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.
Do you use an Apple Display or Third Party?
- Thread starter Woodcrest64
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i currently have a dell 3007 that i am selling because its a few years old and im not sure i would like to use a 30inch monitor again .. i leaning towards dual 24s .. i will be video editing .. and from what ive seen most people are running a dual setup
i finally saw the 24inch apple display in person .. and the size seems like it will be alright with two of them .. instead of 2 x 30s .. that is just a massive amount of real estate
i finally saw the 24inch apple display in person .. and the size seems like it will be alright with two of them .. instead of 2 x 30s .. that is just a massive amount of real estate
Currently have a Samsung SyncMaster 215TW connected to my Mac Mini.
Would like something with a bit more resolution (is 1680x1050), but I'll not bother with an Apple display unless they make any new ones that are not glossy.
I had a new iMac for a week and the glossy screen was annoying (well fine at night, but awful during the day).
Would like something with a bit more resolution (is 1680x1050), but I'll not bother with an Apple display unless they make any new ones that are not glossy.
I had a new iMac for a week and the glossy screen was annoying (well fine at night, but awful during the day).
No dedicated graphics/vram. Pretty much sums it up.
Every previous Pro machine in Apple's lineup has had a dedicated graphics chip with separate ram (not shared), including the 12" PowerBook. Heck, even the iBooks had dedicated vram.
Don't get me wrong though, I actually own a firewire'd 13" MB and it's more than capable for my needs. But if I were doing more than word, excel, and a little photoshop I would need vram. I just loved the form factor and purchased a Mac Pro for everything intensive. It's an excellent machine, I just don't know that it is worth of the "Pro" labeling for anything other than marketing to hip college-bound tweens.
[Offtopic]
It's all vague and relative you see? Having no dedicated VRAM might not be all that painful, even for people who do graphics.
If Apple used a dedicated 9400 256 MB card, I don't think that it would have left the current 13" MBPs far behind in performance.
Professionals could go by the cards in G4 'Books for similar high end work back in those days. What's wrong with new card? Even the base 15" MBP does not have a dedicated card.
The 9400M is more capable GPU today than what "NV 5200 Go" was back when it was used in PowerBooks.
I think for Apple, FireWire is the criteria "now". And it is logical for many people, at least till USB 3.0 gets released. Except for people like me, I don't need FireWire so a MacBook Pro would not be much different from a plain vanilla MacBook to me; hence I have no issues giving my MacBook a "Pro" tag.
I do feel that the Pro labelling comes as a "marketing move to hip college bound teens" though. Not that it cannot function as a Pro machine.
Unfortunately I currently use 2 30" Apple cinema displays and one 30" Dell display. I wish I could use all Apple displays because they are clearly superior, but the input options make me need the Dell. Apple really need to rethink their input options...
C
C
I have two Dells.
How the heck are the Apple displays superior? (Apart from costing more)
How the heck are the Apple displays superior? (Apart from costing more)
Lets give Catch a chance to respond. He's among a handful of people who work with both types of displays side by side, so it's really interesting to hear what he has to say on the topic of Apple vs. Dell. I was seriously considering going with the Dell 3008WFP, but just wasn't willing to wait for it to go on sale and then wait another 4 weeks to get one built and shipped. The ACD was pretty much an impulse buy this past Friday (in advance of my bday tomorrow). I don't regret having bought it at all! It doesn't have all the features of the latest Dell 30" display, but then I don't really need those features (multiple inputs, HDCP, extra wide color gamut, blinding brightness, faster response, stand with adjustable height).
Well I've owned both a 15" uMbp with 9600/9400 and my current 13" mbp and can tell you from experience, the difference in speed is noticeable between the two. If you had not used both for extensive periods, then no there would probably not be much difference.
And yes, the base model now contains only an integrated chip. This is why I fear Apple is attempting to lower its standards on what "Pro" means to its customers while not lowering the prices much at all.
Yeah, that's kinda why/how I ended up with my twin $200 wonders. I had an $8k budget but I had to wait a month for stock. So I got the two $200 LGs just for the tween time. I ended up liking them once calibrated properly, as much as the $4K monitors. Well, it was so close anyway that I couldn't see spending the $3.8K difference. So I just kept the $200 ones. When they go out I may opt for the expensive ones as replacements I dunno.
Yes I am definitely curious; I haven't really found any evidence to support his claim which is the reason for my disbeliefs. I do think the Apple displays look nicer, but I can't justify buying things only because they look sleeker. I mean there connectivity is pretty much the same. If the Apple display is truly better, I'd switch.
Ho did u get the Menu bar on both screens ???
Are you using one resolution with a VGA splitter or something?
Apple only uses IPS panels in their displays. This is irrelevant at the 30" size class because all 30" displays are IPS (with the possible exception of Samsung, whose expensive panels are exclusively PVA since they manufacture them). At lower sizes, is one of the few companies that sell IPS displays. They used to only share that distinction with NEC, but since then, HP, Dell, Doublesight, and a couple other companies started making them as well.
Generally speaking, this has a lot to do with why you pay more for them. It's a distinction that's irrelevant to a lot of people who aren't graphics or photo/video types, but color shift can be a problem with larger monitors even if you're looking head on because colors will visibly shift just in what's in front of you. The color accuracy is often considered to be worth the price paid.
It used to be that monitors were actually considered one of the cheaper color-accurate options you could buy, but times have changed since then and they're now considered far more expensive per feature than equivalent NECs or other competing displays. NEC and Eizo remain the gold standard for performance monitors these days.
