PDA

View Full Version : Display Meeting?




MacRumors
Jul 23, 2003, 09:49 AM
ThinkSecret (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/tsnotes3.html) had some notes speculating on display clearances. Reportedly, Apple's Display Product Line manager had a 90-minute discussion with resellers last night. No reports on the content of the talk.



RHutch
Jul 23, 2003, 10:34 AM
The article mentioned price reductions to resellers. Wouldn't you expect those reductions to be passed along to consumers and likewise to be reflected on Apple's own online store? I'm sure that if the prices are reduced online, we will hear about it here very quickly.

Freg3000
Jul 23, 2003, 10:47 AM
How is it possible to talk about displays for and hour and a half (that is, without talking about new, revolutionary displays)? I doubt the Apple guy could speak about the three current monitors for that long, so I am going to assume something is up. Does anyone know if Apple has these display meeting regularly, or only when something new is coming?

Lanbrown
Jul 23, 2003, 11:15 AM
I agree, but then again some people are very longwinded and could talk about Lincoln logs for hours.

I have said for sometime now that Apple needed to revamp their displays. Look at their low-end, the 17" studio for $699. The next step is the 20" cinema for $1299. That is a huge price gap. They have needed to bring a 17" cinema for $999 (or less) out. They already have two products that have the 17" widescreen, the PB and the iMac. My predictions:
17" cinema to replace the studio.
20" cinema will remain.
24" cinema to replace the 23.
30" for the high-end.

They could abandon the 20" altogether though.

dabirdwell
Jul 23, 2003, 11:20 AM
No, No, the 20 is a great size

bennetsaysargh
Jul 23, 2003, 11:33 AM
they need to keep all of the sizes, and make the 30in:D

capitalhood
Jul 23, 2003, 11:54 AM
NO! Not a 30 inch high def apple cinema display, 23 is huge enough people! 30 inch imagin the cost ohhh yeah thats right now hopefully you see i mean 30 inch widescreen... might as well do what gateways doing and make it a tv as well, and apple is not in the TV buisness.

TEG
Jul 23, 2003, 12:12 PM
Actually, I think they need to bring back a cheeper smaller screen. I a lot of people who what a Mac with an Apple Display, but are turned off by the whole thing b/c of cost. A nice LCD for $500 (US) would be great. It would also be nice if resellers told the truth and would let people know that they can use any "Monitor" on a Macintosh... some I know say you can only use an Apple LCD or CRT on a Mac.

TEG

bennetsaysargh
Jul 23, 2003, 12:20 PM
i say when the 30in display comes out, they lower the 17in screen to about 500 or so. why not? this would go great next to a low end box:);):D

LordMord
Jul 23, 2003, 12:22 PM
Im not so sure why you would want say a cheap 15.4" screen on your tower...

Why not just buy a laptop instead then? I mean, what 'power user' would spend cash on a PowerMac and then not NEED a large monitor?

Also, 3rd party ppl make small and cheap. I agree Apple should make it clear that 3rd party is fine...

Bring on the 30" I'd rather get that then 2 20" screens. 2 23" is awkward...

:rolleyes: :D

charlesd2
Jul 23, 2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by LordMord
Im not so sure why you would want say a cheap 15.4" screen on your tower...

Why not just buy a laptop instead then? I mean, what 'power user' would spend cash on a PowerMac and then not NEED a large monitor?

:rolleyes: :D

How about all the *nix guys who've converted to Macs? We love the ability to run network services on a very usable machine, but we don't need a nice expensive display. I would love to see a cheaper Apple display. Yes, I can use a cheaper 3rd part display, but I'd much rather have an Apple monitor.

buseman
Jul 23, 2003, 01:42 PM
I find it strange if they do something with a successful product that has been out for just a few months (the 20"). If anything happens with the display lineup, its the arrival of a new product - maybe replacing the now less attractive 23" with maybe a 24-25".

MacFan25
Jul 23, 2003, 01:51 PM
I think that the 23" needs to be caught up with the technologies used in the 20". And, I think all the displays need to have the alu look to match the G5.

capacity
Jul 23, 2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by LordMord
Im not so sure why you would want say a cheap 15.4" screen on your tower...

Why not just buy a laptop instead then? I mean, what 'power user' would spend cash on a PowerMac and then not NEED a large monitor?


