Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Abbas · Sep 3, 2006, 03:39 AM

The 20" iMac has a resolution of 1680 x 1050 which isnt TOO far from 1920x1080 (the offical 1080 spec). I'm guessing that 23" iMac should have a resolution of 1920x1200 which is also the res of 23" ACD at the moment.

-a

Originally Posted by Simon

Weird. I went to Apple.com and wanted to try the Driving Lessons trailer to see how much load it puts on my MBP.

Apple - Trailers - Driving Lessons - HD

The 1080p wouldn't fit on my 23" ACD. That's why I'm wondering how you do the testing.

Are there different aspect ratios making some 1080p clips wider than others?

Simon · Sep 3, 2006, 03:46 AM

Well, I'm sitting in front of a 1920x1200 ACD and I wanted to try a 1080p trailer. It did *not* fit entirely on my screen. I'm wondering how Eug tested it on his MB. That's all.

Abbas · Sep 3, 2006, 04:44 AM

Can you check the resolution of the 1080p trailer? It should be 1920x1080 and it should *technically* fit on your display. My guess is that you're either running a higher than standard HD res trailer or your ACD is not set to its optimal resolution.

Originally Posted by Simon

Well, I'm sitting in front of a 1920x1200 ACD and I wanted to try a 1080p trailer. It did *not* fit entirely on my screen. I'm wondering how Eug tested it on his MB. That's all.

stefanicotine · 12:58 PM

After reading all this hype about the 23" iMac I was really curious to know what it would look like compared to a 20". So I made a concept of it. It's just a modified version of a regular 20" iMac, but it's been proportioned correctly and I think if Apple stays with the same design cues then this is what the 23" will actually look like.

[removed oversize inline image --tooki]

I guess I could've done better on that menubar, but it's late and I'm too lazy to fix it.

By the way, Apple just updated their store (I went to their site and got the Store Update message). But what changed? I'm not seeing anything different.

harrisjamieh · Sep 3, 2006, 05:02 AM

Without the '20' and '23' numbers in that 'mockup', I would think it was just a picture of a 17 and 20.... I dont see what youve 'mocked up'

Pierre B. · Sep 3, 2006, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

Well, I'm sitting in front of a 1920x1200 ACD and I wanted to try a 1080p trailer. It did *not* fit entirely on my screen.

What resolution for the 1080p trailer do you see in the info window?

Eug · 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

Well, I'm sitting in front of a 1920x1200 ACD and I wanted to try a 1080p trailer. It did *not* fit entirely on my screen. I'm wondering how Eug tested it on his MB. That's all.

The resolution of the screen doesn't really matter that much. The CPU still needs to decode all the info. You can just make it fit to screen or run it at half resolution. Or you can run it at full resolution, with some of it off the screen. The CPU usage is similar.

The reason it didn't fit on your screen is because even though the width is 1920, there is still the added width of the QT player interface. So in your case to make it fit perfectly you should run it in full screen mode. (I can't remember if you can do that in the non-Pro QT now, but if you can't, you can always run QTAmateur.)

BTW, full rez "1080p24" is 1920x1080p @ 24 fps. However, a fair number of them are much less than that. For example, the Batman Begins trailer is 1920x816, so it's actually easier to decode than full 1080p24. (1080 is about 1/3rd more pixels than 816.)

One of the harder ones to decode is the Macaulay Library clip. It's not only the full 1920x1080, but it's also at 30 fps - 25% pixels data than 1080p24.

You may note that the Batman Begins and Macaulay Library clip actually have about the same bitrate, but I have confirmed on my machines that the Batman Begins one is much easier to decode.

P.S. I'm glad you brought this up, because a 23" iMac is the PERFECT size for HD content (in terms of width), which makes HDCP support even more desirable. It's not necessarily a deal killer though.

stefanicotine · Sep 3, 2006, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Without the '20' and '23' numbers in that 'mockup', I would think it was just a picture of a 17 and 20.... I dont see what youve 'mocked up'

if I threw a 17" into that picture then you'd understand

Eug · 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by stefanicotine

After reading all this hype about the 23" iMac I was really curious to know what it would look like compared to a 20". So I made a concept of it. It's just a modified version of a regular 20" iMac, but it's been proportioned correctly and I think if Apple stays with the same design cues then this is what the 23" will actually look like.

I guess I could've done better on that menubar, but it's late and I'm too lazy to fix it.

