Sidebar Sidebar
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

Eidorian said:
I can see why the margins are lower this time around. It's all in the displays. The display costs more than the rest of the hardware combined. :eek:

Sadly you HAVE to buy the display when you pay for the iMac whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

Sooo...according to your own text, just think of it as buying the display and they throw in the Mac for nominal charge.
 
freiheit said:
The previous 24" was too big for my use. 27" is double overkill. If they'd offered a 21.5" model with a quad-core i5 I'd have been very interested. Apple just blew any chance of selling an iMac to me (and I was considering one).
Click to expand...

If you say so...im going for a dual screen Mac Pro setup next year.
 
Very pleased to see the 21.5 inch iMacs getting the high-end IPS screen and improved graphics. The second model up is a very tempting machine: 3.06 ghz, 1920x1080 resolution, 4670 graphics card, 4GB RAM and 1TB hard drive. The 27 inch iMacs are just overkill for my needs and desk-size. Not bothered by the glossy screens or lack of blue-ray. Am only hesitating because of the lack of a quad-core option on the 21.5 inch versions. Planning on doing some video-editing but not sure how much I would need the extra power of a quad-core. Otherwise this would be a perfect machine for me...
 
SandynJosh said:
Sooo...according to your own text, just think of it as buying the display and they throw in the Mac for nominal charge.
Click to expand...
Sadly you also have to hop onto the Mini-Display Port train to use the input. $1199 for a 21.5" display is stretching it quite a bit.

How much is a 24" Ultrasharp again?
 
ksgant said:
Before everyone get's their panties in a bunch, yes the stock config on the new iMacs come with the smaller wireless keyboard as standard...but you can switch to the wired, bigger keyboard in the build-to-order section at no extra cost. Same for the mouse if you don't want the newer multi-touch mouse.

So no, you don't have to buy a normal keyboard.
Click to expand...

I think the point was that there is no WIRELESS option for the full sized keyboard. I completely share that frustration.
 
Trek2100 said:
I've been following this forum all evening, nothing better to do. Some of it has been funny and some people have been doing a great job of irritating others. As most seem to agree you cannot satisfy everyone, Either you like MAC or not like MAC. You like the options or not like the selection of options. It is what it is. No one is forcing any one to buy. Everyone has their likes and dislikes. If you are going to trash MAC then you have to trash M$ as well. We really don't have too many choices. Apple computers were designed from the beginning as great graphic machines and PCs were designed as word based machines. MACs are not great gamers but out of this world graphic machines and for graphic designers/artists. Just saw a show on the building of the new Rolls Royce and they were using MACs to design them albeit MAC Pros. Every graphic designer I know uses a MAC as do most photographers I know. Some PCs yes but mostly MACs. I had a wedding photography business and for the last 3 years used a MacBook Pro with great success. Buy the computer you need to suit your purpose. I've switched to the MAC and am not looking back.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that Mercedes-Benz and Audi also use Macs to design their cars. It seems that value woud be in the eye of the beholder, for anyone seeking an optimal and more streamlined solution.
 
PeterQVenkman said:
Remember, there is a computer in there too. ;)
Click to expand...
True, I'm being harsh. It's starting to wear off and now I'm giving people suggestions on how to best spend their money instead of droning on about what I would consider a great machine.

Clarksfield would have been good. Lynnfield is better. You're just forced to take the 27" LED backlit display with you. Were we complaining about the iMac's display size yesterday? It was the usually CPU and GPU situation ever since the disparity in hardware started back in 2006.

You're not going to sell as many iMacs based on the display size. It's going to be the hardware tacked on the back of it. To get the quad core you have to get the $1,999 27" model. It's possible to get a quad core in an all-in-one with a smaller display.
 
MyDesktopBroke said:
I'm happy with this update in almost every way, but I'm going to have to add myself to the "too big" lot.

Every time I see a 24" iMac in a household environment, it always looks huge compared to everything else. Now it's 3" bigger. I might be a minority, but I don't think bigger is always better.
Click to expand...
Some people like the 27", and you could always get the 21.5"
jmpage2 said:
Will you please just get over it? You were going on and on for over two weeks about how Apple won't put quad core in the iMac. Now that they do you are bagging on the prices.

If you are a fan of Apple you should be excited that for the 1st time Apple is using multiple chipset/motherboard configurations in a single chassis. This means that the switch to all quad core next year is almost certainly a sure thing.

If you still don't see the $$ value of Apple design and software then simply don't buy one, or build yourself a Hackentosh. I'm seriously tired of your constant comparison between crappy home built rigs and iMacs. The comparison just doesn't wash. For extra credit why don't you line up the new iMacs to competitors all-in-ones and realize that the iMacs are only marginally more expensive and offer displays that blow the doors off of anything the competition has.
Click to expand...

Thank you, +72. If you compare the iMac with the other all in ones, the iMac is usually slightly less or more expensive. Usually about the same. And it really annoys me that the same people who were complaining that it has laptop parts, still complain about the processor, even though it's a work station processor.
 
Video In From HDMI

So can you connect a Blu-Ray player to the video port using a Mini-DisplayPort to HDMI converter and use that to play Blu-Ray movies?
 
