How well does the 2.4Ghz macbook run a 23" ACD in extended mode?

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by jjahshik32, May 4, 2008.

  1. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #1
    I'm thinking about a mac mini but rather have a macbook as I can bump up the hdd and especially 4gb of RAM. If I were to use the macbook's screen as the extended mode would it be fine to run both the 23" ACD and the macbook's screen at native resolutions without any problems/slowdowns?

    The macbooks are a great deal in performance/$$$ and since I dont play games I'm thinking about using the macbook synced with my 23" ACD as a desktop. How fast would everything run in dual monitor mode?? Will it run on par as say a 15" or 17" mbp (gpu aside), Overall speed of leopard?
     
  2. Uoila macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    #2
    should work fine

    Not really what you looking for, but I run the native display at 1280x800 and an extended desktop on a 22" samsung at 1680x1050. No slow down, no problems on my 2.2 SR blackbook.

    You shouldn't have a problem at all.
     
  3. potkettleblack macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    #3
    Can I ask which samsung display you have, and whether you recommend it or another one? I am considering getting a blackbook and might want a display that would look sleek paired with it (the ACDs don't really "go" with the black aesthetically).
     
  4. Uoila macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    #4
    I think it works well. Its wasn't a monitor that i picked out. I was in the market and my buddy was selling this one at a decent price so i picked it up.

    The monitor is a Samsung 225BW.

    Sorry for the crappy cell picture.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #5
    Cool, nice matching blacks :D
     
  6. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #6
    I see in your sig that you already have a ACD.

    If you're planning on buying another, I'd REALLY suggest not doing so. There are FAR BETTER monitors out there for much less money. I don't mean "better value for the money" I simply mean better all around.

    Many people (myself included) complain about the prices of Macs. But the Apple Cinema Displays are where Apple truly rips people off. You can get a monitor with a response time that is 3x or more faster than the ACD, higher contrast ratios, brighter backlights, more connectivity (VGA, Component, HDMI) for half of what an ACD costs.

    That said, the MacBook will run the external monitor just fine. Having two displays is all about fill-rate and thats one area where the Intel GPUs are actually pretty decent.
     
  7. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #7
    I'm not buying another cinema display (until new led are released) but anyway I'll be using this same 23" acd with the macbook and just curious how well it runs it.
     
  8. xraydoc macrumors demi-god

    xraydoc

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    #8
    For the original post, according to OWC, the Core 2 Duo Mac minis will take 4GB of RAM, dispite Apple's statement to the contrary. Not sure who's right, but I happened to notice this on OWC's site.

    Edit - Quick Google check indicates that 3GB, like the non-Santa Rosa MacBook/MBPs, is what the Mac mini will support.
     
  9. hexonxonx macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Location:
    Denver Colorado
    #9
    It works perfectly well. Just don't mirror the MBs display. I like my ACD this way so much that I am planning on buying a second ACD once new ones come out whenever that happens.

    Right now though, I am using my ACD with my iMac but I have used it with my MB 2.4.
     
  10. dal20402 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    #10
    Depends what you're looking for. The difference between ACDs and big bright cheap LCDs is the panel technology.

    Those cheap LCDs are almost always TN (like laptop screens), which means they will have poor viewing angles and severe color shifts. They are essentially unusable for anything involving color. A really fast response time and a cheap price are dead giveaways for TN.

    The ACDs are S-IPS. And they're guaranteed to be S-IPS. (Dell, for example, uses whatever panels are at hand in all of its monitors except the 30".) S-IPS monitors have slower response time, but, unlike TN, they are usually acceptable for color work once calibrated.

    ACDs are reasonably price-competitive with other high-quality S-IPS panels of similar sizes. The cheap bright panels you're talking about may be fine if all you do is game and surf the web, but they're not comparable.
     
  11. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #11
    I totally agree, I've owned the 20" ACD and 23" ACD as well both great displays. All the cinema displays do use the S-IPS and just to surf the web to look at web pages and watch movies on is awesome.

    I've had Samsung, LG, viewsonics that were all TN panels but the colors always bothered me as the color shifting was rather annoying. Plus since you probably buy monitors once every 5-8 years anyway might as well get a real nice display like the cinema displays.

    Plus I've played counter-strike/call of duty 4 on my 23" ACD and I cant really tell the difference in ms speed from the tn panels or the s-ips panels. I think especially running games on the cinema display looks much more vivid and it runs very fast.
     
  12. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #12
    Yea I never use mirroring even with my current 17" mbp. I like using it as a 2nd monitor for extended display.. so using the macbook's with non mirroring runs fast??
     
  13. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #13
    The five notebooks I've owned so far have had LG panels made by LG.

    All of the Samsung and LG LCD monitors I have seen have also been manufactured by LG and Samsung.

    If you do a google search, you'll find that that a lot of LG and Samsung's higher end models, that also tend to cost half as much as an ACD, are using S-IPS panels ;)

    Funny enough, that google search revealed that all of the monitors I've discussed here in this forum are using S-IPS panels. Yet they all have higher contrast ratios, faster response times, brighter lights, etc.

    There have also been reviews of the ACD versus other similar models. One was a Dell done by cnet (I think? it was years ago when the current ACD was released, funny how they haven't been updated in all this time) and the cnet review concluded that the ACD had a SLIGHT (VERY VERY SLIGHT) edge in color.