By the way, Apple just updated their store (I went to their site and got the Store Update message). But what changed? I'm not seeing anything different.

Sweet pic! I hadn't seen it last time I was in this thread. Didn't load up for some reason. Here's a smaller version in case yours gets Tookinated:

The 23" looks awesome in that pic. The chin look good in relation to the rest of the unit, and the size is actually perfect for my desk. 30" is too big (and too expensive), but a 23" would fit nicely. 20" is a bit too small for my preferences. eg. Two Safari windows side by side on the 20" means they can only be about 800 pixels wide. Many sites are built for minimum screen sizes of 1024x768. 1920x1200 isn't quite twice as wide, but it's close enough.

Plus I need a serious upgrade for Aperture. The extra height and width would be very welcome for picture editing, and I need a faster CPU and GPU. A 20" definitely isn't ideal for Aperture, a single-core G5 2.0 with Radeon 9600 is pretty slow, and like I said I don't want a tower.

macgeek2005 · Sep 3, 2006, 02:47 PM

Alright, it's time for me to throw my opinion on the iMac out there.

The iMac is ideally suited for a very small minority of people. It has a nice design, but the looks of it doesn't nearly make up for all the disadvantages that the design causes.

Not to mention the fact that apple has not only made a "nearly impossible to upgrade" computer, but they have complimented it with always making sure to give it the technology that "just" fell off the edge.

The iMac has always been a computer for only those people that A. Have NO plans to EVER need anything more than what the computer comes with for a LONG time, B. Don't care if they have yesterdays technology.

For the majority of people out there, the iMac simply isn't good enough. It just doesn't have enough. Absolutely no expandability! Alot of people would refrain from buying it simply because they don't know whether they'll need more than it within a year or two.

If they came out with a mini-tower, with identical specs to the iMac, with 2 hard drive bays, an upgradeable GPU, and a couple PCI expansion slots, the iMacs sales would cut down by 80%.

80% of people that would have bought an imac (grudingly), would say "Finally they have what I really wanted", and apple would probably have to discontinue the iMac, due to lack of sales.

Now, if you're just some average joe, who wants a computer so that he can make little videos with his friends, and surf the web, and has no present or future need for anything extraordinary, the iMac is perfect.

It really hit me when my brother took his brand new 20" iMac out of the box. He set it on the desk, and I said to myself "That computer will remain like this until the end of time".

And like I said earlier, to compliment that, apple has a 32 bit laptop CPU in it, and a mediocre GPU.

I think there are two markets for apple, when it comes to mac. There are the Pro's, and then theres everyone else.

The Pro's are what give apple it's good reputation. The Pro's buy the Pro stuff, and it works great, and from their point of view, apple is a solid company that offers amazing hardware and software for professional use.

Everyone else, are all those people buying Mac Mini's, MacBook's, and iMacs. They constantly have problems, they don't really know how to use computers, and those are the kind of people you hear things like "Oh macs crash all the time" from.

If you ask me, the Mac Pro is apple's only REAL computer. The MacBook Pro would be nice if it didn't have so many problems, and once again.... they compliment the bugs with a medicore GPU.

The "Everyone else" market is a twisted, confused market, of people who don't quite realise what's going on. The kind of people who have no idea what the difference between Intel and PPC is.

I was talking to this guy the other day, and he was saying how he and his wife both got macs recently, and he said that he got an iMac and she got an iBook. This was before the MacBook was released, and this guy had no idea that the iBook was massively inferior to the iMac. He simply thought that it was the laptop version of his iMac.

People are clueless. That's why apple can get away with making the iMac the way they're making it. They woo people with it's design, and that small minority of people who can deal with 1. Non-upgradeability, 2. Mediocre GPU, and 3. Non-upgradeability, buy the iMacs and think they're great.

The reason the MacBook is selling so well is because people EXPECT it to be not upgradeable, because it's a laptop! They don't expect that in a desktop....

If Apple wants to gain more market share, they need to start thinking different.

stefanicotine · Sep 3, 2006, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

A 20" definitely isn't ideal for Aperture, a single-core G5 2.0 with Radeon 9600 is pretty slow, and like I said I don't want a tower.

I agree, 23" would be perfect.

