Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
iMac Businesses Apple Hardware

17" and 19" inch iMacs Coming in 3Q 244

Posted by CmdrTaco from the now-thats-what-I'm-talking-about dept.
ikioi writes "It looks like Apple will have 17" and 19" flat panel iMacs later this year." It's funny- the publicity photos of the 15 inch macs really make it look a lot nicer then it is. I finally saw one up close a few weeks ago- the arm and screen is super smooth, but the base looks like a cheap toy. That said, larger screens for the iMac definitely push it into a new territory... not sure if it would convince me to buy one, but it sure would add magic shell to the ice cream.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

17" and 19" inch iMacs Coming in 3Q More

17" and 19" inch iMacs Coming in 3Q

Comments Filter:

  • "executive mac" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @04:42AM (#3629674) Homepage
    I'm a sucker for high-tech toys... but I'd pay a premium for an "executive" iMac... one with, say, some brushed aluminum and maybe leather wrist rests below the keyboard. TAM meets 2002 iMac!
    • Try a tiBook... I'm in love with mine. It's silky and sexy and has a wide screen.. mmm pretty.

    • Re:"executive mac" (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jerkychew ( 80913 )
      There was an executive Mac... it was called the G4 cube, and nobody bought it.
    • this year should see the 25th birthday special edition thingy..... there have been some mild rumors over the last year about it. the TAM [everymac.com] was produced in very limited numbers, and by the time the public could get it, it was kinda outdated for the price (in terms of the inner schiznits). That being said, it was pretty neat, and did make it into some movies and TV shows (Batman & Robin, Seinfield etc). there are still online user groups [axon.net] dedicated to them, but then again there is for most everything Apple has ever made.

      seeing as the TAM came out in March 1997 (discontinued in March 1998), this would be 5 years later. maybe we will see something at MWNYC? it is kind of odd you don't see Apple saying anything about the 25th anniversary of the company. seeing how the company is doing a lot better today than 5 years ago, i would think they might do *something* to celebrate.
  • And I'll leave it at that.

    Bigger is Better, and I can't fucking wait.
  • I was very surprised that they only had the 15 monitors when they first came out, these are VERY welcome improvements

    RonB
    • I was very surprised that they only had the 15 monitors when they first came out...

      Considering the wieght of the 17" flat pannels, I wasn't surprised (disappointed yes, but not surprised). I just purchased one for my mother and it is very easy to move that little 15 incher around, not sure how easy it would be for a 17 or 19. I'm not sure if I would have shelled out the additional $400 for the 17", either.

      One thing that is definitely missing is the power switch on the panel front, as the free standing monitors have. The power switch is in a bad place, making you reach around back, and I really like turning on my Mac via that "soft switch."

    • Re:Bigger Monitors a Must (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AHumbleOpinion ( 546848 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @03:42PM (#3633287) Homepage
      I was very surprised that they only had the 15 monitors when they first came out, these are VERY welcome improvements

      You should not have been. :) The iMacs are the entry level system, the more powerful users are supposed to find it a little lacking and buy the G4 towers.

      Personally I think the 15 innch on the iMac is fine. It is equivalent to a 17" tube at 1024x768, this is a fine configuration for most people out there.
      • You know, everyone keeps quoting that as though it's an undeniable fact. "a 15" LCD panel is equivalent to a 17" CRT"

        I disagree. I understand the theory behind the statement; CRT monitors are measured diagonally, so a 17" isn't really a full 17" across.

        I just don't find it completely accurate. For example, my Viewsonic 17" monitor measures 16" across, not 15" across. Unless you're buying the low-end 17" monitors, most decent ones have perfect-flat tube technology and come within 1 inch or less of the quoted tube size.

        I used a 15" LCD flat panel for a short time, and found I preferred a good quality 17" CRT.

