Apple LCD Updates [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

MacRumors

Jun 21, 2004, 06:34 PM

Appleinsider provides (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=512) some additional confirmation that Apple's LCD line is about to see a revision.

The report echos many of the details (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/06/20040608214257.shtml) provided by a ThinkSecret report earlier this month.

The new report offers pricing for the new models at $2999 (30"), $999 (20") and $1499-1799 (23").

Apple's World Wide Developer's Conference kicks off next week and could represent the launch point for the new displays. Rumors of other devices/introductions have been circulating. Rumor roundup to follow.

jjmaximum

Jun 21, 2004, 06:35 PM

Sounds cool, but how big is the market for something like this?

alexf

Jun 21, 2004, 06:36 PM

Wow - I'm surprised that the price drops are not more significant...

LeeTom

Jun 21, 2004, 06:36 PM

Sounds cool, but how big is the market for something like this?
You'd be surprised. Huge.

LaMerVipere

Jun 21, 2004, 06:37 PM

Grr, no sub $1000 Apple Display?!?!

Darn it all! :mad:

Freg3000

Jun 21, 2004, 06:37 PM

Sounds cool, but how big is the market for something like this?

Better than the market when the 22" was $3999. :eek:

If there is a 20" widescreen DVI monitor, I'll pick up that in a heartbeat! And then I'd finally be able to get a retail 9800 Pro without having to get a brick for the DVI.

YES!

Spock

Jun 21, 2004, 06:38 PM

Man a upgrade would be nice but I cant help but notice they almost cost more than the Powermacs Except the 20'

Wonder Boy

Jun 21, 2004, 06:38 PM

something is inherantly wrong when my monitor costs as much as my computer.

alexf

Jun 21, 2004, 06:39 PM

Why would anybody buy a 30" monitor when they can buy and use two 20" monitors (given that their graphics card can support this) for 2/3 the price?

I certainly wouldn't...

csubear

Jun 21, 2004, 06:39 PM

Well this will put the 20" at a good price for edu. If this is true i would be very very very temped to pick one up for my powerbook.

alexf

Jun 21, 2004, 06:40 PM

Grr, no sub $1000 Apple Display?!?!

Darn it all! :mad:

Yes, my feelings exactly!

Wonder Boy

Jun 21, 2004, 06:44 PM

Why would anybody buy a 30" monitor when they can buy and use two 20" monitors (given that their graphics card can support this) for 2/3 the price?

I certainly wouldn't...
i like the way you think.

narco

Jun 21, 2004, 06:45 PM

Please please please!!!

I just sold my 17" LCD to get the best possible price out of it ($550). I plan on using a Sony 22" CRT until the new ones come out, but I hope I don't have to use it for very long.

// narco

applekid

Jun 21, 2004, 06:56 PM

Rumor round-up today? Or rumor round-up as in day before WWDC?

I hope to see a lot of new devices at WWDC so nobody goes home a sore loser.

aussiemac86

Jun 21, 2004, 06:56 PM

I just hope they give us a decent exchange rate in Aus here it looks like we will be looking at somewhere between $1700 and $2000 for the 20"......thats a lot of money for the base model monitor

PowerMacMan

Jun 21, 2004, 06:56 PM

Mr. Anderson

Jun 21, 2004, 06:57 PM

The 20" aren't going to be HD, just the 23" and 30"....

Could you even put 2 30" LCDs on the same machine?

D

kaylee

Jun 21, 2004, 06:57 PM

Grr, no sub $1000 Apple Display?!?!

Darn it all! :mad:'

Actually, technically $999 is sub $1000 (sorry to be nit-picky but it is). Plus if you are eligible for education discount, the prices will be lower.

noel4r

Jun 21, 2004, 06:59 PM

Grr, no sub $1000 Apple Display?!?!

Darn it all! :mad:

Doesn't the 20" costs $999.00?

brap

Jun 21, 2004, 07:00 PM

Inventory analysis reveals that supply of Apple's current Cinema displays still hovers far above demand for the products.
Well, the UK refurb store is open all freaking week (http://promo.euro.apple.com/promo/refurb/uk), so maybe it's time to pick up a dirt cheap pair of 17s. The 23 was too big for me, 30 is ridiculous, and at that price USD, who knows what heights the UK price will scale?

triton

Jun 21, 2004, 07:04 PM

What is HD anyways, and how does it help an LCD display?

alexf

Jun 21, 2004, 07:04 PM

I know what you mean, CRT's give me headaches!

Yes, but serious graphic designers cannot use LCDs because the color is still inferior to CRTs.

I still think it's a shame that Apple discontinued making CRTs a few years ago...

Grimace

Jun 21, 2004, 07:06 PM

HD 23" = ~$1499 (assuming this price)
HD 30" = $2999

That makes TWO 23" the same price as the 30". Seems a little steep. Apple would rake in orders if the 30" were prices at $2499.

PowerMacMan

Jun 21, 2004, 07:06 PM

What is HD anyways, and how does it help an LCD display?

HD=High Definition... Better picture

nuckinfutz

Jun 21, 2004, 07:09 PM

What is HD anyways, and how does it help an LCD display?

High Definition. Video people are eagerly looking use HD LCD for monitoring because they map each pixel to HD video. The resolution needed for HD is 1980 x 1080. LCD are progressive meaning they display the image in one frame. Perfect for monitoring. The 20" doesn't support 1080 HD so it's not going to provide the same results. However the 30" doesn't look to have a native resolution of 1980 x 1200 pixels so it might not be the best solution. I think video people will keep purchasing the 23" and others that need screen real estate will go for 30"

nuckinfutz

Jun 21, 2004, 07:10 PM

HD 23" = ~$1499 (assuming this price)
HD 30" = $2999

That makes TWO 23" the same price as the 30". Seems a little steep. Apple would rake in orders if the 30" were prices at $2499.

They still will rake in the orders. There are a few people that need the large screens(stock brokers etc) who for particular reasons can't "join" two smaller monitors. The 30" will be expensive but like all else the prices will shift down.

Grimace

Jun 21, 2004, 07:11 PM

Thinksecret had to take down the artist renditions of the new displays (maybe too accurate) - does anyone know of a mirror site or did anyone save the images??

puckhead193

Jun 21, 2004, 07:14 PM

If only a 30" would fit in a college dorm....I hope they make "new" monitors and not just drop the price of the 20 and 23. Do you think they will keep the same white/clear shell?

LaMerVipere

Jun 21, 2004, 07:15 PM

'

Actually, technically $999 is sub $1000 (sorry to be nit-picky but it is). Plus if you are eligible for education discount, the prices will be lower.

"Lower" indeed, but no where near the cost of $599 right now with edu. discount for a 17" Apple Display.

a 20" will probably end up being $899 with edu. discount, that's a huge price difference from the low end as of now.

diego

Jun 21, 2004, 07:15 PM

Thinksecret had to take down the artist renditions of the new displays (maybe too accurate) - does anyone know of a mirror site or did anyone save the images??

This is the image on the original Appleinsider article, they also took it down

Edit: This pic actually looks just like Thinksecret's, but in color.

narco

Jun 21, 2004, 07:17 PM

Yes, but serious graphic designers cannot use LCDs because the color is still inferior to CRTs.

I still think it's a shame that Apple discontinued making CRTs a few years ago...

Well when all those "serious graphic designers" go blind after using CRT's all day, I'll take all their jobs. :)

// narco

virividox

Jun 21, 2004, 07:23 PM

well 500 plus days its about time!!! i really am excited to see the new designs

Calvinatir

Jun 21, 2004, 07:23 PM

just went and bought a lottery ticket...numbers 2 17 21 27 42 15
If I win...im buying dual 30's and the Dual 2.5's... :) That's about the only way im gettin them! :)

eric_n_dfw

Jun 21, 2004, 07:24 PM

According to sources, the new 30-inch display could not be powered through the company's traditional Apple Display Connector (ADC), and as a result the revised models are said to feature a new Digital Visual Interface (DVI) connector
I sure hope "new" in that last sentence means, "new to Apple". I never really understood the whole ADC thing. Why wouldn't they want to use the DVI standard? Oh, maybe PC owners might buy one - that would be terrible wouldn't it! :rolleyes:

Seriously, though, I hope "new" doesn't mean, the new Apple DVI connector.

coolfactor

Jun 21, 2004, 07:30 PM

I sure hope "new" in that last sentence means, "new to Apple". I never really understood the whole ADC thing. Why wouldn't they want to use the DVI standard? Oh, maybe PC owners might buy one - that would be terrible wouldn't it! :rolleyes:

Seriously, though, I hope "new" doesn't mean, the new Apple DVI connector.

Agreed. They boast about supporting standards, and they even include DVI support on their machines, but insist on using a proprietary ADC connector. It sounds, though, that they've made a wise move and kept the new line of monitors consistent... "the 30 inch can't use ADC, so we'll go DVI for everything". Smart move.

macridah

Jun 21, 2004, 07:36 PM

I hope everything in the article is true, except for the price.

I would get the 23"; 30 might be too big. I'll see next week at the WWDC if they have one there. I use to think 23 was too lavish.

7 more days til WWDC. I'm hope I don't go crazy by then.

PowerMacMan

Jun 21, 2004, 07:39 PM

Thinksecret had to take down the artist renditions of the new displays (maybe too accurate) - does anyone know of a mirror site or did anyone save the images??

Here are the exact ones from TS...

Analog Kid

Jun 21, 2004, 07:41 PM

High Definition. Video people are eagerly looking use HD LCD for monitoring because they map each pixel to HD video. The resolution needed for HD is 1980 x 1080. LCD are progressive meaning they display the image in one frame. Perfect for monitoring. The 20" doesn't support 1080 HD so it's not going to provide the same results. However the 30" doesn't look to have a native resolution of 1980 x 1200 pixels so it might not be the best solution. I think video people will keep purchasing the 23" and others that need screen real estate will go for 30"
I think the resolution of the 30" is meant for folks that do full HD video editing-- so they need the 1980x1080 and room for toolbars and such.

Can't really do that by splitting across two monitors. I guess you could put some of the toolbars there, but it would be a pain...

sworthy

Jun 21, 2004, 07:46 PM

Wow - I'm surprised that the price drops are not more significant...

are you kidding? The 20" for under a thousand is an amazing deal, try finding a similar display from anyone. The 23" isn't being cut that much, but it will still be right around where the 23" hp is (the cheapest 23" widescreen I know about). Obviously the 30" is expensive, but for what it is, and what a 22" cost when it came out, it's a solid deal.

I personally am disappointed in the lack of a 17" widescreen option, but now I think apple (or someone selling an "old/current" 20") is going to be receiving a couple hundred more than I was thinking about originally.

Analog Kid

Jun 21, 2004, 07:46 PM

"Lower" indeed, but no where near the cost of $599 right now with edu. discount for a 17" Apple Display.

a 20" will probably end up being $899 with edu. discount, that's a huge price difference from the low end as of now.
Funny. If Apple sold it at a price that made sense for them, they'd get abused for being too expensive. If they decide not to participate in the low end display market they get abused for not having an offering...

I don't think Apple wants to get into the business of fighting for crumbs in the low end display business-- especially when you figure there's very little has to offer other than a-slightly-different-rectangular-box.

