Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by umbilical, Sep 29, 2008.
hey why not new cinema displays!! I want a new one, a lot time without a new model!
I think there nice... But I guess they could use a panel upgrade, since all the competitors have for a monitor in this category. But I don't think you will see a design remodel, till the Mac Pro is redesigned.
Hmm... what's wrong with the current model? Beside it doesn't have HDCP compliance? Personally... I love my display, the Dells can't even get close when it comes to matching, co-ordinating the Apple's Professional line. Though I do wish Apple would produce a even larger display, my 30" already looks too small. LOL
Don't say that! I want to upgrade from a 23" one when the next model come out!
I hope that Apple will release a 50" TV, to tie in with Apple TV. And put a HD tuner in Apple TV and I'll be satisfied.
While it could be updated Technology hasn't changed that much since they were last updated. The only thing I could really think of is HDCP Other than that there's not that much. Perhaps better panels.
HDCP, better contrast, faster response rate, more inputs (component, HDMI), and maybe an iSight (I'd say make that optional though, since some workplaces cannot have cameras)
I would think they are waiting until they can make LED displays work in terms of the market and pricing. They haven't shown interest in being more than a quality display to complement the Mac Pro and Macbook Pro and I can't see that changing in the future.
I wouldn't get my hopes up beyond maybe seeing LED displays debut alongside new Mac Pros in Q1 2009 and costing more than the current ones at similar sizes.
I'd say price drops. Drop the 20 inch to about $450USD (about $599 currently), 23 to $700 (about $899 currently), etc. I'd like to buy an apple display...they're so pretty...but you can find good quality viewsonics for about half apple's price.
EDIT I like the idea of new led displays as well. I second that.
I doubt the Viewsonics have the S-IPS panel that the apple and high end dells use. While they could make them a bit cheaper. I don't think it will happen. Maybe but traditionally apple has kept prices the same and just given more features however that might have to change now with the U.S. economy.
H-IPS, LED and 16:9 ratio Cinema Display would be nice.
No!!! If I loose any more screen real estate, I will start choking people.
16:9 wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. Nonstandard resolutions are the devil.
Yes, let's leave that to Sony... Since they want to make a big ass Portable HD BluRay player.
No, they are not.
What did I say? No one wants Cinema displays to have 16:9.
H-IPS would be nice but it is really expensive and apple needs to lower their prices no raise them.
I still do not know why people are so afraid of it except for a couple lost pixels. So what, big deal.
I can only speak for my self but when i'm in photoshop I want all the realestate I can get. I love my pixels. But I could ask you the same question why 16:9 What are the advantages.
Agrees, I am also more into photoshop. But I can see the advantage of 16:9, for film editing.
I think Apple's design team has hit the brick wall with displays.
Except for the fact that a veritable buttload of applications, especially games, would have to be patched to support the new resolutions. Not to mention display drivers, and very possibly the OS itself.
What? OS X already supports nonstandard resolutions (Try using a VGA cable out to a projector. Your options there are far weirder than this). And it manages it just fine. In fact, I can run 1920x1080 out to my monitor just fine, 1:1 pixel mapping through a DVI cable. It's a 25.5" H-IPS and it works great.
Some games are flexible, and many could be made to support 16:9. After all, every console game does. Also, 16:9 nonstandard? HDTV, in all of its flavors and incarnations, is all 16:9, and it has been standardized for many, many years. Pixel loss, by the way, is minor. Also, the point of 16:9 monitors is to cram 1080p onto smaller panels, a measure I thoroughly approve of since right now 22" monitors suck - are merely a downgrade from 20" monitors in terms of pixel density and always use TN panels. Now, if 22" monitors adopted that aspect ratio in order to get 1080p, I'd call that a much better idea. I don't think anybody is seriously making 24" 16:9 panels, but if they are, it'll have an obvious use to video editors, as 16:10 is not used anywhere there.
So, to recap: 16:9 is a thoroughly standard resolution and OS X handles it just fine. So would just about every application that wasn't designed by a company that doesn't know how to write apps (like Microsoft). Games could handle it just fine. 22" monitors with that aspect ratio gives them an actual purpose for existing.
I have no problem with the current models, but if I buy one today! and apple release the new one in one month by example... so I killing me!!! hahaha
Apple is waiting for OLED panels to become readily available and is cost effective IIRC. No way to really predict when it will happen though.
1920x1080, yes, that is a standard. I'm speaking more for the 20" and 30" displays, which don't have anything similar in terms of pixel density in a standard resolution.
But frankly, I think it's the most minor possible issue with the ACD line. The crappy response times, mediocre contrast ratio, and third-rate input capabilities are what bug me.
and the abomination that is the brick and multi-ended cable they use (I'm on the road now or I'd attach a photo to show what I mean).