Aperture isn't bad on a 20" if you have an external display for editing, but what I find really cumbersome on my 20" is Final Cut Pro. I love to have tonnes of room for that app, but even with 2 screens I find myself running out of space.

nbnz · Sep 3, 2006, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

The iMac has always been a computer for only those people that A. Have NO plans to EVER need anything more than what the computer comes with for a LONG time, B. Don't care if they have yesterdays technology.

For the majority of people out there, the iMac simply isn't good enough. It just doesn't have enough. Absolutely no expandability! Alot of people would refrain from buying it simply because they don't know whether they'll need more than it within a year or two.

I would guess that most people on tech boards such as MacNN have a higher interest in computers than most users, so your view is not going to be the view of the majority of buyers. The majority of people have no desire whatsover to expand or upgrade their computers. Most people buy computers, use them for 2-3-4 years, throw them away or hand them down, and buy a new one. The iMac fits that bill perfectly.

kamina · Sep 3, 2006, 04:14 PM

You make alot of good points, though I don't agree with some assumptions.

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

Alright, it's time for me to throw my opinion on the iMac out there.

The iMac is ideally suited for a very small minority of people. It has a nice design, but the looks of it doesn't nearly make up for all the disadvantages that the design causes.

Not to mention the fact that apple has not only made a "nearly impossible to upgrade" computer, but they have complimented it with always making sure to give it the technology that "just" fell off the edge.

The iMac has always been a computer for only those people that A. Have NO plans to EVER need anything more than what the computer comes with for a LONG time, B. Don't care if they have yesterdays technology.

For the majority of people out there, the iMac simply isn't good enough. It just doesn't have enough. Absolutely no expandability! Alot of people would refrain from buying it simply because they don't know whether they'll need more than it within a year or two.

For a vast majority of Computer enthusiasts the imac does not cut it. For a vast majority of computer users it's fine. How big do you think the diy market is?

If they came out with a mini-tower, with identical specs to the iMac, with 2 hard drive bays, an upgradeable GPU, and a couple PCI expansion slots, the iMacs sales would cut down by 80%.

80% of people that would have bought an imac (grudingly), would say "Finally they have what I really wanted", and apple would probably have to discontinue the iMac, due to lack of sales.

I don't think sales would fall that much. I'm planning on buying an imac for exactly the reasons you state are disadvantages (with PC's I have upgraded my cpu ect several times a year, and don't want to be in that cycle anymore). I have a few friends who never had mac's, but boutht an imac "because it's like a piece of furniture". Sure it would cut down on imac sales, but not that much. It could bring a whole new group of buyers though, pc (enthusiast) users who are used to upgrading, and want a mac.

Now, if you're just some average joe, who wants a computer so that he can make little videos with his friends, and surf the web, and has no present or future need for anything extraordinary, the iMac is perfect.

You just described the vast majority of computer users, even those working closely with computers.

And like I said earlier, to compliment that, apple has a 32 bit laptop CPU in it, and a mediocre GPU.

It's a mainstream GPU, not mediocre... I'm sure the GPU will be upgraded (slightly) in the next model, but it's adequate for playing any game with low settings, most with medium, some with high.

There is also nothing wrong with Yonah or Merom. I don't understand the problem people have with the fact that it's a laptop cpu. What is a laptop cpu? It's a normal cpu that has less voltage pumped into it, and usually includes more powersaving features (which in themselves don't really affect performance). The Merom which according to rumors will replace the current iMac cpu performs almost the same as the desktop Conroe. Even though some memory intensive benchmarks will show a 5-8% advantage for the Conroe at the same speed, it's not anything normal people would notice. The only downside is the fact that you can't get them quite at the same speed as the fastest desktop models.

I think there are two markets for apple, when it comes to mac. There are the Pro's, and then theres everyone else.

The Pro's are what give apple it's good reputation. The Pro's buy the Pro stuff, and it works great, and from their point of view, apple is a solid company that offers amazing hardware and software for professional use.

Everyone else, are all those people buying Mac Mini's, MacBook's, and iMacs. They constantly have problems, they don't really know how to use computers, and those are the kind of people you hear things like "Oh macs crash all the time" from.

Are you saying mac mini's and imacs are really problematic computers? They are specialised, but they are targetted at the market segment which consists of 95% of computer users. They are also alot nicer (and better built) then the other computers targetted at the same market.

If you ask me, the Mac Pro is apple's only REAL computer. The MacBook Pro would be nice if it didn't have so many problems, and once again.... they compliment the bugs with a medicore GPU.

