Google has been quiet about its plans for Hangouts, and hasn’t revealed all that much about some of the components powering the service either. However, there have been some key developments in recent months that indicate what makes Hangouts work and where things are going:

The cloud

Making video chat work at scale can require a lot of resources, which is why there has been a movement towards peer-to-peer (P2P) solutions to offload video and signaling traffic between the clients involved. Skype makes use of P2P for that very reason, as does Chatroulette. However, P2P can introduce latency, which can be especially bothersome if you chat with 10 people at a time. That’s why Google went down a different route for Hangout.

“To support Hangouts, we built an all-new standards-based cloud video conferencing platform,” explained Google Real-time Communications Tech Lead Justin Uberti in a blog post on Tuesday. He added that Hangouts uses a client-server model which “leverages the power of Google’s infrastructure.”

Browser integration

Hangouts currently requires you to download the same plugin that also powers video chat within Google Talk. However, Google is working on making both Hangouts and Google Talk itself work in the browser, without the need for any plugins. This will be done in part through a new framework for realtime communications (read: text, voice and video chat) dubbed WebRTC that the company open sourced in May. WebRTC is supported by Mozilla and Opera, and Google started to integrate the framework into its Chrome browser earlier this month. “Work has started to move Google Talk completely to WebRTC,” it says on the project’s web site.

At that point, users won’t need a plugin anymore to use Google Talk, and the same should eventually be true for Hangouts. Here’s what a Google spokesperson told me via email about the connection bewteen the Google+ video chat service and the framework: “A lot of the technology in Hangouts feeds into the WebRTC, and we contribute a lot of feedback to help shape the WebRTC interface. At this point though, our plug-in and the protocol are different efforts.” He refused to reveal any future plans, but trust me, the writing is on the wall…

Open codecs

Google Talk and Hangouts currently use technology Google is licensing from Vidyo to facilitate video chats. Video is transmitted in H.264/SVC, with H.264/AVC and H.263 being used as fallback solutions. However, there are strong sings that Google will eventually switch to open codecs.

Google open sourced its VP8 video codec last year as part of the new WebM video format, and real-time communications were one of the big issues that VP8’s programmers wanted to improve with the codec from the onset. In fact, VP8 is already being used by Skype for its group video calling feature, and Google’s WebM project manager John Luther wrote in February that VP8 is an “exceptionally good codec for real-time applications like videoconferencing.”

So when will Hangouts be switching from H.264 to WebM? Google+ Project Lead Bradley Horowitz indicated on This Week in Google on Wednesday that his team is already testing alternatives to the current codec. A Google spokesperson didn’t want to discuss any future plans for Hangouts when I asked about the codec issue, but here’s a clue: WebRTC is based on the VP8 codec, which means that H.264 could get displaced as the default codec for Hangouts as soon as the video chat service rolls out its native browser integration.

Device integration

This is where things get really interesting: Hangout’s cloud-based architecture and its upcoming browser integration will eventually make it possible to deliver an optimized group video chat experience to a whole range of devices. Desktop users will get to view full HD video, users on mobile devices will receive optimized streams to deal with bandwidth issues. And Google TV users could see Hangouts appear on their TV sets sooner than they think, thanks to the fact that Google TV in fact comes with a full-blown Chrome browser.

A few companies have started to bring multi-person video chat to mobile devices, but cross-device video conferencing is still in its infancy, and Google could have a good chance here to capture the market early on. Of course, the company didn’t want to comment on the specifics of bringing Hangouts to mobile devices, but what Google’s spokesperson told me wasn’t exactly a denial either:

“Again, we can’t comment on future product plans. However, Google Plus heavily invests in mobile products as we believe you should be able to share and communicate, whether you are on the web, tablet, or phone.”

Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

• Post-IPO strategies for LinkedIn
• The Case for Increased M&A in 2011: Actions and Outlooks
• The Future of Workplaces

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM — Tech News, Analysis and Trends

Intermediate connectors aren’t played as strongly when they Pair. For instance, should you have 8-7 and the Flop comes K-7-2, you will be justifiably concerned with the King and you may fold.

Also, it is likely that you can flop Two-Pair. With 8-7 and a Flop of 8-7-A, you can get a player with A-K in trouble.

If both of you continue until the end, and your opponent’s hand doesn’t improve, he will slow it down trying to show it down. If the hand does improve it will be obvious as when he bets and you can just pay him off. He can pair his kicker or not, and whether he does, you still have a good showdown hand.

