It still has no matte option!the only thing I was wanting was matte.......damnit apple, why is it so hard?! It's a screen!!!
I agree. I will NOT be getting another Mac as long as I'm forced to use a glossy screen. That's just the way it is.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases Updated iMac Models With 21.5- and 27-Inch LED Screens
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree. I will NOT be getting another Mac as long as I'm forced to use a glossy screen. That's just the way it is.
What does how to make computers have to do with it ?
No, you are desperate that Apple not offer it and you're defending it.
Great argument for not goving your customers the option to get what they want. Unbelievable. Some people can defend anything.
And I don't want the PC vs. Mac argument either.
These forums are hard to express everything since all we have is text and I'm not writing a novel...I think you and I basically agree.
The only difference I see, that you brought up, is the Desktop definition. I do not consider the Mac Pro a desktop. It is a workstation. Dell and others sell "workstations" too. The Mini may be a desktop offering, but it is not a computer "system" which has generally been defined since the early 80's as a computer, mouse, keyboard, and monitor. That's why I didn't count the Mini here...because Mr. Consumer would have to buy a-la-carte and that's kinda getting away from the point of buying a "desktop". Again, hard to put a black and white line on definitions but all of my posts on this topic are for the average Joe, walking into Apple, looking to see how much their first destkop Mac is going to cost.
The cheapest Mini is $599 + $49 for mouse +$49 for keyboard which is basically $699 before a monitor...buy Apple's ONLY MONITOR OFFERING on Apple.com which is $899 for a 24" display and you have a whopping $1596 for a Mini desktop system.
Great new iMacs...too bad there is not a $999 model.
And where does Apple get off calling the new Mini a "server". Biggest joke in computing history. There's more to a "server" than putting a server OS on the machine. Servers are all about hardware flexibility, supportability, high-end spec support, redundancy support, etc. Not a closed 4x4x4 inch box. I'm still laughing.
It's only 3 inches more than the 24", stop procrastinating. Big mistake? So the 27" is not suitable for YOU and that makes it a big mistake for Apple? Okay.
And yet, you still seem unable to understand that pricing is set by Intel, and these parts would have different standards. They wouldn't have to meet the same TDPs and voltages, so any talk of which part would have to be overclocked is irrelevant. What do you think are the actual differences between mobile and desktop parts if you ignore voltages and TDPs, particularly between Clarksfield and Lynnfield (which have both been power optimized)? It's all in the cache and the socket. Frequencies are utterly irrelevant. So you cannot use that to discount it being a mobile part. Ever. And that's what people were posting- Because of frequency, it can't be mobile. That's wrong.
No, apparently you don't understand logic. I argued against them discounting mobile parts on the account of frequency. I never argued for or against them being desktop parts. Please, learn a Venn diagram. As I've told you many times, very few people actually referenced the cache size as a reason for it to be Lynnfield. That is bad practice. It's the same reason people started assuming desktop parts when the iMac showed up with a 3.06 Penryn. When I told them that they're assumptions were potentially erroneous, I hadn't even looked at the detailed specs page yet.
However, it appears that the input is Mini DisplayPort only, so unless the external device has a DisplayPort output you won't be able to plug in that DVD or Blu-ray player. There are DVI-to-Mini DisplayPort video converters but those cost anywhere from $150 to $200 (U.S.) and they apparently don't support the native resolutions on Apple's new 27" iMac (thus, you'd have to run the display at a lower resolution).
So, no, this isn't the feature that customers have been waiting for. It appears to only be a way to share the display with other Mac products (like a MacBook or MacBook Pro).
What did you do when we only had CRT's as a viable option? I thought they add a film to the newer screens to reduce glare am I wrong
Really? Is that all three years of the Applcare? This iMac purchase is looking rather tempting now.
Cheers.
The customer is wrong.It's only 3 inches more than the 24", stop procrastinating. Big mistake? So the 27" is not suitable for YOU and that makes it a big mistake for Apple? Okay.
You can't be serious. Make the damn thing an OPTION. You don't want BD, don't check off the box, the people that want BD do. How difficult was that ? Is this truly so hard to understand ?
The most expensive computers can't include BD option because it would, uh, make them expensive ?
You can get a 16" Sony Vaio with BD for $650.
Just give it up. The "if it's not avialable on a Mac, you don't need it," absurdity has been exposed for the stupid, fraudulent argument that it is. Stop defending the indefensible. Apple will survive without it.