    I've seen a ton of LCD panels in my day. The current ACD has absolutely no advantage over a $400 LCD of the same size except for the Apple logo on it.

    Faster response time, same color, better contrast, better backlight.. everything basically looks better and my webpages don't blur or smear as I scroll down? Yeah I'll take a "cheaper" screen ;)

    Don't expect it to happen too often. As long as Apple can keep gouging people like you for $600+ more than the screens are worth without updating, then they will ;)
     
  14. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #14

    Could I see some evidence with the lcd part number with an S-IPS (not an S-PVA) of a link proving this because for the past 4 years or ever I've never once seen a samsung/lg monitor with an S-IPS lcd display at the $400-$800 price range.

    I remember a couple years back I found a tech website with someone taking apart the cinema displays to look at the components and he found out that Apple uses the same superior components such as, circuitry,chipset,glass,backlighting as what the Eizos uses.

    While those monitors are brighter.. brighter always doesnt mean its better when you have an inferior parts/lcd that makes a whole monitor inferior. This is what people tend to forget when they think about how a monitor is built.. you could use crappy parts such as, chipset/circuitboards/backlighting/glass(especially glass) with a superior lcd and still come out crappier than using nicer components with an S-PVA lcd.

    This is why the dell vs. acd the acd's have won on cnet that your talking about. Even though that was a few years back it still applies today as dell still does use S-IPS only on some of their 24" (its like pot luck) and even so the cinema display still bested the exact same S-IPS dell because it uses better components. Also not to mention that both Dell and Apple cinema displays have not gotten any real significant upgrade. Sure dell has upped the brightness and contrast but that doesnt necessarily make it better. I've seen plenty of professional photographers that run back to the cinema displays because the color red is too overwhelming as the greens looked too dull and was not sufficient and a huge headache to work on graphics/color.

    For example this cnet review http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6470175-7.html?tag=btn the 30" ACD vs. 30" Dell that both uses the exact same S-IPS display but apple had trumped it and I would say its a bit more than just "slightly" and when it comes to the quality especially in the display world (goes with hdtv's as well) slight is a HUGE difference.

    Apple trumped the Dell in our DVD-playback test, displaying less digital noise and more-realistic skin tones, and it won the more technical rounds, with more-vivid colors and better grayscale differentiation. This is the monitor of choice, especially if you own an Apple computer, since the Apple OS provides additional configuration options.

    I think that cheaper TN panels or S-PVA (better than TN) is more than fine for just regular day usage or especially gaming. But for me I only upgrade my monitor every 5-7 years so I rather spend the extra $$$ and get the best of the best and it really is that much noticable. I've been through a few 2407 24" dell before being happy with the 23" ACD.. and yes the 2/3 of them were S-IPS lcd but the colors were never as good as the ACD. Something about the glass too on the dell made the colors looked murky/tainted.

    There is always a reason why things are more expensive, not just the looks of it. Its the same as the saying nothing is for free in this world or you get what you paid for. And finally for all I know both Apple and Dell are behind in technology as they still dont use led backlighting. I've seen the samsung xl20/30 they are very nice displays with a high gamut % BUT the 20" cost $1799 and the 30" cost $4599 and the 20" uses the inferior S-PVA panel but the 30" I did hear uses the S-IPS but imho it should be using the newer H-IPS panels that the newer imacs uses.

    I believe the next updated cinema display is about 2 years away with all H-IPS + led backlighting. And for right now the ACD's are very nice and the best quality displays you can buy at its price and I find the pricings to be fair and actually cheap.
     
  15. hexonxonx macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Location:
    Denver Colorado
    #15
    IT's not gouging when there are obviously allot of people happy with the quality of the Apple displays. You keep mentioning response time, well what difference is 4 MS faster on one monitor than another? They are milliseconds remember?

    Oh and the last time the ACDs were updated was in 2006, two years ago. You make it sound like it's been ages since they've been updated.

    I have owned many different displays over the years, well actually since about 2001. Like many others you are hearing about, I have been the most satisfied with the quality of the ACD. As someone mentioned in this thread, the colors are outstanding, and it does an excellent job at everything I put it through.

    I notice you keep poking your nose in threads that involve the ACD. The starter of this thread didn't ask advice on which monitor to use with his MB, he asked how well the ACD works in extended mode and you have to go telling him the ACD isn't any good.

    It does an excellent job and is an excellent monitor. Please keep on topic.
     
  16. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #16
    Thanks for that, anyways back onto topic. I really want to know if the macbook has any problems handling major multitasking connected to the 23" ACD without any hiccups. I mean like usually I would run parallels, safari (with 15+tabs), watching a 720p trailer, using unison to d/l 20+ gb, azureus d/ling, microsoft word, ichat, mail, listening to music, iphotos, dictionary. Thats about my regular usage and occasional burning a disc.
     
  17. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #17
    Google is your friend ;) There are plenty of links on the first page including plenty in the marketplace links.

    Sorry but a display that uses "superior components" should not have smearing and ghosting in something as simple as DVD playback.

