Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
1 30" Display vs 2 23" Displays
- Thread starter swiftaw
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
NtotheIzoo said:I totally agree w/ u...i'd take 2 23's...nah..i'd acutally take 2 20's...just so I can say I roll on dubs
LOL hilarious
James Philp said:
I haven't looked in a while but when I was in the market I know Kodak had a consumer level digi boasting 14Mp....a bit much for my tastes, as was the price if I remember, but it was marketed to consumers believe it or not.
It is difficult to decide really, since the specs given by James Philp don't exactly help way me in one direction or the other. 4.6Mp between two screens or a single with 4.1Mp? Technically I can fit more native image on the 4.6, but there is a gap in the middle, which could prove annoying.
30" would be great for watching movies, but so would 23" since both are HD and 23 still bests the TV i have used since I started college
(bought a 20" for weight and portability).I think it really must come down to what your uses are and your space. If you can fit a 30 and prefer the 'simplicity' of a single screen, you have your answer. I would be happy with a single 23" personally, that is what I'm working for but if you have the bigger budget, two would be quite acceptable as well
njmac said:
Not to mention if you game you can have buddy lists and iTunes open on the other screen (either diff. computer or same) and not have your game bumped everytime someone IMs you (at least this works on PC, I assume same on Mac) or rather any fullscreen app that is annoying when you get auto-bumped by IM or some other auto-up applet.
Plus dual-monitors are just soooo cool
in uk "£" two 23" cost £1 more than the 30", Price wise, i would go for the 30" (then dream about getting another)
The 30" is just too big. It takes way too long to move the mouse from one corner to the other. After finding it first, that is.
Other than that, two 23" also have a disadvantage: If you use an application that has a menu on the secondary screen, you have to move all the way to the other screen to access the menu.
Other than that, two 23" also have a disadvantage: If you use an application that has a menu on the secondary screen, you have to move all the way to the other screen to access the menu.
I have a 30", and let me tell you, the workflow is much easier when using one monitor, IMO. I used to use dual 2001FP (Dell 20"), and I find this setup to be much more preferred. Just my two cents...
I'm gonna be the first and say I'd have neither
Why?
Cos my apartment is of the open plan minimalist style, I've spend a lorra money making my apartment look this way, and two 23" or one 30" screen on my desk would draw too much attention to one part of the crib and would create an uneven design flow.
One 23" would be ok at a push, but one 20" would be perfect.
Why?
Cos my apartment is of the open plan minimalist style, I've spend a lorra money making my apartment look this way, and two 23" or one 30" screen on my desk would draw too much attention to one part of the crib and would create an uneven design flow.
One 23" would be ok at a push, but one 20" would be perfect.
macapple said:
I wonder what the correlation between average television screen-size and computer monitor screen-size is, not for users but for companies producing that is.
I would bet that once 42" screens become a standard 'minimum' for household televisions that Apple (or others) will begin to produce them for computer monitors because it won't seem so outrageously large. I would be willing to bet that well over 60% of the residence in the US have at least a 27" television somewhere in their house, more than likely pushing 30 or perhaps 36 (is that a tv size
).I think if Apple had the 30" 2 years ago it would have seemed WAAAAY too big since the technology that promoted and 'required' large home systems wasn't really pushing yet. My father is just now looking to upgrade from his 10+ year old Panasonic 27" tube television, which I have to admit still looks pretty damn good considering the age and technology level. He was going to get a 42" Plasma but then had to drop to 37" so it would fit in the space in our wall properly (I told him to cut the wall
)sebisworld said:
So on the 30", that stupid little shift-click thing on Windows that 'pulses' around the cursor could actually be useful!? No way, this is cutting edge, top-notch technological application. I have NEVER seen a use for that stupid feature yet, but if you have trouble locating your cursor on a 30" then I guess we found our answer, a PC and an Apple 30" Cinema Display
efoto said:So on the 30", that stupid little shift-click thing on Windows that 'pulses' around the cursor could actually be useful!? No way, this is cutting edge, top-notch technological application. I have NEVER seen a use for that stupid feature yet, but if you have trouble locating your cursor on a 30" then I guess we found our answer, a PC and an Apple 30" Cinema Display
Actually, one of the editors here uses an application like that on his PowerMac. He has two 23" displays - and sometimes even I find the mouse locator very useful. Only downside to it is that it is very very ugly.
Here is the link: http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/26157
So is that for a wireless mouse? How does the locator work? Is it only for an optical mouse? Does it send a signal that makes the optical mouse light blink or something?sebisworld said:
Back in the days of 68k Macs, there was a product that was a pocket/cradle for the mouse that attached to the side of the Mac. Maybe something like that would be good for keeping the mouse so that it can be easily located.
