Can MacBook drive 30" Cinema?

karlfranz

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 24, 2006
151
1
Melbourne
I didn't think the Macbook was capable of driving the large 30" Cinema Display, but I saw the following text at the bottom of the Displays page in the Apple website:

"The 30-inch Apple Cinema Display is supported by all models of the Mac Book Pro and MacBook (with optional adapter) computers and by the 17-inch PowerBook G4 and the 1.67GHz 15-inch PowerBook G4 with 128MB of graphics memory and dual-link DVI functionality."

Here is the link:

http://www.apple.com/displays/

Is this a typo?
 

eva01

macrumors 601
Feb 22, 2005
4,714
0
Gah! Plymouth
Yes i believe what they mean is "all models of the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro (with optional adapters)"

Seeing as Mac Book Pro is spaced out in the first part of the sentence and combined in the second part means that the first is a typo i believe. Especially since the integrated graphics does not have that capability i am pretty sure
 

PaulinMaryland

macrumors regular
May 17, 2006
231
0
Maryland, USA
Or they meant that the MacBook can drive the 30, but not at its full 2560 x 1600 resolution. Because it can't, and as far as I know, no adapter can allow it to do so, although Matrox makes a nifty external adapter that allows PCs to drive three 1280 x 1024 displays.
 

Josias

macrumors 68000
Mar 10, 2006
1,908
1
"A Desktop for Your Laptop:
Bring your MacBook Pro home to a big, bright Apple Cinema Display for the perfect combination of portability and presence. All MacBook and MacBook Pro models connect to the 23-inch Apple Cinema HD Display or 20-inch Apple Cinema Display. And with dual-link DVI support and up to 256MB of graphics memory, every MacBook Pro also supports the massive 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Display, giving your portable computer a dramatic desktop canvas.";)
 

Josias

macrumors 68000
Mar 10, 2006
1,908
1
nosen said:
Hmm, at the bottom of this page is says N/A for the 30"

http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html

Interesting.... :confused:
N/A is an abbreviation of "No available". The answer to whether the MB can drive a 2560x1600 display, is available, and is no. Therefore, it is not gramatically correct to write it, but anyhoo, the answer is ever so clear, and everyvody knows it: No, the MB can't drive the 30" ACD or the 3007FPW;)

So, not interesting....
 

timnosenzo

macrumors 6502a
Jun 21, 2004
888
0
ct, us
Yeah, I know what N/A stands for, chief. Fact is, the text at the bottom of the page the OP referred to must be a typo, because as stated elsewhere on the site, the MacBook cannot drive a 30" display. :rolleyes:
 

cjkihlbom

macrumors member
Aug 9, 2006
36
0
I just got my 30" today, but I haven't got my Mac Pro yet, so I plugged the display in to my MacBook and it works. You get 1280x800 resolution (same as MacBook's internal display) stretched to full screen.

Nice to have this option while I wait for my Mac Pro, but I definitely wouldn't buy the 30" to use exclusively with a MacBook.
 

tipdrill407

macrumors 6502
May 26, 2006
373
0
The Macbook can in fact drive a 30 inch ACD, just not at it's native resolution. Everything will look blocky and blurry, or it'll be letterboxed and pillarboxed.
 

Pressure

macrumors 68040
May 30, 2006
3,992
262
Denmark
cjkihlbom said:
I just got my 30" today, but I haven't got my Mac Pro yet, so I plugged the display in to my MacBook and it works. You get 1280x800 resolution (same as MacBook's internal display) stretched to full screen.

Nice to have this option while I wait for my Mac Pro, but I definitely wouldn't buy the 30" to use exclusively with a MacBook.
Ouch, ACD 30" with 1280x800 . . . that is just painful to hear.

I should take it off you hands . . . :D
 

bpd115

macrumors 6502a
Feb 4, 2003
810
43
Pennsylvania
The 15" MBP has an issue driving the 30" display. Horizontal flickers appear on dark images occasionally.

Apple is 'aware' and 'working on a fix'. Perhaps it has something to do with the underclocking of the x1600 GPU..

If I wasn't getting a Mac Pro in April, I'd be tempted to send the 30" back.

However, it really is an amazing screen to work on.
 

Josias

macrumors 68000
Mar 10, 2006
1,908
1
Pressure said:
Ouch, ACD 30" with 1280x800 . . . that is just painful to hear.

I should take it off you hands . . . :D
I believe you could set it to 1920x1200, thus still giving you a DPI of 40-50:p

BTW nosen, you don't have to call me chief, but I don't mind if you do:D
 

cjkihlbom

macrumors member
Aug 9, 2006
36
0
Josias said:
I believe you could set it to 1920x1200, thus still giving you a DPI of 40-50:p
Nope, 1280x800 is as high as mine will go when connected to the MacBook. I don't even want to think about what DPI that is :rolleyes:
 

karlfranz

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 24, 2006
151
1
Melbourne
cjkihlbom said:
Nope, 1280x800 is as high as mine will go when connected to the MacBook. I don't even want to think about what DPI that is :rolleyes:
Weird, considering that they tout the MacBook as being able to drive the 23" CD which is 1920x1200 native.