How about us students? Some people don't have $699 to shell out for a monitor. :(

solvs
Jul 23, 2003, 02:34 PM
I was expecting them to have a minor update in a little while. Maybe just give them feature parity with other high end LCD displays. Brightness, contrast, pixel response. Maybe USB 2. As long as they're WideScreen - 17, 20, 2x... 30?

Looks good to me.

MasterX (OSiX)
Jul 23, 2003, 02:51 PM
I think anything over 24" NEEDS a S-Video and component inputs. At those sizes you really deserve to be able to use it like a TV

dongmin
Jul 23, 2003, 03:01 PM
While I agree the 17" is a bit overpriced in today's market, the 20" is actually a pretty good deal. A Sony 20" with comparable resolution runs $1500, and it's not even a widescreen. A Viewsonic 20" goes for $1250.

My guess is that manufacturers are really ramping up the production of the 17" (1280 x 1024) LCD. Prices have dropped big time. It'd be great if Apple got aggressive and lowered it to $499 but I know it won't happen. For a 17" widescreen, maybe $549 would be OK.

I'm in the market for the 20", to go along with a new G5, but I'm holding off a bit for any design changes or discounts. Wouldn't it be great if Apple's monitors came with Bluetooth built in?! For the new bluetooth mouse...

LordMord
Jul 23, 2003, 03:27 PM
Point taken on the Nix guys...hrm and I guess students too and ok ok...

However, 3rd party is always going to be cheaper...no point in apple lowering their standards to take on the cheap 15" out there...

:o :D

dietsoda
Jul 23, 2003, 03:58 PM
We're currently in the market at work for 2 or 3 new monitors. Although I'd love to have an apple monitor, I'm finding that I can't recommend getting more apple lcds right now, despite my boss having been happily using his 22" Cinema display since it came out. The contrast ratio and response time are well below competitors operating at a similar price point, and when you're trying to attract designers, video pros, and gamers alike, these things matter. That said, with $100, $200, and $300 price cuts they become much more attractive.


New displays would seem to have to move to USB2, as it just looks a bit backwards to offer USB1 in a "brand new" display line. If they do that, then based on what has been said recently about apple's plans in regard to USB2, they might also want to include a firewire800 hub.

If they do offer a bluetooth mouse, might be (as someone suggested earlier) the best place to put the bluetooth card/chip. And if they do, then it might also be an idea way to charge the mouse over the USB2 or FireWire800 hub.

Still, it's not as though as PC user would be buying a apple display for a PC (even with ADC to DVI/USB/Power adapters), so maybe it doesn't need USB2 after all! :)


Has anyone used the latest Formac LCDs? I'd be interested to hear how they hold up.

timothyjoelwrig
Jul 23, 2003, 05:21 PM
I bought 6 x 23in when they first came out to put dual heads on my towers. I can say that it's not awkward at all, and I'm officialy spoiled, as it's difficult to work on even a single monitor, let alone a 17in or 20in. I say bring on the 30in+. New displays are the main reason why I have waited to buy my G5's.

LordMord
Jul 23, 2003, 05:58 PM
Did you make a full circle?

:cool:

timothyjoelwrig
Jul 23, 2003, 06:06 PM
lol I should try that :D

bennetsaysargh
Jul 23, 2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by timothyjoelwrig
I bought 6 x 23in when they first came out to put dual heads on my towers. I can say that it's not awkward at all, and I'm officialy spoiled, as it's difficult to work on even a single monitor, let alone a 17in or 20in. I say bring on the 30in+. New displays are the main reason why I have waited to buy my G5's.

!
you wanna buy a new cpmuter for me?
6 screens!?!?

Capt Underpants
Jul 23, 2003, 08:13 PM
All I want is a 20" Alu monitor. If Apple wants to update the displays, I hope that they keep the same pricing scheme. I don't want them to go up in price or else I couldn't afford one.

JtheLemur
Jul 23, 2003, 09:06 PM
Welll, It's 10pm EST. I can't believe NO one has written in with the dirt! Boooo.

EDIT: Oooops. it was LAST night. ha. ha.... Well, it's a day later and I can't believe no one has written in with the dirt! Boooo.

bennetsaysargh
Jul 23, 2003, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by JtheLemur
Welll, It's 10pm EST. I can't believe NO one has written in with the dirt! Boooo.