        I know I'd never fork out the money for an iMac that didn't have at least a 17" flat panel attached to it. That was why I had such little initial interest in the product.... Macs are, after all, primarily the domain of graphics arts and design people. It seems un-Mac-like to offer a small display screen with one.
        • I disagree. I understand the theory behind the statement; CRT monitors are measured diagonally, so a 17" isn't really a full 17" across

          I'm not speaking theoretically, I'm speaking as someone who used a ViewSonic PT770 17" 1024x768 for over a year and then plugged in a 15" Apple Studio display for a couple of weeks of testing. I was expecting disappointment but I found it to be equivalent, a non-issue. Of course Apple's flat panels may be of a higher visual quality than the more typical flat panel.
        • (continuing my tradition of posting replies to old comments that nobody except possibly the parent poster will ever see... sigh. LAST POST!)

          I disagree. I understand the theory behind the statement; CRT monitors are measured diagonally, so a 17" isn't really a full 17" across.

          That's not the theory. First of all, LCDs are also measured diagonally. Nobody ever thought the size was horizontal. With an aspect ratio of 3x4, the difference between the diagonal and the long side would be really, really significant. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? The Pythagorean triple is 3:4:5, so the long side is 20% less than the diagonal.

          You also mentioned flat tubes -- did you mean that they cheat by counting how the tape measure wraps around the curvature of the screen? I guess that's something, but even pre-flat-tube screens don't curve that much. Besides, I don't even like true flat tubes: I am an absolute Trinitron snob -- it's got to be vertically flat, but a little horizontal curvature helps to break up the reflections; flat-tube screens seem to pick up too much glare.

          Anyway, no, the trick is that CRT sizes are given as the diagonal of the tube, including the 3/4" or whatever at each edge that is under the plastic, and unusable. It's the size of the actual tube, but not the size of the image that you can see. That's why they are advertised as, e.g., '15" CRT (13.8" DVI[1])', '17" CRT (15.6" DVI)', or '19" CRT (16.9" DVI)'. LCDs are also measured diagonally, but the size given is the "true" (viewable) size. Hence, the 13.3" screen on my 'Book is only about a half-inch smaller than a 15" CRT, which is hardly noticeable. Ditto for the desk-lamp iMac's 15" LCD (I checked "http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html" and that number is listed as viewable) vs. a 17" CRT. Though I can't say as much about the resolution being stuck at 1024x768 -- that is a real limitation. Still, the current desk-lamp is pretty nice, and a 17"/1280x1024 version would be truly sweet.

          [1] Diagonal Viewable Image

  • A black case (Score:3, Interesting)

    by chris_sawtell ( 10326 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @04:42AM (#3629678) Journal
    That white around the screen dazzels me.
    I'd like a black one.

    Listening Apple?

    • Re:A black case (Score:3, Interesting)

      by green pizza ( 159161 )
      An option to order the iMac with the black mouse and keyboard (from the G4 desktop) would be nice as well.... I like the black + crystal look moreso than the white + crystal look.

      • Well, you may not be able to buy them with the new iMac, but you can still the black keyboard and mouse at the Apple Store [apple.com].

        Of course, I would be loathe to shell out an additional $118 for them. Maybe you know an iMac user who would prefer white?

        You could call 1-800-MY-APPLE and see if they'll change 'em out for you... Good luck, though.

    • That white around the screen dazzels me.
      I'd like a black one.

      Listening Apple?

      Nope. They've gone from having tons of fruity colors back to gray and white as the only options unless you buy the old low end (boring) iMac. So much for being able to get new and exciting cses from Apple. They dropped the interesting cube design and got rid of color in their cases.

      Steve Jobs is taking a lesson from Henry Ford. You can have any color you want as long as it's a white iMac or iBook and a gray G4 tower or Powerbook.

      • So much for being able to get new and exciting cses from Apple.

        A half melon with a flatscreen monitor sticking out on a pole is not new and exciting?

    • Re:A black case (Score:3, Funny)

      by Phroggy ( 441 )
      Listening Apple?

      Nope.
    • Say it with krylon (tm)

      :)

  • tipping over...? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Sodakar ( 205398 )
    ...I wonder if additional counterweight will be added to the base to sustain the heavier LCD panels...

    • Re:tipping over...? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 03, 2002 @04:57AM (#3629708)
      No, the engineers at Apple aren't intelligent enough to prevent such a scenario. But then again, it's really far fetched, who'd come up with an idea like that? "tipping over", hehehe, you silly person. Perhaps you should inform them of the imminent danger of resizing the monitors?

