It means you get to take your computer to Chernobyl or the exosphere and it'll keep running.
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.
Quad iMac undercuts Quad Mac Pro
- Thread starter Gonk42
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It means you get to take your computer to Chernobyl or the exosphere and it'll keep running.
The panel is a very high quality panel, however the reflective glass on top of the panel negates that unless you happen to be working in a cave.
Apple own images show the issue:
Indeed. Everybody has different tastes in their machines and workspaces. Do I happen to like glossy? Not really - I have a lot of natural light going through my workspace, so it wouldn't work all too well.
However, it beats a TN film, correct?
Nice.It means you get to take your computer to Chernobyl or the exosphere and it'll keep running.
Depends. Matte TN might be better for some than glossy, especially if there's no need for accuracy and the location has a lot of light to produce reflections no matter how it's positioned.
I was thinking the same thing but then realized in a dual display configuration it's easier on the eye to have two 24-inchers side by side than a 27 next to a 24. Horizontal eye scanning vs. vertical and horizontal. I know it sounds picky but working 10 hour days little things like eye-strain catch up.
I was thinking the same thing but then realized in a dual display configuration it's easier on the eye to have two 24-inchers side by side than a 27 next to a 24. Horizontal eye scanning vs. vertical and horizontal. I know it sounds picky but working 10 hour days little things like eye-strain catch up.
But since the new iMac accepts being treated as an external monitor via its DisplayPort. It's way easier on the eye to have two 27-inchers side by side and with the added benefit that they host 2 powerful computers
Not an invalid point.
Problem is, there will never be agreement
across the board on glossy vs. matte screens.
I know how much many hate glossy screens.
That's fine. I understand and respect that
opinion.
However, count me in as one who LOVES the
glossy screens and giving up a Mac Pro with
a 30" Dell matte screen just to have the new
27" iMac Glossy screen.
Problem is, there will never be agreement
across the board on glossy vs. matte screens.
I know how much many hate glossy screens.
That's fine. I understand and respect that
opinion.
However, count me in as one who LOVES the
glossy screens and giving up a Mac Pro with
a 30" Dell matte screen just to have the new
27" iMac Glossy screen.
But since the new iMac accepts being treated as an external monitor via its DisplayPort. It's way easier on the eye to have two 27-inchers side by side and with the added benefit that they host 2 powerful computers
Are you using a 27" external? If so what make/model?
Wait what? Why? Isn't your MP a Quad or Octo core already with tons of ram? I mean you can do whatever you want naturally but why trade in an expandable workhorse AND a 30in screen for a smaller one attached to a AIO?
Reeboot,
Yeah, it does seem strange and trust me,
at first I was scratching my head as to why I
am giving up a 2007 Mac Pro (Dual Core)
for the 27" iMAC.
Truth be, I always wanted a 30" glass display.
Apple never came out with it. This was the
next best thing.
Besides, my Mac Pro was overkill. I do a lot
of multitasking while burning DVDs, but now
the iMac can do that without a sweat -AND-
I can cut all the cords going across and under
my desk.
I do see a lot of people with Mac Pros
switching to the 27" iMac. The specs are
pretty damn good. I am getting the i7
loaded with ram (8GB) so really, it will be
faster than the Mac Pro than I own now.
Yeah, it does seem strange and trust me,
at first I was scratching my head as to why I
am giving up a 2007 Mac Pro (Dual Core)
for the 27" iMAC.
Truth be, I always wanted a 30" glass display.
Apple never came out with it. This was the
next best thing.
Besides, my Mac Pro was overkill. I do a lot
of multitasking while burning DVDs, but now
the iMac can do that without a sweat -AND-
I can cut all the cords going across and under
my desk.
I do see a lot of people with Mac Pros
switching to the 27" iMac. The specs are
pretty damn good. I am getting the i7
loaded with ram (8GB) so really, it will be
faster than the Mac Pro than I own now.
Memory upgrade is no longer an issue. The 27" has the same pixels as the 30"
That 27" is a flat out stunner. I haven't seen any screen on the market that can compare, and that includes the 30" since your eyes have to go across a larger area to get the same pixels.
I wonder if I would consider the same trade if the 27" was available as an ACD.
