PDA

View Full Version : LED Displays for Upcoming Apple Laptops?




MacRumors
Feb 2, 2007, 06:56 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

ThinkSecret reiterates (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0702leddisplay.html) recent rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/21/led-lit-displays-in-upcoming-15-macbook-pros/) that Apple will be incorporating LED-powered displays in upcoming laptops.

The rumor site believes that Apple already has systems in development and the new laptops are expected sometime in the 2nd quarter of this year, possibly alongside an expected Core 2 Duo processor bump (2.4GHz T7700) from Intel.

Meanwhile, Samsung has conveniently just introduced (http://aving.net/usa/news/default.asp?mode=read&c_num=35012&C_Code=02&mn_name=news) 15.4-inch LED-backlit monitors at the International Conference and Exhibition on Display LEDs.

The Samsung LED display offers the same 15.4" size and 1440x900 resolution as current 15.4" MacBook Pros.



iW00t
Feb 2, 2007, 07:04 AM
This is good news. Will we see higher resolutions?

iSee
Feb 2, 2007, 07:08 AM
TS is almost never right--I think they just make the stuff up.

dernhelm
Feb 2, 2007, 07:09 AM
I may have to scrounge my nickels and scrape up enough cash for one of these.

UKFletch
Feb 2, 2007, 07:12 AM
I just wish they'd tell us something concrete... I need to buy a new laptop, the MBP is my choice, but if all I have to do is wait a week or two after my expected purchase date, then I'll suffer and wait. If it's months, I'll buy one as planned.

Looks like I'll be looking out for the Superbowl ads, and more rumors for events on the 20th Feb!

Fletch

ts1973
Feb 2, 2007, 07:12 AM
I like it :)

But I like the prospect of the T7700 with 800FSB support and new chipsets even better :D

irbdavid
Feb 2, 2007, 07:16 AM
This is good news. Will we see higher resolutions?

Same resolutions, but lower power and hence more battery life, or same battery life and brighter displays, or a bit of both.

Not sure whether this is an improvement or not in terms of producing a display with an even backlight though, and until recently LEDs weren't too hot on producing an even white light source, as opposed to cathodes, which are about as white as white gets.

Spectrum
Feb 2, 2007, 07:17 AM
262,000 colours (6 bit) doesn't sound good.
Neither does a colour gamut only 45% of NTSC.
It's not even much thinner than a Powerbook lid...

What is there to like exactly?

Diatribe
Feb 2, 2007, 07:18 AM
Number of colors 6 bit? :confused: I always thought a display had more.

Anyway, looks pretty nice, the only thing I don't know is whether I'd want a Rev. A of those things.

kwajo.com
Feb 2, 2007, 07:19 AM
wow, that Samsung monitor only uses 3.1W? that's truly impressive, don't normal 15" displays use 15-20W? I can't wait to see that technology in a laptop, it should result in excellent power savings, and maybe put an end to having to reduce screen brightness significantly to prolong battery life.

retroneo
Feb 2, 2007, 07:23 AM
It's a crap display, why is anyone celebrating?

It's only got 45% of NTSC 's gamut when a conventional LCD display has 82%, and the best Samsungs have 97%. (Syncmaster 931C)

The power consumption figure is the only good thing about it.

samh004
Feb 2, 2007, 07:24 AM
But I like the prospect of the T7700 with 800FSB support and new chipsets even better :D

That does sound good, something to look forward to, as well as true 64-bit ? Will the new MBP's see more than 3.2GB of RAM ?

Anyway, looks pretty nice, the only thing I don't know is whether I'd want a Rev. A of those things.

That's what I was thinking, may actually be beneficial waiting until Penryn now... ugh!

It's only got 45% of NTSC 's gamut when a conventional LCD display has 82%, and the best Samsungs have 97%. (Syncmaster 931C)

What does that mean to the average joe. What will I notice in difference between a display in the current line and a possible future line.

Diatribe
Feb 2, 2007, 07:29 AM
The color reproduction kinda sucks. I don't think Apple would use something like this until the color reproduction is on par with current LCDs, especially considering that many people using a Mac need exactly that.

Lone Deranger
Feb 2, 2007, 07:29 AM
My thoughts exactly. I'm not very impressed with those numbers displayed by that Samsung panel.

I had hopes we'd finally get rid of the 6bit limitations by now. Let alone a measely 45% NTSC gamut.

I guess I was expecting a bit too much from this "new" technology. :confused:

Let's hope Apple will put something a bit better in their line up.

262,000 colours (6 bit) doesn't sound good.
Neither does a colour gamut only 45% of NTSC.
It's not even much thinner than a Powerbook lid...

What is there to like exactly?

samh004
Feb 2, 2007, 07:30 AM
The color reproduction kinda sucks. I don't think Apple would use something like this until the color reproduction is on par with current LCDs, especially considering that many people using a Mac need exactly that.

Especially considering the MBP is a pro system...

andiwm2003
Feb 2, 2007, 07:33 AM
It's a crap display, why is anyone celebrating?

It's only got 45% of NTSC 's gamut when a conventional LCD display has 82%, and the best Samsungs have 97%. (Syncmaster 931C)

The power consumption figure is the only good thing about it.

i agree. i don't get the hype about these displays. the displays are good as they are (unless you get a bad unit). and the power savings make what? 10% difference overall for the MBP?

a high resolution screen in combination with a resolution independent OS would be more exciting (to me at least;) )

Diatribe
Feb 2, 2007, 07:37 AM
i agree. i don't get the hype about these displays. the displays are good as they are (unless you get a bad unit). and the power savings make what? 10% difference overall for the MBP?

a high resolution screen in combination with a resolution independent OS would be more exciting (to me at least;) )

They definitely are the future in terms of even brightness, longevity and energy efficiency but there are still things to improve.
Eventually they will become the standar, just give them 2 more years.

Spectrum
Feb 2, 2007, 07:37 AM
Exactly. Colour response on laptops is already compromised compared to good desktop monitors. The only reason to let coulour response slip, not improve, is to fit the display into an ultra portable that is not primarily used for photo/video work. Hence it doesn't yet make sense to get it in the 15" until the display tech improves.
..now bringing out a 4lb 12" MacBook Pro with this LED display DOES make sense. Maybe they could slip in one of those new 60GB 1.8" drives to save more weight/power, and use a low power core duo chip, to get 5+hours life from a tiny battery.

The color reproduction kinda sucks. I don't think Apple would use something like this until the color reproduction is on par with current LCDs, especially considering that many people using a Mac need exactly that.

Whistleway
Feb 2, 2007, 07:41 AM
As usual a stupid rumor posted at a site, wishing that a prototype technology just debuted woud be in the newest commercialized laptop in months. Get over it. It will come when it will come and it won't be in 6 months either.

These are not rumors. Some Apple koolaid drunk wishing for things by putting them together. Just give us rumors TS. I just about had all this nonsense.

retroneo
Feb 2, 2007, 07:47 AM
What does that mean to the average joe. What will I notice in difference between a display in the current line and a possible future line.

Take a look at a PowerBook 5300ce from 1995 to get an idea. (or similarly aged LCD). This Samsung would look nearly as crap as the 5300ce, only brighter with a wider viewing angle. I don't believe Apple would even consider using that particular model display.

