I dont understand why people keep using the "no serious gamer would use a mac" excuse for apple continuing to neglect the video card/ game performance of their machines. Just because apple hasn't done it previously doesn't mean its ok to completly write off the gaming capability of their machines. I've been looking for a reason to ditch my last pc and finally convert to all macs, but apple just isnt giving me a valid reason to do so...
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.
New iMacs Released
- Thread starter yagran
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I dont understand why people keep using the "no serious gamer would use a mac" excuse for apple continuing to neglect the video card/ game performance of their machines. Just because apple hasn't done it previously doesn't mean its ok to completly write off the gaming capability of their machines. I've been looking for a reason to ditch my last pc and finally convert to all macs, but apple just isnt giving me a valid reason to do so...
Apparently you aren't a writer or a coder. In a lab, you'd only have to look for a few minutes or maybe an hour max, right?
Try staring at it 14 hours a day, 6 days a week and tell me how your eyes are. Just because you can't see the fluorescent lights anymore doesn't mean that there aren't reflections constantly catching your eyes. In a glossy screen, you can see the movements of your own hand and arms -- every time you reach for the mouse you see motion on your screen.
That's fine for editing my vacation photos on a tuesday after dinner and before we put in a DVD. But for those of us whose money comes from computers, sitting in front of a mirror all day is not an option.
There are 32 pages to this thread so sorry if I hadn't bothered to read thru all of them, and if this question has been raised.
But here it is: The Core 2 Extreme chip available on the 24" model is stated as "2.8GHz". Is it a X7800 2.6GHz overclocked? As far as I know, that is the only "Extreme" laptop version in the Core 2 family. Unless Apple is using a desktop chip in the iMac?
EDIT: OOPS. someone posted that the chip could be an unreleased X7900. i shld've used the search function earlier, my bad.
But here it is: The Core 2 Extreme chip available on the 24" model is stated as "2.8GHz". Is it a X7800 2.6GHz overclocked? As far as I know, that is the only "Extreme" laptop version in the Core 2 family. Unless Apple is using a desktop chip in the iMac?
EDIT: OOPS. someone posted that the chip could be an unreleased X7900. i shld've used the search function earlier, my bad.
I am here at the Apple store on the Atlantic City Pier looking at the new iMac and new keyboards. They are both truly outstanding in design, form and function. Love the keyboard. Does take some getting used to because of the small factor, but the overall feel of the keyboard is crisp and assured. 
I agree. I was so glad when LCD screens got good and came down in price so I could dump my old CRT and no longer had to constantly shift and squint to see what I was doing, or sit in a room with the curtains closed. And then recently I noticed manufacturers making them glossy and glass fronted. Wha....?
Some fool ordered some new LCD monitors for the PCs in our snazzy main teaching room, and thought that black glossy cased ones with glass fronts would look really keeeewwwwwl ... placed on a long workbench right opposite the windows that get bright sunshine all day long. Doh! They really pick up peoples finger prints nicely too. Double doh!
I have to say I don't really have problems with my glossy screened MacBook, but then I only tend to use it in my flat which is in a fairly shaded location - I did take it to work once to use for an intimate presentation around a table in the brightly lit coffee shop - all I can say is I'm glad I had some printouts with me because no-one could see a damn thing!
No, you can't use the iMac as a display for another computer (at least not in any reasonable way).
The Mini-DVI port on it is for output, not input. To do what you are talking about, you'd have to have an input port to plug another computer into.
Actually, the original iMac (or maybe it was Rev B?) used a standard VGA connector between the graphics processor and the CRT. You could open up the back and run a VGA extension cable out and plug another computer up to that. I did this, and also hooked up a KVM so that I could switch between controlling my iMac and my PC, all through the iMac. I was kind of pointless, though. For one thing, everytime the PC needed to be restarted, it would revert to a refresh rate that the iMac monitor could not handle.
As far as I know, no other iMac had a reasonable way to plug an external computer in to the monitor portion of the iMac.
In what way other than your blatant opinion on its aesthetics? You can't say that it's a downgrade soley on what graphics card it has when we haven't even seen benchmarks on these iMacs yet.sunspot42 said:
I stare at a glossy screen for 14 hours a day. IF the screen is in a glared position, you need only move the monitor a few degrees fore or aft. The glare will be GONE and it's smooth sailing. It's not rocket science.
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. After all, matte-screen monitors were invented for a reason!I stare at a glossy screen for 14 hours a day. IF the screen is in a glared position, you need only move the monitor a few degrees fore or aft. The glare will be GONE and it's smooth sailing. It's not rocket science.
If you could set it so that the bottom was very low, you could conceivably tip it backwards enough that it would just show the ceiling. But the height is non-adjustable, which means that it's going to be set to reflect *you* and whatever (or whomever) is behind you.
