9 ms·

The curious pricing of the 27" iMac

167 points by AndrewWarner 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago
$1700 seems like a pretty good price for that. I hate Apple, but could almost see myself replacing my 4-year-old laptop (which I never undock) + 24" monitor with one of these. (I would not keep OS X, of course.)
- chrischen 17y ago
  Why? Are you a Microsoft programmer?
  - jrockway 17y ago
    No, but OS X does not work for me. It powers a computer under my TV that I use for watching movies, but it doesn't even do well for that task. (OSX's VLC often crashes, NicePlayer can't play partial AVI files, the built-in DVD player doesn't let you skip the ads at the beginning, etc.) For development, I could never use OS X. I rarely use the mouse, and I need a package manager for installing random libraries. I tried this on OS X and it just doesn't work as well as Debian. Emacs also doesn't work right. A unique monitor with generic Intel hardware running Linux is a great computer. That with OS X and it's just a paperweight. Your mileage may vary, but I have to say that my eyebrow raises itself a bit when I hear a developer say they use OS X.
    - yangyang 17y ago
      Not wishing to get into an argument or stray off-topic too far, but Emacs (Carbon Emacs, at least), works absolutely fine on Mac OS. I've had no problems with it, and I use lots of extra libraries.
      - vdm 17y ago
        I agree, if you're on 10.6 and you value your time, just use Carbon Emacs and stay away from Cocoa Emacs until more than 2 people start committing regularly. It's old but it Just Works. http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=emacs.git;a=history;f=src/nsterm.m http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=emacs.git;a=history;f=...
        ubernostrum 17y ago
        Or run Emacs the way it was meant to be used: in a terminal window. I've been doing that for, oh, about a decade now and haven't seen much cause to switch.
        jrockway 17y ago
        So you use OS X for the nice UI and yet you are willing to use Emacs with an inferior UI? No thanks. I will stick to Linux.
        eru 17y ago
        There's also Aquamacs. Seems to work quite fine.
        yangyang 17y ago
        Indeed. But it's not like using Emacs on any other platform.
        eru 17y ago
        OK. I do not use it myself. But my fiancee has a Mac and seems quite happy with Aquamacs. (She used Emacs on Ubuntu before for some time, to do LaTeX with.)
        vetinari 17y ago
        My memories of Aquamacs are full of fighting with the thing to do what I wanted. It was overriding everything I customized in my .emacs. About the only positive thing I found about it was the ability to run in full-screen mode (something that ntemacs is still unable to do).
    - idlewords 17y ago
      It's not clear when you last made a serious effort to try OS X, but you may want to consider taking another look. A lot of the stuff you mention (emacs problems, inability to install packages, VLC crashing) doesn't reflect the current state of the OS.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        Unless something changed in the last 5 minutes, that is not true.
    - clemesha 17y ago
      I developed for several years solely on a Linux laptop - it was my personal laptop too. Then I switched to OSX, and damn what an awesome breath of UI fresh air. I would never deploy anything on any platform besides good-old Linux, but for a personal computer, I'm sold on OSX.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        I hate to turn this into an OS debate, but it looks like it has become one. I have used OS X. I have written software for OS X. I had a job that was to support OS X. I don't like it; I don't think it works well. It doesn't do what I want and it's not particularly stable. Problems I have with OS X are nonexistent with Linux, so that's what I use.
        antonovka 17y ago
        I have used Linux since 1994. I have written software for Linux. I had a job that was to support Linux. I still run Linux on servers where there's no other option. I don't like it; I don't think it works well. It doesn't do what I want -- the desktop software options are incredibly lacking, getting anything working is like pulling teeth, and relying on a distributor like Debian or Ubuntu for all my software means that I get stuck either using outdated software or running against an unstable release of the OS -- either way, I spend way more time thinking about the OS than doing my job. In terms of stability, the lack of stable releases, poor code quality of the kernel, and reliance on distributors to patch and maintain their own kernels really shows through in the number of kernel panics and other issues I see. I can't recall the last time one of my FreeBSD servers or Mac OS X desktops crashed. Problems I have with Linux are nonexistent with OS X, so that's what I use.
        jrockway 17y ago
        Yes, the Linux kernel code quality is low, and things often regress. C + no unit tests + opinionated dictator with very little computer science experience = very, very bad. But it works well enough. As long as you are on the beaten path, with Intel hardware and Nothing Too Weird, you will be fine. On OS X, you don't even have the choice to even try anything else. As for the distribution issue, it's true that you are either out of date or slightly unstable. But on OS X, you can't get any packages at all. So you manage everything yourself, or rely on a third party to package everything for you. Then you are out of date or unstable, and the various package managers conflict with each other and with Apple's stuff. There is no magic fix there, it's the same set of problems. So anyway, I don't care what OS you use... but OS X is not objectively better. (I have noticed that OS X users prefer no way to do something over a flaky way to do something. Linux has a lot of flaky ways to do a lot of things; OS X just doesn't do much. Tradeoffs.)
    - jawngee 17y ago
      Why would your eyebrow raise a bit when you hear a developer say they use any particular OS? What do you gain by having such rigors? Why do you assume your opinion is absolute? (Which is must be for you to cock an eyebrow in what I'm assuming is disgust or mistrust). What do you do when someone tells you they develop on Windows? I'm imagining a groin pull, or something of that magnitude.
      - scotty79 17y ago
        Maybe it's just involuntary reflex. I met someone who said he works as admin and complained he can't find a job in the town he lives (he commutes more than 4 hours a day). I couldn't understand that, but later in conversation I learned that he's a windows admin. Then I had the eyebrow rising involuntary reflex and everything became clear to me. Windows admin skills are kinda useless in town where most companies can't afford to use MS solutions where good open source alternatives exists, let alone employ many windows admins.
        randallsquared 17y ago
        Small-town businesses usually do use Windows, except where they're hoping their ancient DOS solution doesn't die.
        scotty79 17y ago