There were earlier rumors of a different company's LED backlighting technology a couple of weeks ago that had 106% of NTSC gamut. (I can't recall the company name) However the power consumption figures were about the same as today's CCFL backlights.

ltcol266845
Feb 2, 2007, 07:55 AM
They need to bump the resolution too. For being such expensive machines, their displays are a little un-impressive. Probably the one last thing pushing me away from the MacBook Pro

job
Feb 2, 2007, 08:18 AM
:) I submitted the link on the Samsung displays.

Like others have mentioned, I am a little surprised by how poor the specs of the 15.4" LED display are. While it looks great in the pictures, reading the spec sheet doesn't make one any more confident about the prospect of using one of these displays.

Only 262K? Hopefully they've got another version up their sleeves that is a little better than that.

iSee
Feb 2, 2007, 08:19 AM
They need to bump the resolution too. For being such expensive machines, their displays are a little un-impressive. Probably the one last thing pushing me away from the MacBook Pro

Not 'til all the resolution independent stuff has been added to OS X.

syklee26
Feb 2, 2007, 08:24 AM
Actually this "rumor" was first mentioned by Appleinsider. I do not have the exact link but I do remember seeing it.

either way, I thought most of the MBP users who need dead accuracy of color do not use MBP screen anyway....don't they hook it up to one of those $5000 15 inch monitor?

Personally, I don't know why some of the apple users are so picky. MBP is not super expensive compared to other brand notebooks, yet people complain every single day. and most of the complaints are such a nitpicky stuff it's ridiculous (I am not talking about the screen here....things such as how MagSafe is too loose and stuff)

brucku
Feb 2, 2007, 08:26 AM
They need to bump the resolution too. For being such expensive machines, their displays are a little un-impressive. Probably the one last thing pushing me away from the MacBook Pro

Resolution wise, yes the MBP's display is a little dissapointing, but in other ways its better than what i've seen on most pc laptops, including thinkpads.

I've always noticed a difference in colors when comparing my powerbook to other non apple laptops. I was always under the impression that this was given to us at the cost of higher resolution, and it was worth it to me. Does anyone know which specification explains this difference? Is it the % of NTSC?

The difference I'm talking about is easily noticed when comparing 2 picture, one will have the correct orange or yellow while another laptop just looks washed out and "boring"

(I'm still not willing to trade this apple advantage for higher resolution)

andysmith
Feb 2, 2007, 08:34 AM
82" MacBooks Pros next Tuesday? :D
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsungs-82-incher-worlds-largest-lcd-tv-with-led-backligh/

Data
Feb 2, 2007, 08:42 AM
That does sound good, something to look forward to, as well as true 64-bit ? .

I was surprised to learn that only the Power mac G5 and the Macpro machiens are true 64 bit maschienes , ALL other macs are 32 bit.
Now i also think that you won't notice 64 bit over 32 bit unless you are working in a labratory butt still, i always thought that the mac maschiens all were 64 bit and that that was why we would benefit from the leopard all the way 64 bit OS .

Sorry if i'm going a bit off topic with this.

samh004
Feb 2, 2007, 08:45 AM
Only 262K? Hopefully they've got another version up their sleeves that is a little better than that.

What are the specs of the current screens ? Is this that whole thousands and millions of colors thing ?

I was surprised to learn that only the Power mac G5 and the Macpro machiens are true 64 bit maschienes , ALL other macs are 32 bit.

Yeah, apparently the C2D is 64-bit but the limitation is the current motherboard that is 32-bit, from what I have heard at least. The next revision should sort that out, at least for the MBP.

Then again what do I know...

Data
Feb 2, 2007, 09:01 AM
Yeah, apparently the C2D is 64-bit but the limitation is the current motherboard that is 32-bit, from what I have heard at least. The next revision should sort that out, at least for the MBP.

Then again what do I know...

LOL , i just sold my core duo macbook of 2 months old to get the c2d macbook for that exact reason and now it seems i was misinformed and still am at 32 bit, that's a loss for me of 400 Euro in 2 months time on my book and aal i have to show for it is N net work support ,i sure hope i've learned froim this ;-), but i gues not.

fillz
Feb 2, 2007, 09:04 AM
As for a timetable for the laptops, sources believe Apple already has systems in development with the new displays and that production could begin as soon as later this quarter or, more realistically, some time in the second quarter.

Why does the Think Secret report state that this quarter is the first? Aren't we in second already?

Rocketman
Feb 2, 2007, 09:05 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

expected Core 2 Duo processor bump (2.4GHz T7700) from Intel.

Meanwhile, Samsung has conveniently just introduced (http://aving.net/usa/news/default.asp?mode=read&c_num=35012&C_Code=02&mn_name=news) 15.4-inch LED-backlit monitors at the International Conference and Exhibition on Display LEDs.

The Samsung LED display offers the same 15.4" size and 1440x900 resolution as current 15.4" MacBook Pros.

Aren't these statements in news releases by real companies and TS is only repeating them? You know, news not rumors?

Rocketman

manu chao
Feb 2, 2007, 09:06 AM
Number of colors 6 bit? :confused: I always thought a display had more.

There are a lot of people saying that all current Apple laptop have only 6 bit displays anyway. Apple does not say explicitly either way.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=256248

iomar
Feb 2, 2007, 09:11 AM
Well, I am tired of the low life of my the battery on my MacBook Pro. I hope that they work this out it will be great to have longer battery life. I am sure when apple decides to bring this out on the laptops, it will be a good thing and it should work perfectly.

Diatribe
Feb 2, 2007, 09:34 AM
There are a lot of people saying that all current Apple laptop have only 6 bit displays anyway. Apple does not say explicitly either way.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=256248

Thanks for the link. :)

Pretty interesting. I always thought they had 8 bit at least.

RichP
Feb 2, 2007, 09:40 AM
Its important to note the difference between this LED LCD and the high-end NEC displays.

The samsung uses white LEDs, thus giving it a low color gamut (white LEDs are not the best for truly white light

The NEC uses clusters of Red,Green,Blue LEDs, thus giving a much richer, pure white light, making a high color gamut possible.


This samsung is a step forward in energy consumption, a step backward in color performance.

thejadedmonkey
Feb 2, 2007, 09:55 AM
There were earlier rumors of a different company's LED backlighting technology a couple of weeks ago that had 106% of NTSC gamut. (I can't recall the company name) However the power consumption figures were about the same as today's CCFL backlights.

I can see apple doing this just to start the adoption rate, and for bragging rights. and later on watch the power consumption drop.

job
Feb 2, 2007, 10:26 AM
This samsung is a step forward in energy consumption, a step backward in color performance.

Could we see this screen geared for highly mobile use, e.g. extended battery life in a light-weight and highly portable Macbook?

As much of a step back as it is, I'm sure there are people out there that would trade accuracy for longer battery life and a cooler running computer that weighs less.

I know I would.

aleck
Feb 2, 2007, 10:29 AM
I have Sony SZ1XP/C which has the LED-based display. Good sides: really bright (glossy is an overkill here), very very thin (1/4 to 1/3 thinner than other SZ1 models). Bad sides: far from color accurate - so much that I couldn't really manage to get it just right.

sethypoo
Feb 2, 2007, 10:40 AM
I'm very curious to see how these work, as anything that touts low power consumption is a good thing in my book.