The best play (in your interest) is for your opponent to call all-in or move all-in on the Flop (during tournaments). However, this is only the case if the difference in chips between you and the all-in’er is large. If you have almost the same amount of chips, your 8-7 may not be good enough because your opponent may be willing only to call you with something like A-8 or, worse, 7-7.

Or he might call you with A-K and suckout when he pairs his Ace, his kicker, or when, say, a 10 hits the Turn, and another 10 hits the river then his Two-Pair is better. If one stack is small and the other large, and you’ve got the little stack then you have a good hand someone holding an A-K might be willing to call. If you have the large stack, your all-in opponent might be anxious for a call with his A-x (without Two-Pair) until he knows you have him steamrollered.

Usually you continue playing Two-Pair until you hit a Full House. With this hand, play it as you would play a made 5-card hand – value betting, pretending to bluff, slow-playing (pick your choice). However, should the Board comes 8-7-5, you may be willing to play it more slowly because if the Board comes 4, Six or 9, your Two-Pair might be almost unplayable.

Through the Flop, bet substantially to push a Straight draw out. Should your opponent calls, it may signify a Straight draw. Should your opponent moves all-in or pushes you all-in, then call – or not call.

Still you are the favorite over a Straight draw. You might also be able to hit a Full House later on. But also you can choose not to call because your opponent may have a made Straight. In an 8,7,5 board, the probability of a Flopped Straight is fairly small as players don’t play 9,6 or 6,4 very much.

But you should be careful in a Board of 8-7-J or 8-7-4, because their connectors are consecutive numbers, i.e. 10-9 and 6-5, and players, especially experienced ones, play these more often.

However, even if the Board comes something such as 8-7-4-5-Q, providing you are sure, or even half-sure, that your opponent does not have the Six, bet a small bet on the river. Should your opponent has 9-8 or Q-x, you may be paid off.

Should your opponent had the Six, you may be pushed, but you can fold without losing much. The thing is, you should keep your aggression most of the time as part of your image, and you will do this by value-betting. If your opponent didn’t have the Six, he may think that you had the Six, and he may fold, too.

And finally, here’s an addendum to our earlier example. Should you have 8-7 and the Flop comes K-7-2, you may fold. But you can also call a bet – you hope that your opponent had A-K – and if an 8 comes and you bet big, how will your opponent know you had another 8 in the hole? So long as you feel your opponent does not have K-8 or K-7 (not likely) both of you can get it all-in on the Turn – and you’ll emerge almost a victor.

This can be a fairly complex subject and if you’re not quite getting it then go play internet poker for free to master it the only real way you can which is to do it for real but learn to play poker free so that any mistakes you make don’t cost you anything apart from time.

Continue reading Design project paints city’s WiFi networks with light

Design project paints city’s WiFi networks with light originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 01 Mar 2011 20:08:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink Switched  |  Nearfield.org, Ti.mo (Flickr)  | Email this | Comments
Engadget

For example, that Straight might be strong now yet becomes weaker if the Board pairs or there are 3 of the same suit and an opposing player bets big. Bad calls are more linked to bad hands, however. For example.

BLINDS: 40k/80k

PREFLOP:

A has Ad-Jc, raises to 250k
B has 2h-2d calls 250k
C has Ks-Qs, is on big blind, calls 140k (pot 880k)

FLOP: Ah-2c-10c

A and B and the ones to focus on. Now A raises with A-J from early position and B calls with a pocket pair which has evolved into a Set. B has position over A, plus A may make the very bad decision to bet the high pair but QUESTIONABLE kicker at this step. His kicker is questionable because there are two more players in the pot who may have higher kickers (or even Two-Pair with A-10).

C checks

Note that there is also a Straight draw (which C has) and a Flush draw (which everyone thinks everybody else may potentially have). So now A will attempt to protect his strong (but questionable) made hand with an overbet:

A bets 1m
B raises to 2.67m
C folds
A to call all in 1.67m (Pot 4.55m)

First, A staked 250,000 on the hand, now 1 million that is approx. 40% of his total stack, and now he might be on the edge. Should he call? Now he might think that the reraise from Bs all-in doesn’t imply that B is on a draw (B can’t call an overbet with a draw), but it could imply a good hand like A,K or A,10. It also is not an attempt to knock A out of the hand as A has 3-1 on a call, but calling will give him the knock-out.