EDIT: Oooops. it was LAST night. ha. ha.... Well, it's a day later and I can't believe no one has written in with the dirt! Boooo.

sorry, but i'm not a reseller, and they do have confidentiality agreements.

ear2ear
Jul 23, 2003, 11:27 PM
Apple needs to kill the size of that bezel which frames the display. No one should have to look at more than an inch of plastic between their dual monitors. It just seems ridiculous to me that many of the cheaper LCDs sport this feature which is most important to some (such as I).

And before you say, "just get a 23" display", the space between monitors works nicely to seperate tasks/windows.

jbomber
Jul 23, 2003, 11:48 PM
bigger = better


its as old as time itself.

:)


if apple wants to make a 30inch display, i can't say that i wouldn't be interested. obscene amounts of screen realestate is a beautiful thing.

timothyjoelwrig
Jul 24, 2003, 01:39 AM
I agree, the boarder around the monitor is huge, especialy when you have two next to each other. With them slightly angled and tilted, it's about 5 inches across the middle. I wish there was a realistic way to eliminate the bezel all together. Oh well :D

MacBandit
Jul 24, 2003, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by Freg3000
How is it possible to talk about displays for and hour and a half (that is, without talking about new, revolutionary displays)? I doubt the Apple guy could speak about the three current monitors for that long, so I am going to assume something is up. Does anyone know if Apple has these display meeting regularly, or only when something new is coming?

You've obviously never been to a marketing class. When I was working for BMW I had to take a 5 day class 10 hours a day. It was one of the most horribly boring things I have ever done. I stayed awake though unlike a bunch of other people. At least the food was good.

Realistically though it's easy to waste an hour and product placement and presentation not to mention inventory and other things.

jbomber
Jul 24, 2003, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by timothyjoelwrig
I agree, the boarder around the monitor is huge, especialy when you have two next to each other. With them slightly angled and tilted, it's about 5 inches across the middle. I wish there was a realistic way to eliminate the bezel all together. Oh well :D

I think i got it! 34" display. Who do I need to call at Apple?:)

the future
Jul 24, 2003, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by dietsoda Although I'd love to have an apple monitor, I'm finding that I can't recommend getting more apple lcds right now ... The contrast ratio and response time are well below competitors operating at a similar price point

The 20" is NOT below the competition in any way, and certainly not at a similar price point. Don't forget that it was introduced much later than the other Apple LCDs and does have newer technology.

Oh, and macworld.com agrees with me: http://www.macworld.com/2003/08/features/eightflatpanelmonitors/

tex210
Jul 24, 2003, 03:33 AM
Well I do remember reading a coupla days back about centrino laptops selling well and causing a lcd shortage or price-hike. Maybe the meeting was about raising prices?
I hope not.
and why are centrinos catching on? Don't they know? nevermind.

dietsoda
Jul 24, 2003, 04:14 AM
The 20" is NOT below the competition in any way, and certainly not at a similar price point. Don't forget that it was introduced much later than the other Apple LCDs and does have newer technology.

Oh, and macworld.com agrees with me: http://www.macworld.com/2003/08/fea...tpanelmonitors/

True, the 20" is the best of the bunch, and Apple displays always seem to get good reviews from mac magazines (free lcds anyone?). The points others have made about the bezel hold true though, and i would say this alone makes them aesthetically less pleasing than say the NEC competition, while also making them impractical for multi-screen setups. BTW, although the reviews of the 20" are good, it's actual specification is not the best. And although the list prices for similar panels are often roughly equivilant, you can often get 100's of dollars off, this is less true with all apple products.

the future
Jul 24, 2003, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by dietsoda
True, the 20" is the best of the bunch, and Apple displays always seem to get good reviews from mac magazines (free lcds anyone?). The points others have made about the bezel hold true though, and i would say this alone makes them aesthetically less pleasing than say the NEC competition, while also making them impractical for multi-screen setups. BTW, although the reviews of the 20" are good, it's actual specification is not the best. And although the list prices for similar panels are often roughly equivilant, you can often get 100's of dollars off, this is less true with all apple products.