    Yet a cheaper monitor with "crappier components" would last just as long as the ACD and it won't ghost with DVD playback, games, or even just browsing websites. That is one thing that greatly annoys me. Every time I use an ACD even the MOUSE cursor ghosts.

    That review essentially gave the victory to Apple because of the Apple logo.

    However, Dell's monitors HAVE received massive upgrades over the years since that review was originally done. Contrast ratio, brightness, RESPONSE time. A Dell monitor will look good and your mouse cursor won't blur across the screen when you move it.

    Okay now that review has become invalid. I missed that when I read that a few years ago. DVD Player prior to Leopard was absolutely TERRIBLE. DVD Player IN Leopard is still awful, but the pre-Leopard versions were god awful terrible. Terrible in the "WTF was Apple thinking releasing software so bad" type of terrible.

    DVD Player prior to Leopard had washed out colors, compression artifacting out the ***, NO upscaling. It simply stretched the image to the full screen resolution.

    DVD Player's image quality was so bad that even the most well mastered DVDs were reduced to streaming video quality.

    However, for years and years now, PCs have been the best DVD players out there. Proper upscaling years before standalone DVD players had it, image enhancement features such as deblocking (to get rid of the compression artifacting), color enhancing, sharpening, etc.

    DVD Player in Leopard STILL pales in comparison to PC-based DVD players. My HP has a dedicated GPU and, unlike OS X, takes advantage of it. So my DVDs are properly upscaled, cleaned up, and look fantastic. DVDs on my Mac (and any Mac running OS X) still look washed out, still show artifacting. The only difference is that now they are properly upscaled though by software and not hardware, which leads to ridiculously high CPU use for playing a DVD.

    Calibration and even GPU have an impact on image quality.

    5-7 years? If you keep a single monitor that long then ANY new monitor you see after that time period will look fantastic because the one you've been using and are used to will have lost a very noticeable amount of brightness in that time.

    By the time you upgrade that ACD, the monitors you see will make your jaw drop in amazement.

    Anyway, again, displays ARE an area where Apple DOES rip you off.

    A good Samsung or LG from Newegg for around $400 will get you 5x the connectivity, 3x the response so even your cursor won't ghost across the screen, better brightness, better features, etc.

    Let me know when that $900 23" screen can play a blu-ray movie like those $400 and cheaper 24" screens at newegg. In fact, let me know when OS X can even play a blu-ray disc ;) Better yet, let me know when the $1400 MacBook (after taxes) can play a blu-ray disc like my $900 HP can.
     
  18. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #18
    Nope - It'll be fine.
     
  19. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #19
    4ms? You realize that the ACD response time is 16ms (color to color) while an average better looking and cheaper display has a 5ms color to color response time, right? Even at 8ms (color to color) there is still traces of ghosting.

    At 5ms you're up to par with CRT monitors. Your cursor, DVDs, and even webpages will no longer ghost. There are some that offer 2ms color to color.

    Also, I was pointing out the facts about the ACD to the OP. Trying to save him what? Nearly $500 when, if he was going to buy another display, he could have something much better for much cheaper.
     
  20. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #20
    Ahh so you cant find not even one article. I'm 100% that you cant find not even 1 link and I've searched for the past 4-6 years.



    That's the limitation of the panel itself not the components pretty much every panel has some sort of ghosting. ;)



    Yes the cheaper panels will still have this ghosting your talking about just not as noticable due to higher ms rate.



    I highly doubt that.

    I dont really call that massive for just higher contrast (which many people find its a problem and harder to calibrate and do color work) and higher brightness (sure my mbp looks brighter than the acd but doesnt mean its tn panel is superior, I still get much better viewing angle + much deeper/correct/vivid colors all around on the 23" ACD.



    How is this review invalid when apple and dell clearly still uses the same panels just upped the brightness and contrast(very minor differences in upgrade)? Um.. windows vista... oh nevermind~ My brother is a dell die hardfan but refuses to use vista and even admits its crap.. also dont forget windows ram addressing is so random its.. its just messed up.. no wonder bill gates bounced!

    Could I see a link to prove this?? Plus if you compare the acd to any samsung/lg/viewsonic/westinghouse/whatever display at the same price nope the acd will best it, yes even in dvd play back and especially hd movie playback. Oh yea dont forget stephen spielberg and the rest of hollywood uses mac pro + leopard for real professional video editing especially your precious outdated dvd movies.

    Not really my ps3 connected to my sony bravia xbr4 will murder any displays + pc out there have you ever seen a bravia at its full 1080p eye candy godliness?? Not to mention motion enhance?? Aparently you have not.

    I really dont know who watches dvd's on their pc over a hdtv that will rape it + a ps3 + a hifi surround system. Also your contradicting your own outdatedness with outdated dvds?? We have something called 1080p nowadays that makes dvd look like utter crap. Also not true, show me a link to prove this.

    Maybe in gaming?? I do notice that ati to nvidia I preferred ati's graphic rendering look.

    There are lots of people that still uses the older dell/apple lcd monitors 5 years back and still works and looks great. Oh yea so about 5-7 more years I will upgrade when that time comes so all is good (so currently using the best displays out there for the money while you and others use the cheap tn panels and just never buy the amazing displays that you mention in 5-7 time because eizos will still be around $1500-$2500 price tag).