Too bad I have to wait another 2 years before I can afford to upgrade again! :(

princealfie
Feb 2, 2007, 10:40 AM
I don't care for LED's right now because for photography work, color accuracy is more important than battery life :)

m-dogg
Feb 2, 2007, 10:50 AM
As usual a stupid rumor posted at a site, wishing that a prototype technology just debuted woud be in the newest commercialized laptop in months. Get over it. It will come when it will come and it won't be in 6 months either.

These are not rumors. Some Apple koolaid drunk wishing for things by putting them together. Just give us rumors TS. I just about had all this nonsense.

Cheer up Whistleway. It's not the end of the world.

I'd like to see this in an 11-13 inch MBP...

Chupa Chupa
Feb 2, 2007, 10:51 AM
Why does the Think Secret report state that this quarter is the first? Aren't we in second already?

I think they mean calendar quarter, not fiscal quarter.

EagerDragon
Feb 2, 2007, 11:04 AM
I just wish they'd tell us something concrete... I need to buy a new laptop, the MBP is my choice, but if all I have to do is wait a week or two after my expected purchase date, then I'll suffer and wait. If it's months, I'll buy one as planned.

Looks like I'll be looking out for the Superbowl ads, and more rumors for events on the 20th Feb!

Fletch

Depends, are you interested in the SantaRosa architecture, lower power requirements, LED display, Higher resolution screen, 4 Gig memory, included Leopard and iLife?

If not, buy now.

mdntcallr
Feb 2, 2007, 11:05 AM
they will get better. the tech is about power savings. hope it helps

gnasher729
Feb 2, 2007, 11:21 AM
I was surprised to learn that only the Power mac G5 and the Macpro machiens are true 64 bit maschienes , ALL other macs are 32 bit.

If you mean the same as I do when you say "64 bit machine", all the current MacBooks, MacBook Pros and iMacs are 64 bit machines.

If you have some weird, different understanding of "64 bit machines", then the PowerMac G5 and the MacPros are NOT "true" 64 bit machines: The G4 was 36 bit, the G5 is 42 bit, and the MacPros are something around 40 bit.

goosnarrggh
Feb 2, 2007, 11:30 AM
What are the specs of the current screens ? Is this that whole thousands and millions of colors thing ?



Yeah, apparently the C2D is 64-bit but the limitation is the current motherboard that is 32-bit, from what I have heard at least. The next revision should sort that out, at least for the MBP.

Then again what do I know...

Curious...

If you mean the data path from RAM to CPU... well, that's been 64 bits wide ever since the original Pentium.

If you mean the internal register size, and thus the ability to execute any code that makes use of 64-bit atomic operations, that is present in any G5, Core 2 Duo, or 64-bit Xeon Mac.

If you mean the logical address space, and thus the possibility for a single process to allocate more than 4 GB of "memory" (be it real RAM, or paged from the hard disk), then that's also available in any G5, Core 2 Duo, or 64-bit Xeon Mac.

If you mean the physical RAM address space, then there is not now, nor will there likely be any time in the near future, any hardware that can actually make use of the full 64 bits worth of addresses. Different machines can address different amounts of physical RAM, as has been noted elsewhere.

gnasher729
Feb 2, 2007, 11:39 AM
If you mean the physical RAM address space, then there is not now, nor will there likely be any time soon, any hardware that can actually make use of the full 64 bits worth of addresses. Different machines can address different amounts of physical RAM, as has been noted elsewhere.

If we assume that there are 500 million PCs in the world with 1 GB of RAM each (which I think is quite a bit higher than the real numbers), then the total amount of RAM produced in the world, ever, is about 1/32nd of filling a 64 bit address space.

If RAM price goes down to one dollar per Gigabyte (it is about $100 today), filling a 64 bit address space will cast you 16 billion dollar.

I absolutely need a MacBook with 64 bit address space.

Data
Feb 2, 2007, 11:41 AM
If you mean the same as I do when you say "64 bit machine", all the current MacBooks, MacBook Pros and iMacs are 64 bit machines.

If you have some weird, different understanding of "64 bit machines", then the PowerMac G5 and the MacPros are NOT "true" 64 bit machines: The G4 was 36 bit, the G5 is 42 bit, and the MacPros are something around 40 bit.

I saw it on some develepors talk vid from apple were they clearly said with a picture and everything that the 32 bit platform still is, mac-mini, imac,mabooks,macbookpro's and only the G5 power mac an Mac Pro support 64 bit all the way . So i don't see how i can misinterputed that at all ;-).

I don't know if this is because of hard or software , but i was surprised to learn that, i thought all macs were 64 bit for at least a year or 2 now.

zblaxberg
Feb 2, 2007, 12:21 PM
this would be awesome to have the led's and a little speed boost...if only the battery life could be increased...the led's should boost it by a little bit but its not going to add on anything close to 2 hours...i'm getting a laptop by june so hopefully they will come out with these:apple::D

NintendoFan
Feb 2, 2007, 12:46 PM
Core 2 Duo's are 64-Bit chips, but the chipset, i.e. the motherboard, is only 32-Bit, allowing less than 4 GIGS of RAM.

Stridder44
Feb 2, 2007, 12:54 PM
Core 2 Duo's are 64-Bit chips, but the chipset, i.e. the motherboard, is only 32-Bit, allowing less than 4 GIGS of RAM.

Well, that settles it. I'm waiting.

fillz
Feb 2, 2007, 01:07 PM
All of this is really starting to remind me of the Apple Product Life Cycle (http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/).

:D

TheAnswer
Feb 2, 2007, 01:21 PM
Its important to note the difference between this LED LCD and the high-end NEC displays.

The samsung uses white LEDs, thus giving it a low color gamut (white LEDs are not the best for truly white light

The NEC uses clusters of Red,Green,Blue LEDs, thus giving a much richer, pure white light, making a high color gamut possible.


This samsung is a step forward in energy consumption, a step backward in color performance.

Looks like Samsung has a similar RGB LED LCD model shown here (http://aving.net/usa/news/default.asp?mode=read&c_num=35013&C_Code=02&SP_Num=0&mn_name_sub=mostpop).

fillz
Feb 2, 2007, 01:24 PM
Looks like Samsung has a similar RGB LED LCD model shown here (http://aving.net/usa/news/default.asp?mode=read&c_num=35013&C_Code=02&SP_Num=0&mn_name_sub=mostpop).

Looking at that screen, I'm becoming more convinced that this will be a 12 - 13" Superslim MBP, and not a revised 15". Seems like the whole 262,000 colour thing won't work with pro's.

Multimedia
Feb 2, 2007, 01:26 PM
Let's hope the higher res 17" size is not far behind. :)

Data
Feb 2, 2007, 01:27 PM
Core 2 Duo's are 64-Bit chips, but the chipset, i.e. the motherboard, is only 32-Bit, allowing less than 4 GIGS of RAM.

Ok that's clear then .Only G5 and Macpro can hold more then 4 gig ...

bigbossbmb
Feb 2, 2007, 01:34 PM
Looks like Samsung has a similar RGB LED LCD model shown here (http://aving.net/usa/news/default.asp?mode=read&c_num=35013&C_Code=02&SP_Num=0&mn_name_sub=mostpop).

that is a 15.4" screen with only 1280 x 800 resolution.... same res as the macbook, but too big. I can definitely see this kind of tech going in the macbook first. It'll make it into the macbook pro once they get the higher res with the large color gammut.