        Not in my country. And if they do they don't have money to hire administrator. Son in law of the owner can usually take care of things well enough.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        I am just surprised. I remember how much stress I went through to get basic things working, and I am surprised that other people were willing to waste so much time. (Example: installing libxml2 for XML::LibXML and the system perl.) So it's not disgust at all, it's just shock. I keep hearing how nice of a development platform it is, but I couldn't get even the simplest things to work. (I used OS X for 2 or 3 years about 4 years ago. I still use it for my under-TV computer, as I am too lazy to configure Ubuntu there. But I am close to not being too lazy...) Anyway, Linux is broken for many users, but not those that use conkeror, emacs, urxvt, xmonad and has Intel wireless and video. I am the user that Linux is best for.
    - yardie 17y ago
      Why raise an eyebrow? Developers use whatever gets the job done. This goes for Linux, Windows or OSX. I write Windows software on a Mac. I also use the same Mac for deployment on Linux and Windows servers.
    - jsz0 17y ago
      I sympathize with your point even though everyone wants you to switch to OSX for some reason. I run Linux in a VM -- rarely touch MacPorts or DarwinPorts or whatever is popular these days. They've never met my expectations. Packages out of date or simply don't build correctly. Just seems easier to me to go the VM route or run Linux natively if that's your thing. One big advantage for VMs to me is being able to snapshot the system before library upgrades or dist-upgrades. Very easy to revert back if you encounter problems. (which in my experience is far too common in the Linux world even though it's the year 2009 and Linux is fairly mainstream)
      - rman666 17y ago
        One good reason to run OS X is that there are several decent outliners (OmniOutliner, etc.). There are no good outliners for Windows, and I know of none for Linux either. There's the cross-platform JOE (Java Outline Editor), but it's not as good as OmniOutliner or the old Mac OS outliners (MORE, ThinkTank, Acta, INControl, etc.).
- timtrueman 17y ago
  Keep the 24" monitor, you can use it as a second display on the iMac.
Andys 17y ago
I found the price strangely low. As usual with any Apple release, I started some friendly banter with my Apple-loving friends about how poor the value is compared to a regular PC, until I got to the 27" Imac and realised you couldn't buy a screen that good, elsewhere - at any price.
- elblanco 17y ago
  Here are two. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005115 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176071 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176...
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    No, both of those appear to be 2560 at 30", which is a lower DPI than the one under discussion. Since that's the only way that the 27" screens are better than the pre-existing 30" screens, it must be the metric that was meant.
    - mrkurt 17y ago
      That's 30" diagonal at a different aspect ratio (16:10), so the DPIs aren't as far off as they sound. The bigger problem is that neither of the linked 30" panels are LED backlit.
      - randallsquared 17y ago
        Ah, quite right. I'd forgotten about those details.
      - elblanco 17y ago
        LED backlighting is nice. But since these are LG panels, I'm sure we'll see them in refrigerators and washing machines by year's end.
      - potatolicious 17y ago
yread 17y ago
I dont think the price is that low. If you look at these cheap (and smaller) (E-)IPS panels that are popping up (NEC EA231WMi 23"for 300 euro, dell's ips for 200 or samsung c-pva for 200) i think its pretty obvious that its possible to produce an inexpensive screen. The computer on the back might cost like 300 so I think there is still a decent margin for apple
- elblanco 17y ago
  LG Claims that their e-IPS panels should be the same price as TN parts. http://www.displayblog.com/2009/01/28/lg-display-lpl-23-e-ips-1080p-lcd-monitor-panel/ http://www.displayblog.com/2009/01/28/lg-display-lpl-23-e-ip...
vegai 17y ago
Perhaps the price of LCDs is about to drop sharply?
- davidmathers 17y ago
  The price of IPS displays is dropping because LG has developed a new technology called e-IPS that costs much less to make than s-IPS, which it's replacing. The e-IPS displays still cost more than TN displays I think.
  - gcb 17y ago
    And by LG track record, it also saves tons of money ditching quality control completely.
    - acgourley 17y ago
      Just curious, what gives you that impression?
      - GeneralMaximus 17y ago
        Not speaking for gcb here, but every single LG product I've owned has been crap. In fact, my most common advice to family members who want to shop for electronics is, "Get whatever you like, just make sure it's not LG or Samsung".
        weegee 17y ago
        I've had no problems with the Samsung components I've purchased. What kinds of problems with Samsung did you have, or are you just spouting off with no data to back your claim?
        gcb 17y ago
        NO QA. 5yrs ago I bought a 15" LCD. got home, 5 dead pixels. back to the store, asked to open the box there, had to attach to their POS to do testing. 3 dead pixel... after opening the 3rd box i was satisfied. now, last year, got a samsung 22" wide screen LCD. Got home, the border gloss finish (talking about 7in of black shiny plastic) was hideously scratched. back to the store. opened 1, 2, 3 box. no more in stock. took only the receipt to a store in another part of town, opened 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. ok, got one with no scratch. probably some thing scratching them on the assembly line. because the protective foil plastic was OK above the scratches. But i will buy samsung again :) at least, when i opened the LG and then the samsung, the samsung one had little round QA stickers on the LCD panel :) now, i've also have plenty of anecdotes about LG cdrom and cdram and recently a dvdram driver, if you care. they are all about the laser life being like 40h of work instead of the some-thousand they claim.
lyime 17y ago
LCD display(not panels) makers manufacturers still make decent margin. There is a reason why these guys keep selling these things with a lot of competition on price. Apple is most likely still making a nice ~20% margin on the 27" iMacs.
etherael 17y ago
I never thought I'd find something that I'd actually consider buying from Apple, this is the first product to break that rule, it's a really nice monitor for a real computer, and if I feel like having a fap about how designer I am, I can use the free mac... :D
davidmathers 17y ago
there’s an entire high-end computer stuck to the back of it Actually, there's an entire discount-parts ($150 cpu, $70 video card) computer stuck to the back of it. If you configure it with high-end parts the price goes up to $2200 and even then you're getting a previous-generation video card (radeon 4850 rather than the new 5850). It's not really so curious. Apple does the "make exclusive deal with a supplier and beat the rest of the market by 6 months in order to look cool" trick all the time. They did it with Intel for the Macbook Air CPU for example. What it must mean is that e-IPS panels cost much less to manufacture than s-IPS panels. And that a new generation of higher-res e-IPS displays will be arriving in 6 months. EDIT: I googled "e-ips" and found this at http://www.displayblog.com/2009/02/13/lg-display-e-ips-lcd-panel-update-2/ http://www.displayblog.com/2009/02/13/lg-display-e-ips-lcd-p... LG Display has developed what it calls e-IPS. e-IPS is a version of the company’s trademark IPS technology that brings the cost down. Way down. LG Display target market is toward the larger LCD monitor market that is currently dominated by TN (Twisted Nematic) technology. LG Display has stated that its e-IPS LCD panels will be price competitive with TN LCD panels.
