New Apple gear! Mac Pro, iMac, Displays, Trackpad...and Battery Charger?

[Ka0t1x]

As I was just tweaking my gestures of my magic mouse.. don't forget Better Touch Tool should make the Trackpad a much better solution than it already is.

 

[alfa147x]

Of course you can. But I already own a mouse and keyboard, so for my desktop this would be a SECONDARY method to control the cursor. Perhaps alternative would have been a better choice. I like Apple's trackpads, I LOVE Apple's trackpads, but I only want this thing, I don't need it.

Yeah, I had to go out and buy a $3 mouse from microcenters because I broke my G5. So I'm in the market

 

[sourceninja]

I'm rushing out to buy that battery charger asap! ....

 

[TheStu]

I'm rushing out to buy that battery charger asap! ....

/sarcasm?

Also does anyone know if the new trackpad will work with a G4 PowerBook? If so, then that might be a much more valid impetus.

 

[JC86]

I used to hate trackpads and swore by a mouse until I got my 13" aluminum macbook with multi-touch trackpad. web browsing and expose fast switching is so convenient and intuitive that I now prefer the trackpad over a mouse for web browsing.

 

[ViRGE]

Yeah, I don't really know about 16:9. I don't hate it, but I don't really understand why they went with it. I have a lot of square LCD's at work and people LOVE them in pairs. I have a 19" widescreen LCD (1366x768) at work and it's nice. But 16:9 is just an interesting size. I wonder why they went so wide.

Pretty soon we'll be in anamorphic mode - a 42" iMac that is only 10" high

16:9 is a cost-cutting measure, no more and no less. LCD manufacturers want to build these things on the same lines and with the same tools as their TVs, so it's cheaper for them to build everything at a 16:9 ratio. The fact of the matter is, is that 16:9 is a lousy ratio for a computer; it's not any better for movies and it's worse for everything else since additional vertical space is more important (hint: books are portrait, not landscape).

 

[speg]

Stoked about the track pad and the new mac pros.

I am really disappointed about where Apple is taking its Cinema Display line.
Why would you include megasafe if your desktops don't include megasafe?
Hell, the mac mini doesn't have megasafe.

Why would you want MagSafe on a desktop?

1) Your cords should not be lying around to trip over
2) If they are, do you really want your system to shut down if you touch them wrong?

MagSafe is for laptops that people have strewn about their house so when they trip over the cord it doesn't rip the laptop to the ground. They also have batteries in them so they don't die when this happens.

The Cinema Display is designed for those people plugging their notebooks in, hence why it has a MagSafe connector for them.

 

[airdata]

12-core Mac Pro

* 12-core option ($4999, available in August)
* Four SSD's as a new option
* ATI Radeon 5000-series options with CrossFire support

Does it play Crysis?

 

[Patranus]

The Cinema Display is designed for those people plugging their notebooks in, hence why it has a MagSafe connector for them.

No, the cinema displays have been HIGHJACKED by the laptop market.
Please point me to Apple lines of professional displays.

 

[alkemyst]

Can someone explain to me why the trackpad is useful on a desktop when you could be using a mouse? I have a Laptop at work and HATE the trackpad and use a mouse with it whenever possible. I simply just don't see why you would want to use it.

Ive always liked the Apple Displays but 16:9 is fail

Trackpads actually work quite well if you aren't gaming.

2-3-4 finger gestures FTW in productivity.

I used to be a nub guy or external moust on lappys but newest features of trackpads have won me over as most of my work on a laptop is productivity type applications.

 

[alfa147x]

Anyone know if they're going to come out with windows drivers for that trackpad?

Apple issues Magic Trackpad drivers for OS X and Windows, updates MacBooks with new gesture support

 

[Tyranicus]

Also does anyone know if the new trackpad will work with a G4 PowerBook? If so, then that might be a much more valid impetus.

Apple's site says it requires 10.6.4 or later, so I'm guessing no.

 

[Tyranicus]

16:9 is a cost-cutting measure, no more and no less. LCD manufacturers want to build these things on the same lines and with the same tools as their TVs, so it's cheaper for them to build everything at a 16:9 ratio. The fact of the matter is, is that 16:9 is a lousy ratio for a computer; it's not any better for movies and it's worse for everything else since additional vertical space is more important (hint: books are portrait, not landscape).

You realize of course, that the 27" display, while 16:9, still has a higher vertical pixel count than most 16:10 displays, right?

 

[ViRGE]

You realize of course, that the 27" display, while 16:9, still has a higher vertical pixel count than most 16:10 displays, right?

Yes, but it still should have been a 16:10 display so that it's a full 2560x1600. More to the point this is a sign of things to come: the 21" iMac is also 16:9. You have about as much vertical resolution on it as a 17" LCD.