They're sticking to the high end to support their key graphic design markets and other folk who are more worried about price can buy a commodity display.

alexf

Jun 21, 2004, 07:47 PM

Well when all those "serious graphic designers" go blind after using CRT's all day, I'll take all their jobs. :)

// narco

Honestly, I don't think that an LCD display is any easier on the eyes than a good CRT.

Does anyone have any evidence for this?

You may have had a bad experience with one of the CRTs that IS hard on the eyes.

In any case, staring at a flourescent light all day (i.e. an LCD monitor) cannot be healthy by any account...

alexf

Jun 21, 2004, 07:53 PM

are you kidding? The 20" for under a thousand is an amazing deal, try finding a similar display from anyone. The 23" isn't being cut that much, but it will still be right around where the 23" hp is (the cheapest 23" widescreen I know about). Obviously the 30" is expensive, but for what it is, and what a 22" cost when it came out, it's a solid deal.

I personally am disappointed in the lack of a 17" widescreen option, but now I think apple (or someone selling an "old/current" 20") is going to be receiving a couple hundred more than I was thinking about originally.

No, I'm not kidding.

The current 20" display price of $1299 was set 18 months ago. Since then the technology has become cheaper and LCD prices have dropped quite a bit.

Although this newer model will obviously sport some improvements over the older ones, I think the price should be a least another $100 less for the 20" model than the rumor states, especially if this display will be the entry model.

Dahl

Jun 21, 2004, 07:57 PM

Actually, wasn't there something about that LCD's held their price or even went up a bit, since demand was so great ?

eric_n_dfw

Jun 21, 2004, 08:03 PM

LCD are progressive meaning they display the image in one frame. Perfect for monitoring.
For the record, just about every VGA or better CRT monitor sold in the past 10 years is progressive too - and at even higher refresh rates. The last interlaced computer monitor I used was in '93 on my old Amiga 500.

Dahl

Jun 21, 2004, 08:05 PM

I think the resolution of the 30" is meant for folks that do full HD video editing-- so they need the 1980x1080 and room for toolbars and such.

Can't really do that by splitting across two monitors. I guess you could put some of the toolbars there, but it would be a pain...
I think some people like the 30", but many video editors prefer dual monitor set up. Many have a set up that include a couple of monitors and a TV for testing. Those things take up a lot of space. What I do think some video (and others) people might like is the 30" for a meeting or presention room. I know people who use projectors, but might look at the 30" now.

JGowan

Jun 21, 2004, 08:05 PM

something is inherantly wrong when my monitor costs as much as my computer.Advice time: get a 21" CRT and be happy.

What's INHERANT is that people with money will always want the very best and that always come at a price. These monitors are not for everybody.

This does three things...

1) It provides an incredible experience for those who can afford it.
2) It creates a dream in those who can't afford it to say "one damn day, i'm getting one of those!" -- and eventually the dream is realized.
3) The early adopters cause the price to eventually go down for the rest of us "po' folk".

Think about the 22" Display (1600 x 1024) four years ago at $3999... and now, soon, we might just see the current 20" (1680 x 1050) drop to less than a $1K. Just 4 years and a brighter and better, though slightly smaller display is 1/4 the price.

I'm actually person #2... the guy with the dream. When the 23" HD dropped to $1999, I jumped on it with both feet. I have never regretted it. The experience justifies the money everytime I wake the beautiful thing up.

Eventually, this whole LCD panel thing will be yesterday's news and the new thing (probably OLED) will make all this high-priced flat panels a whole lot less.

Borg3of5

Jun 21, 2004, 08:10 PM

I'm thinking that $899-999 for a 20" sounds too good to be true. Unless, of course, the 17" DOES go away. With an edu discount this would be nice; and even better if the 23" hovers around $1399-1499. Let's hope Apple doesn't snafus the pricing scheme.

In light of the assumption by Apple that every iPod/iPod mini user drives a BMW, this might no be a good sign that pricing for the new displays would be competitive.

Here's to hoping, and only 7 days waiting.

eric_n_dfw

Jun 21, 2004, 08:13 PM

No - this is not some spam about, ahem, male enhancements! :rolleyes:

I do two things with my computers:

9 to 5 (more like 9 to 9 lately) I'm a software developer and use Eclipse and/or IntelliJ on my G4 with dual 19" CRT's running 1280x1024 each and I'd hook up a 3rd if I had another PCI video card for it. Code geeks like me need all the screen real estate we can get! I'd use 2 30" LCD's if I could convince my manager to sign for it!

At the home office, I do video editing with Final Cut Pro, Soundtrack, LiveType, Photoshop, etc... I've got a 19" CRT (1280x1024) and a 17" CRT (1024x768) which barely fit on the desk. As well as an NTSC preview monitor (15" maybe). Truthfully, I could get ditch both CRT's for a 23" LCD but if I ever started working in HD, that 30" would be perfect. (Add the old 17" on the side for email and whatnot. No matter what, I'd still have to have a CRT based preview monitor too.

narco

Jun 21, 2004, 08:14 PM

eric_n_dfw

Jun 21, 2004, 08:14 PM

I think some people like the 30", but many video editors prefer dual monitor set up. Many have a set up that include a couple of monitors and a TV for testing. Those things take up a lot of space. What I do think some video (and others) people might like is the 30" for a meeting or presention room. I know people who use projectors, but might look at the 30" now.Yeah, come to think of it, I think I'd rather have a pair of 23" LCD's for FCP than a singe 30". (If only my wife would quit hiding the credit cards!)
;)

ZildjianKX

Jun 21, 2004, 08:16 PM

w00tmaster

Jun 21, 2004, 08:19 PM

are you kidding? The 20" for under a thousand is an amazing deal, try finding a similar display from anyone. The 23" isn't being cut that much, but it will still be right around where the 23" hp is (the cheapest 23" widescreen I know about). Obviously the 30" is expensive, but for what it is, and what a 22" cost when it came out, it's a solid deal.

I personally am disappointed in the lack of a 17" widescreen option, but now I think apple (or someone selling an "old/current" 20") is going to be receiving a couple hundred more than I was thinking about originally.

While $999 for 20.1" isn't expensive, it isn't cheap either, you can get a 20.1" Sony(no widescreen, but more pixels, depends on what your preference is) from newegg.com for about $950 or so. But if you have the edu/developer discount, that makes Apple's all the more enticing. Plus it matches! Never a bad thing.

eric_n_dfw

Jun 21, 2004, 08:26 PM

Well, CRTs constantly refresh and wear out your eyes... each pixel on an LCD says lit until they change, and your eyes won't get as tired...Evidence? (about "wearing out your eyes")

If you can see the flicker, you're running at to low a refresh rate.

I've been spending multiple hours a day in front of computer monitors since I was in 6th grade (1983 I think - see my sig line :D), many at very low refresh rates. Yet I still have better than 20/20 according to the eye doctor last year. 'taint wearing mine out.

Littleodie914

Jun 21, 2004, 08:36 PM

Hmm... I don't know anything about eye strain, other than the fact that since the newer CRT monitors can run at rates of 100+ Hz, there shouldn't be any eye strain. My old CRT monitor runs at 75, and I don't have any problem with that at all. One thing I do notice between the two monitors is the clarity. Going from even the LCD screen on my POS XP Box to my CRT monitor on my G3 is like night and day. The LCD is much brighter, and when I play in the morning in the dark right when I wake up, I actually have to turn it down so I don't blind myself! The CRT is also much "fuzzier" than the LCD. When reading small text on the CRT monitor, I almost have to squint my eyes, especially when running at higher resolutions. (And no, my eyesight is 20/20, so I'm sure it's not my eyes.) These are the reasons Apple doesn't produce CRT monitors... They're not Apple's style ;-) (Being everything has to be perfect and clear)

vancenase

Jun 21, 2004, 08:40 PM

Why would anybody buy a 30" monitor when they can buy and use two 20" monitors (given that their graphics card can support this) for 2/3 the price?

I certainly wouldn't...

you forgot about all those rap/pop/rock dudes with money to waste who will buy 2x 30" monitors, while the rest of us settle for 2x 20".

then they can rap/sing/rock about how 'large' their monitors are ...

sfwalter

Jun 21, 2004, 08:44 PM

From what I gather there are alot of cinema displays in the channel right now.

If Apple releases the new versions in about a week, I wonder how much they would cut the existing displays. If they are selling the new 20" model for $999, how about $799 for the old 20" model. At that price I would be very tempted to get the old model, even though I have been holding off (impatiently) my purchase a PowerMac 2.0GHz until the new displays are released.

scott.

mklos

Jun 21, 2004, 08:52 PM

Grr, no sub $1000 Apple Display?!?!

Darn it all! :mad:

Totally agree! I cannot believe Apple would do this. It wouldn't be that hard to off the 17" widescreen display used in the iMac/PowerBook. That is beautiful display. I think they would sell more 17" displays than 20, 23, or 30" displays. Some people don't like huge displays, nor do they have the room for them.

This totally sucks if this is true. One of the worst things they can ever do is make someone buy a $1,000 display after forking out $2,000 for the low end PowerMac G5.

må¥å

Jun 21, 2004, 09:03 PM

I honestly don't know why people complain on this board (then again its always amusing) :D

Seriously, People compare Intel, AMD, MS, Sony, Etc to Apple fair.

Why do you care if its a few dollars cheaper I mean when you go to a store and buy a shirt or paint will you settle for a $2 shirt of one that cost $25. If you don't like the price buy something else a shirt is a shirt (exception of design)

Same with a Car sure a Ford has 4 wheels, doors, motor, etc... However its your choice if you choose to buy a Ford or a BMW.

Don't have the money save and stop posting your lust for something you can't obtain as of yet, and if you are lucky to have the best great.

If you feel that sony has a better lcd display go get it for $49 cheaper and stop crying about it over this board.

Now where is my 30inch HD lcd from Apple :D

joemama

Jun 21, 2004, 09:04 PM

MBAnstendig

Jun 21, 2004, 09:06 PM

The problem is that the larger they make the display, the larger they make the resolution.

So everything still remains tiny on the screen, unless one enlarges the fonts and such enormously. And then, some details/fonts won't enlarge.

My 23" ACD-HD is large. but I am unhappy with the high resolution. I would prefer a lower resolution and more easy to read and see detailing and text. My SONY 24" (22.5" viewable) CRTs can use 1600 x 1000 resolution, and that is easier to read and use, IMO.

If the Apple OS had the complete customizing of the desktop that Windows has had for years, it would be fine. In windows one can enlarge and choose the color of everything in the desktop. With Apple's OS that is not possible.....a great failing, IMO.

From the rumors, the 30" will have some ridiculously high resolution that keeps details still as small as on the 23".

Mark B Anstendig

må¥å

Jun 21, 2004, 09:11 PM

joed

Jun 21, 2004, 09:19 PM

I really hope Apple uses HDMI instead of DVI.

HDMI is the new replacement standard which is backwards compatible with DVI.

www.hdmi.org/

It uses a smaller plug, has much high bandwidth and can take uncompressed video and audio. So maybe Apple will put a audio out or even speakers on the monitor.

This would be cutting edge and I really hope they use it instead of DVI.

LaMerVipere

Jun 21, 2004, 09:22 PM

Funny. If Apple sold it at a price that made sense for them, they'd get abused for being too expensive. If they decide not to participate in the low end display market they get abused for not having an offering...

I don't think Apple wants to get into the business of fighting for crumbs in the low end display business-- especially when you figure there's very little has to offer other than a-slightly-different-rectangular-box.

