lynziwow
Nov 25, 10:16 PM
I'm a manager at an eyewear boutique. This is not Sunglasses Hut. We do not carry Oakley. We specialize in high-end, independent, mostly European designers that most people haven't heard of.
$400 is average for a pair of frames. The average pair of rx glasses without insurance is between $700 and $900.
I have never seen a case as intense as that gun case used to protect eyewear, ever! But don't take offense, each to his own.
Just wanted to raise awareness to all these people stating that $200-$400 is "expensive" for eyewear when they are spending $$$$$$ on phones, computers, tvs, etc; which are probably replaced more frequently than the glasses which help them see and are the first accessory others see on them.
Glasses should be as important of an investment as your fancy electronics.
Check out these brands if you're interested: ic! Berlin, Face a Face, Orgreen, Bevel, undostrial, strada del sol, historie du voire, theo, and so many more.
- eyewear nerd:cool:
$400 is average for a pair of frames. The average pair of rx glasses without insurance is between $700 and $900.
I have never seen a case as intense as that gun case used to protect eyewear, ever! But don't take offense, each to his own.
Just wanted to raise awareness to all these people stating that $200-$400 is "expensive" for eyewear when they are spending $$$$$$ on phones, computers, tvs, etc; which are probably replaced more frequently than the glasses which help them see and are the first accessory others see on them.
Glasses should be as important of an investment as your fancy electronics.
Check out these brands if you're interested: ic! Berlin, Face a Face, Orgreen, Bevel, undostrial, strada del sol, historie du voire, theo, and so many more.
- eyewear nerd:cool:
swingerofbirch
Aug 24, 06:10 PM
finally a rumor!
after weeks of speculation on the forums, a front page rumor feels fact!
holding my thumbs for a conroe imac! (a swedish expression...i think?)
after weeks of speculation on the forums, a front page rumor feels fact!
holding my thumbs for a conroe imac! (a swedish expression...i think?)
tk421
Jul 14, 12:23 AM
Meh, Apple came out with that Express Card slot for the MacBook Pro kind of early as well...but I'm with most people in arguing that a blue-ray drive won't see the light of day in Apple computers until early 2007.
Good point, and this isn't just with Express Card, either. Apple was an early adopter with 802.11b (with the original iBook, I think). They were early to drop the floppy drive, too.
I for one would love a Blu-Ray drive, but I understand that others might not. They should make it a BTO option.
Good point, and this isn't just with Express Card, either. Apple was an early adopter with 802.11b (with the original iBook, I think). They were early to drop the floppy drive, too.
I for one would love a Blu-Ray drive, but I understand that others might not. They should make it a BTO option.
Lollypop
Jul 20, 03:33 AM
Gah. The Linux community doesn't want to unify. In fact, not unifying is the core of their philosophy. The vast majority of Linux users (ie, non-n00bs) don't really give a crap about mass adoption of Linux. Many even view such a possibility with horror and disgust. The only priority is choice. It's why there are 415 distributions (none of which are compatible with each other), 9,843 window managers (none of which have remotely similar configuration options), and 3.43x10^15 terminal emulators (none of which actually emulate terminals any better or worse than any other one).
Waving the "king of the OS hill" prize in front of a bunch of Linux users/developers will only result in them staring at you like a dog that's been shown a card trick. With very few exceptions, only n00bs (and uncomprehending businessmen who think they can somehow profit) want mass adoption of Linux.
This is a very true statement! With all the different features of the different distributions there will never be a singular Linux out there. People dont want to download the source and compile it, even the best package managers dont really solve the problem, I want to download any application and run it, I dont want to have something check dependancies and then get teh appropriate version ect. The newest Suse enterprise desktop has a lot of Mac os like features, and claim to have done a lot of research into user interface optomization ect, but thats only Suse, what about the rest, Linux will never have a singular unified front, and that is its achilees heel, and the macs inherant strenght (ok so the mac isnt that unified anymore)
I hope apple continues the trends they showed this quater, more and more people need to exposed to the mac, and more and more people will switch.
