I have come tro the conclusion that the new Apple monitors are just way over priced! I have decided to get a CRT monitor as they have much better resolution and last longer. I can also get a much bigger monitor for HUNDREDS of dollars cheaper than a 23 inch Apple monitor. What CRT is good for a PowerMac G5 computer and Mac compatible? I want to get something big (22-24 inch or so). I'm preferably seeking a CRT monitor that isn't so deep in depth. I have been told that ViewSonic and Sony make the best CRT monitors. Is this true? Please specify me the model you recommend.
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.
Apple monitor
- Thread starter Mac2004
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mac2004 said:
Well... I don't think you can compare the 2. The Apple monitors are all LCDs, and you're talking how much cheaper CRTs are. You are certainly correct, CRTs are MUCH cheaper, but they also take up a TON more desk space and just don't look as sexy as a nice LCD.
As a better price comparison, use ViewSonic. Makers of (relatively) inexpensive CRTs/LCDs.
A 20" LCD from them can cost $1299.00, while the new Apple 20" LCD is the same price.
yellow said:
This took me 30 seconds to find, and there are much better for cheaper I assure you.
http://www.pcnation.com/web/details.asp?item=567115
$975
20.1 Inch (Apple's is 20 inch)
600:1 contrast ratio (Apple's LCDs are all 400:1)
Higher Resolution than Apple
4:3 H:W (Apple uses 16:9.. 4:3 has more room)
slughead said:
I think 16:9 has higher resolution and allows for more things on the screen. According to Apple, the widescreen format of a 17" Powerbook has more screen space than a 19" 4:3. I'm not 100% though.
slughead said:
Well, that's the MSRP on the ViewSonic site. You can definitely find cheaper deals, but my (attempted) point was that price comparing an Apple LCD to a CRT and stating that Apple monitors were out of whack expensive wouldn't hold water. Apparently like my analogy.
KevRC4130 said:
Square Pixels
1,764,000 - 20" Apple Display 16:9 (1680x1050)
1,920,000 - 20.1" Viewsonic 4:3 (1600x1200)
Square inches
170.9"^2 - 20" Apple Display 16:9 (17.4"x9.8")
173.3"^2 - 19" [Any 4:3 Monitor] 4:3 (15.2"x11.4")
193.9"^2 - 20.1" Viewsonic 4:3 (16.1"x12.06")
My area numbers are rounded but essentially, here's a simple mathematical principle:
If you were to make 20 rectangles with different widths and heights but the same diagonal measurement, the one that's the MOST square has the largest area. It is the same for rectangles with the same perimeter.
You can see above that even a 19" 4:3 is bigger than a 20" 16:9.
Sogo said:
16:9 == WIDESCREEN == LETTERBOX
4:3 == TV == STANDARD CRT/LCD
That's true. CRTs are a different product, and can't be price compared fairly to Apples.
Everyone Knows that LCDs cost 2-3x as much as CRTs even though CRTs have better contrast, faster refresh rates, faster response times, support more resolutions, and support higher resolutions (usually).
KevRC4130 said:
Apple's claim is only remotely true for one situation: viewing 16:9 aspect ratio images or video (e.g. a DVD) and assuming the rest of the screen will be unused.
A 4:3 ratio screen will always be larger in area than a 16:9 screen of the same diagonal measurement.
A 20" diagonal 4:3 screen will be about 16" wide and 12" tall. A 20" 16:9 screen will be a bit more than 16" wide and roughly 9" tall - significantly smaller.
Check out the screen-size calculator here for an interactive demonstration:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7608_7-1016109-4.html
Resolution doesn't enter into it at all.
-v to the ga, for life
What can't be quantified is how much more crisp an LCD is over a CRT. I love my 21" ViewSonic, but every time I see a Cinema display I just get that itch to whip out my AmEx...
I've hooked my iBook up to a monitor a few times, but I always go back to the little 12" LCD because it's soooo clear and crisp.
Besides, most of the apps I use are more suited for wide-screen display because of the tool windows.
I've hooked my iBook up to a monitor a few times, but I always go back to the little 12" LCD because it's soooo clear and crisp.
Besides, most of the apps I use are more suited for wide-screen display because of the tool windows.