They're sticking to the high end to support their key graphic design markets and other folk who are more worried about price can buy a commodity display.

Well need I remind you that the majority of Apple's customers are not in the graphic design business? If they want to lose all the business they would otherwise gain in the 17" LCD market that's their masochism for ya.

And its not that some people can't AFFORD a bigger display, its that they just aren't going to pay a thousand dollars for the lowest priced Apple Display. $1000 = an iBook G4, it's a tad insane not to have a more competitively priced solution from Apple.

You are calling the 17" LCD market "crumbs"? I say, it's hardly crumbs.

iDave

Jun 21, 2004, 09:23 PM

My 23" ACD-HD is large. but I am unhappy with the high resolution. I would prefer a lower resolution and more easy to read and see detailing and text.
Wow, that's a refreshing opinion; quite different than most people who seem to be clamoring for even (ridiculously) higher resolution than what Apple offers. Personally I think the resolution of Apple's displays is a good compromise, not too high and not too low. I'll be the first in line for a new 23", especially if it's cheaper than the current model.

ifjake

Jun 21, 2004, 09:25 PM

with 30 inches i'd be tempted to use my mac as a movie theater. now if they just had a little box with a DVD player, HD TV tuner, hard drive for recording stuff, and maybe a way to wireless network with my laptop and stuff, that would be cool. maybe you could jury-rig an Xserve with a wicked audio card and video card and tv tuner and airport stuff. if i were a rich man.

iDave

Jun 21, 2004, 09:26 PM

You can change the lcd resolution:

SysPref > Displays >Display

hope that helps and fixes the issue. :)
Not such a good idea unless you're desperate. Using a LCD display at non-native resolution results in very blurry text.

iDave

Jun 21, 2004, 09:35 PM

Well need I remind you that the majority of Apple's customers are not in the graphic design business? If they want to lose all the business they would otherwise gain in the 17" LCD market that's their masochism for ya.
Apple doesn't compete in the low-end market. Apparently they don't want to sell displays with low margins, just like they don't want to sell computers with low margins. IMO, the only reason Apple offers the eMac is so they don't lose the entire education market. The $100 per unit or so they would make on low end stuff is hardly worth bothering with and such products would compete against their own higher end products.

Many Mac owners respect the quality of Apple products so they really want Apple displays. They might be satisfied with a $500 17" Apple LCD and then Apple would loose a sale of a $1000 20" model. This is just my opinion. :)

Grimace

Jun 21, 2004, 09:39 PM

technocoy

Jun 21, 2004, 09:42 PM

lower resolutions are native ones... panther automatically shows the recommended resolutions. this talk of lower resolutions is rediculous. take down the resolution if it is to high... this is the weirdest argument for a monitor i have heard. and the reason people are going to buy the 30 and 23 are that if things go the wyt the rumors are pointing, then they have HD inputs as well, which means not only do you have a giant sweet-ass monitor, but you can also have an apple designed HD widescreen lcd flatpanel TV. and if they match or beat a 2999.00 price point they will be offering a nice piece of equipment at a price that many manufacturers have yet to beat. they would probably corner the market if they actually offered it at 1999.00 since people would buy them simply for use as a flat panel HD monitor. what better for an apple fanatic than to have apple in your entertainment center as well.

furrina

Jun 21, 2004, 10:18 PM

which means not only do you have a giant sweet-ass monitor, but you can also have an apple designed HD widescreen lcd flatpanel TV. and if they match or beat a 2999.00 price point they will be offering a nice piece of equipment at a price that many manufacturers have yet to beat. they would probably corner the market if they actually offered it at 1999.00 since people would buy them simply for use as a flat panel HD monitor. what better for an apple fanatic than to have apple in your entertainment center as well.

I'm surprised this is the first mention of this in this thread. Those flat-panel TVs are the biggest premium-consumer thing going. I've been thinking of various permutations myself (like, why not just spend the money on a video projecter, as I have a PB, and use the big white wall as a second screen, plus be able to screen videos and DVDs). I'll bet they anticipated that a lot of people are hoping to have it do double duty to add to their home theater and watch DVDs, and even rig up some sort of tuner adapter thing till an integrated one arrives, thus justifying the price ("honey, we'll have a big computer monitor AND one of those big flat panel TVs,").

technocoy

Jun 21, 2004, 10:25 PM

YUP. Apple IS making their way into the living room... gateway and dell did it the cheap way, and apple is going to do it the beng olufsen way...HA HA! YES! i can't wait!

iDave

Jun 21, 2004, 10:27 PM

lower resolutions are native ones... panther automatically shows the recommended resolutions. this talk of lower resolutions is rediculous. take down the resolution if it is to high... this is the weirdest argument for a monitor i have heard.
My comment was the result of crazy people I've heard talk of wanting 1600x1200 on a 12" or 15" screen, that's all. Resolutions at about 100 pixels per inch are just fine for the current OS.
they would probably corner the market if they actually offered it at 1999.00 since people would buy them simply for use as a flat panel HD monitor. what better for an apple fanatic than to have apple in your entertainment center as well.
Sorry, but your price is crazy talk too. If Apple sold 30" high resolution displays for $1999, they'd probably be losing $500 apiece (based on the rumor of what suggested retail might actually be). It's nice to dream of amazing prices but let's get back to reality. :) :)

I agree, a 30" Apple display would make a heck of a nice HDTV monitor!

LSlugger

Jun 21, 2004, 10:29 PM

lower resolutions are native ones...

Are you sure about that? Every LCD I've seen looks noticably worse at lower resolutions. Even Apple's specs. list only one resolution as "optimum."

I'm very happy with a 19" LCD at 1280x1024. That's approximately 86 dpi, compared to 95 - 100 dpi for Apple's displays.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 21, 2004, 10:31 PM

Doesn't the 20" costs $999.00?

Some slack here wuld be nice :)

He feels the same way i do from a previous post today. $999 would be the starting point for a monitor for the PM G5's. For some like myself the $699 was a good price point, $999 may force me to another brand.

rendezvouscp

Jun 21, 2004, 10:39 PM

I hope Apple doesn't throw away the 17". It's such a good buy for someone in a store. I see these things sold at Compusa and Apple Stores quite a bit. A lower price would be great too.
–Chase

technocoy

Jun 21, 2004, 11:02 PM

Sorry, but your price is crazy talk too. If Apple sold 30" high resolution displays for $1999, they'd probably be losing $500 apiece (based on the rumor of what suggested retail might actually be). It's nice to dream of amazing prices but let's get back to reality.

i stated the rumored price previously in the post, which IS a rumored price. i think they will offer them at the higher price point as well (and they will still sell like hot cakes, because that is still a good price for a good quality 30in lcd HD monitor) but my statement was simply that IF they offered them at 1999 or even 2499 they could likely corner the market on 30in LCD HD monitors. it may be worth not making much money on each unit in order to start getting apple's high quality experience into non-macintosh homes. it may drive consumers to purchase even more Apple product.

but yes, i agree that they will most likely not introduce them at a 1999 price point... but it sure would be nice! :D

Mlobo01

Jun 21, 2004, 11:03 PM

ITR 81

Jun 21, 2004, 11:03 PM

Well I need a 30in for some home use video and photo editing.

Though I just bought a 42in Plasma for work...I'm thinking I may buy two more 42in or 50in Plasma's for some series media center workings at home.

I wonder if Apple will ever make a Plasma display..even if it was TV/Display...

technocoy

Jun 21, 2004, 11:10 PM

Are you sure about that? Every LCD I've seen looks noticably worse at lower resolutions. Even Apple's specs. list only one resolution as "optimum."

I'm very happy with a 19" LCD at 1280x1024. That's approximately 86 dpi, compared to 95 - 100 dpi for Apple's displays.

correct. 19in display will look bad at lower resolutions than 1280x1024, but only because the pixel density/screen size ratio starts to become to large and you lose the crispness of the images because you actually start to see the pixel edges in a graphic. CRT's do this as well, but it just looks blurry, whereas on a lcd it remains sharp. does that make sense? i think we're saying similar things here. i don't like looking at something that size, but that doesn't make it a bad image.i can put my 22" on lower widescreen resolutions and it looks fine, just HUGE! :D

dongmin

Jun 21, 2004, 11:16 PM

$999 for the low-end is out of control!!!!!!! I waited a year for this!?!?!?!?

Answer me this - why wouldn't I pay the $599 for the old 17" flat panel?

What do I get for 400 bucks more? (aside from having TWO cable to plug in now...)

If you're fine with a 1280 x 1024, then, by all means, get a 17". You can find a decent Samsung to match the G5 PMs for $500.

For people who want more desktop space in a widescreen package will opt for the 20". Apple is competing where they can offer a value. 17" LCDs can be had for $350-400 nowadays, probably at razor-thin margins. Not Apple's territory, sorry.

The 23" at $1499 would be a killer value (especially since I'll be able to get it for $1199 through the ADC). I've yet to find one under two grand.

Plus usb AND firewire! That's another $50 for a hub.

furrina

Jun 21, 2004, 11:18 PM

Can anyone hazard a guess at how much the "old" ones are going to go for (from Apple) once the new ones come out? Specifically the 20". Do you think they'll run out right away?

Dahl

Jun 21, 2004, 11:20 PM

areyouwishing

Jun 21, 2004, 11:20 PM

iMeowbot

Jun 21, 2004, 11:22 PM

Now that you mention the fluorescent light, my eyes are starting to strain. Maybe all this stuff is in my head.

Most likely it is. The CCFL lamps used in LCD backlights aren't like the old ceiling tubes that run at 50-60 Hz. Instead, they use specialized supplies that run them at much higher frequencies, in the 30-200 kHz range. Fluorescents do emit UV, but that's filtered.

iDave

Jun 21, 2004, 11:22 PM

but yes, i agree that they will most likely not introduce them at a 1999 price point... but it sure would be nice! :D
No doubt! When I first heard the rumor of a 30" display from Apple, my guess was that the price would be $3999. $2999 sounds pretty good, comparatively, but it's still out of my ballpark. I hope to buy a new 23" model if it's cheaper than the current one. Otherwise a new 20" Cinema Display for $999 sounds great! I've been waiting and saving for a long time.

alexrd

Jun 21, 2004, 11:26 PM

lower resolutions are native ones... panther automatically shows the recommended resolutions. this talk of lower resolutions is rediculous. take down the resolution if it is to high... this is the weirdest argument for a monitor i have heard.

Sorry, but for LCDs this is just wrong. LCDs, TFTs and plasma displays actually have discreet components that comprise a pixel. Contrast this to CRTs, where a sweeping electron beam effectively "simulates" whatever resolution you are driving the monitor at (the degree to which the beam can be constrained and directed, as well as the speed at which it can be swept, determine the resolutions that the monitor can "simulate"). In a digital display, if you magnify the screen, you will actually see 1600x1200 (or whatever) little square picture elements (to coin a phrase).

When you drive such a monitor at a non-native resolution, groups of real, physical pixels are grouped together in software to form larger, virtual pixels. The qualitative visual result of this is a blurry image. True, some monitors perform better at interpolating than others, but even so, running a digital display at a non-native resolution is generally regarded as a Bad Thing.

Ample confirmation of this can be found by googling for: LCD non-native resolution blurry.

