Apple launches new 27-inch Thunderbolt Display, Mac mini

User Comments: 60

1. July 21, 2011 7:17 AM
   Morgawr said:

   First, I'll say that I despise apple's business practices, and that I would refuse to buy either of these things. HOWEVER.....

   Point me somewhere I can buy a 27" IPS monitor with a 2560x1440 for under $500. Hell, tell me where I can get one for under $800. That means they give you a hell of a lot of computer for $200-$500. For me, however, the deal breaker is that you pretty much have to throw away a $500 + monitor every time you want to upgrade you system.

   Reply
2. July 21, 2011 7:21 AM
   Morgawr said:

   Morgawr said:

   First, I'll say that I despise apple's business practices, and that I would refuse to buy either of these things. HOWEVER.....

   Point me somewhere I can buy a 27" IPS monitor with a 2560x1440 for under $500. Hell, tell me where I can get one for under $800. That means they give you a hell of a lot of computer for $200-$500. For me, however, the deal breaker is that you pretty much have to throw away a $500 + monitor every time you want to upgrade you system.

   Nevermind, I need to RTFA..... seeing how its only the display.... meh.

   Reply
3. July 21, 2011 8:00 AM
   

   Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

   devastator1980 said:

   Nope, $1,800 for the high-spec Mac mini, not £1,800 for the "decent" spec. A Mac mini with 4 GB of RAM and other specs that are on the cheaper models are plenty for most tasks, just not heavy-duty gaming.

   You have got to be kidding?! your joking right? you just forgot the /sarcasm??

   Because I just configured one:

   £1,539 will get you:

   Intel Core i7 Duel Core 2.7Ghz

   8GB RAM

   256GB SSD & 750GB HDD

   Still using the inbuilt Graphics, Still using Inbuilt sound card. No extra inputs or outputs (USB3 for example)

   You were joking obviously, even at this price point it still isn't capable of any gaming... At All. Not even a little bit. And I didn't even configure the "Server" version.

   I'm sorry, but to all who say "its not aimed for you". this isn't aimed for anyone with a brain, you can buy or build, an ITX based computer (so pretty much just as small) but with a Quad core i7 and a descrete graphics card and a proper creative sound card for instance.

   Seriously, no way is Mac OSX worth the extra £1,100 Just absolutely no way.

   Reply
4. July 21, 2011 9:53 AM
   Butch said:

   burty117 said:

   devastator1980 said:

   Nope, $1,800 for the high-spec Mac mini, not £1,800 for the "decent" spec. A Mac mini with 4 GB of RAM and other specs that are on the cheaper models are plenty for most tasks, just not heavy-duty gaming.

   You have got to be kidding?! your joking right? you just forgot the /sarcasm??

   Because I just configured one:

   £1,539 will get you:

   Intel Core i7 Duel Core 2.7Ghz

   8GB RAM

   256GB SSD & 750GB HDD

   Still using the inbuilt Graphics, Still using Inbuilt sound card. No extra inputs or outputs (USB3 for example)

   You were joking obviously, even at this price point it still isn't capable of any gaming... At All. Not even a little bit. And I didn't even configure the "Server" version.

   I'm sorry, but to all who say "its not aimed for you". this isn't aimed for anyone with a brain, you can buy or build, an ITX based computer (so pretty much just as small) but with a Quad core i7 and a descrete graphics card and a proper creative sound card for instance.

   Seriously, no way is Mac OSX worth the extra £1,100 Just absolutely no way.

   Agreed.

   Reply
5. July 21, 2011 12:57 PM
   Guest said:

   "I'm sorry, but to all who say "its not aimed for you". this isn't aimed for anyone with a brain, you can buy or build, an ITX based computer (so pretty much just as small) but with a Quad core i7 and a descrete graphics card and a proper creative sound card for instance."

   Why would I want to do something stupid like that, when I can buy a Mac Mini and have it do everything I need it to do? Oh, and "proper creative sound card"? That made me laugh...

   Reply
6. July 21, 2011 5:23 PM
   

   ---agissi---, TechSpot Paladin, said:

   Um Guest is it ok if I'm to guess you dont know that Creative is a company that makes sound cards; hes not referring to the literary definition.

   Reply
7. July 21, 2011 8:53 PM
   

   SNGX1275, TS Special Forces, said:

   agissi - haven't seen you in a while, or at least not very active.

   Guest may have been laughing at the quality of Creative sound cards... Although I don't have any idea if Apple's are better.

   Reply
8. July 21, 2011 9:36 PM
   

   Technochicken, TechSpot Paladin, said:

   Guest said:

   FURThermore, I'm a pro mac user for many years, I don't like the glossy screen, but no one's actually invented a matte replacement, I think it can be done so innovators and inventors... start crackin'. And I want 15% for the idea.

