Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
............................

.....BWAHAHAHAHA!

LK

And that was a huge mistake, as that rev 1a machine died 2 years later. I definitely got sucked into the sexiness of that machine, and certainly lost some of my expected value on that $499 purchase. Lesson learned, and here is how I grew since that poor decision in 2005: Alum iMac came out in August. I bought in October, after watching for 3 months how they performed, seeing them in the stores, researching the issues, and getting a sense that the bugs were worked out. I did not order it the day of the keynote - no way. And what do you know - it showed up and exceeded my expectations. Oh, and one more thing: this time I bought Applecare.

You will note that after that experience with the Mac Mini, I did not go on a 6-month cry baby-tantrum ranting all over the web forums bitching about everything Apple does like you. I understand that software wise, Apple has always exceeded my expectations, and hardware wise, my G4 PowerMac, G4 Powerbook, MacBook Pro and 24" iMac have all greatly exceeded my expectations. I am batting 800 with hardware and 1000 with software. I wish I could have that mini back and be at 1000 with hardware, but I am not so naive and ignorant as to expect that everything will always be perfect with hardware, especially in this day and age of tech where everything is outsources to China and quality is dropping like a brick across all sectors of products.

But if you want to act like a cry baby for the next 5 years over a bad buy, that you did not properly research, and ordered based on just what you saw at the keynote, go ahead. It is your life. I would hate to be going through life so angry. I'll take partial personal responsibility for my bad decisions. You whine and cry over them like a baby in front of 300 million people and blame everyone but yourself. Get a clue.

-------------

And I see that you ignored my post about how you are full of BS on your back-claiming that Apple screwed you on the color depth.
 
Please, by all means DO elaborate on this unsubstantiated BS.

This is the sort of thing that does annoy me in these forums, totally uneducated claims with no data whatsoever to back them up. Why even bother posting ridiculous comments like this?

There is nothing inferior about the LG Phillips LM240WU2 used on the 24" iMac in comparison to a matte screen of similar specs nor are they cheaper to produce. Apple doesn't even make LCD panels.

Well said. I would like to see a matte option for the iMac but there just isn't, I would never claim that the panel in the 24" iMac is cheap, and have no methods of backing it up.

On the same note I wouldn't say it's the best without any info to back it up.

I can say that I have used some pretty cheap (Dell) monitors in my day and compared to those the iMac's screen is wonderful. I haven't had any color issues with the one in my house, nor have anyone I know to have one, either 20 or 24"

Getting back on topic... there is an increasing number of "one-liner" posts going around the site, and those are really starting to piss me off.
 
Having used both, I can tell you that there is hardly any noticeable performance difference between the 2.16 GHz white iMacs and the 2.4 GHz aluminum iMacs. On average, they're only 9-10% faster in overall usage according to every benchmark test I've seen.

The only significant drawback IMO is that the the aluminum models can utilize 4GB RAM as opposed to the 3GB limit on the older white ones, but even that isn't really a huge deal.

Actually the Al model is capable of utilizing 8GB of RAM. They just don't make 4GB sticks at the moment. That alone will make the AL iMac usable for a lot longer than the older version, and the older version currently doesn't offer enough of a price break to entice me.
 
Heartbroken Dog Needs Info --- Matte Vs. Glossy

****************************

Is it MUCH better viewed at home ?
Does Apple make a $29 NINJA SUIT and face black, and blackout curtains I can buy?

------->

I just saw the new 24" iMac at Glendale Galleria.

It is a CRIME !!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

This is the most beautiful machine I have ever seen, touched, etc.

The screen is breath-taking and TOTALLY USELESS.

I tried a dark scene in a movie : literally could not make out the image. My gorgeous face, shirt, etc. were RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PICTURE, ALONG WITH EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE ROOM :mad:

So I tried a bright scene in a QT trailer : literally could not make out the image. My gorgeous face, shirt, etc. were RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PICTURE, ALONG WITH EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE ROOM :mad:

Only by kneeling on the floor, tilting the screen all the way up to reflect a blank part of the ceiling, and looking up at a 75 degree angle toward the greatly foreshortened cosine of what had been a gorgeous display, was I able to keep my handsome image out of the movie (as the film director foolishly intended).

