Monster iMac displays... what's the point?

Jackintosh

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 21, 2009
571
4
Illinois
Why the need to sit a few inches in front of these new mega iMac displays? There's so much display territory that you almost have to hunt for what your looking for. And you don't get a good sense of the overall visual representation being that close to such a huge display. Who would sit that close in front of their large screen TV?

I say buy a top notch Mini and connect it to your large flat panel TV. Then watch and compute comfortably from a healthy and reasonable distance as you would TV. The idea of sitting at a workstation desk with a cinema size display in front of one's nose is geeky and a remnant of the past micro monitor days. The future of all home computing is through integration with your TV and audio entertainment system at normal and visually rewarding viewing distances, in my opinion. HTPC is just the start.
 

Icaras

macrumors 603
Mar 18, 2008
5,834
2,219
California, United States
"The study, which evaluated Apple's 30-in. Apple Cinema Display, concluded that large screens can offer gains of up to 50% to 65% in productivity on a variety of specific office tasks and can earn back their extra costs in time savings over several years."

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9004022/Update_Could_a_30_in._monitor_help_you_do_your_job_faster_
Nice find. That was my random but fun fact of the day. :)

Well, there you have it then folks.

/end thread

Not that you also have to mention, that they just look ***** awesome :eek:
 

Jackintosh

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 21, 2009
571
4
Illinois
"The study, which evaluated Apple's 30-in. Apple Cinema Display, concluded that large screens can offer gains of up to 50% to 65% in productivity on a variety of specific office tasks and can earn back their extra costs in time savings over several years."

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9004022/Update_Could_a_30_in._monitor_help_you_do_your_job_faster_
Nothing against large screens themselves for more detail and effectiveness. My point is why sit uncomfortably at a desk workstation within a few inches of it, when it's for home use?

Nice find. That was my random but fun fact of the day. :)

Well, there you have it then folks.

/end thread

Not that you also have to mention, that they just look ***** awesome :eek:
"***** awesome" for that special geek in you. Sorry, couldn't resist.
 

oftheheavens

macrumors 68000
Jul 9, 2008
1,988
497
cherry point
For home use I think 24" is large enough (I have a 24" iMac).
I just realized something when reading this thread.

I pulled up my info on settings for displays and the monitor that i thought was 22 inch is really only 19'' (hp w1907) I have the 27'' i7 on order and good god the screen is going to be huge!! It is literally going to take up my whole little japanese desk! o well!

While i think that there should have been a middle between the 21.5 and 27, i say o well to that. If Apple wants to force me to buy a bigger screen at a cheaper price than the top of the line 24'' was, I can't argue with that :D
 

mrsir2009

macrumors 604
Sep 17, 2009
7,501
156
Melbourne, Australia
I just realized something when reading this thread.

I pulled up my info on settings for displays and the monitor that i thought was 22 inch is really only 19'' (hp w1907) I have the 27'' i7 on order and good god the screen is going to be huge!! It is literally going to take up my whole little japanese desk! o well!

While i think that there should have been a middle between the 21.5 and 27, i say o well to that. If Apple wants to force me to buy a bigger screen at a cheaper price than the top of the line 24'' was, I can't argue with that :D
Americans like to make stuff big and flashy...
 

EasyRider

macrumors regular
Mar 28, 2008
119
0
I don't think many people would sit a few inches from a large lcd. I sit about 3ft away from my 24" iMac. If I lean back on my chair, its more like 4ft away.

If you use a computer for more then a couple of hours a day, it would not be comfortable to do it from the couch. A proper office chair and desk would work best. Also, I think it would be more strain on your eyes if you do reading from that far way (I am thinking your couch would be 8 to 10 ft away from your display). Probably ok for short periods of time, but not for extended use. Actually if it was better, tons of IT offices would be outfitted with couches :)

I remember the 30" iMac rumors from the past year, was hoping for a 30" monster to put in my home office :)

Why the need to sit a few inches in front of these new mega iMac displays? There's so much display territory that you almost have to hunt for what your looking for. And you don't get a good sense of the overall visual representation being that close to such a huge display. Who would sit that close in front of their large screen TV?

I say buy a top notch Mini and connect it to your large flat panel TV. Then watch and compute comfortably from a healthy and reasonable distance as you would TV. The idea of sitting at a workstation desk with a cinema size display in front of one's nose is geeky and a remnant of the past micro monitor days. The future of all home computing is through integration with your TV and audio entertainment system at normal and visually rewarding viewing distances, in my opinion. HTPC is just the start.
 

300D

macrumors 65816
May 2, 2009
1,284
0
Tulsa
2.5' is my comfort zone for my 24" screen, 3.5' when leaning back watching a movie.

If you think you're sitting too close to the screen, up the font size and move back.
 

eelpout

macrumors regular
Oct 30, 2007
236
6
Silicon Valley
I don't think many people would sit a few inches from a large lcd. I sit about 3ft away from my 24" iMac. If I lean back on my chair, its more like 4ft away.
Note the 24" is around 94 pixels per inch, the 27", 109 PPI. That's quite a difference. You'll need to be closer to the 27" to see the same field of view because of the higher density. Stuff is going to be much smaller, unless you go lower from the native resolution on the 27" to match up the PPI. And then it's kind of "what's the point?" as the OP stated.
 

hayduke

macrumors 65816
Mar 8, 2005
1,177
2
is a state of mind.
I have a 30" ACD and it is terrific. Bigger would likely be too big. It never strains my eyes and it is very good for my workflow. If you don't need it, don't buy it. It will make sense for some people.