Although this is true, the point of the widescreen displays is that for most applications, you have more usable screen real estate with a 20" widescreen than with the traditional aspect ratio. A 4:3 ratio 20" screen cannot display two 8.5" pages side by side, because it is only 16" wide (diagonal is 20"), but a 20" widescreen can (it is nearly 18" wide).slughead said:
MacinDoc said:
I'm Saving for a G5 and 23" display, but I started to have my doubts about the 23" given that I can buy TWO Dell 21" LCD Screens for about AU$100-200 more. These screens have a resolution of 1600x1200.
Before you ask, the Dell LCDs have the same 16ms response time, and we have the smaller 17" versions here at work - they are a darn good monitor (not sure what manufacturer makes the LCDs for dell, but they're very bright/sharp)...
I know it sounds kinda like an unholy union having a G5 hooked up to dual 21" dell LCDs
, but the available real-estate appeals to me -- Dan =)
I'd like to second MacinDoc. The apple displays are pro LCDs for those of us who use pro apps (especially the ones with timelins: After Effects, shake, Pro Tools, Final Cut Pro, Avid...you get the idea) and work more horizontally than vertically. If you want to split hairs about maximum screen real estate, fine, but apple is targeting the users who need horizontal work spaces (there's a dirty joke in there somewhere) so don't act like they have made some huge mistake in their product design.
I always thought the Cinema Displays were 16:9, like widescreen TVs, but at least by pixel count, you are right, they are 16:10zyuzin4 said:
. That means that the 20" displays have a viewable width of 16.96" and a height of 10.6". I wonder if that causes a problem with side-by-side pages on the 20".
Out of curiosity, I checked the Dell Australia site, and couldn't find any such monitors. Do you have a link?Aciddan said:I'm Saving for a G5 and 23" display, but I started to have my doubts about the 23" given that I can buy TWO Dell 21" LCD Screens for about AU$100-200 more. These screens have a resolution of 1600x1200.
Before you ask, the Dell LCDs have the same 16ms response time, and we have the smaller 17" versions here at work - they are a darn good monitor (not sure what manufacturer makes the LCDs for dell, but they're very bright/sharp)...
I know it sounds kinda like an unholy union having a G5 hooked up to dual 21" dell LCDs
-- Dan =)
As far as having two 21" monitors instead of one 23" monitor, you will find that most makes are much more expensive for a 23" monitor than for a 20" or 21". The price difference isn't proportional to the size difference. I guess you pay that premium if you want to avoid spanning and the annoying space/bevels between displays.
Also, when comparing prices, keep in mind that the Apple 23" Cinema Display is HD compatible, for which you are also paying a premium, just as you do for an HD compatible TV. The only other HD compatible 23" display I could find was this offering from HP at $2199 U.S. (free shipping and $100 rebate in USA).
I certainly can't tell you which products will work best for you (for me, a single 20" display would be more than sufficient). I'm just trying to say that the Apple 23" monitor is competetively priced compared to similar products. If you don't need a 23" HD monitor, then the Apple 23" display probably isn't worth to you what it would cost you.
By the way, enjoy the G5 - I envy you!
In the end result apple LCD monitors are even overpriced among the LCD monitors. The EDU discount brings into about the range where they are compaitly prices for the profermice to cost ratio.
a good example is the Apple 17in 600 bucks. I paid 500 for the exact same monitor exapted for instead of it having the apple badge on it. It is a LG monitor. All the apple monitor 17 monitor is a rebadge LG monitor. LG makes the screen. I just have a brighter back light than apple one so it almost to the point of being better.
a good example is the Apple 17in 600 bucks. I paid 500 for the exact same monitor exapted for instead of it having the apple badge on it. It is a LG monitor. All the apple monitor 17 monitor is a rebadge LG monitor. LG makes the screen. I just have a brighter back light than apple one so it almost to the point of being better.
MacinDoc said:
It's under peripherals, then monitors, then LCD, it's the DELL 2001 FP and it's AU$1765. I can't get a link because it's all JSP & cookies, and the page reference is generic
Actually, the panel in that monitor is the same one they use in the Apple display (LG makes it I think)
I managed to dig up a reference to it at the Australian HP store, it's about AU$3100.I do see your point
Though after getting 1600x1200 at 75Hz out of my 17" CRT, I don't know if I could go lower. Though I might change my mind givent the AU$1000 difference I'm nowhere near it yet
I'll pop up a reference to my saving post - hope to update once a month on my progress... -- Dan =)
edit: modded sig