Imagine Marlon Brando brooding darkly in his Rembrandtine temple abode , in Apocalypse Now, as he quizzes Sheen , the "errand boy" .... Brando's face is like a frightful, glowing moon set against the darkness behind him. Imagine my surprise to see a Felix-The-Cat kitchen clock with swinging tail pendulum and eyes scanning left, right, left, right ..... behind Brando!!!!

I never saw Felix before !!! Is it the REDUX edition ????

Oooops ! No, that is MY Felix-The-Cat wall clock on MY kitchen wall REFLECTING OFF THE iMac screen I must pay $3,500 for.

------ Now, I know what you are thinking :
Who cares about you ? You have a Felix clock in your kitchen.

Fair enough. But, does anyone agree that the 24" iMac is all about COMSUMER use more than pro-photographer ?

And, as such, are we not talking FEATURE FILMS, DVD's, HD EL GATO, HOME MOVIES, TERRESTRIAL TV, FAMILY PICS,
and, of course, the putrid porn ????????

-------------

Ever since the first iMac with NO FLOPPY and exotic audio out, ... I have lived with the MANDATORY-LIVE-COCKROACH-IN-THE -PERFECT-MASHED-POTATOES phenomenon
that is Apple's design signature. I could live with the minor idiocies.

But to strike at the very heart and reason-for-being of the 24" iMac with the recalcitrant S-T-U-P-I-D-I-T-Y of a glossy screen is just a CRIME OF CONTEMPT for the loyal iMac buyers.

After saving my pennies since the first lamp-shade G4 iMac --- to upgrade to a maxed-out beauty, I have now gone through every new release only to find that I won't have my iMac for yet another year ---- BECAUSE APPLE JUST CAN'T STICK A CROWBAR IN THEIR CORPORATE ASS AND YANK OUT A MATTE OPTION FOR ME --- thanks guys ;)

------------------

Ridiculous as it may sound, I want to hear from anyone who has actually removed the outer-most glass plate from this iMac :
might it be possible to acid-etch a matte on it and replace it? I know the LCD panel is glossy . It is the outer-most glass that will make it matte ( not the internal panel ).
But, I also know that matte glass (for art prints) must be in near-contact proximity to the image if it is to not blurr it beyond use.

So, can the cover be etched ?
Can it be re-mounted close enough to the
LCD panel to get excellent resolution AND non-reflective images.

THANX,
 
It appears that Apple is still infatuated with glossy computer screens. Congratulations "consumer-grade" users, you get to use the only desktop in production with a glossy screen! (whether you want to or not)
 
****************************

Is it MUCH better viewed at home ?
Does Apple make a $29 NINJA SUIT and face black, and blackout curtains I can buy?

------->

I just saw the new 24" iMac at Glendale Galleria.

It is a CRIME !!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

This is the most beautiful machine I have ever seen, touched, etc.

The screen is breath-taking and TOTALLY USELESS.

I tried a dark scene in a movie : literally could not make out the image. My gorgeous face, shirt, etc. were RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PICTURE, ALONG WITH EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE ROOM :mad:

So I tried a bright scene in a QT trailer : literally could not make out the image. My gorgeous face, shirt, etc. were RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PICTURE, ALONG WITH EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE ROOM :mad:

No offense, but you strike me as the type who might see his gorgeous face staring back at him from a matte screen too. :p

All jokes aside, the glare doesn't bother me in my own room's ambient lighting. Obviously, being glass there is a reflection but it is minimal. Perhaps the lighting at the store you viewed the iMac at might have something to do with the excessive glare.

Just as you said the LCD panel itself under the glass is glossy as well. I doubt you could somehow put something over the top to make it resemble matte but who knows.

Personally, I love the richer, deeper and more vibrant color of glossy screens.
 
So let me get this straight: you can't even BTO an iMac or a macbook with a matter screen? The only way to own a Mac with a matter screen (read: every lcd you've used that wasn't on a media laptop) and spend less than $2000 is a mini? Well then let's just hope they go Pennry on those mac minis soon!

They say it's personal taste, so why is matte not even an option on the iMac? There's no opportunity to exercise said taste? Anyway, I just don't get the love affair with glossys. I jumped on an aluminum iMac in the lab the other day, and under those fluorescent lights, using the glossy is a completely different experience than the matte.

Rant over.

Understood. But you'll find that many Imac owners (me included) have found the glossy screen not to be problematic as expected, and is in fact quite nice to work with.
 
But, I also know that matte glass (for art prints) must be in near-contact proximity to the image if it is to not blurr it beyond use.