Rot'nApple said:
HEY APPLE.... GLOSSY SCREENS ARE VERY ANNOYING! NOT TO MENTION THEY SCREW WITH MY EYES AND THEY ARE BAD ENOUGH AS IT IS! Matte BTO, please!!!!!! Except you need to give a coupon. Why should matte screen devotees have to pay for matte now when they didn't in the past. It was Apple's decision to go with glossy, why do we have to suffer physically as well as monetarily because Apple thinks they know what's best?!
Click to expand...

Okay, well give Dell a call, they make AIO's. Apple isn't forcing you to use their machines. :p
 
Eidorian said:
How is that a solution when the Dell ones are glossy too? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That was my point altogether, no one else is making matte screened AIO's so the attitude coming from people complaining about the iMac is displaced, not unreasonable but displaced.
 
Just curious why Apple gets bashed for not supporting Blu-Ray playback when Windows 7 doesn't support it either without third party software?

EDIT:
So, Blu-Ray burn of data (from Finder) is directly supported since OS 10.5.2 and later.
An internal Blu-Ray drive by MCE starts at $279 (link: http://www.mcetech.com/blu-ray/index.html)
Toast 10, and now Final Cut Studio both support the direct creation of Blu-ray Movies which are then playable on Blu-ray set top boxes and players.

So, the only thing not yet supported natively is Blu-ray movie playback. A feature not even supported in Windows (but which is available through the addition of 3rd party software).

Question: Where is the Macintosh 3rd Party software developer that will do for the Mac what was done for Windows?

2nd EDIT:
Lacie External Blu-Ray burner is only $429 (http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=11218) with software.
Verbatim 25GB disc 10-pak at about $120
Verbatim 50GB disc 25-pak at about $350 (both are 2x burnable, Amazon.com pricing)

These prices (at this time) do not yet compel me to support this format on my Mac. I think for the play back of movies I would be more inclined to spend about $200 (for a set-top player) and hook it directly to my HDTV. Blu-Ray play back on a laptop screen (or small HDTV screen for that matter) is not very compelling at all from all the research I've done. The most basic rule of thumb for optimal viewing distance vs. screen size is 1.5 x screen size that I've been able to find. That places a 30" display at about 4'. A 15" laptop display would be about 1.5 to 2'. Fine if you are sitting right in front of it. Not so good any further away.

(Link to one such artcile: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html)
 
Just chiming with +1 opinion of "ew, 16:9" and "27 inches is gigantic"!

24" would already be pushing it, for me. Not like I'm about to give up Mac Pros for an iMac, but if I ever did want something simpler, I wouldn't settle for the performance of the lower size and I don't think I'd enjoy having the corners of the screen so far away that they'd appear in perspective.

Anyone know yet whether the extra, unnecessary glass on the front is still held on by magnets and can be popped off? :rolleyes:
 
Hmmmm, seems like most of the posts in the earlier thread about new iMac rumors were saying "if it has quad-core I'll buy it - I don't care about Blu-ray." Now that quad-cores are released there are a lot more complaining about lack of Blu-ray...or maybe it's the same people complaining over and over again...this is MacRumors after all.

Overall I'm happy with the update - I think Apple took a large step forward. I do wish it had Blu-ray but I also know most of the magic of supporting Blu-ray is software related. Anyway, as I'm still very happy with my late 2007 iMac I'll stick with it until it no longer does what I want it to do. Next up on my list of computers to buy is a MBP and today's news makes me more hopeful the Spring refresh of MBP will include a quad-core in it.

J.P.E.
 
27" Screen Question

Newbie Question Here:

Because of the pixel count on my 24" iMac the fonts are already so small. Will they be even smaller on the 27"? That would be a deal breaker for me.
 
very interesting :rolleyes:

i wake up in the morning (at 4:30 AM GMT +7 - Indonesia)
usually i check the macrumors front page to get news from all about apple.
but in this morning my first page is apple.com
i want to know feedback from all apple user about upgrading RAM on MBA ( i owns macbook aluminium 2.0 GHZ)
but, you know, i'm surprised!! :eek: :D
the first page are picture of the new iMac !!
what! 27 inch with ips panel? :eek:
and when go to specification page, what :eek: i7 and i5 :D
apple surprised me this morning!! :D

this is that i want to go for..
soory the language :D
 
Thanks

jmpage2 said:
And? They make Mac Pro for people who want alternatives. I would also expect some seriously heavy hitting Mac Pro refreshes early next year. Dual CPU Gulftown with the latest ATI cards should move a ways towards shutting up all the complainers. Oh, forgot, costs money. Never Mind. :rolleyes:

The desktop, like it or not, is a dying breed. For those who want a desktop Apple makes the Pro. For regular consumers the iMac is extremely appealing. I used to want an X-Tower too, but I'm over it.
Click to expand...

Great points, and especially now that the quad option is there, the argument for a midrange tower just got a lot weaker. But I really can't understand why anyone takes the time to respond to that guy.

rme said:
Watching yourself fap : -1
Click to expand...

HA! that's effing funny, but really I've used both iMacs and the MBP and the glossy screen just doesn't bother me. I guess it really distracts some people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back