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.
Display Meeting?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
#1 thing they need to alter:
Apple needs to kill the size of that bezel which frames the display. No one should have to look at more than an inch of plastic between their dual monitors. It just seems ridiculous to me that many of the cheaper LCDs sport this feature which is most important to some (such as I).
And before you say, "just get a 23" display", the space between monitors works nicely to seperate tasks/windows.
Apple needs to kill the size of that bezel which frames the display. No one should have to look at more than an inch of plastic between their dual monitors. It just seems ridiculous to me that many of the cheaper LCDs sport this feature which is most important to some (such as I).
And before you say, "just get a 23" display", the space between monitors works nicely to seperate tasks/windows.
bigger = better
its as old as time itself.
if apple wants to make a 30inch display, i can't say that i wouldn't be interested. obscene amounts of screen realestate is a beautiful thing.
its as old as time itself.
if apple wants to make a 30inch display, i can't say that i wouldn't be interested. obscene amounts of screen realestate is a beautiful thing.
I agree, the boarder around the monitor is huge, especialy when you have two next to each other. With them slightly angled and tilted, it's about 5 inches across the middle. I wish there was a realistic way to eliminate the bezel all together. Oh well
You've obviously never been to a marketing class. When I was working for BMW I had to take a 5 day class 10 hours a day. It was one of the most horribly boring things I have ever done. I stayed awake though unlike a bunch of other people. At least the food was good.
Realistically though it's easy to waste an hour and product placement and presentation not to mention inventory and other things.
Originally posted by timothyjoelwrig
I agree, the boarder around the monitor is huge, especialy when you have two next to each other. With them slightly angled and tilted, it's about 5 inches across the middle. I wish there was a realistic way to eliminate the bezel all together. Oh well
I think i got it! 34" display. Who do I need to call at Apple?
The 20" is NOT below the competition in any way, and certainly not at a similar price point. Don't forget that it was introduced much later than the other Apple LCDs and does have newer technology.
Oh, and macworld.com agrees with me: http://www.macworld.com/2003/08/features/eightflatpanelmonitors/
Monitoring Talk
Well I do remember reading a coupla days back about centrino laptops selling well and causing a lcd shortage or price-hike. Maybe the meeting was about raising prices?
I hope not.
and why are centrinos catching on? Don't they know? nevermind.
Well I do remember reading a coupla days back about centrino laptops selling well and causing a lcd shortage or price-hike. Maybe the meeting was about raising prices?
I hope not.
and why are centrinos catching on? Don't they know? nevermind.
True, the 20" is the best of the bunch, and Apple displays always seem to get good reviews from mac magazines (free lcds anyone?). The points others have made about the bezel hold true though, and i would say this alone makes them aesthetically less pleasing than say the NEC competition, while also making them impractical for multi-screen setups. BTW, although the reviews of the 20" are good, it's actual specification is not the best. And although the list prices for similar panels are often roughly equivilant, you can often get 100's of dollars off, this is less true with all apple products.
Well, you noticed that of the 8 displays tested there, the price of the 20" from Apple was not "roughly equivalent" to the competition but was actually the 2nd cheapest, didn't you? So even with rebates from resellers the other displays will not be cheaper, really.
You're right about thin bezels being a factor for multi display setups, but if you think just because of the bigger bezel the Apple 20" is in a single display setup less aesthetically pleasing than the (style-wise) very pedestrian NEC display, well... we just disagree about aesthetics.
As Apple is famously secretive about the hard facts (specifications) of their displays, where did you get to know them so precisely that you can say they're not up to those of the competition? BTW judging displays by specs sheets only is about as logical as judging computer systems by benchmarks only. Plus a lot of the times those specs sheets are really rather vague with certain numbers beeing "up to" something ("pixel refresh time up to..."). The only reasonable way to judge a display is by looking at it, have apps run on it etc. Just have a look at the Cinema 20" display. It's gorgeous.
Firstly, I own 4 macs at home, and use 3 here in my office, included along with that are two last generation 17" CRT Studio Displays. In my bosses office next door sits the 22". I'm fully aware that specs are not always the best way to judge a product, which is why I'm also drawing on my experience of the 22" LCD. In regard to the design of the NEC screens, it's a shame you think them pedestrian, as if Apple do bring the design of the displays in line with the G5, they might end up looking not too dissimilar. I personally prefer the NEC design, as it's just more minimal, which is something that really appeals to me in a display.
In regard to the specs being notoriously hard to find through apple, maybe you should try their webite?
Apple Displays PDF (from apple.com/displays)
The only thing they don't specify is the pixel response time which they simply list as "fast".
Tom's Hardware has several good articles/reviews of lcd screens (bar apple of course, damn that adc).
17" LCDs - 20ms and 16ms Models
That Hyundai seems like a bit of a bargain at $379.
How much is Apple's 17" again?
As a side note (), he mentions that 15" LCD panels actually cost around $15 each for the manufacturer.older round-up. that's a nice mark up then.
17" LCDs - 20ms and 16ms Models
That Hyundai seems like a bit of a bargain at $379.
How much is Apple's 17" again?
As a side note (), he mentions that 15" LCD panels actually cost around $15 each for the manufacturer.older round-up. that's a nice mark up then.
Originally posted by dietsoda
In regard to the specs being notoriously hard to find through apple, maybe you should try their webite?
