fry's Electronics this evening. The glossy over matte is hardly lopsided. Most PCs are glossy. But the stand alone monitors and televisions were mixed.Seems quite lopsided to me, particularly if you ask which ones are moving faster (hint: it's the glossy ones).

Here's where you are wrong. OK, I was at two Best Buys and a Costco (looking for a camcorder with a friend). I took the opportunity to look at the monitors and TVs.

HDTVs: What I found was approximately 20% of the midrange TVs and 33% of the high end TVs at Best Buy/Magnolia were glossy. Two out of 18 TVs were glossy. I asked one Magnolia employee from each Best Buy as to the percentage of glossy/matte. They did not give me specifics/hard facts. What they did tell me was that it depends on the manufacturer. Samsung was singled out for selling more glossy than matte. The other companies have matte as their top seller. Overall the choice is with matte. One even said that the demo DVD they use for customers' testing has a lot of dark images. If the customer reacted negatively to the gloss, they were shown matte screens. If they didn't object, then glossy screens were in the mix. At Costco, I asked the employee there as to his thoughts on the glossy issue. He says he sees the primary reason why glossy screens are returned is from the reflection.

Desktop Monitors: Best Buy had the vast majority of desktop monitors as matte. The employee said that the preference is for matte, as it works better with the lighting found in a home.

Notebook Monitors: Best Buy had the vast majority (all but one) monitor as glossy. That same employee said that the monitors work better in outdoor lighting which supports your statements on outdoor use.

So, let me sum up my findings here:

1) Seeing a reflection in the gloss is basic optics from physics. Therefore it is a legitimate tangible defect of glossy screens.
2) The majority of HDTVs sold are matte, except for Samsung HDTVs.
3) The majority of monitors for laptop are matte.
4) The majority of monitors for notebooks are glossy.

The above gives support to rejection of the claim that glossy screens are universally superior despite the color accuracy. They are in certain situations and by certain manufacturers, but not blanket across the board.

I want thank you Matticus008 for prompting me to go and research the market of HDTVs and Monitors. Even though the evidence is anecdotal, the consistency of what I am hearing from variety of sources is enough to help me solidify my understanding of how stupid Apple was for NOT offering a choice of a matte screen for its desktop iMac.

So this is where I will leave this debate. It was a blast. Have a swell day.

matticus008
Aug 14, 2007, 05:53 AM
Well seeing a reflection is optics, which technically is a part of physics. The reflection can be seen in the materials used.
Not from a perpendicular viewing angle. Seeing a reflection generally requires two things: a non-perpendicular angle and a post-degradation light source brighter than the display itself. The two are inversely proportional along the viewing path. Thus, production of a reflection at a zero-degree offset requires such an intense light so as to make any display unusable. Moreover, a matte finish doesn't magically absorb the incoming light. It produces reflections just as a glossy panel does. They differ only in the expression of that reflection. If you intend to use a suboptimal arrangement, that is something you should certainly take into consideration when making your decision (just as you would color shift on PVA or lesser panels).

1) Seeing a reflection in the gloss is basic optics from physics. Therefore it is a legitimate tangible defect of glossy screens.
I'd suggest looking into basic optics a bit more, then. I have provided the mechanical effects of optics, as have others on these forums--you have no explanation for your unique take on the math. Seeing a reflection is a consequence of poor positioning. Such positioning is going to negatively affect color, brightness, and contrast on a matte panel, so it is only the nature of the problem that is different--it is not a "defect" relative to matte panels. It's merely a different problem and again simply a matter of personal taste as to which is worse to have. There is no magic to a matte panel that makes them impervious to hard light. They are both negatively impacted and both reflect the sum total of incoming light. Of course, these are all things I've said before and have been ignored in your responses.
The above gives support to rejection of the claim that glossy screens are universally superior despite the color accuracy.
I'm sure we're all glad you have countered and rejected a point no one made. Pleasant travels.

jonnos
Aug 14, 2007, 06:12 AM
someone with the new 24" imac please open it up and find out what panel it is using.

thanks.




lol

gamac
Aug 14, 2007, 06:51 AM
Originally Posted by Maxx Power:

"While I'm not going to elaborate about the differences in perception anymore, you should just keep in mind that sensory nerves and neuro processing that are "alike" are what allowed human kinds to bond societally in such a large manner. All organisms which live in packs exhibit this sort of pattern.