 

[alkemyst]

it's the whole 16:10 vs 16:9 debate...there are people in both corners.

 

[Wreckem]

it's the whole 16:10 vs 16:9 debate...there are people in both corners.

And the only people that matter are the panel manufactures. Samsung, LG, et al are moving away from 16:10, soon every consumer product will be 16:9, be it laptop or desktop monitor.

There isn't a 27" 16:10 panel being made. I'd understand if it was a crapstastic 27" like every other 27" besides the Dell U2711. It could be worse it could be like HPs 27", or anyone else 27" monitor and have 1080p resolution. The larger the monitor and resolution the less 16:9 is an issue. For small monitors it sucks, but have y'all played with a 27" iMac or the Dell U2711? There are plenty of vertical pixels.

 

[Wreckem]

Yes, but it still should have been a 16:10 display so that it's a full 2560x1600. More to the point this is a sign of things to come: the 21" iMac is also 16:9. You have about as much vertical resolution on it as a 17" LCD.

21.5" iMac is 1920x1080. A 17" wide screen 16:10 is well shit, its 1440x900, but you can barely find a 17" 16:10 wide screen. 18.5" 16:9 is the new 17". 4:3 17"ers are still made, but probably not much larger.

Basically, for the general consumer, there will be primarily be 18.5, 21.5, 23, 27 16:9 monitors in the not so distant future.

 

[TheStu]

Apple's site says it requires 10.6.4 or later, so I'm guessing no.

See, that just makes me sad.

 

[Anubis]

21.5" iMac is 1920x1080. A 17" wide screen 16:10 is well shit, its 1440x900, but you can barely find a 17" 16:10 wide screen. 18.5" 16:9 is the new 17". 4:3 17"ers are still made, but probably not much larger.

Basically, for the general consumer, there will be primarily be 18.5, 21.5, 23, 27 16:9 monitors in the not so distant future.

unless they kill off 24s and 30s and the random asus 26inch ones they will prob be your only bets for 16x10. as i stated before i prefer 16:10 however thats mostly because 1920x1200 is vastly superior to 1920x1080


2560 x 1440 vs 2560x1600 might not be as big of as deal, all i know is the dual 30s we have at work are amazing

 

[TheStu]

unless they kill off 24s and 30s and the random asus 26inch ones they will prob be your only bets for 16x10. as i stated before i prefer 16:10 however thats mostly because 1920x1200 is vastly superior to 1920x1080


2560 x 1440 vs 2560x1600 might not be as big of as deal, all i know is the dual 30s we have at work are amazing

1920*1200 is 11% better than 1920*1080, not vastly superior. I would have much rather gotten a 1200 monitor than a 1080, but since 1080 was between a third and half the price and I was on a budget, I didn't have a whole lot of choice.

But the monitor I got is alright, and yes, it is a cheap monitor, and yes, barely has more vertical pixels than my previous 19" LCD (5:4 1280*1024), but that is enough for me, the horizontal pixels are where its at once you get above 1024 I think.

 

[silverpig]

Apple issues Magic Trackpad drivers for OS X and Windows, updates MacBooks with new gesture support

I just rebooted after installing this. I LOVE scrolling with momentum now

 

[alfa147x]

I just rebooted after installing this. I LOVE scrolling with momentum now

Yuck I hate it

 

[wantedSpidy]

that 27" will be really appealing to all the folks with macbooks. If the 49w speakers deliver, then I'll jump on this display in 2011. Although the "single" cable with mini displayport + usb + magsafe power isn't something special that'll convince a lot of macbook pro owners to get these displays over the U2711.

 

[TheStu]

that 27" will be really appealing to all the folks with macbooks. If the 49w speakers deliver, then I'll jump on this display in 2011. Although the "single" cable with mini displayport + usb + magsafe power isn't something special that'll convince a lot of macbook pro owners to get these displays over the U2711.

The LED backlighting might though. That and the U2711 is matte, not all of us care for that.

Oh, and the Cinema Display is (I think) $100 cheaper than the Dell.

 

[wantedSpidy]

The LED backlighting might though. That and the U2711 is matte, not all of us care for that.

Oh, and the Cinema Display is (I think) $100 cheaper than the Dell.

But the cinema display comes with 1yr warranty, so if you buy applecare (to match dell's 3 yr warranty, which everyone will) that will probably make the cinema display more expensive. Not to mention, there have been deals already where the U2711 has gone for $820'ish shipped after tax.

Now that I think about it, those inbuilt speakers will have to be REALLY good for me to get this over the U2711. Although I do hate cluttered desks .....