Everybody forgot AppleCinemaDisplays!

[Josias]

That would be weird, imagine having to isights???

According to your sig, you have three, but it would be sweet. I would hope for a resolution upgrade. They've had same resolutions for two generations now. I hope for:

17" Apple Studio Display:
1680x1050
800:1, 450 cd/m2, 178/178 degrees, , 1xUSB, 1xFireWire400
iSight, DVI, same design as current ACD's, but thinner
16.7 million colors
399 dollars

20" Apple Cinema Display:
1920x1200
1000:1, 600 cd/m2, 179/179 degrees, , 2xUSB, 1xFireWire400
iSight, DVI, same design as current ACD's, but thinner
3.2 billion colors
699 dollars

23" Apple Cinema Display:
2500x1600
1000:1, 700 cd/m2, 179/179 degrees, , 2xUSB, 1xFireWire400
iSight, Duallink DVI, same design as current ACD's, but thinner
3.2 billion colors
1199 dollars

30" Apple Cinema Display:
3840x2400 (the mac resolution that can be pulled by Duallink DVI, waiting for quad DVI)
1200:1, 800 cd/m2, 179/19 degrees, , 2xUSB, 1xFireWire400, 1xFireWire800
iSight, Duallink DVI, same design as current ACD's, but thinner
3.2 billion colors
2499 dollars

I don't think they will be glossy, perhaps have a glossy option...

j/k, I'm dreaming, but this would be the sweetets ever. I would get a 20" or 17" right away

 

[Makosuke]

I would hope for a resolution upgrade. They've had same resolutions for two generations now.

I disagree, at least at this point. The current resolution (about 100dpi) was chosen for a good reason based on the current fixed-rez MacOS display. Having used a hi-rez powerbook screen for a while now (17" screen with same pixel dimensions as my 20" ACD), I can say this is a wise move--I would not want my desktop monitor to have any more resolution than that. It's already starting to get to my eyes, and I had to crank the default font size in my browser up significantly for reading comfort.

Now, presuming that 10.5 enables the resolution-independant display features that already sort-of-exist in 10.4 (you can turn them on via Developer Tools, but they don't work well), then this will be a moot point, and we might as well go higher.

 

[Josias]

I disagree, at least at this point. The current resolution (about 100dpi) was chosen for a good reason based on the current fixed-rez MacOS display. Having used a hi-rez powerbook screen for a while now (17" screen with same pixel dimensions as my 20" ACD), I can say this is a wise move--I would not want my desktop monitor to have any more resolution than that. It's already starting to get to my eyes, and I had to crank the default font size in my browser up significantly for reading comfort.

Now, presuming that 10.5 enables the resolution-independant display features that already sort-of-exist in 10.4 (you can turn them on via Developer Tools, but they don't work well), then this will be a moot point, and we might as well go higher.

I agree, that this would not be relevant until the 10.5 comes out, with resolution independence. I hope for new ACD's (see above ), new PM's and THE ONE AND ONLY Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard! All to be announced at WWDC.