You are right on the opinions though, personal preference as you put it. However, in my view, everyone is entitled to an opinion. That opinion may not be anymore viable than someone else's depending on a large number of factors. To restate this in a way that relates to what my theme was - there isn't such a thing as universal equalism of opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but they can't all be equally correct, viable, or "enlightened", whatever the qualifiers are. Experience for individuals is stratified, from those who had the greatest exposure to a topic of judgement, along with the greatest intelligence and inquisitiveness (a trait actually controlled in part by a gene) to actually digest the most perceivable in every experience, to those who are least experienced, and combined with a heavily hobbled intelligence and inquisitiveness to be the least qualified to make a good opinion thereafter. Now, whether or not your opinion is valid in anyway, is your sole judgement IF you don't make that opinion public. This stratification is used, for example, heavily by the marketing industry to target, obscure, misinform, and selectively pick audiences for consumerism. You can judge when and where this is done, and whether or not this is good or bad.

Relating this to what you said, "most people who just want to buy something that 'looks' good" in my interpretation means "most people don't have the necessary knowledge and experience to make an informed and therefore more valid opinion when it comes to purchasing things". What you appear to be saying is "average computers for average people". While that is a very compact way to phrase what I already iterated in the above paragraph, I wanted to offer you my "insight", since there is a reason why "average people" make "average choices". And if you think I'm implying that I'm insightful, you have over read. I just like "insights".

As for as the sig goes. that's a quote from Bender in Futurama. It represents Bender, and I find him frequently putting a cold, logical and hilarious spin on things humans do. "


Your opinion is not the same as my opinion. That does not make your opinion incorrect or correct, you just have a different viewpoint and opinion. If I say "1 + 1 = 2" and you disagree, then you are incorrect. However, this is a discussion about displays and individuals' visual perceptions, which are infinitely variable.

When it comes to how "everyone" perceives the performance of a display (the colors, warmth, coolness, brightness, sharpness, etc), the individual's opinion is "correct, viable or "enlightened"" for that individual. It does not matter how intelligent an individual may be (or thinks they are), they cannot see through another individual's eyes and experience the displays performance as another individual does. As an example, how many times have you looked at something that you thought had a little green in it, that someone else insisted was only brown/tan.

I am not talking about technical specifications requiring technical experience/knowledge. Even if all the technical specifications were exactly the same, except one display had a matte finish and the other glossy, different individuals would respond to the them differently. This is why we are having this discussion... some people have a strong response against glossy displays or would strongly prefer a matte display. This is OK for them, just as it is OK for those who strongly prefer a glossy display.

What I think it boils down to is... it does not matter, both matte and glossy finishes are best choices depending on the individual.

Don't worry, if not Apple, then I am sure there will be a third-party that will offer to put a matte finish on the Apple display glass cover.

By the way, your interpretation of what I was saying is incorrect. Thus, my opinion is that you "don't have the necessary knowledge and experience to make an informed and therefore more valid opinion" interpreting my posts. ;)

Maxx Power
Aug 14, 2007, 01:53 PM
Your opinion is not the same as my opinion. That does not make your opinion incorrect or correct, you just have a different viewpoint and opinion. If I say "1 + 1 = 2" and you disagree, then you are incorrect. However, this is a discussion about displays and individuals' visual perceptions, which are infinitely variable.

That's because the example you quoted is specificially and scientifically quantifiable. Which falls into the category that both of us have good background knowledge in, ie. arithmetics.

When it comes to how "everyone" perceives the performance of a display (the colors, warmth, coolness, brightness, sharpness, etc), the individual's opinion is "correct, viable or "enlightened"" for that individual. It does not matter how intelligent an individual may be (or thinks they are), they cannot see through another individual's eyes and experience the displays performance as another individual does. As an example, how many times have you looked at something that you thought had a little green in it, that someone else insisted was only brown/tan.


Again, the example of colour you are using is also something that is quantifiable. If I told you that the frequency of light captured from the "green" object falls into the frequency band of being "green" by definition, then the fact that someone else is saying that the colour is "brown/tan" does not make them correct. They may also have a different definition of what they think they see when they see "green". In the end, you are viewing the same exact frequency spectrum. So if "yellow"+"blue"="green" then it is not brown/tan, and the person who insists it is, shall have his definitions redefined for him using a classic spectrum of visible light. This is due to the fact we don't all "calibrate" our colour words to the same source, you may have first heard of "green" when you saw a lawn, I may have heard of it elsewhere first and thus our colour palettes differ slightly. This is not due to perception differences. There are vast amount of studies at the institution level on neuro processing as a compensator for vastly varying degrees of sensory perception, and has shown this behavior repeatedly. Perception, at any rate, is a process that invokes a number of things - information acceptance, and cognition remain the most important, and it is in the cognition part, we differ the most, because each of us has a different brain constructed from wildly different pasts. Anyway....