What I'd really like to see is better support in the OS for scaling the size of the GUI elements in many different resolution/pixel density combinations. In some ways we're still carrying the baggage of print days, so everything has to shrink to accommodate the larger resolutions. Expose is a good preview of how we should be able to scale any and all elements; not just making the window bigger or smaller, but the contents as well. Constraints should still be in place where necessary (desktop publishing, for example) but in a scenario like that, the OS should hopefully work with the app to make everything actual size on the display, regardless of resolution (unless, of course, you zoom in or out :)

Point being, the OS should eliminate the need to drive the monitor at non-native resolutions by providing ready control of the size of the GUI elements themselves.

JustADecoy

Jun 21, 2004, 11:27 PM

I'm interested in (read: obsessed with) the 23" display in the new lineup. So let's review what we (think we) know:

1920 x 1200
$1499-1799
Integrated USB 2.0 hub
Integrated FireWire (400?) hub
DVI Support
Manufactured by LG Electronics
High Definition (1080i) support

ThinkSecret suggests "the addition of one more cable", but that's not strictly necessary. This page at LG Electronics (http://www.lgeus.com/Product/monitor/L2320A.asp) describes a 23" Widescreen LCD Color Monitor with a 'One Cable Media Station' that 'Minimizes Wire Clutter'. This image from a review (http://www.trustedreviews.com/images/article/page/27full.jpg) shows the power going into the 'Media Station' and one cable coming out (http://store6.yimg.com/I/str8buy_1796_29477240) with an integrated USB hub on the monitor itself. Could the same technology platform be the basis for the Apple design? I hope so! I really want multiple inputs!

While we're on the topic, I could easily see Apple integrate ADC connectivity into the 'Media Station', if it exists. Sure, it'll cost more, but it allows Apple to save face on the ADC transition. If they do, I'm going on record with the opinon that it's wasteful and pointless. Sell a separate converter for old PowerMacs and the world will still beat a path to your door. Don't make me pay more for a connector I couldn't possibly use (I don't yet own a Power Mac, but I do own a Powerbook).

How about response time? Yesterday's standard is 25ms, but gamers swear by the new 16ms LCDs. This is a deal-breaker for me. If it can't perform as well as a Dell 2001fp, I'll go with two of them over one Apple branded monitor.

Of course, it's not likely to be this featureful if it's only $1799. The LG monitor above goes for over $2500! How good is Apple's deal with LG? How much markup are they willing to sacrifice to features?

My bet is on a 'Media Center'-like breakout box with a single-cable output and a drastically reduced set of inputs (DVI-I + component + S-Video would be my bet, give or take one input) and a 25ms response. Shipping at least a month out, because 1) it would frustrate me and 2) the cruel calculus of the ever-declining costs of production and 3) because they can... with limited availability (can you say iPod Mini?) for some time.

I hope I'm wrong. I almost certainly will be, one way or another.

pentajigga

Jun 21, 2004, 11:28 PM

i can attest to the high res problem.
i have a 22" cinema and got the 23". the 23" res was too small for me so im back to the 22". the 23" is sitting in its box in the next room, terrible i know... ive been meaing to get round to selling it.. hint hint....

when i used CRTs back in the day, they killed my eyes and gave me headaches. i switched to LCD and the problem wnet away, just my personal experience. for me a CRT seemed to be like shining a bulb directly into my eyes (since the bulb is pointed right at the user i think).

MY BIG QUESTION... will these things be able to be wall-mounted?

i hope so

iDave

Jun 21, 2004, 11:30 PM

It's still just a rumor, let's all remember that.
Ah, but such a juicy rumor. New Apple displays have been a long time coming. It's no wonder that there's excess inventory still around of the old models. That design is nearly four years old. People want something new.

Bigheadache

Jun 21, 2004, 11:48 PM

It seems to be a common misconception that LCDs are easier on the eyes... that depends on a lot of factors. LCDs by nature only display about 266,000 colors, whereas CRTs display about 16 million colors. To simulate 24-bit color an LCD takes the 2 closest RGB values and flips between the 2 of them for the given pixel.. the problem with this is that sometimes these 2 values can be very close, and sometimes they can be very off... so you don't have very accurate color, because vast amounts of color look the same.

Thats only true for the 6bit panels, like the Samsung 172X. You find that they quote 16.2 million colors, even though 6bit per color (or 18bit) is 262,144 they can interpolate up to 16.2 million. There are 8 bit panels (24bit) which do 16.7 million colors but they tend to have a slower response rate.

But you are definitely right about color accuracy at professional level. I remember seeing only CRTs used in design bureaus, with those color accuracy dongle things attached.

Bigheadache

Jun 21, 2004, 11:52 PM

adamfilip

Jun 21, 2004, 11:52 PM

For the record, just about every VGA or better CRT monitor sold in the past 10 years is progressive too - and at even higher refresh rates. The last interlaced computer monitor I used was in '93 on my old Amiga 500.

YEAH Amiga.. I had a 500 too... wish I still had it... back then i had no idea what i was doing.. but it was a good game machine!

GO AMIGA!

Dahl

Jun 21, 2004, 11:59 PM

Ah, but such a juicy rumor. New Apple displays have been a long time coming. It's no wonder that there's excess inventory still around of the old models. That design is nearly four years old. People want something new.
I was talking about the prices.
Hell, they better come out with some new displays soon, WE NEED THEM! :)

iDave

Jun 22, 2004, 12:26 AM

I was talking about the prices.
Hell, they better come out with some new displays soon, WE NEED THEM! :)
Funny how we forum watchers can get so worked up over a rumor that might be way off what actually ends up happening. Those who have waited for the 17" Studio Display to come down in price or get better specs are now upset over rumors.

Rumors like the recent ones at TS and AI about displays don't fly around quite as much as they used to and you can usually tell the ones that have a chance of being accurate. These recent ones seem credible. It would be so typical of Apple if they end up dropping the low end display, forcing Apple fans to buy elsewhere or suck it up and buy the 20" model.

JGowan

Jun 22, 2004, 12:53 AM

My 23" ACD-HD is large. but I am unhappy with the high resolution. I would prefer a lower resolution and more easy to read and see detailing and text ... With Apple's OS that is not possible.....a great failing, IMO.

From the rumors, the 30" will have some ridiculously high resolution that keeps details still as small as on the 23". - Mark B Anstendig??? I own one and the few times I need to see a bit better with small text (etc), multiple help is right there:

1) Apple Menu>System Preferences>Displays: many resolutions there to choose from.

2) Apple Key-J in the Finder (or any other window): allows you to select your TEXT SIZE for icons (from 10pt to 16pt) ... also move your icons to any size you need, all the way up to 128 x 128 (huge, even at the native resolution!)

3) Apple Key & PLUS or MINUS KEY (-, +) in Safari and other browsers: Makes Text Bigger or Smaller

4) Apple Menu>System Preferences>Univeral Access>Turn Zoom On: Great for zooming in on Small pics or Quicktime movies.

I keep my icons at about 80 x 80 pixels and my text at 11pt and all is well. Everything is quick to get to, it's easy to navigate to easier viewing in no time, no matter how small.

JGowan

Jun 22, 2004, 12:59 AM

Well need I remind you that the majority of Apple's customers are not in the graphic design business? If they want to lose all the business they would otherwise gain in the 17" LCD market that's their masochism for ya.

And its not that some people can't AFFORD a bigger display, its that they just aren't going to pay a thousand dollars for the lowest priced Apple Display. $1000 = an iBook G4, it's a tad insane not to have a more competitively priced solution from Apple.Let them buy CRTs then. In 1995, I spent $850 on a CRT 17" Sony Trinitron 800x600 and thought it was an insane amount of money, BUT... I realized that the montor was the window to the soul of my computer, if you will.

Considering that it's been 9 years and a MUCH BETTER monitor will soon be available for only $150 more than a really nice monitor almost a decade ago, I say that money is well-spent.

You can spend a lot of money on a really great and fast computer and then totally ruin the experience by going cheap on the monitor.

JGowan

Jun 22, 2004, 01:04 AM

... the 23" is sitting in its box in the next room, terrible i know... ive been meaing to get round to selling it.You need to eBay that mo-fo before Apple announces the new models and you can't get all the money you can NOW.

proglife

Jun 22, 2004, 01:21 AM

I'm thinking that $899-999 for a 20" sounds too good to be true.

A sign of a truely blind zealot, and I'm as bad as any. I received my 19" Formac LCD a few months ago and it's great. It took months to get built, but the warranty and contrast ratio and every other spec bested the old Apple specs by far. There is a bit of the associated "screen door" effect, but you disregard it within the hour.

And as far as color goes...if you are a serious graphic designer (and you all have heard of the company I work for), it's good enough. If it's not dead on, you'll make proper adjustments. IMO, it's worth a day's work compared to my old LaCie CRT that I'm typing on from home right now.

Why can't I afford a Powerbook? Oh yeah..Apple and Republicans...what a conundrum.

wolfywolfbits

Jun 22, 2004, 01:24 AM

OT.. but yeah, go Amiga! :D :D

On topic: I think the prices sound pretty good, but I think the problem is with ditching a low end model (i.e. 17"). I'm guessing they want the average consumer to purchase an eMac or iMac (with a display built in), and the Apple LCDs are just meant for pros, with money.

I think this is a continuation of their neglect for the pro-sumer market. A market that wants a low-end headless G5 and a wide screen 18" LCD. Until then I'm going to have to keep being a pro-sumer that has to pay pro prices for Apple :(

proglife

Jun 22, 2004, 01:52 AM

OT.. but yeah, go Amiga! :D :D

On topic: I think the prices sound pretty good, but I think the problem is with ditching a low end model (i.e. 17").

Not just a little problem...it's a huge problem, and it sounds too retarded to comprehend. Like PC people can't understand the prices already!

JonYo

Jun 22, 2004, 01:54 AM

Soooo, I just bought one of the big flat 20" apple displays last week to go with my rev "B" (I use the term "rev" loosely here!) DP 2.0GHz G5 which hasn't yet arrived. Should I be kicking myself since these display updates are looking pretty imminent according to the rumormill? I didn't know new displays were rumored to be coming very soon when I made the purchase...

rendezvouscp

Jun 22, 2004, 02:15 AM

maesy

Jun 22, 2004, 03:12 AM

Awimoway

Jun 22, 2004, 03:44 AM

BWhaler

Jun 22, 2004, 03:47 AM

All I ask is they aren't a terrible upgrade like the rev. B G5.

I've waited a year for a nice-to-have purchase, and the new G5's are terrible.

Now I find myself hoping for a sweet headless iMac or G5 cube to go with these new monitors.

Frixo Cool

Jun 22, 2004, 04:05 AM

something is inherantly wrong when my monitor costs as much as my computer.

It's nothing wrong. My monitors always costed more than computer itself. For my business (video design & production) a monitor is the center of work and more important thing than computer and all CPU power itself.

About market for this babies - I'll be oredering two 30" and two 23" as soon as they are announced - and I work in not so reach Croatia where average monthly pay is just 500 euros. So, I can't imagine that some people in whealty USA are complaing to great price (it it's true) of just 2999$. I'll buy even if they price it higher.

My 2 cents :-).

badboibillie

Jun 22, 2004, 04:50 AM

Some slack here wuld be nice :)

He feels the same way i do from a previous post today. $999 would be the starting point for a monitor for the PM G5's. For some like myself the $699 was a good price point, $999 may force me to another brand.

I registered for the sole purpose of responding to some of these replies. If you think $999 for a 20" display is outrageous - then please check back into the year 2004 and realize that apple isn't all about overcharging their customers.