- davidmathers 17y ago
  Until we know why the panel is so cheap I love my Apple products, but Apple fanboys..come on. It took me less than 5 minutes to find out why the panel is so cheap. Seriously, why must you always be so...gushing? P.S. Instapaper is brilliant!
  - davidmathers 17y ago
    No, seriously. Have you seen the followup response at http://jimcloudman.tumblr.com/post/223517306/re-the-curious-pricing-of-the-27-imac http://jimcloudman.tumblr.com/post/223517306/re-the-curious-... ?? It's so amazingly ridiculous. You have to read the whole thing, but here's an excerpt: I think another part of it, though, is that the panel manufacturer must be drooling over the fact that this is really the only way to move a lot of high-end panels, and therefore gain access to serious economies of scale, driving the prices down and bringing IPS panels to a more mainstream market. ...This is what I love about Apple. Nothing is driving innovation anymore in the PC market - the average computer today has little more capability than a computer from five years ago. Apple, however, is using the brute force of its market share to drive technology forward...Then, the rest of the industry follows suit in a vain attempt to catch them... What compels people to turn their total ignorance of the hardware industry into love letters for Apple? Not only do Apple's economies of scale have nothing to do with the cost of e-IPS, Dell was the first out of the gate with an e-IPS display ( http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/15/dells-2209wa-lcd-monitor-reviewed-deemed-king-of-22-inchers/ http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/15/dells-2209wa-lcd-monitor-... ) but of course these fanboys didn't notice. So now, because they don't know there's a difference between s-IPS and e-IPS, it's Apple's business strategy that is changing the world, rather than the scientists and engineers at LG. The ones who actually invented this new low-cost technology.
jbellis 17y ago
Great, a new resolution with even _less_ vertical pixels. I still miss 4:3. Much better for programming.
- NikkiA 17y ago
  I disagree, I use emacs with vertical splits (ie 1|2|3 layout) and 16:10 and 16:9 is great for that, also it means that spreading over onto the second (16:10) monitor isn't a change in layout policy. I could never go back to 4:3 layout for programming, as I discovered last year when one of my 16:10s died and I had to use an old 4:3 I had laying around.
  - pfedor 17y ago
    In my experience using a small monitor with X configured to use a virtual screen (i.e., the monitor just shows a small part of a much bigger desktop and you can scroll it with a mouse) is just as good as the giant monitors. I don't feel I really gained that much using 30" or 2x24" in comparison with the 15" monitor and 2000x2000 pixels virtual window I used to use in the past. Of course it's hard to argue that large monitors aren't nice, but I think the benefits for writing code are overstated.
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    Apple IMHO has done much better with the widescreen format than Windows has - the UI paradigm does not encourage full screen use. Look at, say, Visual Studio - the thing is practically unusable without being fullscreened (unless you enjoy 200 pixels actual code editor). I've always felt widescreens to be a bit useless on Windows in that regard - the overfocus on fullscreen apps robs widescreen of its primary strenght: multitasking.
- pmjordan 17y ago
  I use a 2-column layout on a 30" Apple Cinema display. Each of the columns has a 4:5 (8:10) aspect ratio, which is actually excellent for programming. If you did this on the new iMac, you'd get 2x 8:9, which is still pretty good. You soon don't want to miss the high number of vertical pixels. What puts me off is the reflective finish. I can live with it on a 13" MacBook, but I'd find it impossible on that sort of size, where you're practically guaranteed to get a light source into view. Oh, and the fact that the HDD isn't user serviceable. Two hard drive bays would be nice, too, considering there's no eSATA or ExpressCard.
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Can you use this as an external monitor? A few folks, including this article, make it sound like you're buying a monitor and getting a computer for "free". But if it's like previous iMacs then you're buying a monitor that can only be used with the "free" computer. If that is the case then that's a good reason for Apple getting a good deal. There's no way for this to cannibalize sales of actual monitors, unless the buyer was planning to weld it irreversibly and permanently to a Mac mini. Which also renders any price comparison moot. It's a thing unto itself, only really directly comparable with other iMacs.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- yardie 17y ago
  Yes, you can. The display port is bi-directional. In a sort of quirky way. Apple has addressed one of the longest lingering questions of the iMac line (and basically all AIO lines). People upgrade the PC but could reuse the display. With an AIO everything had to go.
  - elblanco 17y ago
    This is definitely a cool feature. edit okay, go ahead and downvote, apparently bidirectional connection ports in lieu of mono-directional ones are not a cool feature to somebody.
  - maukdaddy 17y ago
    The one problem, at least environmentally, is that you can't use the display without also having the entire "computer" part running. This means you're consuming XX extra watts the entire time.
    - harpastum 17y ago
      I'm not sure of this, but I assume the default behavior would be putting the imac itself to sleep when it was connected to an external video source. This would use a bit more power than a simple display, but not much.
barrkel 17y ago
The Dell monitor pricing he quotes - $1200 for LCD - is pretty gougey too. Dell hardware is generally bad value unless it's on special offer, a bare-bones system (in which case it'll lack extensibility), or part of a corporate purchase.
- Tichy 17y ago
  My 24'' monitor from Dell is great, it was not very expensive, and it has served me well for years now. I think you generalize too much (also, never buy from the consumer section). My X1 from Dell is also great, I love it much more than my generic MacBook.
  - barrkel 17y ago
    My Dell 2407WFP is great too, but I bought it at a 40% discount. The price fluctuated between list and discount at seemingly random intervals.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      True, at Dell you have to catch the right moment. But I suppose there is a system behind it, maybe if it is important one could figure it out (also, always CALL Dell - usually they can give you better prices). Maybe if you need a monitor right now, it is a problem. But I had another one, and when I heard about the good price, I just upgraded at that moment. Could have been any other moment, too.
      - yardie 17y ago
        It's an accounting trick. Dell needs to sell a certain amount of goods every quarter. Well they price things to move and load any debt onto next quarters books. Eventually you reach a point like today. Dell has so much debt that it eats into future earnings. This reflects in the stock price. Apple's market cap is 160billion dollars, with 35 billion in reserve. Dells cap is 30 billion dollars. Realistically, Apple could buy Dell in cash. While the deals are great for endusers, they are cutting their own throats to move product. One thing you can't ignore about Apple, they make profit on everything they sell (no loss leaders there). To an investor, that is a good buy.