I am not talking about technical specifications requiring technical experience/knowledge. Even if all the technical specifications were exactly the same, except one display had a matte finish and the other glossy, different individuals would respond to the them differently. This is why we are having this discussion... some people have a strong response against glossy displays or would strongly prefer a matte display. This is OK for them, just as it is OK for those who strongly prefer a glossy display.

Yes, but I strongly insisted and still insist that people make their choices (or strong biases toward either kind) with some kind of conscious reasoning, either now or sometime in the past. You simply can not have purely random, non-influenced choices, that would make you an acausal system. And I believe, with my reasoning, that this difference in choices and biases can be in bulk be accounted by the stratification scheme of experience and knowledge that I mentioned earlier. I agree with you on the fact that people make different choices, I just don't think it is mainly due to their sensory nerves, but rather their conscious brain. (A bit of nature vs. nurture, do your eyes differ by greater amounts or does your mind differ by greater amounts to account for your choices?)

What I think it boils down to is... it does not matter, both matte and glossy finishes are best choices depending on the individual.

I agree with this, but like I said, there should be a reason, everything obeys causality, in the immediate surrounding of earth.

Don't worry, if not Apple, then I am sure there will be a third-party that will offer to put a matte finish on the Apple display glass cover.

I'm not PERSONALLY worried about this at all. I already have all matte and 1 glossy screens. The iMac was a great design I liked because it only drew about 40W of energy in regular use, for the 17". I like my 20" because it is quiet, energy efficient and spacious while not taking up any space.

By the way, your interpretation of what I was saying is incorrect. Thus, my opinion is that you "don't have the necessary knowledge and experience to make an informed and therefore more valid opinion" interpreting my posts. ;)

Well, this is what drives a lot of online debates... It is hard to settle down to an agreeable set of definitions and some basic ground work. Nevertheless, if no one was able to interpret others to at least some degree of accuracy, then effectively everyone speaks their own language and we won't at all socialize.

thevofl
Aug 15, 2007, 12:59 AM
I am commenting here without reading any responses above, as I do not want to continue the back and forth debate. But, I have been looking at Glossy/Matte HDTVs and Monitors.

I went to Sam's Club and a different Costco.

Sam's club had 22% glossy and 78% matte HDTVs.
They also had 26% glossy and 74% matte desktop monitors.

Costco had 16% glossy and 84% matte HDTVs.
They also had 33% glossy and 67% matte desktop monitors.

Both stores had a glossy notebook majority.

Hope everyone is doing swell.

Thunderbird
Aug 15, 2007, 07:11 PM
That is not an attack. It's an observation, and nowhere does it lump "people who complain about glossy panels" into the group of people being discussed.

There you go again. It's an "attack" when other people do it, an "observation" when you do it. The group of people being discussed were customers and their preferences for either glossy or matte in you response to atzeX and his disbelief about Steve Jobs thinking that most people prefer glossy. Cut the games.

Do you need more quotes? Having to buy a $3000 computer to get a decent screen isn't overblown and exaggerated?

If that's what a Mac Pro would cost with an ACD monitor, and they really want that kind of monitor (S-IPS), then no.

Refusing to buy an iMac and getting a PC for "professional" work because the iMac is glossy isn't a grotesquely overblown way of creating drama?

By passing on the iMac, they would have other options, a PC being one such option. But if the iMac isn't really intended for professional work anyway, I don't see the drama. It's a misunderstanding of it's suitability. You make it sound as if they are refusing to buy the new iMac because of, say, the black logo rather than their dislike of reflections in the glossy panel.

Calling the machines useless isn't melodramatic?

I don't recall anyone calling them useless, but if someone is bothered that much by the glossy screen then for all intents and purposes it is useless for that person, seeing as how the iMac is an all-in-one.

"I'm a longtime Mac user and I'll never buy another Apple again if they don't give us a matte iMac/complaint du jour" is a common theme on these threads, and it's overblown, childish, and histrionic. If you don't like something, don't buy it. Feel free to say you don't like it. But don't try to make other people think the product is broken just because it's not your taste.

People want the option of a matte screen as with the macbook. There is frustration about this. Deal with it. And nobody is saying the iMac is "broken" merely because of the glossy screen. Why don't you try to respond to what people actually say in their posts instead of what you think they are saying and your reaction to it.

There's no point for them to claim that these displays are a step backward either, or that they're inadequate in any technical measure, but you don't seem to have a problem with that.

Glossy panels are not per se inferior to matte, no argument. There are glossy screen panels that are technically superior to most other panels, including panels with matte finishes: the NEC 20WMGX2 for example. If you're saying the new TN panel in the new 20" iMac is technically equal to, or not a step backward to the previous S-IPS panel, then yes I would have a problem with that.