I'm confused more than ever now. but doesn't the intel site mention that the quad core is going to 6 cores and the 8 core going to 12. Am currently holding off ordering a mac pro quad with 30" for this exact reason. in hope it will be a mac pro 6 core plus ""????"" screen I'f i've read it right I'd reckon there is a new mac pro due in the new year with 6 or 12 options and if led tech is going the way it is then a new screen will be out in jan/feb 2010.
Meant to add touch screen too.
plus found this in searching, it's on the intel site but also referenced here.
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,695432/Core-i9-Intels-6-core-desktop-CPU-pictured/News/
no doubt you guys are aware of this already.
gulftown
Meant to add touch screen too.
plus found this in searching, it's on the intel site but also referenced here.
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,695432/Core-i9-Intels-6-core-desktop-CPU-pictured/News/
no doubt you guys are aware of this already.
gulftown
I reject that you need to live in a cave for it to be usable. My desk is next to a 8 foot wide window at eye level and I have no problem. There's also a pile of snow outside my window right now reflecting the sun and it still does not bother me that the screen is glossy.
I reject your rejection!
I use 30"+20" for living (photoshop,fcp) and tried to use a 24" iMac on a location. Darkish room,small ambienti lights in the distance.A relatively good work space,that is.
I looked like a bloody stevie wonder.
We finally had to rig a black canvas around the iMac. But after that, I was reflected from the glass...
But,each to his own,I guess?
Even if it is usable, for you, it is not color accurate due to the reflections - which was my original point.
Again, I just wish Apple would give us a choice. They can have 8 different iPod nano colors, but can't give us a build to order option for a matte screen or at least an option without the piece of reflective glass covering it?
I got to thinking they only had it because the gloss just looks better and has that wow factor in the Apple Store. But a BTO makes sense, since no one but you would see the dullness that SJ seems to abhore.
I reject your rejection!
I use 30"+20" for living (photoshop,fcp) and tried to use a 24" iMac on a location. Darkish room,small ambienti lights in the distance.A relatively good work space,that is.
I looked like a bloody stevie wonder.
We finally had to rig a black canvas around the iMac. But after that, I was reflected from the glass...
But,each to his own,I guess?
LOL, well
to you good sir!I won't point out that the 24" iMac wasn't LED backlit like the 24" Cinema display is, and it is noticeably brighter (my girlfriend has a 24" iMac and I've looked at them side by side).
But you're completely right, to each their own, for me it works and I'm not bothered by the fact I can look at myself in the bezel.
azentropy said:
I'm not a graphics professional but I would think ambient light and reflections have nothing to do with a monitors color reproduction accuracy. But I completely agree that you should have an option to get a matte screen if you like. Hell, just make them all matte, there's no real advantage to having them glossy is there?
I don't think apple cares if the imac takes sales away from the mac pro or for that matter visa versa. What is important is that both the imac + the mac pro take sales away from apple's competition. Apple shouldn't worry about competing against itself. It should be concerned about competing with HP, Dell, Sony, etc...
They can end up with a mass of unsold units of a product model or two if they don't worry about their own products "competing" with one another.
That translates into a loss, and Apple's a business first and foremost.
As it happens, Apple's one of the greediest out there, given their idea of acceptable margins on units sold (avg. of 36%). 
So the quad core iMac is cannibalizing the base Mac Pro now?
I remember when I thought FireWire 800 was fast. Times change with eSATA and other more exotic interfaces.
What if the iMac had an eSATA/USB port?
I remember when I thought FireWire 800 was fast. Times change with eSATA and other more exotic interfaces.
What if the iMac had an eSATA/USB port?
LOL, well
cheers..
Actually,there is.
Super simplifedly.
The monitors today can output exess of 400cd/m2, so you can easily push out,well,a lot of light.The "old" acd´s did around 200 max.
GFX designers and photographers have them calibrated around 160-170cd/m2.That,with calibrators (spyder etc.) provided you a relatively good working space for the cmyk (print) enviroment.So,you had a quite good wysiwyg.
It just that if you work in brigh enviroments,or, enviroment with a lot of reflections, you tend (as a human being) to push the brightness of the monitor to that level where you "can see" things proper.
Get a "clear view" and "get rid of those goddam frigging hotspots".
At that point,with a reflecting 24/27", you probably will have to max out to get rid of those annoying flares.Talk about fighting fire with fire...
And it doesnt matter if it led backlit or not.
You just are shafted.
If you are doing normal stuff,the displays are just fine though.