eleitl 17y ago
Dell 27" sells for 879 USD. Dell's 30" for about 1200 USD. So, no, the computer at the back is not exactly free.
- jbellis 17y ago
  The dell 27" is much lower-resolution, though.
  - eleitl 17y ago
    Completely, entirely irrelevant. It's the panel size and type that matters.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=223-9379 http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/product... "Panel Type: VA - Vertical alignment" The Apple screen, on top of being higher resolution, is also a IPS panel, which gives much better viewing angles as well as color reproduction. It is the only type of LCD suitable for photo/video work. For a bunch of people who complain a lot about getting good value for your dollar (and how Apple doesn't do that), you sure are misinformed about the gear you're buying. I suppose as long as it throws some kind of image up on screen it's good right?
  - eleitl 17y ago
    Nice that you assume I don't know what kind of panels Dell uses (currently e-IPS and S-PVA, 8 bit) while Apple hitherto was, to put it politely, not known for using quality panels in their offering (TN <cough> 6 bit <coughcough>). I'm glad to Cupertino is at least up to snuff when it comes to Dell. Took sure their sweet time doing that. The only kind of displays suitable for professional work are the expensive kind that comes with an external calibrator. Neither Dell nor Apple sells these. Next time, please don't assume people are ignorant.
cyman 17y ago
This is it. I think I am converting to a Mac. The last reason I didn't was because there's a common perception that they're priced too high. Unless this is a misprint, that time is over.
- elblanco 17y ago
  $1700 for the next to lowest end offering is too high. Dell doesn't even break $1000 territory until you get to their upper end offerings. For $1700 you could buy two computers and a laptop (or two computers and two netbooks).
  - davidmathers 17y ago
    Dell doesn't sell a 27-inch 2560 by 1440 LED display. I would pay $1000 for it today if it were for sale. Some people would pay more than me.
    - elblanco 17y ago
      I was talking about the computers. $1700 is far too much for a low end system, monitor or no monitor. Those specs (sans display) are available for <$500. I'd put the price on this system at no more than $1400 at the high end. Apple is making a very nice margin on this kit. But to that end the iMac isn't a LED display either, it's LED backlit. If I could find a $1000 27" 2560x1440 LED or O-LED display I'd be in line in front of you.
      - davidmathers 17y ago
        I'm not following you. $800 for the display $500 for the computer components $100 for the aluminum case $100 for the wireless keyboard and hi-tech mouse $100 for OS X and iLife $100 for beautiful industrial design $1700 sounds like a fine deal to me. I'm tempted to buy one right now, but I'm forcing myself to wait for the first component refresh that will come in 6 or 8 months. Core 2 Duo is about to go obsolete.
        17y ago
Tichy 17y ago
I would guess the real reason is mentioned at the end: there really is not much of a point in buying a desktop PC anymore (unless you are a hardcore gamer). It makes much more sense to buy a notebook and attach it to an external monitor when working at home. Also prices for flatscreens are dropping all the time. If the Dell 30'' also has the special panel, and only is lacking in some other specs, maybe enhancing those other specs is not as expensive as adding the better panel type (whether they are important or not is another matter - if you WANT to spend a lot of money, you can always find a reason, like "this audio system does not have gold coated cables" or whatever). In any case this makes me hope for a price drop of the 30'' Dell displays...
- Retric 17y ago
  I have a laptop from work that can I take with me on trips. I also have an iPhone for internet access on the go. So I don't see the need to buy another portable computer.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    The point is not having to sync stuff between multiple computers. Of course if you fully embrace "the cloud" it might be less of an issue, but that is not for everyone.
morphir 17y ago
when I got my Macbook Alu - I got baffled by its high quality and sleekness. The 13" Macbook Alu was a bargain relative to its quality. When I experienced the unboxing, I felt like a 16 year old virgin girl..and I'm a boy.. ehehe One year later - and there are still no other company that can offer a similar high quality laptop. Thinkpad has pretty much crashed and burned after china got their hands the product management. I guarantee you that this 27" will provide a first time apple owner with a unboxing experience you will never forget. It will simply raise the bar for how you perceive quality.
- Tichy 17y ago
  "It will simply raise the bar for how you perceive quality." Unless you have to return it three times before you receive one that has no extreme production flaws (happened to a friend with his iMac - mind you, he is still an Apple fan boy despite of that experience...).
  - morphir 17y ago
    all mass production companies have products that fail now and then. But ok, what computer/brand would you recommend?
    - Tichy 17y ago
      I am not up to date on hardware at the moment, so I can't comment. Usually I check Dell first (but the notebooks tend to be too ugly, so I can't really recommend them. I don't know their current lineup). For notebooks I tend to like Samsung, but at the moment unfortunately they use that awful shiny Klavierlack coating (as do many other hardware manufacturers). Hope that goes away soon, then they might be recommendable again.
mechanical_fish 17y ago
This is making me wish I'd read the article that went by a couple days ago with a headline like "Are new Apple iMacs a harbinger of the new Apple TV?" Because if I felt like mongering a crazy Apple-related rumor on a subject which I know nothing about [1], I'd guess that one good way to get a manufacturer to grant you a crazy price break is to tell them that, as soon as they can ramp up production to the necessary levels, Apple will release an Ive-designed Apple-branded TV with their parts inside it and have Steve Jobs stand on stage to promote that TV. --- [1] Which, according to the empirical evidence of this post, I apparently do. I need to get some more sleep.
- kburn 17y ago
  Apple would have to get their playback environment up to media center standards. Even the Apple TV was a usability nightmare by home theater standards.
zandorg 17y ago
This 15" HP Omnibook 6100 (made in 2001) has a huge (1400x1050) screen - I can't find anything like it.
- mbreese 17y ago
  That's a common resolution. I have a Thinkpad T42 with that same 15" screen, although, that resolution equally common at 14" (my wife has a T43 with that resolution). The iMac 27" is really a unique resolution, largely due to I believe, the change in aspect ratio.
- kajecounterhack 17y ago
  I have a 15" Dell Precision M70 (4 years old now, overheats regularly) with 1920x1200 res, haha. Yeah, things show up pretty small but really clear.
elblanco 17y ago
$300 Mac Netbook. http://gizmodo.com/5389166/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-10v-into-the-ultimate-os-x-netbook http://gizmodo.com/5389166/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-10v...