    • Re:tipping over...? (Score:2, Informative)

      by krswan ( 465308 )
      There is no way the 15" would tip over, and I doubt that the extra LCD and plastic needed to go to 17" or 19" would make much of a difference.

      I'm working on one now, and there is no instability at all. That little base is actually fairly wide and low, and it has a power supply, hard drive, super drive, etc... inside to weigh it down. It weighs about 22lbs, and I move the screen about without any worries of it tipping.
    • Yes, all the white plastic in the base will be replaced with depleted uranium, with an attractive brushed-metal finish to match their PowerBooks.
  • That iMac base has got to be the ugliest piece of computer equipment ever to leave the Apple factory. It picks up dirt like a hoover so that cleaming white hemisphere that looks pathetic when you take it out of the box becomes a dull grey lump of crap after a few weeks. The material reminds me of those plastic chairs that we had in elementary school.

    Why couldn't they have used a material like the G4 case to form the base?
    • They should do something like they did on the outside of the iBook. That's actually painted magnesium under clear plastic, I believe.
    • Having a bad day?

      I have to disagree. Mine looks the same as the day I pulled it out of the box. As long as you dust it off periodically like you would anything on your desk it'll look fine for years.

      Hell, they give you a dusting cloth *with* it.

      I'm actually kind of glad they're getting away from the clear-plastic look...it's starting to get dated. I guess I'm over the "oooh shiny!" stage.
    • It picks up dirt like a hoover so that cleaming white hemisphere that looks pathetic when you take it out of the box becomes a dull grey lump of crap after a few weeks.

      Mine's been out of the box for three weeks now, and the gleaming (note the spelling) white base is still gleaming white. Perhaps if you used that Hoover yourself, the dirt wouldn't wind up in your computers.
    • The material reminds me of those plastic chairs that we had in elementary school.

      That would explain the rumors floating around Apple Tech Support that "got sat on by a confused first-grader" is the most common support incident with the new iMacs.

  • Doubt it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shrike89 ( 207750 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @04:49AM (#3629691)
    Seriously doubt the validity of this one. It's a single source w/ no history of getting Apple rumors right.

    My guess is Quantas is going to be making displays for Mac towers, and the author thinks all Apple computers are iMacs.

    I'd buy one in a heartbeat if it were so, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Remember, slashdot got hoodwinked by the "iWalk" Apple PDA hoax twice.
    • Seriously doubt the validity of this one.

      Try this one [asiabiztech.com] instead, then. It claims the opposite - that Quantas has had trouble, and they're losing the iMac production contract.
    • http://www.macosrumors.com/

      "Our information thus far differs significantly from what this article offers up; we do believe that there will be a 17-inch widescreen display option either this summer or towards the end of the year -- but nothing larger, at least not yet...."
  • A bigger LCD is great, but it will most probably add a lot of $$$ to the price, and the current iMacs aren't cheap as it is for what you get hardware-wise. And the iMac has been about being Apple's entry-level, low-cost computer. Now it's more likely to become like the G4 cube - too expensive for the low-end buyer and too low powered and non-expandable for the high-end power user.

    • Re:Remember the G4 Cube? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lally Singh ( 3427 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @05:00AM (#3629712) Journal
      And the iMac has been about being Apple's entry-level, low-cost computer.
      In case you hadn't noticed, the G4 iMac isn't the entry-level computer, it's the consumer-level computer. There's a distinct difference. For entry level, try the G3 iMac, or the eMac if you're a student.

      Also, the G4 iMac is selling like friggin hotcakes. Another Cube my ass.

    • And the iMac has been about being Apple's entry-level, low-cost computer. Now it's more likely to become like the G4 cube...

      Chill! They're still going to make the 15-inch models, unless I misread the article. So while there will certainly be some higher-priced iMacs, there still will be the (relatively) affordable 15" entry-level iMac.

      • Actually, if they're really doing 17 and 19, my guess would be they'd discontinue the 15. Apple usually doesn't have too many variations within the same product line, and 15, 17, and 19, seems in my opinion to strech the options they're willing to offer.