You're arguing a point no one's making. The people I take exception to are calling them technically inferior products worthless for people who use computers for more than ten minutes at a time, and it's wrong. They're not simply saying "I don't like them." They're saying "no one should like them and anyone who does doesn't know what a good display is and we want them gone forever."

No. You made the claim that people who didn't like the glossy screens were "persnickety whiners" who hadn't spent any time using them or had the requisite experience that comes from ownership to base their judgments on. No one is saying they are "worthless", "broken", or that "no one should like them" or that they "want them gone forever". You are overinterpreting what people are saying.

matticus008
Aug 15, 2007, 10:05 PM
The group of people being discussed were customers and their preferences for either glossy or matte
No, it was not. I believe *I* would know best which group of people I refer to and that certainly does not, nor has it ever, included all customers. I have referred specifically to a particular cadre of posters spreading false information and/or dramatic feet-kicking about how glossy monitors are the bane of the display world and that they will never, ever buy a glossy monitor because they are inferior to some imaginary reference.

Failure to comprehend the sentence doesn't make it an attack. Perhaps you'd like to point out who was attacked in that sentence. I'm sure we'd all like to know. How does "most persnickety whiners" translate to "all people who don't like glossy panels"? (Hint: it doesn't.) Does "most women" translate to "all people"? If I were speaking of all people who don't like them, I would have said so.
If that's what a Mac Pro would cost with an ACD monitor, and they really want that kind of monitor (S-IPS), then no.
If that's really what they wanted, they wouldn't be shopping for an iMac. Hell, if all they're after is the monitor, they could buy one AND the iMac for under $2000, nevermind getting the mini+S-IPS monitor for the same price as the iMac.
Why don't you try to respond to what people actually say in their posts instead of what you think they are saying and your reaction to it.
Brave words from one in a paper-thin glass house. I'd ask for a specific example of where you feel I failed to do so.
You make it sound as if they are refusing to buy the new iMac because of, say, the black logo rather than their dislike of reflections in the glossy panel.
There's no difference. Why they choose to personally dislike the product is completely irrelevant to the efficacy of the product. It's exactly like saying that "no one does serious work on computers with black logos" to justify your preference for not-black logos. It's completely bogus.
Glossy panels are not per se inferior to matte, no argument.
Precisely the point. There are those among us who can't seem to grasp that concept.
You made the claim that people who didn't like the glossy screens were "persnickety whiners" who hadn't spent any time using them or had the requisite experience that comes from ownership to base their judgments on.
No, I didn't. If you need a semantic breakdown of the sentence to assist in reading comprehension and logic, just ask. It seems clear you do since this is now the third time you've resorted to an interpretation that simply doesn't parse in English.

thevofl
Aug 16, 2007, 03:28 AM
I'm back to report that the Sony Store in the Metreon in San Francisco has approximately 25-30% glossy HDTVs to matte.

I asked one of the workers there which format was selling more. He indicated that more mattes are being sold.

Just goes to show that Apple is missing a key customer base by going with glossy only. Bad move Apple. Bad move.

I'll continue to report whenever I go someplace new. And, I will continue not reading any more of the debate.

_______________________________

Vindication is a wonderful thing

Thunderbird
Aug 16, 2007, 08:24 PM
No, it was not. I believe *I* would know best which group of people I refer to and that certainly does not, nor has it ever, included all customers. I have referred specifically to a particular cadre of posters spreading false information and/or dramatic feet-kicking about how glossy monitors are the bane of the display world and that they will never, ever buy a glossy monitor because they are inferior to some imaginary reference.

Where did I say you were referring to "all customers"? atzeX's post was about customer preferences to which you replied that most of the glossy naysayers (on this board) were persnickety whiners. I know what you said and what you meant...do you?

Failure to comprehend the sentence doesn't make it an attack. Perhaps you'd like to point out who was attacked in that sentence.

Not even close to failing to comprehend. Let me quote you back to yourself then:
"I have referred specifically to a particular cadre of posters spreading false information and/or dramatic feet-kicking about how glossy monitors.." That's who you were attacking by calling persnickety whiners.

Brave words from one in a paper-thin glass house. I'd ask for a specific example of where you feel I failed to do so.

Your responses:

"But it is inaccurate and absurd to claim that they are not usable, inferior, defective, deficient, or in any way interfere with people's work. "

"They're saying "no one should like them and anyone who does doesn't know what a good display is and we want them gone forever."

"But don't try to make other people think the product is broken just because it's not your taste."

No posters on this forum wrote these statements or expressed anything similar to these sentences.

There's no difference. Why they choose to personally dislike the product is completely irrelevant to the efficacy of the product. It's exactly like saying that "no one does serious work on computers with black logos" to justify your preference for not-black logos. It's completely bogus.