    Exactly, but until then the acds are at their best so in 2 years time I should see those jaw dropping led backlit ones or better yet 5-7 years later OLED will rule.

    Again your opinion and subjective.

    Yea crappy tn screens but I guess you can connect your xbox 360 to it!! Naw I highly prefer my 52" Sony Bravia Xbr4 that will rape any computer monitor out there to play games/watch 1080p/720p movies. Especially the godliness of motion enhancer!

    Oh I'm letting you know right now that i'm playing the movie NEXT with nicholas cage at full 1080p along with 100 more bluray movies at mkv/wmv/h264 files and looks absolutely amazing with full dts or AC3 on my mbp on my 1920x1200 gorgeous apple cinema display 23" when I want to stay behind my desk but then I move to the 52" sony bravia XBR4 for some serious movie action that tops even going to the theatres itself.

    But then buying only considering the ms is kind of foolish.. as I play all the fps games/ watch hd movies I still might catch the ghosting on the cinema display only if I look for it and I dont even notice it. Same goes for the tn panels too I see ghosting if I look for it.

    Also how is it saving me $500 if I wanted to buy another 23" ACD? I rather have the superior display with viewing webpages, photos, hd movies/ dvd's, etc.. its THE best monitor I've ever used. The colors are so vivid and just natural, eye candy, very nice on the eyes and even playing games yes I've played call of duty 4 and it looks bad ass and I dont see any ghosting or noticed any. I guess your a true gamer so you would know that kind of difference?

    I guess for gaming tn panels is the way to go so you'll be more accurate firing that gun to pwn someone but I still dont see what the difference is when the all around experience is so much superior on the 23" ACD as to the cheap tn panels out there. I've been through few dells, viewsonics, westinghouse, samsung, LG (especially lg looks horrible the colors looked faded I forgot the model number but it was like LT something cost me about $400 a year back and exchanged it 4 times and it all looked washed out/fake looking colors/murky/just not right so cheap looking that I had to return it in the end).

    Believe me I've done my share of finding "the monitor" for price/quality and the ACD are at the best $$/performance/quality that you can buy. If you can settle for 4th best then Dell's are real good for many different inputs/quality/price. But this is how it goes:
    1)Eizos
    2)NEC
    3)Apple
    4)Dell
    5)Others

    Also its 14ms not 16ms http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html
     
  21. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #21
    It's not my fault you can't use google ;) It takes all of 5 seconds. Besides, outside of the hardcore Apple fanboy circle, it's a generally accepted and well known fact that Apple's displays are sub-par and overpriced.

    A quick google search will reveal that too ;)

    Only Apple's panels ;) I have a 37" LCD TV that isn't exactly high end (Olevia). It has an 8ms color to color response time. There isn't even a hint of ghosting on it. My HP has a display with a 16ms response time and ghosting is noticeable in everything from moving the mouse and windows to gaming. But on that 8ms display? Not at all.

    No, it's just simply not there. With an ACD its there even if you're just scrolling down on a website.

    Check out the specs. Your MBP's brightness is technically lower than your ACD. Falling victim to hype? ;)

    Because he used Apple's DVD Player as a benchmark. Head over to AVS. Again, outside of the Apple fanboy circles, its a well accepted fact that DVD Player is downright terrible. People used to come to AVS to ask how to improve DVD image quality on DVD player. Even the most diehard Apple fans there would say "you can't". Now, with Intel Macs, the answer is "install Windows".

    While I will admit that Vista isn't all it could have been, its certainly not as bad as people make it out to be.

    It also has many features that OS X doesn't. Such as DXVA. DirectX Video Acceleration. It allows any software to take full advantage of GPU features, such as proper de-interlacing, hardware deblocking, hardware upscaling, color correction, etc. Windows has been doing this since the early days of XP. Software in Windows has been taking advantage of it for nearly as long.

    Precious outdated DVDs? rofl. Can you point me to a Mac that can play blu-ray or HD DVD? Without Windows and software to bypass the DRM checks installed?

    Oh yeah, if you want to see for yourself, head over to AVS. You'll have to search the archives. Theres a link there comparing DVD Player to WinDVD and PowerDVD. It's truly amazing how DVD Player (pre-Leopard) just basically killed image quality. Both of my Macs shipped with Tiger so I experienced it first hand.

    DVD Player prior to Leopard literally stretched the image to the resolution of the monitor. You can see it for yourself. Theres plenty

    Heres a nice quote from a cnet review of the Core Duo Mac mini running Tiger

    "Given Apple's tradition as a media-friendly company, we were shocked during our DVD and high-definition video-output tests to discover the poor image the Mac Mini sent out. Apple didn't include 3:2 pulldown processing as part of its video-out specifications, resulting in image quality that's quite degraded. This processing is necessary for high-def screens playing video from film sources and is found in even low-cost components. The Mac Mini's DVD- and video-output quality, which was marred by false contouring (banded or splotchy colors), moiré patterns (line distortion), and jagged diagonals. We've seen $50 DVD players perform better."

    http://businessweek.com.com/desktops/apple-mac-mini-core/4505-3118_7-31762058.html?tag=return

    Anandtech has an older article with the first G4 Mac mini showing the differences and complaining of the high CPU use because of DVD Player's lack of hardware support.

