Perfect imac 27 received!

[314631]

I don't get why people are still buying these machines. You know there is some kind of problem in manufacturing, and you know you will have a problem with the issue.

We desperately need to buy three iMac machines. But we are not about to blown $10,000+ on equipment that is known to have these issues.

Good news is we can crossgrade our Adobe Creative Suite CS4 licenses to a CS5 upgrade on Windows 7. So we'll probably go with Dell or HP and start phasing out Mac in our creative graphics department. In the long run it's probably a smart move given Apple's wars with Adobe, and the fact Creative Suite apps run better on Windows anyway.

I haven't told our creative team this yet though. They love their macs. So that should be a fun meeting.

If only we didn't need to purchase new machines now I would try to hold off buying until the next iMac product revision.

 

[88keydave]

Why do I put up with it?

Here is my situation...had 3 probs within the first 4 months...yellow tinge, Sony optical drive went bad, and screen starting having wierd image retention (intermitent.) They said we will build you a new one since you had all this trouble. They did, and now I have a dead pixel in the upper left quadrant. Yes it is a minor issue, and I can live with it for now. This is why you get the best and longest warranty available when you buy a computer. In spite of all this I love this 27" iMac with i7 more than any computer I have ever had, and I have had a lot. It helps if you don't expect perfection, and accept these challenges as nature of the beast. I would rather have the iMac with one dead pixel than a PC and monitor in mint condition. I like PCs but I love this iMac from the day I first got it - and this is my first MAC computer too. The MAC is not just a computer, it is a piece of art as well. I run Windows 7 on the second monitor and OSX on the first. I resisted Apple for 25 years, but now they have me! (and I even play City of Heroes on it.) Who can explain this feeling?

 

[nateomedia]

I am sorry, but pretending that this is a high pixel density issue is laughable. Apple has delivered many IPS displays in the past within this DPI-range, without the total lack of colour uniformity we see in the late '09 iMac models.
Most likely they use an inferior backlighting technique that saves them money, but produces awful results for anyone who are close to caring about colour.

Also, no one is expecting this display to achieve almost the whole Adobe RBG-spectrum. People are simply expecting a screen that can handle the sRGB colour space without showing considerable temperature blotches.

You know, there's no need for attitude here. I'm not "pretending" anything. I'm just asking questions, as I just bought one of these machines. I'm also well aware that most people are not expecting the monitor to display the entire AdobeRBG spectrum, but I have read posts from people in these threads expressing that they wanted to use these machines for serious photography or design studio purposes. I think it's silly to expect to be able to do that. Monitors that achieve significant color accuracy (and are thereby suitable for professional work) have historically always been expensive, why would anyone expect such quality from a machine that costs little more than the monitor alone would cost?

I also agree that these iMacs have had serious defects, including with the monitors. What I'm simply wondering is: at what point is Apple let off the hook for this? My monitor has a very minor color shift — 300K from top to bottom. That's not 1000K with severe splotching. Is it reasonable for a consumer grade monitor to have any color shift at all?

I'm thinking it is. And I think I'm going to move on and start enjoying my computer. Thanks for your feedback, everyone.

 

[lefse]

You know, there's no need for attitude here. I'm not "pretending" anything. I'm just asking questions, as I just bought one of these machines. I'm also well aware that most people are not expecting the monitor to display the entire AdobeRBG spectrum, but I have read posts from people in these threads expressing that they wanted to use these machines for serious photography or design studio purposes. I think it's silly to expect to be able to do that. Monitors that achieve significant color accuracy (and are thereby suitable for professional work) have historically always been expensive, why would anyone expect such quality from a machine that costs little more than the monitor alone would cost?

I also agree that these iMacs have had serious defects, including with the monitors. What I'm simply wondering is: at what point is Apple let off the hook for this? My monitor has a very minor color shift — 300K from top to bottom. That's not 1000K with severe splotching. Is it reasonable for a consumer grade monitor to have any color shift at all?

I'm thinking it is. And I think I'm going to move on and start enjoying my computer. Thanks for your feedback, everyone.

I did not mean to sound rude...

Your argument regarding price and performance is sound. The perfect 30" sRGB cinema display from Apple cost $1799 , whereas the cheapest 27" iMac cost $1699. The former is CCFL backlit, while then new iMac uses new LED-technology.
But remember, the 30" is 4 years old. It's been 4 years since that display saw a hardware update.

It is ridiculous to state that only expensive professional monitors in 2010 can achieve perfect sRGB colour consistency.
This is simply not true.

If you're happy with your display/iMac, then do enjoy it.