[Mugge]

Originally Posted by Roboman Apple was still shipping Combo drives in their computers this year. Apple's just never been an early adopter of this sort of thing — see CD-R. Doesn't mean it won't happen. Doesn't mean it will, but hey. That's Apple.

That combo drive thing was just Apple's way of politely suggesting that you should spend a little more money and go pro. And I also think that Apple's vision of the future is entirely devoid of optical drives. They are rarely used and that up a lot of space in a notebook.

[PB PM]

So back to the SD Card. SD doesn't look the choice of professional cameras or video, at least not until the XC spec arrives. Wouldn't it be more useful to provide an ExpressCard slot? Of course if they are going to use SD cards, then let's have them on everything (in addition to Expresscard, or when it arrives, USB3) It could be a useful way to distribute software and share files. Plug in the card and it just works...

Consumers use SD, which is the majority of the people who would use the slot, so that is what Apple provides. SD is the future, CF is too large, which limits how the cameras can be designed, and SD cards are getting to be just as fast. That is why SD cards made their way into the D300s, and other new mid-range DSLRs.

[Noel]

Originally Posted by CitizenTony I was really just wondering how you got access to the internals at all. I thought on the outgoing model that you just popped off the black plastic back and went about your business. On these, the thing looks solid and I can't see a seam. I know the glass is just held in with magnets or something, so I guess that's how you gain access now. I'll just have to wait and see I guess. It's the thing I like most about the current Apple line-up. The inside is arguably more beautiful than the exterior.

Nope, on the previous models you couldn't remove the plastic back. You had to actually use a pair of large suction cups (which Apple provides to repair centers, along with cleaning cloths and rubber-coated gloves) on two diagonally opposing corners of the glass in front of the LCD panel to lift it away from the magnets that held it in place, and then remove the LCD panel, to get to the guts. I'm sure the new one is more or less the same.

[Matsu]

I had an old 3MP Canon P&S with a CF card. It was pretty small.

The D300s didn't get any smaller relative to the D300. The dimensions of the mount in a DSLR design impose limits on the size and design of the body. Even for the smallest micro4/3 camera, a CF card fits comfortably. Which is not to say that the industry won't eventually standardize around the smaller SD card. The sooner we get rid of the alphabet soup of card formats, the better. When the SDXC spec arrives that should go a long way to providing the headroom needed for professional applications.

We'll see how it stacks up against CFast when they both arrive... For now, the best CF cards are considerably faster than the best SD cards. 90MB/s vs 45MB/s. Most of the SD cards out there are class 6 to 10, fast enough for sustained video, not as fast as the 266X and up CF cards, but also cheaper/MB. Not a bad solution, both CF and SDHC are hitting a wall now. Iguess that's why we have CFast and SDXC coming.

If they do put SDXC on everything that would be good. There's an SDIO buried in the standard that would allow for peripheral interconnects, but USB3 is faster. 300MB/s ain't bad though.

CF based units have the advantage of functioning like a disk, cheap SSD anyone?

Each has its advantages...

The disadvantage for Apple customers is that most of them are locked out of any benefit from these imminent technologies. The first SDXC card is already on the market, though no camera exists to match it, yet. USB2 and FW800 don't come close to 300MB/s and only a very small fraction of new macs have any provision to add either USB3 or FW S3200...

[PB PM]

The D300s was a minor update, not worthy of a body redesign (never happens with "s" updates, and it unlikely they would drop CF on a semi-Pro camera at this stage anyway, I'm talking long term here.

Considering there isn't a single DSLR on the market today that can take advantage of 90MB/s UDMA cards, it doesn't mean much. It is unlikely we will see any that can push those cards for a few years yet. In any case, the faster cards only matter when you are downloading images to your machine (that's 90MB/s read, not write). Also, unless you are using an external FW800 card reader, or you shoot sports or other fast action (high frame rates) you are wasting your money on high end CF cards anyway, as the D300(s) only reads at 10MB/s via the internal USB2 port.

Also the size of CF cards, doesn't matter so much in terms of the size and shape of the camera so much as the space that it takes up inside the camera. I would hardly call $45-60 (Cdn) 4GB Sandisk Extreme III CF cards "cheap SSDs", if anything they are extremely expensive.

[Matsu]

Shoot a burst with a slow card and then one with a fast card and you'll see a difference on the D300. Slower cards will definitely bottleneck it after a burst of 6fps 12MP images. I shot a couple of news events when basically a tornado touched down in our neighbourhood. In the excitement there were few times when the camera took a few seconds to catch-up.

The D300s is likely more immune to buffer writes -- it should have a deeper buffer because of the video function.