Reflections on a screen can interfere with what one needs to look at in order to do work in a way the logo doesn't. No matter how much the monitor is adjusted or how much the person tries to ignore or get used to them, some people will not be able to work with the more obvious reflections that come with glossy screens.

No, I didn't. If you need a semantic breakdown of the sentence to assist in reading comprehension and logic, just ask. It seems clear you do since this is now the third time you've resorted to an interpretation that simply doesn't parse in English.

Geezus. So now you're denying you made statements to this effect. You are ill. Seek help.

matticus008
Aug 17, 2007, 01:57 AM
... to which you replied that most of the glossy naysayers (on this board) were persnickety whiners. I know what you said and what you meant...do you?
Try again. Here's the sentence, to refresh your memory:

"Most persnickety whiners have never used them, but even worse can't seem to grasp the relatively simply science that disproves their biggest gripes."

Where does that indicate that I was referring to anyone but persnickety whiners? You are making a leap beyond the text. I never said anything about most "glossy naysayers" at all--most people on this forum are capable of voicing their opinion without childish tantrums and in comprehending the difference in the point that I'm making, which is pretty basic, no matter how long you try to drag it out:

The selection of a panel is personal preference. Neither one is categorically worse than the other. Neither one, in the consumer market, is intended for professional color work. Both suffer the same in ambient light, differing only in how those imperfections manifest visually.
No posters on this forum wrote these statements or expressed anything similar to these sentences.
The record begs to differ.
No matter how much the monitor is adjusted or how much the person tries to ignore or get used to them, some people will not be able to work with the more obvious reflections that come with glossy screens.
And some people can't get over the black logo staring them in the face. Honestly, it is not difficult to get reflections to go away completely. It's not difficult to place a matte panel in a position where it suffers from its own glare problems. It would be exceedingly rare to be in a position where you couldn't adjust a display properly, regardless of type. Someone else might be unhappy with the complete glare-out of matte panels in direct sunlight (syntax help: this doesn't have to mean "outside"). It is purely a matter of personal preference.

You keep bringing up scenarios where a person would be interested in choosing a matte panel over a glossy one, posing them as though it makes a statement contrary to anything I've said.
You are ill. Seek help.
I'm not denying the statement. Hell, I'll even say it again: most persnickety whiners have no experience with a glossy panel on an extended basis and most can't grasp even the basic math of reflective optics.

And once again, there is no textual or contextual support for a metonymic association of that phrase to customers in general, "most people on this forum," people in general who don't like glossy panels, or any other absurd fabrications you might have floating in your head. Not even everyone I've responded to falls into that group. You're the only one putting them in that box.

You also might want to consider how you take offense to "persnickety whiner" which is in the same league as "old coot" but somehow you find it acceptable, even preferable, to accuse me of being mentally ill because you aren't so adept at English grammar.

Fluffymuff
Aug 17, 2007, 09:26 AM
The selection of a panel is personal preference. Neither one is categorically worse than the other. Neither one, in the consumer market, is intended for professional color work. Both suffer the same in ambient light, differing only in how those imperfections manifest visually.
Are you a shareholder concerned that a casual visitor to the thread might confuse personal opinion for a design flaw? You are concerned that personal opinion may not only be misguided in itself but more importantly miscontrued by others. Is that the crux?

Yebot
Aug 17, 2007, 09:37 AM
There's only one thing better than matte...
There's only one thing better than glossy...








The ability to between the two.

maccompaq
Aug 17, 2007, 10:24 AM
I find it interesting how different individuals have such a strong preference for one display or the other. Since I have not seen the new iMacs in person, I cannot make a comment about the display or the keyboard.

But, without seeing the new iMac, I still have the same concern about it as I have had about the previous iMacs. The all in one form factor generates a lot of heat. Heat is an enemy of electronic components. One person gave me a polite reply about that saying that I should not concern myself about the heat. But then he went on to say that if I buy a new iMac, I should buy Applecare, and also have a diligent backup plan to an external hard drive.

That observation has pretty much made me decide against the iMac. Perhaps the Mac Mini will do what I want, but I wonder about the heat issue there. Hopefully I can get some opinions about that. A perfect solution for me would be a mini tower that gives easy access to the internals. But I am sure that is not going to happen.

psonice
Aug 17, 2007, 10:37 AM
I find it interesting how different individuals have such a strong preference for one display or the other. Since I have not seen the new iMacs in person, I cannot make a comment about the display or the keyboard.

But, without seeing the new iMac, I still have the same concern about it as I have had about the previous iMacs. The all in one form factor generates a lot of heat. Heat is an enemy of electronic components. One person gave me a polite reply about that saying that I should not concern myself about the heat. But then he went on to say that if I buy a new iMac, I should buy Applecare, and also have a diligent backup plan to an external hard drive.

