LED was given last time...not sure what happened.
Also, the chin is not going anywhere. There would be no room for the components (not that I wouldn't mind it leaving).
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.
Apple iMac 2010 - What would you like to see changed?
- Thread starter MacAndy74
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LED was given last time...not sure what happened.
Also, the chin is not going anywhere. There would be no room for the components (not that I wouldn't mind it leaving).
16 x 9 is an industry standard that will allow playback of HD video content at fullscreen (especially if the resolution is 1920x1080 or better).
16x10 is just....nothing. There's no reason to create something that noone else is doing like that.
Then let's add HDMI to the list. Also, make that $35 bracket adapter for wall-mounts a BTO option instead of something you order separately. With as much trouble as ppl have been having with it, let Apple do the heavy lifting there.
Anyone use Firewave for DD audio in their Mac? I hear it's the only way, short of outputting to your AVR.
16x9 isn't industry standard for computers though. Vertical height is very important. I don't see why it makes sense to reduce vertical height to make your screen look like a HDTV.
HDMI is a no go. They don't allow HDMI in AIO configs like iMacs.
Source:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/E/6/5E66B27B-988B-4F50-AF3A-C2FF1E62180F/GRA-T583_WH08.pptx
Slide 5
Explain just how Microsloth can prevent HDMI ports from being installed on Apple computers?
About 16x9 being a standard for video and why should you want it on your Mac? Because no Mac is an island, and with more and more convergence happening (i.e. iPod video playing back through a dock in a 32" LCD HDTV, or Apple TV playing back 720p video in 16x9 format on your HDTV, or a Slingbox wirelessly streaming DirecTV content to your lappy toppy, it makes more sense than ever).
Lots of us want to be able to bring all of our various technologies together to play nice and standards help us do that.
About 16x9 being a standard for video and why should you want it on your Mac? Because no Mac is an island, and with more and more convergence happening (i.e. iPod video playing back through a dock in a 32" LCD HDTV, or Apple TV playing back 720p video in 16x9 format on your HDTV, or a Slingbox wirelessly streaming DirecTV content to your lappy toppy, it makes more sense than ever).
Lots of us want to be able to bring all of our various technologies together to play nice and standards help us do that.
Ah the good ole turbo boost button. Brings me back to my OG computer - that baby put down 8mhz and a whooping 16mhz with the turbo button engaged. Ah the memories.
My list would be:
with the turbo button engaged. Ah the memories.My list would be:
- LED backlit panel (thinner overall unit)
- Audio plug out to for sub (matching sub option)
- Black/aluminum keyboard/mouse w/ ball track you can pull out easily
- Matte display option
Ah the good ole turbo boost button. Brings me back to my OG computer - that baby put down 8mhz and a whooping 16mhz
My list would be:
- LED backlit panel (thinner overall unit)
- Audio plug out to for sub (matching sub option)
- Black/aluminum keyboard/mouse w/ ball track you can pull out easily
- Matte display option
Did CoreAudio ever add a LFE output for a sub? If not, I'm not sure how you'd accomplish this.
Since we're playing the fun, "what if?" game, how about this:
Would you buy a Mac with these specs?
2.93 Quad-Core Nehalem
6 GB DDR3 1333
1 TB 7200RPM SATA-2 (32MB cache)
6x Blu-ray burner/playback
GeForce 9800 (512MB)
Wireless N
Bluetooth
Firewire (3 ports - 800 and 400)
1 free optical bay
3 additional hard drive bays
(No monitor BTW)
All for $2702
Would you buy a Mac with these specs?
2.93 Quad-Core Nehalem
6 GB DDR3 1333
1 TB 7200RPM SATA-2 (32MB cache)
6x Blu-ray burner/playback
GeForce 9800 (512MB)
Wireless N
Bluetooth
Firewire (3 ports - 800 and 400)
1 free optical bay
3 additional hard drive bays
(No monitor BTW)
All for $2702
On a computer, 16:10 (1920x1200) is more desirable than 16:9 (1920x1080). FullHD-video fits inside 1920x1200 anyway. You'll just get thicker black bars on top and bottom.
Why the 9800? What a lame choice for a dream computer. The GTX260M is out now I believe which would rip the 9800 (basically an 8800) apart.
Except 16:10 is the industry standard for computers.
What content is 1920x1080, anyway? All movies are 2.39:1, anyway, so even on a 1920x1080 screen there will be black bars.
Give up, 16:9 crowd; no one wants your screens for their computers.
Well, let me come at it a different way.
With all the huge amounts of 16x9 HDTV LCD displays being made now, the economics of continuing to support 16x10 just because "we always have" is harder to defend.
It's cheaper to make a comparable 16x9 panel than a 16x10 panel. And it's only going to get more so as more ppl buy HDTVs.
1920 X1080 is a full HD display. You know this. Don't play ignorant. All movies are not 2.39:1 either. You're just plain wrong there. There has been no standard for film. That's why so many films look so different on any monitor (not just 16x9. There are black bars on any pc monitor display OAR film content).
So? I did mine as a what if? You're ripping my card choice apart because you think it's lame? Did I say it was a dream computer? If it were, I'd at least doubled the RAM, added 3 more terabyte drives.
Come on. Calm down dude.
EDIT your posts instead of triple-posting.
Define "full" HD. Do it. Where did I say that it wasn't an HD display? Where did I say anything about HD?
Movies from the major studios are released in 2.39:1. Television shows are generally 16:9.
You said the "what-if" game and then you post ludicrous specs with a two year old graphics card. Your choice of card is going to be called into question.
EDIT your posts instead of triple-posting.
Define "full" HD. Do it. Where did I say that it wasn't an HD display? Where did I say anything about HD?
Movies from the major studios are released in 2.39:1. Television shows are generally 16:9.
It has nothing to do with major studios. Movies from studios are both 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 (which is reality is really 2.40:1, though people still refer to it otherwise. Then there are odd ratios every now and then, but those are the major two. To compare, 16x9= 1.78:1.
I hope Apple sticks with 16x10. I use that vertical space well.
Okay, thanks; I knew they used a slew of formats.
But see? Those would BOTH still have black bars on a 16:9 screen, so could the pundits thereof just clam it and let us have our extra screen space?
Isn't the 16:9 resolution one down from 1920x1080, 1600x900?But see? Those would BOTH still have black bars on a 16:9 screen, so could the pundits thereof just clam it and let us have our extra screen space?
So if Apple went to 16:9 we'd have resolution drops in both models (although probably larger displays), or maybe they'll just go all one display size and 1920x1080 (probably not).
9800 is already an outdated video card. The 200-series is the current generation. The Mac you list is something people can already get from Apple (Mac Pro).
Nope.
16:9 is 1920x1080.
16:10 is 1920x1200. That's what we have now.
Here's a nice chart, but...
Why can't Safari open SVG files properly?! I can't scroll this thing! Wait... I can hold down the mouse and scroll? That's dumb.
$2704:
2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
6GB (3x2GB) DDR3
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
18x SuperDrive
Black bars with regard to watching movies in inevitable.
Not a fan of losing vertical space to appease HDTV makers. My computer is a computer I have a 32" for watching movies.
I'd love to see a 26" IPS iMac.
Not a fan of losing vertical space to appease HDTV makers. My computer is a computer I have a 32" for watching movies.
I'd love to see a 26" IPS iMac.