Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Shipping Window for 30-Inch Cinema Display Slips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
the 27" display is actually a pretty great price for the specs - in the world of high quality LED displays.
Yes, agreed. However, this topic has already been discussed to death. It seems as if the ambiguity over Apple's display pricing will never cease.
But still, I feel as if Apple could always tap the consumer level market with cheaper displays. Perhaps a 16x9 21.5" ala the iMac display, without having to use TN of course.
I got my 30" ACD last month and couldn't be happier!
IMHO, having ports on a display are gimmicky anyway. My MP sits right next to my desk and has all the ports I need. I find it awkward at best trying to plug in cables on the backside of the monitor.
And to user Muser...all monitors have internal LUTs but whether they're accessible so that users can manipulate them is another story. The LUT is already used to adapt the TFT panel to a curve that is approximately what the user expects (sRGB). Actually, you should try using Apple's own ColorSync utility but again, I've found the ACD great out of the box.
IMHO, having ports on a display are gimmicky anyway. My MP sits right next to my desk and has all the ports I need. I find it awkward at best trying to plug in cables on the backside of the monitor.
And to user Muser...all monitors have internal LUTs but whether they're accessible so that users can manipulate them is another story. The LUT is already used to adapt the TFT panel to a curve that is approximately what the user expects (sRGB). Actually, you should try using Apple's own ColorSync utility but again, I've found the ACD great out of the box.
The ports on your display aren't primarily meant to be a substitue for the ports on your MP. They are extra ports in addition to the ports existing on your machine, and to some, more ports is very valuable indeed.
A display that acts as an extended USB hub is hardly gimmicky, especially for users that demand many ports, which is why it has become a standard in just about every professional display on the market.
I hope they make a bigger one than 27". I'm a new poster in this section of the forum, I don't own a mac, but their displays are truly works of art. I had one for a few weeks while my crappy samsung was being repaired and it haunts me to this day. I have an HP laptop and an iPhone and have now set my sights on a cinema display. I really hope they come out with a third option (30-32").
I just don't see the point in downsizing their flagship monitor. Is there a technical reason for this that i'm not aware of?
I just don't see the point in downsizing their flagship monitor. Is there a technical reason for this that i'm not aware of?
this is a great news...
i hope the new 27inch displays are slightly cheaper...
they should lower the price of 24inches to $600 and launch 27inches for $999 or $1099
i hope the new 27inch displays are slightly cheaper...
they should lower the price of 24inches to $600 and launch 27inches for $999 or $1099
You'd be wrong. The 30" monitor market is pretty weak. I just picked up a 30" ACD a few months ago because I found one at a local retailer for $1600 US. Other monitors have cooler stands and a bonanza of ports, but if you want a hard core monitor, those don't really matter. The ACD 30" is still pretty sweet where it counts though there are some good or even better alternatives, it's competitive to say the least.
Please, Apple, update the 30". The image quality is comparable, if not worse, to a £300-400 30" monitor in today's world.
That's just not true. The 30" display may not have the newest ports, plugs, or a web cam, but the image quality is still superb and rivaled by very few monitors (if any) its size.
Considering that there are no 30" screens for 300 to 400 quid, I assume that you've never been sitting in front of a 30" ACD, is that right?
There are few monitors that can compete with the ACDs image quality!
I agree if they stick to the mirror-gloss panel I would be very disappointed. There was time when I thought SJ understood the desktop market. Unfortunately, his obsession with unintelligent designs is becoming more pervasive. Case in point: The iphone is slipperier than a fish swimming in personal lubricant.
Apple's 24" Cinema Display only works with a computer with a Mini DisplayPort. There are no other video inputs like with other monitors. If they come out with anything new, it will most likely be the same.
Currently, the only computers that use Mini DisplayPort are newer Macs and a few Toshiba laptops.
Wow, absolutely false. the ACD can work with any computer that has a digital video output connector (DVI, HDMI, display port), i.e: just about every modern made computer.
Ummm, yeah about that, my friend has the new ACD hooked up to an identical laptop to mine so you might be wrong.