167 points by AndrewWarner 17y ago

$1700 seems like a pretty good price for that. I hate Apple, but could almost see myself replacing my 4-year-old laptop (which I never undock) + 24" monitor with one of these. (I would not keep OS X, of course.)

chrischen 17y ago
Why? Are you a Microsoft programmer?
- jrockway 17y ago
  No, but OS X does not work for me. It powers a computer under my TV that I use for watching movies, but it doesn't even do well for that task. (OSX's VLC often crashes, NicePlayer can't play partial AVI files, the built-in DVD player doesn't let you skip the ads at the beginning, etc.) For development, I could never use OS X. I rarely use the mouse, and I need a package manager for installing random libraries. I tried this on OS X and it just doesn't work as well as Debian. Emacs also doesn't work right. A unique monitor with generic Intel hardware running Linux is a great computer. That with OS X and it's just a paperweight. Your mileage may vary, but I have to say that my eyebrow raises itself a bit when I hear a developer say they use OS X.
  - yangyang 17y ago
    Not wishing to get into an argument or stray off-topic too far, but Emacs (Carbon Emacs, at least), works absolutely fine on Mac OS. I've had no problems with it, and I use lots of extra libraries.
    - vdm 17y ago
      I agree, if you're on 10.6 and you value your time, just use Carbon Emacs and stay away from Cocoa Emacs until more than 2 people start committing regularly. It's old but it Just Works. http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=emacs.git;a=history;f=src/nsterm.m http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=emacs.git;a=history;f=...
      - ubernostrum 17y ago
        Or run Emacs the way it was meant to be used: in a terminal window. I've been doing that for, oh, about a decade now and haven't seen much cause to switch.
        jrockway 17y ago
        So you use OS X for the nice UI and yet you are willing to use Emacs with an inferior UI? No thanks. I will stick to Linux.
        eru 17y ago
        There's also Aquamacs. Seems to work quite fine.
        yangyang 17y ago
        Indeed. But it's not like using Emacs on any other platform.
        eru 17y ago
        OK. I do not use it myself. But my fiancee has a Mac and seems quite happy with Aquamacs. (She used Emacs on Ubuntu before for some time, to do LaTeX with.)
        vetinari 17y ago
        My memories of Aquamacs are full of fighting with the thing to do what I wanted. It was overriding everything I customized in my .emacs. About the only positive thing I found about it was the ability to run in full-screen mode (something that ntemacs is still unable to do).
  - idlewords 17y ago
    It's not clear when you last made a serious effort to try OS X, but you may want to consider taking another look. A lot of the stuff you mention (emacs problems, inability to install packages, VLC crashing) doesn't reflect the current state of the OS.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      Unless something changed in the last 5 minutes, that is not true.
  - clemesha 17y ago
    I developed for several years solely on a Linux laptop - it was my personal laptop too. Then I switched to OSX, and damn what an awesome breath of UI fresh air. I would never deploy anything on any platform besides good-old Linux, but for a personal computer, I'm sold on OSX.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      I hate to turn this into an OS debate, but it looks like it has become one. I have used OS X. I have written software for OS X. I had a job that was to support OS X. I don't like it; I don't think it works well. It doesn't do what I want and it's not particularly stable. Problems I have with OS X are nonexistent with Linux, so that's what I use.
      - antonovka 17y ago
        I have used Linux since 1994. I have written software for Linux. I had a job that was to support Linux. I still run Linux on servers where there's no other option. I don't like it; I don't think it works well. It doesn't do what I want -- the desktop software options are incredibly lacking, getting anything working is like pulling teeth, and relying on a distributor like Debian or Ubuntu for all my software means that I get stuck either using outdated software or running against an unstable release of the OS -- either way, I spend way more time thinking about the OS than doing my job. In terms of stability, the lack of stable releases, poor code quality of the kernel, and reliance on distributors to patch and maintain their own kernels really shows through in the number of kernel panics and other issues I see. I can't recall the last time one of my FreeBSD servers or Mac OS X desktops crashed. Problems I have with Linux are nonexistent with OS X, so that's what I use.
        jrockway 17y ago
        Yes, the Linux kernel code quality is low, and things often regress. C + no unit tests + opinionated dictator with very little computer science experience = very, very bad. But it works well enough. As long as you are on the beaten path, with Intel hardware and Nothing Too Weird, you will be fine. On OS X, you don't even have the choice to even try anything else. As for the distribution issue, it's true that you are either out of date or slightly unstable. But on OS X, you can't get any packages at all. So you manage everything yourself, or rely on a third party to package everything for you. Then you are out of date or unstable, and the various package managers conflict with each other and with Apple's stuff. There is no magic fix there, it's the same set of problems. So anyway, I don't care what OS you use... but OS X is not objectively better. (I have noticed that OS X users prefer no way to do something over a flaky way to do something. Linux has a lot of flaky ways to do a lot of things; OS X just doesn't do much. Tradeoffs.)
  - jawngee 17y ago
    Why would your eyebrow raise a bit when you hear a developer say they use any particular OS? What do you gain by having such rigors? Why do you assume your opinion is absolute? (Which is must be for you to cock an eyebrow in what I'm assuming is disgust or mistrust). What do you do when someone tells you they develop on Windows? I'm imagining a groin pull, or something of that magnitude.
    - scotty79 17y ago
      Maybe it's just involuntary reflex. I met someone who said he works as admin and complained he can't find a job in the town he lives (he commutes more than 4 hours a day). I couldn't understand that, but later in conversation I learned that he's a windows admin. Then I had the eyebrow rising involuntary reflex and everything became clear to me. Windows admin skills are kinda useless in town where most companies can't afford to use MS solutions where good open source alternatives exists, let alone employ many windows admins.
      - randallsquared 17y ago
        Small-town businesses usually do use Windows, except where they're hoping their ancient DOS solution doesn't die.
        scotty79 17y ago
        Not in my country. And if they do they don't have money to hire administrator. Son in law of the owner can usually take care of things well enough.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      I am just surprised. I remember how much stress I went through to get basic things working, and I am surprised that other people were willing to waste so much time. (Example: installing libxml2 for XML::LibXML and the system perl.) So it's not disgust at all, it's just shock. I keep hearing how nice of a development platform it is, but I couldn't get even the simplest things to work. (I used OS X for 2 or 3 years about 4 years ago. I still use it for my under-TV computer, as I am too lazy to configure Ubuntu there. But I am close to not being too lazy...) Anyway, Linux is broken for many users, but not those that use conkeror, emacs, urxvt, xmonad and has Intel wireless and video. I am the user that Linux is best for.
  - yardie 17y ago
    Why raise an eyebrow? Developers use whatever gets the job done. This goes for Linux, Windows or OSX. I write Windows software on a Mac. I also use the same Mac for deployment on Linux and Windows servers.
  - jsz0 17y ago
    I sympathize with your point even though everyone wants you to switch to OSX for some reason. I run Linux in a VM -- rarely touch MacPorts or DarwinPorts or whatever is popular these days. They've never met my expectations. Packages out of date or simply don't build correctly. Just seems easier to me to go the VM route or run Linux natively if that's your thing. One big advantage for VMs to me is being able to snapshot the system before library upgrades or dist-upgrades. Very easy to revert back if you encounter problems. (which in my experience is far too common in the Linux world even though it's the year 2009 and Linux is fairly mainstream)
    - rman666 17y ago
      One good reason to run OS X is that there are several decent outliners (OmniOutliner, etc.). There are no good outliners for Windows, and I know of none for Linux either. There's the cross-platform JOE (Java Outline Editor), but it's not as good as OmniOutliner or the old Mac OS outliners (MORE, ThinkTank, Acta, INControl, etc.).
timtrueman 17y ago
Keep the 24" monitor, you can use it as a second display on the iMac.