So, can the cover be etched ?
Can it be re-mounted close enough to the
LCD panel to get excellent resolution AND non-reflective images.

I expect the answer is no. If you etch the back of the glass, the front
will still be a mirror; if you etch the front, you'll likely end up with
severe blurring. I believe matte glass (for art prints) is intended to
soften the image -- not suppress reflections.

LK
 
Just to chime in on this discussion (late) as I'm buying the new top end 24" iMac...

* Glossy screens are for consumers watching videos, playing games, etc.
* Matte screens are for professionals doing work with photos and publishing.

If you're using an iMac for professional work, you're using the wrong tool for the job. Period. End of story.
 
If you're using an iMac for professional work, you're using the wrong tool for the job. Period. End of story.

Thank you for The Declaration of Ultimate Opinion, and for deciding for us that the discussion is closed. How did we survive all this time without you?
 
Just to chime in on this discussion (late) as I'm buying the new top end 24" iMac...

* Glossy screens are for consumers watching videos, playing games, etc.
* Matte screens are for professionals doing work with photos and publishing.

If you're using an iMac for professional work, you're using the wrong tool for the job. Period. End of story.

Using a Mac Pro for photo editing, even professional work is like going squirrel hunting with a thirty aught six. So that would leave the mini which is certainly adequate (epically after an update to x3100), but god forbid you want to run dual monitors.
 
clear vs foggy

I like the glossy better personally.

I mostly do photo work and general browsing.

I measured both on the MBP and found the Glossy ever so slightly more accurate in color saturation, grayscale and color error. Also better contrast.

So my feeling is, if you can live with the reflections, go with the glossy for better image clarity. If you can't, you can always kick back to the matte and take a slight hit in IQ. Problem seems to be that these screens are so densely packed with pixels that the roughness of the matte screen "fuzz particles" is actually bigger than the pixels, so to really appreciate the high resolution at this small screen size you need to get the interfering matte diffuser out of the way. I think this is why we see glossy almost exclusively on laptop screens. A larger desktop monitor of the same resolution can have a diffuser placed in front of it without it introducing too much distortion.

I think the glossy vs matte could also be called clear vs foggy when it comes to screens below 17 inches.

Now with an imac... Well, that's a different story. You've just got a lot of glass to deal with. Somehow reflections seem a bit worse on these than the notebooks.
 
Too much false information going around.

REFLECTING OFF THE iMac screen I must pay $3,500 for.

You will never pay $3500 for an iMac. Even with overpriced Apple RAM and 1TB hard drive and Apple Care. Maybe $2700, but even then it's with the $400 added Apple RAM which you can get $100 for anywhere else.

If you're using an iMac for professional work, you're using the wrong tool for the job. Period. End of story.

This is just wrong, I would ask for clarification but it's just wrong. Anyone that knows any better knows that you get work done on what you can get, or what someone gives you. There are plenty of PRO's that are doing their work on glossy iMac displays.

Using a Mac Pro for photo editing, even professional work is like going squirrel hunting with a thirty aught six.

This isn't that correct either, it's one thing to go to the extreme and say that iMacs are for NON-PROs but it's another thing to go to the other end of the spectrum and say that a Mac Pro is over kill for photo editing.

Unless you mean editing in iPhoto and toning in Photoshop Elements.
 
iMac screens are actually matte, just take the glass off

Purple or green? I vote glossy.
By the looks of this thread, there ought to be a poll. Glossy or matte?

I'm curious to see what happens when the cinema displays are updated.
Wouldn't it be funny if they were all glossy?

Matte fans better buy up big on the current models. I think the tide has turned and there's no going back. Nobody looked more surprised than Steve Jobs when he announced that customers wanted glossy.

AND as far as I know, iMac screens are matte with glass over the front to make them look glossy. They're not 'real' glossy screens like the Mac Books. So if you REALLY want matte, just take the glass off... seriously.

I have to get pretty close to my glossy screen for it to stop looking like a rock-stable CRT. And for whoever it was that tried to watch a dark movie in a bright room - that's no' how you watch a dark movie. And you wouldn't have seen those blacks on a matte screen anyway.
 
Purple or green? I vote glossy.
By the looks of this thread, there ought to be a poll. Glossy or matte?

There are quite enough of these in here already, thanks.