Is 3-1 a good proposition, however? He has 3 outs to pair his kicker and a small percentage for running outs to get a Straight or a Flush. His chance of winning is just about 14%, and the fair proposition for a 14% should be about 7-to-1. (He is only getting about 2.7-to-1.) And, when it comes to unlikely Set, he is almost drawing dead, while he needs cards for a running Full House. At this stage his A-J has already been a bad hand. So he has all the ingredients for a bad call all-in, which he makes.

A calls all-in (pot 6.22m)

The turn and the river of 5s and 8s, respectively, won B the pot. A’s call will be a good call had it been A-K (you decide if A-Q will be every bit as good). He is able to put B on an Ace with a lower kicker after which make progress with an overbet in which B’s decision will be an all-in (then A can call as a big favorite) or a fold (then A wins the pot). But no; he chose to overplay a marginal hand and that cost him heavily. At the very least, he decided to call all-in when calling all-in would be too dangerous.

Teaching your mind to think like this in poker takes a while to learn. Don’t lose money learning, go practice and play poker online free hard at free poker games sites first, then, and only when you feel very confident in your understanding of the game, should you move into lower stake money poker games.

To illustrate this situation we will learn by example. For the example we’ll use a truly critical hand example, a WSOP final table head to head.

The Set Up:

BLINDS 100k/200k, ante 30k

PREFLOP:

1) A has Ks-10s, raises to 400k
2) B has As-Ad, calls 200k
3) A’s raise is standard for K-10, which is not as weak in short-handed play as with a complete table.

B could have reraised A, but A might fold. B may be worried providing the Flop came up paired like J-J-7, but B thinks that a continuation test bet will detect if A has a hand after the Flop.

Reraising preflop and this test bet has the same effect of making A fold if A does not have anything, but calling not only conceals A’s hand strength, but also makes it dangerous for B to bet if a King or a Ten comes.

FLOP: Kc-5c-3h

1) B checks
2) A bets 525k
3) B raises to 1.45m
4) A calls 875k (Pot now 3.76m)

Now A suddenly had top pair which he may think is the best hand!

B checks, again to conceal hand strength.
A bets to build the pot, then B raises.

A may interpret B’s raise as being a bluff because he may think B is drawing (note the 2 Clubs) or that B may have a smaller pair, say, A-5 or A-3.

A just calls because he is now the one looking to trap.

TURN: Kc-5c-3h-6s

1) B bets 1.5m
2) The three-Flush didn’t come. B’s bet will now be challenging A.

If A folds, B still wins a major pot. If A calls or reraises, B can push him all-in if action gets back to B.
A’s trap seems to be working up to now.

Now B may have decided that A is still on a Flush draw with perhaps a small Pair, say Ac-3c.

Moreover, because preflop A obscured his hand strength well (just smooth-calling), B can think that A also has a King, however with a weaker kicker.

Now he is convinced that A is preparing to call anything he hauls in the middle, and he also thinks his trap is working. So what does he do?

1) A moves All In
2) B calls 3.6m (Pot now about 14 million)

Both think their traps are winning! In poker, the bigger the hands, the bigger the chips in front.

Both did well in preserving the balance building the pot and disguising hand strength, but only one hand can win.

A is only able to win with a river King or Ten.

RIVER: Kc-5c-3h-6s-10c (!)

A wins! But had A carried on trapping through to the river with this river card, it’s still the same. Both still have big hands, both are prepared to trap, and both are prepared to ravenously guard each other’s chips when the chance appears.

The Trap vs Trap In summary

Spend some time to read and appreciate the principles behind this article. Aim to appreciate the key facts behind what’s going on within this example and think of ways to put these lessons into your personal play.

While poker is not a hard game to learn it is a very hard game to win money at regularly if you are playing seriously.

But if (and when) you learn how to play poker well then you’ll make some good money. Why?

Simply that the vast majority of players you come up against never get to what can be termed a good level.

So you, if you can get to a good standard will do very well very easily. You don’t have to be a TV pro to make good money in poker!

The fact that most players are at such a low competence will mean that when you hunt/play them on free online poker or low stakes sites you’ll be able to clean up.

Nick from top free online poker site http://www.NoPayPOKER.com advises that to learn to play poker free really well go visit the NoPayPOKER blog, the free poker lessons there cover all levels from beginner to expert, plus, the site itself as a free online poker site is the perfect place to learn to play poker free.