I've been quite happy with my macbook pro. If I had the option I would have gotten it with integrated (GMA) graphics as I have absolutely no use for the current videocard... Also I have not had any problems with it so far. Untill now the company I have worked for has purchased over 25 macbook pro's this year, and none have had to go back to be repaired under warrenty. We did have to send back quite a few of the last PowerBooks, and about 10% of our pc notebooks (50% of one model).

The "Everyone else" market is a twisted, confused market, of people who don't quite realise what's going on. The kind of people who have no idea what the difference between Intel and PPC is.

I was talking to this guy the other day, and he was saying how he and his wife both got macs recently, and he said that he got an iMac and she got an iBook. This was before the MacBook was released, and this guy had no idea that the iBook was massively inferior to the iMac. He simply thought that it was the laptop version of his iMac.

People are clueless. That's why apple can get away with making the iMac the way they're making it. They woo people with it's design, and that small minority of people who can deal with 1. Non-upgradeability, 2. Mediocre GPU, and 3. Non-upgradeability, buy the iMacs and think they're great.

The reason the MacBook is selling so well is because people EXPECT it to be not upgradeable, because it's a laptop! They don't expect that in a desktop....

If Apple wants to gain more market share, they need to start thinking different.

I agree Apple could easily gain more marketshare by thinking differant, but you are really placing your personal feelings and wishes of computers on everyone else. Personally I need a computer that is (in this order):

Silent
Fast enough to comfortably edit digital images
Small
Looks good

As I mentioned before, I have a history of endless upgrades, and I'm really bored with that whole loop. My last desktop tower was built with thought, and it was an undervolted dualcore AMD which was so silent that the only way to notice it was running was by looking at the light in front of it. There is a ever growing market for computers that are really silent, and Apple is allready at the fore front of the pack (the 17" Intel imac was mentioned to be the most silent out of the box computer silentpcreview.com had ever seen).

My guess is, that Apple is looking at the computer market, and seeing the segment which makes up most of it. As you mentioned these people don't know what they are buying, but I think Apple is giving them alot more then anyone else. Sure most people who A) Want a computer that is as fast as posible, B) Want a videocard that will play all the newest games with the highest resolution as long as they use the computer, will not find a product from the current lineup... But a majority of people buying iMacs, Mac Minis and Apple portables are not necasarily Clueless idiots, alot of them are actually finally getting a product which they want, and what you just can't really build yourself.

jamil5454 · Sep 3, 2006, 04:54 PM

My 20" iMac is nearly completely silent. I don't think I've ever heard the fans come on (the convection cooling design is ingenious) and I can barely hear the hard drive only if I turn everything else off in my apartment and listen closely.

macgeek2005 · Sep 3, 2006, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by jamil5454

My 20" iMac is nearly completely silent. I don't think I've ever heard the fans come on (the convection cooling design is ingenious) and I can barely hear the hard drive only if I turn everything else off in my apartment and listen closely.

Friend of iMac user: "Hey, I just got you a brand new 750GB Seagate Barracuda hard drive!".

iMac user: "Hmm..... I wonder how I could put this to use............hmmm......hmm......."

I would say that the quiet computer comes at a price, but that wouldn't be accurate, because the Mac Pro is even quieter and has room for 4 hard drives.

nbnz · Sep 3, 2006, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

Friend of iMac user: "Hey, I just got you a brand new 750GB Seagate Barracuda hard drive!".

iMac user: "Hmm..... I wonder how I could put this to use............hmmm......hmm......."

I would say that the quiet computer comes at a price, but that wouldn't be accurate, because the Mac Pro is even quieter and has room for 4 hard drives.

The point is most computer users wouldn't have a clue what a 750GB Seagate Barracuda Hard Drive is...and if it was explained to them they wouldn't have a clue why they would want it. How many average joe users fill their 250GB drives? My guess would be not many unless they're making a lot of home movies.

Eug · Sep 3, 2006, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

Alright, it's time for me to throw my opinion on the iMac out there.

The iMac is ideally suited for a very small minority of people. It has a nice design, but the looks of it doesn't nearly make up for all the disadvantages that the design causes.

Not to mention the fact that apple has not only made a "nearly impossible to upgrade" computer, but they have complimented it with always making sure to give it the technology that "just" fell off the edge.