Although this one (http://aving.net/usa/news/default.asp?mode=read&c_num=35011&C_Code=09&SP_Num=0&mn_name_sub=mostpop) looks promising...

digitalbiker
Feb 2, 2007, 01:54 PM
that is a 15.4" screen with only 1280 x 800 resolution.... same res as the macbook, but too big. I can definitely see this kind of tech going in the macbook first. It'll make it into the macbook pro once they get the higher res with the large color gammut.

Although this one (http://aving.net/usa/news/default.asp?mode=read&c_num=35011&C_Code=09&SP_Num=0&mn_name_sub=mostpop) looks promising...


That's a great looking 30". The brightness and color when viewed off angle is astounding.

dernhelm
Feb 2, 2007, 02:09 PM
Cheer up Whistleway. It's not the end of the world.

I'd like to see this in an 11-13 inch MBP...

Make it an option on the 15" as well, why not? Not everyone needs perfect color reproduction. If I could choose a display that would improve battery life 10-20%, I would consider it, unless it looked like total carp. Not everyone who buys laptops does photo work.

dernhelm
Feb 2, 2007, 02:16 PM
Looking at that screen, I'm becoming more convinced that this will be a 12 - 13" Superslim MBP, and not a revised 15". Seems like the whole 262,000 colour thing won't work with pro's.

Wonder why this link shows they could get 106% of NTSC while the link in the article showed they could only squeeze out 45%?

Seems odd.

RichP
Feb 2, 2007, 02:21 PM
Wonder why this link shows they could get 106% of NTSC while the link in the article showed they could only squeeze out 45%?

Seems odd.

For the reason I posted earlier about white LED vs. RGB LEDs to produce backlight. Unfortunately, an RGB backlight is going to be as energy hungry as CCFL, and probably thicker (for the optics to combine the clusters to make white light)

Article doesnt have its facts straight.

I agree this could be in some mac subnotebook or tablet, not in the pro machine until the tech becomes "pro" quality.

EstorilM
Feb 2, 2007, 02:23 PM
I had a VAIO SZ from Sony with the 13.3" LED backlit LCD and it looked great - my point is that some people are acting like these things don't exist yet, when they certainly do.

Color reproduction seemed great, and the contrast was probably a little better than my MBP.

Power saving benefits are obvious, I could get 4 hours on that laptop without breaking a sweat, and it's rated at significantly longer than that. This is a technology I could see Apple implementing into a NEW series of laptops, say this super thin thing we all keep hearing about.

dernhelm
Feb 2, 2007, 02:29 PM
For the reason I posted earlier about white LED vs. RGB LEDs to produce backlight. Unfortunately, an RGB backlight is going to be as energy hungry as CCFL, and probably thicker (for the optics to combine the clusters to make white light)

Article doesnt have its facts straight.

I agree this could be in some mac subnotebook or tablet, not in the pro machine until the tech becomes "pro" quality.

Ah I see - I missed your previous post, sorry. You do seem to be right about this tech - the more I read about it, the less it seems fully baked. We'll see. The one thing I know is that Apple won't do anything stupid when it comes to display technologies. If there's a terrific use for this, Apple will find it.

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 02:49 PM
If the claims about the LED displays being brighter are true, then I can just see the complaints rolling-in now.

"My eyes, my eyes. I'm blind. The screen is brighter than the sun, and I can't see anything. Anyone know how to dim the screen any further?"

That's essentially what is repeated over and over again on Apple's discussion board in relation to the newer iMac 24-inch systems.

So, if they make it even brighter with LED lighting, then surely there's going to be tons of complaints about the screen being too bright (even when fully dimmed). I've read a lot of complaints from iMac users with the newer brighter screens that claim that it cannot be dimmed enough and are resulting to 3rd-party programs to dim the screen beyond the normal limits.

iJawn108
Feb 2, 2007, 02:52 PM
There are also 30 and 40 inch displays :p

scrambledwonder
Feb 2, 2007, 03:46 PM
These are MacBook PROs. Color accuracy is very important to professionals. Apple knows this and wouldn't release a laptop with poor color accuracy for the pro market. Next rev may or may not have LED screen, probably not if color accuracy decreases. You can probably count on the new Santa Rosa motherboard, though, and the processor speed bump. It just makes sense.

But when? That's always the question. I want a new computer. Lucky me the laptops are mid product cycle, which means it makes just as much sense to buy one as it does to wait!

iW00t
Feb 2, 2007, 05:10 PM
The color reproduction kinda sucks. I don't think Apple would use something like this until the color reproduction is on par with current LCDs, especially considering that many people using a Mac need exactly that.

Actually the current reproduction on the current MBPs are about as sucky as that new Samsung too.

What I hope to see on that are at least:
1) even backlighting
2) wider viewing angles
3) NO GRAININESS!

I don't care for LED's right now because for photography work, color accuracy is more important than battery life :)

Unfortunately that would mean you'd have to switch to a PeeCee. All Apple's laptops have TN displays (read: the cheapest of the cheap, absolute bottom of the barrel).

Depends, are you interested in the SantaRosa architecture, lower power requirements, LED display, Higher resolution screen, 4 Gig memory, included Leopard and iLife?

If not, buy now.

Isn't Santa Rosa rumoured to be postponed until September?

Rod Rod
Feb 2, 2007, 06:08 PM
Anybody who gets paid for their work and whose work is worth paying for would have the budget for a real reference monitor. They wouldn't rely on a portable's LCD for print or video work. There's plenty one could do in the field with a portable computer. However, color critical work must be done in a controlled environment on a calibrated monitor.

joefa88
Feb 2, 2007, 06:18 PM
i just bought a new mac book pro and knew in the back of my mind that they would probably update them soon!!! oh well i guess it doesnt really matter much, this computer has to last me 3 long years.

deadpoet
Feb 2, 2007, 06:26 PM
These are MacBook PROs. Color accuracy is very important to professionals. Apple knows this and wouldn't release a laptop with poor color accuracy for the pro market.

Like someone else has said, colour gamut on existing Apple laptops is much smaller than that of quality desktop LCDs with 8-bit panels, so there is huge room for improvement. I know this because I measured it with my ColorVision Spyder2 colorimeter.

In fact, going from my G3 iBook 800Mhz to my MacBook Pro 2.33GHz, there is virtually zero improvement in colour gamut, which is extremely disappointing. I'm not sure what the situation is with other laptops, but I'd wager that most laptops on the market have lousy color gamut.

I hope these new LCDs kick some serious arse.

job
Feb 2, 2007, 07:08 PM
If the claims about the LED displays being brighter are true, then I can just see the complaints rolling-in now.

"My eyes, my eyes. I'm blind. The screen is brighter than the sun, and I can't see anything. Anyone know how to dim the screen any further?"

That's essentially what is repeated over and over again on Apple's discussion board in relation to the newer iMac 24-inch systems.

Wow, that's crazy. Seems you can't please some people either way.

I can't imagine that a screen turned down all the way is still too bright for someone.

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 07:16 PM
Wow, that's crazy. Seems you can't please some people either way.

I can't imagine that a screen turned down all the way is still too bright for someone.