That observation has pretty much made me decide against the iMac. Perhaps the Mac Mini will do what I want, but I wonder about the heat issue there. Hopefully I can get some opinions about that. A perfect solution for me would be a mini tower that gives easy access to the internals. But I am sure that is not going to happen.

You should ALWAYS have a diligent backup plan to tape, cd or an external hard disk (well, if you have anything worth saving..) Not just for the imac but any computer - because the harddisk could fail at any time. They last a few years on average but still quite a lot fail early, and that can happen in any computer - actually, I believe the HDD tends to last longer if it's in a warm environment.

Having said that, the imac is more or less just a high performance laptop, with parts that are likely to get hot - and hot parts can damage the board or components over time. Apple will be aware of this and will design the cooling and layout to minimise it. I'd still recommend apple care though for any mac, because if there IS some issue and say the motherboard dies, it'll be very expensive to repair. The same would apply to a laptop PC (or a PC with this kind of form factor, if one exists).

ju5tin81
Aug 17, 2007, 10:58 AM
My new 20' iMac arrived today...

I've used a glossy screen MacBook before and never had a problem, but I must say, the iMac's glass front is REALLY shiny... I'm not seeing ceiling light reflections or anything, just myself! I can see myself in the reflection all the time and it is really quite distracting... :confused:

Will take some getting used to. Also the 20' panel is not nearly as good as the standalone cinema display. For one, the icons in the dock are almost out of focus. (Too bright to see, the viewing angle is really tight vertically.)

Screen definitely doesn't feel like an improvement.

App launching etc. a delight compared to the PowerMac 2 GHz G5 it replaces. Speed Great! :cool:

Keyboard... Very low, but nippy and responsive.

Black apple, needlessly prominent. The chrome one on the cinema display just faded into the background when working. This one screams for attention.

One thing.... I had hoped to eventually get an iMac to replace my TV at home. The white ones would've been so much better for that. This one blends into the black office Dells very well (I'm the only Mac user.), and is, well, too obviously a computer to use as anything else...

Good, but cosmetically, change for the sake of it really. No real innovative benefits, just distracting logo and glare. (Will look great in the shop, not at home though.) :(

maccompaq
Aug 17, 2007, 12:37 PM
You should ALWAYS have a diligent backup plan to tape, cd or an external hard disk (well, if you have anything worth saving..) Not just for the imac but any computer - because the harddisk could fail at any time. They last a few years on average but still quite a lot fail early, and that can happen in any computer - actually, I believe the HDD tends to last longer if it's in a warm environment.

Having said that, the imac is more or less just a high performance laptop, with parts that are likely to get hot - and hot parts can damage the board or components over time. Apple will be aware of this and will design the cooling and layout to minimise it. I'd still recommend apple care though for any mac, because if there IS some issue and say the motherboard dies, it'll be very expensive to repair. The same would apply to a laptop PC (or a PC with this kind of form factor, if one exists).
What I do for backup is to keep my important info on a Mac, a Compaq and an external HD formatted as FAT32 so both OSX & Windows can read and write to it.
With my Mac towers and Compaq towers, I have replaced hard drives that failed, and installed quite large extra hard drives. I removed a CDRW and replaced it with a DVDRW. Replacing a HD in an iMac is not a user function. A Mac Mini is more likely to be user serviceable. I am just wondering about the heat factor. So far, no one has responded re heat in the Mini.

ChrisA
Aug 17, 2007, 04:32 PM
That observation has pretty much made me decide against the iMac. Perhaps the Mac Mini will do what I want, but I wonder about the heat issue there. Hopefully I can get some opinions about that. A perfect solution for me would be a mini tower that gives easy access to the internals. But I am sure that is not going to happen.

Every computer I've ever seen, from notebooks to the old 1960's vintage CDC mainframe I used to work on all, every one of them shared the same design idea where there put of bunch of electronics inside a box and the box heats up a bit. Good luck finding a computer that does not live inside it's own self generated heat.

What you hope is that the engineers figured it out so the heat in the box is not greater than the maximum safe operating temperature of any of the components. The iMac does not use much power or make much heat so convection cooling plus a small fan works. The Mac Pro with a temperature controlled fan set to allow the inside of the box to heat up only to some set limit. For all you know the inside of the imac could be coole then the inside of the Mac Pro. It depends on how the termal controlled fa was designed more than anything else

Fluffymuff
Aug 17, 2007, 07:19 PM
But, without seeing the new iMac, I still have the same concern about it as I have had about the previous iMacs. The all in one form factor generates a lot of heat. Heat is an enemy of electronic components. One person gave me a polite reply about that saying that I should not concern myself about the heat.
With kindest regards, you should not concern yourself about the heat.

