I'm looking to get a Cinema display down the road, but I'm not sure which model to get. I prefer the look of the polycarbonate, but I'm not sure if looks are worth it in this case. The biggest question to me is how low the polycarbonate sits to the ground versus the aluminum. Does anyone have both styles of 20" cinema and could provide a picture of them? Any notable differences in image quality/lifespan? I am aware of the need for an ADC - DVI brick, which I believe I can get easily locally.
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.
Cinema Displays polycarbonate versus aluminum
- Thread starter retta283
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 23" alu is known for quality issues (pink tint being one of them) so I'd be wary of those. No such issues on my three 23" polys 😍
I worked with the aluminum version for a few years (20 inch). My former boss bought that in 2005 and it was still working when the business was sold in late 2018. I don't recall any issues with it.
When I got my Quicksilver I wanted the acrylic displays (to match the time period of the QS). The one major thing I dislike about them is the kickstand in the back. If you have them on a flat surface that provides resistance then the viewing angle can be adjusted a bit. But generally the screen is tilted up. I have my main CD sitting on glass. It's shoved up against the wall so it's as vertical as I can get it without it falling forward. But because glass provides no resistance I've got a U-clamp tightened down in front of one of the legs (so it can't slide forward).
My other two acrylic displays are also shoved against something so they are mostly vertical. I'm guessing Apple thought most people would be looking down at these displays, but I don't use them this way and if they were allowed to be fully extended they'd take up a huge amount of space. Eventually, things will get moved and I've got a new idea which is to shove a block of wood under the back leg, forcing the tilt forward.
Other than this irritation, I find the screens to be good. My 20" CD is my main display and I'm doing design work for my job using it. I don't really see any difference between it and the screen on my work issued MBP.
That MBP is a retina one isn't it? As the owner of 20" and 23" acrylic ACDs as well as a retina MBP, I can say there's a huge difference between the ACDs and the MBP due to the higher pixel density and the LED backlight alone - a retina display is simply in a class of its own. With that being said, the ACDs aren't bad - far from that.
This one actually broke off on one of my ACDs during transit, so I screwed the kickstand directly onto the back of the housing, getting rid of the spring mechanism and allowing the display to be positioned almost vertically if desired. I glued a piece of sandpaper to the foot so it doesn't slide around on the desk.
Yes, it's a 2015 MBP. The screen on it is brighter of course than my Cinema Display and I'm sure that if I was doing precision work I'd notice a big difference. That said, when actually at work, the main screen of the MBP is used for Finder windows and all the work is done on two external displays - which aren't Retina.That MBP is a retina one isn't it? As the owner of 20" and 23" acrylic ACDs as well as a retina MBP, I can say there's a huge difference between the ACDs and the MBP due to the higher pixel density and the LED backlight alone - a retina display is simply in a class of its own. With that being said, the ACDs aren't bad - far from that.
I'm designing golf score cards and yardage books. Just like golf itself, it's mainly a guessing game. As long as I get things in the general area we're good.
There are little clear rubber fee that fit into the bottom. Those are supposed to stop the display from slipping. But they often pop out on mine. One of these days I'm going to use superglue. I have them in there right now, but obviously they don't do the job.
Got my 23" Aluminum Cinema Display new in 2006 (IIRC) along with my G5. The G5 died many years ago, but the Cinema Display has been in constant daily usage connected to a bunch of different computers ever since then. Still looks surprisingly good, never any "quality issues" with mine. Finally stopped using it two months ago when I bought a new Mini and a 32" screen.
As they say, "your mileage may vary" but mine has been terrific. There are several recent threads in the Mini forum where others are still using 23" Cinema Displays too.
I see - the problem is once you do get used to retina displays you want all your external screens to be high-PPI too.
I don't even know whether these thingies are still there on mine, LOL.
I didn't mean to say they all have problems. Just that it's a thing to consider and closely look at.
Pink tinting on new Apple LCD displays (#2): more reports; calibration issues; bad video cards
Pink tinting on new Apple LCD displays (#2): more reports; calibration issues; bad video cards
www.cnet.com
Yeah, I'm sure that once I finally get a hold of some modern displays things will change. The money to pursue that at the moment isn't there though.
I do like the fact that the MBP can put much more info in a smaller space, but it's still a 15" screen. My preference is screen size versus pixel density and so far what the displays I current use provide is good enough.
