New iMacs Released

[Drak3]

Just now, lloose said:

even Linus

Yeah, because he's a reliable source of information.

 

This is something one can easily test themself, and it's a fool's bargain to blindly accept someone else's word for something like this.

 

1 minute ago, lloose said:

It started with Windows 8.

No, it didn't. It ended with Vista.

[PlayStation 2]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yeah, because he's a reliable source of information.

 

This is something one can easily test themself, and it's a fool's bargain to blindly accept someone else's word for something like this.

 

No, it didn't. It ended with Vista.

Can personally vouch for this. There's still programs that scale like shit on Windows 10 but a lot of 'em have caught up (most web browsers, Spotify and Steam scales pretty well) and Windows tends to do a decent job with scaling at this point.

[lloose]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Yeah, because he's a reliable source of information.

 

This is something one can easily test themself, and it's a fool's bargain to blindly accept someone else's word for something like this.

 

No, it didn't. It ended with Vista.

 

I have been testing it every day since the first generation XPS 13 came out. Want some tests?

 

Open up RDP and remote into a machine on your 4k display.

Drag a window from a scaled display to one that is native resolution and see what happens.

Open office 365 on a scaled display. Look at how terrible the text is. Microsoft even tried fixing this with an official patch that is supposed to fix blurred text but fails pretty miserably.

 

 

[Drak3]

Just now, lloose said:

Open up RDP

There's your problem.

 

I run two 1080s and a 1440p in conjuction just fine, used to have a 4K TV in the loop too. No problems under 8 or 10, and 7 only had issues due to the AMD and Nvidia cards coexisting in my system.

[lloose]

Running RDP is a problem? You can't be serious right? I work in RDP every day and manage a couple dozen servers through it. I think we're done.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, lloose said:

Running RDP is a problem?

No, it's YOUR problem. The rest of us aren't having issues with Windows scaling, only a few outdated programs.

[lloose]

edit: never mind, not even worth arguing.

[Nowak]

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, it's YOUR problem. The rest of us aren't having issues with Windows scaling, only a few outdated programs.

I have a hiDPI laptop (14" 2560x1440, resolves to 210ppi) and if I were to run a game on it, sometimes when I exit the game, the little notification... this opens behind the taskbar, keeping me from using the bottom row of icons in it. It doesn't get resolved until I restart Explorer.exe. This is a problem with Windows itself.

[Drak3]

Just now, Nowak said:

This is a problem with Windows itself.

Not likely. Far more likely that something else you installed is causing issues or you have a bad driver installation.

[Nowak]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Not likely. Far more likely that something else you installed is causing issues or you have a bad driver installation.

If I do ever run a game on it (which happens when the planets align right) I usually try to target the native 2560x1440 res, so...

[Drak3]

Just now, Nowak said:

If I do ever run a game on it (which happens when the planets align right) I usually try to target the native 2560x1440 res, so...

So then it's a problem with YOUR system.

[Nowak]

Just now, Drak3 said:

So then it's a problem with YOUR system.

I've disabled the dGPU on it because of disuse but let's not pretend that Windows is 100% perfect at scaling. It's average at best when it comes to that, really.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Nowak said:

let's not pretend that Windows is 100% perfect at scaling.

I don't.

[suits]

1 hour ago, handymanshandle said:

Text readability and the potential usability of that resolution. macOS scales to higher resolutions incredibly well and you can do native scaling if a higher scale isn't to your liking without having to log off like in Windows.

You don't have to log off in windows. Haven't had to do that in a long time. 1440p is more than enough for 21.5" you are getting almost nothing except a hole in your pocket for the 4k screen. It's just a buzzword for people who don't know any better

[suits]

1 hour ago, Zando Bob said:

It's great for people doing work that requires looking at anything small for ages. The difference between a 4K/5K screen at their respective sizes vs 1080p is massive. I had the pleasure of using an iMac 5K for a good while and it's so much easier to see and read stuff on (I do a ton of spreadsheets every month, not the intended workload tho, lol), now Im back on 1080p and it's back to ouchie eyes. 

