How good is the 17" vs. the 20" iMac display?

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by dferigmu, Jan 13, 2005.

  1. dferigmu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #1
    Someone on another site described the 17" display on the iMac as being on the low-end, only displaying 262K colors, having bad viewing angles, blurring and the backlight that bleeds heavily from all sides.

    Is this true or is it an isolated problem? If so, is the 20" a lot better? I'm asking because I have never heard this before and out of all my experiences using the 17" iMac in stores, it looks very nice and not much different than the 20", other than size.

    Plus, I don't have enough money for a 20" iMac.
     
  2. varmit macrumors 68000

    varmit

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    #2
    Have a 17" 1.6Ghz, don't have this problem. The display on the new iMac are the same panels that were used in the old cinema displays.
     
  3. Little Endian macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Honolulu
    #3
    The 17" display in the imac is inferior to the 20" imac display. The viewing angle is poor and the backlight does bleed from the sides. Response time is slow as well and it's not as bright as the 20". The 17" imac G5 uses the same LCD from the imac 17" imac G4 while the 20" imac G5 as mentioned earlier uses the old Cinema Display panel. Overall the quality of the 17" is adequate for most users and you really don't realize these issues unless you have a much better display to compare against. I only realized how crappy my G4 imac 17" display was until I got my 20" Alum Cinema Display.
     
  4. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #4
    Can't claim to know all the specs on either of these LCDs, but I will always go check out all the Macs whenever I stop by a CompUSA, and the 17" iMac display is definately not "low end". I would compare it very favorabley to the 17" Dell LCDs that I use at work daily. Most people agree that the Dell displays are generally pretty good, and in the mid to good range of quality. In my exposure to them the 17" iMac seemed to be brighter and more vibrant than the Dell monitors.

    I've played UT2k4 on an iMac, and watched some high quality video clips and haven't noticed any issues with ghosting, so I would venture to say that the response time is adequate for most daily usage. I also didn't notice any 'bleeding' from the backlight. It looks evenly lit, to me. That said, the 20" is amazing. It looks great from all angles, very good refresh rates, etc etc. The 20" is quite a deal, IF you can afford one, but I don't think that most people will complain about the 17" at all.
     
  5. dferigmu thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #5
    Ok, of course a 20" Cinema display is going to be better quality. You get what you pay for after all. All I'm saying is that I think some people are being nitpicky. I don't think the 17" is so horrible as some are making it out to be.

    Would you say it's better or worse than 17" LCD's from Dell, LG, NEC, and Samsung?
     
  6. neilrobinson macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    #6
    i have used both a 1.6 G5 (sales computer at work) and 1.8 G5 (mates computer) they both seem good after the first 30 minutes i have compared them with CRTs and they seem good. thou i am a sucker for the lacie electron blue (thou i did know of someone who returned 4/5 this week :eek: )
     

Share This Page