Someone ordered 3 Apple 23" screens

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by Applenewb, May 20, 2007.

  1. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #2
    yes... i saw this on digg yesterday

    being on the apple board of directors sure has its benefits lol
     
  2. galstaph macrumors 6502a

    galstaph

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    The Great White North Eh
  3. apachie2k macrumors 6502

    apachie2k

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Location:
    was NYC...now MIAMI
    #4
    photoshoped! it has to be, i don't know how anyone would benefit, it would use more time and contribute to more waste to have that... i'm sure he does all the presentation stuff himself on those computers, he did have a big 17" pb in his movie i believe...
     
  4. Mantronix macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Location:
    Louisiana
    #5
    Ummmmm why would it be photoshoped? Don't you know Mr. Gore invented the intraweb? :D
     
  5. fistful macrumors 6502a

    fistful

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Socan
  6. Applenewb thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    #7
    I have a 23", 99.9% sure its a 23
     
  7. psycoswimmer macrumors 65816

    psycoswimmer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Location:
    USA
    #8
    They look 23", and can the Mac Pro (I'm assuming that's what he's using...) handle 3 30" displays?
     
  8. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #9
    I have not tried it yet, but the 7300 can run one, and you can put 4 7300's in a MP. A 1900 can run 2 30" screens, but I seem to remember it is difficult to put 2 1900's in. Not positive about that though.
     
  9. Since '76 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2007
    #10
    one mac pro, properly config'd, can support the three 30" displays shown, power used would also help melt the ice caps, but hey he is the rich people doing good.
     
  10. markjones05 macrumors 6502a

    markjones05

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
  11. Fearless Leader macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Location:
    Hoosiertown
    #12
    nope they are 20" maybe 23". He is 6'1" head size of 9" and his head fits in just over twice, three time would have been 30". If I had my more precise tools handy I could be sure.
     
  12. fistful macrumors 6502a

    fistful

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Socan
    #14
    Televisions/Monitors are measured on the diagonal, not vertically. I admit I've never seen an ACD in person but using my 32" LCD TV as perspective those look 30" to me.
     
  13. Fearless Leader macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Location:
    Hoosiertown
    #15

    Really? wow thanks. lets do the measurements again. Oh wait they're the same, maybe I had thunk this before.
     
  14. ironic23 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    #16
    those definitely look 30". i have 2 23" and they dont look that big from such an angle and distance.
     
  15. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #17
    It's from Time magazine genius...

    BTW, they're 30"s
     
  16. Fearless Leader macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Location:
    Hoosiertown
    #18
    ok whoops I'm eating some serious crow. I reran the tests with more precise tools and methods and got them to be 30".
     
  17. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #19
    Well I'm not sure about Al Gore's needs, but I can think of plenty of people who could and would need 3 and even more huge displays like that. It would be a waste for you because you're just an average consumer. It doesn't "waste time" in lots of applications especially in science or high end graphic design.

    And that isn't photoshopped - he really has that. And they are 30s.
     
  18. Schroedinger macrumors regular

    Schroedinger

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    #20
    and slightly off topic, but the Gores pay extra to get all their power from renewable sources (from the article itself), so no polar cap melting implicated here.
     
  19. raptor96 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2006
    Location:
    RI
    #21
    Yeah but when you're using $30,000 in electricity a year (or as one article put it - "more than twice the amount in one month that an average American family uses in an entire year") it might be a little nicer to the environment if you both reduced your consumption AND offset your usage. Not doing too well by the whole REDUCE part of the environmentalist philosophy.

    Sourced also so I'm not talking out my ass: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659
    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54450
     
  20. suneohair macrumors 68020

    suneohair

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    #22
    He is using renewable enery sources, I dont think he should be hassled for that. Most people are using fossil fuels for their power.

    I would consider myself an enviromentalist, however if someone is using sources that don't harm the environment and does'nt hinder someone elses access to power that is fine by me.

    Conservation is relevant for non-renewable sources which most of us use, therefore it makes sense to conserve not only to make sure we don't run out of oil but also as we find alternative sources.

    That is just my opinion. If we find sources that are seemingly unlimited, who cares how much anyone uses?
     
  21. hawken king macrumors member

    hawken king

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Location:
    tokyo
    #23
    nice set up, certainly worth it for his needs, judging by the amount of paperwork in that office!
     
  22. raptor96 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2006
    Location:
    RI
    #24

    The problem here is when you are purchasing offset credits there are numerous positions to drop the ball. For example, were everyone in LA to suddenly get a conscience and 'offset' their energy consumption by paying to reduce pollution or to plant carbon-reducing trees in Ecuador, the net net is that pollution in LA still goes up because energy is being consumed there while a small plot of land in Ecuador (which the sequence of events goes - lush rainforest that was removing CO2 emissions to barren land that's used for subsistence farming to large companies threatening farmers and grabbing up the land to plant non-native species so they can sell 'offset credits' to the Gores) is less polluted (though obviously it would have been even less polluted had the rainforest been left to stand).

    The net net of what I'm saying is a) there are facets of 'offsetting consumption' that aren't taken into account, b) reducing global pollution/consumption while concentrating local pollution doesn't help anyone, c)reducing consumption reduces the pressure of exporting our pollution and helps remove the increase in local pollution (win-win). That's why the Gores 'offsetting' their consumption is bad...
     
  23. tehdee macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #25
    gorgeous setup. definitely look bigger than 23 inchers to me, but what do i know?

    what kills me is how close he's sitting. relax man.
     

Share This Page