The iMac has always been a computer for only those people that A. Have NO plans to EVER need anything more than what the computer comes with for a LONG time, B. Don't care if they have yesterdays technology.

For the majority of people out there, the iMac simply isn't good enough. It just doesn't have enough. Absolutely no expandability! Alot of people would refrain from buying it simply because they don't know whether they'll need more than it within a year or two.

If they came out with a mini-tower, with identical specs to the iMac, with 2 hard drive bays, an upgradeable GPU, and a couple PCI expansion slots, the iMacs sales would cut down by 80%.

80% of people that would have bought an imac (grudingly), would say "Finally they have what I really wanted", and apple would probably have to discontinue the iMac, due to lack of sales.

Now, if you're just some average joe, who wants a computer so that he can make little videos with his friends, and surf the web, and has no present or future need for anything extraordinary, the iMac is perfect.

It really hit me when my brother took his brand new 20" iMac out of the box. He set it on the desk, and I said to myself "That computer will remain like this until the end of time".

And like I said earlier, to compliment that, apple has a 32 bit laptop CPU in it, and a mediocre GPU.

I think there are two markets for apple, when it comes to mac. There are the Pro's, and then theres everyone else.

The Pro's are what give apple it's good reputation. The Pro's buy the Pro stuff, and it works great, and from their point of view, apple is a solid company that offers amazing hardware and software for professional use.

Everyone else, are all those people buying Mac Mini's, MacBook's, and iMacs. They constantly have problems, they don't really know how to use computers, and those are the kind of people you hear things like "Oh macs crash all the time" from.

If you ask me, the Mac Pro is apple's only REAL computer. The MacBook Pro would be nice if it didn't have so many problems, and once again.... they compliment the bugs with a medicore GPU.

The "Everyone else" market is a twisted, confused market, of people who don't quite realise what's going on. The kind of people who have no idea what the difference between Intel and PPC is.

I was talking to this guy the other day, and he was saying how he and his wife both got macs recently, and he said that he got an iMac and she got an iBook. This was before the MacBook was released, and this guy had no idea that the iBook was massively inferior to the iMac. He simply thought that it was the laptop version of his iMac.

People are clueless. That's why apple can get away with making the iMac the way they're making it. They woo people with it's design, and that small minority of people who can deal with 1. Non-upgradeability, 2. Mediocre GPU, and 3. Non-upgradeability, buy the iMacs and think they're great.

The reason the MacBook is selling so well is because people EXPECT it to be not upgradeable, because it's a laptop! They don't expect that in a desktop....

If Apple wants to gain more market share, they need to start thinking different.

Ironically, the Mac Pros are the ONLY Macs that I have no intention of ever buying. I have a MacBook and an iMac (as well as a Cube) and plan on getting a Mac mini eventually as well.

P.S. I've built several PCs myself. I also modded my Cube. I replaced my last home-built PC with an iMac, and I'll probably replace my Cube with an iMac as well. Either that or I'll replace it with a Mac mini.

macgeek2005 · Sep 3, 2006, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Ironically, the Mac Pros are the ONLY Macs that I have no intention of ever buying. I have a MacBook and an iMac (as well as a Cube) and plan on getting a Mac mini eventually as well.

P.S. I've built several PCs myself. I also modded my Cube. I replaced my last home-built PC with an iMac, and I'll probably replace my Cube with an iMac as well. Either that or I'll replace it with a Mac mini.

You realise that your entire legion of little computers couldn't acomplish as much as one 3 year old G5 tower?

the_glassman · Sep 3, 2006, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

You realise that your entire legion of little computers couldn't acomplish as much as one 3 year old G5 tower?

Seems like they could do a hell of a lot more for less money if you ask me. I'd like to see someone put a G5 in their backpack.

macgeek2005 · Sep 3, 2006, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by the_glassman

Seems like they could do a hell of a lot more for less money if you ask me. I'd like to see someone put a G5 in their backpack.

I was making a point. The fact that the G5 is still in the same ballpark, shows how mediocre apple's consumer lineup is.

Imagine how powerfull the Mac Pro is compared to the MacBook and iMac....

Eug · 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

You realise that your entire legion of little computers couldn't acomplish as much as one 3 year old G5 tower?

Huh?? Now you're just trolling, but I'll address that statement anyways.

In many things, my MacBook Core Duo is as at least as fast as the top of the line 3-year old G5 tower (or is even faster), and only weighs 5 lbs and change, including the screen and all the fixins.