You are so correct. *applauding* 16:9 format is terrible to work on. it is good for movies but thats it.
so so wrong. In the 30" IPS high resolution display market is one of the best displays there is.
same as comment a bow.
when it comes to apple displays they are high quality IPS monitors. They are meant for professional use. I would say the 24" is a bit overpriced but not by much.
Please show me a 30" monitor with that resolution and it have to be a IPS , S-IPS or S-PVA panel. for the price of 300-400 not going to happen.
Nothing in that price range can even come close.
Just to correct and inform you here.
most of Dell laptops have display port now. HP ProBook series have it. even alienware laptops have it now.
acer is to or have started shipping laptops with it. it is getting more and more common.
I have two ACD 30's on my desk. I like 'em a lot - absolutely no complaints. I was initially perplexed when I upgraded my Mac Pro to the 2009 version with only FW800, but I just picked up a couple of FW400 -> FW800 adapters for $7 each and good to go with all my FW400 legacy devices.
Except for my old iSight camera. For some reason that didn't want to work with the adapter and I had to get a Logitech. Much better camera anyway.
Except for my old iSight camera. For some reason that didn't want to work with the adapter and I had to get a Logitech. Much better camera anyway.
Attachments
I believe they wanted to make a 16:9 display (as opposed to the 30" which is 16:10) to show HD content without any black bars. I think there is a higher yield with these wider displays too. It might be prohibitively costly to make a bigger 16:9 display but I'd only be speculating. Other than cost, there is no technical reason they can't make any sized display.
I hope it's not literally going to be "identical" to the 24" design, since that would mean they're keeping the metal border, which is inconsistent with the new iMac's edge-to-edge glass.
Anyway, I'm torn.
I'm using a 30" for my MBP 17" (2.8 GHz '09), along with the stupid minidisplay dual link brick. But the 30" is soon to be used for a Mac Pro, so then I was thinking of getting a 24" for the MBP. It simply can't juggle 2560x1600 pixels anyway, even with the discrete GPU activated, Exposé animations are just painful to watch.
On one hand I'm a bit worried that they'll discontinue the 24" if they introduce a 27", since I don't really need 27" for the MBP and I fear it will be as sluggish as with the 30". Or worse, they'll replace the 24" with a 21.5" based on the smaller iMac. If either of those things happen I'll feel stupid for not buying the 24" when it was still available.
If they do keep the 24" around, they'll probably drop the price a bit (it has to be priced considerably lower than the 27", which in turn has to be priced considerably lower than the iMac 27", i.e. the exact same product with an effing computer included). In that case I'll feel stupid for buying the 24" weeks before the price cut.
Anyway, I'm torn.
I'm using a 30" for my MBP 17" (2.8 GHz '09), along with the stupid minidisplay dual link brick. But the 30" is soon to be used for a Mac Pro, so then I was thinking of getting a 24" for the MBP. It simply can't juggle 2560x1600 pixels anyway, even with the discrete GPU activated, Exposé animations are just painful to watch.
On one hand I'm a bit worried that they'll discontinue the 24" if they introduce a 27", since I don't really need 27" for the MBP and I fear it will be as sluggish as with the 30". Or worse, they'll replace the 24" with a 21.5" based on the smaller iMac. If either of those things happen I'll feel stupid for not buying the 24" when it was still available.
If they do keep the 24" around, they'll probably drop the price a bit (it has to be priced considerably lower than the 27", which in turn has to be priced considerably lower than the iMac 27", i.e. the exact same product with an effing computer included). In that case I'll feel stupid for buying the 24" weeks before the price cut.
Not to make your decision harder... but the 27" has a higher pixel density than the 24" assuming it's the same 27" as on the iMac. That can be a blessing or a drawback depending on how one uses their computer. I too hope they keep making the 24" once the supposed new ones are released.
Yeah, from looking at pictures with the 27" next to the 24" (the difference isn't that big) I figured the PPI must be higher, since they've squeezed 2560 horizontal into a screen that's narrower than a 30".
I've never been a big fan of widescreen monitors. Call me a glass-half-empty man, but widescreens aren't wide, they're just short.