New Apple Displays?

[Windowlicker]

Um, I'd order one the first day even though I've been planning to buy a new 23" model. I think I could live with 20" if it was only $699.

i really hope they release new displays at wwdc. if/when they do, the price of the current 17" will drop by about 200€ and i'll get one. I need a display, and I want it to be at least 17", but I can't really put much more than 500€ on it (i get them for a bit lower price because of my job) so the 17" would probably fit my budget.

I also have one of those now (have had for a couple of years actually) and I'm very satisfied. of course I could use some more space, but this is pretty much enough.

 

[~Shard~]

I can't comprehend where some of these people are coming from when they say that they actually prefer a 17" screen! I'm a package designer and when I started at my company years ago they had the 17" Apple CRTs on their G4's. After a year I bought 21" Sony Trinitron Flat Display CRTs because the real estate on the 17" screens was just too small. Now I am finding that the more the field progresses the 21" screens and starting to feel cramped. We use Photoshop, Illustrator and Freehand predominately and I know for a fact that when the price of a 23" or larger Apple display comes down I will try to get them in there.

Well, as a general rule, more is always better, but not everyone is a a package designer as yourself. For people who use pro apps, engage in serious multitasking, etc., whether it be graphical (Adobe CS, etc.), video-related (FCP, Shake, Motion, etc.) or audio (Logic, etc.), a lot of real estate is definitely required. But for the average user, whether he's playing games, checking his e-mail, surfing the Net or using Office, a 17" is definitely large enough in most cases, and in some cases, (as we are seeing by the posts in this thread), preferred.

So if you think about it, it's not actually that hard to comprehend.

 

[wdlove]

Well, as a general rule, more is always better, but not everyone is a a package designer as yourself. For people who use pro apps, engage in serious multitasking, etc., whether it be graphical (Adobe CS, etc.), video-related (FCP, Shake, Motion, etc.) or audio (Logic, etc.), a lot of real estate is definitely required. But for the average user, whether he's playing games, checking his e-mail, surfing the Net or using Office, a 17" is definitely large enough in most cases, and in some cases, (as we are seeing by the posts in this thread), preferred.

So if you think about it, it's not actually that hard to comprehend.

Unless your in my situation that your G4 can only handle a 17". I just didn't think that on an over 3 year old G4 that I would invest in a new card also.

I think that the 23" would be awesome for watching DVD movies.

 

[~Shard~]

I think that the 23" would be awesome for watching DVD movies.

Yah, you might as well just use that as your TV then as well as your computer monitor...

If these rumors about a 30" model are indeed correct, I'll be very eager to see it and its specs... and its pricetag...

 

[iDave]

Yah, you might as well just use that as your TV then as well as your computer monitor...

I might, if the 23" model will connect to a HDTV tuner.

If these rumors about a 30" model are indeed correct, I'll be very eager to see it and its specs... and its pricetag...

I suspect it would be about $3999 for the first six months at least.

 

[cr2sh]

Anyone got a copy of the thinksecret artist's rendition of the image? Without posting it, could you email it to me?

csnoke@sinink.com

Thanks.

 

[~Shard~]

I suspect it would be about $3999 for the first six months at least.

Man, that sure does sound like a lot, but it is realistic. And, I guess for what you're getting it's somewhat reasonable, but man, that's still a lot of cash for a monitor! I guess you have to look at it as not just a monitor but a TV as well at that point...

 

[iDave]

Man, that sure does sound like a lot, but it is realistic. And, I guess for what you're getting it's somewhat reasonable, but man, that's still a lot of cash for a monitor! I guess you have to look at it as not just a monitor but a TV as well at that point...

$3999 was the price for the original 22" Cinema Display when flat panels were still sky high. The 23" Cinema HD started at $3499, I think. I doubt if 30" high definition LCD panels will come cheap so yeah, I think it's realistic.

Keep in mind that if a 30" Apple display is introduced, it will not be merely a TV. It will be a high definition computer display. Most of the big HDTV monitors available today are not nearly as high in definition as a computer display, but they look great from six to 10 feet away.