Waving the "king of the OS hill" prize in front of a bunch of Linux users/developers will only result in them staring at you like a dog that's been shown a card trick. With very few exceptions, only n00bs (and uncomprehending businessmen who think they can somehow profit) want mass adoption of Linux.
This is a very true statement! With all the different features of the different distributions there will never be a singular Linux out there. People dont want to download the source and compile it, even the best package managers dont really solve the problem, I want to download any application and run it, I dont want to have something check dependancies and then get teh appropriate version ect. The newest Suse enterprise desktop has a lot of Mac os like features, and claim to have done a lot of research into user interface optomization ect, but thats only Suse, what about the rest, Linux will never have a singular unified front, and that is its achilees heel, and the macs inherant strenght (ok so the mac isnt that unified anymore)
I hope apple continues the trends they showed this quater, more and more people need to exposed to the mac, and more and more people will switch.
jake4ever
Apr 2, 01:36 AM
Use the dev version instead. A lot more stable than the beta one.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
gugy
Nov 29, 04:27 PM
There is a huge interest by content providers (cable, networks, movie distributors, etc.) in utilizing the iTV(Front Row) interface to bring content to viewers.
Apple has a huge opportunity to bring even more content providers to their game. That's where I see iTV with a huge potential. Imagine companies like NBC, FOX, Warner, etc. have their own "channel" on iTV using front row to show their content. I think is very doable.
iTV will evolve into something much bigger IMHO than what Steve previewed. The potential is endless.
Apple has a huge opportunity to bring even more content providers to their game. That's where I see iTV with a huge potential. Imagine companies like NBC, FOX, Warner, etc. have their own "channel" on iTV using front row to show their content. I think is very doable.
iTV will evolve into something much bigger IMHO than what Steve previewed. The potential is endless.
Veg
Feb 28, 04:19 PM
What's it made out of? And I presume there's a third leg holding the back of the iMac foot up? Otherwise I'd be rather concerned about it falling out of balance during an intense typing session :o
You know what this forum needs? The ability to tag items in photos, sort of like how you tag people in FaceBook.
And I hate FaceBook.
We constructed it out of aluminum, it's the perfect material and looks great. Correct, it has a foot extending from the back that just barely stretches pass end of the stand.
Ha agreed.
You know what this forum needs? The ability to tag items in photos, sort of like how you tag people in FaceBook.
And I hate FaceBook.
We constructed it out of aluminum, it's the perfect material and looks great. Correct, it has a foot extending from the back that just barely stretches pass end of the stand.
Ha agreed.
gri
Apr 19, 11:33 AM
The iMac update is likely to be a spec bump, Sandy Bridge, better Graphics, etc...plus Thunderbolt. I plan to hang on to my current model for now.
I am more excited about a potential Mac Mini Update, because I need one of those.
And what prey makes you excited about an upcoming mini update? Or are you just hoping?
I am more excited about a potential Mac Mini Update, because I need one of those.
And what prey makes you excited about an upcoming mini update? Or are you just hoping?
m-dogg
Aug 29, 09:03 AM
This is the lowest end machine Apple makes. Let's be realistic. This is a reasonable update for the base model. And it's probably being done in advance of a Core 2 Duo update to the iMac.
CyberBob859
Jun 23, 03:10 PM
Remember this design? Maybe they THOUGHT it was a touch enabled iMac, but just the iPad in a dock that looked like an iMac:
http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/01/imac-dock3.jpg
Something like this could be feasible now that the iPad is out. Throw in the rumored MagicPad and the Magic Mouse, along with a slim keyboard, and voila, a touch enabled iMac-like computer.
Just a thought.
http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/01/imac-dock3.jpg
Something like this could be feasible now that the iPad is out. Throw in the rumored MagicPad and the Magic Mouse, along with a slim keyboard, and voila, a touch enabled iMac-like computer.
