Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is a 30" monitor too big?

stainlessliquid said:
30" is monstrous, way too big for me. Imagine planting a 30" tv on your desk and sitting 2 feet away from it. You cant really sit farther away either, since the DPI is relatively the same as a smaller monitor, if you sit too far away then you wont be able to read the text since it wont be any bigger.
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't used a 30" monitor:) There is no problem with the size or how far/close you need to sit in front of it. The large desktop space and high resolution are fantastic and really improve productivity as you have space to spread out windows and see things at full size. Text at the default resolution is highly readable. It is absolutely not like sitting close in front of a TV screen.

If you can afford one (and have dual link DVI) then get one!
 
Yes I have used one and highly recommend against it if you dont need the multitasking ability. Its just too big, and sitting infront of a big wall of light isnt the best thing for your eyes. But the most annoying thing though is how much you have to move the mouse and your head, you can speed up the mouse but then it becomes harder to be accurate. The closer you sit the more you have to move your head, maybe some people dont mind that or actually like it (look at all the people sit in the front rows at theaters) but it really annoys me. It is exactly like sitting infront of a big tv, since you have to move your head to see different things.

Its great for multitasking, since its better than having 2 monitors, but if you dont multitask where you need to monitor several windows at the same time then its annoying. If you dont have a reason to multitask then its a lot easier to just have your window in the middle of the screen where you dont have to travel too far for the dock or menu bar and dont have to move your head when you want to use a different window. Like I said, it hurts your workflow if you dont need the extra space.
 
I agree with Stainlesssquid about the 30" monitor... Unless you actually need the multitasking capability/screen real-estate, you'd be much better suited by a 24" resolution screen. If you're interested in watching movies/viewing pictures on a big screen, though, you can always set up a direct link to your TV for when you want to watch stuff through your computer, and use the 24" for everything else.
 
i say go for a 27 or 28 inch lcd. much better bang for the buck.

I had a 30 inch in the past but got rid of it.. just too big
 
Just got my two Dell 2408 monitors.
Mac Pro arriving tomorrow.

These monitors are really great, a little over saturated for me, but a hardware calibration will solve that.

I'll give you my opinions when my system gets all dialed in :D
 
The 30" ACD is, without a doubt, a beautiful monitor but simply too big IMO. On top of that, of the current machines, only the Mac Pro and Macbook Pro can drive it so unless you've got one of those it's a non-starter. I got a 23" ACD and for me it's the perfect size
 
I believe it depends on your usage. For a lot of creative professionals I can understand the justification for 30inch displays. Two or four even. If your doing photo / video / sound post production all day for a job, they probably pay for themselves the time they save.

For the majority of people their computers aren't used for heavy creative work, mainly typing, email, web surfing, IM, calender etc. For these types of work I am from the school where 13-20 inch screen sizes are ideal.

I am a photographer who is happy working on a 15inch screen but I could see how plugging into a 23 or 30 inch display would improve my productivity - that doesn't help me when I am on location though.

I find that the study about 23 / 24 inch monitors being more productive than a 30 very interesting. I have always had a preference for this size. The 24inch iMac is used by a lot of my colleagues and I have to say, it is wonder to see photographs that large.

As for a 30 inch display, like I said above - probably far to big for 95% of computer users, but then we are Mac users, and if we work in a creative profession it is probably justified that the larger the better!
 
We recently replaced a 20" CD iMac with a Mac Pro and debated whether to go with a 30" display or twin 20's. We ended up going with the 20" monitors, and couldn't be happier. You can't deny Teh Sheer Sex™ of a 30" display, but the dual 20's gives us all the real estate we need for apps and palettes without the eystrain of sitting 18" from a monster 30.

Of course, if we watched movies at work all day, the 30 would have been a no-brainer.;)

I think you'll be happy with that 24.
 
I will throw my two cents in....

As a toner who color tones on a 30" it's a beast of a monitor, that honestly, I wouldn't pay for. I am a fan of the 23" display however.... it's where Apple's displays start at HD and it's nicely priced (for a real professional monitor) for it's size. Since the 24" just spreads the same rez in a bigger display, and the lack of FW400 and tacky design...

The 20" is VERY nice for the price and since it's res isn't as high text appears larger, so I personally went for the 23" as the main display and the 20" for viewing text and things that don't need the sharpness, brightness, and clarity of the 23"

e.g. the bin in FCP.
 
i run 1 30 inch apple monitors and a 21 inch clintiq . I really with my clintiq was 30 inch. You might want to look at the the new NEC its a 12 bit monitor unlike all the 8 bit ones mentioned.
 
Which Card to drive a 30?

I'm running a Power Mac G5, 1.8 GHz, 900 MHz. The current card a GeForce FX 5200 will only push 1280x800. It looks brail big. ATI Radeon X1900 XT or the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500? CDMARKO1
 
neiltc13 said:
Just to put this into perspective, we have a 26" LCD TV in our lounge which is large enough to watch TV on every day.

I can't imagine using a 30" display right up close as a computer monitor. Seems like a huge excess.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I can understand the need for people in a professional field to use a 30" monitor. But every-day joe computer user certainly doesnt need that. Hell, I think the 24" iMac is overkill and I see ppl saying they hope the new iMacs come in 30"!!!!

I went from a 19" square Samsung to a 20" iMac about a month ago and Ive got so much free space on my screen I cant imagine needing more. Just think 10 years ago, who would have even imagined a freaking 30" computer monitor??? Most ppl didnt have a tv that big.

Too each his own, but at what point is enough enough already?
 
cdmarko1 said:
I'm running a Power Mac G5, 1.8 GHz, 900 MHz. The current card a GeForce FX 5200 will only push 1280x800. It looks brail big. ATI Radeon X1900 XT or the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500? CDMARKO1
Click to expand...

What do you mean my 900 MHz? :confused:

You need to find either Radeon 9600 retail box or Radeon X800 for your PowerMac.
 
VoodooDaddy said:
Too each his own, but at what point is enough enough already?
Click to expand...

A lot of folks here automatically recommend the biggest/most expensive things without regard to the poster's needs. If Apple offered a 60" monitor, several people would already have deemed it an essential purchase for the OP. Just look at the dozens of threads where folks recommend MBPs to people looking for laptops to check mail and surf the internet.

My two cents: get the smaller screen.
 
heatmiser said:
A lot of folks here automatically recommend the biggest/most expensive things without regard to the poster's needs. If Apple offered a 60" monitor, several people would already have deemed it an essential purchase for the OP. Just look at the dozens of threads where folks recommend MBPs to people looking for laptops to check mail and surf the internet.

My two cents: get the smaller screen.
Click to expand...

I like the way you think :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back