        In all likeliness, they'll make the 17 inch model the new low-end iMac and release it at a price point just about or slightly below the current low-end iMac G4.

    • No, Apple usually doesn't raise their prices rediculiously with updates. They will probably just not add extra processing power until they make the G5, or they are stalling its release or some other new technology by making this their grand update: Apple likes to make customers feel important with these things, and we do.
  • Is does that mean 17 and 19 square-inch?

  • or will they? (Score:5, Funny)

    by sydsavage ( 453743 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @04:53AM (#3629702)
    Industry sources said Quanta Computer will start producing the latest 17 and 19-inch iMacs in the third quarter

    Or maybe not, after Apple finds out they spilled the beans.

  • Now if only Apple could figure out how to make an LCD that has an acceptably wide viewing angle in both the horizontal and vertical direction. Then it would be practical to add a pivot joint to the end of the steel arm, allowing the screen to be pivoted from landscape to portrait layout.

    • There's nothing wrong with the LCD. I can turn it so that my girlfriend sitting over on the couch can see it and I can still see it just fine as well.

      I'm certain the reason it doesn't pivot has to do with getting signals in and out.

      Why do people assume the LCD sucks (on a product they've never used) as a reason for it not doing some feature? Would you have really bought it if it did pivot but don't buy it because it doesn't? I really doubt that.

      At any rate, the LCD would work find in a pivoted role--- I can read the text on it when its turned 80 degrees away from me.

  • Big Mac (Score:5, Funny)

    by delphi125 ( 544730 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @04:58AM (#3629709)
    An iMac with two screens. I guess it would look kinda like Mickey Mouse!
  • the way i have the height of the imac'a screen adjusted you can't see the base. hell, when i'm using it i don't generally look at the base anyway. all i see is a nice and smooth LCD screen.

    the bigger problem to me is the keyboard not having a power button to turn on/off the system. i have to search for it on the base and *then* i have to look at the base. of course, the way i solved this problem is by not powering off the machine. did i mention that i'm using OS X? =)

  • I disagree about the "cheap toy" complaint. As an iMac owner, I can confirm that, yes, it is a toy. But it's not cheap.

    My only complaint about the base is that all of the inputs are in the rear. It's so silly. Why should I have to reach around to plug in my iPod?

    • Re:Cheap Toy? Hardly. Only one complaint ... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rhinobird ( 151521 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @05:30AM (#3629743) Homepage
      Why should I have to reach around to plug in my iPod?

      Duh! So you have an excuse to hug the damn thing.

    • Ports (Score:2, Insightful)

      by nullard ( 541520 )
      My only complaint about the base is that all of the inputs are in the rear. ... Why should I have to reach around to plug in my iPod?

      Rotate the base. I tried this at the Apple Store, it works. Just turn the base slightly and you get easy access to the ports. Remember, the arm turns.
      • My only complaint about the base is that all of the inputs are in the rear. ... Why should I have to reach around to plug in my iPod?
        ....reply...
        Rotate the base. I tried this at the Apple Store, it works. Just turn the base slightly and you get easy access to the ports. Remember, the arm turns.

        What is this? Sexual Innuendo day!?

  • Available in January? (Score:3, Informative)

    by The Rolling Blackout ( 556170 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @05:17AM (#3629728)
    According to this, [theregus.com] [the register US] the idea is to start manufacturing in Q3 so that there's inventory available for a launch around New Year's. Which implies no speed bumps in store for the internals (800 Mhz, the current top speed, is going to sound pretty pokey by then) and very little chance of a significant price drop beforehand.

    This may be extrapolating a bit much from one little tidbit, but whatever. I think Apple is setting themselves up to completely miss the price point for the market, after they came so, so close with the OG iMac.

  • Well, DUH! (Score:1, Troll)

    by jonr ( 1130 )
    What next here at apple.slashdot.org? Faster iMacs coming? With bigger hard drives? More memory? Heaven forbid that Apple updates their models!
  • thanks to this post, those iMacs will be "steved" - ie canned.

    Jobs likes surprises, and if his surprise is spoiled this far out he'll take his toys and go home.