Yes, I don't know what it is that they're complaining about there. I do agree that the iMac screens are extremely bright (just about burn your eyes out after looking at a different screen).

What's even worse, is when I've turned one on first thing in the morning. If you've ever been in a pitch-black room, and then had someone turn the lights on right after you wake-up, you know what I mean. Except, amplify that times 100.

But, still, I would think that on minimum, that people would not find it too bright. But, perhaps they work in the dark. Who knows.

But, if the new screens are brighter, I guarantee you that there will be complaints.

Of course, I found the iBook G4 screens to be ridiculously dim. And, the new MacBook screens to be bright enough. Now, who knows how bright the new models with LED will be.

Let the complaints roll in.

MacAngel
Feb 2, 2007, 07:23 PM
I had a VAIO SZ from Sony with the 13.3" LED backlit LCD and it looked great - my point is that some people are acting like these things don't exist yet, when they certainly do.

Color reproduction seemed great, and the contrast was probably a little better than my MBP.

Power saving benefits are obvious, I could get 4 hours on that laptop without breaking a sweat, and it's rated at significantly longer than that. This is a technology I could see Apple implementing into a NEW series of laptops, say this super thin thing we all keep hearing about.

Whats the spec (LCD, such as gamut, power consumption, brightness, samsung LCD? etc) of your Vaio SZ???? I m very curious of this current top of the notch laptop......;)

dernhelm
Feb 2, 2007, 08:10 PM
If the claims about the LED displays being brighter are true, then I can just see the complaints rolling-in now.

"My eyes, my eyes. I'm blind. The screen is brighter than the sun, and I can't see anything. Anyone know how to dim the screen any further?"

That's essentially what is repeated over and over again on Apple's discussion board in relation to the newer iMac 24-inch systems.

So, if they make it even brighter with LED lighting, then surely there's going to be tons of complaints about the screen being too bright (even when fully dimmed). I've read a lot of complaints from iMac users with the newer brighter screens that claim that it cannot be dimmed enough and are resulting to 3rd-party programs to dim the screen beyond the normal limits.

Ha! You certainly seem to know the readership around here... :D

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 08:22 PM
Ha! You certainly seem to know the readership around here... :D

Spent enough time in various forums to know that improvements that Apple makes will likely result in negative complaints by the users.

Apparently, Apple is asking the wrong people what they want. Either that, or they're only asking Steve Jobs, and he's just not in-touch with what we really want.

I want: Faster processors, More processors, more durable products that can take a bit of rough handling, something that will last for 5 years or more, something that is attractive to me but puts function before beauty, and I want it all for $1.

I don't want: The slowest processor you think I will tolerate in this machine, the shiny plastic that looks like trash the first time I touch it, something that will only last for 6 months or 1 year (1 year if I don't turn it on), and costs 10 times more than it would if someone else made a better one.

I think that sums it up. Steve Jobs is just listening to the wrong people. He should be listening to those of us who like to use it more than fantasize about touching it. Eww. That just sounds dirty :confused:

Did I get that right???

Chef Medeski
Feb 2, 2007, 09:12 PM
I want: More Battery life, 12" PB replacement, tablet, cheaper price, ill take a hit in processor. Oh yeah and some general newness in the product line. Rugdeness is good too.

Dont want: Supre fast, and power hungy processors. Over priced crap. Bad Quality control. Ohh and I dont want people telling me that I should only want what Apple makes because everything else is not in its best interest, as Jobs can see the future. Nope doesnt work taht way boys. This isnt a dictatorship where I should love what the leader works out. This is capitalism where I buy what I want or atleast try to buy what I want.

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 09:35 PM
This is capitalism where I buy what I want or atleast try to buy what I want.

The problem, is that Apple hasn't made anything that I really, really want since they moved the Intel products. Nothing really strikes me as saying buy me.

After going through two dud iMac G5 systems, I just really don't want another iMac. And, the new new ones can't even be opened easily (without risk of damaging something) to blow the dust out of them. If I can't blow the dust out myself, I'm not interested.

And, the MacBook and Mini with their weak video system just isn't it. The Mini's over-priced and underpowered for it's price. The MacBook would be fine except for that darned integrated Video.

The MacBook Pro is nice, but then it costs so much and the specs are still a bit weak for the price. Of course, the major price is due to the fact that it's portable. I don't care about portable, so paying a premium just doesn't make sense.

The Mac Pro is very nice. But, it's over-priced and way past due for an update. Hopefully a bit of an update will make it a better bargain. Either that, or update the high end, and reduce the price on the current low-end. Remember the $1500 PowerMac G5. Get me something in that range.

So, as it is, I'm still sitting at my Mini G4 (which I got for a steal second-hand) and waiting for Apple to release something I want at a price that isn't just plain ridiculous.

If Apple released something I wanted, they'd have had my money a long time ago.

Right now, a 2+ GHz Core2Duo Mini, with a dedicated graphics card, 7200 R.P.M. Drive, SuperDrive, and everything else the same would be all it would take. But, they'd have to do that at around $700 or less to make it attractive.

$700 for the current Mini's configuration is just weak. They put in a low-end processor, the slowest hard drive they can find, weak graphics, and then expect me to pay double what a comparable PC would cost?

The PC I purchased 2 years ago still out-specs the current mini by double, and it only cost me $430 for the entire machine back then.

Apple, build me something I want.

I'm ready to move-on from this G4 Mini. But, you haven't produced a compelling machine at a reasonable price to motivate me to upgrade.

The current Mini feels more like a down-grade from my old G4 model. So, let's get on it.

iW00t
Feb 2, 2007, 10:59 PM
The PC I purchased 2 years ago still out-specs the current mini by double, and it only cost me $430 for the entire machine back then.


List your specs.

inkhead
Feb 2, 2007, 11:33 PM
Just for the record the new Panasonic Toughbooks have had LEDs for as the backlights. Not only that, they have signs up everywhere here in silicon valley "World's brightest backlit notebook, oh and it's also bulletproof..."

greenwrangler
Feb 2, 2007, 11:55 PM
All of this is really starting to remind me of the Apple Product Life Cycle (http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/).

:D

*ROTFLMAO* That was genius and oh so true! :D

Chef Medeski
Feb 3, 2007, 08:00 AM
The problem, is that Apple hasn't made anything that I really, really want since they moved the Intel products. Nothing really strikes me as saying buy me.

After going through two dud iMac G5 systems, I just really don't want another iMac. And, the new new ones can't even be opened easily (without risk of damaging something) to blow the dust out of them. If I can't blow the dust out myself, I'm not interested.

And, the MacBook and Mini with their weak video system just isn't it. The Mini's over-priced and underpowered for it's price. The MacBook would be fine except for that darned integrated Video.

The MacBook Pro is nice, but then it costs so much and the specs are still a bit weak for the price. Of course, the major price is due to the fact that it's portable. I don't care about portable, so paying a premium just doesn't make sense.

The Mac Pro is very nice. But, it's over-priced and way past due for an update. Hopefully a bit of an update will make it a better bargain. Either that, or update the high end, and reduce the price on the current low-end. Remember the $1500 PowerMac G5. Get me something in that range.

So, as it is, I'm still sitting at my Mini G4 (which I got for a steal second-hand) and waiting for Apple to release something I want at a price that isn't just plain ridiculous.

