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.
How many new Mac Pro buyers are getting Apple displays?
- Thread starter DeepCobalt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually I use the speakers on the 24" ACD. I mean its no B&W speakers or logitech but its more than good enough for just some sound to be played loud enough to watch a little movie clips or what not.
I used to HATE Glossy displays but on the 24" LED ACD its so bright that it doesnt seem like a glossy most of the time. Instant brightness is a thing of genius! Also it has the clarity that the 23" and 30" mbp with the old school ccfl backlighting is missing.
Plus it doesnt dim 50% of its original brightness per year. I remember just 4 months of using the 23" ACD that once you fire it up for the first time of the day it takes like 5-10 minutes until it becomes to full brightness and in that time it looks blurry and fuzzy as hell. Not to mention the near perfect even in brightness on the 24".
Pictures does no justice~
Will my cinema display really lose 50% brightness in 1 year? my 5 year old Plasma tv didn't loose that much nor did my 3 year old gateway display.
Its 50% of its brightness each year. Just look up CCFL technology. The human eye can adapt to any amount of light source thats why even in the total pitch darkness people can still make their way and see when there is a very small light source.
Our eyes adjusts to any form of brightness so we never notice much overtime but the difference is there.
Like I mentioned though when I first had the 23" ACD I had used it on 1 notch out of the full brightness but after 4 months I had to crank it up to 4 notches to match my previous 1 notch of brightness. Now with my 24" LED ACD I just leave it cranked up at full brightness with no worries of dimming over time.
Extremely unlikely. I use a colorimeter and color calibration software on my monitor on a monthly basis. Brightness is one of the things it measures. The brightness setting I use hasn't changed since I bought the monitor in November 2007.
Also its a joy to just turn the monitor off when I'm not using it (before with the 23" ACD I'd just leave it on because I didnt want to stress the CCFL lamps and especially when I come back 30 minutes later and have to wait another 5 minutes for it to warm up to full brightness again. But instead I would lower the brightness all the way down to 0 notches and just brighten it up back to 4 notches when I come back to my desk) by pressing Eject, shift + control (to turn only the monitor off) and just pressing "any key" to wake the display back up.
Is there a way to turn just the LED display off as in powered down? I just ordered one for my new Mac Pro (haven't received either yet), but just realized that you cannot turn off the display and leave the computer on. I had assumed this could be done via the Energy Saver control panel?
I really really doubt it. Not to mention that a display at full brightness is almost certainly going to be out of whack in terms of calibration.
Yes when your mbp or whatever is connected to the 24" LED ACD and u ONLY want to power down the 24" ACD press and hold eject button + shift + control. and just press any key or move your mouse to wake the display back up.
I love it!
Thats what I LOVE about LED backlight technology though, you can crank it down a few notches if you need more accuracy in the colors + when you dim it down it doesnt lose ANY clarity. Its so damn vivid! @_@ thats me every night.
I'm eagerly awaiting new Apple displays before I buy a new 2009 octad 2.66 Mac Pro...
What are other new buyers doing? Going with the old Apple 30? The glossy 24?
Why no choices, Apple?
I had no idea there were new displays in the pipeline!
Anyone have any word on this?
The 30 hasn't changed in 3 years, it's very much due for an update. However, I don't give apple the benefit of the doubt, and I'm going to assume they'll screw it up until proven otherwise
I'm eagerly awaiting new Apple displays before I buy a new 2009 octad 2.66 Mac Pro...
What are other new buyers doing? Going with the old Apple 30? The glossy 24?
Why no choices, Apple?
I like the Dell 30". The prices just dropped and it is on sale for $1349. I have the 24" and love it.
I like the Apple LED displays. perhaps they will come out with a 30" LED in matte. That would be nice.
The choice display and money you are willing to part with is smithing you will need consider. For many the glossy display is to drool for but for serious color work brigtness needs to be around 100cdm and you are going to want a matt display. The Eizo CG221 is probably one of the best out there for that purpose (hopelesa for games though) but for office apps web browsing and other recreational use it's probably not going to be such a big deal but I would certainly consider LED at this time.
The old 23" ACD as sombody mentioned was not suitable for color critical work with it's very noticable pink color cast towards the edges of the screen. Apple really pushed the envelope on the chassis design here - LED should make a huge difference.
The old 23" ACD as sombody mentioned was not suitable for color critical work with it's very noticable pink color cast towards the edges of the screen. Apple really pushed the envelope on the chassis design here - LED should make a huge difference.
I have certainly read that criticism of this panel on the various fora. I think that must be something they fixed over time because it's not a flaw I can detect with my copy. My copy of this panel was produced relatively late in the production run. I am an amateur photgrapher, and as I noted in a previous post, I calibrate this monitor regularly as part of a color managed workflow.
I will probably opt for an Eizo CE240W or CG241W/CG242W when it comes time for a new panel unless Apple comes to their senses before then. But for now, my ACD does what I need it to do.
I'm eagerly awaiting new Apple displays before I buy a new 2009 octad 2.66 Mac Pro...
What are other new buyers doing? Going with the old Apple 30? The glossy 24?
Why no choices, Apple?
Well I've been using 2 - 30in displays and no problems. Got mines when apple 1st introduced.
Plus I'd have to buy a ripoff price video card to drive it, and I wouldn't even be able to use that card for Flight Simulator X
Uh oh! Potential show stopper comment....
Please explain
Uh oh! Potential show stopper comment....
Please explain
The 4870 sucks -hard- for Flight Simulator X. The 8800GT absolutely tools it.
You'd think so, but for some reason
I've heard theories on why it's so, but nothing definitive. FSX just doesn't like ATI boards, and the gains with even higher end nvidia stuff are pretty low.
Just looking at Toms Hardware review of the 4870 comparing it with the 8800 and indeed for FSX, the 8800 is faster... by 4 fps on average!
On the whole though, it looks as if the 4870 is a better card over the 8800 for the majority of the modern games out there, plus it's the better choice for Apple Pro apps.
I'll be satisfied I'm sure.
Keep in mind that 4fps is a pretty significant difference when we're talking about "under 30"
But yeah, 4870 is probably better for most gamers, but since I only play FSX, Falcon 4, and Call of Duty 4, there's no real benefit for me as I run all of them maxed already with the 8800 with no frame drops on the latter two.
Pro Apps valid for now. I have a sneaking suspicion after we get 64bit OpenCL-enabled Final Cut Studio, I'm not going to worrying too much. Could be wrong, but I'll deal with that when it comes.
I'm an editor, not a VFX or grading specialist, so it's really no big deal to me anyway.
Significant? Maybe... but is 4fps really the difference between "sucking hard" and "tooling it" ?
I'm sure I could gain 4fps by reducing a detail or two within the game. Traffic is the biggest culprit IIRC. If that's the difference between making a game playable or not, I'd gladly sacrifice a couple of AI aircraft.
grue likes using 'descriptive' terminology. he's an ozzie, whadya expect
Handfuls of salt are flying everywhere...