Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ACD 23" or Two ACD 20"???

N

notheremuch

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 11, 2005
50
0
I spoke to one of my dealers today and they offered me two demo 20" ACDs for c250$ less than the 23".

I do hobby video and photos with no chance of going pro. The two things that bug me about the two displays are 1. the "gap", especially when watching DVDs (can I?) and 2. I loose c150pixels in height vs the 23", important for portrait mode, or is 150 something I should get over??!!

Thanks - you've steered me right so far, guys! :)
 
notheremuch said:
I spoke to one of my dealers today and they offered me two demo 20" ACDs for c250$ less than the 23".

I do hobby video and photos with no chance of going pro. The two things that bug me about the two displays are 1. the "gap", especially when watching DVDs (can I?) and 2. I loose c150pixels in height vs the 23", important for portrait mode, or is 150 something I should get over??!!

Thanks - you've steered me right so far, guys! :)
Click to expand...

Hmm. Good question.

I bought a 20" dell 2005FPW about a year ago.. yeh it was a great price and yeh I wanted a big screen... but I'm kicking myself now that I didn't spring for the 24". The 20" is a bit small.... but two, you'd have to make the call.

I hate the gap created by dual screens. If it were me, I'd go for the 23", but I'm picky. I think the two 20" makes more cost effective sense, but screw it... go for the 23" and you won't rerget buying the small screens later.

We're talking $1200 price range for two 20"?

:)
 
I've got two 20" widescreens attached to my Power Mac at home, and I like dual screens a lot more than I thought I would. I went dual screen originally because it was the cheapest way to get the most screen space. Like a lot of people, it seems, I ended up using one screen to house all the applications I want open all the time (Adium, iTunes, pearLyrics, Mail, Finder window), and have the entire other screen for working on whatever it is I'm working on. I like having the dedicated "space" for all that stuff.

I've watched a movie on my Power Mac just once, but I also liked that I could have one whole screen dedicated to the movie, and still have another separate space for surfing the web or playing solitare or whatever else I wanted to do.

The bezel on the screens doesn't bother me nearly as much as I thought it would and the screens just seem to kind of bleed together.

If I had to choose between two 20"s and one 24", I'd likely go with the two 20"s, especially if it were cheaper.
 
tobefirst said:
I've got two 20" widescreens attached to my Power Mac at home, and I like dual screens a lot more than I thought I would. I went dual screen originally because it was the cheapest way to get the most screen space. Like a lot of people, it seems, I ended up using one screen to house all the applications I want open all the time (Adium, iTunes, pearLyrics, Mail, Finder window), and have the entire other screen for working on whatever it is I'm working on. I like having the dedicated "space" for all that stuff.

I've watched a movie on my Power Mac just once, but I also liked that I could have one whole screen dedicated to the movie, and still have another separate space for surfing the web or playing solitare or whatever else I wanted to do.

The bezel on the screens doesn't bother me nearly as much as I thought it would and the screens just seem to kind of bleed together.

If I had to choose between two 20"s and one 24", I'd likely go with the two 20"s, especially if it were cheaper.
Click to expand...
What he said..

Or, you could always just say screw it and get dual 23" screens. :)
 
In my opinion, a 23" screen is better for editing photos since you can have the pictures larger on the screen. (And you can see more when they are at 100%.)

Also, if you want a larger DVD picture, you want the 23" and not 2 20" displays.

There are also some quirks with using 2 displays that depending on what application(s) you use vould be a pain. Yes, here a lot of cases where 2 screens work well.

Also, as a final thought, 2 20" screens take up more desk space and require more head movement to see everything on the screens.
 
Funny side-effects of luxury: 2 x 20"-screens end up VERY wide, you might get headaches going from the top-right side to the bottom-left side...
But well, it seems other people enjoy that !

What about 23" in the middle and 2 x 20" on the sides ?

A!
 
notheremuch said:
I spoke to one of my dealers today and they offered me two demo 20" ACDs for c250$ less than the 23".

I do hobby video and photos with no chance of going pro.
Click to expand...
The only reason not to go for the dual-monitor approach is desk space. If this is not an issue, two 20" monitors is better.

(1) Screen space - dual monitors gets you >3.5 megapixels, one 23-inch 2.28MP. That's more than 50% additional space.

(2) Division of work. You can put your workspace on one side, and your pallettes, menus, etc on the other. One 20-inch screen is alot of space to edit a photo, especially when you don't have any menus, dock, etc cluttering the screen, like you would with a single 23-inch.

(3) Your DVD-video won't fill the 23-inch screen, at least not at native resolution, unless it's HD. It will play just fine on the 20" screen.

And for less money? It's a no-brainer, in my opinion. Unless desktop space is a premium.

Dave
 
The desktop space is a small issue, solvable, but not pretty...

So, no one thinks the additional 150ish pixels of height is worth it, then?? (for the 23")

No question that for landscape oriented photos, the dual is great. (Assuming I do not have to 50%-50% the screens photo/tools. It's the height in portrait photos that drives me nuts on my current iMac17"...

Another question: Can I arrange on or two web pages on one monitor and have new pages open full screen on the other?
(Awesome thoughts on this subject so far!)
 
notheremuch said:
...
So, no one thinks the additional 150ish pixels of height is worth it, then?? (for the 23")
...
Click to expand...
Actually as I indicated in my post, the extra height in pixels is worth it, especially for photo work.

Another thought.. do the demo screens come with the full warranty?
 
I read it but spaced while typing!

Yes, full 1 year warranty and monitors were used once for instore demo, one time event. (They told me that there are no dead pixels and colors are true.)
 
My vote is the single 23". However for the most bang for the buck, it would seem the dual setup would be better for you.
 
Since I am seriously consider the idea tonight, I cannot get to an Apple dealer until tmrw afternoon.

Is the height of the 20" (listed by Apple@16.1in) on the stand? Ditto for 23" listed at 17.7in. My desk shelves may decide afterall....
 
notheremuch said:
The desktop space is a small issue, solvable, but not pretty...

So, no one thinks the additional 150ish pixels of height is worth it, then?? (for the 23")

No question that for landscape oriented photos, the dual is great. (Assuming I do not have to 50%-50% the screens photo/tools. It's the height in portrait photos that drives me nuts on my current iMac17"...
Click to expand...

If you go with Dell's 20" displays, or VESA mount your ACDs, you can rotate them to work on portraits. Works great. Then you have 1680 pixels high. :)
 
two! the answer is always two displays over one!!!

lol actually I just dumped my 2 CRT's (19" + 15") for a 20" ACD so maby one is better.

Ok this reply wasn't of any help...
 
...The more we talk about it, the higher the chances your special-deal screens are gone next time you go to the shop...

If you decide yourself for the 2 x 20", move quick !
 
weird but...

how about rotating one screen 90° when you need to...and then you can loads of room for photo editing? :)
 
iGary said:
It is.

The 20" is s bare minimum for photo processing. 23 is better, 30 is ideal.
Click to expand...

I would agree if he was a pro, but he's not.

Go for the 2 x 20" ACDs, even by themselves they offer more screen real estate than you're currently used to.

Just my 0.16c worth (using current exchanges rates)
 
Bear said:
Actually as I indicated in my post, the extra height in pixels is worth it, especially for photo work.
Click to expand...
It's totally not worth it. (Believe me, I've worked in both scenarios with alot of photos.) Between the dock, menu bar, and any tool pallettes, that extra 150 pixels will be easily eaten up. With a dual-monitor setup, you can move all that clutter to another screen.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back