Do You Agree? (20" LCD vs 23" LCD)

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by triton, Sep 1, 2003.

  1. triton macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    #1
    Ok, so I went down to the apple store today, and compared the 23 inch and 20 inch cinema display.

    Now, I am no rocket scientist, but the 20 inch seemed to be brighter with little color shift when moving right to left. The 23 inch seemed to be a little less bright, with more color shift. Am I seeing what everyone else is seeing?:confused:

    The 23 inch is beautiful, and I would love to get that display, but I need some confirmation on whether or not you have had the same viewing experience? I will be doing some graphic design/ print design work on these monitors and need the best of both worlds.

    **Second, have any of you ever purchased a apple cinema display and had the apple guys at the store test it for dead pixels before taking it home? Is that possible?
     
  2. Freg3000 macrumors 68000

    Freg3000

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #2
    I think the 20" does look better when compared to the 23". It is bette or equal in almost all respects, except size. :)
     
  3. andrewh macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #3
    Yes, Triton you are correct. The 23" is not as bright and vibrant as the 20". I was in the same position when I bought the 20" Cinema. At the time, the price had just dropped on the 23 and although I could afford it I decided against it because it was clearly not as nice as the 20. As I already owned a formac 20" I decided to run a dual display environment instead of replacing my Formac with the 23.

    Anyway, too much info I know, but the 20" display is simply fantastic and I love it. It depends how picky/obsessed you are with displays. The 23" is a fine display but it would bother me knowing the image quality is not the best available from Apple.
     
  4. triton thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    #4
    Great, thank you for confirming my inital thoughts. It must be kick ass having dual 20's!!

    :eek:
     
  5. shecky Guest

    shecky

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Location:
    Obviously you're not a golfer.
    #5
    the differences are right there on Apple's website. The 2 things to note are

    resoloution:

    23" - 1920 by 1200 pixels (optimum resolution)
    20" - 1680 by 1050 pixels (optimum resolution)

    and brightness:

    23" - 200 cd/m2
    20" - 230 cd/m2

    barring any specific needs, i think that you end up paying 35% less money for only about 23% less screen real estate AND its a brighter screen - i say the 20" is the way to go.
     
  6. Chaszmyr macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #6
    Everyone always talks about the brightness.... But I have a 20'' and prefer not to keep it as bright as possible... And I know I am not the only one
     
  7. airmac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    #7
    Downside? 20 inch cinema display doesn"t work in os 9 and it"s preaty obvious that "new" monitors wouldn"t either. Yeap, some of us still use it. As much as i love apple monitors the formac is my only choice. The 23 is huge and beautiful...it"s just the specs...
     
  8. the future macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #8
    I second that. I also have the 20" – it's gorgeous, btw – and never use it at max brightness. But maybe when you work in an environment that is very bright you may need the max brightness of the 20".
     
  9. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #9
    This is good to know - I was already planning on getting dual 20" monitors with my G5 purchase in a few months.

    I am wondering if we'll see an update to the LCD line - there have been rumors about this for a while. And it couldn't hurt to see a price drop as well ;)

    D
     
  10. amin macrumors 6502a

    amin

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #10
    I don't have the $$ for either one, but I compared the two many times at my local Apple Store. The 23" is plenty bright for my needs and would be my display of choice if I had the dough.
     
  11. Kid Red macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    #11
    A lot of crack smokers here. Yes, the 20" is brighter then the 23". Does that make a difference? No? Why? Once you calibrate the monitor accurately the brightness level will come down. So on my not as bright as the 20 23", I have my brightness level turned down. What's that mean? That even tho the 23" is not as bright as the 20" the brightness on the 23" still needs to be turned down when it's properly calibrated. Thus, the brightness difference is baseless. As far as the color difference, I beg to differ. I compared the 2 monitors side by side when using the same stock photos that come with photoshop. The 20" was brighter and so were the colors. They were no accurate colors however as the brightness was too high. Once these monitors are properly calibrated it comes down to screen size. As a web designer/illustrator/graphic designer, those 3" and the higher rez make a huge difference.

    The 23" also considering the 22" was a $1k more is also the better deal.
     
  12. andrewh macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #12
    Well technically it's not a better deal when considering it in terms of pixels per dollar, since the amount of pixels determines actual workspace.

    If you use some basic math, The 23" gives you 24% more pixels for 35% more money. The cost per pixel is higher with the 23". Hardly a better deal. The most bang for the buck has always been dual displays. Dual 17's, 20's, whatever.
     
  13. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #13
    both are very nice displays but i have to mention that the displays are due for a redo or revision change soon.
     
  14. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #14
    It works in Mac OS 9. It's just not eh, supported... for what thats worth :rolleyes:
    A friend of mine has a G4 450 MHz, w/ Radeon 9000 Pro grfx card, Dr Bott's DVI to ADC adaptor, running both Mac OS X and Mac OS 9.
    I must say seeing the desktop of OS 9 on a 20' TFT is pretty wieird....
     
