30 LCD Monitors

Discussion in 'Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion (archive)' started by TranceClubMusic, Aug 17, 2004.

  1. TranceClubMusic macrumors regular

    TranceClubMusic

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Miami, FLorida
    #1
    The 30" LCD TV Craze seems to be hitting the floors with lots of Manufacturers making them. Dell, Gateway, Mitsubishi, Samsung, Sharp, NEC, etc....I did notice that NONE of them had the High Resolution of the Apple 30" Cinema Display - but at a cost savings of up 1/2 the price in some cases.....Would a Resolution of 1280x768 look horrible? It seems that ALL the other guys have the same 1280x768 resolution while Apple is the only one with 2560x1600. I want a 30" but dont wanna spend $3,300.00

    Does anyone know what 1280x768 would look like?

    On the same note.... Even the Apple 30" Shows an option of 1280x800.

    Anyone with some info would really help me on my purchases.

    Thank you for your time.
     
  2. Kingsnapped macrumors 6502a

    Kingsnapped

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #2
    If you're on a 15 inch screen, wouldn't zooming the screen to 200% show how it might look? Hit command,alt + a few time to take a look.
     
  3. TranceClubMusic thread starter macrumors regular

    TranceClubMusic

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Miami, FLorida
    #3

    I have a 19" CRT and just changed my Resolution to 1280x960 - I must admit - it really doesnt look horrible - slightly larger then my 1600x1200 - but on a 30" it just might be the right size screen!

    Now Im very curious - I could save hundreds of dollars by purchasing a NON APPLE 30" LCD!!!!!!!!!!

    I have seen some as low as $1,800.00!!!!!

    PLUS - I wont have to buy a $600.00 NVIDIA 6800 Card!!!
     
  4. Chaszmyr macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #4
    LCDs can't scale up like CRTs can.

    For example, if an LCD screen has a native resolution of 1024x768, you can't set it higher than that.
     
  5. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #5
    This is actually a pretty sad comparison. Take the monitor you're on now, and cut your resolution in half. Ex: if you're running at 1024x768, make it 512x384. Thats the comparison between the resolution of the Apple 30" and a PC 30" with 1280x800 resolution. In other words, CRAP.
     
  6. mcarnes macrumors 68000

    mcarnes

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Location:
    USA! USA!
    #6
    Time to get another day job my boy.
     
  7. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #7
    Plus i wanted to add that the reason many PC manufacturers don't go above 1920 x 1200 pixels is because standard video cards and DVI cannot support anything higher. Thats why you need to have a G5 and the Nvidia 6800 Mac Edition to drive the Apple 30" display (NO PC can even do this, Mac only!).
     
  8. homerjward macrumors 68030

    homerjward

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Location:
    fig tree
    #8
    what about highend quadro's and some ati fire gl's and the ultra-highend wildcat cards from 3dlabs?
     
  9. Timelessblur macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #9
    Well currently there are NO vidio cards that can be boughten and got to you today. (yes they can be preorder like you can for the apple one but since they are not shiping yet I still call the pre orders).

    When apple starts offical shiping theres PC will have access to the video cards as well. I remeber reading that the video card the macs are using is going to be out on for PCs on about the same day. Since there currently is no Video card out to run the 30in displays no one makes them.

    Expect to seem 30 in from non apple manficator running at the same res in the next few months for a comparitive cost. personly I would not buy a 30in that non apple right now since there Resolotion is reather poor and you will regret speeding the money later. Get a smaller monitor (21 in/23 in lCD) and you can run that as a res that you are very happy with
     
  10. BrianKonarsMac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #10
    the difference is those monitors are not high definition, the smaller of the two numbers in the resolution (i.e. 1280x1024) needs to be 1080+ in order to meet the requirements for high def. so those monitors will be far grainier or blocky. i'd also assume far worse viewing angle, color saturation, response times, no usb/firewire.

    unless you have a G5 and 6800ultra, there's no 30" in your near future.

    pc users, you need a card with "dual-link" DVI, i think the pro cards (quadra's, FireGL, etc) may have them, but the PC version of the 6800 DOES NOT and I don't think it will.
     
  11. Timelessblur macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #11
    dude I could buy the card from apple and put in any a PC. it uses a standarzied slot. But as I stated before you can not buy a card that do it yet. not for apple not for a PC. You can order them but since they are not shiping yet it does not matter.

    Apple currently use AGP slots. It a industy standardizd slot everyone using them. (Imac emac use intgrated Vcards so they are diffent).
     