Just a thought.
fastlane1588
Sep 5, 08:37 AM
come on mbp!
hayesk
Apr 12, 10:09 PM
Supposedly the guy behind this new version is also the criminal that destroyed iMovie a few years back. God I hope FC8 isn't ANYTHING like iMovie. Old editors are too set in our ways to switch over to a iMovie/Sony Vegas style of editing. I need a preview window, and a Timeline Window. Just like when I edited on tape.
When you get to a point when you refuse change just because it's change, it's probably time to retire.
When you get to a point when you refuse change just because it's change, it's probably time to retire.
twoodcc
Aug 29, 10:15 AM
UPDATE:
It looks like the GMA X3000 is ready to go now, but a Yonah coupled with a X3000 IGP would still make the Mini a great machine.
wow, now that would be something
It looks like the GMA X3000 is ready to go now, but a Yonah coupled with a X3000 IGP would still make the Mini a great machine.
wow, now that would be something
jaw04005
May 2, 10:17 PM
Now, if Microsoft and Adobe would just get on board with this for their Mac applications. Office and Creative Suite spew crap everywhere. :rolleyes:
artifex
Sep 7, 05:18 AM
Okay, I need to upgrade to this one.
Anyone know a good market value to ask for my current Rev. A Mini 1.42, with 3rd party upgrade to 1GB ram? This is my first Apple, so obviously my first experience in trying to sell off my old one to help pay for a new one...
Anyone know a good market value to ask for my current Rev. A Mini 1.42, with 3rd party upgrade to 1GB ram? This is my first Apple, so obviously my first experience in trying to sell off my old one to help pay for a new one...
Joshknightmare
Apr 19, 08:44 PM
YES! AN IMAC RUMOR. <3
>Thunder Bolt
>Sandy Bridge quad
>8GB RAM 1666Mhz (standard)
>5000 - 6000 ATI Radeon HD
>30" Inch/24" Inch
>HD Cam
My predictions/wishes.
>Thunder Bolt
>Sandy Bridge quad
>8GB RAM 1666Mhz (standard)
>5000 - 6000 ATI Radeon HD
>30" Inch/24" Inch
>HD Cam
My predictions/wishes.
iqwertyi
Nov 27, 11:46 PM
Christmas Presents for friends and family :)
redAPPLE
Nov 28, 10:14 AM
imo, like in sports, a loss is a loss.
kultschar
Mar 26, 09:43 AM
Would seem a good next step is to empower the ATV with this kind of processing power, while allowing the use of iphones/touches/ipads as controllers. Imaging HUDs and virtual controllers - or Garageband Hero?
Maybe you wouldn't have full length epic saga games (or maybe you would via streaming), but for $99 + $5-$10 a game, you have a serious competitor to traditional consoles.
Yup - this is surely the way the ATV is going to go or get the tech good enough to allow airplay thru the iPad for gaming, imagine not poss with the delay / lag currently
Maybe you wouldn't have full length epic saga games (or maybe you would via streaming), but for $99 + $5-$10 a game, you have a serious competitor to traditional consoles.
Yup - this is surely the way the ATV is going to go or get the tech good enough to allow airplay thru the iPad for gaming, imagine not poss with the delay / lag currently
Veinticinco
Apr 3, 03:54 AM
TBWA really need to step up their game. Lack of a tangible concept ("ooh it's all about the experience") and a truly awful execution especially in such a redux form. Not to mention the badly chosen score and VO.
If you're going to make something as utterly bland and pretentious as this ad is, then at least do it on a grand scale for the sake of audience recall (Chanel 'film' with Nicole Kidman the most vomit-inducing example of this type).
I actually cringed.
If you're going to make something as utterly bland and pretentious as this ad is, then at least do it on a grand scale for the sake of audience recall (Chanel 'film' with Nicole Kidman the most vomit-inducing example of this type).