    Which means - these things will never see the light of day, or their release date will be substantially changed

    -- james
    • Agreed, but further than that, Quanta may have to look for something else to be their "main revenue driver". ATI spoiled the show for Jobs once, now ATI's chips aren't installed by default.

      Apple (pronounced Jobs) does Apple's press releases. Anyone else announcing Apple's toys gets a nice pat on the shoulder and a meaningful goodbye. At best. At worst, Jobs will release the dogs with bees in their mouths, and when they bark they shoot bees at you. Or is that the laywers . . .


    • The only product that has been "steved" was the Newton. Its not clear why, but that was his doing.

      Other than that, this idea that something will be "steved" because it was leaked is just more irrational bigotry towards all things apple.

      Steve is an extrordinarily rational mane. Passionate, yes, but he is leading the market, and paying very close attention to the market. That's why apple's been so successful lately.

      There were rumors abou the iMac itself for about a year before it came out, yet the product was not "steved" wit was amazing.

      Apple may or may not ship larger displays soon... I expect they won't and I think its wise that they don't-- the prices of the larger displays don't yet make sense for a consumer machine.

      Also, its worth noting that as a consumer product, the iMac sells millions of units a year. A larger display is going to have a much lower yeild which means that there may well not be production capacity to support the high volume, lower margin business.

      And then when Apple doesn't announce them in July, you'll be back here telling us that you were right, they were "steved".

      Well, if by "steved" you mean choosing to ship products for which they can fulfill the demand, then you're right. But "irrationally canned" is just bigotry on your part.

  • An opposite reaction and a rumor alert (Score:5, Insightful)

    by inkswamp ( 233692 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @06:30AM (#3629802)
    It's funny- the publicity photos of the 15 inch macs really make it look a lot nicer then it is. I finally saw one up close a few weeks ago- the arm and screen is super smooth, but the base looks like a cheap toy.

    My wife's reaction was exactly the opposite. She thought pictures of the new iMac were awful. She thought it looked goofy. We just saw one in person a few days ago and she loved it. Afterward, she kept asking me questions about it. Seeing it really changed her opinion of it.

    Personally, I was impressed with the display. I have a 15" CRT display at home and the viewable area is noticeably larger on the iMac's 15" LCD display. On top of that, the colors and images are sharp and clear. One of the things that drives me crazy about LCD displays is that they tend to darken or solarize when viewed from an angle. The iMac's display didn't do that.

    Also, FWIW, this "news" about the bigger iMac displays is being treated as an unlikely rumor amongst some of the more in-the-know Mac sites. Just FYI.

    --Rick
    • Yeah well... given that Taco is a programmer. Can anyone really take his opinion on athetics seriously?

      I've seen the same thing. The company I'm doing work for has got 3 of the new iMacs. Everyone who has seen them has ohhed and ahhed at them....Especially the women.

      I personal like it. And as for cheap plastic toys, most PC cases look exactly that. Even the some of the expensive aluminium cases (LiTan or something?) look horrible to me (horrible lines, spacing, alignemnts etc).

      Since progammers are more common than designers here, I'll probably get modded down or have someone reply to me get modded up in opposition to what I'm saying. But hey, Opinions are opinions and I'm allowed to think that mine is right.

      • Didn't we have this discussion? The iMac has been out a while... some annoyances, some convieniences. Same with any innovation - the remote control means you don't walk across the room anymore to change the channel, but it's also so easy to lose...

  • rumor (Score:1)

    by mashy ( 135839 )

    of course, this is still rumored material. although apple rumors often turn out being true to some extent, I've heard that 17" are likely but not much about 19" displays.

  • I dare ya... (Score:5, Funny)

    by UncleAlias ( 157955 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @07:00AM (#3629838) Homepage
    Only 19"? C'mon, Apple...

    Strap a 23" Studio Display on one of these babies and watch it, er... topple over?..
    • I was mildly disappointed that the 23" display didn't have an iLamp-style arm, since it would have really helped a lot ergonomically.

      I guess it would have required a really heavy base, but it sure would have been cool.

