Older ACD vs. New LG IPS

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by papoopeepoo, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #1
    Ok ok ok, so this isn't exactly a post about PPC computers, but it is about a screen from the PPC era. I need opinions, I'm stuck.

    A household mac mini G4 is about to be donated to a loved-one. This G4 is paired with the first aluminum ACD (20"). I just love the design and screen of this display, it's classic and matches my Mac Pro perfectly. I don't care about the unsupported FW400 connectivity.

    Currently, my MP is attached to an LG IPS236 with LED backlighting (23"). The image quality is certainly bright and clear, but not as color accurate as the 6-year-old ACD.

    If it were up to you, would you trade the new monitor for the older, smaller classic ACD, or keep the newer screen and save for a new ACD?

    Thanks!
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    Nyy8

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #2
    Couldn't you just give it to the loved one without a display :D and use both on your mac pro?
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    LeoTheLion89

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    #3
    If the apple monitor seems better quality i would take that. You can buy a ADC-DVI adaptor as well as a FW400 to 800 adaptor
     
  4. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #4
    This is an idea, but the dissymmetry might mess with me a little too much. :D

    I have the display port to DVI connector, but it isn't really necessary when running one monitor on this HD4870. The FW adaptor makes the idea of the ACD a little more sweet.
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Location:
    Vancouver Island
    #5
    Yes you can, and like a good wine they're not getting any cheaper.
    Link
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    LeoTheLion89

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    #6
    actually here is a link to a rather cheap adaptor as well as a link here for a FW400 to FW800 adaptor
     
  7. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #7
    Am I missing something? This ACD has a normal DVI termination. No adaptor is needed to attach it to the MP as-is.

    Wasn't it the plastic cased ACDs that needed that adaptor?
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Location:
    Vancouver Island
    #8
    Correct, the acrylic monitors had no power supply built in and received their power from a video card with the ADC output connection.
    Hence the need for the expensive adapter with the power supply if you wanted to connect it to a video card via DVI.
    The cheaper adapter mentioned above is for connecting an ADC video card to a DVI monitor, and will not work in reverse.
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    LeoTheLion89

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    #9
    oh my bad i got it mixed up i thought u were refering to a ADC (Apple Display Connector) Monitor not a ACD (Apple Cinema Display) Monitor sorry about that. But the second link i provided will work for the firewire. i know nothing about ACDs as far as i know no cables are removable but if the FireWire cable detatchs from the monitor then you can use a FW400 FW800 cable instead
     
  10. macrumors P6

    Intell

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Inside
    #10
    I would like to point out that these two adapters cannot do the same thing. If the OP's monitor was one of the acrylic Apple Studio Displays, he would need the one in jbarley's post. The one in LeoTheLion89's post is for connecting a DVI display to a PowerMac's Apple Display Connector's port to utilize its DVI signal. It cannot turn a Studio Display into a DVI capable display.

    To the OP: I've found that some of Apple's older displays do give a very good picture quality. Mainly the 20" and 23" acrylic displays, the 20" G4 iMac, and the 20", 23", and 30" Cinema Displays. Their 22" acrylic display is sometimes questionable. They're the oldest of the acrylic bunch and often had slightly poorer quality displays due to the limits of technology at the time.
     

Share This Page