  12. Finiksa macrumors 6502a

    Finiksa

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Location:
    Australia
    #12
    No you can't Mac video cards use a different firmware to PC video cards they aren't compatible.
     
  13. Lewisham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    #13
    It's worth mentioning that a 30" screen with a low resolution would make everything rather big (already mentioned), but it might very well hurt your neck (not mentioned). If the res is high, you can place windows that fit your field of vision. If not, once I get to about 24", I have to start moving my *head* just to see things. I was using a graphic designers 24" CRT. It drove me nuts (because I just have to have so many windows open :) ) and my neck started hurting at the end of the day. I spoke to my boss and moved to a different monitor :)

    Chris
     
  14. Timelessblur macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #14
    that is easy enough to fix. More or less the hardware is the same. The software/firmware is the only thing that changes. When the cards start officaly shiping we have to see if they have a card for PC that can run at that res

    But either way it a mute point. Personly if the 30in monitor is mac only for 6 months it not a reason to switch over to mac just so you can get a 30in monitor. Think about it who can afford one. If you can afford a 30in monitor the graphic card and the computer that goes with it I dont think you woudl have a problem. That woulc come easily to 5k min and who really has 5k to just thow down for a computer. If they have that much more than likely they already have switch over to a mac. If some switch over just for the 30in monitor with no other reason I would tell them that they just wasted there money and where a fool because they just got a crap load more computer power than they needed. chances are an mid range imac would of been the perfic computer in the mac world for them
     
  15. jcook793 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    #15
    I think running 1280x768 on a 30" screen would be complete crap.

    You know what else is cheaper? Buying a 2 ton truck with a 4 cylinder engine inside. Yeah, it doesn't go as fast but it's so much cheaper. Another money-saving tip is to buy a 17" LCD and put a huge magnifying glass in front of it. Also instead of buying some nice speakers, just plug some headphones in and put them behind a megaphone. Doesn't sound as good but it's loud.

    The thing is, you don't need bigger pixels, you need more pixels.
     
  16. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #16
    DO NOT COMPARE 30" LCD TVs WITH THE 30" APPLE LCD MONITOR, they are totally different!

    One is designed to be a TV, and so only has a low resolution, usually just enough for HDTV (1280x768 or there abouts), and the other is a computer monitor and so has as higher resolution as possible.

    There's been a few threads along these same lines, what will it take for people to get this concept in to their heads! :rolleyes:
     
  17. TranceClubMusic thread starter macrumors regular

    TranceClubMusic

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Miami, FLorida
    #17
    I beg to differ on the opinions such as yours that have been in reply to my question. Its obvious a high Resolution looks the best - My initial question was would 1280x768 really look that bad - Well my question was answered yesterday - when I finaly saw first hand a 30" LCD TV (Not a Computer Monitor) in REAL LIFE. Its funny how so many people talk the talk and can read numbers and specs - Its different when you get to see a 30" LCD TV hooked up to a computer. In this case I just happened to be walking in the Boca Town Center Mall (where there is an Apple store) and Dell had a Kiosk Demonstrating the 30" LCD TV on a Dell PC. Let me tell ALL of you that it didnt look like crap - It looked gorgeous - Granted the higher resolution would look better but at $1,000 less and not having to spend another $600 on a NVIDIA 6800 - I can enjoy a 30" size LCD - and NO - it doesnt look any where close to what you guys have made it out to be. Granted its not a Resolution of 2560x1600 - but it looked great when I was using Windows XP and Im sure it would look just as great on OS X. Keep in mind that EVEN THE APPLE LCD MONITOR has that exact resolution of 1280x800 for those who dont want to squint at tiny fonts.
    My first hand inpression 1280x786 DOESNT SUCK - Look for yourselves.
     
  18. TranceClubMusic thread starter macrumors regular

    TranceClubMusic

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Miami, FLorida
    #18

    Sorry I saw it First hand in the store and it looked great. Check them out - its NOT as bad as you think it is. I saw a 30" Dell displaying off a New Dell Computer and everything looked perfect. Wasnt HUGE or pixalated - smooth edges - games looked great and so did a DVD Movie. If Windows XP looked great - Im SURE MAC OSX would be just as good. Granted, Not the RES of the Apple Cinema Display - but it works and is less money!
    Listen, If it looked THAT BAD - I would tell everyone it looked like crap - fact is, I was very surprised too see a clear, sharp image from a Dell PC on a Dell 30" LCD TV.
     