IMHO I think a 27" iMac would look very nice as a HTPC.
 

tkermit

macrumors 68040
Feb 20, 2004
3,420
2,340

APPLEFAN8

macrumors 65816
Jun 30, 2007
1,182
1
NJ/GA/FL
i'm getting the 27 inch iMac! Bigger is better! It will be better for my macbook when I travel with it and than the iMac will be my work station for all the media I do with video and photo's for Drag racing. I can't wait
 

Bryan Bowler

macrumors 68040
Sep 27, 2008
3,738
3,386
Guess what? If you don't like a large display, then you don't have to buy it. That's why Apple offers a 21.5 inch version.

Just as you don't like a large display, there are many of us that do. I'm a professional photographer and the added workspace will be great for my workflow. And when I'm not editing/managing photos, I can use the extra real estate to have a couple of Safari pages open, my calendar, and iChat, all at the same time...

I love the new 27" display. Absolutely love it...

Thanks Apple!

Bryan
 

mrsir2009

macrumors 604
Sep 17, 2009
7,501
156
Melbourne, Australia
9&T2s?AN8;8700301]i'm getting the 27 inch iMac! Bigger is better! It will be better for my macbook when I travel with it and than the iMac will be my work station for all the media I do with video and photo's for Drag racing. I can't wait[/QUOTE]

I'm using an iMac G3, and it has a 15" screen! The G3 is my main computer...
 

ditzy

macrumors 68000
Sep 28, 2007
1,710
156
I've never really got these 'I don't like them so why do they make them' threads. The answer to why they make them is, other people do like them.
 

arjen92

macrumors 65816
Sep 9, 2008
1,065
0
Below sea level
The iMac 27" as HTPC doesn't seem ideally for me. It doesn't support blu-ray play back. You would have to install Windows or watch normal DVD's. So to use it as HTPC seems useless to me.

Not only apple researched the work efficiency of bigger screens. Other researches have shown bigger screen make your more productive too; http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/magazine/16guru.html?ei=5090&en=c8985a80d74cefc1&ex=1287115200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1129521853-ar/Jp1qnf0XCl9MGUEiLGA

I would like to have the 27". I use it to make video's and the bigger the screen the better. I now use 2 screens; my iMac 24" and another 19" screen (which seems pretty small). Desk space is definitely not an issue. I also place the screen on one side of the desk, and me at the other side, have about 4 ft between me and the screen. More than enough.You can see enough detail.

27" made it also possible for apple to tackle the heat problems with desktop hardware. Now you can have a real desktop processor and video card, instead of laptop processors.

p.s. remember with the introduction of the iMac G4 Steve said 17" would be big enough for always. Ironic
 

IgnatiusTheKing

macrumors 68040
Nov 17, 2007
3,652
0
das Fort
The iMac 27" as HTPC doesn't seem ideally for me. It doesn't support blu-ray play back. You would have to install Windows or watch normal DVD's. So to use it as HTPC seems useless to me.
You can hook a Blu-Ray player to the 27" and just use it as a TV to watch movies.
 

RexTraverse

macrumors 6502
Feb 10, 2008
259
0
There was a thread on MacRumors a few years ago. It was some teenage girl, an iBook G3 owner if I recall correctly, who was complaining that Apple updated the components on their hardware too often... she wished that they stop updating the hardware because the space and performance was more than adequate for anything anyone would ever need and no one would ever need more power than what was already available.

This thread reminds me of that one.

Also, to the OP... two words: Resolution Independence.
 

psingh01

macrumors 65816
Apr 19, 2004
1,362
345
Sitting to close to a tv was uncomfortable because the screen was large yet the resolution was crap. Not so with a high resolution screen like those found on computer LCDs.
 

jddar

macrumors regular
Aug 7, 2009
201
13
At first, I too worried that they might be too big. However, if you look at the side-by-side photo comparisons of the 24 and 27-inch iMacs posted on forums, the 27 doesn't appear overly big. They are not any taller and just a little wider.
 

ksmith80209

macrumors 6502a
Aug 15, 2007
801
17
Consider a person - like me - that does development work. I frequently have to copy code from a development web page to a production web page which today requires lots of switching between pages. The 27" screen will allow you to have two full sized web pages open side by side. You can't do that on anything smaller. So... that's my reason.
 

iMJustAGuy

macrumors 68020
Sep 10, 2007
2,121
0
Beach, FL
Note the 24" is around 94 pixels per inch, the 27", 109 PPI. That's quite a difference. You'll need to be closer to the 27" to see the same field of view because of the higher density. Stuff is going to be much smaller, unless you go lower from the native resolution on the 27" to match up the PPI. And then it's kind of "what's the point?" as the OP stated.
This is probably why they advertised the ctrl+ scroll feature in the demo even though it has been around for"ever". But I don't care about small text. So long as I can read it.