Best Display? Apple or Dell

[7778818405]

Despite your arrogant refusal that the Samsung TV has NO similarities with an ACD monitor. I and I'm sure many others will conclude it does indeed have similarities, enough similarities to be price compared in-fact. Mainly it's quite obviously a flat panel display that can be used as a monitor if needed, plus it's classed as a high end consumer electronic device. What more do you require sir for a rough price comparison?

I certainly wouldn't concur with your assessment, they are two different products for doing two different things. I think you need to learn a little more about monitor and television technology before getting yourself "up tight" about this. Just chill-out a little.

How about a Dell Ultrasharp 2407WFP 24" widescreen LCD Flat for £566.64. There you actually gain an inch and save £200 compared with the closest ACD. Is that a better comparison? I don't want to buy Dell, as I support Apple and love the design of the ACD.

That is a better comparison, at least they are aimed at the same market. You might get an "extra" inch, but there is no increase in resolution, so if anything, the "extra" inch of the Dell is a bad thing, as it takes away from the sharpness. The main reason why that screen is cheaper is because of the technology behind it, it is much worse than the Apple. For a professional or even an amateur that has even the smallest concerns about color accuracy across a viewing angle, the Dell is virtually worthless.

But there's no way a 23" ACD is worth what they are asking.

It is worth every penny to some users and many would pay more and have paid more. The technology is superior to the 24 inch Dell and that is why people pay the money.

No need to back-up a misinformed argument with juvenility.

 

[crashlock]

I certainly wouldn't concur with your assessment, they are two different products for doing two different things. I think you need to learn a little more about monitor and television technology before getting yourself "up tight" about this. Just chill-out a little.

Are you joking? How can you possibly be arguing the toss over this?
Both products are made in an asian factory, by similar manufacturers, with similar components and built to a similar standard. That's fact. That's enough to do a basic price comparison. I'm not here to claim that a TV is a Monitor or compare them on performance. They are the same neck of the woods. You can't deny that. If you do i'd love to see you hold up an ACD and a Samsung TV to the average person and ask them if they thought they were two completely different products.

That is a better comparison, at least they are aimed at the same market. You might get an "extra" inch, but there is no increase in resolution, so if anything, the "extra" inch of the Dell is a bad thing, as it takes away from the sharpness. The main reason why that screen is cheaper is because of the technology behind it, it is much worse than the Apple. For a professional or even an amateur that has even the smallest concerns about color accuracy across a viewing angle, the Dell is virtually worthless.

The difference in performance is totally out of proportion to the amount of money involved. You even get 3 years warranty with the Dell included and more input choices.

It is worth every penny to some users and many would pay more and have paid more. The technology is superior to the 24 inch Dell and that is why people pay the money.

I wouldn't say it's worth every penny to some users. More like some users will pay whatever Apple wants, as some users earn too much money. If your referring to businesses like a graphics studio for example. Then the price isn't bared by the designers/techs working for the studio. The studio pays. As ACD's are a means for income for professional users. Professionals will always pay more for equipment for obvious reasons. My point is that to most individuals that buy their own equipment £780 is a lot of money for a 23" screen.

Prices should be: 20" = £450 | 23" = £600 | + AppleCare 3 year warranty included on all ACD's

 

[7778818405]

Are you joking? How can you possibly be arguing the toss over this?
Both products are made in an asian factory, by similar manufacturers, with similar components and built to a similar standard. That's fact. That's enough to do a basic price comparison. I'm not here to claim that a TV is a Monitor or compare them on performance. They are the same neck of the woods. You can't deny that. If you do i'd love to see you hold up an ACD and a Samsung TV to the average person and ask them if they thought they were two completely different products.

Oh, for goodness sakes. How petty. They are both the displays, of course they are. One is for watching video on and the other is for computational use, they have completely different specs and comply with different standards. Your argument over this is completely bogus and uninformed.

I wouldn't say it's worth every penny to some users.

Absolutely and unequivocally wrong. This wasn't my opinion, this was fact. It is based on years of experience. Many people have to buy these monitors to meet standards that the 24" Dell and a television just don't meet. Please, do some more research, because your reasoning is suspect.

As ACD's are a means for income for professional users. Professionals will always pay more for equipment for obvious reasons.

Yes, it is obvious, because it is better and other equipment just doesn't match up.

My point is that to most individuals that buy their own equipment £780 is a lot of money for a 23" screen.

It depends on the situation, I am an individual who buys my own equipment, a monitor that is consistent across the full width or the screen that meets SWOP certification is vital to me and millions (yes, millions) of other users, businesses and creative pro's.

Prices should be: 20" = £450 | 23" = £600 | + AppleCare 3 year warranty included on all ACD's

How can you possibly dictate the price of a companies monitors without knowing how much they cost to build, the tax charged, the import duties etc etc etc.