      I have to say that I love the ergonomics of the new iMac, to the point that I'd love to own one - something I would never have said about the previous generation. But it wouldn't be my main computer due to the relatively puny screen real esate.

      Personally, I think a 17" or 19" iMac would be too much of a conflict with their PowerMac. And have you ever seen a 19" LCD? THis seems like a slightly insane rumour that's being bought thanks to a slow news day.

      D
    • iMac 23" -- now with new Lead base! :)

  • microphone (Score:2, Informative)

    by tps12 ( 105590 )
    Will it have a microphone? My girlfriend has a G4 Cube, and it doesn't have a microphone. I thought all Macs since like the Classic came with mics. She even got the Apple monitor that "goes with it" (the 17" CRT) and no mic. :( I consider a microphone essential.

  • It's funny- the publicity photos of the 15 inch macs really make it look a lot nicer then it is. I finally saw one up close a few weeks ago- the arm and screen is super smooth, but the base looks like a cheap toy.

    It's funny -- whenever I see a PC case at a computer shop it looks cheap. An then when I see cases on sale (having cut a few knuckles servicing said cases) I know why.

  • Well duh... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Erik K. Veland ( 574016 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @07:53AM (#3629920) Homepage
    "not sure if it would convince me to buy one, but it sure would add magic shell to the ice cream.
    Of course not, you won't buy it unless they ditch the one-button mouse now will you?

  • base? cheap? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mbbac ( 568880 )
    The base of the iMac doesn't not look like a cheap toy. I've seen them in person too.

    Besides, the base of the iMac is probably one of the most over engineered cases for a computer right now what with its Faraday cage underneath the plastic shell.

  • Consider this... (Score:2, Informative)

    by dborod ( 26190 )
    Given how much secrecy Apple shrouds their product announcements in, the veracity of this story is either suspect or else Quanta Computer's tenure as the supplier of the flat panels is short-lived.

    A few years ago someone from ATI leaked some details about an upcoming Apple product (like the day of or the day before the announcement) and ATI was immediately and severly slapped down by Apple.
  • It's funny- the publicity photos of the 15 inch macs really make it look a lot nicer then it is.

    The photos make it look nicer, then Taco finds that it truly IS nicer. I am amazed.

  • "Cheap" plastic (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shuh ( 13578 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @12:30PM (#3631689) Journal
    I've read quite a few posts here riding the iMac because of "cheap plastic"... as if there were no other kind of plastic. Check the plastic on 90% of the P.C.'s out there and compare to the iMac... then you will be able to know and see just what cheap plastic is all about...
  • That nice plasticized corner with "Slashdot" on it.
    The Helvetica-like sans-serif font for "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters" and the 'ruled' background it and the topic icons rest on.

    Strange isn't it?

  • iMac innovation undiscovered... except by owners. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BitGeek ( 19506 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @03:37PM (#3633246) Homepage


    Its amazing how the marketplace reacts to apples products- the iMac looks dorky in pictures, but when you see on in person, you see how finely crafted it is. I ordered one sight unseen (the specs fit my needs more than anything else) and was extremely surprised at how well built it is.

    The other amazing thing is just how innovative putting the display on that arm really is. I know people are going "what's the big deal??": and others have commented that larger displays would tip it over.

    Well, the base is really good sized and heavy- the arm, as is, could handle a display significantly larger and heavier (I've tested this by pulling on the arm to try and tip the mac- it takes al ot of weight to do so.)

    But what's really amazing about this machine is that you move the display. Regularly. When its on the arm like this, you can adjust it to precisely how you're sitting at that point in time.

    If you're in front of a computer a lot, you move around in your chair-- unconciously, I'm sure-- to remain comfortable, keep your legs from falling asleep, etc. With the iMAc, you can trivially move the display to fit where you're sitting at that moment in time, or move it over to show your girlfriend something going on on the screen ( find myself doing this alot)...

    Just a half inch adjustment makes an improvement on the ergonomics. And people always move around.

    Now, after using an iMac for a couple months, I can't stand to be in front of a display that doesn't move (like my other computers)-- and canstantly have to stop myself from adjusting them. I was at WWDC and used one of the huge HD Cinema displays there, and kept moving it! All 30 pounds of it, or whatever- it really huge and moving it was liek dragging a metal table across a linoleum floor- its not meant to be moved... but I'm spoilt.