*You* move. Which means that you're going to be seeing movement in the screen the whole time you're looking at it.
This is okay for some people, but not okay for lots of us. I predict that Apple will release matte-screen iMacs within 6 months.
Would love to know if anyone's gotten one at a local store - if so, would the System Info give us an exact idea of the processor?
Both of my local stores today say they don't think they're getting the 2.8 until late Aug or Sept
-- guess i have to order online.Forgive me if this has been asked (i did a search in the thread, but couldn't find it), but does anyone know if the hard drive on the new iMacs are user serviceable? It would be a real shame if they did a redesign and made it as bad as the last gen of iMacs. Of course the "one sheet of aluminum" has me guessing that they didn't get smart. I don't mind an all in one as long as I can get access to: RAM, the HD and the PRAM battery. I've had enough hard drives die on me to know that no hard drive is safe, and it really stinks to have to boot off a FW drive because you cant get inside your computer.
It's a seamless design with only a RAM door. You're not going to be able to get to the hard drive sadly.
I definitely don't see your "prediction" happening. And from everyone I've talked to (IRL), the glossy screens do not present an issue. I'm a videophile, and have been calibrating monitors for about 3 years. I do stare at glossy (and matte at my other job) screens for around 14 hours a day, and there really is no reflection. You must move the monitor a few degrees if it's in a bad spot, but a majority of the time, it's perfectly fine. This is why you can use a glossy MBP outside in the park or in the backyard. If you have it positioned properly, there is no problem. The added color saturation richness that comes with glossy screens is a worthy trade off for having to *occasionally* move the display a few degrees fore or aft. Unless there's a very strong light source behind you, you don't see your own movement on the screen. If it doesn't work for you, don't buy it. That's what it comes down to.
Many people have received their units, but noone has posted any kind of framerate information or feedback with any games. I will be visiting the Apple store this afternoon to play with the new iMacs. I'll be running several 1080P videos from Quicktime. How do I check what framerate I'm receiving? Is there a way in QTP?Would love to know if anyone's gotten one at a local store - if so, would the System Info give us an exact idea of the processor?
Both of my local stores today say they don't think they're getting the 2.8 until late Aug or Sept
kodawarisan take apart:
http://www.kodawarisan.com/k2007_02/archives/2007/08/aa_imac_2007_mi_1.html
not easy...
the "added color richness" is exactly what someone who works in print, design, animation, and video would NOT want.
anything "added" to color is no longer color-accurate.
That's what I was afraid of. You still have to take off the flat panel to get to the hard drive. This is totally unacceptable in this day and age. Not being able to replace your hard drive makes the computer disposable. Hard drives die. No pretty aluminum and glass shell will change that.
I don't think i've found anyone who said they got the 2.8GHz one tho - have seen lots of 24" posts, but haven't found one who claimed to get the 2.8 in a store somewhere.
First time poster! Two questions
I've been a frustrated Windows user since my dad switched from an Apple ][e to an Amiga and then finally a Windows machine back in the 80's. Now I have kids of my own and have finally made the decision to get the new iMac (20" 2.4 GHz). Two questions:
1. Any idea what the megapixel quality is on the new iMac iSight?
2. Why are people upset that the standard only comes with 1GB RAM (or 2GB for the top of the line 24")? With how much Apple charges, I'd rather it come with 512MB and let me buy the RAM separately. I just placed an order for 4GB of RAM at Crucial for $280. Apple is charging $850!
I've been a frustrated Windows user since my dad switched from an Apple ][e to an Amiga and then finally a Windows machine back in the 80's. Now I have kids of my own and have finally made the decision to get the new iMac (20" 2.4 GHz). Two questions:
1. Any idea what the megapixel quality is on the new iMac iSight?
2. Why are people upset that the standard only comes with 1GB RAM (or 2GB for the top of the line 24")? With how much Apple charges, I'd rather it come with 512MB and let me buy the RAM separately. I just placed an order for 4GB of RAM at Crucial for $280. Apple is charging $850!
Both of my local stores today say they don't think they're getting the 2.8 until late Aug or Sept
I put in my order for the 2.8 with MacMall. They're not expecting to have them in until Aug 22. But I figure I've waiting all this year, what's other couple weeks.
I was only the 4th order for that model with MacMall, so I'm 4th in the queue (they ship in order of the backorder queue). So there's that...
You have not spoke to me. I have both and the glossy screen (Macbook) is limiting and I cannot use for most presentations. Just think there should be an option.
You're right: this really isn’t VERSION 4 of the iMac, but rather a fairly solid 3.5. But WHY is that a bad thing? Thinking that Apple was going to turn one their best designs ever into another iPod 3.0 was scary—changing the design because they needed to in order to make a few bucks (read “few billion bucks”).