    Leopard is better but still not anywhere near what hardware can do. If you read that Anandtech article by googling it, keep in mind that everything they tested there is done in HARDWARE now on Windows.

    The PS3? Please. The PS3 is a joke. I was a huge Sony supporter until the PS3. But I can't stand it. The games all have awful frame-rates. Those that don't, like GT5 Prologue, cut corners massively to achieve their frame-rates. Look at GT5. Beautiful car models. But how do they do that? Cardboard cut out environments. Many of the environments are straight out of GT4's 1080i mode just with slightly higher resolution textures.

    Oh and you do know that, with the exception of 2 or 3 games, PS3 games run at 720p or LOWER. Yes Halo 3 on the Xbox360 ran at 640p, but they did so to enhance the lighting. They also didn't apply the patented Playstation Vasoline Effect that plagues too many PS3 games. Look at GTA4. They had to lower the resolution to get it to run! Then they smeared the screen with the Playstation Vasoline Effect to hide the lower image quality, as just about every PS3 game does.

    The Playstation3 is a joke. Seriously. If you're using that as a benchmark for image quality then you are seriously missing out.

    First of all, you can see it for yourself. Your MBP has a GeForce 8600M GT in it. Install Vista + PowerDVD and watch a movie with PureVideo enabled.

    Second, Hi-Fi is a term better left to vinyl records to describe the fact that they have stereo or quadrophonic sound ;)

    Third, you need to go over to AVS because you DO NOT know what you are talking about. A properly configured PC with the right tweaks will blow away any DVD player on the same display.

    AVS has more than half a million people ready to tell you that, so I suggest you go over there.

    The PS3 is an okay blu-ray player. But as a DVD player its terrible. A $40 upscaling DVD player from Wal-Mart will kick the crap out of the PS3 when it comes to DVD scaling.

    You can enjoy your blu-ray movies all you like.. while they last ;) You do read the news, right? You do know that blu-ray sales have dropped 40% since January and rose only a very small number since the death of HD DVD, right?

    Blu-ray is going nowhere. People don't want it. It's too expensive. Nearly all early adopters that didn't buy a PS3 will be left in the dark once 2.0 hits. Blu-ray is as much of a joke as the PS3 itself is.

    A better experience is a 1080p upscaling DVD player (not that crap in the PS3). The best experience is still a HTPC properly tweaked.

    Blu-ray might have a slight advantage over a properly upscaled DVD (which you have yet to experience, owning a PS3 and sticking with OS X), but the overall experience of blu-ray with the outrageous player prices (and price increases!) and higher disc prices will keep it from becoming anything but this generation's LaserDisc.

    Oh and you better watch out with that PS3. Now that PS3's are finally getting used for more than blu-ray movies, it seems the patented Sony Failure Rate is starting to shine through like it did with the PS1 and PS2. People are starting to experience pickup system failures. Some are going through multiple units before getting ones that work. People are saying their PS3 runs hotter than their Xbox360!

    It's only a matter of time before Sony is hit with another class action lawsuit regarding the failure rate of the PS3. Just like they were with the PS1 and PS2. They lost both of those by the way.

    OLED has failed. It dies too quickly.

    Well, at least the Xbox360 runs its games at 720p, has a true hardware scaler, and most of the games have a smooth and steady frame-rate ;) Oh and no Vaseline Effect on 90% of its games that blur out the imperfections. Whats that? Sony, again, went overboard with their specs and the real world performance is only about half of what it says on paper? Hah.

    Oh yeah, Sony's displays aren't very good either. They're not as good as Samsung, Sharp, or Pioneer.

    With your Sony screen that isn't as good as others costing less? Sounds a lot like your ACD.

    Oh yeah, let me know when your Macs can play LEGAL high definition movies that aren't self produced. Not illegal files you downloaded from torrents or newsgroups. ;)

    Ah, but see, you don't get the superior experience. Head outside of the Apple fanboy circle and look at some actual monitors.

    Oh and you can't bring HD movies up since you have no legal way of playing HD movies on a Mac that are not self produced.

    No, I'm not a "true gamer". I just want the best for my money. And an ACD is certainly not that ;)

    Funny you say that because most Apple notebooks have LG displays.

    Well, considering you believe the PS3 and your Sony TV are the best, I (and anyone with common sense) can easily come to the conclusion that you base your decisions more on brand than actual specs and performance.

    Let me guess, you think Bose is a high quality brand too, right?

    So Apple can't get their own specs right? http://store.apple.com/us/product/M9178LL/A?fnode=home/shop_mac/mac_accessories/displays&mco=MTI1Njg

    Makes you wonder what the real specs are then if Apple can't even get it right!
     
  22. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #22
    If it takes all but 5 seconds.. how come I havnt come across not even one? Also it would take you but 10 seconds to copy and paste the link correct?? Where is it?? Ah I see there is none to prove what you are saying.



    what is it with you and ms, you know ms is the least of anyones concern. There are far more things important than simply judging ms in screens. I know only hardcore gamers are in dire need of ms speed.



    I have no idea what your talking about and I'm not only an apple fan boy I'm also a sony fan boy, xbox 360 fan boy, sharp fan boy and actually like some of the dell products.



