OMG, 27" is huge...

[mac jones]

Are you kidding?

Bigger is better.

 

[WardC]

2560 by 1440 screen resolution

My real question that I really want to know:

2560 by 1440 screen resolution (on a 27-inch?) -- doesn't this make everything on the screen tiny and packed in?

The 30" Cinema display had a 2560x1600 resolution and everything was small but OK. I imagine on a smaller screen that things would be packed in and quite tiny (text, screen elements, etc)

I use a 23" Cinema display at home and the resolution is 1920x1200. I think everything is just right at this resolution on this size monitor. Same goes for the 24" iMac and ACD. One of my holdups about the 17" MacBook Pro was the screen resolution, it's so high that everything seems too tiny on the screen to operate. I am talking about 1920x1200. It just seems too high a resolution for that small screen. I am hoping that the 27" iMac doesn't have this problem.

 

[ViViDboarder]

My real question that I really want to know:

2560 by 1440 screen resolution (on a 27-inch?) -- doesn't this make everything on the screen tiny and packed in?

The 30" Cinema display had a 2560x1600 resolution and everything was small but OK. I imagine on a smaller screen that things would be packed in and quite tiny (text, screen elements, etc)

I use a 23" Cinema display at home and the resolution is 1920x1200. I think everything is just right at this resolution on this size monitor. Same goes for the 24" iMac and ACD. One of my holdups about the 17" MacBook Pro was the screen resolution, it's so high that everything seems too tiny on the screen to operate. I am talking about 1920x1200. It just seems too high a resolution for that small screen. I am hoping that the 27" iMac doesn't have this problem.

All depends on how far away you are. Pixel density looks about the same as my 15" MBP.

EDIT: Just worked out the densities.
Pixel Density is about equal to the 15.4" MBP but a little higher than the 23" cinema display.

 

[sfroom]

All depends on how far away you are. Pixel density looks about the same as my 15" MBP.

EDIT: Just worked out the densities.
Pixel Density is about equal to the 15.4" MBP but a little higher than the 23" cinema display.

Mind posting your calculations here? I'm sure we could all do them, but it might help people for comparison's sake.

So the test is simple, at least for those of us with 15" MBP's. 🙂 We just need to sit as far back from our MBP as we would from an iMac on our desk, and see how it feels!

 

[ViViDboarder]

Mind posting your calculations here? I'm sure we could all do them, but it might help people for comparison's sake.

So the test is simple, at least for those of us with 15" MBP's. 🙂 We just need to sit as far back from our MBP as we would from an iMac on our desk, and see how it feels!

I'll put the formulas and then just the answers. 😛 It was rough as I was using Excel so bear with me on all the steps.

For MBP
Total Pixels = 1440x900 = 1296000
Diagonal Length = 15.4in
Ratio = 1440/900 = 1.6
Ratio^2 = 2.56 (Reason is this Y^2 + X^2 = 15.4^2, and X = Ratio * Y So, X^2 = Ratio^2 * Y^2)
Now I know Y^2 + 2.56 * Y^2 = 15.4^2 which equals 3.56 * Y^2
SO... Y = SQRT(15.4^2/(1 + Ratio^2)) = 8.16in
Thus X = Y * Ratio = 13.06in
So... Area = 106.59in^2

Now Pixel Density is Px/in^2 which is 1296000/106.59 = 12158.88 for the MBP
9690.74 for the 23" Cinema
11834.29 for the 27" iMac

This is what I was expecting as I own a 15.4" MBP and when I saw the 27" iMac it all looked about the same size. 😀

EDIT:
And just for fun, this is how far we've come 😛 My old 17" 800x600... 3460.21 pixel density. 😀 haha

 

[WardC]

Good work.

So basically it (the 27" iMac) is alot more packed in than a 23" Cinema Display or a 24" iMac, it'll basically look like you're looking at a 15.4" MacBook Pro display (I have one of these), but you will be looking at it from a distance so you will still have to squint to read everything. This is what I thought.

 

[glhiii]

Keeping my 24" ACD

I was considering getting a new 27" iMac, just went to the Apple Store. The iMac has 108.8 ppi while the 24" ACD monitor I already own has 94.3, which makes it significantly easier to read. I decided to keep using the 24" monitor and buy a new Mac Mini (2.53) -- so far I'm happy, and feel the 27", while it's quite impressive, is too big and unwieldy. My Mini seems quite fast.

 

[ViViDboarder]

Good work.

So basically it (the 27" iMac) is alot more packed in than a 23" Cinema Display or a 24" iMac, it'll basically look like you're looking at a 15.4" MacBook Pro display (I have one of these), but you will be looking at it from a distance so you will still have to squint to read everything. This is what I thought.

The 21.5" is close to the density of the other displays at 10498.22. This is much closer to the 24" iMac

 

[stever500]

I thought it was WAYYYY too big too when I got mine home. Then I realized I only open a window in 1/2 the screen most of the time while keeping my mail window open on the other half, so it's not really that big at all. I sometimes juggle a bunch of open windows, something I could never do on my old 19" Viewsonic non widescreen monitor. I LOVE this new display, but, I have a pretty big desk and put it all the way in the corner.

Glad I figured out how to turn the brightness down, fast. This thing could give me a suntan the way it came from Apple.