AND as far as I know, iMac screens are matte with glass over the front to make them look glossy. They're not 'real' glossy screens like the Mac Books. So if you REALLY want matte, just take the glass off... seriously.

The iMac LCD panels are indeed glossy themselves. Take off the glass and all you'll get is the incredible headache of trying to put it back without dust particles ending up underneath.
 

They better not make the Cinema's glossy! I don't have any revision against glossy but there is something to having a certain display matte or glossy.

If they do then I will be grabbing a bunch of the previous models like you say.

As for viewing movies on a glossy display, I agree about the blacks. After owning a glossy MBP then a matte one I can say that the color on the glossy was much deeper, great for watching movies and presentations.
 
To each his own. If you prefer the glossy, then wonderful for you. But remember that the "more vibrant" you're seeing is a tendency for the screen to oversaturate the colors which, if you do design or photography work on it, is not a good thing, regardless of how it looks at first glance.

I disagree. I'm a photographer with a glossy Macbook Pro - using screen calibration software/hardware gets around this. Plus, clients love the punch and vibrance when demo-ing on the glossy screens...
 
This isn't that correct either, it's one thing to go to the extreme and say that iMacs are for NON-PROs but it's another thing to go to the other end of the spectrum and say that a Mac Pro is over kill for photo editing.

Unless you mean editing in iPhoto and toning in Photoshop Elements.

How exactly is a Mac Pro not overkill for CS3 and Lightroom? They will both run reasonably well on a current gen mini? Do you really need 32GB of RAM and 8 cores even when working with large files? I'm not saying you can't or even that you shouldn't use a Mac Pro to edit images just that if you do you will likely never utilize the full potential of the box.

I'll agree that when you limit your selection to Apple's hardware the MP starts to look like a much more reasonable choice for image editing, and admit that the squirrel hunting analogy was a bit extreme (it was more for humor and to get away from the ubiquitous automotive analogies). But I don't think either of those points invalidates my position that the MP is more machine than a photographer needs.
 

I know it was just an analogy, but that's besides the point. For a lot of shooters a Mac Pro may be over kill, but when editing photos as with anything else the more power you have the better.

Even a Mac Pro can choke on a RAW file from a D2xs, 1Ds Mark III, H3D, etc, in Photoshop when applying even some of the simplest of filters or adjustments.

p.s. Not trying to invalidate your statement, just saying that a lot of times, a Mac Pro isn't overkill. It's only overkill when you get one to do simple and mundane things like surf the web.
 
But ....

Too much false information going around.



You will never pay $3500 for an iMac. Even with overpriced Apple RAM and 1TB hard drive and Apple Care. Maybe $2700, but even then it's with the $400 added Apple RAM which you can get $100 for anywhere else.

-------------

But what about the ninja suit, black face make-up, blackout curtains, etc ?

Isn't this the way to watch a dark movie correctly on a 24" iMac ?

I watch now on a matte 31" Sceptre ( c-r-a-p) LCD and it looks great in HD.

iMac has twice the resolution -- would have been awesome.

I was hoping an iMac 24" with Terrestrial HD antenna and El Gato will get me a great replacement for DishTV and all the un-watchable crap that passes for news etc. these days. It was to be a replacement for the Dish TV monthly bill.


Matte makes a huge difference in art prints -- not just a softening means: it lets you see the art instead of the rear-view.

I don't know anyone now who has a glossy iMac at home, so I will wait until I do to get a look at it in captivity.

I would have guessed PRO's have dark rooms, neutral decor, screen hoods, etc. while consumers have LIVING ROOMS.

So PRO = GLOSSY with wonder color,
CONSUMER = MATTE with a little flare but no glare. Hhhhmmmm ????

**************** gooddog
 
This is just wrong, I would ask for clarification but it's just wrong. Anyone that knows any better knows that you get work done on what you can get, or what someone gives you. There are plenty of PRO's that are doing their work on glossy iMac displays.

I worked in IT at an advertising company for 3 years. If you're doing any kind of professional high-resolution photography (or any kind of HD commercial work) an iMac is wholly inadequate. We used to have a saying: secretaries get the iMacs -- everyone else gets Pros.
 
If you're using an iMac for professional work, you're using the wrong tool for the job. Period. End of story.

As long as you get the 24" model you can do professional work. Some people don't have the desk space or they don't need the extra power (and cost) of the Mac Pro. The 24" offers an S-IPS panel which is excellent for professional work.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.