I’m going to share and explain some of my better card play strategies. Remember this is not a beginning spot and is a long way off the real game. 77 I flat call and receive two times back and call. Flop comes 6D, 3H, 4H- 1st person to make a play all in on a one hundred and sixty five dollar, with a pot of three grand. I fold as they probably had better pockets or a nut flush draw/straight. Even though I had a fair chance of holding the best hand its way too soon to go for such a crazy move.

99 I flat call and the same player from before pushed all in on flop 8d,2s,2h at this point I am starting to think maybe I was wrong the 1st time but fold anyway. He shows me J2 now leading me to believe I was in fact correct the first time as well. KJ off I flat call only because someone before me called as well increasing my pot odds. About 15 minutes in now I have $2,900 of my original $3,000.

AJ I slow play A,6,9 flop and a player bets $350 the pot at this point was only $115 and the blinds $20/$40 so I fold. This player gave to much away with the size of his bet, if it were only me and him I would have reconsidered but I would like to think he wouldn’t try that with more players in the hand. I put him on a higher kicker, A6 suited or A9. Just in case I mention that he “should start showing a few to make it more believable.”

By doing this if he was being sneaky he may start to think about what I said and believe I know his game. It’s a no lose situation as if I’m wrong he will be wondering if I think he’s blagging & could call if he continues. The truth is as explained I’m just making remarks to keep him in check.

A good twenty mins on the same guy is making a move with K8 on a K66 flop when I have A6. Well as you might have guessed I ensure I double up & gain some vital info. He has in fact have hands when he makes these trivial gambles, however the cards he’s playing it with are very defeatable.

I will now employ a method of waiting for this player to make his next error. A different opponent to my right gambles before the flop- who seems to be on the same wave length as me, however playing it completely off the mark. The problem is he’s forceful with his cards and not stupid. I continue with the six grand double up here at first break 1hr into the game. At this point there’s still twenty two players at the table.

About 1 hour and 41 minutes in I catch the same player again slow playing AK for an even 9k bringing my total now up to 12k with 7 players left I am in 3rd place. So although this player was able to amount about 18k in chips with aggressive behavior he finishes in 8th place while the low stack at the previous table is now in the running’s for 1st place. Finding a target and sticking with it can pay off in the long run but be sure to find another means of making money to keep yourself around long enough for the big pay out.

AA I bet the minimum and have no action. Hour two is now in the books and I am in last. 4th place with 6k left so I’m all in on my next blind no matter what. The next closest player has 16k and blinds are 600/1200. 55 and flop comes Q510… a little luck never hurt anyone! I lay down AQ off to a bet that would put me all in. I didn’t feel like losing my newly found chips so fast. Went out in 3rd place with A4 suited vs K10 off. Not bad for a free poker tournament where I won some money too, shame it wasn’t an WSOP top table!

I look forward to playing you in a free poker tournament soon!

Since the community cards are played by everyone in the game, it’s possible for somebody to hold the same card as you do-but with a higher kicker. Take this situation, for instance: Two pair is a very common hold in hold’em. Let’s suppose that player A has two sixes in the hole. That’s a turning hand, because there’s a damn good chance he’ll get one more to make trips, and he’s going to get three cards in the flop instead of one at a time to see if he can get that other six.

The turn comes an eight, eight, and deuce. Now Player A has sixes and eights. Right now, he’s a favorite over an ace, king because there are two more cards to come, and a player with an ace, king must catch one of those cards to beat Player A’s hand.

Along comes a ten. Then along comes a ten. Now Player B has taken over and Player A cant beat him. Player B has tens and eights with an ace kicker. Since only five of the seven cards are played to make a hand, Player A has eights and tens with a six kicker. Actually, he’s ended up with three pair which aren’t worth a damn. If the final community card hadn’t been a ten, then Player A would have won, but Player B has now won the pot because of his ‘ace kicker’.

If you are new to hold’em, have a go at playing free poker games and see how you get on before betting any real money on the cash tables.

Originally posted at iPod accessories

Here’s the thing: you have to ship the system to company to have the firmware installed. But if you bought the ZK500 after the Zune HD was released, you’re good. The company will pay the necessary shipping cost to have the update completed.

However if you bought it before, you’re going to have to pay $40 to have the firmware installed. Ridiculous? Yeah, it kind of is.

Either way though, the system will not output high-def from the Zune HD because of the older dock connector used. But I guess if you spent the cash on the new Zune HD, you may as well spend another $40 to make your older speaker dock compatible.