  19. Peyote macrumors 6502a

    Peyote

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    #19


    Nobody is saying that the Dell would't be clear....I'm sure the graphics were VERY clear, and freakishly huge. Go look at that monitor again, except this time get within 24 inches of it, which is the distance most people probably sit from their monitors. Then think about how useable a display like that is. Sure it's fine when you are walking by in a mall and you are 4 feet away from it...but up close in range to actually use it, you need a higher resolution to view text at a size that seems normal to read, and not HUMONGOUS.
     
  20. Finiksa macrumors 6502a

    Finiksa

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Location:
    Australia
    #20
    Sure, except that they're not…

    PC cards use molex connectors to supply power and Mac cards (eg. 6800 DDL) use the old ADC logic board slot. If you want to swap Mac/PC cards you're going to have to do some potentially dangerous firmware flashing and a butt load of hardware hacking, have fun!

    I have no idea what the point of that whole switching rant was, so I'm not going to touch it.
     
  21. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Location:
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    #21
    Some people just don't seem to make the connection between size and resolution, but Peyote is doing an admirable job of trying to explain it.

    It's like this: if you get a 30" TV (as in, the 1280X1024 resolution range screens from Gateway and the like), you will have EXACTLY the same useable workspace as the 17" Apple LCD I'm staring at right now. All the text and graphics will be much, much bigger, but the number of pixels on the screen, and thus the useable working area, will be exactly the same.

    For normal people, who sit about arms' length from their monitor, this would be very distracting, since only part of the monitor would be within my field of view, and I'd spend four times the effort I currently do moving my head and eyes to scan around the monitor while I'm working. The alternative is to move the monitor twice as far away, which would work fine, although it'd then end up functionally looking no larger than a 17".

    A monitor like this would be great in one of three cases:

    1) You have very poor eyesight, and the large size helps you see better.
    2) You play a lot of games or watch a lot of movies on your computer, and would rather have to work from farther away so that you can get the cool gaming/movieing experience for less money.
    3) You want the monitor to double as a TV.

    As for the Apple monitor, it's in an ENTIRELY different category. Yes, it's more expensive, and that money isn't for the physical size--you're paying for the RESOLUTION. This provides vastly more (four times) working area than a 17" monitor or one of those 30" TVs, which is exactly why they're worth the extra cash and hassle of having to get a new video card.

    If giant size is all you're interested in for one of the reasons above, but you don't care about the inconvienence of the field of view issues and don't want the extra computer working area (resolution), then it'd be stupid to waste money on the Apple 30". If, however, you want more working space, you'd be far better off buying an Apple 20" or 23" monitor, which will give you far more useable area than a 30" TV at a similar price.

    That's what I'll be buying--I don't use my monitor as a TV, so the resolution on the Apple 20" is far more valuable to me than a 30" screen that would be functionally smaller than the monitor I'm using now. Even if I could afford the 30" Apple, I'm not sure I'd get it, since the field of view is just too large to be useful in my work--23" is about as big as I'd go.
     
  22. TranceClubMusic thread starter macrumors regular

    TranceClubMusic

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Miami, FLorida
    #22
    Thank you sooooooo much! Finally someone broke it down for me and made some sense. Instead of making fun of my comments or a reply with a smart a$$ comment - you made me see the importance of NOT getting a 30" Monitor. Thank you for your time - your the ONLY reply that was respectful and makes perfect sense. I will be getting the 23" Apple HD Display instead of a cheap 30" LCD TV.

    Thanks for your help!





     
  23. jcook793 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    #23
    OK, granted. But I don't think anyone mentioned it as an alternative to braille.
    Maybe. But it seems like an expensive alternative to an XBox and a regular TV.
    I agree, this is a good fit, but you're going to use a multiple-thousand-dollar computer with a multiple-thousand-dollar display that shows you $150 worth of pixels? No. Not worth it.

    But I do agree with Makosuke overall. I just don't think the 30" TV is great for even these uses (except the poor eyesight one).
     
  24. BrianKonarsMac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #24
    The hardware is anything but similar. If you can get this card to work in a PC, you must have a Mac motherboard...unless you magically attached an ADC power connector to your PC motherboard?

    This Mac card is superior in so many ways to the PC version it's not even funny. The PC version will never be comparable, because PC's will always require using spare Molex power connectors to power the 6800 whereas Mac's do not (they draw power off the ADC). I don't see how people can compare the Mac card to the PC version, they are just too different to even justify comparison. Maybe they have similar performance at similar resolutions, but the Mac version is far superior technically (Dual Link DVI, ability to power 30" max res., ADC power draw, etc).
     

Share This Page