[PB PM]

Also, unless you are using an external FW800 card reader, or you shoot sports or other fast action (high frame rates) you are wasting your money on high end CF cards anyway, as the D300(s) only reads at 10MB/s via the internal USB2 port.

Did you read this part of my post? ^^^

I totally understand, about the buffer filling, that is why I use Sandisk Extreme III (45mb/s edition) cards in my D300. The D300s has the same buffer, at least that is what the owners at Dpreview are saying. Considering I can get 17 RAW frames off before the buffer fills, I don't see speed being an issue.

Anyway, we are getting way off topic, this is about the iMac.

[addison]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 You've come a long way, baby! ...Quite the progression! And a $100 price drop.

If you want to take inflation into consideration that $1299 is equivalent to $1721.13 in today's money.

[PB PM]

If only people's income went up as fast as inflation.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by AWM If you want to take inflation into consideration that $1299 is equivalent to $1721.13 in today's money.

So you could actually get the 27-incher with a terabyte disk for less than the original iMac! Wow.

I love my Mac mini to pieces and I'm still wowed by how fast it is but I've decided that if I ever sell my novel I'm going to pick up one of the new iMacs for myself as a present. I haven't liked an iMac this much since the iMac G4*, which is kind of funny because I've owned one in the interim (the late-model G5 with iSight). But I didn't like that one as much. Or as much as this. I mean, twenty. seven. inches. 27. XXVII.

That's huge! The vertical resolution of the 27-incher is equal to the horizontal resolution of my current monitor. I'd be getting nearly 3X the work space!

27.

I have been talking about this iMac upgrade all year but I didn't think we'd see a bigger display, I thought they'd just make the 24-inchers standard (and LED lit). But no, we get these awesome wider bigger screens. All that's left is to make the iPhone screen larger and 16:9 and I won't have anything left to post gripe about!

For some reason I never really got used to design of any of the previous "display" iMacs, but despite only being fairly minimal tweaks, the new iMac just felt right to me, from the very start. The changes to the glass made all the difference - it all looks so much less "heavy." The aluminum no longer dominates the front.

*) Which I still prefer, by the way, but I think I'll be able to finally move on now. It was a jolt, seeing the old "dome" on Apple's Environment page, talking about recycling! And it's on the new iMac's page, too. And somehow that acknowledgement of the greatness of the iMac G4 somehow makes it OK for me to move on.

It's like closure.

27!!!

[Maciej]

Unhealthy obsession with the number 27... First the CE forum now this.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Maciej Unhealthy obsession with the number 27... First the CE forum now this.

But it's huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's like a two, okay? A two. And then a seven.

!!!!!!!!

(Posted at 7:27 pm )

[psmith2.0]

I, too, like the "display is prominent" vibe of the new iMac (especially that 27" monster). Very little chin left, the black goes all the way to the end (and I like how it goes straight across the bottom, cleaning "whacking" the line between it and the remaining aluminum "chin").

It looks great.

I imagine - a couple of years from now - I'll be getting a 3.7GHz refurb entry-level model for $849 or so...

Can't wait!



But, it should go without saying, that if I hit the lottery between now and then, that $1,999 27" is mine, no question/hesitation!

[Maciej]

Originally Posted by Roboman But it's huge!!!!!!! Posted at 7:27 pm

Well it is biggest ever (right?) but it's no bigger than a 30 inch cinema display.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Very little chin left, the black goes all the way to the end (and I like how it goes straight across the bottom, cleaning "whacking" the line between it and the remaining aluminum "chin").

Exactly! The way the old glass "rounded" just never sat right with me. It looked oddly retro, like a fat stripe you'd find on the wall of a community center rec room in the seventies. But the new class just goes cleanly across, and it goes to the very edge. It looks less like you're looking at a solid brick of aluminum with a piece of glass stuck on top of it and more like you're looking at a piece of glass with an aluminum bar on the bottom. It makes all the difference in the world, visually.

Originally Posted by Maciej Well it is biggest ever (right?) but it's no bigger than a 30 inch cinema display.

Yeah - and that display alone costs more than the 27-inch iMac.



And it's not LED backlit, and it's not even significantly higher resolution (an extra 160 horizontal lines). And to use it with any modern Mac you have to add a costly ($100) adapter. Compared to the 30" Cinema HD Display, the 27-inch iMac is even more of a steal. I mean, all told it's $200 less, which wouldn't be a bad price for just a 27-inch LED-lit display in comparison. But - oh yeah! - it has a computer built in, too.