You can get a Sony for that, but that is because Sony developed and licenses Blu Ray, which gives them a huge cost advantage when it comes to including Blu Ray.
For a company like Apple, Blu Ray is simply not cost effective because of the very complicated and expensive licensing system that is required by Blu Ray.
If the BD BTO option was included, it would be so expensive that no one would opt for it anyway. Apple is not to blame for this mess, it is the companies who control BD technology.
http://www.edibleapple.com/blu-ray-licensing-gets-easier-will-apple-be-tempted/
BD never achieved critical mass. Larger companies, with much larger economies of scale can afford it. In Apples case, BD is a waste of time.
Rubbish. Apple couldn't give a sh*t about forums like these. All they care about is money through the tills. Obviously if they asked everyone they would say YES, but also if HONDA asked everyone if they wanted a turbo in their Civic they'd also say YES, it doesn't mean that it is in the best interest of the company, nor the product.
There are many other elements to adding BluRay.. not just your idea of just simply adding it on. You need to support it, both in the manufacturing process, training and support, and software. There are also marketing issues with BluRay as a BTO. - This would have overshadowed other key USPs that are standard, diluting them.
After all the wishing and whinning, can't you just see Wayne slightly nodding his head forward, curling his hair back behind his ear saying, "Excellent".
2560x1440
I can't wait to look at this beast at the Apple store.
What's amazing is that my 2007 MBP has a resolution of 1440x900...I cant imagine 2560x1440...
There is more than what you see there.
I run two 6 drive raid arrays by using a Tempo Sata repeater card on top of the 4 internal hard drives. Also a SCSI card for the LTO tape drive. In another machine I use a red rocket for red camera footage. Sure the card cost more than the baseline mac, but it's worth it.
This imac is a great machine in terms of power, could use a bit of connectivity. It will do well however.
What does how to make computers have to do with it ?
No, you are desperate that Apple not offer it and you're defending it.
Great argument for not goving your customers the option to get what they want. Unbelievable. Some people can defend anything.
You are trying to tell Apple how they should be making their computers..
If BluRay is such a good idea.. why didn't they put it in??. They've done their sums.. and to be quite frank they have worked out that there are more people who don't care than do care.. you can't produce something that everyone is happy with.. there will always be moaners. We've had it all before.. only one USB on the MacBook Air, no Firewire on MacBook, no this and that... they know what they are doing.. they know more than me or you.
Now the fact is the real reason is probably due to Christmas. They probably had a few BluRay issues and needed to ditch it last minute to ensure they could still get these machines out the door.. but the point is that is their prerogative not ours as customers.
BD "never achieved critical mass"? Whats this nonsense? Do you read the news at all? BD this year is up over 86% compared to last year. At the beginning of the year, BD was being adopted at TWICE the rate DVD was adopted. That means that BD is being adopted even faster still than DVD was at the very same point in its life. When DVD was 2.5-3 years old, it only had 4% market share. Blu-ray at the same point had 8%. And its growing faster still.
So all of this talk about blu-ray not being adopted or being DOA is nonsense. It's a very successful format and being adopted faster than DVD ever was. Don't forget that DVD was NOT an overnight success. It was introduced early in 1997 in the US and didn't achieve 51% market share until 2003.
Also, licensing was just an excuse for Apple to push iTunes "HD" (if you can even call it that, since it looks so terrible) instead of adopting blu-ray. More than a year ago, PC notebooks were available with blu-ray drives at the $800 and below mark. Right now I can go over to HP and buy an 18" system with a 16x9 display, GeForce GT 230 1GB, Core i7, 4GB DDR3, 320GB 7200 RPM HDD, and a host of other features for $400 less than the cost of a 15.4" MBP with integrated graphics.
Oh yeah, excuse me while I literally laugh out loud at the thought of paying $2,000 for a computer with a Core i5, when I could built a desktop with a better display, much faster processor, more RAM, much faster GPU, etc. for about half as much.
i didn't know where else to post this so i figured here is fine: i, a PC user, was looking up the new iMacs when that blue Windows error screen flashed and my computer shut itself off...Windows was preventing me from switching to Mac hahaha.
Get over bluray already for gods sake. I've never seen people whine so much. Even the majority of Macrumors people don't want bluray [1]. I bet less than 5% of people really care.
[1] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/803438/
[1] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/803438/