You're clearly just apple fanboying to justify apple. Why even talk about the 5k screen, that has literally NOTHING to do with rk on 21.5 inches.  It's clearly a marketing ploy by apple. If you've ever seen a 1440p next to a 4k screen at even 24inches you get no real world effectiveness. 21.5 inches @ 4k is an absolute joke and an unneeded expense on an already underpowered machine. 

[Zando_]

39 minutes ago, suits said:

You're clearly just apple fanboying to justify apple. Why even talk about the 5k screen, that has literally NOTHING to do with rk on 21.5 inches.  It's clearly a marketing ploy by apple. If you've ever seen a 1440p next to a 4k screen at even 24inches you get no real world effectiveness. 21.5 inches @ 4k is an absolute joke and an unneeded expense on an already underpowered machine. 

The pixel density on the two will be close (216ppi on the 5K, 205ppi for the 4K), so the difference is really display size, reading text will be the same either way. And it's not clearly a marketing ploy, I've looked clearly at the screen with my eyes and there's clearly a difference when working with a bunch of text or trying to see details in images or all sorts of things Macs are aimed towards (photobois, video editors, college students doing word docs and spreadsheets, business people on the move, etc). I'm back to a 1080p screen at work now and it's so much worse for text and reading, I leave more bleary eyed than I did with the higher res display. There's a reason 4K monitors exist and it's not just BS marketing. Sure they're not amazing for gaming but they're great for detail/text work since a high ppi actually benefits you there.

 

And I'm not an Apple fanboy, I'm actually pretty reasonable. All the stuff people try and pin on Apple they usually did for a reason, though they do have their failings and in a lot of use cases a PC is better. You could call me a PC fanboy too because of how many I build and how much money I throw at them, but there's lots a Mac (or console for gaming) can do better than them. Couldn't quite call me an Android fanboy, they're great devices but they just don't fit how I use my phone so I don't currently have any. I've used all of it though, AMD hardware, Nvidia hardware, Intel stuff, iOS to android to linux to macOS to Windows and back around again, have dinked around with a few consoles here and there (just got a Switch a bit ago), they all have pros and cons. I may personally prefer brands or operating systems (if I do I usually say something along the lines of "I'd go with..." or similar), but when recommending stuff to people I try and give them the best advice for whatever their use case is.

 

I can concede a lot of points against Apple, but the Retina screens being a marketing ploy is not one, they're there for a legit reason and they are actually useful for the intended workloads.

[handymanshandle]

yeah I don't think I've ever really been super anti-apple. There was a time I was very pro Apple. Nowadays I'm pretty neutral to Apple. I like Samsung, I don't care for Google though for now I'm using their search engine again and well youtube lol

I do wanna experience some of that wonderful integration Apple has with their products but like I still very much like a lot of what Windows machines have to offer, namely customization. Not yet can you officially have a mac that looks super underpowered but actually have decent hardware. It's probably a pipe dream, but well. Oh well lol.

2 hours ago, Zando Bob said:

The pixel density on the two will be close (216ppi on the 5K, 205ppi for the 4K), so the difference is really display size, reading text will be the same either way. And it's not clearly a marketing ploy, I've looked clearly at the screen with my eyes and there's clearly a difference when working with a bunch of text or trying to see details in images or all sorts of things Macs are aimed towards (photobois, video editors, college students doing word docs and spreadsheets, business people on the move, etc). I'm back to a 1080p screen at work now and it's so much worse for text and reading, I leave more bleary eyed than I did with the higher res display. There's a reason 4K monitors exist and it's not just BS marketing. Sure they're not amazing for gaming but they're great for detail/text work since a high ppi actually benefits you there.