This "minor" update reminds me of a Keynote in the last year or so when Steve was speaking of their Mac Book Pro computers and said basically "Today you're getting speed and internal extras because we don't know how to build these any better". The iMac was near perfect. Honestly. I think the iMac revealed today has been improved and I like the changes. I really didn't want a completely new design just because the design cycle dictated it was time. You really shouldn't either. The next ANYTHING should be brought out when it truly is the next best thing.
You speak of "nice design and thinner" with such disdain. None of us here really understand how hard it would be to be in Jonathan Ives' shoes. To top the iMac at this point would be very hard and I think he's done it. Also, to elegantly get more computer into and even smaller space is amazing. That thing is really thin. You're appalled. I applaud.
In the end, Apple simply gave us what we wanted which they are best at figuring out. Who here, when they saw the shape of the iMac 3.0. (and the aluminum foot) thought “This is very cool! It looks almost just like the new Cinema displays, but how cool would it have been if it were in aluminum completely?”
Now to me, Apple could’ve gone all aluminum, but that’s a lot of Pro-material without the Pro-price. Also, with Apple wanting to go "all one piece of Aluminum", who knows if that curvy back could've been done at all? With going black plastic on the back, they’ve effectively given us an Aluminum iMac without really giving us an Aluminum iMac. Just the front and sides. If they would’ve gone with the white plastic on the back, we’d be raising our pitchforks all “WTF” and all—“Where’s the rest of our Aluminum?” But somehow the black can be forgiven or even admired (it reminds us of the iPhone after all). So with all that black on the black, some was needed on the front too to (A) complement its usage on the back and to (B) minimize that Chin we hear/write about so often on message boards. The Chin’s still there, big as ever, but it appears smaller because of that black border.
Oh and (C) to make our movies and pictures look better against the jet-black edge. As an 5.5 iPod owner, I’ll never regret going with Black—the video just looks awesome. Much better than the White one, in my opinion.
About the glass front. Not a fan. I’m a designer and don’t want the shine, but I could see why the average consumer loves it—people love shiny stuff. Those photos and movies will look awesome in a dimmer-than-normal room. And from many here, I see that the shiny monitor is not a big deal at all and that just slight readjustments are needed from time to time. Seems to me if glossy is ok for a PORTABLE device, then it's certainly going to work for a desktop model that will sit in the same place all the time.
Is the Mac for me? No. I'm saving up for a top-o-the-line tower reveiled (fingers crossed) at January's Macworld + two 30" Cinema Displays (lust) ... but it is the Mac for my wife who wants a very sexy computer that is still comfortably powerful and will do all the iLife stuff and other word processing stuff.
Can't wait to see it here in the house.
That's the point. If you'd read the post, you'd realize that it doesn't matter where the center of the key is, so you don't need a guide. They're not scissor-keys, so they don't need to be struck in the center.
If you have to move your eyes more than 20 degrees, you're too close to the computer. There is no way that you're sitting close enough that any viewing angle from directly in front of the display is oblique. Your nose would be inches from the panel.
Which has nothing at all to do with glossy v. matte. Simple physics, my friend. If you're sitting in front of the display, there's no reflection on a transmissively backlit panel. There can't be. You need an off-center angle to see ANY reflection unless it's so bright as to cause problems with ANY display device.
Glare on a matte screen is just as bad--it's even worse for color fidelity than a glossy panel, because it is inconsistent with color-washout.
No, of course not. Viewing angles relative to the computer. If you sit directly in front of the display, you're fine. You just can't sit off to the side and expect the same readability as a matte panel. It's a tradeoff--the increased privacy it provides comes at your expense as well if you're trying to view the display from off to the side.
Funny that you prove my point by not including a single head-on image and by judging performance, once again, based on some still photos of a walk around.
This is a meme that has to stop. The much-maligned "glossy" screens don't have any deficiencies that didn't exist before for consumers. It comes down to pure personal preference in the consumer market--neither is better or worse. Color fidelity is sacrificed for brightness, contrast, and black saturation (and therefore richer color)--no graphics professional who actually cared about color fidelity would use a midrange consumer panel anyway, even without the glossy coating. Instead of horrible contrast and color distortion at oblique angles like a matte panel, a glossy panel shows reflections at oblique angles. Instead of a diffuse glow of washed out color and unreadable text on a matte panel, a glossy panel shows a bright spot.
I couldn't use my PowerBook in direct sunlight, either. The matte screen is not any more impervious to the effects of light. It has the same problems with fingerprints and reflections. What's asinine is that some people will use the color fidelity argument to defend the matte panel one minute, but casually drop it when railing against reflections (would you rather have the visual cue to adjust your monitor to eliminate the reflection, or possibly miss a color-altering washout when working with graphics?).