I would say $999 is a very good deal. Assuming the specs are on par with competitors, let's look at some:

Dell UltraSharp 2001FP Flat Panel - 20.1" - $999 from Dell
ViewSonic VX2000 Flat Panel (TFT) Monitor - 20.1" - $969 from NewEgg
Sony SDM-S204 Monitor - 20.1" - $949 from NewEgg
ViewSonic VP201s Flat Panel (TFT) Monitor - 20.1" - $989 from NewEgg
Hewlett Packard L2035 Flat Panel (TFT) Monitor - 20.1" - $965.71 from ShopperWiz

... and I could go on to list about 1/2 a dozen more...but you get where I'm going? Of course there are the cheaper LCDs, but why go with cheap if you're spending close to a grand? And I know Dell's got those coupon deals and such, but you're probably looking at around $850 for Education Discount pricing - so you can definitely find a cheaper deal. But sure, retail's at $999, which is at the upper end of the $900 range that all these other higher-end competitors fall in, but remember that the apple display will probably be wide-screen - which makes it an even better deal!

So please make sure you know the market before you go crying about prices.

the future

Jun 22, 2004, 05:03 AM

These prices sound great, actually. But there is NO WAY IN HELL that Apple will sell the 23" for 1499 or 1599. Maybe 1699, but probably 1799. Which would still be fine.

Must-stop-searching-for-"reasons"-why-I-really-really-"need"-the-30"... :D

Edit: no 17" = no headless iMac/new Cube/Power Mac mini. Shame about that.

rdowns

Jun 22, 2004, 05:31 AM

Apple doesn't compete in the low-end market. Apparently they don't want to sell displays with low margins, just like they don't want to sell computers with low margins. IMO, the only reason Apple offers the eMac is so they don't lose the entire education market. The $100 per unit or so they would make on low end stuff is hardly worth bothering with and such products would compete against their own higher end products.

Many Mac owners respect the quality of Apple products so they really want Apple displays. They might be satisfied with a $500 17" Apple LCD and then Apple would loose a sale of a $1000 20" model. This is just my opinion. :)

I wouldn't consider a 17" (especially widescreen) display the low end. I think Apple is making a mistake if these rumors are true. I'm in the market for a new system and while I can afford anything I want, a 20" LCD is just too damn big for my needs and workspace. IMO, Apple ofering a 17" is good business. Would a 17" LCD steal some sales of 20"? Sure, but less stolen sales than those who go elsewhere for 17" LCDs.

rdowns

Jun 22, 2004, 05:36 AM

i stated the rumored price previously in the post, which IS a rumored price. i think they will offer them at the higher price point as well (and they will still sell like hot cakes, because that is still a good price for a good quality 30in lcd HD monitor) but my statement was simply that IF they offered them at 1999 or even 2499 they could likely corner the market on 30in LCD HD monitors. it may be worth not making much money on each unit in order to start getting apple's high quality experience into non-macintosh homes. it may drive consumers to purchase even more Apple product.

but yes, i agree that they will most likely not introduce them at a 1999 price point... but it sure would be nice! :D

The 30" LCD HD market is hardly big enough for any manufacturer to corner it. There is only one way for Apple to drive consumers to purchase more Apple products, make a damn small form factor G5 tower and give consumers an alternative to overpriced iMacs. iPods are in a few million homes, has that helped Apple's market share one iota?

orangedv

Jun 22, 2004, 05:38 AM

I have an LCD at home and Dual CRTs at work (I work in the digital dept for a printing company). LCDs are great for clarity, HORRIBLE for color. Anyone who wants to do serious graphic design work won't buy these LCDs unless they just plain do not care about color accuracy.

Now a lesson on color...

It seems to be a common misconception that LCDs are easier on the eyes... that depends on a lot of factors. LCDs by nature only display about 266,000 colors, whereas CRTs display about 16 million colors. To simulate 24-bit color an LCD takes the 2 closest RGB values and flips between the 2 of them for the given pixel.. the problem with this is that sometimes these 2 values can be very close, and sometimes they can be very off... so you don't have very accurate color, because vast amounts of color look the same.

I am a 'serious' graphic designer and I feel I need to make a point here. Several people have commented on us serious designers avoiding flat displays because of colour accuracy. This is simply untrue. Various ads and web sites tell us that there are all sorts of clever gizmos and software that will match the colour on screen with printed output. Ok confession time......NONE OF THEM EVEN COME CLOSE TO WORKING! There said it. I, and every pro I know works 'colour blind' on whatever montior is at hand. We check our colours with pantone calibrated print proofs off the office laser. We decide which colours to use with a pantone swatchbook, never ever ever with one we mixed up on screen. That is suicide! You show a client a proof on screen and he agrees to it, then send it off to the printers, you can bet your bottom dollar you will get a reject along with a comment along the lines of "Hey! That's not what it looked like on screen!" I know one designer who had to swallow the cost of 3 new power macs for making this mistake. Whole print run rejected.

The calibrators can only accurately match on part of the spectrum at the expense of another part. Usually you end up with very yellow whites if you fine tune it to match most colours. Most of us gave up on that and trust the printed output. Screens and printers use different colour mixing physics. (additive and subtractive) any attempt to make one pretend it is the other will have limits. Beware!

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 22, 2004, 06:08 AM

I registered for the sole purpose of responding to some of these replies. If you think $999 for a 20" display is outrageous - then please check back into the year 2004 and realize that apple isn't all about overcharging their customers.

I would say $999 is a very good deal. Assuming the specs are on par with competitors, let's look at some:

Dell UltraSharp 2001FP Flat Panel - 20.1" - $999 from Dell
ViewSonic VX2000 Flat Panel (TFT) Monitor - 20.1" - $969 from NewEgg
Sony SDM-S204 Monitor - 20.1" - $949 from NewEgg
ViewSonic VP201s Flat Panel (TFT) Monitor - 20.1" - $989 from NewEgg
Hewlett Packard L2035 Flat Panel (TFT) Monitor - 20.1" - $965.71 from ShopperWiz

... and I could go on to list about 1/2 a dozen more...but you get where I'm going? Of course there are the cheaper LCDs, but why go with cheap if you're spending close to a grand? And I know Dell's got those coupon deals and such, but you're probably looking at around $850 for Education Discount pricing - so you can definitely find a cheaper deal. But sure, retail's at $999, which is at the upper end of the $900 range that all these other higher-end competitors fall in, but remember that the apple display will probably be wide-screen - which makes it an even better deal!

So please make sure you know the market before you go crying about prices.

Well, nice first post. :rolleyes:

You might want to read more carefully before accusing someone of "crying" about a particular topic. I was lamenting that if the rumors are true there is no lower cost option, as there is now.

I was lamenting the info that Apple was doing away with the 17" LCD monitor. Currently that model is $699, and a "new" model one could expect given the pricing from others like you mentioned, $599 would be a reasonable expectation.

While a $300 to $400 delta between the 17" and new 20" LCD's from Apple is significant when you look at the marketplace. But you should know that, since you know the market so well. Following your logic why bother even having a PM G5 1.8 Dual in the lineup, when its only $500 more for the 2.0 Dual? Apple does it to meet price points. Maybe Apple has conceded the 17" price point to other vendors. For some of us we don't mind paying a bit more for Apple, but something that we can truly use.

The minor amount that you refer to ($300) is what many of us need to spend on the RAM and HDD space we need for the tasks.

the future

Jun 22, 2004, 06:54 AM

All he was saying was that 999 for a 20" LCD is not over-priced at all. Which is true.

I personally would like Apple to offer a 17" option as well, but getting a nice Samsung 17" is not the end of the world, you know...

Ge4-ce

Jun 22, 2004, 07:30 AM

The 30inch is reported to have a resolution of 2560x1600. Does anyone know if the radeons actually support this resolution with full 3d acceleration? Does a normal 165 Mhz TMDS support this resolution?

Well actually they don't!!

http://ati.com/products/radeon9800/radeon9800proseme/specs.html

And this is why I'm so excited about new display releases. The number 2 thing I really missed in the new G5 powermac (besideds the 3 Ghz wich was nr 1) was a new graphic card! ATI and NVidia both released a brand new card that almost doubles performance over current cards! Why are they not in a Mac yet??

The 9800 XT that now is a build to order option only supports up to 1920 x 1200 in digital mode, and up to 2048 x 1536 in non digital mode. Both are not enough to support the possible new 30" monitor.

And even more weird: even the new X800 does not support this resolutiono of 2500 x something!! as a matter of fact, only the pro workstation cards wich are not available right now for Mac, support this kind of resolution!!

there is defenitly something wrong with these rumors!!!

rog

Jun 22, 2004, 07:47 AM

These rumors have been around for what, a year and a half, and still no updates. Apple is still the only company with the nerve to charge $700 for a 17 inch LCD with 2001 era tech specs.

joemama

Jun 22, 2004, 07:50 AM

I am a 'serious' graphic designer and I feel I need to make a point here. Several people have commented on us serious designers avoiding flat displays because of colour accuracy. This is simply untrue. Various ads and web sites tell us that there are all sorts of clever gizmos and software that will match the colour on screen with printed output. Ok confession time......NONE OF THEM EVEN COME CLOSE TO WORKING! There said it. I, and every pro I know works 'colour blind' on whatever montior is at hand. We check our colours with pantone calibrated print proofs off the office laser. We decide which colours to use with a pantone swatchbook, never ever ever with one we mixed up on screen. That is suicide! You show a client a proof on screen and he agrees to it, then send it off to the printers, you can bet your bottom dollar you will get a reject along with a comment along the lines of "Hey! That's not what it looked like on screen!" I know one designer who had to swallow the cost of 3 new power macs for making this mistake. Whole print run rejected.

The calibrators can only accurately match on part of the spectrum at the expense of another part. Usually you end up with very yellow whites if you fine tune it to match most colours. Most of us gave up on that and trust the printed output. Screens and printers use different colour mixing physics. (additive and subtractive) any attempt to make one pretend it is the other will have limits. Beware!

You hit the nail right on the head. You beat me to this one. I have been in the graphics business for years, and couldn't agree with you more. No good designer EVER goes by screen...you print it out on calibrated office proofs, make adjustments, then send it to the 'print shop' for ANOTHER FINAL PROOF before printing thousands of copies. This was taught way back in Design 101.

daveg5

Jun 22, 2004, 08:03 AM

Well when all those "serious graphic designers" go blind after using CRT's all day, I'll take all their jobs. :)

// narco
Lets not get too snobby, good quality Crt's are a true bargain like lacie, sony nec, and when properly adjusted and viewed, can give hours of fatigue free viewing, no dead pixels, longer warranties, distortion free resolution scaling, cheap prices, 1/2-1/4 the price of similar resolution LCD's. almost unmatched till recently for vivid color (even in dark areas), viewing angles, and ms pixel response.
Of course there are many downsides to Crt's as we all know, too big, heavy, power hungry, radiation, etc. I own one (22" FS Sony) witch I love dearly, however I would love to compliment it with a 23" when finances are in order for the best and worst of both worlds.

gothamac

Jun 22, 2004, 08:22 AM

"it'll hang from a central pedestal"
Sounds like iMac adjustability?

~Shard~

Jun 22, 2004, 08:22 AM

uzombie

Jun 22, 2004, 08:26 AM

Why would anybody buy a 30" monitor when they can buy and use two 20" monitors (given that their graphics card can support this) for 2/3 the price?