Andys 17y ago

I found the price strangely low. As usual with any Apple release, I started some friendly banter with my Apple-loving friends about how poor the value is compared to a regular PC, until I got to the 27" Imac and realised you couldn't buy a screen that good, elsewhere - at any price.

elblanco 17y ago
Here are two. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005115 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176071 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176...
- randallsquared 17y ago
  No, both of those appear to be 2560 at 30", which is a lower DPI than the one under discussion. Since that's the only way that the 27" screens are better than the pre-existing 30" screens, it must be the metric that was meant.
  - mrkurt 17y ago
    That's 30" diagonal at a different aspect ratio (16:10), so the DPIs aren't as far off as they sound. The bigger problem is that neither of the linked 30" panels are LED backlit.
    - randallsquared 17y ago
      Ah, quite right. I'd forgotten about those details.
    - elblanco 17y ago
      LED backlighting is nice. But since these are LG panels, I'm sure we'll see them in refrigerators and washing machines by year's end.
    - potatolicious 17y ago

yread 17y ago

I dont think the price is that low. If you look at these cheap (and smaller) (E-)IPS panels that are popping up (NEC EA231WMi 23"for 300 euro, dell's ips for 200 or samsung c-pva for 200) i think its pretty obvious that its possible to produce an inexpensive screen. The computer on the back might cost like 300 so I think there is still a decent margin for apple

elblanco 17y ago
LG Claims that their e-IPS panels should be the same price as TN parts. http://www.displayblog.com/2009/01/28/lg-display-lpl-23-e-ips-1080p-lcd-monitor-panel/ http://www.displayblog.com/2009/01/28/lg-display-lpl-23-e-ip...

vegai 17y ago

Perhaps the price of LCDs is about to drop sharply?

davidmathers 17y ago
The price of IPS displays is dropping because LG has developed a new technology called e-IPS that costs much less to make than s-IPS, which it's replacing. The e-IPS displays still cost more than TN displays I think.
- gcb 17y ago
  And by LG track record, it also saves tons of money ditching quality control completely.
  - acgourley 17y ago
    Just curious, what gives you that impression?
    - GeneralMaximus 17y ago
      Not speaking for gcb here, but every single LG product I've owned has been crap. In fact, my most common advice to family members who want to shop for electronics is, "Get whatever you like, just make sure it's not LG or Samsung".
      - weegee 17y ago
        I've had no problems with the Samsung components I've purchased. What kinds of problems with Samsung did you have, or are you just spouting off with no data to back your claim?
        gcb 17y ago
        NO QA. 5yrs ago I bought a 15" LCD. got home, 5 dead pixels. back to the store, asked to open the box there, had to attach to their POS to do testing. 3 dead pixel... after opening the 3rd box i was satisfied. now, last year, got a samsung 22" wide screen LCD. Got home, the border gloss finish (talking about 7in of black shiny plastic) was hideously scratched. back to the store. opened 1, 2, 3 box. no more in stock. took only the receipt to a store in another part of town, opened 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. ok, got one with no scratch. probably some thing scratching them on the assembly line. because the protective foil plastic was OK above the scratches. But i will buy samsung again :) at least, when i opened the LG and then the samsung, the samsung one had little round QA stickers on the LCD panel :) now, i've also have plenty of anecdotes about LG cdrom and cdram and recently a dvdram driver, if you care. they are all about the laser life being like 40h of work instead of the some-thousand they claim.

lyime 17y ago

LCD display(not panels) makers manufacturers still make decent margin. There is a reason why these guys keep selling these things with a lot of competition on price. Apple is most likely still making a nice ~20% margin on the 27" iMacs.

etherael 17y ago

I never thought I'd find something that I'd actually consider buying from Apple, this is the first product to break that rule, it's a really nice monitor for a real computer, and if I feel like having a fap about how designer I am, I can use the free mac... :D

davidmathers 17y ago

there’s an entire high-end computer stuck to the back of it Actually, there's an entire discount-parts ($150 cpu, $70 video card) computer stuck to the back of it. If you configure it with high-end parts the price goes up to $2200 and even then you're getting a previous-generation video card (radeon 4850 rather than the new 5850). It's not really so curious. Apple does the "make exclusive deal with a supplier and beat the rest of the market by 6 months in order to look cool" trick all the time. They did it with Intel for the Macbook Air CPU for example. What it must mean is that e-IPS panels cost much less to manufacture than s-IPS panels. And that a new generation of higher-res e-IPS displays will be arriving in 6 months. EDIT: I googled "e-ips" and found this at http://www.displayblog.com/2009/02/13/lg-display-e-ips-lcd-panel-update-2/ http://www.displayblog.com/2009/02/13/lg-display-e-ips-lcd-p... LG Display has developed what it calls e-IPS. e-IPS is a version of the company’s trademark IPS technology that brings the cost down. Way down. LG Display target market is toward the larger LCD monitor market that is currently dominated by TN (Twisted Nematic) technology. LG Display has stated that its e-IPS LCD panels will be price competitive with TN LCD panels.