In my experience, the IPS advantage is worth paying for, but your mileage may vary (especially with LG Philips's recent quality control issues, they manufacture all the IPS panels). More expensive vendors tend to have more exacting quality control on their panels, so in some ways displays are still a safer buy than the others. But, of course, you pay more for it.
This is all from a non-appearance standpoint, and it's vigorously debated in plenty of places. You will find that most graphics people are vigorously pro IPS. TN panels drive me nuts now that I've gotten used to IPS displays.
Generally speaking, this has a lot to do with why you pay more for them. It's a distinction that's irrelevant to a lot of people who aren't graphics or photo/video types, but color shift can be a problem with larger monitors even if you're looking head on because colors will visibly shift just in what's in front of you. The color accuracy is often considered to be worth the price paid.
It used to be that monitors were actually considered one of the cheaper color-accurate options you could buy, but times have changed since then and they're now considered far more expensive per feature than equivalent NECs or other competing displays. NEC and Eizo remain the gold standard for performance monitors these days.
In my experience, the IPS advantage is worth paying for, but your mileage may vary (especially with LG Philips's recent quality control issues, they manufacture all the IPS panels). More expensive vendors tend to have more exacting quality control on their panels, so in some ways displays are still a safer buy than the others. But, of course, you pay more for it.
This is all from a non-appearance standpoint, and it's vigorously debated in plenty of places. You will find that most graphics people are vigorously pro IPS. TN panels drive me nuts now that I've gotten used to IPS displays.
I absolutely can't agree with you.
Have you ever took a closer look to the Apple displays? There is (at least at my 30") absolutely nothing that I can complain about. They are flawless.
I had a lot of displays, including Dell, EIZO or Samsung and not one of them can compete with the build quality.
They all are made of plastic, which leads automatically to a kind of cheap feeling when touching these displays. They all make rattly noises when moving them.
I expect that from cheap displays, but not in case of a 2000$ display like the Dell 30". It's enclosure just sucks. Not in the slightest comparable with the Apple display.
Oooo... pictures... Here's mine:
All of them are flawless. Or we would be taking them back for a refund.
To me when you said "materials and build quality" that distinguished the two as separate. I agree that a few of the Apple monitors have a better frame (some are aluminum right?) material. But build quality as in the button switch and dial quality, screen surface, dead pixels or no, mother board layout, MB mounting/fastening design/screws, screen <-> frame gaps, mask quality, MB component grades, etc. are all mostly identical. Like, zero difference really. For example I see zero difference in this regard, between my LGs ($200) and the Color Edge ($4500) units both of which I've spent time with..
I use a 20" aluminum ACD and a Dell 2007WFP. Dell made this display with both S-IPS and S-PVA panels, and the S-IPS comes from the same manufacturer as the cinema display's -- once calibrated they're almost indistinguishable. The Dell secondhand was about a third of the price of a refurb ACD when I bought it, plus it has 4 USB ports.
The only things I like better about the cinema display other than the design are that the brightness controls are so effortless, and that the calibration was much easier out of the box (the gamma on the Dell has to be dragged up to ridiculous levels to match the ACD's response).
The only things I like better about the cinema display other than the design are that the brightness controls are so effortless, and that the calibration was much easier out of the box (the gamma on the Dell has to be dragged up to ridiculous levels to match the ACD's response).
All of them are flawless. Or we would be taking them back for a refund.
I was really just referring to the quality of the enclosure of the display, which is one piece of aluminium plus the stand itself.
I don't bother what's inside the display, but I'm pretty sure that, as you said, they are almost all the same. As Apple does not manufacture it's own panels, they are really exactly the same as some in other Dell, HP or Samsung models.
IIRC the 30" Apple uses a Samsung panel and so does the Dell 3007. So the picture quality should be almost identical.
Yeah, just the case. I agree. But to me the case like that is worth about $50 extra and no more. Certainly not $500 more.
On a side note if that aspect of a monitor is that important to me I'll buy $30 worth of blonde oak, plug in the router & table-saw, and make something really nice.
I have a Dell 2408WFP at work and two Apple 23" ACD at home. I don't see how anyone could say the Dell display looks better, at least not anyone with a discerning eye for color. The reds on the Dell are oversaturated, and no amount of tweaking has been able to produce a neutral image. Meanwhile the ACDs were nearly perfect out of the box. Not to mention the differences in quality between the IPS panels in the Apple displays and the S-PVA panel of the Dell.
I had a HP LP2475w before I had my 30" ACD, and the 20" ACD. The HP I bought for $400, the reds were very saturated after calibration and messing with the rgb sliders, even at 0 brightness, it was blindingly bright, and the worst part was that it left a pinkish cast on the left, greenish cast on the right, rendering it garbage for what I want to do with it. I spent 1600 on the 30" ACD, it was pure bliss. Physically it is one of the most beautiful products I have ever seen (besides the mac pro ), the colors were accurate, brightness levels were comfortable and can be controlled via my keyboard. To each their own, but to me, the money spent on the 30" ACD is well worth it, I'm the type that would stop what I am doing, and just look at the smooth metallic surfaces of Apple's products, then wiggle it and be very satisfied by the non existing plastic creaks. Opening my mbp is completely quiet and study! My old IBM... it was like opening the truck bed of a boot-leg tonka truck from China!
), the colors were accurate, brightness levels were comfortable and can be controlled via my keyboard. To each their own, but to me, the money spent on the 30" ACD is well worth it, I'm the type that would stop what I am doing, and just look at the smooth metallic surfaces of Apple's products, then wiggle it and be very satisfied by the non existing plastic creaks. Opening my mbp is completely quiet and study! My old IBM... it was like opening the truck bed of a boot-leg tonka truck from China!