There.

Now you can say that two people gave you polite replies assuring you that you should not concern yourself about the heat.

With its large surface areas, the iMac seems to be a particularly good not bad design in terms of heat dispersion.

snorby
Aug 18, 2007, 05:33 AM
But, without seeing the new iMac, I still have the same concern about it as I have had about the previous iMacs. The all in one form factor generates a lot of heat. Heat is an enemy of electronic components. One person gave me a polite reply about that saying that I should not concern myself about the heat. But then he went on to say that if I buy a new iMac, I should buy Applecare, and also have a diligent backup plan to an external hard drive.

That observation has pretty much made me decide against the iMac. Perhaps the Mac Mini will do what I want, but I wonder about the heat issue there. Hopefully I can get some opinions about that. A perfect solution for me would be a mini tower that gives easy access to the internals. But I am sure that is not going to happen.

I asked the same question in this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=339327), and shared my own experience with a Mac Mini.

psonice
Aug 18, 2007, 05:40 AM
I am just wondering about the heat factor. So far, no one has responded re heat in the Mini.

We have a lot of macs at work, mostly imacs and pros though, no minis. I know of a fair few failures in older pro machines, and some of the g5 imacs, not heard anything bad about the newer ones (although I'm not involved much in that side of things, so maybe they're dropping like flies and nobody mentioned it ;)

I used to do electronic repairs, and there are two main issues with heat - capacitors (they don't like heat, and mildly explode if they get too hot, plus they kindof wear out over time if they're too warm. We get MAJOR issues with that with certain dell PCs). Also, if one component gets REALLY hot, it can cause the circuit board to warp with the heat. That can kill the machine (see xbox 360's famous red ring of death) or it can just bend the board a little each time it gets warm (which eventually causes the solder holding the bits onto the board to fracture and the computer breaks down).

So really, the issues are like this:

If the computer is warm it's not a problem so long as it's not TOO warm, and the components are selected to deal with the heat. I'd say the warmer it gets, the less likely it is to live a long and fulfilling life.

If a particular component gets very hot (usually the CPU and GPU chips) that can be more of an issue. It's worth having a hunt on the net to see if you can find some figures on how hot they run and comparing it to other machines. It looks like apple has pretty decent cooling on the cpu + gpu for the imacs (plus they use laptop parts which should run cooler), so it should be OK. (Unless a fan breaks down - I once had a CPU fan fail on an old pentium 2 PC, it kept going despite the heat... until it got so hot that the power connector an inch away actually melted and shorted out, nearly causing a fire!)

I've actually ordered a 24" imac with the 2.8ghz cpu, I'm not too worried about the heat as by design it'll stand in a nice open space. I've got the applecare, and I reckon any design issues will come to light within the 3 years, so no worries there.

EVH
Aug 18, 2007, 05:47 AM
If the iMac had a better video card then I wouldn't hold back a purchase, but after seeing the benchmarks then I'm completely against it now.

Don't get me wrong, I have a capable MBP but the design of the iMac is visually appealing.. but I think Apple have tripped themselves up with the under-powered gfx :(

maccompaq
Aug 18, 2007, 09:10 AM
I asked the same question in this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=339327), and shared my own experience with a Mac Mini.
Heat is a factor in making my decision, but even more of a factor in the iMac is that I cannot service components myself.

I know that a Mac Mini is user serviceable, but I was wondering about the heat. It will not be used in a stressful manner. Just word processing, spreadsheets, email, web surfing and light PhotoShop for hobby use.

Thanks for referencing the previous item about the Mac Mini.

johnsawyercjs
Aug 19, 2007, 12:22 AM
Hey, maybe we can pop the glass off like the disassembly picture and have a matted life again. :-)

If it is legal I'm sure some company will make something like that, but unless you do it in a truly dust-free environment, you'll have dust under your screen and it will annoy the heck out of you more so than a glossy finish.

"If it is legal"? I don't think there are Apple Police waiting to break down the door of anyone who removes the glass. Once you buy something, it's yours, and you have the right to take an axe to it if you want, or turn it into a fishtank, etc. Maybe you mean if it doesn't violate the warranty? That's a different issue, and it's worth finding out. As for dust under the screen...not sure what you mean here. Once the glass is removed, the LCD panel, with its matte surface, is exposed in essentally the same fashion as previous iMac models (with the exception that the mount points for the glass are exposed), and dust gets onto the surface of LCD as it always has. Maybe you mean that if the user reinstalls the glass panel, that this would trap dust between it and the display, but I'm guessing that anyone removing the glass because they want to have the LCD's matte finish instead, is unlikely to be reinstalling it if they're happy with the results, unless they need to take the iMac in for warranty repairs, and if it's obvious to Apple that the glass has been removed, getting warranty repair covered under warranty, might not be easy. Some people are starting to report condensation forming under the glass, so that's not good, and people in that position would be compelled to remove the glass, if the condensation doesn't evaporate.