Well, you noticed that of the 8 displays tested there, the price of the 20" from Apple was not "roughly equivalent" to the competition but was actually the 2nd cheapest, didn't you? So even with rebates from resellers the other displays will not be cheaper, really.

You're right about thin bezels being a factor for multi display setups, but if you think just because of the bigger bezel the Apple 20" is in a single display setup less aesthetically pleasing than the (style-wise) very pedestrian NEC display, well... we just disagree about aesthetics.

As Apple is famously secretive about the hard facts (specifications) of their displays, where did you get to know them so precisely that you can say they're not up to those of the competition? BTW judging displays by specs sheets only is about as logical as judging computer systems by benchmarks only. Plus a lot of the times those specs sheets are really rather vague with certain numbers beeing "up to" something ("pixel refresh time up to..."). The only reasonable way to judge a display is by looking at it, have apps run on it etc. Just have a look at the Cinema 20" display. It's gorgeous.

alandail
Jul 24, 2003, 07:43 AM
considering ordering the 23" display this weekend here - what's the downside to it vs. the 20"? The larger pixel count is my reason for going with the 23.

dietsoda
Jul 24, 2003, 08:02 AM
if you think just because of the bigger bezel the Apple 20" is in a single display setup less aesthetically pleasing than the (style-wise) very pedestrian NEC display, well... we just disagree about aesthetics.

As Apple is famously secretive about the hard facts (specifications) of their displays, where did you get to know them so precisely that you can say they're not up to those of the competition? BTW judging displays by specs sheets only is about as logical as judging computer systems by benchmarks only...

The only reasonable way to judge a display is by looking at it, have apps run on it etc. Just have a look at the Cinema 20" display. It's gorgeous

Firstly, I own 4 macs at home, and use 3 here in my office, included along with that are two last generation 17" CRT Studio Displays. In my bosses office next door sits the 22". I'm fully aware that specs are not always the best way to judge a product, which is why I'm also drawing on my experience of the 22" LCD. In regard to the design of the NEC screens, it's a shame you think them pedestrian, as if Apple do bring the design of the displays in line with the G5, they might end up looking not too dissimilar. I personally prefer the NEC design, as it's just more minimal, which is something that really appeals to me in a display.

In regard to the specs being notoriously hard to find through apple, maybe you should try their webite? ;)

Apple Displays PDF (from apple.com/displays) (http://a480.g.akamai.net/7/480/51/7e7773dbe7fa55/www.apple.com/displays/pdf/L26120A_Displays_DS.pdf)

The only thing they don't specify is the pixel response time which they simply list as "fast".

dietsoda
Jul 24, 2003, 08:11 AM
Tom's Hardware has several good articles/reviews of lcd screens (bar apple of course, damn that adc).

17" LCDs - 20ms and 16ms Models (http://www.tomshardware.com/display/20030626/lcd-12.html)

That Hyundai seems like a bit of a bargain at $379.

How much is Apple's 17" again?

As a side note (), he mentions that 15" LCD panels actually cost around $15 each for the manufacturer.older round-up (http://www.tomshardware.com/display/20020114/lcd-25.html). that's a nice mark up then.

ogun7
Jul 24, 2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by dietsoda

In regard to the specs being notoriously hard to find through apple, maybe you should try their webite? ;)

Apple Displays PDF (from apple.com/displays) (http://a480.g.akamai.net/7/480/51/7e7773dbe7fa55/www.apple.com/displays/pdf/L26120A_Displays_DS.pdf)

The only thing they don't specify is the pixel response time which they simply list as "fast".

Sony manufactures all of the Apple lcds

macnews
Jul 24, 2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by dietsoda
Has anyone used the latest Formac LCDs? I'd be interested to hear how they hold up.

I have been looking at the Formac LCD's. While I haven't actually seen one the reviews on them seem to be mixed. They are always in the top have, often top third. The Macworld article review the formac 20" and apple 20". The one thing I like about the formac is better brightness and contrast range control. Apple LCD, however, have a better reliability in terms of dead pixels over the life of the monitor (based on my own experience w/17" & 20" apple LCD's compared to other brand 15" & 17" LCD's plus reviews). The Apple monitor, compared to the formac, has better color quality and screen viewing angle. With the price difference it is almost a toss up.