You need to do some homework if you think it is acceptable to compare high end monitors with televisions. I am not suggesting that Apple are better than Dell in every case, some of the monitors are acceptable. The products and situations you have presented are wide of the mark.

 

[crashlock]

The most expensive part of a large McDonalds Coke is the cup which is 11p. I'm under no illusions that Apple make a small profit on anything it sells.

 

[7778818405]

The most expensive part of a large McDonalds Coke is the cup which is 11p. I'm under no illusions that Apple make a small profit on anything it sells.

Nor am I, that was never what your point was though. What do you expect from them? to sell at a loss because you think they should?

It seems like you have as much to learn about business as you do about monitor technology. Look, why don't you ask questions instead of blindly making assumptions on what is what, you seem smarter than you are letting on by your posts, so no need to throw all sorts of remarks around.

 

[crashlock]

Nor am I, that was never what your point was though. What do you expect from them? to sell at a loss because you think they should?

It seems like you have as much to learn about business as you do about monitor technology. Look, why don't you ask questions instead of blindly making assumptions on what is what, you seem smarter than you are letting on by your posts, so no need to throw all sorts of remarks around.

I don't expect them to sell at a loss. In-fact I'd hate them to sell at a loss. I'm a big fan of Apple and really admire the company and it's ethics. I buy Apple because I know they make and design top quality equipment with the same devotion as an artist creating a painting. You just really don't understand my motive for comparing it to a Samsung TV. It has nothing to do with the "monitor technology". It's down to a fair price for an electronic display within the marketplace. Even if Apple sold their 23" for £600 (considering - 17.5%VAT = £495) I bet it would still make a healthy profit. Anyway, hell I'd be over the moon if it was £650. My beef is a high price plus only 1 years warranty.

I've worked damn hard for my money so I expect to get what I pay for. From my experience people who have plenty of money tend to not question the price of things. I'm curious 7778818405 are you the wealthy type? Have you ever done manual work? I ask as your postings are rather suspect.

 

[7778818405]

I've worked damn hard for my money so I expect to get what I pay for. From my experience people who have plenty of money tend to not question the price of things. I'm curious 7778818405 are you the wealthy type? Have you ever done manual work? I ask as your postings are rather suspect.

I find this very offensive. You need to do some research about what you re paying for and why things are the price they are, it is clear that you have no concept.

I worked an 80 hour week for less that £100 when I was 16 years old for years, so the answer to your question, yes I have done manual work and I do know the value of money. I also know you get what you pay for, something that seems to escape you.

A little more research would tell you that you get more than a 2 year warranty in the EU.

I am not carrying on this "argument" anymore, you are welcome to say what you like, it doesn't make it true though.

 

[Pressure]

I shouldn't have to know.. Nor do I need to. Charging close to £800 for a 23" LCD monitor is extreme. It's doesn't take much knowledge in "monitor economics" to understand that. Oh wait you live in London so you probably earn that in a day, so no wonder you are "impatient" with my plebeian issues.

Despite your arrogant refusal that the Samsung TV has NO similarities with an ACD monitor. I and I'm sure many others will conclude it does indeed have similarities, enough similarities to be price compared in-fact. Mainly it's quite obviously a flat panel display that can be used as a monitor if needed, plus it's classed as a high end consumer electronic device. What more do you require sir for a rough price comparison?
How about a Dell Ultrasharp 2407WFP 24" widescreen LCD Flat for £566.64. There you actually gain an inch and save £200 compared with the closest ACD. Is that a better comparison? I don't want to buy Dell, as I support Apple and love the design of the ACD. But there's no way a 23" ACD is worth what they are asking.

They both can display an image on their screen and that is where the similarities end.

The Apple Cinema Display is a professional monitor calibrated to show true color reproduction. It isn't a consumer electronic device, as your bargain HD TV is.

The Apple Cinema Display uses a screen with much larger pixel density compared to that HD TV. It has a higher resolution and has an S-IPS panel.

The 24" Dell screen uses a PVA panel, which is inferior to the S-IPS panel used in the Apple Cinema Display.

I know you want to reflect that you have more sense than money but that is clearly not the case here.

You don't need to be a genius to know that $100.000 is more than $1.000 but what you really need to focus on is why. Why is the other unit more expensive than the other? Why is this HD TV cheaper than the Apple Cinema Display?

Which are produced in greater numbers? The consumer product or the professional product? Rhetorical question of course...

 

[crashlock]

I find this very offensive. You need to do some research about what you re paying for and why things are the price they are, it is clear that you have no concept.

