Move on troll, there's nothing to see here.
Your iMac's screen to shiny for you? The next version of the Apple desktop will have a reflection resistant coating applied to its ('retina'?) display, it has been claimed. Says a piece on DigiTimes yesterday: Taiwan's G-Tech Optoelectronics is expected to supply anti-reflective glass for Apple's all-in-one computers, …
For the people it is aimed at.
Good - never did understand the idiotic "shinier than hell" screen tech fad. Admittedly, colours can look more vibrant on these screens... but only on the rare occasions that the damn thing isn't working like a mirror and reflecting the lights from windows, lights, clothing or just other systems (also as a rule, useless outdoors, but so are many displays).
"Using existing anti-reflective tech would reduce the vibrancy of the displays' colours, something Apple is keen to avoid"
That's funny, because the screens we use have an anti-reflective coating and give 98% of the AdobeRGB Colourspace; while the iScreens have around 60% (IIRC) and don't have anti-reflective coatings. Also our cameras have anti-reflective coatings on the optics and have >100% of AdobeRGB, so are even more vibrant.
It seems to me that their screens could be both more vibrant and also actually let you see the picture you want, rather than a reflection of everything around you.
As for the MBP, the anti-shinny screen is very nice, and something similar on the new iPad would be very nice to go with that new screen :)
I think you're conflating vibrancy and accuracy. I will say for the benefit of fairness that Apple's screens are much better than the industry average for colour reproduction, but the shiny coating seems to be a consumer-oriented attempt to give the colours extra pop rather than an attempt better to please people who concern themselves with colour spaces.
I know professional photographers who work directly on Apple screens for their entire production line but when I was in publishing it was more common for companies with a strong interest in colour correctness to buy monitors worth at least two or three times the cost of a Mac, to connect to their Macs.
This is one of those areas where I keep hoping consumer-priced machines will make progress but it seems consumers don't care about gamuts so there's no real reason for manufacturers to expend the effort.
The screens I use give 379% of AdobeRGB and have triple anti-reflective coating. Who am I? I dunno. Who are you? I dunno no-one knows, who cares, I'm off to eat some chocolate.
Why would you buy an all-in-one anyway?
Wifi not working? "TAKE THE WHOLE BLOOMING THING PLZ DON'T FACTORY RESTORE IT KK"
For the love of Atheismo, build one for half the price. Pick the monitor. The world won't cave in on itself.
... they already have.
It's called a "Mac mini".
You might want to take a look at Apple's website before posting next time. You'll find the URL rather easy to work out.
> Why would you buy an all-in-one anyway?
Most people these days buy all-in-ones. They just happen to fold in half for portability. All Apple have done is put in a bigger screen which make them non-portable. No-one else does space/quality/function for desktops like Apple.
Has anyone seen a screen which is as good as Apple's which has built-in speakers and a webcam? Dell probably has the closest screen (u2711?) but it doesn't appear to have a webcam and a dongly thing and cable down the back isn't appealing. Even the dell speakers are a bit of an add-on. I have no idea why dell haven't put a webcam in. It only needs to be good enough for skype. I built a hackintosh. It was noisy and that one factor alone meant it spent its time switched off which meant that it wasn't that useful. One purchase mistake and I've been doing IT for a long time. Most consumers wouldn't dream of going out on their own with that sort of decision.
Yes there are things I don't like about the imac. Not enough USB ports is one. I'd like multiple NICs so I can run a storage SAN. I'd love to be able to use the screen for output from my PC and a couple of eSATA ports would be nice so I can use my 24x7 desktop as a storage server, rather than needing a separate host to do all the backend work. An included iscsi client might be rather good too. However, this is not the market Apple are aiming for with the imac.
Actually things might be changing with Windows 7. I understand it is iscsi-bootable which means that you could use your work laptop at home with an extra screen. Let's hope thunderbolt takes off and allows a decent external GPU system and that crummy consumer-grade routers include gigabit switches as standard. Or a PCIex16 docking station which doesn't cost the same as a pc might be nice. If the docking station has an ARM storage server in it, this could be the death of the home-pc.
In business, many companies go for the one-stop vendor. iMac has pretty much done the same for consumer IT. It isn't the best in all areas, but it is good enough over enough domains that the trade-offs are acceptable to many consumers. It is neat enough for the lounge, large enough to be a telly, powerful enough for video, a few games and any "productivity" apps and internet stuff. Even an old core2 is fast enough to convert an avi to tablet format in less than 15 minutes. My faster PC with more screens and more storage sits on a desk next to the mac and spends most of its time switched off. When you consider the power of the computers that most people use for work and the resource left after running AV and group policies, a Mac seems positively speedy.
You don't have to be brilliant to win, you just have to be better than those around you.
I seem to think that the minis are no longer comparable with the mid- and high-end iMacs. The graphics have not kept up. Probably due to cooling issues.
Without a DVD slot they aren't even that good as under-the-telly devices any more. No Apple, I don't want to stream everything from itunes. I like the outing to the video store at the end of the road. I like the option of popping the DVD in a work laptop running pxe-booted linux because I didn't feel like buying myself a mac laptop when I already had free windows one.
And now, Apple will probably lose the market to a Raspberry Pi or similar. A screenless, batteryless transformer prime might be rather nice, eh, Samsung?
Re: > Why would you buy an all-in-one anyway?
Moles have bad eyesight and dont generally use computers anyway
so i'd take what they say with a pinch of salt.
I hope they do the same for the Cinema Displays. Glossy screens are too much of a distraction with the glare. I want a monitor, not a mirror.
How can they do this? It will make the screen look dull and boring in the shop, and let you actually see what you're doing when you're using the machine at home instead of looking at the reflection of your own shirt...
Apple choosing functionality over appearance... I guess Satan is good to go with his ice cream parlour plans now.
RTFA. Apple have been offering non-glossy displays for their laptops for years.
As Apple sells a lot more laptops than desktops, it's hardly a big shock that they've not bothered trying to confuse their smaller desktop market with yet more SKUs than they already offer. People who want fancy monitors can always buy a second display tailored to their exact needs. (Or they could always just buy a Mac mini or Mac Pro instead, depending on their requirements. iMacs are specifically aimed at consumers, not professionals.)
If Apple are going ahead with their "retina display" push to all their hardware, it makes more sense to specify an anti-glare coating option at the same time, given that it would require some changes to the panel manufacturing process anyway. So it makes sense to introduce it with a new model. Always assuming this is more than mere rumour and speculation. Which it probably isn't.
Nokia actually released an entry level candybar with a screen with a semi reflective coating I recall. That's right they took a shiny screen, and made it extra extra shiny! What in the name of Lucifer's Rusty Shitting Sherrif's Badge were they thinking?!?!
Re: OMG! (@Suburban inmate)
A friend of mine once had a phone that advertised on the box the fact that the screen could be used as a compact mirror while switched off. I almost bought one myself, just to reward that level of gall!
Guess they can't use Nokia's tech
since they couldn't claim to be the only ones... Nokia's ClearBlack display sounds like it's exactly what they need: http://www.oled-info.com/nokia-clearblack-display-cbd