Are Apple displays anything other than a premium status version of readily available commodity displays from other suppliers?
I ask.
Rocketman
the 27" display is actually a pretty great price for the specs - in the world of high quality LED displays.
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.
Those 30-inch displays are quite dated by now. I doubt they're really competitive any longer.
Please, Apple, update the 30". The image quality is comparable, if not worse, to a £300-400 30" monitor in today's world.
Please, Apple, update the 30". The image quality is comparable, if not worse, to a £300-400 30" monitor in today's world.
this is getting ridiculous. If they don't release a 30" with a matte screen, how can they even call it an upgrade? I'd stick with the 6 year old ACD rather than buy a 27" LED display with that horrrible horrible gloss.
this is getting ridiculous. If they don't release a 30" with a matte screen, how can they even call it an upgrade? I'd stick with the 6 year old ACD rather than buy a 27" LED display with that horrrible horrible gloss.
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").
Apple's 24" Cinema Display only works with a computer with a Mini DisplayPort.
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.
Plus the 27" display has fewer pixels. 160 vertical pixels may not sound like much, but that's actually about 10% of the display missing.
But I've got mine already so I guess as long as it doesn't break I don't care.
Those 30-inch displays are quite dated by now. I doubt they're really competitive any longer.
Their current 30" display is way, way, way outdated. Every few months there are whispers about "updates soon" and they are always wrong, too.
Are Apple displays anything other than a premium status version of readily available commodity displays from other suppliers?
I ask.
Rocketman
Please, Apple, update the 30". The image quality is comparable, if not worse, to a £300-400 30" monitor in today's world.
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.
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 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.
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.
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".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.