30" LCD screen cheaper than Apple's?

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by tech4all, Jul 30, 2004.

  1. macrumors 68040

    tech4all

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Location:
    NorCal
    #1
    I just got a Micro Center AD/catalog. They have these 2 LCD screens - 30" and 27" - a lot cheaper than Apple's new LCDs. Here are some links:

    27" and 30"

    Is there a reason for the big price difference? :confused:
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    magid

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    #2
    Have you looked at the resolution on those??? They are that of a 17" lcd, it would be rediculous and a waste of money to buy those. There is a reason why the Apple monitor is that price it is.....it is superior :p
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    Dr. Dastardly

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    I live in a giant bucket!
    #3
    2560 x 1600 pixels vs. 1280 x 768 max. :eek:
     
  4. macrumors 601

    stoid

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    #4
    BWAHAHA!!!! My 15 inch PowerBook gets 1280 x 854 resolution! Those SUCK massively. What's the dpi? 3? :D
     
  5. macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #5
    tech4all I'm not aiming this at you honestly.


    I "really" wish that people would learn to compare features of two different products as closely as possible. In this particular case we have two LCDs aimed at different markets. These LCDs are LCD TVs thus they do not need the high resolution that a LCD Monitor aimed at computing would need. That's not to say you wouldn't be happy with a 30" at the lower resolution but it explains why Apple's 30" is $3300.

    Next peeve. If you're comparing a PC to a Powermac G5 you best be comparing a dual processor PC and making sure that if the Mac has PCI-X the PC does too. I'm sick of these comparisons followed by "This Dell will be just as fast as the top Powermac"

    Newsflash if you don't PCI-X you can't run some high end cards..period end of story.
     
  6. thread starter macrumors 68040

    tech4all

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Location:
    NorCal
    #6
    Ok, so yeah I just saw the res on the LCDs vs. Apples. :eek: that answers a lot.
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    jimsowden

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2003
    Location:
    NY
    #7
    My 17" LCD is 1280x768! That would suck on a 30" panel.
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    wPod

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #8
    heh. . . wow check it out guys i just found this 'dull' brand laptop and wow it has more GHZ than my PB and its cheaper!!! there is a reason apple products are more expensive, they are far supirior to others! if you are not into the cool looking aluminum phase apple is going through you must realize there is a lot under the hood of any apple product that makes it superior to others.
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #9
    those LCD suck. To give you an idea how much those lcd suck is I have a 17in LCD monitor with more pix on it. 1280x1024 while the 30 inch is 1280x768

    Again why the hell do people compare computers that are not even in the same ball park. a computer 300-400 less is normal pretty crappy compared to one that that much above it. Also remeber cost matter if something is a lot less that anohter product chances are it not as good.
     
  10. macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #10
    While I can't say that those LCD screens suck or not, I can say that it's not their resolutions that determine their level of suckiness. Those screens are not targeted as computer monitors. They are HDTV screens. I could turn it around and say that the Apple screens suck because they cost 2x as much and don't have co-ax inputs, component inputs, a built-in tuner, speakers, etc.

    Isn't that kinda like what you are doing comparing TV screens with computer monitors?
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #11
    well now that I look close at it yeah it a TV but the first post is acting like it is a computer monitor and as a computer monitor those screen suck for that and I would never use them for a computer monitor.

    and yeah it is to answer you other question but the coment that other person made is the typic mac vs PC compesion and just shows me another blind maccy
     
  12. macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #12
    I saw those two HP monitors at my local Microcenter. They weren't all that impressive. Would be OK with a Windows system.
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    mpopkin

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Chapel Hill, NC
    #13
    quality and resolution, the Apple Cinema Display 30" is a relative discount for what you get, a 30 inch lcd with millions of colors, 2560X1538 Resolution and a DVI input with HD compatibility, an IBM display of equal dimensions at 30 " with the same resolution sells for 7999 at student store where i work, thats a lot of money, the quality of this display is amazing
    you get what you pay for, but in the apple cinema displays case you get more than what you pay for