    I've been a recent switcher to osx since december of 2005, so I know windows. I've used windows for 20 years since the good ol dos days to windows 3.1,95,98,me,2000,xp,vista so I know a bit about how windows works and I've figured out in these 20 years that its inferior in many many ways. Only thing good for windows is gaming.


    Vista is horrible period.



    yes dvd's are outdated, I dont even bother to d/l dvd releases unless I'm desperate to watch a certain movie but 95% of the time its at least 720p and 1080p is a must.

    again windows fan boys =/

    When I had the Mac Pro dvd's looked superb.

    http://businessweek.com.com/desktops/apple-mac-mini-core/4505-3118_7-31762058.html?tag=return

    G4 is very outdated and dont forget that even g4's can run leopard fine and just try running vista on a PIII and see how your dvd's play.



    Not in the blu-ray player department, its pretty much the number 1 rated bluray player for the money and most future proof. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...c-makes-ps3-the-most-future-proof-player.html

    Once again I could care less about the xbox 360/ps3 (I own both) but use it to play a game or two (usually just nba 2k series online). I dont like halo, I dont like unreal tournament, I dont like GTA4 either. I only like sports games though but I bought the ps3 just for blu-ray and its worth every penny. Just check out the avs forums they will tell you that the ps3 is the best bluray for the money and most future proof.

    Unimportant things are what you care about the most.



    I remember powerdvd when I had an ibm thinkpad feels plays exactly the same as on my mbp or mac pro.

    Not really~ People still consider B&W speakers as hifi and the wink is getting a bit annoying.

    I have been a member since 1999.

    uhh no not just an ok bluray player its one of the best out there. The new firmware that upscales dvd on the ps3 works great, also I have a yamaha receiver that can do all the upscaling or the sony bravia xbr4 that can upscale as well. If your so worried about dvd playback why did you buy a mac?? Just go buy that $40 dvd player and save yourself $$ from buying a mac and stop trolling around these forums use it to play on your crappy olevia 720p 37" hdtv.

    once again doesnt really matter bluray will still be there for the next 10 years.

    Yes exactly because the bluray is already here and its not going anywhere because its here already and dont worry prices always drop and same goes for when dvd's were first released I remember my cousin bought a first dvd player for $5000 and now its only what $100. Same will go for OLED (of course they will improve it its still in its early stages same as the led backlighting), SSD drives will get cheaper too just wait 2 years.

    Yes my yamaha will tweak it just right with my B&W 805s speakers for full dts is magical with my rotel poweramp.

    Again, I find it very funny that you think your trying to hurt my feelings about games.. once again I hardly ever game. I dont like GTA4, MSG series, etc etc. I only like madden, nba 2k series is my favorite to just play other people online and that's about it. I use the ps3 for strictly bluray/stream movies off my 1tb drives.



    Dont worry its new technology they will get it right same as when led lighting was first invented or even the light bulb.



    AH so your a microsoft fan boy and once again the wink smiling face is annoying.

    This proves to me you dont belong on the AVS forums or worthy of it.



    Exactly like the ACD its superior than most screens out for the $$$. I have a feeling if you see a sony bravia xbr4/5 play full 1080p on the ps3 and you'll be amazed and finally see what *true* high definition looks like. That's how I felt and I've been through sharp aquos, samsung lt lcd (returned 2). Even friends that I had over or my cousins their jaws dropped and was like damn all this time I was viewing fake hd. Everytime I go to one of my friends place he has a samsung lt model 720p/1080i hdtv. While its cheap and nice I do look at the hd content he plays on his windows and I always think it looks like dvd quality more so since I'm so used to the sony bravia.

    why would I? Its a computer, I use it for computing needs not to play movies on, like I said I already have a ps3,yamaha receiver, rotel poweramp, hddvr,popcorn hour, xbox 360 to get my high definition needs.



    yes best for the money is the ACDs clearly you've never taken it home and actually used it. I've been through 10-13 lcd monitors all ranging from viewsonics, westinghouse,lg, samsung and no nothing compares to the nec/eizos/ACD that I've used personally. Yes I'm also Korean so I've been to asia plenty of times and there I might find something from samsung thats awesome but still it cost 2x more over there than the ACD as the dollars have gone way down here in the states.



    So does dell,asus,alienware,ibm and many other companies use lg displays. But were talking about desktop lcd's not laptops again your off topic and dont make any sense. So your saying that I should pay $400 for a laptop tn crappy panel for a desktop?? Doesnt that sound more of a rip off?? Sure does to me.



    Nope Bose is crap for its supposedly high quality. I like B&W, Mcintosh things like that.



    Ah so you found a link that apple made a little mistake, I'm sure your precious windows doesnt make any mistakes either.

    OMG its clear as day that you cant even find 1 google link to support any of your stupid theories so just please stop. I dont believe a WORD that's coming out of your mouth and stop pulling **** out of your ass already.

    Yes the mbp has lg displays and as well as other notebooks out there like asus,dell, whatever company all use lg,samsung,sony displays. Sony has the best displays imo on the notebooks like the xblack (owned the sony vaio tz and to this day never seen a better display than that on a notebook).