I am hoping Apple might drop prices before I buy a second 20" - that would make the Apple a shoe in for me.

10 Goto 10
Jul 24, 2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by macnews
I have been looking at the Formac LCD's. While I haven't actually seen one the reviews on them seem to be mixed. They are always in the top have, often top third. The Macworld article review the formac 20" and apple 20". The one thing I like about the formac is better brightness and contrast range control. Apple LCD, however, have a better reliability in terms of dead pixels over the life of the monitor (based on my own experience w/17" & 20" apple LCD's compared to other brand 15" & 17" LCD's plus reviews). The Apple monitor, compared to the formac, has better color quality and screen viewing angle. With the price difference it is almost a toss up.

I am hoping Apple might drop prices before I buy a second 20" - that would make the Apple a shoe in for me.

Look up the user ratings at cnet aka computers.com . While aggrieved users are more likely to post a notice, there does seem to be a lot of negative feedback for Formac. Compare it to Apple's monitor.

the future
Jul 24, 2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by dietsoda
Firstly, I own 4 macs at home, and use 3 here in my office, included along with that are two last generation 17" CRT Studio Displays. In my bosses office next door sits the 22". I'm fully aware that specs are not always the best way to judge a product, which is why I'm also drawing on my experience of the 22" LCD. In regard to the design of the NEC screens, it's a shame you think them pedestrian, as if Apple do bring the design of the displays in line with the G5, they might end up looking not too dissimilar. I personally prefer the NEC design, as it's just more minimal, which is something that really appeals to me in a display.

In regard to the specs being notoriously hard to find through apple, maybe you should try their webite? ;)

Apple Displays PDF (from apple.com/displays) (http://a480.g.akamai.net/7/480/51/7e7773dbe7fa55/www.apple.com/displays/pdf/L26120A_Displays_DS.pdf)

The only thing they don't specify is the pixel response time which they simply list as "fast".

I'm sorry, but even if you had 100 or more 15", 17", 22" and 23" Apple LCDs you still couldn't judge the 20" from your experience as it has as I mentioned before newer technology inside.

As to the NEC's design, it's a fine line between minimal and plain (which the G5 walks like a giant IMO), and I certainly hope Apple will do better than this if (when) new displays arrive.

As to "only" the pixel response time not being stated in the Apple PDF isn't this one of the most important specs and wasn't that indeed one of exactly two points you made in your first post about where Apple LCDs are inferior to the competition? So how do you know?

e-coli
Jul 24, 2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by the future
Oh, and macworld.com agrees with me: http://www.macworld.com/2003/08/features/eightflatpanelmonitors/


Macworld is the single most useless magazine around. They exist to blow smoke up Apple's arse. New Computer!!! 5 mice!!! Even when the last lot of G4's came out, the computers were MISERABLY behind Wintel boxes. What rating? 5 mice!!!

Get real. :rolleyes:

dietsoda
Jul 24, 2003, 07:19 PM
I'm sorry, but even if you had 100 or more 15", 17", 22" and 23" Apple LCDs you still couldn't judge the 20" from your experience as it has as I mentioned before newer technology inside.

Why sorry? My comments did not purport to relate exclusively or specifically to the 20" display.

As to the NEC's design, it's a fine line between minimal and plain (which the G5 walks like a giant IMO), and I certainly hope Apple will do better than this if (when) new displays arrive. I also hope that Apple produces something better than the NEC, at no point did i say anything about it being a design classic. I am one of the few people it seems who actually likes the look of the G5 too.

As to "only" the pixel response time not being stated in the Apple PDF isn't this one of the most important specs and wasn't that indeed one of exactly two points you made in your first post about where Apple LCDs are inferior to the competition? So how do you know?

The term "only" was used as in "single", "one". Here (http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Formac_Gallery_1740__DVI_/4505-3174_16-8749847-3.html?tag=review) the 17" is said to have a response time of 40ms. I freely admit i have no info on the response time of the 20". Again, I made no specific claims about the response time or performance of the 20". But the 40ms rating isn't acceptable.