     
  14. macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    Old York
    #14
    sorry to say this but.... what the **** are you on about?
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #15
    just remeber he another one of people out there who bought intel crap that Ghz is the best way to tell how fast a processor really is. Those people are the ones who find it hard to believe that AMD chips and apple chips that are 1ghz or so lower can go faster or hell even keep up with them
     
  16. macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    Old York
    #16
    i could understand if he took one side or the other but he contradicts himself saying pc's have "more GHz) but apples have the stuff "under the hood" he makes no sense so i say again, wtf
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #17
    I still think apple are over price more so massively over price. I say take the edu price and knock over another 50-100 and you have about how much the are really worth
     
  18. macrumors 68000

    echeck

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    #18
    I used to have those same ideas about mac products, could never understand why they were so expensive...

    Of course, that was before I knew what was going on under the hood of these computers. Your typical PeeCee is a LOT cheaper than a mac, because these PeeCee's aren't even in the same ballpark with the "comparable" mac.

    I guarentee if you go out and do a straight up comparison between a mac and PeeCee you will find that they are nearly the same price. If the PeeCee is a little cheaper, it's worth the extra money simply to not have to deal with Windows.. :p
     
  19. macrumors 601

    stoid

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    #19
    GHz aren't everything, so it is possible to have fewer Ghz, and still have more 'under the hood'. Most (all?) bargain PCs use el cheapo plastic parts where Apple uses metal or high-grade plastics. That seems superior to me. Don't take everything so negatively.
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #20

    well they are compairely price to a computer from lets say alienware or like them. Now compare them to the hold built computer and well price wise apple gets blown out of the water. The only compainy that can compete in that area is dell but for the same amount of many I put in much better componites
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #21
    I dunno about you guys, but I would just love to spend a couple of grand on a 30" LCD and have a few stuck/dead pixels right in the center...
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    echeck

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    #22
    This is exactly what I'm saying. You can't compare an $800 Dell to a PowerMac, you can't even compare it to an iMac or eMac. I'm not saying you should buy the Apple machine, if all you need to do is surf the net, listen to music and check email then by all means go with the Dell. But if you want a computer that is powerful enough to do some multi-tasking (without crashing) then I suggest you go with a consumer level Mac.

    It's just nonsense when people compare a consumer level Dell (or similar) to a PowerMac.

    Oh well...
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #23
    Now comparing home build to apple computer is another way to compare the the 2. The only problem is general the Home builts blow apple computer out of the water in price vs quitly and profomences (and I going to use the ones that have a XP pro legit since it ony 140 OEM). Mind you I think with the home built they can get better quilty parts than even apple uses. Yeah apple uses really good parts much better than dell but still home builts can get better parts.

    But then again not many people built their own system. Now for pre built system PC to buy to compare is something like Alienware to apple with Edu discount and then price are much closer together in everything
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Nottingham
    #24
    blah blah blah sucky blah...
    This is a nice LCD TV. I wouldn't sniff at playing BF1942 on it with a bit of FSAA. It's not a monitor at all, but it would probably do the job of a huge-ass gaming screen fairly well, second to serving a nice job as your television... remember S-VHS usually tops out at 1024*768 on most video cards with TV output.

    Buy the right tool for the job.
     
  25. macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    Old York
    #25

    alfter reading his post again and again i think i get it, he's compareing how the average joe would think dell is better because they are cheaper but acctually a powerbook is better for reasons that the average joe would not think about the same as the average joe just tends to look at screen size not the resolution.

    i did not reallise he was saying how silly the that "the pc has more GHz" comment was it apeared to be his acctual opinion but though macs have some magical power "under the hood". to me it apeared that he was contradicting himself, but now i see what he ment.

    p.s. what happened to the star wars avatar am i the only one left? or is there another?
     

Share This Page