If Apple released something I wanted, they'd have had my money a long time ago.

Right now, a 2+ GHz Core2Duo Mini, with a dedicated graphics card, 7200 R.P.M. Drive, SuperDrive, and everything else the same would be all it would take. But, they'd have to do that at around $700 or less to make it attractive.

$700 for the current Mini's configuration is just weak. They put in a low-end processor, the slowest hard drive they can find, weak graphics, and then expect me to pay double what a comparable PC would cost?

The PC I purchased 2 years ago still out-specs the current mini by double, and it only cost me $430 for the entire machine back then.

Apple, build me something I want.

I'm ready to move-on from this G4 Mini. But, you haven't produced a compelling machine at a reasonable price to motivate me to upgrade.

The current Mini feels more like a down-grade from my old G4 model. So, let's get on it.
I agree. I dont really need a Desktop, I bought a old G4 as backup music server, but I was looking something way below Mini prices with multiple bays so.... doubt I could have found anything new to suit me.

But, yeah on the laptop front there is nothing that truly makes me want to buy a laptop. I mean the MBP is nice, but I really prefer not to pay so much for a computer whose design hasnt changed in like 5 years.

Macbook is my most probably choice, but I really would like a bigger screen or something smaller (for the size to carry it around, I would rather sacrifice .3 more lbs and get a 15", its sort of in the middle of a 15" and 12", the two price points I want) or atleast something new like Tablet.

Ive been looking at the Modbook, but its soaring price would have been justified if they had atleast had the software to rotate the screen. It seems a very stock machine just with a Wacom pad as the sole input device w/o BT peripherials.... not that great all the time.

Basically 12" PB replacement. Or Tablet from 11.1" to 13.3" would be sick.

And I know there are a lot of people who would buy this.

job
Feb 3, 2007, 08:52 AM
I want: Faster processors, More processors, more durable products that can take a bit of rough handling, something that will last for 5 years or more, something that is attractive to me but puts function before beauty.

I agree 100%. Form should follow function, not the other way around. I don't care if it's not the shinest plastic, or the most sleek, just for asthetic's sake. If you can make a product and then create a surround that is as elegant as the current Apple products, then fine. But to start with requirements for the external design first IMO is a little backwards.

Steve Jobs is just listening to the wrong people. He should be listening to those of us who like to use it more than fantasize about touching it. Eww. That just sounds dirty :confused:

Hahahaha.

flyinmac
Feb 3, 2007, 12:50 PM
List your specs.

Well, if you must know:

3.4 AMD Athlon 64
1.5 GB of RAM
two DVD-R/RW drives 16x Dual Layer burners
two video controllers w/ 128 MB of Video RAM
two 17-inch Monitors
160GB 7200 R.P.M. SATA hard drive (no wimpy 5400 R.P.M. Drive here)
two audio inputs
two audio outputs
two microphone inputs
3 FireWire 400 ports
6 USB 2.0 ports
Dedicated Video Capture card (for capturing Analog video)
56K V.90 Modem
Gigabit Ethernet
Altec Lansing Stereo Speakers (sound great)
A very nice Keyboard and Mouse (which the Mini doesn't come with).
Windows XP

All that for $430 including shipping. And, $50 of that was for the Norton Internet Security package that I got with it. So, that would bring the cost of the actual machine down to $380 including shipping.

So, now find me a Mac with that much power, and equal to (or better than) those specs at the same price new.

I'll even make it easier, double the price I paid to $760, and see if you can find a Mac in the same configuration or better. Oh, wait, we'd still need to double that, because you'd need to spend at least $1500 to get a Mac of similar specs. And, even then you'd still be in the iMac Class, and wouldn't have dual monitors and video capture, and dual DVD writers, and so on. And, you still wouldn't have the ability to add upgrade with PCI cards. So, that brings us up to the Mac Pro. But, the Mac Pro costs a ton more.

Compaq made me quite a deal on the system. So, for the $380, I got a lot for my money. And, even including the Norton Internet Security (which bumped me up to $430), it's still quite a bargain.

There's definitely no way that Apple's cheapest offering could come anywhere near the Compaq in specs. And, at $799, the next Mini is a joke by comparison to my PC.

Even when compared to my G4 Mini, the new Mini just isn't a compelling upgrade. I got my current Mini for less than $400. And, they want $600 for the cheapest new one, and it's been stripped-down (no dedicated graphics chip). And, it's other "improvements" are very minor. The over-all feel is like throwing more money at them to get basically what I have now without a video controller. And, then I'd still have to throw them another $75 to get the memory up to the amount I have in my current Mini (yes I got a bargain on it as well).

Anyway...

flyinmac
Feb 3, 2007, 12:52 PM
I agree 100%. Form should follow function, not the other way around. I don't care if it's not the shinest plastic, or the most sleek, just for asthetic's sake. If you can make a product and then create a surround that is as elegant as the current Apple products, then fine. But to start with requirements for the external design first IMO is a little backwards.



Exactly. Function, reliability, and durability should be more important than pretty.



Hahahaha.

Yes, that just sounded bad. Especially when you put Steve Jobs in the equation :o

Icewind
Feb 3, 2007, 01:02 PM
I agree 100%. Form should follow function, not the other way around. I don't care if it's not the shinest plastic, or the most sleek, just for asthetic's sake. If you can make a product and then create a surround that is as elegant as the current Apple products, then fine. But to start with requirements for the external design first IMO is a little backwards.

Sorry, but I don't agree with that. I personally believe that form and function should be perfectly balanced, and Apple's kit is as damn close to that as you can get.

I think Apple's design philosophy is underpinned by miminalistic priciples. All their kit is beautiful to look at, and yet manage to be beautiful without slapping on go-faster stripes or any other non-function crap. Their designs, as far as I'm concerned, manage to achieve a beautiful balance between form and function. This is minimalism at it's best.

Minimalism: "The state of perfection that an object achieves, when it can no longer be functionally or aesthetically improved by reduction"

Take for example a perfect cube. If you lop a corner off or stick some other crap on there, it's no longer a cube. Same goes for any other perfect form. I believe Apple have decided to use perfect form factors as an initial starting point and have managed to create extremely functional appliances without undermining the above philosophy.

I say "Well Done Apple... Keep up the beautiful work"

If you want FUGLY... Buy a DELL :)

fishdoc
Feb 3, 2007, 01:48 PM
I will do one better - find an equivalent system at HP or Dell for that price. I just checked out HP, and could not configure a machine like that (e.g., the Athlon 64 was only 2.2 ghz, unless by 3.4 you mean tha Athlon 3400; they didn't offer 2 video cards, so I used only one; they would not let me outfit it with 2 burners, just one burner and on reader; added logitech speakers instead of A-L., etc).

So, the total cost, today, without the 2 monitors and with only 1 GB of RAM (not the 1.5 you got 2 years ago) comes to $629.

You are saying that 2 years ago, when RAM costs were higher, dual layer burners were newer, and processors and video cards were slower and more expensive, you got a machine that far exceeded that, with TWO monitors, for 1/3 the cost?

You are an exceptionally talented shopper.