I certainly wouldn't...

Because I can have two(2) 30" displays on my desk! Now THAT is a desktop display!

Too bad Apple can't comply with VESA. :(

1macker1

Jun 22, 2004, 08:30 AM

Same price of a top of the line G5, i think it's a bad thing too when my monitor cost more than my computer. So i'm getting the 20".
It's nothing wrong. My monitors always costed more than computer itself. For my business (video design & production) a monitor is the center of work and more important thing than computer and all CPU power itself.

About market for this babies - I'll be oredering two 30" and two 23" as soon as they are announced - and I work in not so reach Croatia where average monthly pay is just 500 euros. So, I can't imagine that some people in whealty USA are complaing to great price (it it's true) of just 2999$. I'll buy even if they price it higher.

My 2 cents :-).
If you only make 500 euros a month, how can u afford a 3,000$ monitor. Do you not eat, pay rent, buy cloths, etc...

uzombie

Jun 22, 2004, 08:31 AM

PowerMacMan

Jun 22, 2004, 08:55 AM

I hope this rumor is true - I like the sizes and the price points, and was expecting them to be higher - I think Apple will sell a lot of these if this is the case...

So, will today be the day, or WWDC?

WWDC, b/c of the promotional offer with the current 23'' display ending on June 26th... :mad:

mainstreetmark

Jun 22, 2004, 09:27 AM

So, lets hear it for a 30" Powerbook, eh? That ought to be enough space to cool those G5 spaceheaters.

Dang, that thing would be enormous.

areyouwishing

Jun 22, 2004, 09:34 AM

You hit the nail right on the head. You beat me to this one. I have been in the graphics business for years, and couldn't agree with you more. No good designer EVER goes by screen...you print it out on calibrated office proofs, make adjustments, then send it to the 'print shop' for ANOTHER FINAL PROOF before printing thousands of copies. This was taught way back in Design 101.

In the Pantone Swatch realm I would agree with you 100% I would never pick a flat color from screen. Photography is waaaay different. A properly calibrated monitor with THE BEST POSSIBLE color management setup is ABSOLUTELY essential. I don't have the option of scanning, printing, adjusting, printing, adjusting, print, adjust... etc etc. There isn't the time nor the money to do that, and I can do all of my color adjusting and have 97% predictable output based off of screen...once again this is purely in the photography realm.

"calibrated office proofs"
How many of you graphic designers use US SWOP ver2 as your working CMYK profile? Now, How many knew that it wasn't even calibrated for a specific workflow, but is just merely an average of multiple (i forget how many) printers throughout the world.

The issue is that most designers are self-proclaimed. They haven't taken Design 101 (nor 100, a prerequisite). For example, Photoshop is for retouching and enhancing images; its is not an illustration program for print. RGB does not translate into inks.

Hey Copernicus,
Break out of your box and stop living in CMYK only output, I almost feel sorry having such a limited amount of color spectrum on your end.

Please see THIS (http://www.ferraricolor.com/about-us/equipment/durst-lambda.jsp) to learn a little more about RGB output... and yes, you did read that correctly... 36-bit 68 billion colors.

Photoshop is only for "retouching and enhancing" ? I sure hope you lump color correcting in to "enhancing" for your customers sakes. Unless they like un-color corrected images. I also know A TON of illustrators that would be mighting mad hearing that Photoshop isn't an illustration tool either... for a lot of things its quite essential.

zer0army

Jun 22, 2004, 10:00 AM

I am a 'serious' graphic designer and I feel I need to make a point here. Several people have commented on us serious designers avoiding flat displays because of colour accuracy. This is simply untrue. Various ads and web sites tell us that there are all sorts of clever gizmos and software that will match the colour on screen with printed output. Ok confession time......NONE OF THEM EVEN COME CLOSE TO WORKING! There said it. I, and every pro I know works 'colour blind' on whatever montior is at hand. We check our colours with pantone calibrated print proofs off the office laser. We decide which colours to use with a pantone swatchbook, never ever ever with one we mixed up on screen. That is suicide! You show a client a proof on screen and he agrees to it, then send it off to the printers, you can bet your bottom dollar you will get a reject along with a comment along the lines of "Hey! That's not what it looked like on screen!" I know one designer who had to swallow the cost of 3 new power macs for making this mistake. Whole print run rejected.

The calibrators can only accurately match on part of the spectrum at the expense of another part. Usually you end up with very yellow whites if you fine tune it to match most colours. Most of us gave up on that and trust the printed output. Screens and printers use different colour mixing physics. (additive and subtractive) any attempt to make one pretend it is the other will have limits. Beware!

Great post, I'm glad somebody said it. The designers still holding onto their CRT's for other reasons besides cost are the same ones that are still running OS 9 and Quark 4.1.

OS X, InDesign and 23'' Cinema Displays are what 'serious' designers should be using

Grimace

Jun 22, 2004, 10:06 AM

What if Apple introduced a consumer-grade monitor series at 15" and 17" - maybe even a 20". That could be nice with a new headless iMac.

sfwalter

Jun 22, 2004, 11:15 AM

It's iinteresting to note there are anumber of the old 20" cinema displays on ebay that aren't going as high as they use to. I bet the sellers are trying to off load them as soon as possible, since after Monday their value will head south.

jocknerd

Jun 22, 2004, 11:32 AM

Wow - I'm surprised that the price drops are not more significant...

Umm, this is Apple we're talking about.

Rustus Maximus

Jun 22, 2004, 11:58 AM

Well when all those "serious graphic designers" go blind after using CRT's all day, I'll take all their jobs. :)

// narco

Who...who said that??

steveh

Jun 22, 2004, 12:01 PM

Not just a little problem...it's a huge problem, and it sounds too retarded to comprehend. Like PC people can't understand the prices already!

Apple may have no choice in the matter; the LCD panel maker may be phasing it out of production. Happens all the time.

steveh

Jun 22, 2004, 12:04 PM

By dropping displays under 20", Apple is widening the divide between the professional and the consumer. In other words, Apple is prodding the "prosumer," the neutral-buyer, to get out of Switzerland and pick a team: iMac or PowerMac. :D

Nonsense. Third-party monitors will work with the current G5s.

This just means that Apple doesn't have to wade into the low-margin commodity fight, monitor-wise.

xDANx

Jun 22, 2004, 12:26 PM

plastree

Jun 22, 2004, 01:09 PM

In the Pantone Swatch realm I would agree with you 100% I would never pick a flat color from screen. Photography is waaaay different. A properly calibrated monitor with THE BEST POSSIBLE color management setup is ABSOLUTELY essential. I don't have the option of scanning, printing, adjusting, printing, adjusting, print, adjust... etc etc. There isn't the time nor the money to do that, and I can do all of my color adjusting and have 97% predictable output based off of screen...once again this is purely in the photography realm.

"calibrated office proofs"
How many of you graphic designers use US SWOP ver2 as your working CMYK profile? Now, How many knew that it wasn't even calibrated for a specific workflow, but is just merely an average of multiple (i forget how many) printers throughout the world.

Hey Copernicus,
Break out of your box and stop living in CMYK only output, I almost feel sorry having such a limited amount of color spectrum on your end.

Please see THIS (http://www.ferraricolor.com/about-us/equipment/durst-lambda.jsp) to learn a little more about RGB output... and yes, you did read that correctly... 36-bit 68 billion colors.

Photoshop is only for "retouching and enhancing" ? I sure hope you lump color correcting in to "enhancing" for your customers sakes. Unless they like un-color corrected images. I also know A TON of illustrators that would be mighting mad hearing that Photoshop isn't an illustration tool either... for a lot of things its quite essential.

This discussion was about "serious graphic designers", not pre-press photo re-toucher/color correctors, or whatever the proper term is, or Photoshop illustrators. So your point about needing a CRT to best predict digital photo output to a Durst Lambda is irrelevant. Pre-press is not graphic design, either. There is a blurry line between the two fields, but they are discreet nonetheless.

I work on an LCD monitor because CRT's are blurry, have inferior contrast, and they make my ears ring. My print output consists of Pantone colors and CMYK, which applies to the overwhelming majority of graphic designers out there. Other printing methods, such as HEX, are too expensive for most jobs, and that Ferrari bad-boy and others like it wouldn't work too well for a 10,000 unit print job. For graphic design work, my LCD serves me better than any CRT ever could.

joemama

Jun 22, 2004, 01:24 PM

dontmatter

Jun 22, 2004, 01:32 PM

I really don't think the prices are that outrageos- they're new moniters, probably imporved in brightness, contrast, color accuracy, etc, and they have 300-500 dollar price drops, for the same size. Where is this bad? You know there will be lots of demand, and once that drops off, they'll cut the prices a bit more.

and the 30 inch. how can you complain about the price on that!!!! it's 30 inches!!!!!!!!! think about how enormous that is! No, it's not particularly usable, and it's not particularly worth the price, but the price if there because it's totally cutting edge, because there is no competition. It's not going to sell piles, but that's not the point.

The only complaint that's legit, in my opinion, is that 20 inches and one grand is an excessive starting point. it's just a heck of a lot of real estate for most uses, and the price is equally beyond what's neccessary. If people don't need that much space, they shouldn't be forced into buying it at such costs.

sambo.

Jun 22, 2004, 01:39 PM

on the whole colourspace/ judging colour off a screen etc thing.

i run a small (16 pages once a week, three pages colour, tabloid) newspaper.

I do all the photoshop pre-press work and all the graphics work (currently using Photoshop 5, Illustrator 7, Pagemaker 6.5 on a celeron 500 running Windoesn't '98). i go by the screen and whats on the info pallett. a lot of comes from knowing the press and the printer i use. i get great results without proofing anything but the ads for clients to approve.

granted, if i was printing at high res on gloss paper, or didn't have the luxury of using the same press for all my output, the proofig would enter the equation, i would be proofing like mad. ;)

oh yeah - i'm from a photographic background. photoshop is a pixel editor and illustrator is a vector graphics program as we all know. they both have strengths and weaknesses and quirks. one of the major quirks of photoshop, that designers may not be fully aware of, is the "built-in softness factor" on all brushes and "hard edges". it's only a pixel or two, but it really makes a mess of text, especially when saving as a jpeg. it was put there by Adobe after a lot of photographers whinged about needing it. as a photographer, i'm glad it was added. as a designer, i don't care, i use illustrator for vector work. which is what i'm getting at. both PhotoShop and Illustrator are vital to any design/publishing house. thankfully they work very well together so it is possible to avoid any particularly nasty pitfalls, but please, photoshop for pixel editing, illustrator for vector work. if the two must be combined, thats what indesign/quark or in my currently painful case, pagemaker, is for.......
:eek:

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 22, 2004, 01:51 PM

By dropping displays under 20", Apple is widening the divide between the professional and the consumer. In other words, Apple is prodding the "prosumer," the neutral-buyer, to get out of Switzerland and pick a team: iMac or PowerMac. :D

Maybe this plays into Apple's hand.

IF the G5 iMac's do come out next week, maybe we will see them with a single 2.0 processor at the 17" and 10" as an option. Sort of bridging the consumer and pro group.

sinisterdesign

Jun 22, 2004, 02:00 PM

No, I'm not kidding.

The current 20" display price of $1299 was set 18 months ago. Since then the technology has become cheaper and LCD prices have dropped quite a bit.