Why does it make you so angry to question the value of an Apple product? I'm a loyal and devoted mac user myself, and when it comes to singing the praises of Mac OS X, FCP, QuickTime, iBooks, even eMacs! I'm not even sure I won't be plumping for the 20" myself yet. But when it comes to the 17", for the price you pay, it's not as good as you could get elsewhere. When it comes to image quality, Apple needs to be two steps ahead, not dragging their heals.

only
Function:_adjective
Definition:_singular
Synonyms:_alone, apart, by oneself, exclusive, individual, isolated, lone, matchless, one, one shot, onliest, particular, peerless, single, sole, solitary, solo, unaccompanied, unequaled, unique, unparalleled, unrivaled
Concept:_aloneness

Source:_Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)

WM.
Jul 24, 2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by ogun7
Sony manufactures all of the Apple lcds
No, they and Mitsubishi used to make Apple CRTs, and maybe they made some of the first Apple LCDs, but I believe that by now they are made by LG Philips and Chi Mei Optoelectronics.

OK, maybe MacWhispers isn't the best source for much of anything anymore (it's the only source I can remember for this), but I think other sites etc. say the same thing.

WM

alandail
Jul 24, 2003, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by dietsoda
Here (http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Formac_Gallery_1740__DVI_/4505-3174_16-8749847-3.html?tag=review) the 17" is said to have a response time of 40ms. I freely admit i have no info on the response time of the 20". Again, I made no specific claims about the response time or performance of the 20". But the 40ms rating isn't acceptable.
[/B]

Why is 40ms unacceptable? That's equivalent to 25 FPS, which is what movies are filmed at. And my computer screen doesn't update nearly as much as a movie screen. I'm typing this on an el chepo 17" LCD with a VGA input (Envision 17") - I have no idea waht the response time is. I just know I need a ton more desktop space.

Again, I'm looking to order an Apple 23" display this weekend along with a DP PowerMac G4. I could keep waiting for revised screens and the DP PowerMac G5 to ship, but at some point waiting for even better hurts more than not waiting. For me, compile times are a killer, and a DP G4 cuts my compile times by 80% while a DP G5 would cut it by about 90%. Why wait 8 more weeks and spend another $1k to get an extra 10% speedup over what I have now - a 500 MHz G4 powerbook.

MacBandit
Jul 25, 2003, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by alandail
Why is 40ms unacceptable? That's equivalent to 25 FPS, which is what movies are filmed at. And my computer screen doesn't update nearly as much as a movie screen. I'm typing this on an el chepo 17" LCD with a VGA input (Envision 17") - I have no idea waht the response time is. I just know I need a ton more desktop space.


It only really matters if you are doing fast moving video or even more so if you are a gamer.

alandail
Jul 25, 2003, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit
It only really matters if you are doing fast moving video or even more so if you are a gamer.

How fast? Pretty much every movie I've ever watched was filmed in 24 fps. They get turned into 60 fields per second on DVDs, and then on a LCD display, the DVD or display will do 3:2 processing to reconstruct the 24 fps original because doing so looks better than the interlaced 6 0 field per second source. How much faster than 24 fps can your eye really process the frames?

I've always thought that faster refresh rates were really only significant on CRT's where you get flicker if the refresh rate is too slow because it really only draws a pixel at a time. With LCD's the whole image stays there until you change the pixels, right?

MacBandit
Jul 25, 2003, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by alandail
How fast? Pretty much every movie I've ever watched was filmed in 24 fps. They get turned into 60 fields per second on DVDs, and then on a LCD display, the DVD or display will do 3:2 processing to reconstruct the 24 fps original because doing so looks better than the interlaced 6 0 field per second source. How much faster than 24 fps can your eye really process the frames?

I've always thought that faster refresh rates were really only significant on CRT's where you get flicker if the refresh rate is too slow because it really only draws a pixel at a time. With LCD's the whole image stays there until you change the pixels, right?

Well the ability of the human eye is a little at question but it's somewhere between 30-50fps. Your average digital video camera films at 30fps. It's only film that runs at 24fps. Video games typically run well at around 100fps. The reason for the high frame rate is that it's an average and in an extreme case the frame rate drops much much lower. With about 100fps you can be assured it won't drop below 30fps below which game play get's pretty choppy.