Fish

Well, if you must know:

3.4 AMD Athlon 64
1.5 GB of RAM
two DVD-R/RW drives 16x Dual Layer burners
two video controllers w/ 128 MB of Video RAM
two 17-inch Monitors
160GB 7200 R.P.M. SATA hard drive (no wimpy 5400 R.P.M. Drive here)
two audio inputs
two audio outputs
two microphone inputs
3 FireWire 400 ports
6 USB 2.0 ports
Dedicated Video Capture card (for capturing Analog video)
56K V.90 Modem
Gigabit Ethernet
Altec Lansing Stereo Speakers (sound great)
A very nice Keyboard and Mouse (which the Mini doesn't come with).
Windows XP

All that for $430 including shipping. And, $50 of that was for the Norton Internet Security package that I got with it. So, that would bring the cost of the actual machine down to $380 including shipping.

So, now find me a Mac with that much power, and equal to (or better than) those specs at the same price new.

Macinposh
Feb 3, 2007, 02:07 PM
So, now find me a Mac with that much power, and equal to (or better than) those specs at the same price new.


Anyway...





I have to say your level of detachment from reality is unique.


Absurd that you are comparing your über-work-discounted buyings to full priced products... :D
Nice.

Well, if I play the same game too?

See,if I would break into the local apple store, I could get the apple macpro for free...If I would manage to drag that pig away before the security arrives.

So I beat you,right?



This is similar to people that say that "if you use that,and that,and that rebate from Dell,you get the stuff for half the price...".

You have to think a bit more global than that. Apart from small group of individuals the rest of the world cant get the same discounts.

flyinmac
Feb 3, 2007, 02:44 PM
You are an exceptionally talented shopper.

Fish

Well, don't know what to tell you. The price I paid is the price I paid. Called them on the phone, and got a good deal. Didn't bother with going with the configurators online.

Maybe they had an over-stock, maybe they were clearing them out, maybe it was a sale, who knows. Called them up, said what I wanted. Got it shipped.

fishdoc
Feb 3, 2007, 03:19 PM
Well, that is great, but even if true (no offense, it just seems a bit implausible), it also sort of invalidates your argument - the fact that your 2 year old tech is unavailable today without spending twice as much means that the challenge to find a Mac with the same specs (always, in my opinion, a nonsensical challenge anyway) is a bit unreasonable, given that you can't even find a PC with the same specs at that price.

I should point out that, in Feb of 2005, 1.5 GB of RAM (DDR, as needed with the then recently-released Athlon 3400) was ~$300 (according to Sharky, the website that tracks RAM costs). So let's say they gave you an unbelievable 50% discount on RAM, bringing you to $150 for that alone. In Feb 2005, the Athlon 4300 CPU (by itself) averaged $191. Compaq certainly lost money selling to you...dual layer burners had been out less than a year, but you got TWO of them, along with your 2 monitors and your two 128MB video cards, motherboard, all those ports, video capture card, etc., all thrown in for - uh, $39 extra!

Even if we accept all of that as true, I say a better comparison is to go out, configure yourself a PC, and then see if you can find a comparable Mac (or the other way around). Even then the comparisons are kind of lame, as the less tangible things (OS, included software, etc) are impossible to compare, but it makes FAR more sense than the challenge as you stated it.

fish

Well, don't know what to tell you. The price I paid is the price I paid. Called them on the phone, and got a good deal. Didn't bother with going with the configurators online.

Maybe they had an over-stock, maybe they were clearing them out, maybe it was a sale, who knows. Called them up, said what I wanted. Got it shipped.

maxp1
Feb 3, 2007, 04:04 PM
Well, if you must know:

3.4 AMD Athlon 64
1.5 GB of RAM
two DVD-R/RW drives 16x Dual Layer burners
two video controllers w/ 128 MB of Video RAM
two 17-inch Monitors
160GB 7200 R.P.M. SATA hard drive (no wimpy 5400 R.P.M. Drive here)
two audio inputs
two audio outputs
two microphone inputs
3 FireWire 400 ports
6 USB 2.0 ports
Dedicated Video Capture card (for capturing Analog video)
56K V.90 Modem
Gigabit Ethernet
Altec Lansing Stereo Speakers (sound great)
A very nice Keyboard and Mouse (which the Mini doesn't come with).
Windows XP

All that for $430 including shipping. And, $50 of that was for the Norton Internet Security package that I got with it. So, that would bring the cost of the actual machine down to $380 including shipping.


I'm not calling you a liar (maybe a troll), but it seems unlikely in the extreme that you got anything like this 2 years ago for the price you claim to have paid. (with shipping and OS). If you did get anything like this (which I doubt) shipping alone would have been about $100. (two monitors? C'mon. Or maybe they were LCD!)

As far as I can tell this system two years ago should have set you back several thousand. If you actually got it for the price you claim (I'd like to see the bill) then it was almost certainly a screw up by the clueless telephone salesperson and as such, not really a valid comparison.

flyinmac
Feb 3, 2007, 04:27 PM
I'm not calling you a liar (maybe a troll), but it seems unlikely in the extreme that you got anything like this 2 years ago for the price you claim to have paid. (with shipping and OS). If you did get anything like this (which I doubt) shipping alone would have been about $100. (two monitors? C'mon. Or maybe they were LCD!)

As far as I can tell this system two years ago should have set you back several thousand. If you actually got it for the price you claim (I'd like to see the bill) then it was almost certainly a screw up by the clueless telephone salesperson and as such, not really a valid comparison.

Well, think whatever you want. It's not going to cause me any lost sleep if you don't believe me. Like my life is hinging on you believing what I say.

Shipping was free just as it is with many computer manufacturers. So, the price included shipping.

And, it would not have cost thousands of dollars. Offers from Dell on the same package (although they used Intel) were still under $1000. Offers from smaller companies were still under $600.

I know I got a great deal. I priced it out with several vendors, and purchased it from the one that gave me the best price. I was surprised that it was Compaq who made me the best offer. But, they made me an excellent deal, and I said send it.

I know it would have cost me a bit more from another vendor. And, Dell's offerings weren't even close for the price. So, I went with Compaq. Purchased purely on price of the package.

Can't help it if others don't shop around and haggle with the manufacturer. That's their own fault.

I've negotiated some great deals on the phone with Apple over the years as well. You call in and ask for the minimum. Being Apple, they want to up-sell. So, you let them up-sell you to what you would like but hesitate enough to make them cut you breaks as you move up.

I've gotten a lot of great computer packages that way.

I purchased a brand new Power Mac G3 266-DT with Video capture and DVD a few days after they were released and saved about $800 on it. I called CDW and asked to purchase one of their refurb systems that they had on sale. They had a bunch they were running on special in the catalog at the time.

The guy tried hard to convince me that I wanted a G3 instead of the old stuff. So, I let him convince me. By the time we were done, he offered me a brand new G3 for $200 over the price of the older models at their clearance price. He worked hard for that sale. And, I got a great deal.

Some people actually negotiate for their purchases. If you pay full sticker without negotiating, then that's your fault.

fishdoc
Feb 3, 2007, 10:03 PM
That is a lot of (equally unbelievable) explanation from someone who doesn't care what people believe.

sturmnacht
Feb 3, 2007, 10:17 PM
Look at this. An excellent article about LED backlit display in a Vaio TX.

http://www.mobilityguru.com/2005/12/12/exit_the_sony_vaio_t/page13.html

Will this mean thinner Macbook Pros too?

jesteraver
Feb 4, 2007, 08:28 AM
Hope all the Appe products will be LED backlit.