  15. Dreamail macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Beyond
    #15
    Resolution is everything - at least to me

    A while ago I had considered getting a 22" Cinema Display. To test its resolution I opened a few PDFs and some Word documents and soon figured out that at 100% they just barely fit on the screen. With menu bar and a few icon bars at the top they no longer did. That's when I realised that a 1600x1024 resolution is not all that great. For me it was too low, I went with the 23" instead.

    Consider this: OS X really loves screen real estate. 1680x1050 as on the 20" is 'a good start' but no way near 'future proof' at least IMHO. And once you are used to 1920x1200 for a few months, trust me, it doesn't seem that huge anymore. I'd say it's 'nice' for OS X, but not nearly 'excessive'.

    Re brightness: I feel that my 23" display is actually way too bright if the brightness is cranked up all the way. I usually keep it around 80% or white pages are just too bright, hurting my eyes.

    I do agree the 20" display:
    - is brighter (which is not really that useful considering you won't likely use the 23" at its full brightness),
    - has a tad better viewing angle (only barely noticable if you're comparing both next to each other)
    - has a little less ghosting than the 23" (which is still perfect and marvellous for watching DVDs, so no real drawback here either).
    - Yet someone in another forum once said that the 23" has a better, truer color representation than the 20", which tends to overemphasize colors, distorting them.

    But the real question IMHO is are those minimal improvements worth the lower resolution? To me the answer is clear: resolution is everything, you can never have enough pixels.

    And my final thinking came from another angle: in my tests with the 22" display I realised 'shortcomings'. I realized that I might find 1600x1024 too small for some tasks and hence might regret the purchase in a year or two, if not sooner. 1920x1200 however, I found ample. Ample to last me a long, long time. That's when I decided to invest a little more money for a display that has the resolution to last me years.
     
  16. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #16
    I would disagree...You pay a premium for having your workspace consolidated into one monitor, but it is more convenient (and tolerable). I for one can't stand jumping between multiple spaces.

    But I also don't want anything more than a 17". That's enough for me, when you look at the price.

    But as far as the brightness initially addressed, it will always be the case, from TVs to monitors, that the brightness is less as size goes up...That is, unless a more powerful light source is used, which is often not the case.
     
  17. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #17
    i really dont displays will be updated soon, i mean they were updated not to long ago. but maybe apple will want to make it match the new aluminum look they got going on, guess we will wait and see.

    iJon
     
  18. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #18
    well, I think the displays look fine with the G5s and I think they are sufficiently large, though some will be wanting 30 inchers.

    However, I think that we would all rather see a 15" PB update at Paris than a bigger display...I say this and I don't even want a PB. I would like a cheaper 17", though.
     
  19. airmac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    #19
    So what are you saying? I know it works! So what's the deal than huh?! The resellers are telling everyone it doesn't, can you help me here and what you meant by "wierd"...resolution? color? I know os 9 needs a little hacking but i'm not an expert. If 20" indeed support os 9 i'll buy on in a second.
     
  20. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #20
    I am saying it works.
    Wierd. No problems, just funny to be looking at an OS 9 desktop on this beautiful new display. Mac OS 9 seems so long ago... :rolleyes:
     
  21. airmac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    #21
    So you're not an expert either. There is no need to be sarcastic my friend cause OS 9 is still faster than X. I use a lot of different sotware though and my favorite, the fastest desktop publishing sowtware ever, Pagemaker 7.0, is not built for os X yet. Of course depends on what you're doing, but for me os x is pretty bulky and childish..i use X for web, music, well litlle stuff. OS 9.2.2 is a rock solid sistem and damn fast. I think apple has done a great job with X, but i just can't take it serious yet. For example bulky Photoshop, bulky Indesign.......yeah weird... just admit my friend that OS 9 is a lot snappier, PERIOD.

    btw, if you can't help with the monitor issue than don't bother. I'm here to get answers not beacuse how many posts i'll produce.
     
  22. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #22
    ???
    Why do you say: "So you're not an expert either"..? Expert in what?
    I was not trying to be sarcastic, and I respect people using Mac OS 9. Its just that most people using that screen are not using Mac OS 9 anymore.
    Sorry if I offended you. wasn't intended.
     
  23. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #23
    wow. bug up your ass?

    no one said os 9 is bad. also, he did help. he specifically said that the monitor does work with os 9.

    take a deep breath
     
  24. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #24
    Tnx, jelloshotsrule.
    I think he probably misinterpreted my usage of the word "weird". I meant weird as in unusual to look at.... not unusual to use Mac OS 9.
     
  25. airmac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    #25

    Uh i apologize. I did take it wrong all the way. I'm sorry.

    But really, i am serious here, i have a dual giga mdd, and the resellers are saying the opposite, that they have seen the thing work too just they don't have a slightest idea how, so what's the deal than? Look, the monitor is awesome, the prize is good, this is a product worth every pennie. Just help me guys here. I would really apreciate it.
     

Share This Page