NNO-Stephen
Jul 25, 2003, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit
Video games typically run well at around 100fps.

you're wrong about that. videogames usually run at from 30-60 frames/sec. (console anyway) and the most people care about is 60, because as you said, people can't tell the difference with higher framerates. but drops below thirty and people bitch. hell, even at thirty, some graphics whores throw a fit.

but still, your basic point is right ;)

MacBandit
Jul 25, 2003, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by NNO-Stephen
you're wrong about that. videogames usually run at from 30-60 frames/sec. (console anyway) and the most people care about is 60, because as you said, people can't tell the difference with higher framerates. but drops below thirty and people bitch. hell, even at thirty, some graphics whores throw a fit.

but still, your basic point is right ;)

How am I wrong? We made the same point but I was saying that in my oppinion games run better when they average around 100FPS because at that point there is very little chance they will ever drop to unacceptable levels.

Most consoles run 30-60 because they can. They are a tightly controlled system running highly optimized and all the variables are well known. So they can make a game run at 30fps for the whole game for that matter with no fluctuation.

I have a problem with 30FPS because online multiplayer sucks at 30FPS.

dietsoda
Jul 25, 2003, 04:26 AM
If I recall correctly, the human eye/brain uses a hgher "refresh rate" in the edges of your vision, as an aid to detect movement around you. The center of your vision uses a slower rate, dedicating more resources to the detail in the content of the image. Supposedly as we are both Hunter and Hunted. If you have a CRT you can try it out. Set your refresh rate to something slow like 60Hz and then look to the side of the screen so that the screen is on the edge of your vision, you should notice banding and flickering, although some are more sensitive to it than others.

As to the frame rates: PAL TV (UK & Europe) is 25fps or 50 fields (half-frames interlaced), NTSC TV (USA) is 30fps (29.97 in truth) or 60 fields, and FILM is usually 24fps. There is NTSC Film which is something like 23.97fps, but not quite sure about it, maybe somebody else here could give us a better understanding of frame rates, refresh rates, pixel response time, and how these worlds collide?

the future
Jul 25, 2003, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by dietsoda
Why sorry? My comments did not purport to relate exclusively or specifically to the 20" display.

I also hope that Apple produces something better than the NEC, at no point did i say anything about it being a design classic. I am one of the few people it seems who actually likes the look of the G5 too.



The term "only" was used as in "single", "one". Here (http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Formac_Gallery_1740__DVI_/4505-3174_16-8749847-3.html?tag=review) the 17" is said to have a response time of 40ms. I freely admit i have no info on the response time of the 20". Again, I made no specific claims about the response time or performance of the 20". But the 40ms rating isn't acceptable.

Why does it make you so angry to question the value of an Apple product? I'm a loyal and devoted mac user myself, and when it comes to singing the praises of Mac OS X, FCP, QuickTime, iBooks, even eMacs! I'm not even sure I won't be plumping for the 20" myself yet. But when it comes to the 17", for the price you pay, it's not as good as you could get elsewhere. When it comes to image quality, Apple needs to be two steps ahead, not dragging their heals.

Oh dear...

First of all I'm not angry at all and I don't think I made any comment that supports this perception of yours. I thought we were just a having a nice, friendly conversation based on facts.

Also you should have noticed by now that I'm not blindly defending all Apple products or even all Apple displays, only the 20" one. I freely admit that the other Apple displays are a bit behind the competition as they are older than the 20". Why is it so hard for you to admit that your initial statement (that all Apple LCD displays are behind the competition) was a little to broad and just plain wrong regarding the 20"? As you obviously can't prove that the 20" is also behind, let's just leave it that, shall we?

About the NEC display: you didn't say it was a "design classic", but you said you liked it and even said the next Apple displays may probably be similar to those. I just said that I didn't like them and hope the next Apple displays will look better than this. What's angry about that?

Also it's impossible for Apple to be "two steps ahead" in image quality as they don't manufacture displays themselves. They can only use what exists.


p.s. I may start to sound "angry" now, but to quote the dictionary definition of 'only' was extremely childish and unnecessary. This (but not this alone) only proved that logic is quite possibly not your closest friend.

p.p.s. But hey, everything is not lost! At least we agree that the G5 looks great!

dietsoda
Jul 25, 2003, 06:43 AM
Your suggestion was that i was contradicting myself by saying "only" in relation to the pixel reponse time, as that had been one of the things i specified as being behind much of the competition. I felt this was more than a little pedantic, and quite a wilfull misinterpretation of the text.

