Is Apple About to Make Sam Very Happy?? - Page 2

The rumors are always right.  Except when they arent!

 I don't think anyone doubts the iMac/Mini refresh is coming before the holidays.  The exact date (and the nature of the refresh) is the big question.

It may be timed to try and rain on the Windows 7 parade.

 Apple's earnings call is Monday.  I predict they will release the new Macs the next day, Tuesday.

I predict on win 7 launch day. Ya GOTTA believe! http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/10/15/tech.notably.absent.from.mac.lineup/

Quote:
Fake Steve is claiming tomorrow also.  Or maybe he just read my post ;)

 Looks like we are getting some pretty interesting Minis plus Airport upgrades.

NO BLU RAY.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/imac-line-updated-with-16-9-displays-quad-core-core-i5-model/

If they had put Blu in it I'd have ordered a $2500 i7 version 27" today.  Now, no sale.

Must not be annoyed at having bought new iMac three months ago. Serenity now...serenity now...

Look forward to checking out Apple's site to learn about the new gear.

eBay it today for 90% of what you paid and order the new hotness!

Yep, you'd be amazed at how much people will pay for an older Mac on eBay.

Just found out moments ago about this new iMac upgrade
with an email Apple sent out announcing it.

You know, it is getting harder to justify the purchase of
a Mac Pro with this new 27" version that will be packing
"heat."

Still, I have no problem shelling out $3-4k for a Mac Pro
because unlike a Windows PC, it doesn't have to be
updated every 3 years.  I can see owning my current
Mac Pro (now 3 years old) for another two years at least.

The thing I love about Macs is that, yeah you pay a lot
for them, but they aren't pieces of shit like Windows PCs.

Best thing you guys did was turn me into a Mac owner
back in early 2007.

If you need more than 2GB of internal storage you have no option but to go to a Mac Pro.  If you want multiple displays (more than two anyway) your only option is a Mac Pro.  If you want 8 cores...  etc etc.

Of course the thing that looks REALLY bad right now is NOT the Mac Pro but the completely overpriced Apple Cinema Displays.

Speaking of Cinema Displays...

I was in the Apple store yesterday.  That store is always
crowded. 

Had to buy a copy of Snow Leopard for my Mac Pro.

So, I asked the salesman how much the 30" Cinema
Display monitor was.  Figured it it was $800 I would
walk out of the store with one.  Try $1800.  That's inane.

I own a Dell 30" monitor.  However, I want a 30" glass
monitor like the iMacs have.  Not even sure if the 30"
is as glossy as the iMac monitors because the store
was too busy for me to even get a look at it.

Also reading recent reviews on Apple.com about the
monitor being outdated with less than average refresh
rates.

Totally agreed.  The Dell 30" destroys the Apple on value alone.  If you are looking for a new 30" ACD I'd say hold on till January.  I bet they standardize on 16x9 for the whole fleet.  Plus Display Port.   LED.  And obviously IPS.

iMacs and MBPs have 4GB RAM standard.

Seeing as the sizes are 21.5" and 27", I no longer "regret" our purchase. 24" is just right for my wife's desk and purposes. (no real regrets anyway; it was the right time to buy earlier in the summer)

That was supposed to be TB.  Disk space not RAM.

I don't understand the screen sizes. Going straight from 21.5" to 27" without a 24" in there is ridiculous. Now I'm going to be forced to go with the 27"

Richard, I very much like the new screen sizes, when PPI and DPI are taken into account. While people were wowed by the 24" iMac screen, I never was. I am coming from a 6 year old Dell FP2001 (1600x1200 @ 20.1") monitor that at the time was cutting edge. It has a .255mm dot pitch which is still very good. The 24" iMac had a .269mm dot pitch, and I always felt I could make out the pixel structure, especially in comparison to my Dell monitor. By comparison the 15.4" MBP has a dot pitch of .230mm, which is why things look so much smoother on my laptop than on the iMac.

The new sizes give you much better dot pitches (hence sharper images with less visible pixel structure). The 21.5" at 1920x1080 would yield a dot pitch of about .248mm, which is better than the .269mm of the old 24" iMac, and also the .256mm of the 20" iMac.

What really wows me is the 27" iMac at 2560x1440 will have a dot pitch of .233mm.

So for me, the fact that both 21.5" and 27" models have better dot pitches than the old 20" and 24" makes this a very good move on Apple's part. For those who care about graphics, especially for photography and HD video, the smaller dot pitch, coupled with the IPS technology make this a bargain.

Don't undersell IPS technology which is found in very few LCD/LED monitors [most are TN which has faster refresh rates at the expense of angle viewing and color gamut representation] and usually at a price premium--see the Dell Ultrasharp 2410 which is IPS and has a dot pitch of .269mm priced at $599 for the monitor only. The Dell 27" Ultrasharp 2709 VA panel (not as good as IPS but better than TN) which only has a resolution of 1920x1200 (vs Apple's new iMac 2560x1440) is priced at $929, or half of the cost of the new iMac.

So you will get a superior monitor than the $929 Dell, and in addition you'll get a four core Nehalem chipset, 4GB of RAM, a TB hard drive, the Magic Mouse, wireless keyboard, 802.11n, and not-too-shabby graphics all packaged behind the monitor, in a sharp-looking shell.

As I said earlier, I have often thought iMacs were underpowered, underwhelming and overpriced (to some extent, it varied by year based on revisions). I was ready to buy a 4-core Mac Pro. Beginning with this revision, especially at the CTO i7 27" version, I no longer think along those lines.

Instead of some fraction of a millimeter dot pitch, the numbers might be more relatable as DPI. You've got the classic 72, the newer 96 or 100....

Of course, both are better than some absurd "consumer-friendly" six-letter acronym like WQSXGA

Hmm, to each his own. To me dot pitch is more relatable than DPI. However if you want DPIs:

Last Gen
20" iMac 1650x1080 = 99 dpi

24" iMac 1920x1200 = 94 dpi

Next Gen
21.5" iMac 1920x1080 = 102dpi
27" iMac 2560x1440 = 109dpi

For comparison's sake:
30" Apple Cinema Display 2560x1600 = 101dpi
17" Macbook Pro 1920x1200 = 133dpi (!!! wow !!!) - of course if you look at one in-store, the pic and text quality is sharp and smooth but the font is tiny!
iPhone 480x320 = 165dpi (.154mm dot pitch)

My current Dell FP2001 1600x1200 = 99dpi which would explain why I was unhappy with the 24" iMac. Of course if I can easily spot something that is only 5 dpi less than my current monitor, I can't imagine how good the new 27" iMac with 10 more dpi will look to my eyes!

OK you guys are finally down into the weeds level of nerd-dom that embarrasses even me.  Congrats.

Classic Apple upsell.  They do one better now tho, instead of 'Good better best' they just have Better and Best.  Niiiice. 

Such a hater Sam...

We mock that which we are to become.

Just bought the new 27" iMac....or at least ordered it.

I went with the faster i7 processor and 8GB ram.  The
reason I went overkill on the ram is because I run too
many programs on startup and I don't want to see any
lag.

Going to sell my Mac Pro (500GB drive, 7GB Ram) 
complete with Dell 30" monitor, Logitech MX Wireless
Mouse and Logitech Webcam for a yet to be determined
price.  Probably around $1200, but that could change.

Ron, I take it you mean the 27"

Congratulations! I'm leaning towards ordering it sooner rather than later myself...

Yikes!

Guess my excitement overwhelmed me.

Yes, 27" iMac indeed!

Woah!