But First, Simplicity

This 1998 ad has Jeff Goldblum narrating that there are two physical steps to setting up an iMac. (“There’s no step three!”) Truthfully, they skipped the mouse and keyboard cable, though, which would bring it to 4 steps. Today, an iMac is set up using just one power cable, depending on wireless networking and bluetooth peripherals to get the rest done. So it’s even simpler than it was 10 years ago. And as I said, the screen is becoming more prominent than ever.

The LCD

The 27-inch iMac’s screen is the thing to focus on in this revision. It is practically as bright (and more contrasty) than any of the previous iMacs—even Cinema Displays—and it looks astounding. It’s LED-driven so it comes to full luminescence immediately and takes up less power. It also has better side-to-side viewing angle as an IPS tech monitor; like the iMac 24 before it, it goes 178 degrees without much change in color accuracy or brightness. And here’s the kicker: Although it has 19% more area of LCD than the old 24-incher, it has 60% more pixels. That makes it more pixel dense than any of the Cinema Displays at 109ppi. And with a 2560×1440 resolution it has 90% of the dot count of a 30-inch cinema display. All these stats are great. They sound great, and they make for a powerful picture. But the actual view of the screen leaves me with a positive—but slightly imperfect—impression.

The default brightness is a bit much, but of course you can turn it down. And the contrast is welcome; even my new 13-inch MacBook Pro looks yellowed and washed out next to it. But at this pixel density, which is sharper than my notebook, it’s almost too sharp, requiring me to sit closer than I would ordinarily do with a 27 inch display. I like the feeling of crispness — 16% crisper than the last generation. But my eyes feel like the pictures are being delivered by a land shark holding a laser pointer straight into my corneas, and I can feel the strain within minutes. I would have to jack up as many font sizes as possible or sit as close as I do to my MacBook to make it work for long long periods of time. Maybe I’m just a wimp of a geek, but I’ve never been sensitive to these sorts of things on any sort of machinery before.

This is the iMac next to a 13-inch MBP and a Dell 2407 24-inch monitor. The iMac’s screen puts both to shame in brightness and clarity.

Apple is making a big deal of the fact this screen is 16:9. I think it looks better in this wider iteration, but it’s not an epic jump since the last gen was 16:10. You’re losing vertical pixel count here, on both the 21.5 and 27-inch models, despite added diagonal inches. Also, the glass cover is now edge to edge, without the thin silver rim around it, on the top and sides. It’s still glossy and very very reflective, despite being covered in anti-reflective coating.

I will feel guilty for mentioning this, because it’s ever so slight, but I’ll feel more guilty if I don’t mentioning it to you: The screen, when it’s white, has the tiniest bit of blotchiness to it. The backlighting is slightly uneven in my model. It had no impact on viewing quality once the screen was filled with an image other than one of pure white, so don’t sweat it.

My previous comparison to the 30-inch Cinema Display wasn’t for academic purposes, either. One of the most interesting features on the new iMac is that it can use its Mini DisplayPort (normally an output) as an input; that is, it can become a secondary display for notebooks or other devices. Factor in the near-identical specs to the 30-inch Cinema Display, most notably its updated LED screen, and you have absolutely no reason to buy a 30-inch Cinema Display when you can have this—but not just yet.

That’s what two full sized 1080p trailers look like on this screen.

Eager to test this shit and be the first to the internet with an image of an Xbox linked into an iMac (“Worlds collide!” would be the headline, I decided), I ordered a monoprice Mini-DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapter. Unfortunately, I discovered that the inputs would not work with a PS3 or Xbox at any res, HD or otherwise. The current adapters on the market are unidirectional, I was told, and so they won’t work to take HDMI sources and pipe them into the iMac. I’m sure someone is making a cable as we speak for this very abominable purpose of piping in Microsoft gaming to a desktop Mac—but it’s not here yet. (New cables, by the way, will include audio, which the iMac is capable of taking through its connector and the iMac is able to display video sources up to its native resolution.) The issue is, this could take months. That’s a long time, so don’t buy an iMac planning to use it with a gaming console or Blu-ray player right away.