[psmith2.0]

A head's up to everyone about some significant ($100 and up) savings going on across various vendors, with yesterday's items included in the mix (the new $999 MacBook for $899, $100+ off the new iMacs, etc.).



http://www.appleinsider.com/articles... ook_pros.html

I'm certainly not "spamming", but I saw that latest article at AppleInsider and I figure that's fair game, right? It's legit deals from recognized outfits, and I just wanted to let everyone know about them!

Apologies in advance if I've somehow violated good taste, decorum and posting guidelines (but you know you're happy to know the above).

[Maciej]

Oh yeah, no argument there. The 27" iMac is a way better deal. My only gripe os the video card. Apple should have put something more modern in, like a 5750 - especially if they really are running new desktop processors. And I don't think the new generation of ATI chips has a significantly higher TDP.

Apple has some really neat hardware out right now, it's gonna make choosing my next purchase difficult. Or mre difficult than before.

[Satchmo]

New iMac teardown...so much for easy access to the iMac's internal parts.

[psmith2.0]

So odd they've not figured out a way to allow easy, customer access to the iMac's hard drive cage/bay (or whatever it's officially called). You can easily upgrade the hard drive on their MacBook and MacBook Pro lines. I know it might not be as big a deal now, with these 1TB hard drives. But even before, the past four or so years, the iMac has been "welded shut" (that first iMac G5, you could easily remove the rear panel for access).

I know that has to be frustrating to people. I plan on having this iMac for another two years, so there might be a time when dropping in a 500GB-1TB hard drive might make sense. But I can't, and I'd have to go with an external unit (which I just don't like doing...stuff in two places, some files here, others there, etc.). Plus, I'm permanently eating up a USB or FireWire port.



Just a little trap-door, Apple? Something.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 So odd they've not figured out a way to allow easy, customer access to the iMac's hard drive cage/bay (or whatever it's officially called). You can easily upgrade the hard drive on their MacBook and MacBook Pro lines. I know it might not be as big a deal now, with these 1TB hard drives. But even before, the past four or so years, the iMac has been "welded shut" (that first iMac G5, you could easily remove the rear panel for access). I know that has to be frustrating to people. I plan on having this iMac for another two years, so there might be a time when dropping in a 500GB-1TB hard drive might make sense. But I can't, and I'd have to go with an external unit (which I just don't like doing...stuff in two places, some files here, others there, etc.). Plus, I'm permanently eating up a USB or FireWire port. Just a little trap-door, Apple? Something.

They probably could do it, but they don't want to, because then people wouldn't buy their expensive BTO options. I think the only reason Apple even lets you upgrade the RAM is because even most Mac fans would consider that to be going too far. And yet they still have two models (MacBook Air and Mac Mini) that don't let you easily upgrade the RAM. Apple is the only company that could get away with this.

If I recall, the Mac Plus (first Mac with expandable RAM and the ability to connect fast external devices using SCSI) didn't come out until after Steve Jobs left because he would have never allowed an expandable Mac to hit the market under his watch. Things have changed since then and upgradable RAM and fast I/O are considered standard issue on all computers, but that won't change Jobs' love of appliance-like, sealed-box designs. It makes the computer prettier while also improving their profits.

[Matsu]

The bottom panel of the Macbook looks nice enough. How hard would it be to make the back cover the the iMac removable via four nicely machined thumbscrews?

[Maciej]

Originally Posted by Matsu The bottom panel of the Macbook looks nice enough. How hard would it be to make the back cover the the iMac removable via four nicely machined thumbscrews?

Well the guts would have to attach to something? Wouldn't they? The front is all glass, the back comes off, that would mean rigging up a chassis and attaching it to the sides of the housing. It would probably bulk things up a bit and require a little bit of reengineering.

[psmith2.0]

...which is why I don't think the entire back needs to come off (why?). Just a little door/access panel, directly over the hard drive. But I don't know if that's trickier, or more demanding, than the entire rear panel. But I'd think not.



If they allow it on the notebooks, where stuff is crammed even tighter (I would imagine), seems they could on the iMac. It's an "on purpose" decision on their part, for whatever reason. They used to allow it, now they don't. But they still do on the notebooks.

You tell me. I can't make sense of it...

[Satchmo]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 ...which is why I don't think the entire back needs to come off (why?). Just a little door/access panel, directly over the hard drive.

Probably because that would create an unsightly seam to the 'gorgeous a-lu-minium' back.
God forbid function trumps form.

Far be it from me to understand the technical issues associated with creating an access panel, but it could be as anal as that.

[joveblue]

Or they could make the panel on the bottom, like the RAM panel is...