    Also you clearly saying sony displays arent as good.. man you dont know jack *hit http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-...xbr4/4505-6482_7-32468193.html?tag=prod.txt.1 and yes I'm a member of the avs forums so please everything your saying is the complete opposite.


    Anyways, I guess there are rumors of an update tomarrow? I should just wait until tomarrow to see if I can get anything new.
     
  23. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #23
    Oh man this is getting bad.

    Why should I do your job for you? As I said, outside of the Apple fanboy circles, its an accepted fact that the ACDs are sub-standard. The person who is arguing against the facts generally provides the information to back them up. Go ahead. You can do it.

    Response time is just as important as everything else. Scrolling through a webpage or moving my mouse cursor should NOT result in ghosting.

    Well good for you. I've been using Microsoft OSes since the DOS days as well. I even remember upgrading to Windows 95. I've been using a Mac for over a year now.

    Windows is good for a lot of things. For example, theres still a ton of software that has no equivalent on OS X. Such as good DVD playback software or Nero. The next version of Photoshop will be 64-bit on Windows only!

    Actually, no its not. As I said, it has many features OS X doesn't. My HP with Vista is every bit as stable as OS X and doesn't like to randomly lock up like OS X does. I have far fewer program crashes than OS X. Not to mention I can hook up my HP via HDMI cable to my HDTV, Vista recognizes the maximum resolution of the screen and adjusts accordingly. I get digital audio out thats sent to my receiver via the HDMI cable. I don't have to do a single thing.

    Download DVD releases? Now, if you can supposedly afford all the Macs you claim to have owned, why would you need to steal movies? Maybe because you're not being honest about everything you supposedly own or do? hmm. Many things you say later on in your post, including the way you speak and the fact that your argument falls apart can lead anyone reading this post to believe that you're being extremely dishonest. Especially the fact that you're basically admitting to illegally downloading movies.

    And this is where your argument begins to fall apart.

    You obviously haven't seen better. Again, check out that review I posted. Go check out that Anandtech article as well. You'll see that DVD Player is anything but "superb". Besides, you've admitted to illegally downloading movies so how can we even know you're watching actual DVDs and not some 700MB xvid re-encode of the movie?

    Leopard and Vista have roughly the same CPU requirements. Look it up ;)

    Oh and I used to have a Coppermine Celeron based system. With hardware acceleration enabled, DVD playback hovered around 20% CPU use. Less than the G4 that was clocked several hundred MHz higher than the Celeron I had ;)

    And now, with my HP, DVD playback hovers around 2-3% CPU use. The GeForce does it all. On my 2.16GHz MacBook? Roughly 25%.

    Thats true. But blu-ray isn't going anywhere. Sales have dropped by almost half. Not to mention theres no real benefit for most people. You have to remember that the vast majority of people are buying HDTVs from Wal-Mart for around $400-$500. 720p sets that don't have very good image quality. Blu-ray will lose more than 1.1MP of resolution by being downscaled to 720p. So why should people buy players that cost as much as their TV did and, with the exception of the PS3, possibly be outdated at some point and then go and spend between $20-$40 per disc when any "benefit" will be lost? Especially when they can go buy an upscaling DVD player and breathe new life into their entire DVD collection?

    Blu-ray also has to compete against HD On Demand, HD PPV, Apple TV, etc.

    But since you've already admitted to illegally downloading movies, we don't even know if you're talking about blu-ray discs any more. You could be talking about highly compressed rips that have about 1/10th the bitrate of the original disc. Blu-ray also has a number of MPEG-2 discs out there that really don't look any good. They look more like poorly upscaled DVDs than HD movies.

    You didn't buy the PS3 for blu-ray. You've admitted more than once to downloading movies. We don't even know if you're watching blu-ray. Hell, at this point, we don't even know if you own a PS3 or anything you claim to because of your dishonesty.

    Yes, they will say the PS3 is future proof. But you know what? The vast majority of the members there will tell you to stick with DVD and get either a top of the line upscaling DVD player or a HTPC.

    As is the case with most OEM PCs, it was most likely a version of PowerDVD that was at least two generations behind and your Thinkpad (if you even owned one) had an Intel GPU. But even then, PowerDVD still had features that DVD Player in Leopard lacks. Such as the ability to decode the LFE channel and send it out to headphones or 2 or 4 channel speaker sets.

    So you go from complaining about the Windows fanboys there to suddenly being a member for 9 years? After admitting to illegally downloading movies? Sure buddy, we believe you. Whats your username there?

    Ah, your argument falls apart with the way you speak. First of all, the PS3 is rated as one of the worst DVD upscalers. Receivers generally don't upscale well either, and a TV's ability to upscale depends on the included video processing hardware. We all know how Sony enjoys Apple like profit margins. Meaning they'll use the lowest quality parts and slap their name on it. And, again, after your admissions, those of us reading this post can't even believe if you're actually watching blu-ray discs or your illegal downloads.

    Anyway, my TV is anything but crappy ;) Sure, its not the best. It was a lot cheaper than the TV you claim to own. It has endless inputs (2 VGA, 2 HDCP HDMI, 2 component, 2 composite, 2 S-Video) and good outputs, including optical and coaxial SPDIF outputs and even a well amplified headphone jack. It also uses a high end ATI VPU.