For these tests, a G5 2.0 iMac is roughly half as fast more compared to a G5 dual 2.0 Power Mac:

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

I was making a point. The fact that the G5 is still in the same ballpark, shows how mediocre apple's consumer lineup is.

Imagine how powerfull the Mac Pro is compared to the MacBook and iMac....

Imagine how much the Mac Pro costs, and it doesn't even include a screen.

P.S. Apple itself states that quad-core is only an incremental benefit over dual-core for many of its apps. It seems that the iMac now is the sweet spot for a lot of applications. In fact, Apple has recently taken to demo'ing it's 'pro' applications on iMacs.

macgeek2005 · Sep 3, 2006, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Huh?? Now you're just trolling, but I'll address that statement anyways.

In many things, my MacBook Core Duo is as at least as fast as the top of the line 3-year old G5 tower (or is even faster), and only weighs 5 lbs and change, including the screen and all the fixins.

For these tests, a G5 2.0 iMac is roughly half as fast more compared to a G5 dual 2.0 Power Mac:

Imagine how much the Mac Pro costs, and it doesn't even include a screen.

P.S. Apple itself states that quad-core is only an incremental benefit over dual-core for many of its apps. It seems that the iMac now is the sweet spot for a lot of applications. In fact, Apple has recently taken to demo'ing it's 'pro' applications on iMacs.

Can I see some benchmarks comparing the Dual 2.0Ghz PowerMac G5 (Rev A, 2003) to the MacBook?

Jeesh, I know the iMacs aren't that great. Way to compare the G5 iMac RIGHT after I myself stated how much I dislike the iMacs. I was talking about the G5 towers.....

Eug · Sep 3, 2006, 07:48 PM

macgeek2005 · Sep 3, 2006, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Well that's the new Dual Core G5, not the 3 year old one. But whatever, we don't need to argue about this.

trevorM · Sep 3, 2006, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

It makes it feel like a consumer monitor... But yeah, you're right.

Is there something elite about owning a 23" ACD? They are fairly common so whether or not imacs come available in 23" is, frankly, besides the point.

Perhaps you should have bought a 30" or a Bang and Olufsen TV as a monitor

macgeek2005 · Sep 3, 2006, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by trevorM

Is there something elite about owning a 23" ACD? They are fairly common so whether or not imacs come available in 23" is, frankly, besides the point.

Perhaps you should have bought a 30" or a Bang and Olufsen TV as a monitor

Actually 23" is the ideal size for me. 20" seems just a touch too small, but 30" is too big for gaming, and DVD's won't look too good on it.

I've been using a 15" Apple Studio Display up until now, and i'm on a 12 inch iBook while waiting for my Mac Pro, so 23" is going to be plenty big for me. Thanks anyway though.

GSixZero · Sep 3, 2006, 08:37 PM

Here's a scaled image of 17, 20 and 23 inch imacs...

I guessed on the chin size of the 23, since I bet it could be smaller, and I wish it were...

trevorM · Sep 3, 2006, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

Actually 23" is the ideal size for me. 20" seems just a touch too small, but 30" is too big for gaming, and DVD's won't look too good on it.

I've been using a 15" Apple Studio Display up until now, and i'm on a 12 inch iBook while waiting for my Mac Pro, so 23" is going to be plenty big for me. Thanks anyway though.

I have the 30". I love it. At first it felt big, now it feels standard. DVDs and TV looks fine. (DVDs = Better).

macgeek2005 · Sep 3, 2006, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by trevorM

I have the 30". I love it. At first it felt big, now it feels standard. DVDs and TV looks fine. (DVDs = Better).

Well, I kind of couldn't afford a 30"..... and also like I said, gaming won't be the greatest on it. For one, it's too big, and for two, the games would need ALOT of power to play at decent framerates.

trevorM · Sep 3, 2006, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

Well, I kind of couldn't afford a 30"..... and also like I said, gaming won't be the greatest on it. For one, it's too big, and for two, the games would need ALOT of power to play at decent framerates.

Yeah good points. Yes cost is an issue. I still get annoyed when I see the new retail price of it, since I bought it when it was initially released at twice the current price (minus my EDU discount)!!!!

stefanicotine · Sep 3, 2006, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by GSixZero

Here's a scaled image of 17, 20 and 23 inch imacs...