Although this newer model will obviously sport some improvements over the older ones, I think the price should be a least another $100 less for the 20" model than the rumor states, especially if this display will be the entry model.

dude, $300 off $1300 is a pretty sizable price drop (23%?). LCDs haven't dropped 40-50% in price in the past year & a half. check some current LCD prices (http://reviews.cnet.com/4521-6529_7-5021402-4.html?tag=prmo1) and you'll see that's right on track.

i was the first person i knew to get the Cinema Display when it came out a few years ago. i used my 25% Apple employee discount on my way out the door, but that was 25% off $4000. now a few years later we're looking at...well, MUCH more real estate (someone do the math for me btw a 22" diagonal 16:9 and a 30" 16:9 screen size, i suck @ math) for $3000. if i wasn't buying a loft, i would certainly consider upgrading my current CD.

a good 30" LCD TV is still about $3k and i feel certain the resolution isn't going to match. yeah, it's a lot of $$$, but that's the price you pay for being on the bleeding edge of technology (oh, and being an Apple fan). ;)

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 22, 2004, 02:01 PM

Having argued against CRT, I find it funny, if you will, I am typing here looking at my 21" CRT monitor!

My decision is solely based on price. Which I thik is what this forum is generally about, not who's a "real" designer.

All in all, Apple is in the right direction by releasing new models.

I think perspectives change. About a 1 1/ ago i got the Mistu SB70. It was a sharp monitor. I say was, since then I bought a PB 12" and I know now what sharp is. That is why a new 17" at the $599 to $699 range is a disappointment according the AppleInsider rumors.

Also there is the factor that I have not had to calibrate my PB the same way I did when I was on Windows. The only issue I have had is in the area of gamma (which is a whole different discussion).

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 22, 2004, 02:04 PM

dude, $300 off $1300 is a pretty sizable price drop (23%?). LCDs haven't dropped 40-50% in price in the past year & a half. check some current LCD prices (http://reviews.cnet.com/4521-6529_7-5021402-4.html?tag=prmo1) and you'll see that's right on track.

i was the first person i knew to get the Cinema Display when it came out a few years ago. i used my 25% Apple employee discount on my way out the door, but that was 25% off $4000. now a few years later we're looking at...well, MUCH more real estate (someone do the math for me btw a 22" diagonal 16:9 and a 30" 16:9 screen size, i suck @ math) for $3000. if i wasn't buying a loft, i would certainly consider upgrading my current CD.

a good 30" LCD TV is still about $3k and i feel certain the resolution isn't going to match. yeah, it's a lot of $$$, but that's the price you pay for being on the bleeding edge of technology (oh, and being an Apple fan). ;)

There are many of us that would love to see a 17" in the $499 to $599 with the update. I know that I could get the current 17", but it is old in terms of the current tech. And the design is so G4 PM.

rendezvouscp

Jun 22, 2004, 02:13 PM

So, lets hear it for a 30" Powerbook, eh? That ought to be enough space to cool those G5 spaceheaters.

Dang, that thing would be enormous.

Introducing the 20, 23, and 30 inch PB G5's. The ultimate desktop replacement.

Featuring a new high quality display and a 1" thick body, these PB's can replace any current desktop. Not only that, but with an external keyboard and mouse, these PB's can also improve your current setup. The 8 fans have been placed properly to allow the PB to actually levitate up to 3 inches off the ground when you want. So, you could easily use these PB's as extra screens too. Available in two years.
–Chase

rendezvouscp

Jun 22, 2004, 02:15 PM

Maybe this plays into Apple's hand.

IF the G5 iMac's do come out next week, maybe we will see them with a single 2.0 processor at the 17" and 10" as an option. Sort of bridging the consumer and pro group.

You meant 20", right? Please say you meant 20"...
–Chase

Doctor Q

Jun 22, 2004, 02:27 PM

If they can't make money selling a low-end LCD with a low-end price, Apple might still have reason to do so. Why? Because even if they only break even, they would keep buyers "in the fold", and avoid giving people the impression that prosumers and professionals buy Apple displays but consumers and students don't. Because we all know that consumers and students turn into those prosumers and professionals, and Apple shouldn't want them having the mindset (and habit) of buying their displays elsewhere.

Maybe that's why Apple still sells third-party CRT monitors in the Apple Store.

Lepton

Jun 22, 2004, 02:39 PM

Here are the exact ones from TS...

I don't like the idea of connectors coming out the back. I would like connectors on the bottom or side edge so you can HANG THEM ON A WALL! These would make great TV monitors as well as computer monitors.

rendezvouscp

Jun 22, 2004, 02:43 PM

I don't like the idea of connectors coming out the back. I would like connectors on the bottom or side edge so you can HANG THEM ON A WALL! These would make great TV monitors as well as computer monitors.

It's a cleaner design if the connector comes out of the back. What if they put it on the right side? Then all of the people with computers on the left side (like me) would be at least a bit upset. Also, the connector to your PB or PM bends right now: you can have it go straight up with only about one inch sticking out. If they make it wall mountable, then they can make the display have the same sort of design, only straight up and down capable. That way, it is clean, efficient, and flexible (in mounting terms).
–Chase

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 22, 2004, 03:15 PM

You meant 20", right? Please say you meant 20"...
–Chase

LOL, what you don't want an imac with a 10" screen? Sony has the Z series notebook with a 10" screen :D

BTW, yes I did mean 20". Need to do better proof reading. Do spell check for the most part now :)

MacinDoc

Jun 23, 2004, 05:56 AM

These prices sound great, actually. But there is NO WAY IN HELL that Apple will sell the 23" for 1499 or 1599. Maybe 1699, but probably 1799. Which would still be fine.

Disclaimer: All of the below calculations are APPROXIMATE and without the benefit of a calculator...

20 inch widescreen display = approx 180 square inches
23 inch widescreen = approx 220 square inches (about 20% more pixels)
30 inch widescreen = approx 390 square inches (about 90% more pixels than the 23 inch)

So, if Apple sells the 20 inch for $999 and the 30 inch for $2999, then any more than $1499 for the 23 inch would be a rip-off compared to the other 2 models.

JFreak

Jun 23, 2004, 06:17 AM

Honestly, I don't think that an LCD display is any easier on the eyes than a good CRT.

Does anyone have any evidence for this?

You may have had a bad experience with one of the CRTs that IS hard on the eyes.

In any case, staring at a flourescent light all day (i.e. an LCD monitor) cannot be healthy by any account...

my doctor has the opinion that if i look a crt monitor 8 hours a day, i get constant headaches (and i will even not complain too often), and when i look a lcd display the same 8 hours a day the headaches are rare. plus, after my employer was forced to buy me a lcd monitor, my eyesight has not gotten any worse. with the crt monitors i had to have new stronger eyeglasses eveery year.

i guess this is scientific enough evidence, although statistically i am alone in my example. anyway, i guess there are others who has eyes like me - too sensible to light - and suffers from the same issue.

the difference being the crt image is a "moving target" and lcd pixels stay always on the exactly same spot, and the lcd backlight also puts out more gentle light than the cathode-ray tube.

if you have better eyes than i do, feel free to ruin them if you like. i myself recommend lcd displays for every one of you who still use crt monitors.

eric_n_dfw

Jun 23, 2004, 08:09 AM

my doctor has the opinion that if i look a crt monitor 8 hours a day, i get constant headaches (and i will even not complain too often), and when i look a lcd display the same 8 hours a day the headaches are rare. plus, after my employer was forced to buy me a lcd monitor, my eyesight has not gotten any worse. with the crt monitors i had to have new stronger eyeglasses eveery year.

i guess this is scientific enough evidence, although statistically i am alone in my example. anyway, i guess there are others who has eyes like me - too sensible to light - and suffers from the same issue.

the difference being the crt image is a "moving target" and lcd pixels stay always on the exactly same spot, and the lcd backlight also puts out more gentle light than the cathode-ray tube.

if you have better eyes than i do, feel free to ruin them if you like. i myself recommend lcd displays for every one of you who still use crt monitors.
Sound to me like you had a crappy CRT.

I've been using the same Dell 19" CRT's (dual monitor setup) with flat-front trinitron tubes for almost 3 years and don't see any "moving target" issues.

JFreak

Jun 23, 2004, 08:21 AM

Sound to me like you had a crappy CRT.

if you want to call nokia displays crap, just go for it. i don't care. my eyes just hurt whenever i look crt:s - my tv included - so i guess i have had it for good. i will replace my tv with a projector and never look a crt again.

not all people feel the same than i do, and i know they never will. some people have such eyes that it is completely ok to watch a really old 60hz monitor and not have headaches.

but hey... we're individuals. not everyone has average seeing and average hearing - my eyes are so bad and so much exposed to crt:s that watching one gives headaches, so that's me and i have to put in some money to get rid of the crt tv i still own. be lucky if you can stand bad monitors.

(i also have ears that hear sounds well over 20khz in controlled blind tests made by finnish army as a routine operation - they tested how good a hearing each person had before the army service and then after service, and the people who had suffered hearing loss were compensated afterwards. despite high sound pressure levels, my hearing did stay intact while many of my friends suffered bad hearing losses. so i can understand some of you have eyes too good, as i have a good pair of ears. can you?)

sinisterdesign

Jun 23, 2004, 09:01 AM

Sound to me like you had a crappy CRT.

I've been using the same Dell 19" CRT's (dual monitor setup) with flat-front trinitron tubes for almost 3 years and don't see any "moving target" issues.

yeah, i think the 'moving target' he's referring to is the CRT scan lines being redrawn.

i use both, i have a Cinema Display at home & a Viewsonic CRT here at work and you would have to pry that LCD from my cold, dead, "real graphic designer's" hands. i know someone stated earlier that CRTs provide "truer" colors compared to a LCD. that's assuming you have an excellent CRT that has been calibrated properly (and how many people really do that? i mean, calibrated, not setting the brightness/contrast...)

i hate futzing w/ this CRT's mess of controls: horiz/vert position, H/V size, pincushion, tilt, and convergence, jeez. have you ever tried to stare so closely at each little pixel on the CRT to make sure that R, G + B all line up???!? drives me nuts. none of that cr@p w/ a LCD. just a colorful, crisp picture every time.

also, on a side note, i've seen some of these new display mockups that people have posted. my opinion would be that the new LCDs do NOT have sharp, angled corners. like this one:
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14770
that doesn't match the G5 at all. curves...

srobert

Jun 23, 2004, 10:31 AM

Apple Store now has the "We'll be Back Soon" Sticky. (11:32 AM EST)

displays already?

MrSugar

Jun 23, 2004, 10:44 AM

Apple Store now has the "Will be Back Soon" Sticky. (11:32 AM EST)

displays already?
The STORES DOWN!

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 23, 2004, 11:04 AM

The STORES DOWN!

oh my, It is Christmas morning already1

srobert

Jun 23, 2004, 11:07 AM

The store is up again... nothing new. Apple is teasing us.

wdlove

Jun 23, 2004, 11:11 AM

yeah, i think the 'moving target' he's referring to is the CRT scan lines being redrawn.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14770
that doesn't match the G5 at all. curves...

If that turns out to be the final design, I would be disappointed. That is fugally. Would indicate a need to purchase now.

Ge4-ce

Jun 23, 2004, 11:18 AM

Still! nobody seems to boder that no current display card except from the very very expensive ones wich are not available for Mac can support the supposed 2500 x 1600 pixels from the 30" display!!!