davidmathers 17y ago
Until we know why the panel is so cheap I love my Apple products, but Apple fanboys..come on. It took me less than 5 minutes to find out why the panel is so cheap. Seriously, why must you always be so...gushing? P.S. Instapaper is brilliant!
- davidmathers 17y ago
  No, seriously. Have you seen the followup response at http://jimcloudman.tumblr.com/post/223517306/re-the-curious-pricing-of-the-27-imac http://jimcloudman.tumblr.com/post/223517306/re-the-curious-... ?? It's so amazingly ridiculous. You have to read the whole thing, but here's an excerpt: I think another part of it, though, is that the panel manufacturer must be drooling over the fact that this is really the only way to move a lot of high-end panels, and therefore gain access to serious economies of scale, driving the prices down and bringing IPS panels to a more mainstream market. ...This is what I love about Apple. Nothing is driving innovation anymore in the PC market - the average computer today has little more capability than a computer from five years ago. Apple, however, is using the brute force of its market share to drive technology forward...Then, the rest of the industry follows suit in a vain attempt to catch them... What compels people to turn their total ignorance of the hardware industry into love letters for Apple? Not only do Apple's economies of scale have nothing to do with the cost of e-IPS, Dell was the first out of the gate with an e-IPS display ( http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/15/dells-2209wa-lcd-monitor-reviewed-deemed-king-of-22-inchers/ http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/15/dells-2209wa-lcd-monitor-... ) but of course these fanboys didn't notice. So now, because they don't know there's a difference between s-IPS and e-IPS, it's Apple's business strategy that is changing the world, rather than the scientists and engineers at LG. The ones who actually invented this new low-cost technology.

jbellis 17y ago

Great, a new resolution with even _less_ vertical pixels. I still miss 4:3. Much better for programming.

NikkiA 17y ago
I disagree, I use emacs with vertical splits (ie 1|2|3 layout) and 16:10 and 16:9 is great for that, also it means that spreading over onto the second (16:10) monitor isn't a change in layout policy. I could never go back to 4:3 layout for programming, as I discovered last year when one of my 16:10s died and I had to use an old 4:3 I had laying around.
- pfedor 17y ago
  In my experience using a small monitor with X configured to use a virtual screen (i.e., the monitor just shows a small part of a much bigger desktop and you can scroll it with a mouse) is just as good as the giant monitors. I don't feel I really gained that much using 30" or 2x24" in comparison with the 15" monitor and 2000x2000 pixels virtual window I used to use in the past. Of course it's hard to argue that large monitors aren't nice, but I think the benefits for writing code are overstated.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  Apple IMHO has done much better with the widescreen format than Windows has - the UI paradigm does not encourage full screen use. Look at, say, Visual Studio - the thing is practically unusable without being fullscreened (unless you enjoy 200 pixels actual code editor). I've always felt widescreens to be a bit useless on Windows in that regard - the overfocus on fullscreen apps robs widescreen of its primary strenght: multitasking.
pmjordan 17y ago
I use a 2-column layout on a 30" Apple Cinema display. Each of the columns has a 4:5 (8:10) aspect ratio, which is actually excellent for programming. If you did this on the new iMac, you'd get 2x 8:9, which is still pretty good. You soon don't want to miss the high number of vertical pixels. What puts me off is the reflective finish. I can live with it on a 13" MacBook, but I'd find it impossible on that sort of size, where you're practically guaranteed to get a light source into view. Oh, and the fact that the HDD isn't user serviceable. Two hard drive bays would be nice, too, considering there's no eSATA or ExpressCard.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

Can you use this as an external monitor? A few folks, including this article, make it sound like you're buying a monitor and getting a computer for "free". But if it's like previous iMacs then you're buying a monitor that can only be used with the "free" computer. If that is the case then that's a good reason for Apple getting a good deal. There's no way for this to cannibalize sales of actual monitors, unless the buyer was planning to weld it irreversibly and permanently to a Mac mini. Which also renders any price comparison moot. It's a thing unto itself, only really directly comparable with other iMacs.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
yardie 17y ago
Yes, you can. The display port is bi-directional. In a sort of quirky way. Apple has addressed one of the longest lingering questions of the iMac line (and basically all AIO lines). People upgrade the PC but could reuse the display. With an AIO everything had to go.
- elblanco 17y ago
  This is definitely a cool feature. edit okay, go ahead and downvote, apparently bidirectional connection ports in lieu of mono-directional ones are not a cool feature to somebody.
- maukdaddy 17y ago
  The one problem, at least environmentally, is that you can't use the display without also having the entire "computer" part running. This means you're consuming XX extra watts the entire time.
  - harpastum 17y ago
    I'm not sure of this, but I assume the default behavior would be putting the imac itself to sleep when it was connected to an external video source. This would use a bit more power than a simple display, but not much.

barrkel 17y ago

The Dell monitor pricing he quotes - $1200 for LCD - is pretty gougey too. Dell hardware is generally bad value unless it's on special offer, a bare-bones system (in which case it'll lack extensibility), or part of a corporate purchase.

Tichy 17y ago
My 24'' monitor from Dell is great, it was not very expensive, and it has served me well for years now. I think you generalize too much (also, never buy from the consumer section). My X1 from Dell is also great, I love it much more than my generic MacBook.
- barrkel 17y ago
  My Dell 2407WFP is great too, but I bought it at a 40% discount. The price fluctuated between list and discount at seemingly random intervals.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    True, at Dell you have to catch the right moment. But I suppose there is a system behind it, maybe if it is important one could figure it out (also, always CALL Dell - usually they can give you better prices). Maybe if you need a monitor right now, it is a problem. But I had another one, and when I heard about the good price, I just upgraded at that moment. Could have been any other moment, too.
    - yardie 17y ago
      It's an accounting trick. Dell needs to sell a certain amount of goods every quarter. Well they price things to move and load any debt onto next quarters books. Eventually you reach a point like today. Dell has so much debt that it eats into future earnings. This reflects in the stock price. Apple's market cap is 160billion dollars, with 35 billion in reserve. Dells cap is 30 billion dollars. Realistically, Apple could buy Dell in cash. While the deals are great for endusers, they are cutting their own throats to move product. One thing you can't ignore about Apple, they make profit on everything they sell (no loss leaders there). To an investor, that is a good buy.