[Robo]

Originally Posted by joveblue Or they could make the panel on the bottom, like the RAM panel is...

That's what I was thinking. I think they might be using that extra width for improved speakers, but at least on the 27-inch model...I mean that model is like 8cm wider than the 24" iMac.

[psmith2.0]

I just got off the phone with my local Best Buy. They've got the new iMacs and white MacBook in stock and on display. It's so tempting to drive out and play with them for a bit (lay my eyes on them in real life), but a Friday night might be a bit nutty and hectic.

He said the 27" model is "ridiculously huge...and niiice".



Apparently a "bit of a crowd has gathered" because they'd just finished setting them up a little while ago, so everyone's checking them out.

But that's good because I didn't want them keeping the old-style 20" and 24" as the display units, or the older white MacBook.

And I didn't know this, but he told me that they don't carry the Mac mini (the cheapest Mac of all!) in-store...it's a BestBuy.com web-order only product.



Interesting. And odd...

That's a total "switcher machine", and I would think they'd fly out the door (certainly more than the 15" and 17" MacBook and the MacBook Air...all of which they do stock and sell there).

I wonder why that is? Seems odd that they'd go through the trouble of carrying Macs and setting up a nice display section for them. But then neglect to carry the one model that people in a town like this might be most interested in (and able to afford).

[Robo]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 And I didn't know this, but he told me that they don't carry the Mac mini (the cheapest Mac of all!) in-store...it's a BestBuy.com web-order only product. Interesting. And odd... That's a total "switcher machine", and I would think they'd fly out the door (certainly more than the 15" and 17" MacBook and the MacBook Air...which they do stock and sell there). I wonder why that is? Seems odd that they'd go through the trouble of carrying Macs and setting up a nice display section for them. But then neglect to carry the one model that people in a town like this might be most interested in (and able to afford).

I think the Mac mini is one of the lowest-volume Macs, just above the Mac Pro. It might be above the MacBook Air, too, idunno - but Apple's sort of "holy trinity" has long been MacBook, iMac, MacBook Pro.

The thing is I wonder how much of that has to do with Apple themselves sort of neglecting it. It's like, from the very beginning they decided they didn't want it to be a success. And I don't think they've ever had an ad for it, which is just bizarre. I think with one solid add campaign over the holiday season (maybe that "This is the Mac" sort of ad we've always talked about) they would just sell a boatload of them.

It's almost like they don't want to, like they themselves view it as something less than a full Mac. Which it's not.

[psmith2.0]

They've always treated it like the redheaded bastard demon-spawned stepchild.

Apologies to any 'Novan redheaded bastards and demon-spawned stepchildren, of course...



"Low volume" or not (and why could that be, you think? It ain't gonna get "high-volume" if nobody knows it even exists)...put the damn thing on the table, put an info card and price tag on it like all the others and let customers decide if it's the machine for them or not.



Kinda bugs me to think how many Macs haven't been sold there locally because folks walk in and the cheapest thing they see is a 13" notebook going for $999.

Hell, at least put it out there if, for no other reason, than as an "upsell" launchpad.

Or simply put it on display (even if you don't stock it), and have it hooked to a third-party LCD and Microsoft mouse to really drive home the point that "hey, you can buy this cool little silver 'Kleenex box' and use it with all your existing stuff!"

Does that not represent loads of appeal to a potential convert/switcher?!

Why's that so hard for someone at Apple (or Best Buy?) to figure out? In fact, that would be the perfect display for it...don't pair it with an Apple display or mouse at all! That's half of the charm of the thing...buy it, yank out your old tower, drop the mini in its place, reconnect a few cables and you're there!

I'm kicking somebody in the butt tomorrow when I go over there...

[Robo]

Forget a display. How about an ad? Show people getting rid of their old computers - make it cutesy and funny, have them throw them out the window or whatever - and then plug in their existing keyboard and mouse and display. Have a voice-over, tying it into Windows 7 upgrade hullabaloo, and then display "Mac mini," "$599," and the Apple logo.

Or how about: [shot of a PC tower]

"You would never believe how easy it is to upgrade your PC to the latest operating system."

[person places Mac mini on top of tower, plugs in existing peripherals]

"Done."

This isn't rocket science, but Apple would rather everybody buy iMacs and MacBooks. The thing is, a lot of people will never drop $1,000+ on their first Mac. But once they "try out" Mac mini, they might on their second Mac. I think your "switching" experiences sort of show that, pscates. Apple knows this - that's why they made the Mac mini in the first place - but they need to drive it home with some ads, touting the Mac mini's low price. I would be incredibly surprised if the #1 reason people didn't buy a Mac wasn't cost.