Using it with a laptop was an interesting situation. Odd, for sure, but a welcome bonus and an obvious use. Here’s how it works. You plug in a Mini-DisplayPort-to-Mini-DisplayPort cable to the iMac, which must be turned on (unlike Sony’s all-in-one, which works while off.) The iMac flickers for a second and the laptop’s picture replaces the iMac’s. Here’s where it gets sort of weird. When the iMac is acting as a monitor, the keyboard and mouse are all blocked from working, except a few keys: The pause/play, FF, RR, volume controls and brightness keys all work. They won’t display the typical volume/brightness/FF/whatever iconography, because you’re actually still looking at your MacBook. You can actually then use your iMac as a display for one computer while listening to music on another—but why would you want to? And if you were playing a game with an Xbox, you’d be listening to the game. To toggle between the iMac and the external source, you hit Command+F2.

(*The 21.5-inch iMac is not as sharp or impressive as the 27, but a fine evolution nonetheless; see chart)

Oh, one more thing: The LED display is also thinner than the traditional panel. Even so, when combined with the extra width and height, Apple’s designers are given adequate room to play with the layout and thermal properties of the iMac. Which brings us to the chassis and internals.

The Chassis

The iMac’s chassis went from all plastic to aluminum and glass in 2007. The first aluminum models were stamped out in car factories because no computer factories could work with aluminum pieces that big. Now, the iMac has even more aluminum in them with bigger cases and a seamless wraparound back made of metal instead of the black plastic cap. Despite the loss of the slimming effect of a black plastic back, the computer’s dimensions work in its favor; it’s about 1mm thinner and obviously wider, so it still feels undoubtedly skinny.

Oh, and the stand is tapered by 1.1mm on its front (as is Apple’s wont), to further hide volume.

Aside from the more flattering aspect ratios, the chin—one of the only giveaways that this is not just a screen but a computer—has shrunk by 22%. It looks much better, in my opinion. The case’s bigger size affects its internal layout, too. Apple and iFixit brought several of these details to my attention.

The most important changes are that the GPU and CPU are placed at nearly opposite ends of the case, with their own heatsinks to throw off copious heat with three very quiet fans. (The iMac’s sound profile at idle, for a stock build, is still just a whisper, less than 20db.)

Ports: The back of the case has a Mini DisplayPort, 4 USB 2.0 ports, power plug (the machine’s only wire), Firewire 800, minijack/optical input and output, and Gigabit Ethernet. There’s Bluetooth 2.1 EDR wireless with which the mouse and keyboard interface, and 802.11 N Wi-Fi. Although the entire case is aluminum, the antenna has been cleverly hidden in a plastic Apple logo top center on the back. Reception is a touch stronger than on my notebook.

The iChat camera and microphone (the latter of which is made up of about a dozen closely-grouped pinprick holes, like on the MacBook Pro) are situated on the top of the iMac. And despite the new model’s height they sound fine (if not a touch more distant because of the height) when compared to previous models. The top mount for the microphone keeps the sound from the new, more powerful two-way speakers from interfering with it; measured using a song and SPL meter, my notebook came in at 70db and the iMac at 76db at sitting distance. Louder, richer and noticeably so than a laptop, though I didn’t have an iMac 24 on hand to compare with.

The larger case allows the iMac to use four sticks of user-serviceable RAM, accessible from the bottom. (That’s useful futureproofing now that OS X Snow Leopard is shipping, and programs and the OS in 64-bit can address more than 4GB at a time.)

How About Performance?

The iMac I’m testing is a 3.06GHz Core2Duo processor with 4GB of RAM and an ATI Radeon 4670 graphics. Those are decent parts but not the highest-end quad-core i5/i7 chips or ATI Radeon 4850 GPU that will ship in iMacs in November. More importantly, the machine I have here that is shipping now is about on par with higher-end, custom-order machines from the last generation. The system benchmarks I ran earlier this week indicate that everything performs practically the same. And since we don’t have a Core i5/i7 machine to work with, I’ve included Apple’s approximations of how much boost the iMac will get from those parts — obviously, many grains of salt are necessary when reading, especially when measuring value of extra CPU cores as literal multipliers when most software still can’t leverage those channels efficiently.

As for 3D, Maclife has some framerate scores from Doom 3 and Call of Duty that are not by any means exact but somewhat representative of the machine I’m using today. But again, the bottom line is that this machine that I have, shipping today, is not faster than machines equipped similarly from the last generation—they’re just cheaper for any given performance point.

But again, even if you wait for the higher end machines, there’s no guarantee you’ll be able to access most of that extra power. Snow Leopard hasn’t seen many apps, besides the ones that ship with it that can take advantage of its multicore CPU and GPU technologies. Programs will come, but immediate speed gains aren’t guaranteed here if you buy the quad-core machines.