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 23, 2004, 11:46 AM

The store is up again... nothing new. Apple is teasing us.

I saw the same thing. Damn them. We want our iMac G5 units now!

ffakr

Jun 23, 2004, 01:03 PM

Still! nobody seems to boder that no current display card except from the very very expensive ones wich are not available for Mac can support the supposed 2500 x 1600 pixels from the 30" display!!!

There is actually a limit to the bandwidth available to DVI. It's somewhere around 2500x1600. This casts serious doubt on the rumors as it appears the reported resolution _seems_ to be higher than what is physically supported by DVI.

I guess we'll know soon though.

andrewh

Jun 23, 2004, 11:00 PM

I am a 'serious' graphic designer and I feel I need to make a point here. Several people have commented on us serious designers avoiding flat displays because of colour accuracy. This is simply untrue. Various ads and web sites tell us that there are all sorts of clever gizmos and software that will match the colour on screen with printed output. Ok confession time......NONE OF THEM EVEN COME CLOSE TO WORKING! There said it. I, and every pro I know works 'colour blind' on whatever montior is at hand. We check our colours with pantone calibrated print proofs off the office laser. We decide which colours to use with a pantone swatchbook, never ever ever with one we mixed up on screen. That is suicide! You show a client a proof on screen and he agrees to it, then send it off to the printers, you can bet your bottom dollar you will get a reject along with a comment along the lines of "Hey! That's not what it looked like on screen!" I know one designer who had to swallow the cost of 3 new power macs for making this mistake. Whole print run rejected.

The calibrators can only accurately match on part of the spectrum at the expense of another part. Usually you end up with very yellow whites if you fine tune it to match most colours. Most of us gave up on that and trust the printed output. Screens and printers use different colour mixing physics. (additive and subtractive) any attempt to make one pretend it is the other will have limits. Beware!

Yeah! I totally agree. The original post from areyouwishing made me laugh and that person is completely FOS. I've been a graphic designer for 10 years and I know that you can't rely on either a CRT or LCD for print critical jobs. I also use the Pantone swatches and a great printer and have only had problems back when I used a CRT. I can also say that LCD's are far superior in almost every aspect, including eye strain. I noticed the reduced eye strain right away and no longer have bloodshot eyes all the time. I use dual LCD's, an Apple 20" Cinema display and the Formac 20" LCD. (the Apple is better, but not by much). Not blowing my own horn or anything, but I make a great living at this and certainly consider myself a "serious" designer.

Why people are still hugging onto their CRT's I'll never understand. Get with the times.

~Shard~

Jun 23, 2004, 11:45 PM

Why people are still hugging onto their CRT's I'll never understand. Get with the times.

Some of it is simply due to cost, and people not being able to afford them, but this is becoming les and less of an excuse, as the prices on LCDs are coming way down and are so much more commonplace. I can understand the hesitation of some people, when they look at buying a new PowerMac for instance for $3000, then they have to add on an additional $2000 or whatever for a nice LCD, making the purchase/overall system cost-prohibitive, but the other thing with monitors is they last forever, essentially! ;) A nice LCD will last you for a few systems and quite a few years in most cases, so they are definitely sound investments as long as you purchase high quality ones (i.ee. Apple ones!)

But yes, I agree - get with the times and get an LCD - the benefits are so numerous it's a no-brainer! :cool:

andrewh

Jun 24, 2004, 12:03 AM

Some of it is simply due to cost, and people not being able to afford them, but this is becoming les and less of an excuse, as the prices on LCDs are coming way down and are so much more commonplace. I can understand the hesitation of some people, when they look at buying a new PowerMac for instance for $3000, then they have to add on an additional $2000 or whatever for a nice LCD, making the purchase/overall system cost-prohibitive, but the other thing with monitors is they last forever, essentially! ;) A nice LCD will last you for a few systems and quite a few years in most cases, so they are definitely sound investments as long as you purchase high quality ones (i.ee. Apple ones!)

But yes, I agree - get with the times and get an LCD - the benefits are so numerous it's a no-brainer! :cool:

Yes, you are correct, the LCD's are still expensive and I don't mean to ridicule anyone who isn't able to make the switch due to cost. I'm just saying that I completely disagree with anyone who claims that CRT's are better overall and that LCD's are not used by "serious" designers. That was ridiculous.

But also, on the cost issue, Apple equipment has never been cheap and never will be. It's not for everybody, plain and simple. There are other good brands out there as well.

iDave

Jun 24, 2004, 12:22 AM

But also, on the cost issue, Apple equipment has never been cheap and never will be. It's not for everybody, plain and simple. There are other good brands out there as well.
I'd have to say that Apple has actually been pretty competitive when compared to other LCD dealers. The price of their 17" model hasn't been the best but their 20" Cinema beats anything else, IMO and until recently, so did the 23" Cinema HD. Too bad Apple basically crippled these displays with ADC, otherwise I think they would have been very hot sellers. I'm hopeful that the new line expected soon, with DVI, will put Apple displays on the map on both platforms. Look what happened when they allowed the iPod to work with WinPCs!

klaus

Jun 24, 2004, 09:18 AM

Dave00

Jun 24, 2004, 11:16 AM

It seems to be a common misconception that LCDs are easier on the eyes... that depends on a lot of factors. LCDs by nature only display about 266,000 colors, whereas CRTs display about 16 million colors. To simulate 24-bit color an LCD takes the 2 closest RGB values and flips between the 2 of them for the given pixel.. the problem with this is that sometimes these 2 values can be very close, and sometimes they can be very off... so you don't have very accurate color, because vast amounts of color look the same.
LCD's definitely have less subtle color differentiation, but I was under the impression that this was because of the lower contrast.

That LCD's are easier on the eyes is not a misconception, it's fairly well documented in the medical literature, and it's considered an ergonomic improvement to go from CRT->LCD. The reason for this is the fact that LCD's don't have the convergence issues of CRT's. Even the highest quality CRT will have some issues with convergence (trying to get each color beam to converge on exactly the same pixel.) This gets worse the larger the CRT. Of course, a crappy LCD compared to a high quality CRT will minimize this difference (as a crappy CRT compared with a high quality LCD will minimize the difference in color differentiation.)

--D

Soire

Jun 24, 2004, 12:30 PM

Does apple use the same methods for announcing and shipping displays as they do with computers? As in "They are announced today, shipping within 2 months..."..

Or are they usually available at the same moment?

Yea do updated displays sound like they would ship immediately, or like a two month wait?

ps- Klaus, I get the impression we're in a similar predicament. I just ordered a 2.5 G5 three days after release, and now I'm waiting for a new display to go with it. Only difference is I live in the states. I just hope I get mine before 8/02... :o

klaus

Jun 24, 2004, 12:36 PM

yep soire, we are in the same booth :), waiting, longing, and eventually amazed! (when it finally is on my desk)

I have an order in for the 2.5 (stock), 1 gig extra ram, griffin powermate, dvi-video,
and now i'm waiting for the displays, 20" or 23" depends on the price, and i'll take applecare, to be sure ;)

but I guess patience is a virtue, at least i get to buy all of this through my boss, so I don't have to pay the vat, that saves me 21% on the total price, and it's quite a sum :o

guess i'll be using my 1900xp for a while until it arrives

cheers!

Bhennies

Jun 24, 2004, 01:44 PM

LCD's definitely have less subtle color differentiation, but I was under the impression that this was because of the lower contrast.

That LCD's are easier on the eyes is not a misconception, it's fairly well documented in the medical literature, and it's considered an ergonomic improvement to go from CRT->LCD. The reason for this is the fact that LCD's don't have the convergence issues of CRT's. Even the highest quality CRT will have some issues with convergence (trying to get each color beam to converge on exactly the same pixel.) This gets worse the larger the CRT. Of course, a crappy LCD compared to a high quality CRT will minimize this difference (as a crappy CRT compared with a high quality LCD will minimize the difference in color differentiation.)

--DI'm also surprised no one ever mentions video-shielding when referring to the LCD-CRT debate. My Yamaha ns-10m studio monitors used to pucker up a CRT even when spaced pretty far away from the CRT display. It eventually got so bad that I packed away the NS10's- can't wait for a new display so I can bring 'em out again next to my video-shielded KRK's.

iMeowbot

Jun 24, 2004, 05:04 PM

LCD's definitely have less subtle color differentiation, but I was under the impression that this was because of the lower contrast.
And of course, the accuracy for an LCD is highly dependent on the viewing angle too.

One fun bit of trivia about CRTs is that tubes with correctly colored phosphors haven't been produced in volume since the 1950s. Modern units fart around with levels to compensate for red phosphors that are really orange, and greens that are closer to yellow -- and as andrewh noted, you aren't going to get the full spectrum matched up accurately with variations like that. You might be able to get an accurate CRT monitor custom made today, but expect to pay far more than you would for those LCD panels.

wdlove

Jun 24, 2004, 07:25 PM

Yea do updated displays sound like they would ship immediately, or like a two month wait?

ps- Klaus, I get the impression we're in a similar predicament. I just ordered a 2.5 G5 three days after release, and now I'm waiting for a new display to go with it. Only difference is I live in the states. I just hope I get mine before 8/02... :o

Are you saying that there is a delay on your Cinema Display order? If so it would seem to mean that they are running out of the current model. That would be the best of two worlds.

MyLeftNut

Jun 24, 2004, 09:22 PM

AndrewH -

You said you make a great living being a designer - Im interested. Are you in a design house or are u self-employed? Sorry for the off topic question.

BTW - if I could afford an all LCD setup I definitely would. Heres hoping the revision of the Apple line up with come with price reductions...(probably not).

klaus

Jun 25, 2004, 02:32 AM

Are you saying that there is a delay on your Cinema Display order? If so it would seem to mean that they are running out of the current model. That would be the best of two worlds.

No, I think he's just waiting for apple to announce new displays, so he can order one to go along with his shiny new computer... i'm in the same situation

Cooknn

Jun 25, 2004, 07:20 AM

How long does it usually take Best Buy to get the new stuff? I will wait to order the new 23" display until they do - just in case there are pixel problems - Best Buy has a no questions asked return policy. I can order on-line and return at the store. I gave up after two 20" displays had problems last November. This time I won't quit until I get a perfect display. Hopefully on the first try :D

wdlove

Jun 25, 2004, 11:04 AM

No, I think he's just waiting for apple to announce new displays, so he can order one to go along with his shiny new computer... i'm in the same situation

It's important that you get the display along with you new Mac so that you will have AppleCare coverage.

I had no choice with my new 17" from last January, wasn't ready to purchase at the time. A G4 isn't much good without a monitor.

klaus

Jun 25, 2004, 12:28 PM

wdlove : yes, that's what i intend to do as well. I already ordered my 2.5, but the reseller will place my display on the same invoice, so i can have applecare for both if I purchase it.

related question : I know that you can purchase AppleCare for your computer until a year after purchase, but does that count for the display you bought along side your mac as well? Or do you only have that 'privilige' when you buy applecare immediately?

Dr. Dastardly

Jun 26, 2004, 09:02 PM

The rumor is that these will have DVI instead of ADC. But the new 2.5 ghz powermac has ADC for its video cards. It doesn't make much sense to change the lcd when your main product won't even be able to use it. Can a monitor have both an ADC and DVI? :confused:

If it could have both, that would be impressive. More graphics card options for apple and opening the displays up to the PC market while at the same time catering to the ADC zealots and their all in one cable nirvana. :p