BTW: I called Apple today about their web page and they admitted they had made an error. Let's see how long it takes for them to fix it.
 

Chundles

macrumors G4
Jul 4, 2005
11,966
375
karlfranz said:
Weird, considering that they tout the MacBook as being able to drive the 23" CD which is 1920x1200 native.

BTW: I called Apple today about their web page and they admitted they had made an error. Let's see how long it takes for them to fix it.
1920x1200 would look worse than 1280x800 on the 30" ACD.

At 1280x800, the 30" display is using 4 pixels (two across, two up) to display one "pixel" - there is no distortion or fuzziness - it's just "bigger." The pixels remain square and distinct.
 

Josias

macrumors 68000
Mar 10, 2006
1,908
1
Chundles said:
1920x1200 would look worse than 1280x800 on the 30" ACD.

At 1280x800, the 30" display is using 4 pixels (two across, two up) to display one "pixel" - there is no distortion or fuzziness - it's just "bigger." The pixels remain square and distinct.
Oh right. 1280x2=2560. 800x2=1600.:D

I must admit that 1152x720 looks kida crappy on my MB, but you can't set it to 640x400, only VGA.:(
 

karlfranz

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 24, 2006
151
1
Melbourne
Chundles said:
1920x1200 would look worse than 1280x800 on the 30" ACD.

At 1280x800, the 30" display is using 4 pixels (two across, two up) to display one "pixel" - there is no distortion or fuzziness - it's just "bigger." The pixels remain square and distinct.
That is assuming that the display scales the image as opposed to simply showing it inside a black border as some monitors do.
 

cjkihlbom

macrumors member
Aug 9, 2006
36
0
karlfranz said:
That is assuming that the display scales the image as opposed to simply showing it inside a black border as some monitors do.
As I mentioned in my post above, it is full screen (i.e. scaled).
 

BornAgainMac

macrumors 603
Feb 4, 2004
6,385
3,268
Florida Resident
I noticed some 30 inch displays at CompUSA hooked up to Powermacs with stock video cards that can't drive the resolution to the max. The quality of the display looks really bad. I expect a Mac Book can at least display something to a 30 inch.

Off Topic:
I am a little bit shocked that the original card (GeForce 6800 UT) that could drive a 30 inch display took up 2 card slots and had a very noisy fan to cool it down. The MacBook Pro and latest Powerbook both have a tiny but powerful GPU that can also drive the same display at the same resolution and both are very quiet. And games are smooth with the Mac Book Pro that I can't tell the difference.
 

Zababa

macrumors newbie
Mar 6, 2009
1
0
2.5 years later

Does somebody know how is the situation now, 2.5 years later? Can today's macbook use the the 30" cinema display with the full resolution of 2560x1600? I'd really like that. The 24" wouldn't fully satisfy my need for space.
 

Umbongo

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2006
4,931
54
England
Does somebody know how is the situation now, 2.5 years later? Can today's macbook use the the 30" cinema display with the full resolution of 2560x1600? I'd really like that. The 24" wouldn't fully satisfy my need for space.
The current Macbooks (with Mini DisplayPort) can drive a 30" 2560x1600 display. You need the Mini DislayPort to Dual-Link DVI adpater. This product has a number of issues however so you may want to read up on them first.
 

jedijoe

macrumors 6502
Oct 13, 2005
254
0
Boulder, CO
The current Macbooks (with Mini DisplayPort) can drive a 30" 2560x1600 display. You need the Mini DislayPort to Dual-Link DVI adpater. This product has a number of issues however so you may want to read up on them first.
I am currently using a MacBook (2.4Ghz/4GB) with a 30" cinema display and the mini displayport to dual-link dvi adapter.

Many people are saying the adapter is crap. I believe its a NVIDIA issue. Probably a driver issue. I've opened a bug on Apple's bug reporter. Not sure though. But it could work for hours without any problems. Then a random flicker, where the screen goes completely black for a split second and back like nothing ever happened. Also, weird rendering of content in Safari, especially relating to images on the websites. This seems to happen on specific sites and is repeatable on those sites.

Whatever the case, its not perfect, and Apple needs to address this issue.
 

TJunkers

macrumors 6502a
Aug 24, 2007
576
16
I just bought the 30 inch display yesturday and bought it specifically for my MacBook Pro (15inch unibody) and it works great! not blurred at all, no random drop of connection or anything!

Best screen ever!