Apple Displays PDF (from apple.com/displays)
The only thing they don't specify is the pixel response time which they simply list as "fast".
Sony manufactures all of the Apple lcds
I have been looking at the Formac LCD's. While I haven't actually seen one the reviews on them seem to be mixed. They are always in the top have, often top third. The Macworld article review the formac 20" and apple 20". The one thing I like about the formac is better brightness and contrast range control. Apple LCD, however, have a better reliability in terms of dead pixels over the life of the monitor (based on my own experience w/17" & 20" apple LCD's compared to other brand 15" & 17" LCD's plus reviews). The Apple monitor, compared to the formac, has better color quality and screen viewing angle. With the price difference it is almost a toss up.
I am hoping Apple might drop prices before I buy a second 20" - that would make the Apple a shoe in for me.
Look up the user ratings at cnet aka computers.com . While aggrieved users are more likely to post a notice, there does seem to be a lot of negative feedback for Formac. Compare it to Apple's monitor.
Originally posted by dietsoda
Firstly, I own 4 macs at home, and use 3 here in my office, included along with that are two last generation 17" CRT Studio Displays. In my bosses office next door sits the 22". I'm fully aware that specs are not always the best way to judge a product, which is why I'm also drawing on my experience of the 22" LCD. In regard to the design of the NEC screens, it's a shame you think them pedestrian, as if Apple do bring the design of the displays in line with the G5, they might end up looking not too dissimilar. I personally prefer the NEC design, as it's just more minimal, which is something that really appeals to me in a display.
In regard to the specs being notoriously hard to find through apple, maybe you should try their webite?
Apple Displays PDF (from apple.com/displays)
The only thing they don't specify is the pixel response time which they simply list as "fast".
I'm sorry, but even if you had 100 or more 15", 17", 22" and 23" Apple LCDs you still couldn't judge the 20" from your experience as it has as I mentioned before newer technology inside.
As to the NEC's design, it's a fine line between minimal and plain (which the G5 walks like a giant IMO), and I certainly hope Apple will do better than this if (when) new displays arrive.
As to "only" the pixel response time not being stated in the Apple PDF isn't this one of the most important specs and wasn't that indeed one of exactly two points you made in your first post about where Apple LCDs are inferior to the competition? So how do you know?
Why sorry? My comments did not purport to relate exclusively or specifically to the 20" display.
I also hope that Apple produces something better than the NEC, at no point did i say anything about it being a design classic. I am one of the few people it seems who actually likes the look of the G5 too.
The term "only" was used as in "single", "one". Here the 17" is said to have a response time of 40ms. I freely admit i have no info on the response time of the 20". Again, I made no specific claims about the response time or performance of the 20". But the 40ms rating isn't acceptable.
Why does it make you so angry to question the value of an Apple product? I'm a loyal and devoted mac user myself, and when it comes to singing the praises of Mac OS X, FCP, QuickTime, iBooks, even eMacs! I'm not even sure I won't be plumping for the 20" myself yet. But when it comes to the 17", for the price you pay, it's not as good as you could get elsewhere. When it comes to image quality, Apple needs to be two steps ahead, not dragging their heals.
No, they and Mitsubishi used to make Apple CRTs, and maybe they made some of the first Apple LCDs, but I believe that by now they are made by LG Philips and Chi Mei Optoelectronics.
OK, maybe MacWhispers isn't the best source for much of anything anymore (it's the only source I can remember for this), but I think other sites etc. say the same thing.
WM
Why is 40ms unacceptable? That's equivalent to 25 FPS, which is what movies are filmed at. And my computer screen doesn't update nearly as much as a movie screen. I'm typing this on an el chepo 17" LCD with a VGA input (Envision 17") - I have no idea waht the response time is. I just know I need a ton more desktop space.
Again, I'm looking to order an Apple 23" display this weekend along with a DP PowerMac G4. I could keep waiting for revised screens and the DP PowerMac G5 to ship, but at some point waiting for even better hurts more than not waiting. For me, compile times are a killer, and a DP G4 cuts my compile times by 80% while a DP G5 would cut it by about 90%. Why wait 8 more weeks and spend another $1k to get an extra 10% speedup over what I have now - a 500 MHz G4 powerbook.
How fast? Pretty much every movie I've ever watched was filmed in 24 fps. They get turned into 60 fields per second on DVDs, and then on a LCD display, the DVD or display will do 3:2 processing to reconstruct the 24 fps original because doing so looks better than the interlaced 6 0 field per second source. How much faster than 24 fps can your eye really process the frames?
I've always thought that faster refresh rates were really only significant on CRT's where you get flicker if the refresh rate is too slow because it really only draws a pixel at a time. With LCD's the whole image stays there until you change the pixels, right?
Well the ability of the human eye is a little at question but it's somewhere between 30-50fps. Your average digital video camera films at 30fps. It's only film that runs at 24fps. Video games typically run well at around 100fps. The reason for the high frame rate is that it's an average and in an extreme case the frame rate drops much much lower. With about 100fps you can be assured it won't drop below 30fps below which game play get's pretty choppy.
you're wrong about that. videogames usually run at from 30-60 frames/sec. (console anyway) and the most people care about is 60, because as you said, people can't tell the difference with higher framerates. but drops below thirty and people bitch. hell, even at thirty, some graphics whores throw a fit.
but still, your basic point is right