   You just need to pull off that glass screen and make a replacement. Don't just sit around and wait to be fed like chicks in a nest, if you don't like the high gloss glass screen lets see some action on your end.

   No one has invented a matte LCD display? You're joking, right?

   Apple offers matte screens on their laptops (15"/17" . There is no reason why they couldn't offer matte cinema displays as well.

   Reply
9. July 21, 2011 9:58 PM
   

   captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

   Apple offers matte screens on their laptops (15"/17" . There is no reason why they couldn't offer matte cinema displays as well.

   Actually there is a reason, it's just not a technical reason. A high gloss display will always have much higher d-max, c-sat, and contrast, than does a matte screen. So, when they're placed in the right environment they look much better than a matte display. However, a matte display will always be easier to situate with respect to controlling glare.

   Reply
10. July 21, 2011 11:14 PM
    Guest said:

    For those saying this particular display is overpriced, look at other 2560x1440 resolution 27' inch monitors.

    Look at this: [link]

    If this display was 1920x1080 then yes I would agree with the overpriced statement.

    And I agree, $1k is a lot of money. But the argument that it is overpriced in comparison to other monitors in this same category is just false.

    It is competitively priced. Period.

    My only gripe is that you are pretty much forced into buying a Mac in order to make use of it unless there is some sort of display adapter that will let you use it with a Windows PC. Or until there is a Windows PC capable of hooking up to Thunderbolt.

    Reply
11. July 22, 2011 9:15 AM
    

    captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

    For those saying this particular display is overpriced, look at other 2560x1440 resolution 27' inch monitors.

    It is competitively priced. Period.

    My only gripe is that you are pretty much forced into buying a Mac in order to make use of it unless there is some sort of display adapter that will let you use it with a Windows PC. Or until there is a Windows PC capable of hooking up to Thunderbolt.

    A lot has changed in the monitor market with respect to price. At one time the 30" Apple cinema carried a price tag of $3000.00, which wasn't competitive.

    The question becomes, do you really need 2560 x 1440 resolution?

    I'm going to say you don't. Apple will say you do.

    Some will argue I'm behind the curve. Apple will say they're ahead of it.

    I still think 16:9 sucks for a computer screen, regardless of how many pixels are on it.

    But, Apple's business model is mostly having Steve Jobs convince you that you'll find a use for this new device. And mine will remain thinking he should stick his new device someplace where, "good things can't hurt you"!

    I think the name, "Thunderbolt" is fairly droll and absurd for a computer monitor. Apple is banking on its prospective owners believing that possessing a "Thunderbolt", will make them feel important.

    And so the beat goes on.

    Reply
12. July 22, 2011 12:37 PM
    Guest said:

    The point I was making had nothing to do with whether or not you really need a 2560x1440 display, or if Apple will say you need it. Because you're right, you don't need it. Nor was I making a point about Apple's business model and their use of the name "Thunderbolt".

    The point I was making is that it is not overpriced.

    Reply
13. July 22, 2011 1:47 PM
    

    captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

    The point I was making had nothing to do with whether or not you really need a 2560x1440 display, or if Apple will say you need it. Because you're right, you don't need it. Nor was I making a point about Apple's business model and their use of the name "Thunderbolt".

    The point I was making is that it is not overpriced.

    There is a difference between something being overpriced, and something being a poor value.

    With that said, suppose I cop to the fact that when comparing, "Apples to Apples", the "Thunderbolt" isn't over priced. However, it is a surprisingly poor value.

    Up front, it is a 16:9 aspect ratio display. Which means, that a 24" panel @ 16:10, has almost as much screen area.

    So, if I were going to piss away $1000.oo plus dollars for displays, I'd buy >>> THREE<<< of these 24" IPS Hewlett Packards ..... [link]

    And verily, I haven't spent $1200.00 on three of them. Total resolution : 5670 X 1200 with "Eye Finity".

    Just by itself the HP ZR-24w is a fine monitor, and perhaps the Apple is "better" or "has more pixels", but it doesn't represent a "good value", even if the price is "fair market value".

    Reply
14. July 22, 2011 2:14 PM
    

    red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

    There is a difference between something being overpriced, and something being a poor value.

    That's an interesting point. I had just succumb to the idea that the high performance stuff was "poor value" and is what you pay for that 'last 10%' of performance. Is there a textbook definition of each? or is there a subjective line there?

    Reply
15. July 22, 2011 2:35 PM
    Guest said:

    In other words you're saying it is both poor value and not overpriced.

    Reply
16. July 22, 2011 3:51 PM
    

    captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

    There is a difference between something being overpriced, and something being a poor value.

    That's an interesting point. I had just succumb to the idea that the high performance stuff was "poor value" and is what you pay for that 'last 10%' of performance. Is there a textbook definition of each? or is there a subjective line there?

    Sorry, I had to quote myself for continuity.