I guessed on the chin size of the 23, since I bet it could be smaller, and I wish it were...

lol, I just did that a few posts back. You did a good job, but you can tell it's just a resized 20"

Jasoco · Sep 3, 2006, 09:06 PM

The one thing I hate about the iMacs is the distance from the desk to the bottom of the screen. It's too high up! I have a 20" ACD and it's sometimes uncomfortably high on my 30" desk. (30" from the floor to the top of the desk.), and the iMac is even MORE than that. Can't they make it smaller and lower?

I don't mind the chin, but it's too high up.

It's the reason I'm still not sure I want an iMac over a mini. I'm tempted to just get the mini just because of the high chin.

JEB · Sep 3, 2006, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

I don't mind the chin look at all.

I think they both look good, but I too prefer the 20".

The thickness/thinness doesn't concern me that much for a desktop. In fact, I'd prefer it to be thicker if it meant I could put a second hard drive in it.

Well, the 20" is pretty nice imho . . . esp. for getting side-by-side work done between a document-website-dreamweaver-mail . . . etc . . . I'd ProSumer up a 23 in a jiffy !!

OOOHH, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN "INSTERT A 2ND DRIVE....." + TimeMachine = More Cans Of Whoopass™ from Apple!

Go Apple!!! Go Leopard!!!

stefanicotine · Sep 4, 2006, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by JEB

Well, the 20" is pretty nice imho . . . esp. for getting side-by-side work done between a document-website-dreamweaver-mail . . . etc . . . I'd ProSumer up a 23 in a jiffy !!

OOOHH, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN "INSTERT A 2ND DRIVE....." + TimeMachine = More Cans Of Whoopass™ from Apple!

Go Apple!!! Go Leopard!!!

Haha! Your enthusiasm will only lead to greatness, Jeb

Simon · Sep 4, 2006, 03:01 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

The resolution of the screen doesn't really matter that much. The CPU still needs to decode all the info. You can just make it fit to screen or run it at half resolution. Or you can run it at full resolution, with some of it off the screen. The CPU usage is similar.

At first I thought the same. But if you run a window scaled down to fit entirely on your screen you will producing some extra load for the downscaling. Obviously the entire image has to be decoded first and then scaled down. If you're doing a pure h.264 playback benchmark I suppose the additional load is not desired. OTOH it might be small compared to the actual h.264 decompression for all I know.

The reason it didn't fit on your screen is because even though the width is 1920, there is still the added width of the QT player interface. So in your case to make it fit perfectly you should run it in full screen mode. (I can't remember if you can do that in the non-Pro QT now, but if you can't, you can always run QTAmateur.)

Exactly. The QT window pane cuts off some of those 1920 pixels and the menu bar and window title bar use up quite a few of those 1200. Anyway, since I don't have QT Pro (which you need for fullscreen playback) I at first wanted to try VLC, but IIRC VLC's h.264 engine is not stellar and for benchmarking it's best to stick to QT for the sake of comparability I guess. Thanks for pointing me towards QTAmateur. Didn't know it.

One of the harder ones to decode is the Macaulay Library clip. It's not only the full 1920x1080, but it's also at 30 fps - 25% pixels data than 1080p24.

Nice one. It played 30 fps most of the time, but on average it used about 85% of my 2GHz Core Duo.

P.S. I'm glad you brought this up, because a 23" iMac is the PERFECT size for HD content (in terms of width), which makes HDCP support even more desirable. It's not necessarily a deal killer though.

True. The 23" makes most sense for HD video playback. OTOH I hate HDCP and hope it flops big time. In the end it will be just another measure to prevent people who bought content legally to use it as they like.

Simon · Sep 4, 2006, 08:10 AM

BTW, TS is now chiming in. New iMacs and new iPods on 9/12.

Eug · Sep 4, 2006, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

At first I thought the same. But if you run a window scaled down to fit entirely on your screen you will producing some extra load for the downscaling. Obviously the entire image has to be decoded first and then scaled down. If you're doing a pure h.264 playback benchmark I suppose the additional load is not desired. OTOH it might be small compared to the actual h.264 decompression for all I know.

I tried the same thing on a G5 Power Mac with 23" screen. Full screen vs. non-full screen was wasn't a big difference. The vast majority of the CPU usage is due to the actual H.264 decompression.