Eventually, it won't be.
If you feel under the legs and find a rectangular indentation then they are gone. The feet go into that recessed cavity.
From my reading on Aluminum 23"s, they made a silent upgrade to them in 2006 which increased brightness and contrast. These 2006-08 23"s are sought-after and hard to determine from pictures, but they are supposedly free from the pink/green issues of the earlier models.
Of course, and I certainly didn't think you meant to say that they all had problems. That's an interesting article from 2009, thanks for posting. But note what it says:
"the vast majority of these reports have been positive" and "we've also received a few reports confirming this problem"
Anyway, it seems that the OP is interested in the 20" model. I considered that back when I got my 23" but felt the 1050x1680 resolution was too limited (the 23" is 1920x1200).
FWIW, I bought mine to replace the 21" Studio Display originally purchased with my PowerMac G3. Now *that* was a real monitor! 😂 Couldn't believe how much it weighed. Was living in a log cabin with the old, steep hewn-log stairs up to my studio. Nearly killed myself getting it up there. Then, within a year, it died and had to be sent to Apple for repair under warranty. When it came back, the invoice called it a "Moby Display", LOL. The UPS driver who delivered it needed my help to get it out of the truck. Here it is, connected to one of my G4's in 2003. Those were the days....
Apple Studio Display was easy on the eyes, hard on the back
Have you lifted a 77-pound monitor lately? It's heavy. But once Christopher Phin got this eBay find on his desk, he found CRT bliss.
www.macworld.com
I bought my acrylic 20" ACD in early 2003 right after the announcement. As much as I wanted a 23", I couldn't afford it. And 1680x1050 was a nice upgrade over my 17" CRT at 1152x864.
If I could get a polycarbonate 23" Cinema, I definitely would. 20" is a bit easier to get for me though, and the aluminum 20" is also cheaper and more reliable. For me, the jump from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200 is noticeable, but not game-changing. Being able to edit 1080p is one big advantage, though.Of course, and I certainly didn't think you meant to say that they all had problems. That's an interesting article from 2009, thanks for posting. But note what it says:
"the vast majority of these reports have been positive" and "we've also received a few reports confirming this problem"
Anyway, it seems that the OP is interested in the 20" model. I considered that back when I got my 23" but felt the 1050x1680 resolution was too limited (the 23" is 1920x1200).
FWIW, I bought mine to replace the 21" Studio Display originally purchased with my PowerMac G3. Now *that* was a real monitor! 😂 Couldn't believe how much it weighed. Was living in a log cabin with the old, steep hewn-log stairs up to my studio. Nearly killed myself getting it up there. Then, within a year, it died and had to be sent to Apple for repair under warranty. When it came back, the invoice called it a "Moby Display", LOL. The UPS driver who delivered it needed my help to get it out of the truck. Here it is, connected to one of my G4's in 2003. Those were the days....
View attachment 949915
Apple Studio Display was easy on the eyes, hard on the back
Have you lifted a 77-pound monitor lately? It's heavy. But once Christopher Phin got this eBay find on his desk, he found CRT bliss.
I am able to buy a 20" aluminum now, and possibly could buy a 20" polycarbonate if I can talk his price down a bit. Don't want to spend a lot more on a polycarbonate, when it really only is an aesthetic difference. I also worry that the display might sit too low for me to use it comfortably, so I may need to raise it.
This auction is for a 22" ACD. I've posted it once or twice as this particular ACD is a late model with the buttons underneath the display. Since my last mention it's dropped in price by about $100.
MODS: THE AUCTION LINKED ABOVE IS NOT MINE!!!!
This is the short-lived original 22" with DVI - don't think I've ever seen one.
I've got a 22" ACD (with ADC). It's still a nice piece of design. The pixel density is a little low by modern standards (1600x1024), and it could be brighter, but it's useable enough. The polycarbonate casing is very bulky, so not ideal for a multi-monitor setup. The foot is fine on mine, but as others have mentioned seems to have a design flaw (the hinge it connects to is weak). In typical Apple fashion, the easel design is visually simple but not especially ergonomic, with no height adjustment and an inability to go properly vertical. All polycarbonate displays will be that much older than their aluminium replacements, though I admit a 23" DVI poly could be pretty sweet.