    As to larger displays- the weird thing is that this 15 inch display seems too big for me. I keep finding myself surprised at its size. I can't imagine a bigger display on this machin-- not because the arm couldn't handle it but because it would be too much display.

    It wasn't this way with CRTs where I demanded employers provide me a 21 inch trinitron, as an ergonomic requirement. but this 15 inch LCD is better in terms of image quality and usability than a 21 in trinitron running Mac OS (which is equal to a 30 inch trinitron runnign Windwos or Linux-- windowing systems that waste/misuse a lot of real estate.)

    Constantly slashdot articles that talk aobut Apple products, such as this one, dismiss them out of ignorance. you cannot see the utility and innovation of the iMac from looking at it in a picture. You have to use it ot realize that you really do want to move the display regularly.

    People get used to using Windows / Linux (different operating systems, essentially the same look and feel) and then dismiss the MAc because they don't fit what they're used to. This is exactly like a white person being insensitive around blacks or a straight person being homophobic- its fear and hatred of whats different. Except instead of people we're talking about technology so its less dangerous, but just as illogical. But then- these prejudices do get translated, into real world effects as people are denied jobs or mistreated by the ignorant.

    As a class of people who have been mistreated by Windows non-thinkers, its time to stop doing the exact same thing to Apple products-- which, are treated even worse, because they have the jealousy effect by being both not-microsoft and truely innovative.
    • I do like the idea of Mac OS X very much (a well-designed interface with a good, stable underpinning that allows people who Know What They're Doing to hack around); it's certainly a better operating system than Windows (IMHO) for most desktop users.

      However, I really agree with the comment that Linux "waste[s]/misuse[s] a lot of real estate". How is this the case? Are you comparing MacOS to only something like KDE or Gnome? I really don't think that MacOS X is so very much better at screen real estate than Enlightenment; in fact, some aspects of it annoy me greatly. Apple decided that I don't want to windowshade things anymore; in E, I can iconify (what OS X does now) or windowshade them. Also, I really miss the floating menu (you can get this with a hack on Windows, but I haven't seen any sort of equivalent on Mac OS). The fact that all applications in Mac OS share a menu bar at the top of the screen might save some real estate, but I have a hard time believing that it's such a huge difference (especially for someone like me, whose screen is mostly covered with Eterms). And the inability to set "focus follows mouse" is a crying shame.

      To those who will yell that, "Those are 'hacker' things and Apple doesn't care about catering to you"; you're right. But that proves that they don't have the uber-OS (and I'm not sure that anyone can). Apple certainly deserves a lot of credit for their ideas and implementations, but they're not perfect for everyone. For most "regular" users? I do think so, yes. But not for me...not at the moment.

      • The fact that all applications in Mac OS share a menu bar at the top of the screen might save some real estate, but I have a hard time believing that it's such a huge difference (especially for someone like me, whose screen is mostly covered with Eterms). And the inability to set "focus follows mouse" is a crying shame.

        These are usability issues. Ok, the menu-bar thing is a screen real-estate issue as well. When you have repeated menu bars, you do burn a LOT of real estate. plus, putting it on the window slows you down, as compared to putting it on the top of the screen.

        Same thing with "floating" menus- they are much slower for the user to use than a top of screen menu. (Though Mac OS does have them if you use the second mouse button-- another thing that actually slows people down, which is why Apple still ships a one button mouse.)

        The focuse following the mouse point is the most annoying feel that I've ever had to deal with. I'm happy with the way MacOS works and cannot imagine why you'd want it another way-- but those are just my feelings. The science behind it is, it slows you down-- you end up getting the wrong focus, often, instead of the focus you want.

        These complaints are regular are repeated and all of them have been answered at least a decade ago. Scientificly, objectively, all of these issues are ones where apple chose usability. There's a reason they are that way and the alternative is to slow all your customers down and make your product harder to work with.

        I won't answer further in this thread because this has been laid to rest years ago-- its a scientific fact.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close