 

[~Shard~]

$3999 was the price for the original 22" Cinema Display when flat panels were still sky high. The 23" Cinema HD started at $3499, I think. I doubt if 30" high definition LCD panels will come cheap so yeah, I think it's realistic.

Keep in mind that if a 30" Apple display is introduced, it will not be merely a TV. It will be a high definition computer display. Most of the big HDTV monitors available today are not nearly as high in definition as a computer display, but they look great from six to 10 feet away.

Actually you're right, I forgot the original displays were so highly priced - how quickly we forget! I guess it's all relative then - as you say, for an HD computer display of that size, the price is definitely realistic.

 

[daveg5]

If you really want an awesome display buy IBMs 22 inch T221 it is 9.2 million pixels.

Thats a sreen resolution of.......3840x2400

Although it doesnt have the beautiful designs that apple is famous for, It cant be beat for gorgeous high resolution an clarity..

It had a crazy price tag of $22,000 when it released 3 YEARS AGO
It can now be had found for $4k from Tiger Direct

what video card on the mac can handle that?

 

[daveg5]

what video card on the mac can handle that?

\http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8578
it will work on a mac but not in full res mode, because dvi is limited to 1920X1200, so it would probably be blurry at that res, as most LCDs are blurry when not at their native res, and the refresh rate would be very low like 21HZ.
So Apple "must" release a new Video card, if they want to ever go past 1920X1200 on a single display. Or they can do like IBM did, and put 4 DVI inputs on the display to drive the Display from 2 or more cards. I think that 2-23" cinemas, would be a lot less trouble. or one 30 display. and cheaper.
I have an idea as to whole big the pront is. On my 15"(13.8) sony monitor I can can set 1920x1080 as the resolution at 60HZ. At that resolution the print is readable but very very small, an LCD would be clearer and you can always up the font size. I would like the 3940x2400 on a 30" better then a 22", what really amazes me is the .12mm dot pitch, that is amazing.!

 

[dongmin]

I'd take anything coming out of ThinkSecret these days with a huge grain of salt. The signal to noise ratio has been awful lately. To wit: the new machines were to be 2.0/2.2/2.6; then two days before the new machines were released, they said the lineup would be dual 1.8/2.0/2.5, but that there would still be an entry level single 1.8. Nothing was mentioned about liquid cooling. And, the releases were pegged for a day earlier than actually released. (The earlier erroneous reports are of course removed from the site.)

Thinksecret has their share of misses but their track record is still way better than anyone else. Their being off on a few details (2.5 tops versus 2.6; tuesday instead of monday release) is more than made up by the fact that 1) they were the first to say 'No PM updates' in Feburary; 2) they anticipated the release before WWDC while everyone had it coming AT WWDC, and 3) they did not make wild claims about 3.0 ghz.

Thinksecret's bullseye to noise ratio is MUCH higher than most rumors sites. They usually don't make a prediction unless they have some sort of confirmation from a real source. So I'd believe anything thinksecret says before anyone else, even Arn who himself has a pretty good track record.

 

[Chopper3]

what video card on the mac can handle that?

I've just been looking at this thread's history and a number of people have asked this question or similar. The answer, contrary to other posts, is nothing available right this second. Apple, or more specifically ATI, will release a new card to support it - no ifs, no buts. A number of older cards can handle desktops that size but nothing can output to a dvi port at that resolution. There will be a card that is launched alongside the display, but gamers will be disappointed, it'll be more of a workstation card - still no slouch, but not in the X800 league. Oh and it'll have either 384Mb or 512Mb onboard.

 

[supergod]

Now that the displays are out, these renderings look a little too good: there is no way these were just extrapolated from info and rumours. They are spot on and identical in every way to the finished product (just look at the placement of firewire and USB or the precise matching of all the curves and bezels). These look like they've been traced from photos that were taken but then not used in the end. Anyone else have an opinion on this?

 

[Dr. Dastardly]

All though the actual thing looks much better than the mock up drawing imho, I think you are correct. I thought that the new monitors would look somewhat similar to the drawings seeing that Apple legal had them removed.