Especially the iMac :) Be nice to have something like 10000:1

Hopefully the iPod will be OLED, after so many years of wanting an OLED iPod.

shabbasuraj
Feb 4, 2007, 10:32 PM
http://www.ledjournal.com/led_newsletter_current.htm#av

Arrays, Modules & Components
AnalogicTech Announces High-Performance Integrated Solution for
Display Backlight and Flash LEDs

Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. (AnalogicTech), a developer of power management semiconductors for mobile consumer electronic devices, has released the AAT2842, a 600 mA charge pump with dual low dropout linear regulators (LDOs) for portable systems operating from Lithium-ion/polymer batteries. Configured as a Total Display Solution, this new device features two separate S 2Cwire (Simple Serial Control) serial digital interfaces, allowing designers to independently drive up to four LEDs for either display backlight or keypad applications and four LEDs for high-current flash applications.

“Many mobile and personal electronics applications powered by a single-cell Li-ion battery, such as smart phones, digital still cameras and camera-enabled mobile devices, use separate ICs for backlight and flash functions,” said Adolfo Garcia, product line director for AnalogicTech. “By combining a high current charge pump, backlight/keypad drivers, a high output flash driver and two general purpose LDOs in a single 4 by 4 mm package and by retaining independent control of the backlight/keypad and flash functions, the AAT2842 offers product developers an attractive way to lower their parts count, lower the system BOM cost and build more compact systems without compromising their design flexibility or circuit performance.”

The AAT2842 features a high current tri-mode charge pump capable of driving up to four backlight LEDs up to 30 mA each. Alternately, the backlight current outputs can be programmed to drive lower current LEDs for applications such as keypad backlighting. The charge pump can also drive up to four LEDs for flash functions at up to a total of 600 mA.

Two separate S 2Cwire serial digital interfaces allow designers to independently enable, disable, or set current at up to 16 levels for the backlight/keypad and flash functions. The backlight / keypad and flash LEDs can also be separately controlled via external resistors. To protect the flash LEDs against thermal damage, the AAT2842 also features an integrated flash timer, which can be set by an external capacitor.

Integrated into the AAT2842 are two high performance LDOs. Each LDO can supply a continuous load current up to 200 mA at a 200 mV dropout voltage. Running from the same 2.7 V to 5.5 V input voltage as the charge pump, the two LDOs are controlled by a single enable input. The output voltage of each LDO is user-programmable from 1.2 V to 5 V via an external resistor divider. Optimized for battery-powered applications, the LDOs consume only 85µA quiescent current.

The AAT2842 is available in a Pb-free, 4 by 4 mm, 28-pin TQFN44 package and is specified over the -40º C to 85º C temperature range. It sells for $1.75 each in 1000-unit quantities.

Butthead
Feb 9, 2007, 05:42 PM
that is a 15.4" screen with only 1280 x 800 resolution.... same res as the macbook, but too big. I can definitely see this kind of tech going in the macbook first. It'll make it into the macbook pro once they get the higher res with the large color gammut.

Although this one (http://aving.net/usa/news/default.asp?mode=read&c_num=35011&C_Code=09&SP_Num=0&mn_name_sub=mostpop) looks promising...

That 30in could be the next upgraded CD. Now if they would only put that resolution on the 17in MBP at least (doubt they'll do it for the 15.4...because, well that's just Apple). I can see where these LED screen updates don't need to be part of any other upgrade cycles. Whenever they are ready to ship, Apple will make the change over. Seems with greater color accuracy & slightly lower power consumption, they will be ideal for a laptop, but I wouldn't expect much more battery life. Some other component (maybe a higher performance GPU) will offset any minor gains such LED backlighting would get you.

iW00t
Feb 10, 2007, 12:25 AM
Well, don't know what to tell you. The price I paid is the price I paid. Called them on the phone, and got a good deal. Didn't bother with going with the configurators online.

Maybe they had an over-stock, maybe they were clearing them out, maybe it was a sale, who knows. Called them up, said what I wanted. Got it shipped.

I find your prices suspect too.

I sold off an ancient 15" LCD monitor on ebay some months ago for A$150 (roughly US$110). Yet you can somehow get 2 x 17" LCDs and the rest of a very good computer for $400? A quick look on Amazon shows 17" LCDs going at around 170 Amerikan dollars. Even if the retailor took a big hit and sold you each monitor at $100 each you are telling me that computer costs $240?

Bullocks.

By the way a computer more powerful than yours, let me present to you... the Mac Mini. BS price disclosures aside just check how Core Duo is a lot more efficient than the old Pentium 4 (ala Athlon XXXX) speed rating that you have been used to. A 1.83ghz Mac Mini smokes your Athlon 3400 easy.

You have an untapped talent there, the ability to buy at retail stuff for less than wholesale perhaps.

iW00t
Feb 10, 2007, 12:35 AM
Just read this (http://www.geardigest.com/2005/12/12/exit_the_sony_vaio_t/page13.html) article about the Sony TX and I'm rather intrigued. Why is it that the Sony's panel can get such good colour range with only 32 LEDs, while the Samsung demo unit barely managed 42% of the NTSC gamut with 60 LEDs?

Is there something more than just the sheer number of LEDs at play?

flyinmac
Feb 10, 2007, 12:43 AM
I find your prices suspect too.

I sold off an ancient 15" LCD monitor on ebay some months ago for A$150 (roughly US$110). Yet you can somehow get 2 x 17" LCDs and the rest of a very good computer for $400? A quick look on Amazon shows 17" LCDs going at around 170 Amerikan dollars. Even if the retailor took a big hit and sold you each monitor at $100 each you are telling me that computer costs $240?


Never said anything about it being LCD monitors. Assumptions...

Forget it. It's not worth arguing about. I purchased the systems. I have the invoices. I really don't care if you think I paid what I paid.

You're not worth the time. It's not worth arguing about. Consider it over. Unsubscribed.

Go argue with someone else.

twoodcc
Feb 10, 2007, 07:48 AM
This is good news. Will we see higher resolutions?
yeah, i hope to see higher resolutions...

buddhahacker
Feb 11, 2007, 07:28 PM
I will do one better - find an equivalent system at HP or Dell for that price. I just checked out HP, and could not configure a machine like that (e.g., the Athlon 64 was only 2.2 ghz, unless by 3.4 you mean tha Athlon 3400; they didn't offer 2 video cards, so I used only one; they would not let me outfit it with 2 burners, just one burner and on reader; added logitech speakers instead of A-L., etc).

So, the total cost, today, without the 2 monitors and with only 1 GB of RAM (not the 1.5 you got 2 years ago) comes to $629.

You are saying that 2 years ago, when RAM costs were higher, dual layer burners were newer, and processors and video cards were slower and more expensive, you got a machine that far exceeded that, with TWO monitors, for 1/3 the cost?

You are an exceptionally talented shopper.

Fish
There is no way this system cost that two years ago. I suspect it fell off a truck and might be a tad warm to the touch.:eek:

iW00t
Feb 12, 2007, 04:01 PM
yeah, i hope to see higher resolutions...

And and... wider viewing angles!

Everything else is just gravy :o