Only one of the Apple displays uses the updated tech, the other two don't, and even the 20" does not have that high a contrast ratio. So my comments remain valid, despite your vehement assertions to the contrary.

Also in my original post I mentioned that with the rumored price cuts, the Apple displays become much more attractive. In addition I stated that i would love an apple display. My post merely indicated that I am waiting before any purchases for the line to be brought up to the specs of the competition, or at least roughly equivalent

You responed with: The 20" is NOT below the competition in any way I feel that despite your use of capitals ("NOT"), the facts ARE still debatable.

I responded by agreeing that the 20" was certainally an improvement over it's siblings, and expanded my list of concerns to inluded the bezel, as it was a point being made by others which i agreed with, and felt was a factor in purchasing decisions.

In your next reply you rather condescendingly 'educated' me that specs aren't always the best way to judge a product. Something I would assume anybody on these boards would know, and if i pointed it out to them, it would be because i was trying to undermine them, and draw into question the validity of their argument. A distraction from the matter in hand, and nothing more than an attempt to gain status, while reducing mine.

You also rather pointedly demanded that i supply some sources, which i did in my next two posts. You then post again, still fixated on the 20", demanding yet more sources, and seemingly overlooking the ones i'd provided. You then make what is for me your infamous comments where you childishly single out my use of the word "only", despite me using it within a context that made it clear that i thought this was a deliberate act on apples part to disguise this crucial info. you again questioned "How do you know?".

In your most recent post you degenreate into personal insults, again trying to undermine my position in this public forum. p.s. I may start to sound "angry" now, but to quote the dictionary definition of 'only' was extremely childish and unnecessary. This (but not this alone) only proved that logic is quite possibly not your closest friend.

At no point have i made any detremental remarks about you personally, or your opinions, i have merely disagreed with them. And any reservations i may have had about my interpretation of your previous posts has been blown out of the water by your, quite frankly, pathetic and juvenile comments in the last post. I feel I also need to point out that i have still not made any assertions about you personally, only the comments you have made.

As a relatively new member of the macrumors forums I have to say you've done a fabulous job of making me feel utterly unwelcome, and whether or not you intended your posts to be so unfriendly is almost irrelevant.

But true, at least we agree on the PowerMac G5 design.

dietsoda
Jul 25, 2003, 06:46 AM
Also it's impossible for Apple to be "two steps ahead" in image quality as they don't manufacture displays themselves. They can only use what exists.

They don't manufacture the PPC970, Memory, Screens, Mice, Keyboards, or most of the things they sell. That doesn't mean they don't or can't get the best of the components out there, rather than using the cheapest, or just the easiest available. So yes, Apple can be at the front of the field, and "two steps ahead" of the majority of the competition.

the future
Jul 25, 2003, 07:28 AM
OMG, dietsoda, you really have to calm down and not take criticism that personal. I finally understand that you are not really interested in having a rational conversation. Case closed.

GrizzlyHippo
Jul 25, 2003, 11:01 AM
dietsoda and the future - calm down guys. Let's get back on track.

Does anyone have info now on the content of the display meeting? Arn??

Hey dietsoda, where are you based in Bath, I live and work there too.

Grizzly

MacBandit
Jul 25, 2003, 12:20 PM
Okay people just calm down a bit. Here's the problem. You can't judge a display by it's specs. Plain and simple. The problem is that isn't a standard test to determine the specs. So a company can do whatever it takes to stretch their specs to make them look better. Viewsonic was doing this to extreme up until a couple months ago. They advertised their displays to have 600:1 contrast ration and in real world tests many of them had poorer contrast than many displays rated at 350:1.

If you want to test and compare a display either read test from people you trust or do it yourself but don't do it based on manufacturer specs for any product.

e-coli
Jul 25, 2003, 12:33 PM
This (but not this alone) only proved that logic is quite possibly not your closest friend.

heh heh. Well I thought this was hysterical. ;)

MacBandit
Jul 25, 2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by e-coli
heh heh. Well I thought this was hysterical. ;)

Well I thought it was funny too but it really doesn't mean we need to promote or encourage personal attacks like this by responding to them.

Personal attacks are not acceptable and are the quickest way to get the boot.