Well now that the new Apple monitors are out are they really worth the hefty price? Are the new ones nicer than the older Apple monitors? Can I get a much larger monitor from Samsung, ViewSonic, or Sony for the same price that I would pay for an Apple monitor? I was thinking about buying the new 20 inch Apple monitor but I just want to know if there are any other nice flat screen monitors out there that are larger and at the same price. I had read that Samsung has a nice monitor but I'm not surew which model it was and if it works with a PowerMac G5. Please let me know your thoughts..... I am looking for quality with a good resolution.
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 Monitors vs Samsung or Sony Monitors
- Thread starter Mac2004
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Check out Planar monitors!
I own a 17" Planar. I have not seen a better LCD image. As crisp as a Mac. Planar has a very affordable, very nice 20".
Planar cut their teeth on on hi-res medical imaging monitors. If it's good enough for the radiologists, it's good enough for me.
Planar is available from MonitorsDirect.com. Great selection, service and return policy. Many other brands as well.
I own a 17" Planar. I have not seen a better LCD image. As crisp as a Mac. Planar has a very affordable, very nice 20".
Planar cut their teeth on on hi-res medical imaging monitors. If it's good enough for the radiologists, it's good enough for me.
Planar is available from MonitorsDirect.com. Great selection, service and return policy. Many other brands as well.
Samsung
While the Apple models are sweet, I have a nice Samsung with a thin black bevel that was about $660 new. I liked it a lot better than the Apple 17" - though it drives the same pixels, it's a larger screen which means it's easier to read. People focus too much on what a monitor can display compared to what is useful - I have a Toshiba 15" laptop with a 1600 x 1400 pixel screen that's wonderful for putting lots of palettes on a screen but is MURDER to use for reading text.
The Samsung 19" is 1280 x 1024, smaller than the Apple 20", but if you got two of them you'd have much more real estate than the 20" for the same price.
It's now a discontinued model (since I bought it in April - that's technology!) but have been quite pleased. I hear there are some new Samsung model's being rolled out, are you might check into these.
As for the G5, the only thing is to be sure that the LCD also has DVI connections - the cheap ones you see in the paper are analog only. Apple appears to be moving to all DVI's, as that's become the industry standard. But the up side is they should be able to get new cards into the Mac lineup faster (and cheaper) in the future.
While the Apple models are sweet, I have a nice Samsung with a thin black bevel that was about $660 new. I liked it a lot better than the Apple 17" - though it drives the same pixels, it's a larger screen which means it's easier to read. People focus too much on what a monitor can display compared to what is useful - I have a Toshiba 15" laptop with a 1600 x 1400 pixel screen that's wonderful for putting lots of palettes on a screen but is MURDER to use for reading text.
The Samsung 19" is 1280 x 1024, smaller than the Apple 20", but if you got two of them you'd have much more real estate than the 20" for the same price.
It's now a discontinued model (since I bought it in April - that's technology!) but have been quite pleased. I hear there are some new Samsung model's being rolled out, are you might check into these.
As for the G5, the only thing is to be sure that the LCD also has DVI connections - the cheap ones you see in the paper are analog only. Apple appears to be moving to all DVI's, as that's become the industry standard. But the up side is they should be able to get new cards into the Mac lineup faster (and cheaper) in the future.
Duff-Man says...I use Samsung 172T screens - 2 of them. I got them just when apple announced the 20" and seriously considered going for one of those, but I decided on the Samsungs instead...17" at 1280x1024...more real estate, and where I want it too. Widescreen may be nice for movies. but on the computer I want more space vertically...if Apple made their screens pivot I'd buy them in a minute.
Monitors are somewhat subjective...you should really have a good look at what you are thinking of buying before opening the wallet. and as you know I am sure, cheaper is cheaper usually for a reason.....oh yeah!
Monitors are somewhat subjective...you should really have a good look at what you are thinking of buying before opening the wallet. and as you know I am sure, cheaper is cheaper usually for a reason.....oh yeah!
Dell UltraSharp 1703FP, and others?
How does the Dell UltraSharp 1703FP compare to, say, the Samsung 172T? Or the new Apple Cinema Displays?
A friend recommended the 19" version of the 1703FP instead of the 20" CD. Dell's currently is about $611. The lowest I can get the 20" CD for is $1169. I'll also have my 15" PB opened up to use the display area, even when I'm working in "desktop"mode.
The Dell doesn't look as cool as the 20" CD, and the 20" CD will complement my 15" PB, better, naturally.
What do you think - to go w/ the 20" CD, or the 19" or 17" Dells? The 17" is running about $476 right now. Even getting 2 of those and putting 'em side by side will cost less than the 20" CD - but might not look as pleasing.
Oh yeah, my friend also said the Dell's are made by Samsung, anyway.
How does the Dell UltraSharp 1703FP compare to, say, the Samsung 172T? Or the new Apple Cinema Displays?
A friend recommended the 19" version of the 1703FP instead of the 20" CD. Dell's currently is about $611. The lowest I can get the 20" CD for is $1169. I'll also have my 15" PB opened up to use the display area, even when I'm working in "desktop"mode.
The Dell doesn't look as cool as the 20" CD, and the 20" CD will complement my 15" PB, better, naturally.
What do you think - to go w/ the 20" CD, or the 19" or 17" Dells? The 17" is running about $476 right now. Even getting 2 of those and putting 'em side by side will cost less than the 20" CD - but might not look as pleasing.