    Just as a talking point, let's say I consider something a "poor value" when it requires a great sacrifice to own it. As a definition of "sacrifice", let's say that that means, "what else could I have had, it I didn't buy a, "Thunderbolt".

    As you well know, I have an HP ZR24w, and I'm delighted with it. It cost $400.oo. The Apple screen would likely sell at list, and that's a thousand bucks.

    So, here I sit on $600.oo worth of potential additional gratification. That could be a 40+" TV, a new guitar, most of a decent whole 'nuther computer, home repairs groceries, and so forth.

    Or, I could sit around and wax my Apple. It would sure impress house guests.

    If you have more money than brains, or just more money than me, then by all means buy one. I think it would be a piss poor purchasing decision, but again that's just me. It's apparently what Apple is hypnotizing it's followers to do, I just failed to gaze at Steve Jobs shiny, swinging watch.

    Reply
17. July 22, 2011 4:28 PM
    1977TA said:

    That's a good point Captain.

    Brings to mind another question, how much would the Apple machine cost that would actually be able to push that thing @ 2560x1440 in a game for instance?

    The cheapest mac pro @ $2,500 sports a AMD 5770, even the most expensive one ( $5k ) shares that same card.

    People seem to forget that even though Apple is making a killing these days, if it weren't for the iPod/iPhone, they would have gone bankrupt along time ago. Their PC business model is a joke.

    Reply
18. July 22, 2011 4:41 PM
    

    captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

    Brings to mind another question, how much would the Apple machine cost that would actually be able to push that thing @ 2560x1440 in a game for instance?

    The cheapest mac pro @ $2,500 sports a AMD 5770, even the most expensive one ( $5k ) shares that same card.

    It's not really fair to speculate about a Mac Pro with respect to gaming. Windows has the lion's share of that market accounted for.

    However, as an alleged "Pro" model computer, I tend to view the "Mac Pros" as more along the lines of a workstation machine. That said, I would begin my comparisons with a single or dual Zeon Wintel.

    Your point about the graphics is very valid in this light. Since the Mac Pro is really a workstation, the graphics should be upgraded to the "FirePro" or similar professional video cards. Here's a sampling; [link]

    Before anybody chimes in with the banal, a Mac Pro was never intended to play "Crysis", so don't ask.... 'cause I won't tell...

    Reply
19. July 22, 2011 4:49 PM
    1977TA said:

    Yeah, I just picked the pro because they are the Apple's only pc that has hardware close to being able to run games.

    They don't offer any other gaming machines :|

    Reply
20. July 22, 2011 4:57 PM
    

    red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

    Try this on:

    Overpriced:

    Item A and B perform the same. Item A is 30% more

    Poor value:

    Item B performs 10% better, but cost's 30% more.

    Solved

    Or, I could sit around and wax my Apple. It would sure impress house guests.

    Was that a shot at me??

    ....here it comes

    Reply
21. July 22, 2011 5:21 PM
    

    captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

    Was that a shot at me??

    ....here it comes

    No, it was a combination of self deprecation, a hint of masturbation, and a more shaped, but non-personal charge, sort of like a Claymore Mine, aimed at anyone who got into its path of destruction.

    Reply
22. July 22, 2011 5:28 PM
    

    red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

    No, it was a combination of self deprecation, a hint of masturbation, and a more shaped, but non-personal charge, sort of like a Claymore Mine, aimed at anyone who got into its path of destruction.

    ROFL...you peeked!

    Reply
23. July 22, 2011 5:36 PM
    

    captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

    ROFL...you peeked!

    A few decades ago, that would have been...."peaking".

    Yeah, this is getting pulled....Go Apple....!

    That'll be 2 Mini servers and a Thunderbolt to go, hold the strychnine.....

    (For the multitudes of you out there that didn't get the ...."hold the strychnine" joke, I suggest you google, "orange sunshine, and/or the effects of strychnine poisoning).

    Reply
24. July 22, 2011 5:43 PM
    

    red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

    (

    For the multitudes of you out there that didn't get the ...."hold the strychnine" joke, I suggest you google, "orange sunshine, and/or the effects of strychnine poisoning).

    I always thought it was "Blue sunshine"....must have been all the 'Orange sunshine'

    Reply
25. July 22, 2011 5:49 PM
    

    captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

    (

    I always thought it was "Blue sunshine"....must have been all the 'Orange sunshine'

    Those were the days! Being led to your seat at the Spectum, one person on each arm to stabilize you. Having to ask, (of Leon Russell), "is this guy any good"? Being told, "not really".

    Nowadays though, I'd watch the concert from my Mac Mini's Blu-Ray drive, with sparks flying off the edges of my, "Thunderbolt", monitor! Screw those crowds. Screw trying to stop at the lights on the way home, instead of actually stopping a half block before them.

    Reply

Recently commented stories