 

And I'm not an Apple fanboy, I'm actually pretty reasonable. All the stuff people try and pin on Apple they usually did for a reason, though they do have their failings and in a lot of use cases a PC is better. You could call me a PC fanboy too because of how many I build and how much money I throw at them, but there's lots a Mac (or console for gaming) can do better than them. Couldn't quite call me an Android fanboy, they're great devices but they just don't fit how I use my phone so I don't currently have any. I've used all of it though, AMD hardware, Nvidia hardware, Intel stuff, iOS to android to linux to macOS to Windows and back around again, have dinked around with a few consoles here and there (just got a Switch a bit ago), they all have pros and cons. I may personally prefer brands or operating systems (if I do I usually say something along the lines of "I'd go with..." or similar), but when recommending stuff to people I try and give them the best advice for whatever their use case is.

 

I can concede a lot of points against Apple, but the Retina screens being a marketing ploy is not one, they're there for a legit reason and they are actually useful for the intended workloads.

 

[SeraphicWings]

Along with refresh iMacs, Apple also gives new upgrade path on iMac Pro, which includes an un-earthly 256GB of ECC DDR4 RAM, which can be had for a very cool $5200, and a Radeon Pro Vega 64X with 16GB of HBM2 memory

 

This means a fully decked out iMac Pro now costs $15700, which is three times the price of a base model iMac Pro 

 

I mean, I don't really need a car anyway when I can buy a fully maxed out iMac Pro and brag about it, right?

[bcredeur97]

what's up with the hard drives in these? why we still rocking 5400 rpm magnetic storage for daily use? Move on apple. 256GB ssd's should be in the base model then move up from there.

[handymanshandle]

1 hour ago, bcredeur97 said:

what's up with the hard drives in these? why we still rocking 5400 rpm magnetic storage for daily use? Move on apple. 256GB ssd's should be in the base model then move up from there.

/shrug

some people may not care too much?

[DrMacintosh]

12 hours ago, Firewrath9 said:

for 100$ less, you get 2 4k screens. for 600$ less, the exact same, just with a worse screen. 

You also don't get to run macOS, you lose out on Continuity, you don't get any thunderbolt 3. Also what about the built in wireless, speakers, camera, mic, included keyboard and mouse? 

[Blademaster91]

3 hours ago, bcredeur97 said:

what's up with the hard drives in these? why we still rocking 5400 rpm magnetic storage for daily use? Move on apple. 256GB ssd's should be in the base model then move up from there.

I agree for $1300 it should have a 256gb SSD. But most consumers don't know the difference between an HDD and an SSD,and because Apple's profit margins even though SSD's are pretty cheap.

[Commodus]

6 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

I agree for $1300 it should have a 256gb SSD. But most consumers don't know the difference between an HDD and an SSD,and because Apple's profit margins even though SSD's are pretty cheap.

Well, Apple doesn't really use cheap SSDs, to be fair (they're usually speedy NVMe drives at last check), but I do think Apple needs to make Fusion a baseline feature on the iMac regardless.

[Firewrath9]

15 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

You also don't get to run macOS, you lose out on Continuity, you don't get any thunderbolt 3. Also what about the built in wireless, speakers, camera, mic, included keyboard and mouse? 

monitors have speaker, you can pay 100$ more for a set of nice keyboard + mouse, and 100$ more for a TB3 + wifi mobo. Also, you get indiv. part warranty and not the 90day warranty that apple has. The best part about a iMac is the screen. also, you can always hackintosh . iMacs are actually nice if you get the base model (my dad got the base model for 2017 27" iMac for 1199$), and upgrade w/ ssd + cpu + ram.

[Firewrath9]

9 hours ago, Commodus said:

Well, Apple doesn't really use cheap SSDs, to be fair (they're usually speedy NVMe drives at last check)

And they overprice. for the price to upgrade the base model iMac to a 512GB SSD, its THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS

You can buy 2 1TB NVMe SSDs for that price.

1TB is 700$. You can buy a pair (2) of SATA 2TB 860 Evos, and a 512GB NVMe for that.