eleitl 17y ago

Dell 27" sells for 879 USD. Dell's 30" for about 1200 USD. So, no, the computer at the back is not exactly free.

jbellis 17y ago
The dell 27" is much lower-resolution, though.
- eleitl 17y ago
  Completely, entirely irrelevant. It's the panel size and type that matters.
potatolicious 17y ago
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=223-9379 http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/product... "Panel Type: VA - Vertical alignment" The Apple screen, on top of being higher resolution, is also a IPS panel, which gives much better viewing angles as well as color reproduction. It is the only type of LCD suitable for photo/video work. For a bunch of people who complain a lot about getting good value for your dollar (and how Apple doesn't do that), you sure are misinformed about the gear you're buying. I suppose as long as it throws some kind of image up on screen it's good right?
- eleitl 17y ago
  Nice that you assume I don't know what kind of panels Dell uses (currently e-IPS and S-PVA, 8 bit) while Apple hitherto was, to put it politely, not known for using quality panels in their offering (TN <cough> 6 bit <coughcough>). I'm glad to Cupertino is at least up to snuff when it comes to Dell. Took sure their sweet time doing that. The only kind of displays suitable for professional work are the expensive kind that comes with an external calibrator. Neither Dell nor Apple sells these. Next time, please don't assume people are ignorant.

cyman 17y ago

This is it. I think I am converting to a Mac. The last reason I didn't was because there's a common perception that they're priced too high. Unless this is a misprint, that time is over.

elblanco 17y ago
$1700 for the next to lowest end offering is too high. Dell doesn't even break $1000 territory until you get to their upper end offerings. For $1700 you could buy two computers and a laptop (or two computers and two netbooks).
- davidmathers 17y ago
  Dell doesn't sell a 27-inch 2560 by 1440 LED display. I would pay $1000 for it today if it were for sale. Some people would pay more than me.
  - elblanco 17y ago
    I was talking about the computers. $1700 is far too much for a low end system, monitor or no monitor. Those specs (sans display) are available for <$500. I'd put the price on this system at no more than $1400 at the high end. Apple is making a very nice margin on this kit. But to that end the iMac isn't a LED display either, it's LED backlit. If I could find a $1000 27" 2560x1440 LED or O-LED display I'd be in line in front of you.
    - davidmathers 17y ago
      I'm not following you. $800 for the display $500 for the computer components $100 for the aluminum case $100 for the wireless keyboard and hi-tech mouse $100 for OS X and iLife $100 for beautiful industrial design $1700 sounds like a fine deal to me. I'm tempted to buy one right now, but I'm forcing myself to wait for the first component refresh that will come in 6 or 8 months. Core 2 Duo is about to go obsolete.
      - 17y ago

Tichy 17y ago

I would guess the real reason is mentioned at the end: there really is not much of a point in buying a desktop PC anymore (unless you are a hardcore gamer). It makes much more sense to buy a notebook and attach it to an external monitor when working at home. Also prices for flatscreens are dropping all the time. If the Dell 30'' also has the special panel, and only is lacking in some other specs, maybe enhancing those other specs is not as expensive as adding the better panel type (whether they are important or not is another matter - if you WANT to spend a lot of money, you can always find a reason, like "this audio system does not have gold coated cables" or whatever). In any case this makes me hope for a price drop of the 30'' Dell displays...

Retric 17y ago
I have a laptop from work that can I take with me on trips. I also have an iPhone for internet access on the go. So I don't see the need to buy another portable computer.
- Tichy 17y ago
  The point is not having to sync stuff between multiple computers. Of course if you fully embrace "the cloud" it might be less of an issue, but that is not for everyone.

morphir 17y ago

when I got my Macbook Alu - I got baffled by its high quality and sleekness. The 13" Macbook Alu was a bargain relative to its quality. When I experienced the unboxing, I felt like a 16 year old virgin girl..and I'm a boy.. ehehe One year later - and there are still no other company that can offer a similar high quality laptop. Thinkpad has pretty much crashed and burned after china got their hands the product management. I guarantee you that this 27" will provide a first time apple owner with a unboxing experience you will never forget. It will simply raise the bar for how you perceive quality.

Tichy 17y ago
"It will simply raise the bar for how you perceive quality." Unless you have to return it three times before you receive one that has no extreme production flaws (happened to a friend with his iMac - mind you, he is still an Apple fan boy despite of that experience...).
- morphir 17y ago
  all mass production companies have products that fail now and then. But ok, what computer/brand would you recommend?
  - Tichy 17y ago
    I am not up to date on hardware at the moment, so I can't comment. Usually I check Dell first (but the notebooks tend to be too ugly, so I can't really recommend them. I don't know their current lineup). For notebooks I tend to like Samsung, but at the moment unfortunately they use that awful shiny Klavierlack coating (as do many other hardware manufacturers). Hope that goes away soon, then they might be recommendable again.

mechanical_fish 17y ago

This is making me wish I'd read the article that went by a couple days ago with a headline like "Are new Apple iMacs a harbinger of the new Apple TV?" Because if I felt like mongering a crazy Apple-related rumor on a subject which I know nothing about [1], I'd guess that one good way to get a manufacturer to grant you a crazy price break is to tell them that, as soon as they can ramp up production to the necessary levels, Apple will release an Ive-designed Apple-branded TV with their parts inside it and have Steve Jobs stand on stage to promote that TV. --- [1] Which, according to the empirical evidence of this post, I apparently do. I need to get some more sleep.

kburn 17y ago
Apple would have to get their playback environment up to media center standards. Even the Apple TV was a usability nightmare by home theater standards.

zandorg 17y ago

This 15" HP Omnibook 6100 (made in 2001) has a huge (1400x1050) screen - I can't find anything like it.

mbreese 17y ago
That's a common resolution. I have a Thinkpad T42 with that same 15" screen, although, that resolution equally common at 14" (my wife has a T43 with that resolution). The iMac 27" is really a unique resolution, largely due to I believe, the change in aspect ratio.
kajecounterhack 17y ago
I have a 15" Dell Precision M70 (4 years old now, overheats regularly) with 1920x1200 res, haha. Yeah, things show up pretty small but really clear.

elblanco 17y ago

$300 Mac Netbook. http://gizmodo.com/5389166/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-10v-into-the-ultimate-os-x-netbook http://gizmodo.com/5389166/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-10v...