Wake up. Slightly better response times, slightly better colour handling etc etc, does not justify an increase of £200. I seem to remember The Dell got the Mac User Editors Choice award over the ACD, reason being the ACD couldn't justify the price difference. The Mac User Labs winner was the NEC I think.

I will be buying a 20" ACD anyway as that's all I can afford. I think £500 is plenty for a display.

Maybe I should just leave it on that note.

 

[crashlock]

You don't need to be a genius to know that $100.000 is more than $1.000 but what you really need to focus on is why. Why is the other unit more expensive than the other? Why is this HD TV cheaper than the Apple Cinema Display?

I completely agree the the ACD is better. As I am going to buy an ACD! That's not what i'm arguing. I'm saying that it's simply not a fair price.

You would think the Samsung TV is manufactured in greater numbers that an ACD. But That Samsung model has only been out 1 year in comparison to the ACD which has been out for years now. So in actual manufactured numbers there probably not as different as you'd expect.

 

[CEAbiscuit]

http://www.samsung.com/Products/Monitor/LCD_Digital/LS24BRBABXAA.asp?page=Specifications

It's another PVA display. Samsung makes nice displays but I'd prefer to avoid PVA and stick with IPS, they're just better in the long run.

Wow. I wish I saw this when I bought my Dell a year ago. Anybody want to buy a slightly useed del 2405 for $800?

 

[Pressure]

I completely agree the the ACD is better. As I am going to buy an ACD! That's not what i'm arguing. I'm saying that it's simply not a fair price.

You would think the Samsung TV is manufactured in greater numbers that an ACD. But That Samsung model has only been out 1 year in comparison to the ACD which has been out for years now. So in actual manufactured numbers there probably not as different as you'd expect.

Just because the total number of units produced over time is larger for one unit over the other it doesn't affect prices as such.

The main contributing difference comes from how many you produce at any given time. The unit cost is heavily reduced the more you produce at the same time.

The yield is much higher on 1366x768 pixel density panels compared to 1920x1200 pixel density panels. The higher the density of a certain panel, there bigger the chance for defects, as dead pixels etc.

Samsung also produces most, if not all, of the needed components to build their own products. Apple, on the other hand, have to buy from a contractor and pay wages for the assembly line (Quanta or whoever assembles the Apple Cinema Displays).

 

[skipsandwichdx]

I've carefully examined a 20" ViewSonic VX2025WM (PVA panel) next to my Dell 2007WFP (IPS), and the difference is so barely noticeable it's not even worth arguing over.

Dells seem to have slightly crappier backlight distribution than Apple displays and they're certainly not as aesthetically pleasing. To me, the price difference, adjustability, and connectivity on the Dell were more important than a very even backlight and an aluminum shell. But the actual panels are incredibly similar.

 

[7778818405]

I But the actual panels are incredibly similar.

Depending on which model you get they can be very different.

 

[skipsandwichdx]

I'm saying (in my experience), PVA (M-PVA, or whatever) is not nearly as inferior to IPS as it's being made out to be.

Dell wouldn't have chosen PVA just for the 24" model if it is magnitudes "worse" than the IPS panel used in their 20" and 30" displays.

 

[7778818405]

I'm saying (in my experience), PVA (M-PVA, or whatever) is not nearly as inferior to IPS as it's being made out to be.

Dell wouldn't have chosen PVA just for the 24" model if it is magnitudes "worse" than the IPS panel used in their 20" and 30" displays.

And I'm saying from many years of professional use and experience that they are.

So guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[crashlock]

And I'm saying from many years of professional use and experience that they are.

So guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

You could be a postman for all we know.

 

[suneohair]

Wow this thread is ridiculous.

Why the heck would you try to compare a LCD TV to a computer LCD?

20" Apple vs 24" Dell. Answer is obivious? Not quite. To a professional and I stress PROFESSIONAL the 20" may be the better choice.

Personally I choose the 23" ACD over the 24" Dell, and yes I owned the Dell and it was piece. I actually kept it and compared it to the ACD. No contest.

The 24" Dell still has the gradient banding issue. So if you are working in photoshop and creating images it looks like garbage. You have to tweak the Dell forever to get it right, if you ever get it right.

If you don't require consistency get the Dell. End of story.

 

[clintob]

Why does everyone insist on pulling this "it's the same size, but it's chaper" crap?

I'm sorry, but you need to understand that while at TIMES you pay a LITTLE bit more for a name brand, at the end of the day when it comes to electronic equipment, and in particularly sensitive computers/monitors, you absolutely positively get what you pay for.

There's a reason Apple's displays are more expensive than most. They have much wider viewing angles, the color consistency is far more reliable, much less burn-in and banding issues, stronger backlight, and none of that even touches the aesthetic issues.