Anyways, I don't want to overemphasize the H.264 decoding aspect. Personally I think the even the current 20" iMac is mostly OK for that. I just thought it would be nice if we didn't have to use most of the CPU for just video playback. It's the lack of DRM support that is more problematic. I hate HDCP etc. too, but unfortunately it's now become part of the digital landscape.

Pierre B. · Sep 4, 2006, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

I just thought it would be nice if we didn't have to use most of the CPU for just video playback.

Is there any indication that Leopard may enable hardware decoding? Or just Apple prefers to stay away from that? It looks a bit silly to have to hog almost all the processing power of a dual core machine in the 2.0 GHz range just for video playback.

Simon · Sep 4, 2006, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

I hate HDCP etc. too, but unfortunately it's now become part of the digital landscape.

Only if we let it prevail. If consumers don't accept it and hesitate to buy HD-DVDs, Blu ray Discs or DVD-Audio, the standard will be gone as fast as it came. OTOH, if consumers buy such media, they will have to deal with HDCP and the whole DRM crap. It just depends how conscious people are of these DRM issues.

C.A.T.S. CEO · Sep 4, 2006, 02:58 PM

Are we still talking about a 23" iMac or did i miss something?

Simon · Sep 4, 2006, 03:15 PM

Don't worry, we are.

Eug · Sep 4, 2006, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

Only if we let it prevail. If consumers don't accept it and hesitate to buy HD-DVDs, Blu ray Discs or DVD-Audio, the standard will be gone as fast as it came. OTOH, if consumers buy such media, they will have to deal with HDCP and the whole DRM crap. It just depends how conscious people are of these DRM issues.

Too late. I think it's here to stay. It's already the norm with PVRs. Most new models won't work via HDMI or DVI unless you have a monitor that supports HDCP.

Anyways, here's hoping for Sept. 12. My Cube is really feeling long in the tooth, and I'm really tempted to get a new iMac if there is a 23" available, even if there is no HDCP support. I'm inclined to wait it out though.

However, I definitely won't get one at this time if the max size is 20".

Simon · Sep 5, 2006, 01:44 AM

AI is also confirming. New 23" Merom iMacs on 9/12.

Eug · 10:08 AM

EDIT:

Store back up - no new Macs.

Eug · Sep 5, 2006, 11:49 AM

Hmmm... The title of the upcoming Apple media event isn't really iMac friendly: It's Showtime

I suppose they could release an the 23" "iMac HD" to commemorate the iTunes Movie Store announcement though.

However, it still doesn't fit, cuz I doubt they'd be releasing commercial 1080p movies for download.

Scott-G · Sep 5, 2006, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Hmmm... The title of the upcoming Apple media event isn't really iMac friendly: It's Showtime

I suppose they could release an the 23" "iMac HD" to commemorate the iTunes Movie Store announcement though.

However, it still doesn't fit, cuz I doubt they'd be releasing commercial 1080p movies for download.

There's always that 'one more thing' to look forward to.

Eriamjh · Sep 5, 2006, 08:04 PM

Has anyone determined if a 23" iMac would allow for a second 3.5" HDD if everything else was the same? Since the Mac Pro is for Professionals, and the iMac is for Consumers, wouldn't it be nice if the 23" iMac became the "Prosumer" Mac with some expandability, better video card, etc? It certainly would be big enough and it would justify its higher price tag.

Eug · Sep 5, 2006, 11:59 PM

Of course the 23" is big enough for a second hard drive. In fact, I'm sure Apple cut fit an extra one in other iMacs too if they wanted to, just by changing the design somewhat.

The key phrase there is "if they wanted to"...

C.A.T.S. CEO · Sep 6, 2006, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

Has anyone determined if a 23" iMac would allow for a second 3.5" HDD if everything else was the same? Since the Mac Pro is for Professionals, and the iMac is for Consumers, wouldn't it be nice if the 23" iMac became the "Prosumer" Mac with some expandability, better video card, etc? It certainly would be big enough and it would justify its higher price tag.

Great idea. Make the 23" iMac a prosumer Mac, make it pair with upto 2 23" Apple displays (The Pro side of the 23" iMac) and make it afford able (The consumer side of the 23" iMac).

ensignwoo · Sep 6, 2006, 03:34 AM

I think if the 23" iMac is true, then Apple may relegate the 17" iMac to the education market, no point making 2 versions of it. Then the main consumer market will only have the 20" and the 23" for the choosing.

Cheers