Oh yeah, my friend also said the Dell's are made by Samsung, anyway.
Apple's monitors are samsung arent they?
As for sony, well, they aren't as good (LCD) at least if you use
VGA instead of DVI.
And most of apple's monitors are wide screen wich accounts for thier higher price (perhaps not the 17 inch), that and thier built in Firewire + USB2 hubs, that alone makes it worth it to me...
As for sony, well, they aren't as good (LCD) at least if you use
VGA instead of DVI.
And most of apple's monitors are wide screen wich accounts for thier higher price (perhaps not the 17 inch), that and thier built in Firewire + USB2 hubs, that alone makes it worth it to me...
Fukui said:
Apple's contrast ratio is 400:1, many Samsungs are 800:1 (the higher the better).
Apple's are also (aside from the 17") all letterbox, which means you have less space on your screen per diagonal inch (but for watching movies in letterbox it's more efficient).
I had the old 23" for like 2 moths and loved it. Yesterday I traded it in at my local apple retailer for the new 23" Alu model. I have to say that the new model is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the old model. The response time, contrast ratio, and brightness are all noticably better, expecially when you compare it to the old 23" side to side. Plus, the physical size of the monitor is much smaller without all that crazy 2" plastic bezel all the way around it.
For me, the wide screen format it key when working in FCP. I love the ability to have a really long timeline not being cut in half by monitor bezel gaps, it minimizes the need to zoom in and out. But, like is has been said here, monitors are very subjective, and what works for some people might not work for others.
As for the quality of the apple displays, they are top notch, at least the new 23" is (I assume the 20" and 30" are comporable).
Good luck shopping.
For me, the wide screen format it key when working in FCP. I love the ability to have a really long timeline not being cut in half by monitor bezel gaps, it minimizes the need to zoom in and out. But, like is has been said here, monitors are very subjective, and what works for some people might not work for others.
As for the quality of the apple displays, they are top notch, at least the new 23" is (I assume the 20" and 30" are comporable).
Good luck shopping.
Does apect/ratio matter for mainly reading documents and surfing the 'net?
Good points so far.
At first, I didn't like the widescreen aspects of the bigger Apple displays, but then before long, I think I switched and prefer them to the more "squarish" aspects of most non-Apple LCD monitors.
I will use my computer mostly for surfing the 'net, working on a few documents or spreadsheets, and some chatting. Do you think the widescreen aspect is better for this, or the squarish one, or it depends? I think having 2-3 documents lined up parallel to each other, w/o too much wasted display space above them or below them, is quite nice.
Then again, there is also the better looks and decor-matching of the Apple displays.
Do you think all that is worth the extra $500-600 over getting say the 19" Dell UltraSharp 1901FP , which has a contrast ratio of 600:1 vs. Apple's 400:1? Dell's is about $611.
I don't know how much extra it's worth paying for a monitor that looks nicer - keep in mind that it might sit on your desk for 3+ years.
Also, a bummer that I can't see the Dell with my own eyes before making up my mind.
Good points so far.
At first, I didn't like the widescreen aspects of the bigger Apple displays, but then before long, I think I switched and prefer them to the more "squarish" aspects of most non-Apple LCD monitors.
I will use my computer mostly for surfing the 'net, working on a few documents or spreadsheets, and some chatting. Do you think the widescreen aspect is better for this, or the squarish one, or it depends? I think having 2-3 documents lined up parallel to each other, w/o too much wasted display space above them or below them, is quite nice.
Then again, there is also the better looks and decor-matching of the Apple displays.
Do you think all that is worth the extra $500-600 over getting say the 19" Dell UltraSharp 1901FP , which has a contrast ratio of 600:1
vs. Apple's 400:1? Dell's is about $611.I don't know how much extra it's worth paying for a monitor that looks nicer - keep in mind that it might sit on your desk for 3+ years.
Also, a bummer that I can't see the Dell with my own eyes before making up my mind.
Well, points going for the apple monitor:DazedNConfusedX said:Good points so far.
At first, I didn't like the widescreen aspects of the bigger Apple displays, but then before long, I think I switched and prefer them to the more "squarish" aspects of most non-Apple LCD monitors.
I will use my computer mostly for surfing the 'net, working on a few documents or spreadsheets, and some chatting. Do you think the widescreen aspect is better for this, or the squarish one, or it depends? I think having 2-3 documents lined up parallel to each other, w/o too much wasted display space above them or below them, is quite nice.
Then again, there is also the better looks and decor-matching of the Apple displays.
Do you think all that is worth the extra $500-600 over getting say the 19" Dell UltraSharp 1901FP , which has a contrast ratio of 600:1
I don't know how much extra it's worth paying for a monitor that looks nicer - keep in mind that it might sit on your desk for 3+ years.
Also, a bummer that I can't see the Dell with my own eyes before making up my mind.
Built in USB + Firewire (your monitor can be farther from the CPU with only one cord)
Widescreen (if you like it, it would be great for excel/movies)
Beatutiful
Points against:
Higher price until you get to the very top.
Less vertical space (so in word you'll see less of a long page, but more of a wide one)
I think its not too hard. If you don't care too much about cords and matching style, then others are better. If you like widescreen and built in USB+FW hub, then the apple is a good option...
Duff-Man said:
I will say that as a new owner of the eMac, I never thought that the 1280x1024 made that much of a difference compared to my PB 12" at 1024x768. But it does IMO.