Here’s an exception: Those Core i5/i7 chips are also clocked slower than the Core 2 Duo chips on the lower-end machines, but have the ability to run single core applications at a greater clock speed. Since all four cores won’t be burning, the chip uses the spare electricity and the extra thermal overhead to dynamically and automatically overclock the core that is working: The i5 chip goes from 2.66GHz to 3.2GHz and the 2.8GHz i7 chip goes to 3.46GHz (with 4 cores that run hyperthreaded for up to 8 virtual cores.)

Sounds fast, but we’ll dive into deeper tests in November. For now, you should be aware that if your desktop is less than 18 months old, you’d be somewhat silly to upgrade before the highest end chips from this generation of iMac are out.

What Else You Got?

The iMac replaces its old mouse with the new Magic Mouse, with a multitouch surface and 360 degree scrolling and swiping, almost like the gestures you find on a Macbook trackpad. I’ve said it before: I primarily use Laptops because I love trackpads. The gestures, fingertip precision and proximity to the keyboard make it a must have, and this mouse fixes some of those issues. (*Jason Chen reviewed the mouse and liked it but it was not without flaws. Read that if you’re considering buying an iMac, because it’s the only option Apple offers.)

The one detail I found problematic specifically with the Magic Mouse as it pertains to the 27-inch iMac is that even when the pointer sensitivity is set to the highest level, a swipe of the wrist at a moderately fast speed goes only 2/3 across the giant pixel landscape. Only by whipping my hand across my mouse pad can I trigger enough mouse acceleration to get across the screen. They should turn up the sensitivity, frankly. Software update please!

The keyboard is also changed, going from the old wired keyboard, which was stamped out of the screen cutout of the chassis, with a wireless Bluetooth model. Apple states that the keyboard’s narrow profile makes it a better fit next to the mouse. I think it also makes sense as a remote control for the computer from afar when watching media, since this is the biggest iMac ever that doubles as a monitor. But it looks a little small and out of proportion with the machine itself, since the Mac got wider and the keyboard got shorter. (Correction: The keypad-less change happened last revision. I just miss that numeric pad keyboard’s width from the first generation of Aluminum iMacs. It seemed to fit perfectly.)

Oh, the white plastic remote that used to ship with all the laptops, AppleTV and iMacs has been replaced by an elliptical, aluminum remote with black rubber buttons. It’s longer, and shaped like an iPod nano but no longer comes with the iMac. It costs $19. I think when you buy a computer that is this expensive, they should THROW IN THE DAMN REMOTE.

Competitive Check

There are other all-in-ones from PC makers, but at the moment, none as large or high-res as the iMac 27. The ones from Sony (like the L) and HP have various extras like IR touchscreens, glowing monitor bodies, TV tuners and Blu-ray drives. Some are pretty decent, like the Touchsmart we just reviewed. If these things matter to you and you are not married to the Mac platform, you might consider them. But that touchscreen functionality is still half-baked, so don’t do it for the groping potential.

Value

The sweet spot is the $1200 21.5-inch config. But don’t upgrade that model beyond base without seriously considering the big bad 27-incher for $1700. And don’t upgrade that one at all without considering the quad-core models; both look very promising at $2000 or $2200. Basically, the custom builds are not a great value until you get to the quads. Go cheapest, 27, or quad. But cautious folks will wait on the quads ’til we test them.

There’s another angle here, too. Again, comparing the 27-inch iMac to the old as hell 30-inch Cinema Display makes those standalone monitors look like a pretty bad value when it costs only $100 more for just 10% more pixels—and, hey, it’s also not a computer.

Nerds, Sheathe Thy Wallet If You Can

Although the quad core benchmarks aren’t here yet, I think you’ve got enough information here to make an adult decision on whether to go cheap or double your price for something faster and bigger. It’s not like those new chips will be slower. But waiting a month on a new internal layout, design and screen is a great way to let Apple shake out whatever inevitable hiccups are there at the start of a new run. Plus, if Snow-Leopard-specific apps make their way to market (hello, <Handbrake!) and some performance scores come out in the meantime, hey, cool.

Big beautiful screen is super high res and bright.


Chassis design evolving to new heights of beauty; less chin.


Faster parts not out yet; current components available in previous generation.


No Blu-ray player, touchscreen or other things that aren’t important to me, but may be important to you. Maybe.