So it boils down to dollars - if you can afford the best, buy the best. If you can't afford the best, then buy something cheaper. But don't ever think that something cheaper is going to be better - there's a reason it's cheaper. Even if the specs say it's similar or the same, they cut costs somewhere along the line - be it with assembly, casing, parts, or something else. In the end, you're getting an inferior product. That said, for 90% of users, the differences in the products is not going to be particularly noticeable. For those of us who do professional image editing, layout work, and other color-sensitive work, having a display that we can rely on to be spot-on perfect is very important, and in that department Apple wins hands down.

 

[Veritas&Equitas]

For those of us who do professional image editing, layout work, and other color-sensitive work, having a display that we can rely on to be spot-on perfect is very important, and in that department Apple wins hands down.

Inaccurate on so many levels. I will just say that, without getting into the nitty-gritty track record b/c this thread already has enough b!tching/banter.

 

[clintob]

Inaccurate on so many levels. I will just say that, without getting into the nitty-gritty track record b/c this thread already has enough b!tching/banter.

Everyone has their particular allegiance to one line/brand or another, for any number of reasons. But to say that my quoting of Apple as an industry leader in widescreen professional displays is "inaccurate", I'd LOVE to see your proof for that. Their technical specs are as high if not higher than virtually every display manufacturer in the country, they are aesthetically more attractive than anything out there (although of course this is subjective), but most importantly, a properly calibrated Cinema Display will give you perfect results in any calibrated workflow. There is little dispute there.

Yes, I know, everyone loves to piss and moan about the very small (and it is just that) percentage of the 23" CDs that had a color cast issue, but that was a production issue that was rapidly corrected and certainly not indicative of the line as a whole.

 

[7778818405]

Wow this thread is ridiculous.

Why the heck would you try to compare a LCD TV to a computer LCD?

Why does everyone insist on pulling this "it's the same size, but it's chaper" crap?

I'm sorry, but you need to understand that while at TIMES you pay a LITTLE bit more for a name brand, at the end of the day when it comes to electronic equipment, and in particularly sensitive computers/monitors, you absolutely positively get what you pay for.

There's a reason Apple's displays are more expensive than most. They have much wider viewing angles, the color consistency is far more reliable, much less burn-in and banding issues, stronger backlight, and none of that even touches the aesthetic issues.

So it boils down to dollars - if you can afford the best, buy the best. If you can't afford the best, then buy something cheaper. But don't ever think that something cheaper is going to be better - there's a reason it's cheaper. Even if the specs say it's similar or the same, they cut costs somewhere along the line - be it with assembly, casing, parts, or something else. In the end, you're getting an inferior product. That said, for 90% of users, the differences in the products is not going to be particularly noticeable. For those of us who do professional image editing, layout work, and other color-sensitive work, having a display that we can rely on to be spot-on perfect is very important, and in that department Apple wins hands down.

Finally, people that have a clue what they are talking about.

 

[asencif]

Upon looking at a 20 inch ACD, I noticed that the colors overall look more vibrant and rich. I feel it looks a lot better than even the iMac 20inch screen as the brightness was more even looking, however I don't know if they are the same. I am debating between the 23 inch ACD, 24 inch Dell, and now the 20 inch.

The only thing that keeps me considering the Dell is the Price and extra inputs. Aside from that the 23 inch ACD seems like the winner, but stretches the budget which now has me leaning towards the 20 ACD.

 

[awhitaker]

Before I knew the details, i asked myself why not use an HDTV rather than a monitor. The reasons are that the ACD and Dell and other monitors actually have better resolution or more pixels than typical HDTV's. HDTV's are usually 1080i and 720p whereas LCD Computer Panels are usually higher at 1080p. Some of the top end plasma and lcd HDTV's now have 1080p but when I say top-end, read $5,000plus. They may seem the same to a consumer but when one takes a closer look at the resolution numbers, one soon realizes that computer LCD panels have more pixels and better resolution, color, etc. I have a Dell LCD HDTV at home that does have hookups for a computer but the picture is nowhere near as clear and sharp as a Dell LCD computer monitor.

 

[richpjr]

Everyone has their particular allegiance to one line/brand or another, for any number of reasons. But to say that my quoting of Apple as an industry leader in widescreen professional displays is "inaccurate", I'd LOVE to see your proof for that.

How do you prove, or disprove, an opinion? I think for most people it boils down to the Dell is a good monitor for a great price. The ACD is a very good monitor that costs more. Some people don't feel the difference in performance warrants the difference in price. Some do. But if I was looking for the industry leading widescreen professional display I'd be looking at Eizo, not Apple. Since I am not a professional, but merely a photography hobbyist, I'm not looking at the Eizo, but at the 2407 and 23" ACD. I'm leaning towards the ACD to go with my new Mac Pro, but may wait a bit and see how the new NEC monitor coming out looks.