Aluminum iMac Disassembled and First Impressions

[mavherzog]

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]

I'm BACK

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]

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]

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]

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 http://www.crucial.co.uk.

I fitted a 1 gig stick from them no problem.

 

[BKKbill]

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

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

 

[gamac]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

@ 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]

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]

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]

someone with the new 24" imac please open it up and find out what panel it is using.

thanks.




lol

 

[gamac]

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]

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]

Sam's club and Costco

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]

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]

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]

Sony Store

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]

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.