I actually cringed.
unlinked
Apr 3, 07:56 AM
I don't have one, however I did like this ad.
Curious if the same marketing company that does the current ip4 commercials does this one; as many have stated opinions of how terrible it is.
This ad has class, the "if you don't have an iPhone", not so much.
I like it a lot more than the "if you don't have an iPhone" ads but it still leaves me a little confused. The only phone/tablet ads I have ever noticed pushing thinness where iPhone ads (maybe I have poor ad retention or they never aired outside of the US). Making things thinner seemed like an Apple fetish that never overly interested me. I'm glad they agree with me a little bit now.
Curious if the same marketing company that does the current ip4 commercials does this one; as many have stated opinions of how terrible it is.
This ad has class, the "if you don't have an iPhone", not so much.
I like it a lot more than the "if you don't have an iPhone" ads but it still leaves me a little confused. The only phone/tablet ads I have ever noticed pushing thinness where iPhone ads (maybe I have poor ad retention or they never aired outside of the US). Making things thinner seemed like an Apple fetish that never overly interested me. I'm glad they agree with me a little bit now.
nmrrjw66
Apr 8, 05:00 PM
Not just Obama's attack....yes, signed on, but there was a request for rebels. I don't have as issue with the West using their military power for support, but there should be an internal force that wants the change and us strong enough to at least use some force without the West.
So why not Mexico? Mexico is experiencing way more violence than most of these Middle East countries yet their request for U.N. aid in 2009 was denied. They are on our doorstep and we are ignoring it for the most part even though we are partly to blame for the violence. The U.N. actually told Mexico just the other day to withdraw their own Military forces from the fight against the cartels.
So why not Mexico? Mexico is experiencing way more violence than most of these Middle East countries yet their request for U.N. aid in 2009 was denied. They are on our doorstep and we are ignoring it for the most part even though we are partly to blame for the violence. The U.N. actually told Mexico just the other day to withdraw their own Military forces from the fight against the cartels.
Earendil
Nov 28, 10:32 AM
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs?
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
diamond.g
Mar 24, 03:28 PM
Can anyone explain the nVidia hate?
I, for one, miss my old GeForce 8800.
I have a Radeon HD 5770 now, and there are these little annoyances. For instance, when I run my bootcamp partition inside VMWare, the AMD driver software starts complaining. The GeForce didn't give a damn. Speaking of which, I had to install the .Net framework to install the AMD drivers. Kinda cheap. And every now and then I get a slight flicker in the screen. To be honest, I'm not sure if that's the Radeon, but I've never had it before.
Don't get me wrong, the card is performing superbly overall. But the driver side still needs some polish. (And that's a complaint I've been hearing for ages!)
The .Net framework is for the CCC (Catalyst Control Center). I am pretty sure you can still get the drivers and not dl the CCC.
Why should you care about the IGP in your 2010 15" MBP? You have a discrete GPU(NVIDIA 330M) alongside it that it should automatically switch to while under heavy load.
It isn't load based... It is API based. But you knew that...
I, for one, miss my old GeForce 8800.
I have a Radeon HD 5770 now, and there are these little annoyances. For instance, when I run my bootcamp partition inside VMWare, the AMD driver software starts complaining. The GeForce didn't give a damn. Speaking of which, I had to install the .Net framework to install the AMD drivers. Kinda cheap. And every now and then I get a slight flicker in the screen. To be honest, I'm not sure if that's the Radeon, but I've never had it before.
Don't get me wrong, the card is performing superbly overall. But the driver side still needs some polish. (And that's a complaint I've been hearing for ages!)
The .Net framework is for the CCC (Catalyst Control Center). I am pretty sure you can still get the drivers and not dl the CCC.
Why should you care about the IGP in your 2010 15" MBP? You have a discrete GPU(NVIDIA 330M) alongside it that it should automatically switch to while under heavy load.
It isn't load based... It is API based. But you knew that...