The glass is held in place by magnets ringing the rear surface of the glass, and ringing the bezel on the Mac. I don't know if removing the glass exposes holes that should be covered to allow proper airflow, but covering them with tape should take care of that, or maybe someone will manufacture a replacement bezel ring that will cover just the magnets and holes, making things look cosmetically nice again.

From the looks of the glass panel and its easy removability, I wonder if Apple is planning an optional retrofit for the first iMac Aluminums, if the next generation of iMacs comes out with a touchscreen, that will allow you to replace the first model's glass panel with a touchscreen.

keirnna
Aug 23, 2007, 05:18 AM
Yes, u can purchase cheap ram, but there are horror stories of doing so and people's macs get fried. The bad news, the warranty is voided because you installed 3rd party hardware. I don't know if it's u installing and/or the 3rd party ram that does it, the warranty does get x'd.
I'm a careless cowboy with my toys, and I install my own ram, but I at least try to purchase the same ram apple uses. memoryx.com will tell you which ram to get if u want to match ram and install yourself.
I could see an unethical person purchasing such ram, and if occuring any troubles, uninstalling such ram and taking it in for repairs? I think I'm just the same as you and would like to pinch some pennies when I don't necessarily have to spend a fortune :rolleyes:

Good luck!

3rd Party RAM will not void your warranty. The DDR2 667 SODIMM ram is basically all the same. They all have the same cache latency, so why not go cheap?

keirnna
Aug 23, 2007, 06:40 AM
How are we 3 weeks after the release and we still only have the one set of disassembly pictures? I am ready to install my 1TB drive in this sucker, but I can't figure out where to get that same suction cup from. I live in Japan, maybe I can give that guy a call.

matticus008
Aug 23, 2007, 05:35 PM
I am ready to install my 1TB drive in this sucker, but I can't figure out where to get that same suction cup from. I live in Japan, maybe I can give that guy a call.
It's called a glass lifter. You can get them anywhere they do plastics and glass work or order one online. It's not a special tool for the iMac.

keirnna
Aug 23, 2007, 05:41 PM
It's called a glass lifter. You can get them anywhere they do plastics and glass work or order one online. It's not a special tool for the iMac.

I know that it is not a special tool for the iMac. I plan to order one, but I don't see how the glass came out. He just lifted it and it pops out?

matticus008
Aug 23, 2007, 06:00 PM
I know that it is not a special tool for the iMac. I plan to order one, but I don't see how the glass came out. He just lifted it and it pops out?
Everything you need to know is in the name. It's the same tool used to remove windscreens and window glazing. In the case of a car, there is a second tool used to remove the adhesive beading.

In the case of the iMac, there are tabs that have to be released with a flathead screwdriver or similar tool. There are 12-16 of these based on the photos of the disassembly. Use the glass lifter in conjunction with the awl to release the tabs as you work around the perimeter. Some have said that the bezel is magnetized, so it may not be easy to lift. If you don't know how to use these tools, you'll almost certainly break the glass. Consider yourself warned.

flopticalcube
Aug 23, 2007, 06:02 PM
Everything you need to know is in the name. It's the same tool used to remove windscreens and window glazing. In the case of a car, there is a second tool used to remove the adhesive beading.

In the case of the iMac, there are tabs that have to be released with a flathead screwdriver or similar tool. There are 12-16 of these based on the photos of the disassembly. Use the glass lifter in conjunction with the awl to release the tabs as you work around the perimeter. If you don't know how to use these tools, you'll almost certainly break the glass. Consider yourself warned.

Gone are the days when all you needed was a Phillips screwdriver and a case of beer... :(

kheller2
Aug 27, 2007, 11:57 AM
Dare I ask if the ServiceSource repair manual is in the wild yet for the new imacs?

matticus008
Aug 27, 2007, 02:56 PM
Gone are the days when all you needed was a Phillips screwdriver and a case of beer... :(
A necessary evil as things integrate and miniaturize. Remember socketed FPUs? Easy access and assembly structure means wasted space and resources. Computers aren't really worth taking apart anymore. There's nothing interesting inside, really. Everything up through midmarket has been integrated into the motherboard. That's not really a bad thing.

It just means you have to accept computer hobbyists as a shrinking niche instead of the dominant force. Once upon a time, people fixed their own TVs, too. Ah, progress.