    Oh and I'm using a $150 Onkyo upscaling DVD player ;) as well as my HP connected via HDMI and DirecTV for high def. I know people with high end and much bigger DLP setups that are jealous of mine because it was so cheap, it looks nearly as good as their setup, and it just works.

    No, it won't. Sales have dropped dramatically and it has too much competition. It offers very little in terms of audio and video quality improvement over DVD. Not to mention it cannot combat against DVDs benefits. Such as the ability to play everywhere. You can take a DVD and play it on any computer, any TV, portable DVD players, in your car, etc. Where can you play your blu-ray disc? Only on a player that costs as much as the TV did and you better hope that TV meets the DRM requirements!

    Blu-ray isn't going anywhere because its already here? Apparently you never heard of DVD-Audio, SACD, minidisc (outside of Asia), Beta in the home video market, DAT, memory sticks in non-Sony products.

    Just because something is "already here" doesn't mean it has to last. It can be around for a good 5 or 6 years but it will never have the support or acceptance that DVD had.

    I'm assuming you made a typo on that DVD player price. The first DVD players back in 1997 were $500.

    However, the price for DVD players was justified. DVD players didn't require a TV set upgrade and that same TV set to meet DRM requirements. DVDs looked much better than VHS on any TV the player was connected to. DVDs also brought the ability to actually buy the movie without waiting through a 6-12 month "rental pricing" period, chapters, no more rewinding, digital sound. What does blu-ray bring? Slightly better (compared to a good upscaler) image and sound quality? But at what cost? You have to have a new TV that meets DRM requirements, you have to rebuy your collection on new discs that cost 2-3x more than the same movie on DVD. Even then you don't know if you're getting a good H.264 transfer or a crappy MPEG-2 transfer. Yes I know that DVDs use MPEG-2, however, 6Mbps MPEG-2 for 480i is a different story than the average 18Mbps 1080p blu-ray discs that Sony was so proud of. Not to mention blu-ray has to compete against HD on Demand, HD PPV, things like Apple TV, DVD's playability and prices. Oh, and if you want to watch blu-ray movies on a PC (legally, not like that matters to you), you have to hope that your entire video path meets all of the DRM requirements. Not a single Mac in existance as of this posting does.

    Somehow you can afford thousands of dollars worth of computer and home theater equipment, yet you can't afford to BUY your movies? You've already admitted to illegally downloading them. Because of that, how can we know you're being honest at all? For all we know, you're just some kid on his parents iMac making all of this up. Your grammar certainly hints at that.

    Nope. Just pointing out the truth ;)

    Says the one who openly admits to illegally downloading movies and has the grammar of a 14 year old. What does that say?

    You're definitely buying into the hype of Sony products.

    Nice way to avoid my question. Oh and a lot of us with PCs do, in fact, use them for legal video uses. Why? Well, better upscaling. Oh and most OEM PCs these days have HDCP certified HDMI outputs. Why should I buy all kinds of extra equipment when my PC will play it all with a single cable connected?

    rofl now you're Korean and you've been to Asia plenty of times. Right. Just like you're watching your illegally downloaded movie rips through your PS3 on your Sony TV. Right? This is getting hilarious.

    Also, about the US dollar. If you were an adult and watched the actual currency changes, you'd know that the US dollar has only lost a few cents here and there. Its actually fluctuating as ALL currencies do. It's not like other currencies haven't lost value either.

    Talk about missing the point entirely. I mentioned that because you said "LG panels are crappy" yet your MacBook Pro that you supposedly own most likely has an LG.

    Oh and I'll take that $400 LCD display that has the same color reproduction, 1/3 the response time, better contrast ratio, and can connect to 5 different devices at once over the ACD that only has one video connection and ghosts if I just move a window or scroll down on the page.

    Not nearly as much as OS X has. Heres a nice little example for you. The other day I was talking to a friend in iChat. I was typing in their window and then sent the message. Clicked back on Safari and the ENTIRE system locked up. Ironically, if I run XP in Boot Camp, the system is rock solid and 100% stable. The only problem I've had with Vista so far is that I had to reset my power settings to default because the screen wasn't shutting off like it should have. But that fixed it. I've had OS X crash more times in the year I've been using it than Windows in the two decades I've been using it. Yet Windows on my Mac runs flawlessly. Whats up with that?

    This means a lot coming from the person who admitted to illegally downloading movies, can't keep their story straight, and is acting like a 14 year old. I'd bet good money that you're just a teenager sitting there on your parents Mac making up all of this and acting as if you really owned everything.

    Sony's notebooks are lower quality than anyone elses and the prices are worse than Apple. A classic example of Sony trying to rip people off based on their name.

    Why would why I spend roughly $3,000 on a TV when, for less, I could buy a 1080p projector that puts out a better image and have myself a more than 100" screen?

    For something that costs so much I would expect more than an 8.0 rating.

    Oh and if you are a member of AVS, you should remember that the majority of the forum supported, and still supports, HD DVD. The vast majority of the members will take DVD over blu-ray any day and will suggest a HTPC over a PS3 when it comes to image quality.
     
  24. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #24
    Anyways the macbook paired to the 23" ACD works great! :D
     
  25. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #25
    I am oh so tempted to remove all the OT comparisons of LCDs.. so tempted.
     

Share This Page