Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

DewGuy1999

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jan 25, 2009
3,194
6
I'm looking to get a new Mac (a mini) in the near future to replace this iMac that I'm currently using (specs are in my sig) and since it's what I know, I'm using it's specs as benchmarks to measure against. I've been looking at displays/monitors (whatever you like to call them these days) and although their specs seem to exceed those of this old iMac, I don't think that they necessarily look better.

I'm not looking for advice on which display to get or all the different variables that many people look for advice on, but I'd like to know, does anyone know for a fact, what type of display was used by Apple back in the day (it was released in February 2003) when this iMac was manufactured? Thanks.

  • Twisted nematic (TN)?
  • In-plane switching (IPS)?
  • Advanced fringe field switching (AFFS)?
  • Multi-domain vertical alignment (MVA)?
  • Patterned vertical alignment (PVA)?
  • Advanced super view (ASV)?

The specs for the display from the Apple literature of the time are as follows:
  • Built-in 17-inch (viewable) widescreen TFT active-matrix liquid crystal display
  • Millions of colors at all resolutions
  • Typical viewing angle:120 horizontal; 90 vertical
  • Typical brightness:200 cd/m2
  • Typical contrast ratio:300:1
 

alust2013

macrumors 601
Feb 6, 2010
4,779
2
On the fence
I don't know absolutely for a fact, but I can pretty much guarantee that they were TN panels. IPS, PVA, etc are still expensive today, so they would have made the iMac way too expensive in 03. Plus the viewing angles kinda give it away
 

DewGuy1999

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jan 25, 2009
3,194
6
I don't know absolutely for a fact, but I can pretty much guarantee that they were TN panels. IPS, PVA, etc are still expensive today, so they would have made the iMac way too expensive in 03. Plus the viewing angles kinda give it away

Yeah, TN was my guess as well, but you know Apple (Think Different), they were doing LCDs on non-laptops quite-a-bit before other companies and at the time this iMac was US$1799, not exactly cheap. I just wonder why newer panels with better specs don't seem to look as good.
 

CubeHacker

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2003
1,243
251
The 17" and 15" are just a plain old TN panel. The iMac G4 20" screen on the other hand, was an IPS and looked gorgeous.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.